22 August 2012

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 27 August 2012 at 7:30PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 6 August 2012.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING COUNCIL

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 6 August 2012.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 13 August 2012.

Access Committee Meeting - 8 August 2012.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 27 August 2012

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

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

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of Penrith City’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Cultural Heritage

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


For members of the public addressing the meeting

 
Council Chambers

Text Box: Lectern

Group Managers                           

                
          

 
Seating Arrangements

 

 

 

Director
Craig Butler

 

 

Director
Barry Husking

 

 

 

General Manager
Alan Stoneham

His Worship the Mayor
Councillor
Greg Davies
East Ward

 

Senior Governance Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Group Managers                          

                
          

 
   


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2012 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2012 - December 2012

(adopted by Council on 21 November 2011, amended by Council 9 July and 6 August 2012)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

6

5

 

 

 

9

6

(7.00pm)

3ü

(7.00pm)

15∞

5

10

(7.00pm)

 

20#@

26

23v

21#

25*

23

27#@

24^\

(7.00pm)

 

19#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

 

 

 

7

4

2

13

 

 

 

3

 

13

19

16

 

 

30

 

 

8

12

 

 

 v

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

 *

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

 #

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

 @

Delivery Program progress reports

 ^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

 ü

Meeting at which the 2011-2012 Annual Statements are presented

 

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

\

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

 

The Ordinary Council Election will be held on 8 September 2012

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

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

 



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 6 AUGUST 2012 AT 7:08PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

PRESENT

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

 

APOLOGIES

206  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Tanya Davies that an apology be received for Councillor Mark Davies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 23 July 2012

207  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 23 July 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Jackie Greenow declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012 as she owns properties which are subject to the report. Councillor Greenow stated that she would leave the room for discussion of the item.

 

Councillor Robert Ardill declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of Interest - Less than Significant in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012 as a previous client of his in a previous position that he held owned a property subject of the report.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee declared a Non Pecuniary - Conflict of Interest Less than Significant in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012 as members of her family attend a medical centre at a property which is subject of the report.
Councillor Ben Goldfinch declared a Non Pecuniary - Conflict of Interest Less than Significant in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012 as members of her family attend a medical centre at a property which is subject of the report.

 

Councillor Greg Davies declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of Interest - Less than Significant in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012 as he had exchanged voting preferences with one of the owners of a property which is subject of the report at the last Penrith City Council local government election.

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of Interest - Less than Significant in Item 1 of the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012 as she had exchanged voting preferences with one of the owners of a property which is subject of the report at the last Penrith City Council local government election.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

208  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:18pm.

 

Ms Franca Cantarella

 

Item 1 - Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012

 

Ms Cantarella spoke in opposition to the recommendation and requested that her property in Higgins Street, Penrith be removed from the Heritage Conservation Area. Ms Cantarella stated that the poor condition of her property ensures that it is not cost effective to repair and into the future she will be unable to maintain the property. Ms Cantarella expressed concern over the notification process and reiterated that she believed she should have the right to rebuild her home as she had planned when she purchased the property.

 

Mr Vernon Horne

 

Item 1 - Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012

 

Mr Horne spoke in opposition to the recommendation and believed that the listing in the Heritage Conservation Area took away the rights of his family and other neighbours to do what they wanted with their properties. Mr Horne outlined that the building condition, age and materials of the house were all factors which contributed to the property not being valuable for conservation. Mr Horne again highlighted his wishes to rebuild a brick veneer house which would enhance the street scape.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

209  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:34pm.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Penrith wins sustainability award                                                                                    

210  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that the Mayoral Minute on Penrith wins sustainability award be received.

Councillor Karen McKeown spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute and congratulated the Council’s staff.

 

Reports of Committees

 

Having previously declared a pecuniary interest Councillor Jackie Greenow left the meeting the time being 7:40pm.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies suggested that Item 1 & 2, 12 & 16 Higgins Street, Penrith in the Heritage Conservation Area be dealt with separately from the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012.

 

Procedural Motion

211  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that Item 1 & 2, 12 & 16 Higgins Street, Penrith in the Heritage Conservation Area be dealt with separately from the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012.

 

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 July 2012                                                                                                                                     

212  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 30 July, 2012 be adopted with the exception of Item 1 concerning 12 & 16 Higgins Street, Penrith in the Heritage Conservation Area.

Councillor Jackie Greenow returned to the meeting, the time being 7:41pm.

Item 1, 12 & 16 Higgins Street, Penrith in the Heritage Conservation Area

A MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Greg Davies that 12 & 16 Higgins Street, Penrith remain as part of the relevant Heritage Conservation Area under the Draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM FORESHADOWED a further MOTION that Higgins Street, Penrith be removed from the Heritage Conservation Area under the Draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Rob Ardill

Councillor Jackie Greenow

Councillor Greg Davies

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 Prue Car     

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Tanya Davies


An AMENDMENT to the FORESHADOWED MOTION was moved by Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the matter be deferred and a further report be prepared providing detailed information on all the houses in the Higgins Street Conservation Area.

The AMENDMENT was PUT.
The AMENDMENT was LOST.

213  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Higgins Street, Penrith be removed from the Heritage Conservation Area under the Draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

Councillor Rob Ardill

Councillor Kath Presdee

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Prue Car     

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Tanya Davies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Digital Local Government Program application                                                             

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Digital Local Government Program application be received.

2.     Council endorse the submission of the Digital Local Government Program application to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy for $374,191.

3.     Council’s contribution be provided as detailed in the report.

 

 

4        Amendment to 2012 Meeting Calendar                                                                           

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Amendment to 2012 Meeting Calendar be received.

2.     The 2012 Meeting Calendar be amended to provide for an Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 27 August 2012, and the deletion of the Ordinary Council Meeting scheduled for 20 August 2012.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        Electronic Housing Code                                                                                                   

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Electronic Housing Code be received.

2.     Council endorse participation in the Electronic Housing Code Pilot Project and acceptance of the $30,000 funding offer.

 

3.     The General Manager or his nominated representative be authorised to execute documentation relating to Council’s participation and the funding offer.

 

 

A Liveable City

 

3        Federal Government 2013/14 'Nation Building Blackspot Program' Nominations     

217  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kaylene Allison seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Federal Government 2013/14 'Nation Building Blackspot Program' Nominations be received.

2.     Council endorse the five projects listed under Table 1 of this report for submission to the Roads and Maritime Services for funding under the Federal Government’s 2013/2014 “Nation Building Black Spot Program”.

3.     The Roads and Maritime Services be requested to investigate traffic safety on roads under its jurisdiction at locations indicated in Table 2 of this report.

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Dance Oolites Inc.                                                                                                     

Councillor Tanya Davies requested a report to Council detailing the background of this organisation and the opportunity for Council to contribute financially from all Wards towards the hire of the Joan Sutherland Centre for two dates in August and September 2012.

 

RR 2          Rotary Clock                                                                                                            

Councillor Jackie Greenow wished to thank Council’s staff who have arranged for repair works and funding for the Rotary Clock at Coachman’s Park, St Marys.

 

RR 3          Mimosa House - Tree Removal                                                                               

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested an urgent report on the options for removing two trees on this property.

 

RR 4          Affordable Housing including Secondary Dwellings                                            

Councillor John Thain requested a report to Council concerning Affordable Housing including Secondary Dwellings.

 

RR 5          Litter Control                                                                                                           

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested a further report to Council providing information on the current litter patrols, including information such as time spent, how often and when, in particular the main roads in the Local Government Area.

 

 

 

RR 6          Domestic Violence Policy                                                                                         

Councillor Karen McKeown requested that the General Manager consider developing a Domestic Violence policy for Council’s staff.

 

URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1          St Marys Spring Festival - Hire of Hall                                                                  

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested that $300 be allocated equally from each Ward to assist the St Marys Spring Festival with the hiring of St Marys Memorial Hall.

218  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

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

 

219  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM $300 be allocated equally from each Ward to assist the St Marys Spring Festival with the hiring of St Marys Memorial Hall.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:26pm.

 



PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                     


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Rural Fire Service volunteers awarded

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A City of Opportunities

Mayoral Minute

Rural Fire Service volunteers awarded

Strategic Objective: A Council that involves, informs and responds (10)

        

 

 

Recently, nine local Rural Fire Service volunteers were presented with service or other awards. The ceremony was held on Saturday, 28 July at the Cumberland Rural Fire Zone Ball. In fact, one of the nine recipients is among us on Council.

 

Clr Kevin Crameri OAM received a medal for 50 years of service. He has been a member of the RFS in the Llandilo Brigade for that time attending many incidents including out of the area and interstate. He has a long and distinguished history of service including leadership roles and is currently Deputy Captain.

 

Our other distinguished local RFS volunteers were:

 

Stephen Gregory – Regentville Brigade - for 41 years of service

Graham Copps – Castlereagh Brigade – for 39 years of service

James Garland – Regentville and Orchard Hills brigades – for 20 years of service

Perce Denton – Llandilo Brigade – for 19 years of service

Daniel Gregory – Castlereagh Brigade – for 18 years of service

Janelle Roberts – Orchard Hills Brigade – for 10 years of service

 

Larry Bagnell won the Cumberland Award and Danny Penfold won the Group Officers Award.

 

Our community is indebted to RFS volunteers for the time they have dedicated to the RFS - often putting their lives at risk. To know we have such top notch fire fighters right here on our doorstep is very reassuring, especially as we once again prepare for summer and the upcoming fire season.

 

 Councillor Greg Davies

Mayor

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Rural Fire Service volunteers awarded be received.

 

 

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 August 2012

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 13 August 2012

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 8 August 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Liveable City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 6 August, 2012

 

 

PRESENT

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

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Noel Fuller – Co-ordinator, Ranger Services.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from the Deputy Mayor - Councillor Jackie Greenow, Constable Bill Pearson – Penrith Police, Mark Holmes – Representative for the Member for Mulgoa.

 

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

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

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 There were no declarations of interest.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

1        Urgent Local Traffic Facilities Program 2012/2013                                                       

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Urgent Local Traffic Facilities Program 2012/2013 be received.

2.     The following projects listed for construction under the Urgent Local Traffic Facilities Program 2012/2013 be noted:

a.   High Street - blister islands

b.   Bakers Lane - pavement widening for school access

c.   Dunheved Road - intersection treatment with John Oxley Avenue

d.   Riley Street Crossing - paver replacement.

3.     The design plan for Dunheved Road - intersection treatment with John Oxley Avenue, Werrington be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

 

2        Bus Stop Information Plinths - Erskine Park Strategic Corridor                                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Bus Stop Information Plinths - Erskine Park Strategic Corridor be received.

2.     The installation of bus stop information plinths be deferred pending further advice from Transport for NSW regarding timing of upgrade of bus stops associated with the plinth rollout to compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act.

3.     Transport for NSW be advised of Council’s resolution and re-confirm our strong support for integrated transport services across our City.

 

 

3        Victoria Street, Werrington - Proposed Provision of New "Bus Stops" on Victoria Street & Lethbridge Avenue, Werrington                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Victoria Street, Werrington - Proposed Provision of New "Bus Stops" on Victoria Street & Lethbridge Avenue, Werrington be received.

2.     The report on Victoria Street, Werrington – Proposed Provision of New “Bus Stops” be deferred until a resolution has been reached by Council regarding the responsibility of providing “essential Disability Discrimination Act compliant bus stop infrastructure”.

3.     Westbus be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

4        Garner Street, St Marys - Proposed Provision of "Stop" Signs                                    

LTC Comment

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) representative advised that the RMS does not support the installation of “Stop” signs at this location, due to the warrant and five-year accident history not being met.  The RMS representative suggested the installation of “Give Way” signage and TB dash lines in lieu of the proposed “Stop” signs and associated hold lines.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Garner Street, St Marys - Proposed Provision of "Stop" Signs be received.

2.     “Give Way” signs and associated hold lines be installed in Garner Street, St Marys at the intersections of Putland Street and Saddington Street.

3.     Double-barrier (BB) centre lines be provided in Garner Street for a distance of 10m from the intersection of Putland Street and 10m from the intersection of Pages Road, St Marys.

4.     Councillor Greenow and the residents in Garner Street be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

5        Ninth Avenue, Llandilo – Xavier College Walkathon on Friday 14 September 2012 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Ninth Avenue, Llandilo – Xavier College Walkathon on Friday, 14 September 2012 be received.

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

3.     The Traffic Management Plan submitted by the event applicant, detailing the proposed event route to be held on Friday 14 September 2012, be endorsed.

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

5.     The event applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police.  A copy of the NSW Police approval be submitted to Council prior to the event.  The organiser to ensure that participants obey all Police directions and road rules during the event.

6.     Where Traffic Controllers are to be used, all Traffic Controllers have current Roads and Maritime Services certification.

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

8.     The event applicant notify private bus companies of the proposed event and submit a copy of this notification to Council prior to the event.

9.     The event organiser notify ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and Rural Fire Services) and State Emergency Services of the proposed event and submit a copy of this notification to Council prior to the event.

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

 

 

 

6        Peachtree Road, Penrith - Proposed Relocation of "No Stopping" Restrictions         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Peachtree Road, Penrith - Proposed Relocation of "No Stopping" Restrictions be received.

2.     The “No Stopping” sign located outside 52 Peachtree Road be relocated to a distance of 38m from the new refuge, approximately 2m west of the driveway of 52 Peachtree Road, Penrith.

3.     The removal of double-barrier (BB) centre lines around the refuge not be supported.

4.     The reduction in “No Stopping” on the southern side of Peachtree Road, Penrith not be supported.

5.     All works to be at no cost to Council.

6.     The business who made a submission be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

7        Carsons Lane, St Marys - Amendments to Accessible Parking in Bowlers Place Car Park 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Carsons Lane, St Marys - Amendments to Accessible Parking in Bowlers Place Car Park be received.

2.     Two accessible parking spaces within the Bowlers Place Car Park off Carsons Lane, St Marys be relocated approximately 45m to directly in front of the entrance to Fusion Western Sydney.

3.     Three existing accessible parking spaces be retained in the current location within Bowlers Place Car Park, St Marys.

4.     All five accessible spaces within the Bowlers Place Car Park, St Marys be contemporised to meet current Australian Standards.

5.     Fusion Western Sydney and relevant stakeholders be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

8        Jordan Springs Boulevard, Jordan Springs - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Refuge     

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Jordan Springs Boulevard, Jordan Springs - Proposed Provision of Pedestrian Refuge be received.

2.     The Design Plan No. 8634/CC323 E, dated 19/7/2012 for the pedestrian refuge, prepared by J Wyndham Prince, be endorsed for construction.

3.     All works associated with the installation of the pedestrian refuge be at no cost to Council.

4.     Should the pedestrian refuge be removed after cessation of the temporary Builders’ Display Village and the temporary car park, all works associated with the removal of the pedestrian refuge to be at no cost to Council.

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

 

 

9        Penrith City Centre Association - "Penrith Is Here - Christmas Spectacular" - Sunday 2 December 2012                                                                                                                   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Association - "Penrith Is Here - Christmas Spectacular" - Sunday 2 December 2012 be received.

2.     The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 2 Event under the “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events” and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.  In addition, the applicant be advised that this is not an approval of the event and is a consideration of the traffic management arrangements for the event only.  Separate approvals from other Council Departments through separate application may be required.

3.     The Traffic Management Plan submitted by the event applicant detailing the proposed temporary road closures for the event to be held on Sunday 2 December 2012 be endorsed.

4.     Approval be given for the temporary closure of:

a.   High Street between Station Street and Castlereagh Street,

b.   Woodriff Street between High Street and Tindale Street, and

c.   Union Lane between Station and Woodriff Streets

 

from 5:00am to 7:00pm on Sunday 2 December 2012 for the duration of the event.

5.     Approval be given for the temporary closure of:

 

a.   High Street between Castlereagh Street and Lawson Street,

b.   Castlereagh Street between High Street and Tindale Street,

c.   Union Road/Station Street roundabout to Union Road Car Park entrance, and

d.   Station Street between Henry Street and Union Road

 

from 12:30pm to 1:15pm on Sunday 2 December 2012 for the duration of the parade.

6.     A Traffic Management Plan including a Risk Management Plan be lodged by the event applicant with the Roads and Maritime Services for concurrence, a minimum of eight weeks prior to the event.  A copy of the Roads and Maritime Services approval must be submitted to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

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

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

9.     A detailed Traffic Control Plan be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police a minimum 30 days prior to the event.  The Traffic Control Plan must detail how a minimum 4m emergency lane is maintained at all times during the event.

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

11.   The event applicant must provide advice to Council a minimum 30 days prior to the event that the event complies with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001.

12.   The event applicant advertise the proposed temporary road closures in local newspapers a minimum of two weeks prior to the event and provide variable message signs (VMS) in appropriate locations a minimum of one week prior to the event, with the locations of the VMS boards submitted to Council for endorsement prior to their erection.  VMS boards should be located in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services Technical Direction TDT2010/07.

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

14.   Signposting advising the date and time of all closures be provided by the event organiser and be provided two weeks prior to the event (the applicant to liaise with the Roads and Maritime Services regarding size of sign and text height).

15.   The event organiser notify ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and Rural Fire Services) and State Emergency Services of the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

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

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

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

19.   The event applicant is to ensure that competitors obey road rules and Police directions during the event.

20.   All documentation conditioned be submitted to Council for information purposes at least 30 days prior to the event.

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

 

 

10      Penrith City Centre Association - "Penrith Is Here - Santa Run 4 Fun" - Sunday 2 December 2012                                                                                                                   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Association - "Penrith Is Here - Santa Run 4 Fun" - Sunday 2 December 2012 be received.

2.     The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 4 Event under the Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.

3.     The Traffic Management Plan for the Class 4 event submitted by the Penrith City Centre Association detailing the proposed temporary road closures for the “Penrith Is Here - Santa Run 4 Fun” event to be held on Sunday 2 December 2012 be endorsed.

4.     Approval be given for the temporary closure of:

 

-  Woodriff Street between Tindale Street and Derby Street,

-  Lethbridge Street between Woodriff Street and Evan Street,

-  Evan Street between Lethbridge Street and High Street,

-  High Street between Evan Street and Castlereagh Street,

 

from 9:50am to 10:30am on Sunday 2 December 2012 for the duration of the event.

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

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

7.     The event be run under the direct supervision of NSW Police.

8.     The event organiser notify ambulance and fire brigade (NSW Fire Brigade and Rural Fire Services) and State Emergency Services of the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council a minimum of 30 days prior to the event.

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

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

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

12.   The event applicant ensure that competitors obey road rules and Police directions during the event.

13.   The event organiser advertise the proposed temporary road closures in local newspapers a minimum of two weeks prior to the event, and provide variable message signs (VMS) in appropriate locations a minimum of one week prior to the event, with the locations of the VMS boards submitted to Council for endorsement prior to their erection.

14.   Where required, a detailed Traffic Control Plan be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police prior to the event.  The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how a minimum 4m emergency lane is maintained at all times during the event.

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

16.   The event applicant provide advice to Council prior to the event that the event complies with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001.

17.   Penrith City Centre Association be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

11      Grady Crescent, Erskine Park - Proposed Implementation of "No Stopping" Zones & Double-Barrier (BB) Centre Linemarking                                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Grady Crescent, Erskine Park - Proposed Implementation of "No Stopping" Zones & Double-Barrier (BB) Centre Linemarking be received.

2.     “No Stopping” signage be installed 15m south of the entry driveway to the development (R5-400R) and 25m east of the exit driveway of the development (R5-400L), as shown in Drawing Number CC9.01, Revision A, dated 16/7/12.

3.     Double-barrier (BB) centre linemarking be installed for a total length of 89m, as shown in Drawing Number CC9.01, Revision A, dated 16/07/12.

4.     All works associated with the installation of the “No Stopping” signage and double-barrier (BB) linemarking will be at no cost to Council.

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

 

 

12      Rosecrea Court, Glenmore Park - Proposed Implementation of "No Parking" Restrictions                                                                                                                                             

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Rosecrea Court, Glenmore Park - Proposed Implementation of "No Parking" Restrictions be received.

2.    Consultation be conducted with affected residents regarding the proposed “No Parking” restrictions through the chicane of Rosecrea Court, Glenmore Park.

3.    Subject to no substantial objections being received from affected residents, “No Parking” (R5-40) restrictions be implemented on both sides of the paved chicane in Rosecrea Court, Glenmore Park, being a distance of approximately 30m.

4.    The resident who raised the concerns be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

13      Mulgoa Rise Stage 2A - Linemarking & Signage Plan                                                   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Mulgoa Rise Stage 2A – Linemarking & Signage Plan be received.

2.     The signage and linemarking plan prepared by J Wyndham Prince for Mulgoa Rise Stage 2A (Plan No. 8983/CC516, dated 23/7/12) be endorsed.

3.     J Wyndham Prince be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Swanston Street & Monfarville Street, St Marys – Proposed Median Island Stop Treatment (MIST) Incorporating Pedestrian Refuge  (Raised Council)                                

At its meeting on 15 August 2011, Council endorsed the following projects shown in Table 1 to be submitted for consideration for 100% funding under the 2012/2013 Federal Government’s Nation Building Black Spot Program.

 

TABLE 1
List of Projects Submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services under the

2012/2013 Federal Nation Building Black Spot Program

 

Item


Primary Road

Intersecting Street or Section of Road

Total Number of Accidents(5-year data)

Total Number of Casualty

Accidents

Proposed

Treatment

 

Cost Estimate

 

BenefitCost Ratio (BCR)

1

Queen St,
St Marys

450m Black Spot b/w Charles Hackett Dve & King St

12

10

Installation of raised thresholds at two pedestrian crossings, pedestrian fencing.

$200,000

13

2

Greenbank Dve, Werrington Downs

2km Black Spot b/w Dunheved Rd (both ends)

8

6

Parking lane treatment reinforced with kerb blister.

$160,000

6.6

3

Swallow Dve, Erskine Park

3km Black Length b/w Erskine Park Dve and Peppertree Dve

16

9

Parking lane treatment reinforced with kerb blister.

 

$100,000

6.0

4

Monfarville St, St Marys

Swanston St

5

4

Median Island Stop Treatment incorporating pedestrian refuge

$40,000

5.7

5

Bennett Rd,
St Clair

Coonawarra Dve

5

3

Median Island Stop Treatment incorporating pedestrian refuge

$40,000

3.6

 

Subsequently, the intersection of Swanston Street at Monfarville Street, St Marys did not receive Federal Black Spot Program funding under this competitive nomination year.  The application was assessed under the State 50/50 Black Spot Program, and was approved for funding under this program to the value of $40,000.

 

Council’s Design Section has now provided a design plan for a MIST incorporating a pedestrian refuge on Swanston Street at Monfarville Street, St Marys.  Council’s Design Section has advised that the device is designed in compliance with relevant standards including Roads and Maritime Services Technical Direction TDT 2011/01a for Pedestrian Refuges.

 

The proposal will reduce on-street parking for some residential properties due to the “No Stopping” restrictions associated with the device.  In this regard, a public notification and consultation process will be conducted and any substantial objections will be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

 

This report therefore seeks to endorse the signs and lines plan, and proposed device as per Design Plan AS 225.  The project is able to be funded from Council’s (proposed) 2012/13 Major Traffic Facilities Program.  The proposal, together with the subject signs and linemarking plan, is submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for endorsement.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

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

2.     Subject to no substantial objections, Design Plan AS 225 for installation of a Median Island Stop Treatment (MIST) incorporating a pedestrian refuge on Swanston Street at Monfarville Street, St Marys be finalised and endorsed for construction.

 

 

GB 2          Andromeda Drive/The Northern Road, Cranebrook – Advice from Roads & Maritime Services Regarding Intersection Improvements  (Raised Council)                         

Council has received advice from the Roads and Maritime Services regarding a request for RMS to conduct intersection improvements at Andromeda Drive/The Northern Road, Cranebrook.  The RMS advised that:

“While The Northern Road is a State Road for which Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible, any investigation into the safety of drivers in Andromeda Drive is a matter for the council, as it is a local road.  This includes where there is an adverse crash history involving drivers exiting Andromeda Drive to access The Northern Road.”

Subsequently, the project will be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Program for consideration against other projects for funding in future years.

RECOMMENDED  That the Committee note the information.

 

 

 

 

GB 3          Railway Street, Werrington – Request for Provision of “No Stopping” Restrictions  (Raised Council Rangers)                                                                                                            

Council’s Co-ordinator - Ranger Services raised concerns about vehicles being parked in Railway Street, near the intersection with Rance Road, Werrington, causing obstruction to motorists, and requested the provision of “No Stopping” restrictions in Railway Street near the commuter car park exit to improve road safety at this location.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.          “No Stopping” restrictions be provided on the northern side of Railway         Street, Werrington between Rance Road and the commuter car park exit for the length of the existing BB line.

2.          The Co-ordinator - Ranger Services be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

GB 4          Glenmore Ridge Drive, Glenmore Park – Traffic Safety  (Raised St Marys Police)     

The St Marys Police representative raised concerns about drivers carrying out illegal right-turns from Glenmore Ridge Drive into Sandstone Avenue, Glenmore Park, in the form of corner cutting across the existing BB centre lines, and requested the provision of a physical barrier in Sandstone Avenue.

RECOMMENDED  That Council investigate the matter.

 

GB 5          Cedar Crescent, North St Marys – Request for Provision of “No Stopping” Signage  (Raised Council)                                                                                                                           

Council’s Road Safety Co-ordinator raised concerns about vehicles being parked within the mandatory 10m “No Stopping” restrictions at the intersection of Cedar Crescent and Debrincat Avenue, North St Marys causing sight distance issues, and requested the provision of signage to reinforce the mandatory “No Stopping” distance at this location.

RECOMMENDED  That “No Stopping” restrictions be installed along the kerb returns at the intersection of Cedar Crescent and Debrincat Avenue, North St Marys to reinforce the 10m mandatory “No Stopping” restrictions.

 

GB 6          Russell Street/Pullman Place, Emu Plains – Request for Provision of “No Stopping” Signage  (Raised Council)                                                                                                            

Council’s Senior Traffic Officer raised concerns on behalf of residents regarding sight distance for drivers turning out of Pullman Place into Russell Street, Emu Plains, due to vehicles being parked in Russell Street limiting sight distance for exiting drivers.

RECOMMENDED   That the matter be investigated and a further report be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee.

 

GB 7          Endeavour Avenue, St Clair – Traffic Safety  (Raised Council on behalf of Mayor Greg Davies)                                                                                                                                 

Council’s Group Manager - City Infrastructure raised concerns on behalf of the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies regarding vehicles being parked in Endeavour Avenue, St Clair, opposite the entry/exit driveway to the St Clair Shopping Centre car park causing congestion and road safety concerns.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   Council investigate the matter.

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

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 11:00am.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 6 August, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 13 August, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

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

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received for Councillors Tanya Davies, Robert Ardill and Ben Goldfinch.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 30 July 2012

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 30 July 2012 were confirmed.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Penrith City Council Community Survey 2012

Council’s Group Manager – Leadership, Ruth Goldsmith, introduced the report and gave a brief presentation.

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Penrith City Council Community Survey 2012 be received.

 

 

A Liveable City

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:20 pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:27 pm.

The Parks Manager, John Gordon, introduced Fiona Robbe, Landscape Architect and inclusive design expert, who gave a presentation on all abilities playgrounds.

 

 

 

 

2        North Penrith All Abilities Playground

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:35 pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:37 pm.                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on North Penrith All Abilities Playground be received.

2.     Fiona Robbe be thanked for her presentation on the North Penrith All Abilities Playgrounds.

Councillor Jackie Greenow then thanked Fiona Robbe for her presentation on all abilities playgrounds.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:54 pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 13 August, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A City of Opportunities

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 8 August, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow (Chair), Michael Morris, Ronda Hopkins, Farah Madon, Denise Heath.

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Joe Ibbitson - Community Programs Coordinator, Cindy Chilvers – Children’s Services Project Coordinator, Vanessa Muscat - Team Leader Building Approvals, Joshua Martin – Asset Coordinator-Buildings, Michael Jackson – Major Projects Manager, Hans Meijer – City Works Manager, Barbara Magee - Corporate Communications and Marketing Manager, Ben Felten – Disability Access Officer, Robyn Brookes – Disability Services Officer, Erich Weller – Community and Cultural Development Manager, Michelle Pearman – Toy Library Coordinator, Peter Wood - Development Assessment Coordinator, Belinda Borg - Senior Environmental Planner, Hannah Van de Werff – Graduate Environmental Planner, Colin Wood – Building Approvals Coordinator (7.10pm)

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from Councillor Prue Car, Councillor Robert Ardill, John Farragher, David Currie, and Colin Wood.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 13 June 2012

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 13 June 2012 were confirmed.

 

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES OF 13 JUNE 2012

 

GB2  All Welcome – Access to Business

 

Councillor Greenow advised that Barbara Magee, Corporate Communications and Marketing Manager, was attending the meeting to discuss the new brand, following on from concerns that Jill Huber raised regarding difficulty recognising and seeing the brand due to the colouring.

 

Barbara Magee advised that the Premier launched the new Penrith brand on 1 June 2012 after 12 months consultation with business and cultural groups. Following a letter received from Jill Huber, Barbara Magee and Jill worked through the brand book together and came up with changes to enable material to be accessible for vision impaired people. The book has been changed to A4 size and the contrast has been changed a great deal. Much of the shading and grey has been removed and the text made black. The map has been changed to black. This is possible as the brand is adaptable. Barbara Magee acknowledged that Ben Felten has also provided guidance through this process.

 

Barbara Magee advised that consultants were contracted to put the brand and the style guide together following extensive community consultation. It is a community and city brand. There will be a segment in the style guide for preparing material for people who are visually impaired, with ways to adapt the brand, keeping the contrast as strong as possible.

 

Barbara Magee asked for feedback before the information is placed in the style guide. Farah Madon advised that at the top left of page 79 where it says “all text at 100% black” it is actually grey and this sends the wrong message. Barbara Magee replied that this instruction referred to body text which can be changed to black but would like to keep headings in orange to stay true to the brand colour, which is orange.

 

Barbara Magee advised that she was happy to come back to a future Access Committee meeting and do a presentation on the new Penrith brand. At present external stakeholders are being consulted to build an overall marketing plan for the city.

 

Barbara Magee offered Penrith is Here goody bags and t-shirts to Access Committee members and asked them to help themselves.

 

Barbara Magee left the meeting at 5.24pm.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Councillor Greenow advised that the reports would be dealt with in the following order – 5, 4, 1, 3 and 6.  Item 2 will be rescheduled for another meeting due to the absence of the presenter.

 

A City of Opportunities

 

5        Disability Access Improvement Program 2011-12 Expenditure Report                       

Ben Felten spoke to the report and advised that the Disability Access Improvement Program had been a successful program for many years.  This report provides details on expenditure for the 2011-2012 financial year.  A further report on the proposed projects for the 2012-2013 financial year will be presented to a future Access Committee meeting.

 

Ben Felten summarised the projects completely or partially funded through the 2011-2012 Disability Access Improvement program budget.  The building improvements to Council owned facilities used for polling was an example of multiple Council departments working together for a good outcome.  There are now accessible Council owned polling facilities in all wards after the upgrade to Melrose Hall and Berkshire Park Hall.

 

Michelle Pearman, Penrith Toy Library Coordinator, demonstrated samples of switch adapted and sensory toys purchased with funds from the Disability Access Improvement Program.

 

Michelle Pearman described the Toy Library Outreach Service and explained that clients are eligible through referrals.  There are 20 active clients at present with three waiting for a referral.  Michelle Pearman advised she would have a stall at the Nepean Disability Expo.

 

Councillor Greenow advised that the recent All Abilities Playground presentation would be shown at a Policy Review meeting and asked if the sensory toys could also be available.  Erich Weller said he would talk to Colin Stevenson, the City Librarian, and aim to organise this.

 

Michael Morris commended Council for the funds available through the Disability Access Improvement Program but asked if the amount could be increased.

 

RECOMMENDED

         That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Disability Access Improvement Program 2011-12 Expenditure Report be received.

2.     A further report be prepared for a future Access Committee meeting on the proposed projects and budget for the 2012-13 Disability Access Improvement Program.

3.     Council give consideration to increasing the annual budget allocation for the Disability Access Improvement Program.

 

4        Inclusion Support Agency                                                                                                 

Cindy Chilvers introduced herself and her report and explained that the Inclusion Support Agency is a Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) funded program.

 

Michelle Pearman left the meeting at 5.47pm.

 

Cindy Chilvers gave an overview of the Inclusion Support Agency and explained that six Inclusion Support Facilitators support approximately 300 services across the Sydney North West region.

 

The Inclusion Support Agency has four priority groups of focus: children with a disability including children with high ongoing support needs, children from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, children with an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and children with a refugee background.

 

The Inclusion Support Agency will be auspiced by Council until end of 2012.  From January 2013 the Sydney North West Inclusion Support Agency will be auspiced by SDN (Sydney Day Nurseries) for the following three years.

 

Michael Morris commended the Inclusion Support Agency for the good work they do.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information in the report on Inclusion Support Agency be received.

 

Cindy Chilvers left the meeting at 5.55pm.

 

 

1        Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan                                                            

Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager, spoke to the report.  He advised he was standing in for Karin Schicht who was unable to attend the meeting.  Karin Schicht forwarded a package of material concerning the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan options to Access Committee members before the meeting.

 

There are five different concept options and these are on public exhibition from 8 August.  Michael Jackson asked the Access Committee for feedback on the five options.  A report with recommendations on the options will be going to Council by September/October.

 

Michael Jackson read through the options which are:

 

Option A: Maximise High Street

Option B: Pocket Places

Option C: Book Ends

Option D: Station Street Boulevard

Option E: Minimum Intervention.

 

During discussion the Committee highlighted the following issues:

 

·    traffic and parking concerns with Option A

·    broad support for option A with possible widening of footpaths

·    noted potential for regrading of footpaths during widening to be able to access shops

·    public transport – need for Accessible bus stop spaces

·    difficulty parking a bus in a one-way High Street, but noted that spaces on both sides of one way street were available, negating need to turn around to make use of spot on other side of street.

·    the new legislation does not allow for outdoor smoking

·    noted that Option A offered many benefits.

 

Michael Jackson advised that this project will be funded from SRV funding of $1.6 million a year across Penrith/St Marys for the next 10 years.  Information about the masterplan and the survey are available at www.penrithcitystreets.com.

 

Discussion was held regarding the pro and cons of the different options.  Michael Jackson explained that the options are a package of works and will be staged.  There is also a traffic transport strategy underway for Penrith with modelling of projected growth.

 

Councillor Greenow suggested there was an opportunity for Committee members to go onto the website and put their views and thoughts.

 

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan be received.

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Muscat left the meeting at 6.15pm.

 

3        Access Committee - End of Term Highlights 2008-12                                                    

Joe Ibbitson introduced the report which gives an overview of the four year period – 2008-2012.  The Access Committee helped to guide and support the completion of the Penrith Inclusion Plan – People with Disability 2009-2013.

 

Joe Ibbitson summarised some of the highlights during the 2008-2012 period. 

 

These included:

 

·    celebrations and events such as International Day for People with Disability, Nepean Disability Expo and partnership programs with disability organisations

·    submissions such as the Mobility Parking Scheme review and the Productivity Commission Inquiry “Disability Care and Support”

·    implementation of the MLAK (Master Lock Access Key) system

·    improvements to the Penrith Swimming Pool

·    All Welcome project

·    All Abilities Playgrounds

·    No Boundaries Project

·    partnering with Ageing, Disability and Home Care to establish the Building Inclusive Communities project

·    strategic policy advice to various parts of Council

·    LEP Stage 1 and the DCP.

 

Joe Ibbitson said that the community members should be proud of their achievements and contributions.  The hard work has had recognition including being two-time finalists in the National Disability Awards.  Joe Ibbitson thanked all the Access Committee members for their hard work.

 

Committee members agreed that the Access Committee has had a positive impact on Council staff, that it is highly regarded and is well known with a reputation outside Penrith.

 

Denise Heath suggested that the All Welcome Project has made the work of the Access Committee highly visible.

 

Peter Wood commended the Access Committee for their input into the DA process, which is a valuable part of the assessment.  He acknowledged that there is a lot of work reading through reports and looking at the plans.  The Access Committee identifies areas that may not otherwise be considered and contributes to an improved outcome.

 

Councillor Greenow advised that Committee members will be invited to a Policy Review meeting to receive certificates for their contribution and commitment to the Access Committee. 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED

         That:

 

1.     The information contained in the report on Access Committee – End of Term Highlights 2008-12 be received.

2.     The community members of the Access Committee be thanked for their contribution to these achievements.

 

6        Development Applications referred to Access Committee                                             

Michael Morris highlighted that the plans in this business paper were a poor resolution and the detail of the diagrams was hard to read.  Peter Wood advised that the applications can be viewed on Council’s DA tracking system but he will organise A3 hard copies to be prepared for future meetings.

 

DA12/0492        UWS Kingswood Library

 

Belinda Borg introduced the development application for the new UWS library at Kingswood.  The university wish this to be a landmark building and a social and economic hub.

 

The library building will be four storey with two mezzanine levels.  It will encompass 24 hour quiet and group study areas, book stacking systems, IT facilities, and staff areas.  The Committee were shown views of the building, the new bus stop and accessible parking areas.

 

The secure study area will be accessed by card and the entry point time activated after hours.  Staff will be on site at the library until 9.00pm Monday to Friday.

 

The building will include accessible bathrooms on each level and an internal lift access to all floors.

 

Discussion by the Committee included:

 

·      access to the premises should be through the main entry – the accessible entry is clearly designed as a back door entry

·      pedestrian travel to the new library

·      access issues with travel from the carpark

·      travel by bus

·      doors to the accessible toilets

·      no handrails or nosing strips on steps

·      accessible parking spaces.

 

Farah Madon advised that the aisle widths between the bookshelves are 1m which means that a person in a wheelchair can go from one end to the other but there is no scope to turn and take a book out.  It was suggested to have 1240 clear space – enough space for a wheelchair to turn and access a book.

 

There was discussion around the development application going before the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

Colin Wood arrived at the meeting at 7.10pm.

 

Individuals can make representations to the Joint Regional Planning Panel if they wish.  Peter Wood advised that reports are available on the Regional Panel’s website which is http://jrpp.nsw.gov.au/.

 

Erich Weller advised that community members will be provided with advice on the progress of this matter.

 

It was noted that David Currie had raised a concern about the UWS Kingswood Library development application.

 

Peter Wood responded to a question from Councillor Greenow that a memo would be provided to Committee members advising of recommendations and Joint Regional Planning Panel meeting procedure.

 

DA12/0578        Public Domain Improvement Works surrounding Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

 

Peter Wood spoke to the development application for the landscape works surrounding the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.

 

The original proposal for landscape works was brought to the Access Committee in October 2007.

 

Some of the matters raised by the Committee in 2007 were that seating heights should be appropriate for people with disabilities; the raised areas could form an impediment to movement; to ensure bollards are used to enable emergency access; a need for improved pedestrian access into the Joan Sutherland Centre; and the circular area could double as an outdoor performance space.

 

Peter Wood advised that Tactile Ground Surface Indicators will be used at the top and bottom of the proposed stairs and kerb ramps. 

 

Michael Jackson advised that the plan is flexible and people can sit on the raised area or the edge.  Future development includes an interactive water feature.

 

The following issues were raised:

 

·    if steps are to be used as an amphitheatre there should be wheelchair access to give equal opportunity for people with disabilities

·    if there is a height difference the need for handrails should be looked into

·    concrete should be textured R12

·    if there are grooves in the paving the gaps should not be large or there could be issues with wheelchairs.

 

 

 

 

DA12/0519        Proposed addition to existing community facility at Greygums Oval

 

Hannah Van de Werff spoke to the development application regarding a proposed addition to the community facility at Greygums Oval.  The new building will be attached to the existing building by a covered awning.

 

The proposed development will be a staged construction. The floorplan for stage 2 shows storage facilities, a canteen, an umpire’s room, first aid room, toilet facilities and a meeting room.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    if there is a refurbishment an accessible toilet should be provided in the same structure

·    according to the new regulations ambulant facilities should be provided

·    if a normal shower is provided an accessible shower should also be provided

·    consideration should be given to access paths

·    there is scope in stage 2 to provide a ramp and have steps as a parallel entry

·    the use of MLAK for accessible toilets.

 

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

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          No Boundaries Project                                                                                             

Joe Ibbitson advised that the first test run of the No Boundaries Project occurred a few weeks ago.  The test run was held on a Thursday, which is Mondo night.  A program is being developed around activities for young people.  Feedback was that it was enjoyable and Cindi Drennan, Creative Director for the No Boundaries Project, was pleased with how it went.

 

Joe Ibbitson handed out more postcards for members to give to friends and interested people.

 

Erich Weller advised that all community members and Council officers will receive an invitation to the No Boundaries Project which will be at about 6.00pm on Friday 21 September.

 

GB 2           Expressions of Interest – Access Committee Community Members

 

Robyn Brookes advised that the Expression of Interest process has commenced for community members for the next term of the Access Committee.  The advertisement was in the local paper and applications close on 29 August.  Joe Ibbitson distributed information packages to current members.

 

GB 3          All Welcome Project                                                                                                 

Robyn Brookes advised that she had a conversation with Gai Hawthorne, from the City Centre Association, who has been targeting the property owners in High Street.  There are a few businesses she suggested could be engaged prior to the meeting being planned to bring stakeholders together to further advance this project.

 

GB 4          Mobility Parking Scheme                                                                                        

Ben Felten advised that the Mobility Parking Scheme submission had been sent to Transport NSW and a memo and copy of the submission had been emailed to Access Committee members previously.  He advised that the submission was written in such a way that there was general consensus and thanked members for their contributions.

 

GB 5          Award of Churchill Fellowship                                                                              

Michael Morris advised he had been successful in obtaining a Churchill Fellowship.  He will be overseas for five weeks travelling to South Africa, Dubai, Ireland and the USA.

 

GB 6          Thank you                                                                                                                 

Ronda Hopkins thanked everyone for their wishes and concerns since she was in hospital last November.

 

GB 7          Pathway Construction                                                                                             

Hans Meijer advised that the shared pathway construction along the Mulgoa Road, Penrith link will be complete in the next four months. It was also advised that the Penrith - St Marys shared path link is being considered as the next project to commence in 2012/13 subject to Roads and Maritime Services agreement.

 

GB 8          Penrith Plaza                                                                                                            

Councillor Greenow enquired if another visit to assess the path of travel in the Penrith Plaza should be undertaken.  Ronda Hopkins offered to accompany Councillor Greenow.  Erich Weller advised that this could be organised with the new Committee.

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 8 August, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Delivery Program 2009-13 - Six Monthly Review. 2011-12 Operational Plan - June Quarter Review

 

2        Social and Economic benefit of athlete training at Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the International Regatta Centre

 

3        2012 National General Assembly of Local Government

 

4        Relocation of Nepean Historical & Archaeology Group & Nepean Art Society to temporary accommodation and demolition of both premises

 

5        A New Planning System for NSW - Green Paper

 

6        Outcome of Public Exhibition of Proposed Adjustment of Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2

 

7        Attendance by Councillors at Meetings during the current term of Council

 

8        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 July to 31 July 2012

 

A City of Opportunities

 

9        Dance Oolites Inc - Dance Group for People with Disability  

 

A Green City

 

10      Penrith Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Project

 

11      Update on proposed transport of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA, Kemps Creek

 

12      Information on the Bulk Purchase of Electricity for the City and Use of Micro Hydro Generation

 

A Liveable City

 

13      St Marys CBD 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme - Roads & Maritime Services Funding Offer

 

 

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

14      Development Application DA12/0349 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Ancillary Structures and Construction of a 2 storey dwelling Lot 2105 DP 263159 (No. 13)  Dianella Place, Kingswood Applicant: Innovation Planning Australia P/L;  Owner: J and S Joyce

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

 

15      Board Member Recruitment - St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Corporation

 

16      St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct - Family Fun Day

 

17      St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team Request for Funding

 

 


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Delivery Program 2009-13 - Six Monthly Review. 2011-12 Operational Plan - June Quarter Review

 

2        Social and Economic benefit of athlete training at Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the International Regatta Centre

 

3        2012 National General Assembly of Local Government

 

4        Relocation of Nepean Historical & Archaeology Group & Nepean Art Society to temporary accommodation and demolition of both premises

 

5        A New Planning System for NSW - Green Paper

 

6        Outcome of Public Exhibition of Proposed Adjustment of Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2

 

7        Attendance by Councillors at Meetings during the current term of Council

 

8        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 July to 31 July 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1

Delivery Program 2009-13 - Six Monthly Review. 2011-12 Operational Plan - June Quarter Review   

 

Compiled by:               Graham Pares, Acting Operational Plan Coordinator

Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Tanya Jackson, Strategic Planning Coordinator

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

Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines Council’s progress towards implementing its four-year Delivery Program for the six month period of January 2012 to June 2012. It also includes the June Quarterly review for the Operational Plan 2011-12.

 

This report should be read in conjunction with the ‘Organisational Performance Report’.  This is the sixth in a series of eight reports in which we record our progress in implementing the program priorities, service activities and indicators detailed in the adopted Delivery Program 2009-2013.

 

This report recommends that the ‘Organisational Performance Report’ is received, and also recommends that the revised budget estimates identified in the report and detailed in Attachment 1 – Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary be adopted.  A bound hard copy of the Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary has also been provided separately to Councillors.

 

At 30 June 2012, Council’s 44 services and 21 programs were ‘on target’ and performing well.  Table 1 provides a performance summary, which overall demonstrates that Council is successfully delivering its services and programs.

 

The predicted cumulative result for the year as at 30 June 2012 is a surplus of $274,430, which is proposed to be transferred to the Asset Reserve to provide capacity to accommodate any changes in the assumptions of the 2012-13 Operational Plan.  After allowing for this transfer to Reserve, and the other proposed adjustments in the Review, a balanced budget is being reported.

Organisational Performance Summary

The Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan provide a solid blueprint for the City’s sustainable future. The Delivery Program sets out Council’s four year program of works, to achieve the community’s long-term goals and aspirations for the City.  The Operational Plan outlines Council’s activities for the current year.

 

The ‘Organisational Performance Report’ provides information on Council’s progress, achievements and challenges for the six months from January 2012 to June 2012, and includes the June Quarterly review for the Operational Plan 2011-2012.

 

At 30 June 2012, Council’s 44 services and 21 programs were ‘on target’ and performing well.  Table 1 provides a performance summary, which overall demonstrates that Council is successfully delivering its services and programs.

 

100%

Service activities

‘on target’

95%

Program indicators

‘on target’

98%

Program priorities

‘on target’

97%

Tasks

completed or ‘on target’

96%

KPIs

‘on target’

91%

Capital projects

completed or ‘on target’

95%

Operating projects

completed or ‘on target’

 

 

 

Traffic Light Status

Totals

Ci

On Target

Attention Required

At Risk

Completed

Delivery Program

 (January-June 2012)

Program Overall

21

100%

-

-

-

-

-

-

21

Service Activities

118

100%

-

-

-

-

-

-

118

Program Indicators

35

95%

2

5%

-

-

-

-

37

Program Priorities

41

98%

1

2%

-

-

-

-

42

Operational Plan

 (March-June 2012)

Services Overall

excludes controlled entities

44

100%

-

-

-

-

-

-

44

Tasks

21

13%

4

2%

1

1%

140

84%

166

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

110

96%

5

4%

-

-

-

-

115

Capital Projects

22

15%

8

5%

6

4%

112

76%

148

Operating Projects

9

9%

5

5%

-

-

83

86%

97

 

Totals

421

25

7

335

788

Table 1 – Summary of Organisational Performance as at 30 June 2012

 

Detailed comments on program indicators, priorities, activities, tasks, projects and KPIs which were identified as ‘requiring attention’ or ‘at risk’ are in Attachment 1 – Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary on page 50.

Organisational highlights

There have been several highlights and program achievements delivered during the past six months.  These include:

w Completion of the North Penrith  multi-level Commuter Carpark, offering 1,000 free car parking spaces, security lighting, CCTV cameras, 30 accessible parking spaces and a lift.

w Launch of a new brand for Penrith – ‘Penrith is Here’ including brand strategy and communication tools.

w Completion of the first stage of the Community Engagement Program to review the Community Strategic Plan. Around 4,600 surveys were received, with 400 people engaged at listening posts and around 400 residents, children/youth, business and community group representatives participated through targeted engagement activities.

w Implementation of a number of technology and business improvements, including health inspectors using digital forms and pen technology; introducing a rostering system for Children’s Services; deploying six PDA units with built-in ticket printers for rangers; and introducing iPads, Smartboards, video conferencing and wireless technology in the Civic Centre.

w Winner of five State and National awards including: The Campement Urbain project 'The Future of Penrith, Penrith of the Future' ’Planning Institute Australia 2012; Paint Penrith REaD Zest Award ; NSW Waste Minimisation Keep Australia Beautiful Award; and NSW and National Winner, Leadership in the Recycled Organics Industry, Compost Australia Award.

w Mobile Playvan celebrated 30 years of service delivery to the community.

w Upgrade and maintenance works completed at 16 Children’s Centres, with significant playground improvements at Yoorami Children’s Centre and OOSH; Gumbirra Children’s Centre and OOSH; Blue Emu Children’s Centre; Kindana OOSH; and installation of an all abilities toilet at Tandara Children’s Centre.

w Upgrades and improvement works to 13 sporting facilities completed.  Significant works included: new lighting at Ridge Park; an upgrade to the International league field at Ched Towns Reserve; 2 soccer fields at Eileen Cammack Reserve; irrigation and new goal posts at Doug Rennie Field; installation of bores at Gow Park and Parker Street Reserve to reduce reliance on potable water supply; construction of 5 netball courts at Jamison Park; new seating, shade structures and fencing at Tench Reserve and the upgrade of 3 playing fields and installation of a new lighting system at Mark Leece Oval.

w Improvement and maintenance works at Penrith Swimming Centre and St Clair Leisure Centre.

w 4 new playground facilities at Gibbes Street, Regentville; Willow Road/Wattle Avenue/Parklawn Place, North St Marys; Jenkins Avenue and Copeland Street, Penrith; and Shepherd Street/Potter Field, Colyton.

w 30 km of roads have been resurfaced or reconstructed.  As part of the footpath ‘missing links’ program works have been completed at Stafford Street, Kingswood; Lewis Road, Cambridge Gardens; Pendock Road, Cranebrook; Barber Avenue, Penrith and Bennett Road, St Clair.  Shared pathways were completed along the Great Western Highway/High Street, Penrith and Mulgoa Road, Penrith between Jane Street and Batt Street.  Two bus shelters on Derby Street Kingswood, at the Nepean Hospital were installed.

w The Transport Study and initial design work has been completed for the proposed Nepean River Green Bridge, to identify the most suitable location for a shared pedestrian/cycle bridge across the Nepean River.

w The Mondo project continues to gain significant momentum, with up to 200 participants each Thursday afternoon.

w Total value of development approved was $248M.  Significant development activity and investment in the City has occurred, with development progressing well in the City’s new suburbs at Jordan Springs, Glenmore Park Stage 2, Caddens Release, North Penrith Urban area and Waterside.

w Construction of the Erskine Park Link Road commenced, to provide access for Erskine Business Park to the M7/ M2/ M5.  This is the culmination of many years of lobbying to achieve this important road link.

w Council also successfully secured $135,000 under the Australian Government’s Liveable Cities Program towards the design of the Nepean Loop section of the Great River Walk.

Organisational challenges

During the reporting period Council faced a number of challenges, internally and externally.  Extensive periods of wet weather and flooding during November 2011, February 2012 and March 2012 created a challenge in delivering Council’s capital works program, and impacted on Council’s ability to carry out its Asset Renewal and maintenance programs.

 

Flooding on 9 February 2012, as a result of a significant storm event, required resources to be focussed in areas such as Londonderry and Claremont Meadows to assist the community, undertake drainage maintenance, and repairs to potholes and road pavement.  Additional support was also provided by Council’s Local Emergency Management team, the State Emergency Services (SES), other support agencies (NSW Police, NSW Fire and Rescue, and NSW Rural Fire Service).  While there was significant damage to property, no injuries occurred to residents, or rescue and recovery personnel.  Together Council and other services successfully worked together to assist our community.

 

There are several identified organisational priorities where current workloads are placing pressure on available resources.  These include finalising flood studies, and concurrent organisational reporting processes such as the Annual Report, End of Term Report and Progress reports.  The challenge is to maintain quality, whilst meeting required timeframes.

 

There has also been an increase in development activity due to growth in the new urban areas.  The new development in the City will support economic growth and housing diversity in the City, but also presents challenges in terms of increased workloads.  Resources have been focussed in development approvals, engineering and environment teams to manage applications and two new assessment planners will be appointed.

 

Council must also continue to provide sufficient resources to respond effectively to the implications of new State Government legislation and regulations, and additional tasks that arise throughout the year.  In particular, the continuous changes in planning legislation, including the reviews of the Local Government Act and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, is an ongoing challenge and has impacted on the progression of the Citywide Local Environmental Plan (Stage 2).

Council’s Financial Position

Financial Position Summary

 

The June quarter has continued to show that Council’s short term financial position remains sound with a balanced budget projected for the year.  During 2011-12 improvements in the residential property market resulted in an overall increase in development related income of $553,000 and rates income of $1.3m.  In addition, earnings on Council’s investment portfolio exceeded estimates by $426,900 due to interest rates remaining higher than anticipated throughout the year. These factors combined with strong financial management has provided Council the opportunity during the year to allocate funds towards key corporate system improvements and upgrades ($275,000), Flood mitigation and protection works ($220,000), additional legal costs ($120,000), provisioning for the next Community Strategic Plan ($145,000), and the commencement of the Organisational Productivity Improvement Project ($71,000).

 

The predicted cumulative result for the year as at 30 June 2012 is a surplus of $274,430, which is proposed to be transferred to the Asset Reserve to provide capacity to accommodate any movement in the assumptions of the 2012-13 Operational Plan.  After allowing for this transfer to Reserve, and the other proposed adjustments in the Review, a balanced budget is being recommended.

 

The 2011-12 Operational Plan identified budget adjustments that were retained in the Asset Reserve to ensure that any movement in assumptions or emerging priorities could be accommodated. During the year allocations of funding from the Asset Reserve were made to a number of High Priority Projects including to Wi fi enable the Civic Centre ($52,441), implement a new Customer Management System and upgrade Access Control at Penrith Swimming Centre ($76,365), provide additional subsidy to Ripples during the partial closure of the Centre for the Roof Replacement and Renewal works ($85,000), fund the Community Strategic Plan Engagement ($50,000) and implement the new Penrith Community Branding ($48,000). Prior to the proposed transfer of the 2011-12 surplus the total of $80,672 remains unallocated in the Asset reserve as at 30 June 2012.

 

A total of $9.6m of revotes is proposed as a result of the June Quarter Review.  Further details on proposed major variations are provided later in this report and in Attachment 1 –  Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary be adopted.

 

Financial Position for the June Year End

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

·      Budget Position (whether balanced/surplus/deficit)

·      Significant Variations

·      Identified Revotes

·      Funding Summary

·      Reserve Movements for the quarter, and

·      Capital and Operating Budget Projects list for the quarter

·      Key Performance Indicators

·      Income & Expenses

·      Income & Expenses by Program

·      Capital Budget

·      Cash & Investments

·      Contracts and Other Expenses

·      Consultancy and Legal Expenses

Budget Position

 

$000s

Original Budget Position

0

 

 

September Quarter Variations

27.6

December Quarter Variations

582.1

March Quarter Variations

13.4

June Quarterly Review Proposed Variations

(623.1)

Revised Surplus/(Deficit)

0

 

The predicted cumulative result for the year as at June 2012 is a balanced budget after the recommended variations for the quarter. Commentary is provided below on some of the more significant issues in the Review with their impact on the budget position (F – favourable and U – Unfavourable). Further details together with all proposed minor variations, revotes and reserve movements are detailed in Attachment 1 –  Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary be adopted.

 

All actual figures are subject to end-of-year adjustment, audit checking and confirmation. The 2011-12 Financial Statements are currently being completed and will be presented to Council in September 2012 and will include a detailed explanation of Council’s financial position.

 

Net Employee Costs

The delivery of Council’s 44 Services places a high reliance on Council’s workforce and accordingly employee costs are a major component of the annual budget.  Across any year there will also be occasions when there is a delay in filling vacancies and some savings originated from these occurrences. As has been the experience in the past few years the actual costs relating to the retirement/resignation of a number of long serving staff has affected the total employee costs budget.  As in previous years these additional costs have been partly offset by savings in other employee costs and the retention of $782,986 of salary savings throughout the previous three quarters, however overall there has been less opportunity to offset this cost in 2011-12 with a lower number of vacancies held.  Obviously this is a difficult area to accurately predict however modelling of the available data suggests that this trend will continue for the next few years and the recent revision of the Long Term Financial Plan includes additional future capacity to better accommodate this trend. Net salary savings of approximately $1.3m have been identified during the year and Council prudently retained savings within the employee costs budget to ensure that sufficient provision was made for Employee Leave Entitlements (ELE) and end of year employee on-cost balancing.

 

A comparison of the final results for the June quarter against the original budget estimates indicates additional employee costs over the year of $1.5m (2.1%) from a total employee costs budget of $74.1m.  This area was again impacted by the movement in employee leave entitlements with the valuing of these future liabilities accounting for $880,000 of the increases largely as a result of the average discount rate (Federal Government 10 year bond yields) falling from 4.90% to 2.75% over the last 12 months, while at the same time the actual value of the entitlement has fallen by $396,000.

 

Council policy is to maintain an amount of 20%, averaged over three years, of leave entitlements (excluding annual leave) in the ELE Reserve. Following use of the reserve to fund payments relating to the retirement of a number of long term employees in 2008-09 a strategy, which included increased and additional transfers to the reserve, was put in place to return the ELE reserve to greater than 20%. As at 30 June 2012 the ELE Reserve holds $4.8m or the equivalent of 21.45% of entitlements.

 

Superannuation costs for 2011-12 were $496,312 over the original estimates. This increase (7.8%) in superannuation is the result of two factors with the majority relating to payments associated with the increased retirement and resignation payments discussed above which were greater than the original estimates. In addition the increase in superannuation costs also relates to greater than budgeted contributions for those members in the Defined Benefits Scheme (DBS). Council has 169 employees that are members of the DBS. This scheme requires members to contribute a percentage of their salary to superannuation. This percentage is reviewed and varied by the employees on an annual basis. Council’s contribution is calculated based on the percentages nominated by employees. An increase in the percentages nominated by employees in April 2012 has resulted in this increase in superannuation costs.

 

The final expected Workers Compensation Costs for 2011-12 is $1,600 under budget (0.2%), representing an excellent result for our second year under the “Burning Cost” model. Since moving from the traditional policy based premium savings of $511,604 in 2010-11 and $628,834 in 2011-12, have been transferred to the Reserve to provide funding for any adjustments to the premium in years 3-5. The Workers Compensation Reserve has a closing balance of $1.1m as at 30 June 2012.

 

Enhanced Public Domain Team - $195,154 F (5%)

Exceptionally wet weather during the second half of the financial year has impacted on this program.  The delivery of “out of hours” services such as commuter car park cleaning and City Centres footpath high pressure cleaning was also affected and has resulting in savings. Teams were rostered on overtime during weekends where possible to undertake catch up works after the wet weather to perform laneway and precinct maintenance however capacity was not available to schedule full weekend clean up blitzes.

 

Interest on Investments - $126,906 F (7%)

Earnings on Council’s investment portfolio exceeded the original budget estimates due to interest rates remaining higher than anticipated for most of the year. The fall in official interest rates had been factored in to the estimates but as the decreases did not take effect until May and June enabling the portfolio return to outperform original estimates.

 

 

Net Development Related Income - $82,261 F

Development activity in the release areas continued in 2011-12 with greater confidence in residential development being reflected in some large scale development applications. While some development related income has been impacted by competition from private certifiers and planning reforms, there was net increase in income in this area with some of the larger variances discussed below.

 

·    Construction Certificates - $107,121 U (36%)

Council received 353 Construction Certificates in the period which was down from 471 for the previous 12 months.  The impact of complying development and the preference for Developers to use a private certifier is having an impact on this area of income. This trend is expected to continue as planning reforms widen the scope for additional complying development types.

 

·    Compliance Certificates - $71,259 U (29%)

Compliance certificates are directly related to Construction Certificates and Complying Development Certificates.  With the downturn in applications, this has had an impact on the number of compliance certificates. 

 

·    Development Application Fee Income - $103,598 F (7%)

This additional income represents a minor variance to the budgeted income for Development Application Fees.  It reflects some larger scale DAs in the Glenmore Park Town Centre and Erskine Business Park.

 

·    Subdivision Certificates Income - $46,686 F (93%)

There has been an increase in the number of subdivision applications received due in part to the development of the release areas and therefore the provision of more subdivision certificates. Income from Subdivisions is cyclical with application income at the same period last year in excess of budget. The market is now constructing these lots as evidenced by the increase in Subdivision Certificates income.

 

·    Engineering Compliance Certificate Income - $39,907 F (9 %)

An increase in the number of Engineering Compliance Certificates being processed, over the original forecasted amount, has resulted in the amount of income received being in excess of the predicted budget. This is due to Council being appointed as the Certifying Authority for several large developments in Jordan Springs, North Penrith, Caddens Road, and Glenmore Park. Favourable economic conditions have stimulated growth in this area, resulting in an increase in residential subdivision activity.

 


Transfer to Asset Reserve - $274,430 U

This amount represents the surplus for 2011-12 which it is proposed to transfer to the Asset Reserve to provide for emerging priorities or provide a contingent for the outstanding estimates included in the 2012-13 Operational Plan, particularly those for which Council has no control e.g. contribution to emergency services management and the financial assistance grant.

 

Other variations with no impact on Available Funds and Proposed Revotes

A number of other variations are proposed as part of this Review that do not have an impact on the available funds.  Details of these adjustments are provided in Attachment 1 – Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary be adopted.  In addition to these adjustments a total of $9.6m of planned capital works and operating projects are proposed for revote this quarter and a full listing can be found in Attachment 1. The total value of revotes for the year (including the proposed revotes) is $11.5m compared to $7.5m for 2010-11.

Conclusion

This report, and the more detailed ‘Organisational Performance Report’ demonstrate that Council has delivered significant progress over the past six months.  The Report will be placed on Council’s website, and will be available in hard copy or CD on request.

 

The balanced budget result is an excellent outcome and reflects the strong financial management of Council despite the challenges in developing the 2011-12 budget.  The discipline and control Council has shown in the development and monitoring of the 2011-12 Operational Plan has ensured that Council has been able to accommodate priorities as they have emerged and has also provided for some capacity, through the proposed transfer to the Asset Reserve, to be carried forward to the 2012-13 Operational Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Delivery Program 2009-13 - Six Monthly Review. 2011-12 Operational Plan - June Quarter Review be received.

2.     The 2011-12 Operational Plan June End of Year Review as at 30 June 2012, including the revised estimates identified in the recommended budget outlined in this report and detailed in Attachment 1 –  Organisational Performance & Financial Review Summary be adopted, be adopted.

3.       Council revote the works as detailed in the Recommended Revoted Works Lists, detailed in Attachment 1 for inclusion in the 2012-13 Operational Plan.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Organisational Performance Summary & Financial Review Summary

101 Pages

Attachment

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

2

Social and Economic benefit of athlete training at Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the International Regatta Centre   

 

Compiled by:               Paul Page, City Marketing Supervisor

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

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Meeting of 15 August 2011 Council considered a report on the social and economic benefit of visitors to Penrith.  The report noted that the Corporate Communications Department was expanding its capacity to analyse the economic benefit of specific events. 

 

Council requested a further report on the “social and economic benefit of athlete training at Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the International Regatta Centre” once the additional econometric analysis capacity was developed. 

 

This capacity has now been developed and our analysis shows that in the 2011-12 financial year, athlete training, together with major regattas and other rowing and canoeing events conducted at the two facilities, increased the economic output of the Penrith economy by $37 million dollars per year and created 177 jobs. 

 

The report recommends that the information be received.

Background

The August 2011 report noted that Council was partnering with the Penrith Business Alliance to acquire the REMPLAN econometric analysis system and the tourism add on module to provide authoritative economic data on the Penrith visitor economy. 

 

The REMPLAN visitor economy analysis is based on estimates of annual visitation, length of stay and expenditure derived from national domestic and international visitor surveys which Tourism Research Australia (TRA) conducts annually.  TRA uses this data to estimate the size of the visitor economy at the local government area level throughout Australia.  Due to the small sample size when these estimates are brought down to the local level, data is aggregated over four years and is therefore only updated every four years. 

 

TRA recently released new estimates replacing the previous 2007 figures.  These have been incorporated into REMPLAN and greatly increase the confidence level for the data that the system produces. 

 

In preparing this analysis we have relied on data that Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the International Regatta Centre have provided for 2011-12.  The Penrith Business Alliance has been of great assistance in preparing the analysis and the support and assistance that these three organisations have provided has been essential in being able to obtain this information. 

Athlete Training at Penrith Whitewater Stadium

Canoe Slalom is very much a niche sport but the limited supply of Olympic standard facilities around the world ensures that Penrith Whitewater Stadium attracts a steady stream of international athletes for training.  The sport is strongest in the northern hemisphere and many athletes come to Penrith to train during the northern winter when it is summer in Australia. 

 

For this reason Penrith Whitewater Stadium is particularly busy with international training during January and February.  Australia is a long haul destination for most of these athletes so they tend to stay for an extended period, increasing the value of their visitation to the Penrith economy. 

 

Penrith Whitewater Stadium reports that during the 2011-12 September to June training season about 200 international athletes used PWS for training.  Members of the following national canoe slalom teams were amongst the athletes visiting Penrith. 

 

Argentina

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Croatia

Czech Republic

France

 

Germany

Great Britain

Ireland

Italy

Japan

New Zealand

Poland

 

Russia

Slovenia

Slovakia

Switzerland

USA

PWS records statistics for training in participant hours.  Mostly athletes will train for one hour per day but during busy periods over January and February will often train more than once a day.  International athletes booked a total of 10,708 hours of training which when spread over the 200 athletes makes an average of 53.5 hours of training per athlete. 

 

This supports the assessment by PWS that the average length of stay ranges from three weeks to three months, with most staying about four weeks. 

 

Visiting athletes prefer to stay in self-contained accommodation as it is the most economical option for an extended length of stay. As elite athletes it is also important that they can prepare their own food.  The venues providing this style of accommodation are the first to be booked out and include Nepean Shores, the cabins at Emu Plains Caravan Park, Astina Apartments, The Vines at Orchard Hills and the Lakes B&B at Cranebrook. 

 

Some longer stay visiting athletes rent a house through real estate agents and this year a number of houses were available for rent in the Waterside Estate in Cranebrook.  The Log Cabin was preferred when hotel accommodation was required until it was destroyed by fire in March 2012. 

Athlete Training at the International Regatta Centre

Rowing and canoe sprint are much bigger sports than canoe slalom and Penrith is recognised as having the finest rowing courses in Australia, both at the International Regatta Centre and on the Nepean River.  This also means that there is more choice of training venues around the world which reduces the appeal of Penrith for international athletes in these sports. 

 

Nevertheless the Regatta Centre hosts over 4,000 mostly domestic athletes for training in rowing and canoe sprint. 

 

Training Bookings

Total

Canoe Sprint

484

Rowing

3998

Total Training - Water

4482

 

The Regatta Centre has also supplied figures for competitors and spectators attending the various regattas and other competitive events held at the venue during the year.  This does not include the various other events involving sports other than rowing and canoeing or cultural events such as DefQon which are also hosted at this venue throughout the year. 

 

Regattas & Championships

Total

Canoe Sprint

7,352

Rowing

47,466

Total Events

54,818

Overall Social and Economic Benefit

The REMPLAN analysis undertaken by the Penrith Business Alliance provides the following economic indicators for canoeing and rowing training and events at both venues. 

 

Impact

Direct Effect

Industrial Effect

Consumption Effect

Total Effect

Output ($M)

$21.546

$9.041

$6.815

$37.401

Long Term Employment (Jobs)

122.28

27.177

1.230

1.451

Wages and Salaries ($M)

$6.191

$2.107

$1.560

$9.858

Value added ($M)

$9.942

$3.555

$3.663

$17.160

 

The Penrith Business Alliance based these figures on the following assumptions.

 

All data was for 2011-2012 financial year

Whitewater is closed for two months per year – meaning the water is used for athletes (and visitors) for 300 days per year

Total Visitors for the year is thus 59,500 (eg, 54,818+ 4482 + 200) from the two datasets provided

That athletes “stay” in Penrith on average for 30 days (as per PWS info)

Of these 30 night stays, 10 are by Australian visitors, 20 are by international athletes and spectators

Of the total 59,500 visitors:

Ninety per cent are Australians who don’t stay in local accommodation

Five per cent are Australians who do stay in local accommodation

Five per cent are internationals who do stay in local accommodation

 

A full interpretation of these figures is provided in the two page REMPLAN report which is enclosed as an appendix. 

 

The social benefits of the training and events at these facilities are less tangible.  It is obvious that international visitation by athletes adds something unique and different to the Penrith lifestyle that is not available in most other parts of western Sydney.  It ensures that Penrith has a high profile amongst the leaders of these significant sports, especially rowing. 

 

The training programs contribute to the viability of these facilities, the existence of which provides additional recreation choice for local residents. 

Conclusion

There is no doubt that both the International Regatta Centre and Penrith Whitewater Stadium are two of Penrith’s most valuable brand assets.  The value they add to the economy and the jobs they create are of great value to the Penrith community.  The association between Penrith and elite athletes in rowing and canoeing strongly reinforce our brand values “Can Do, Harmony, Lifestyle, Openness, Invention and Transformation”. 

 

Jessica Fox’s silver medal in the K1 Women’s event in the recent London Olympics has again highlighted the immense value that this facility brings to the Penrith brand. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Social and Economic benefit of athlete training at Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the International Regatta Centre be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

REMPLAN report on value of athlete training at IRC and PWS

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 1 - REMPLAN report on value of athlete training at IRC and PWS

 

temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

3

2012 National General Assembly of Local Government   

 

Compiled by:               Glenn McCarthy, Executive Officer

Authorised by:            Alan Stoneham, General Manager   

 

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

The Australian Local Government Association’s (ALGA) policies are determined at its Annual General Meeting and by a National General Assembly of Local Government. The General Assembly has a wide brief to consider policy directions and convey the views of Councils to the Annual General Meeting and National Executive.  This report provides details of the outcomes of the 2012 National General Assembly held in Canberra from 17-20 June 2012.

Background

The 2012 NGA was held in Canberra from 17 – 20 June. The theme for the 2012 NGA was “National Voice, Local Choice – Infrastructure, Planning and Services”.

 

Council’s delegates to the National General Assembly were the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies (voting delegate) and  Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Ross Fowler OAM and Marko Malkoc (observers), supported by the General Manager - Alan Stoneham.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown attended the Local Government Executive Meeting on Sunday 17 June and also attended the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) Networking Breakfast on Monday 18 June.

National General Assembly Program

The 2012 National General Assembly theme was aimed at stimulating ideas about improving the way in which local government serves its communities and the way in which it works with other levels of government.

 

The three elements of the theme allowed for an exploration of the key priorities and challenges facing governments and local communities:

 

In her opening address, Mayor Genia McCaffery, ALGA President, addressed the three parts of the Conference theme:

 

 

·    Infrastructure – with a focus on the local and community infrastructure provided by local government and seeking to develop innovative ideas for the provision of this infrastructure now as well as into the future.

·    Planning - recognising the important role local government plays in planning for local communities and asking delegates to consider how best to provide this critical role and the impact it has on shaping the future of communities in Australia.

·    Services - referring to the wide range of services provided by local government and the need to ensure the delivery of these services caters to the needs and opportunities in Australia’s diverse communities.

 

A number of high profile political and expert speakers addressed delegates on these themes.

 

Opening address was given by The Hon Simon Crean MP, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister for the Arts.

 

Keynote political speakers included:

 

Senator Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water

 

The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

 

Senator Christine Milne, Leader of the Greens

 

Keynote expert speakers included:

 

Phillip Adams AO, Hon D.Univ (Griff), Hon D.Litt (ECU), Hon D Univ (UNI SA), Hon D.Litt (UNI Sydney), FAHA, FRSA                                   

                  

Laurie Wilson, Political Journalist - President of the National Press Club

 

Dr Keith Suter, Conference Speaker & Social Commentator

 

Jim Soorley, Member of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government

 

George Williams AO, Anthony Mason Professor, Scientia Professor, ARC Laureate Fellow, Foundation Director, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law

 

Glenys Beauchamp PSM, Secretary, Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport

 

Darrin Grimsey, Partner, Infrastructure Advisory, Ernst & Young

 

Michael D’Ascenzo, Regional Registrar of the Australian Business Register

 

Maxine McKew, advisor, Social Ventures Australia, former Federal Member for Bennelong and 30 years as a broadcast and print journalist, principally with ABC Television and The Bulletin Magazine.

 

The Hon Dr Gary Johns, Associate Professor Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic University

 

Robyn Archer AO, Creative Director, Centenary of Canberra

 

Simon Sheikh, National Director, Get-Up!

Outcome of Motions submitted by Council

Penrith City Council has a very successful track record in past years of influencing the development of national local government policy.

 

This year Council submitted four motions to the NGA, one under the theme of Infrastructure and three under the theme Services. It is the practice of the ALGA to compile similar motions into composite motions to improve the efficiency of debate. The first of Council’s motions was made part of composite Motion 8, the details of which are shown below in italics.

 

MOTION 1 (Motion 8.6)

 

That the National General Assembly call upon the Australian Government to extend its engagement in local infrastructure delivery by:

 

·       Expanding direct funding of local facilities that will improve community health and the functional efficiency of  local government areas; and

·       Instructing Infrastructure Australia to prepare guidelines for the minimum standards of infrastructure to which all communities should have access.

 

MOTION 8

 

That the National General Assembly calls on the Federal Government to investigate and implement new mechanisms to provide infrastructure funding to local governments.

 

MOTION 2 (Motion 63)

 

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

 

MOTION 3 (Motion 68)

 

That the National General Assembly:

 

a)   Commends the Australian Federal Government for commencing to improve skills and employment outcomes

b)   Calls on the Australian Federal Government to increase its focus on and take further action to close the gap for areas of low school retention, low post secondary attendance, low levels of skills and inadequate employment options in order to improve national productivity and improve social and environmental outcomes.

 

 

MOTION 4 (Motion 83)

 

That the National General Assembly write to the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, to make representations to the Minister for Tourism, seeking the establishment of a national independent access accreditation system for tourist accommodation in Australia.

Conclusion

The National General Assembly of Local Government provided delegates with the opportunity to identify and share information on key issues facing local government in Australia. It is pleasing to report that the (ALGA) Board has since resolved to support Council’s motions and convey them to the Australian Government to seek the Government’s comments and response.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

4

Relocation of Nepean Historical & Archaeology Group & Nepean Art Society to temporary accommodation and demolition of both premises   

 

Compiled by:               Peter Blazek, Property Officer - Management

Authorised by:            Bob Anderson,  Acting Property Development Manager

Vicki O’Kelly, Group Manager - Finance   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Council has recently undertaken an audit on all Council properties to determine our exposure to any presence of hazardous building materials.

 

Nepean Historical & Archaeology Group (NH&AG) have been operating from No.4 North Street, Penrith since 1985 and Nepean Art Society (NAS) at No. 3 North Street Penrith since 1999.  The audit report identified asbestos in both properties and recommended removal of the existing tenants from both properties and that Council undertake a total remediation of the identified offending materials, which is commercially unviable, or demolition of both premises, because the asbestos materials are unstable in their current condition.

 

Following meetings with NH&AG & NAS, it was agreed that Council would refurbish the former Print Room of the Old Council Chambers located on the ground floor, which has been vacant since last year, to relocate both parties there to share the tenancy on a temporary basis until more permanent and suitable premises are identified.

 

Both groups have now been relocated from Nos. 3 & 4 North Street, Penrith to this part of the Old Council Chambers and the North Street buildings have been fenced off temporarily to prevent public access.

 

We now seek Council resolution to demolish Nos. 3 & 4 North Street, Penrith in accordance with guidelines relating to demolition of buildings with asbestos materials.

Background

Council had purchased several properties at North Street, Penrith in the 1980s for future road widening planning for North Street through to Jane Street.  As the land was not immediately required for the road widening the buildings were leased to community organisations.

 

NH&AG was allocated No.4 North Street, Penrith in 1985 and NAS was allocated No.3 North Street, Penrith in 1999 for a nil rental.

 

Current Situation

Council has recently undertaken an audit on all Council properties to determine our exposure to the presence of hazardous building materials.  The audit report identified asbestos in both No’s 3 and 4 North Street Penrith and recommended removal of the existing tenants from both properties.  It also recommended that Council either undertake a total remediation of the identified offending materials or demolish both premises as the asbestos materials are unstable in their current condition.  The cost of total remediation is unviable for these premises.

 

Both groups have operated successfully from these premises however have experienced severe external damage over the years through vandalism to the fibro sheeting walls that were manufactured with asbestos material as well as general wear and tear over the years. Whilst Council had undertaken necessary repairs to these vandalised materials as required over time they are now at a very sensitive stage in terms of WHS.

 

The Community & Cultural Department, City Works Department and Property Development Department have negotiated with both parties to arrive at an amicable agreement to relocate both groups to the former print room at the Old Council Chambers.

 

This relocation was conditional to Council undertaking the desired fit out works of the premises to accommodate each party’s needs including provision of services in the tenancy, assistance with relocation of both groups’ equipment, materials and exhibits, and future relocation to a more permanent and suitable premises.

 

Both tenants were relocated by 10 August 2012 and the North Street properties were fenced off by Council to mitigate further exposure of the properties to the passing public and more importantly to further vandalism.

 

Subject to Council approval, the City Works Department will arrange demolition of both premises by reputable demolition contractors in accordance with the guidelines pertaining to asbestos materials. The cost for the demolition of the two buildings will be funded by the Council’s Property Development Reserve.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Relocation of Nepean Historical & Archaeology Group & Nepean Art Society to temporary accommodation and demolition of both premises be received.

2.     Council grant permission to demolish Nos. 3 & 4 North Street, Penrith as outlined in the report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

5

A New Planning System for NSW - Green Paper   

 

Compiled by:               Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Julie Condon, Development Enquiry Unit Coordinator

Peter Wood, Development Assessment Coordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager

Paul Lemm, Development Services 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

The review of the NSW Planning System is underway and a Green Paper titled “A New Planning System for New South Wales” has been released, with submissions due on 5 October 2012. The Green Paper is the second of three phases of the review and outlines major changes in key areas of the planning system. The focus of the Green Paper is on:

 

·    Upfront strategic land use and infrastructure planning

 

·    Focusing the involvement of the community to the strategic end of the planning process and away from the development assessment stage, and

 

·    Refining and streamlining assessment processes, including increasing the stream of code based development assessment.

 

Following community and industry feedback on the Green Paper, the Government will be releasing the White Paper/draft legislation later this year which will invite further community input.  It is anticipated legislation will be introduced into Parliament in early 2013.

 

This report describes the basic framework for planning reform set out in the Green Paper and outlines key issues which have been identified for further consideration and discussion in Council’s submission on the Green Paper.

 

The review of the Green paper and the proposed reforms is an ongoing process. Council staff will continue to attend relevant forums and liaise with industry partners and representative groups such as WSROC and the LGSA to further inform Council’s submission. It is intended that Council officers will prepare a detailed submission on the Green Paper based on the issues identified, Councillors’ input and further detailed analysis over the coming weeks.

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of the key issues regarding the reforms and seek endorsement for the preparation of a submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on this basis.

Background

In July 2011 the NSW Government commissioned a full review of the NSW planning system, as part of a broader process of redrafting the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act). There are three stages to the Review:

 

·    The 'listening and scoping' phase which involves identifying the central principles for a new planning system through the consultation and submissions process;

 

·    Issuing a 'Green Paper' which outlines a preferred structure for a future planning system in NSW and sets the basis for a legislative scheme influenced by the 'listening and scoping' phase; and

 

·    Issuing a 'White Paper' that will lay out the NSW Government's new framework for the planning system and draft legislation later this year. In early 2013 it is the Government’s intention to present the new legislation to the NSW Parliament.

 

On 6 December 2011, the Issues Paper of the Planning System Review was released. This resulted in over 550 submissions being received. Based on this consultation, an Independent Panel headed by the Hon Tim Moore and the Hon Ron Dyer produced a two-volume report “The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW, Recommendations of the NSW Planning System Review, Volume 1 (Major Issues) and Volume 2 (Other Issues) comprising 374 recommendations”.

 

The Green Paper is the NSW Government's initial response to the Independent Panel's Report and is the next step toward a new planning system for NSW. The Green Paper was released on 14 July 2012 and includes changes to create a new planning system for NSW that is focused on upfront strategic land use planning and removing the red tape from development assessment.

 

Council was briefed regarding the Green Paper on the 6 August. Council made submissions to both the “Listening and Scoping” and “Issues Paper” stages of the review. Whilst some of the matters raised by Council have been incorporated in the Green Paper, our review to-date has identified a number of issues for consideration, which are outlined in this report.

 

The closing date for submissions on the Green Paper is Friday, 5 October 2012.

The Green Paper

The Green Paper proposes 23 areas for change to the NSW Planning System. These are grouped into five broad areas of reform which include Community Participation, Strategic Focus, Streamlined Approval, Provision of Infrastructure and Delivery Culture.

 

The way in which the Green Paper addresses issues raised in Council’s submission to the “Issues Paper” earlier this year, has been investigated and a comparison drawn between these, the recommendations of the Independent Review Panel and the direction being proposed by the reforms. A table showing this comparison in relation to these steps that led to the Green Paper has been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

This comparison has informed an identification of the areas of the reforms which it is considered should be supported, those which require further investigation, or which are matters of concern to be included in Council’s next submission. It is recommended that this analysis form the basis of Council’s submission and is included in Attachment No.1. 

 

The following general comments are offered in relation to the general content and direction of the reforms. The report then outlines the key modifications proposed by the Green Paper in each of the five broad areas and discusses the key issues on which Council can base its submission. The key issues that are discussed in this report are not a complete summary of all the issues that are discussed in the draft submission included in Attachment 1, but focus on the more critical areas for consideration.

 

General Comments

 

·    Moves to simplify the planning framework in NSW are welcome. In principle support is given to the Government’s attempt to simplify, what is widely regarded as an overly complicated planning system. In particular efforts to be more inclusive of the community in the plan making process are seen as a positive step which will bring about inclusion to the process. The Green Paper is a broad overview of the changes proposed and although there is support for much of the change, there are areas which need more attention and detail provided before a clear understanding can be made about their suitability. 

 

·    Any review of the planning system should look at all four of the basic planning principles underpinning sustainability these being economic, social, environmental and governance. Strategic planning cannot simply be geared to address immediate market demand.  Planning needs to be visionary and provide for long term connections and activity. Planning needs to balance the communities’ aspirations while acknowledging that the market will not always be ready to respond to the planned growth.

 

·    The Green Paper in its overview states: “The NSW Government is proposing transformative changes to planning system in NSW with a significant shift to a more strategic and streamlined system that facilities economic growth and upfront community participation.” 

 

The paper appears to assume that community participation is equivalent to addressing issues relating to social sustainability or community wellbeing.  There is no reference to improvement in social wellbeing or achieving positive social outcomes as one of the transformative aims of the proposed planning reform. Whilst the need to facilitate growth is recognised, economic driven reform must be balanced with the need to develop and deliver sustainable, vibrant, liveable communities.

 

·    The Green Paper and suggested objectives of a new planning system are focused on process and consideration of economic factors. There is little attention given to the delivery of quality development or outcomes.

 

·    The objectives for reform to make the planning system more simple, user friendly and better suited to the needs of the community may have gone too far. It would appear that some of the key findings of the Independent Review Panel have not been picked up by the Green Paper. The Independent Review Panel made a total of 374 recommendations. The Green Paper is silent about how in totality these recommendations have been incorporated into the new planning direction.

 

·    Council has previously advocated for a clearer hierarchy of planning documents that capture State and Regional strategic planning direction into Local Planning documents. The Green Paper however, outlines a proposed planning regime which shifts the focus away from planning at a local level to that of a system driven by State and Regional Planning.

 

·    It is acknowledged that the Green Paper sets the broad scope for change and that much of the detail will appear in the White Paper.  These details will determine how well the system will function.

 

·    What is missing from the Green Paper is ‘what’ the process aims to deliver.  It grapples with the ‘how’ - the process - but it needs a much stronger vision.

 

1.   Community Participation

 

a)   Proposed Reforms

 

The Green Paper recommends the adoption of a “public participation charter” for plan making and development assessment. This will set standards depending on the planning issue being considered. The Charter is aimed at encouraging information provision, engagement, participation and feedback prior to decision making.

 

Transparency in decision making is proposed through access to information, accountability for and tracking of decisions and use of independent panels. Electronic planning is a focus of the reforms, through a comprehensive e-planning network.  

 

The paper also suggests the Government will effectively engage communities early at the strategic planning stages in the setting of the overall planning for an area (e.g. Subregional Delivery Plan).

 

b)   Key Issues

 

·    This is a crucial element of plan making and implementation.  The endeavour to improve the nature of genuine involvement and public interaction in plan making is strongly supported. 

 

·    Genuine, appropriate and timely community public participation is critical to formulation of effective and efficient planning documents.

 

·    Our communities need to be properly engaged and consultation should be properly timed and resourced.  Genuine participation of engagement, collaboration and substantiation is required.

 

·    Community engagement will not necessarily look after public interest because many participants will represent their individual interests (e.g. developers, business) not necessarily the public interest or common good.   It is very likely that some sections of the community e.g. renters, low income households will be poorly represented.

 

·    Council already has an effective community engagement strategy.

 

·    Legislation cannot in itself motivate residents to participate in the strategic level of land use planning.

 

·    With a shift in focus to engaging community at the beginning of the plan making process rather than at DA stage, people will find it difficult to visualise what  can happen next door when they are looking at a ‘broad brush’ strategic plan at the local or regional level. Different and more innovative consultation processes will be needed.

 

2.   Strategic Focus

 

a)   Proposed Reforms

 

The Green Paper advocates a shift in focus of greater community engagement in the strategic elements of the plan making process while streamlining the development assessment processes.

 

It proposes a more succinct hierarchy of strategic plans, with NSW Planning Policies replacing the myriad of State Environmental Planning Policies and 117 Directions currently in place, modernising and simplifying the current system.

 

Regional Growth Plans will become integrated growth plans, linked with the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan and the State Infrastructure Strategy. Growth Plans for the regional areas of NSW will be strengthened and include provisions to facilitate growth.

 

Subregional Delivery Plans will be prepared in growth areas in partnership between State and local government together with stakeholders and the community. Once approved, the Subregional Delivery Plan may zone land.

 

Local Land Use Plans (LLUP) will be comprised of four parts – a strategic context, spatial land use zones, an infrastructure growth and service delivery component and development guidelines and standards. New zones to maximise flexibility, provide opportunities for investment, and protect suburban character in certain circumstances would include:

 

·           An Enterprise Zone

 

·           A Future Urban Release Area Zone

 

·         A Suburban Character Zone.

 

The Green Paper proposes the introduction of Strategic Compatibility Certificates which will enable a proponent to apply to the Director General for approval to undertake a development proposal which is consistent with State and Regional policy but not necessarily permissible by either Sub-Regional delivery plans or Local Land Use Plans.

 

Proponents for rezoning applications will be able to seek an independent review of a decision on whether a rezoning application should be approved. A review mechanism will also be put in place for DoPI decisions regarding the issue of Strategic or Site Compatibility Certificates. 


b)    Key Issues

·    The proposal for zoning of land through the Subregional Delivery Plans is not supported.  Enabling the zoning of land at both the subregional and local level reinforces the current confusing and dysfunctional practice of zoning occurring through various SEPPs and LEPs.  If the intention of the review of the planning system is, in part, to establish a more streamlined, less complex system, it is essential that land use zoning (and permissibility of land uses) is centralised in a single level of plan.  The proposed LLUP is the appropriate vehicle for this purpose. 

·    The ability to obtain a strategic compatibility certificate that enables a development application prior to finalisation of regional and subregional plans is of concern as the development may place unacceptable demands on, or diversion of, limited infrastructure funding. If granted these developments may compromise the delivery of soundly based and coordinated strategic regional outcomes.  Should the introduction of strategic compliance certificates proceed, it is recommended that “sunset clauses” and /or a review mechanism should be applied to ensure that subsequent development occurs in line with the adopted Regional Growth and Subregional Plans.

 

Additionally, it is likely that at this stage of the process there will be no specific controls to govern the outcomes of the proposed development. This is an area of the Green Paper where more detail is required to fully understand the implications.

 

·    A “right of review” on zoning decisions is not supported. The Local Environmental Plan is considered to be the principle strategic document that regulates and guides the growth of a LGA and incorporates the community’s expectations and vision. Because of this, it is not considered appropriate to enable ad-hoc reviews and challenges to this process, which could undermine and weaken local policy integrity. The consequence of the proposed amendments is that Council will be exposed to external decisions on rezoning applications which are not available under the current Act. Councils are best placed to determine relevant zones as they hold local knowledge and because the Council represents the interests of the wider community.

 

·    Support for the new format of LLUPs should be reliant on the inclusion of the current city-wide Standard Instrument LEPs in the first iteration of new plans.  Council’s previous investment of resources and community engagement undertakings should be recognised and carried over. Any requirement to duplicate this effort will undermine community confidence in the new planning system from the outset and will force Councils to again deflect resources from the more important delivery of the planning outcomes sought by Government for an extended period.

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Streamlined Approval

 

a)   Proposed Reforms

 

The Green Paper proposes a number of significant changes to the current approvals regime as follows:

 

i.   Decision Making – a proposal to increase the role of the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) , advocating greater use of Independent Panels (IHAPs), support for greater delegations to Council’s staff and changes to the review process

ii.  Compliance Certificates – The reforms propose to introduce Strategic Compatibility Certificates allowing a development that is consistent with a strategic plan prepared with community involvement to proceed in a streamlined way.

iii. Streamlining State Significant Development – proposes an increase in the threshold for State Significant Development, making Environmental Impact Statements evidence based with requirements that consultants for their preparation should be chosen from an accredited panel. 

iv. Increased Code Based assessment – providing greater opportunity for industrial, commercial, multi-residential and small lot development to be code based. Introduction for a proposal to be part code based and part merit assessed opening these development types up to the private sector.

v.  Smarter and more timely merit assessment –Development (excluding State Significant Development) will now be split into three categories, depending on the proposed level of compliance with a complying development code:

• Code-compliant development;

• Development which is partially code-compliant; and

• Development which is not code-compliant

 

The reforms also propose the introduction of a “deemed approval” process and taking an “amber light” approach to applications which would be refused unless amended, giving the proponent opportunity to modify an application to make it acceptable.

 

b)   Key Issues

 

·    The proposal to streamline State Significant assessment is supported subject to proposals truly being of State Significance, such as major infrastructure. This is the appropriate level and avenue for projects to be brought forward of the strategic planning process

 

·    The aim to achieve more timely merit assessment through a move toward, “deemed approvals” and adopting an “amber light” approach to applications likely to be refused are of concern and will detract from a Councils’ abilities to meet assessment deadlines and achieve quality outcomes.

 

·    The reforms do not provide any recognition of the role of the proponent to submit a suitable DA with appropriate and clear information

 

·    Part of the reforms includes the ability for a proposal to be assessed in two parts one being for that part of the development which is code compliant and the other part being a variation to the code requirements. The Green Paper advocates that the code compliant component can be undertaken by the private sector where as the non code compliant is the responsibility of Council.  This new reform gives rise to the potential for two assessment processes to occur in tandem for the one application which introduces complexity

 

·    The reforms advocate a greater involvement by the JRPP whereby they would be involved in pre-lodgement advice, briefings and the review process following decisions of Council. Experience to date would suggest that unless the JRPP is going to be significantly resourced to take on these additional tasks then no efficiencies will be gained to the development assessment process within Penrith.  The existing processes that this Council has in place in relation to pre-lodgement advice and the current track records with matters that have been reported to the JRPP would suggest that no change is warranted at Penrith. Consequently the proposal to expand the role of the JRPP into the assessment process is not supported as is does not recognise Councils that have robust processes in place.

 

·    The proposal to have standardised development consent conditions that are clear, reasonable, cost effective and proportionate in addressing the assessment issue across a region or the state is supported.

 

·    Code based criteria must still aim to deliver high quality outcomes.

 

·    It is questioned as to whether the process of having a simple code based proposal assessed by both a certifier and then the council is actually simplifying the process. It is recommended that all applications with any variations to the envelope or the code which require merit assessment be assessed only by the council

 

·    If the role of private certifiers is to be expanded and the range of complying development broaden then the Builders Professional Board will need to introduce a more robust governance system to monitor the performance of the private sector.

 

 

4.   Provision of Infrastructure

 

a)   Proposed Reforms

 

A key element of the new planning system outlined in the Green Paper is the integration of the provision of infrastructure and strategic planning. A key objective is to enable greater private sector participation in infrastructure project delivery.

 

The Green Paper proposes three new types of contribution levies:

·       Local infrastructure contributions which are identified in Council’s local infrastructure plan. The contributions will be limited to provision of funding for councils for local roads, local drainage works and land for community facilities. 

 

·       Regional Open Space Levy which will be collected per residential development for local and regional open space land, local and regional drainage land and biodiversity conservation off-sets. Acquisitions under this levy could be undertaken by State Government or Councils.

 

·       The Green Paper does not advocate the ability to levy contributions for open space/recreation or community facilities.

 

·       Regional Infrastructure Contributions, which will be identified in Growth Infrastructure Plans, will provide funding for the upgrading of roads, the provision of health and education facilities and land for emergency service facilities.

 

The Green Paper recommends that ‘planning agreements need to be phased out or significantly modified and simplified’. It proposes that planning agreements in the new planning system will be based on performance outcomes which would optimise private sector innovation by relying more heavily on developer in-kind contributions and there would be defined time frames for negotiation of the agreements.

 

b)   Key Issues

 

Significant adverse physical, social and economic consequences would occur under the Green Paper’s proposed approach to development contributions. Under the current $30,000per lot/dwelling and $20,000 per lot/dwelling cap arrangements for “greenfield” and “brownfield” development respectively, Penrith City Council is faced with a funding gap of some $54million, predominantly related to infrastructure delivery in the WELL Precinct. 

 

Under the Green Paper proposals, the gap between the cost of delivery of local facilities to support new growth significantly increases to between $90million and $147million depending on the extent of the levy for local and regional open space and drainage land that can be captured or recouped by this Council.  This increased gap excludes all works currently provided under s94 plans and any s94 works already covered by existing or draft planning agreements with proponents.  It should be noted that, in many cases, this gap relates to forward funded projects where Council has borrowed against future revenue streams to accelerate the provision of facilities to support development in new release areas.

 

In addition to these impacts other consequences would arise as a result of Green Paper initiatives, including:

 

·        Industry uncertainty regarding the cost, scope and coordination of new infrastructure

 

·        Reduced Council control over the location, delivery timeframe and scale of    infrastructure delivery,

 

·        Council will lose access to Voluntary Planning Agreements as a means of funding infrastructure and circumventing contributions planning limitations.

 

In light of these impacts, it is recommended that Council strongly oppose these aspects of the Green Paper and seek an alternative process which does not impose infrastructure funding gaps on local communities and provides for the timely, coordinated delivery of essential new facilities for the creation of jobs and housing in our new communities.

 

 

 

 

5.   Delivery Culture

 

a)   Proposed Reforms

 

The Green Paper proposes the delivery of approved strategic plans and infrastructure coordination by a CEO’s group and Regional Planning Boards with governance and functions legislated. The Regional Planning Boards are intended to have local Council representation.

 

The CEO Group is to have clear accountability for the delivery of approved strategic plans, including infrastructure coordination and provision across the State.

 

Performance monitoring of strategic plans will be introduced which includes KPIs and quarterly reporting. The Government proposes to work with the Planning Institute of Australia to focus on professional development in strategic planning.

 

b)   Key Issues

 

·        If mandatory performance monitoring is to be expanded into strategic delivery and other areas indicators must be based on easily accessible data that can be regularly and consistently gathered. Multiple reports to different areas of the DoPI involve duplication and impact significantly on resourcing.

 

·        Local Government cannot be accountable for market delivery of jobs and housing (driven by market)

 

·        Local Government accountability for delivery of local infrastructure must be qualified alongside removal of s94 revenue streams and rate pegging

 

·        The proposed reforms will require a shift  in resourcing in Councils to strategic planning

 

·        Complex legislative requirements, confused and conflicting agency requirements and a lack of infrastructure delivery to support growth are issues which are required to be addressed to overcome the shortcomings in the existing and proposed planning systems.

 

·        A key oversight within the Green Paper is that it fails to recognise well performing Councils – the new rules are geared to the lowest common denominator

 

·        The planning system must ensure balance between rolling out development and creation of supported, sustainable communities is achieved

 

·        Local Government should have representation at the CEO Board level

 

·        The DoPI must improve its relationship with Local Government and its overall performance

Next Steps

It is intended that over the next few weeks Council officers will undertake further analysis and prepare a final detailed submission on the Green Paper.

 

 Council staff will also continue to attend relevant forums and liaise with industry partners and representative groups to further inform Council’s submission. They will also be in contact with the DoPI seeking clarification and further information of some issues.

 

The anticipated release of a 'White Paper' later this year will provide Council a further opportunity for input to the process.

 

Conclusion

 

The action by the State Government to reform the NSW Planning System is welcomed as there can be no argument that the current system needs fixing. There are many positive elements to the reforms proposed in the Green Paper, however, as would be expected, there is little detail about many of the reforms except for the rationale behind them. There are some areas of change which are of concern or interest to Council and their potential impacts warrant further investigation and inclusion in a submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. These are highlighted in the attachment to the report which is recommended to form the basis of Council’s submission to Government.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on A New Planning System for NSW - Green Paper be received.

2.     Council endorse the matters outlined in the Attachment as a basis for its submission to the DoPI on the Green Paper phase of the reform of the NSW Planning System.

3.     Council officers finalise the submission and forward a copy to Councillors for information when complete.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Penrith City Council’s Submission to the Green Paper

32 Pages

Attachment

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

6

Outcome of Public Exhibition of Proposed Adjustment of Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer  

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

Glenmore Park Stage 2 is the planned southern residential expansion of the Glenmore Park estate and was zoned for urban purposes in 2009.  The planned intention of the Stage 2 expansion, which straddles the current suburb boundary between Glenmore Park and Mulgoa, was that it would become an integrated part of the Glenmore Park estate.

 

Given the housing development is now advancing on the Stage 2 estate, it is timely to commence the process of amending the suburb boundaries at the southern end of Glenmore Park and the Northern end of Mulgoa, on the western side of The Northern Road.  This will give clarity to the new suburb boundary as well as maintaining the distinction between our urban and rural areas, as well as giving certainty to the new incoming residents.  It is also recommended that the Mulgoa Nature Reserve, which currently straddles the suburb boundary between Glenmore Park and Mulgoa, and the proposed extension, be located wholly within Mulgoa. 

 

This report advises of the outcome of the Public Exhibition and recommends that Council submit a proposal to the Geographical Names Board (GNB) for their consideration to amend the Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2.

Background

The Glenmore Park estate was officially opened in 1990 as a part of the South Penrith residential development and over the last 20 years has been one of the fastest growing urban areas in the Local Government Area; on the other hand Mulgoa has largely retained its rural character.  The Stage 2 southern expansion of Glenmore Park was zoned for urban purposes in 2009 and housing development is now advancing.

 

To maintain the urban/rural distinction it is important that the suburb boundary between Glenmore Park and Mulgoa is amended to encompass the Stage 2 estate and reinforce the new urban edge of the City.

 

Currently there are a number of properties that are contained within Glenmore Park Stage 2, which actually fall within the boundary of Mulgoa; furthermore there are some lots and streets which are dissected by the current boundary.

 

Current Situation

 

Council staff have identified the need for amending the suburb boundary between Glenmore Park and Mulgoa.  Representations have also been received requesting clarity about the location of the new boundary.  The area in question relates to the Glenmore Park Stage 2 development located at the Southern edge of Glenmore Park Stage 1 and the Northern Edge of Mulgoa adjoining the Northern Road. The area known as Glenmore Park Stage 2 is technically within the suburb name of Mulgoa. A site plan demonstrating Glenmore Park Stage 1 and 2 is appended to this report at Appendix 1.  The appended map indicates the existing boundary between Glenmore Park Stage 1 and Mulgoa (in pink) and also shows the proposed boundary taking into account Stage 2 of the development (in black).  The new boundary reflects the new zoned urban area for Glenmore Park. The new boundary will also rectify the situation where a number of properties and streets are dissected by the current boundary.

In line with the GNB guidelines an advertisement was placed in the Western Weekender and the Glenmore Park Gazette advising of the proposal, in addition to being on display in the Council Civic Centre. A notice was also placed on the Council’s website and letters were sent to Australia Post, the Mulgoa Progress Association and the Glenmore Park Action Group. The period for submissions to be received was one month with the exhibition period concluding on 10 August 2012.

 

During this period Council received one submission from the Mulgoa Progress Association, which reiterated their earlier support for the proposal, on the basis that the urban characteristics of Glenmore Park Stage 2 development are not synonymous with the rural lands, conservation areas and historic sites of Mulgoa.

 

Next Steps

 

Under the provisions of the Geographical Names Act 1996, the GNB has the power and the function to approve suburb and locality names and boundaries.  The boundaries of suburbs within the City of Penrith were approved by the GNB and notified in the NSW Government Gazette on 10 October 1997.  Anyone can submit a proposal to amend an address locality however the GNB requires that the local Council must concur with the proposal put forward.

 

The GNB has a set of guidelines and processes which must be adhered to when seeking to amend suburb boundaries.  The essence of these guidelines is that Council must demonstrate wide community consultation and support attached to a proposal and map identifying the area. 

 

Given the public exhibition process has now concluded and no submissions against the proposal have been received, it is proposed that Council endorse a submission to the GNB outlining the proposal and the result of the public consultation which was undertaken.

 

If Council endorses the proposal, this information will be provided to the GNB which will then consider the proposal and if approved it will be advertised in the NSW Government Gazette and local newspapers.  The GNB also provides maps for public consultation to be placed in the Council chambers and other public areas.  A copy of the guidelines and process conducted by the GNB is appended to this report at Appendix 2.

 

Councillors will be notified of the GNB decision when the outcome is known.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2.     Council submit a proposal to the GNB to amend the Glenmore Park Suburb Boundary to include Glenmore Park Stage 2.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Proposed Suburb Boundary Amendment

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Geographical Names Board Guidelines

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 1 - Proposed Suburb Boundary Amendment

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 2 - Geographical Names Board Guidelines

 

temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

7

Attendance by Councillors at Meetings during the current term of Council   

 

Compiled by:               Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer

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

Requested By:             Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies

 

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

A Report has been requested detailing the attendance of Councillors at Ordinary Council Meetings and Policy Review Meetings during the current term of the Council. The table in this report is for 2011-2012. Appended to the report are extracts from the Annual Report detailing the previous 3 financial years of the Council’s term.

 

The report recommends that the information contained within the Report be received.

Background

Section 365 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that the Council is to meet at least 10 times each year, each time in a different month. Section 234 (1) (d) of the Act states that a vacancy occurs in civic office if the holder is absent from 3 consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council (unless the holder is absent because he or she has been suspended from Office under section 482 or 482 A) without prior leave of the Council, or leave granted by the Council at any of the meetings concerned.

 

Additionally, Clause 268 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 provides that a member (other than the Mayor) ceases to be a member of a Committee if the member has been absent from 3 consecutive meetings of the Committee without having given reasons acceptable to the Committee for the member’s absence. It should be noted that this provision does not apply in respect of a Committee that consists of all of the members of the Council (this would apply to Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting).

 

During the term of the Council no Councillor has breached these legislative provisions.

 

Current Position

 

Council’s staff have undertaken a review of the Minutes of both the Ordinary and Policy Review Council Meetings from September 2008 to June 2012 to ascertain the attendance of Councillors at these meetings. It should be noted though that the minutes do not always reflect whether a Councillor’s absence (either apology / leave of absence) at a Meeting is related to a private nature or a business nature. On occasions an absence from a Meeting can be linked to a Council Report recommending a Councillor’s attendance at a Conference etc, but this is not always the case.

 

Below is a table which details the attendances by Councillors at Ordinary and Policy Review Meetings for 2011-12. The meetings which have been held so far in the 2012-13 financial year have not been included.

 

COUNCILLORS

ORDINARY MEETINGS

POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS

NUMBER

ATTENDED

NUMBER

ATTENDED

Cr Jim Aitken OAM

16

12ww■■

11

6ww■■■

Cr Kaylene Allison

16

15

11

8ww

Cr Robert Ardill

16

12ww■■

11

7ww■■

Cr Kevin Crameri OAM

16

12w●●●

11

9w

Cr Greg Davies

16

16

11

11

Cr Mark Davies

16

12ww■■

11

10

Cr Tanya Davies

16

13www

11

1wwwwwwwwww

Cr Ross Fowler OAM

16

16

11

10

Cr Ben Goldfinch

16

14w

11

9ww

Cr Jackie Greenow

16

14■■

11

10

Cr Prue Guillaume/Car

16

15w

11

10

Cr Marko Malkoc

16

15w

11

11

Cr Karen McKeown

16

15

11

11

Cr Kath Presdee

16

15

11

11

Cr John Thain

16

16

11

11

 

w Apology

● Leave of Absence granted for Council related matters

■ Leave of Absence granted for other reasons

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Attendance by Councillors at Meetings during the current term of Council be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

2008/2009 Councillor Attendance

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

2009/2010 Councillor Attendance

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

2010/2011 Councillor Attendance

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 1 - 2008/2009 Councillor Attendance

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 2 - 2009/2010 Councillor Attendance

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 3 - 2010/2011 Councillor Attendance

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

8

Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 July to 31 July 2012   

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of investments for the period 1 July 2012 to 31 July 2012 and a reconciliation of invested funds at 31 July 2012.  The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Background

CERTIFICATE OF RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I hereby certify the following:

 

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

2.   Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 31 July 2012.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

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

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

temp


temp


temp


temp

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

9        Dance Oolites Inc - Dance Group for People with Disability  

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A City of Opportunities

 

 

9

Dance Oolites Inc - Dance Group for People with Disability    

 

Compiled by:               Joe Ibbitson, Community Programs Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Tanya Davies

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report concerns a request by the Dance Oolites, a dance group for people with disability for a financial contribution to the cost of hire of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre in September. The cost of $2,800 includes a rehearsal and the final performance on 8 September 2012. This cost is based on the fees and charges applied by the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre for not-for–profit community groups.

 

There is no budget to meet this request for funds.

 

The report recommends the information be received.

Background

The Dance Oolites group was formed in February 2009 by Penrith resident Melanie Coid, the Producer and Artistic Director of the group. The group is a registered charity. Currently, the dance group includes twenty two (22) dancers and dance volunteers. Approximately half of the dance group reside in Penrith City and some dancers in the past have travelled from Windsor and Mt Druitt. There is always a waiting list to join the dance group and the newest dancers will begin classes in October following the major performance in September. Dance Oolites sometimes takes dancers as young as five years old to provide a form of early intervention and community participation.

 

Dance classes are held weekly in Glenbrook at the Public School where free access to the hall is provided by the school. The group has received funding of $600 from Penrith City Council under the Community Assistance Program in 2010. Further donations and funds have been provided by the Lions Club and more recently the St George Foundation as well as the regular donations from parents and caregivers.

Current Situation

The group is performing a concert at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre on Saturday 8 September 2012 in an event ‘Dance and All That Jazz’ with George Washingmachine, Kristina Frazer and Arthur Washington. The group has previously performed concerts for family and friends as well as at the Official Opening of the Nepean Disability Expo at Panthers in 2010.

The dance group is seeking financial assistance as a contribution to the cost of hiring the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre for a rehearsal and the final performance. The total cost of the hire of the Centre for a rehearsal and final performance is $2,800. This cost is based on the fees and charges applied by the JSPAC for not–for–profit community groups.

 

There is no budget available for this purpose.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Dance Oolites Inc - Dance Group for People with Disability be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

10      Penrith Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Project

 

11      Update on proposed transport of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA, Kemps Creek

 

12      Information on the Bulk Purchase of Electricity for the City and Use of Micro Hydro Generation

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Green City

 

 

10

Penrith Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Project   

 

Compiled by:               Tim Gowing, Senior Water Management Officer

Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

Authorised by:            Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager   

 

Objective

Our natural habitats are healthy

Community Outcome

A City with healthy waterways and protected natural areas (11)

Strategic Response

Work with others to protect and conserve the River, waterways and catchments, and natural environments (11.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides an update on the proposed Managed Aquifer Recharge project. The project is extremely innovative and at the forefront of water management technology in NSW.  It was initiated to provide an opportunity for Council to demonstrate its leadership in sustainable water management and reuse. The project also had the potential to afford Council an opportunity to establish an alternative water supply which will provide long term security to Council’s green assets, and reduce reliance on river water extraction.   

 

The project was always intended to be developed in two stages, with the first stage involving determining project viability, identify the risks and costing and the second stage involving the construction of the project and commissioning. Council’s acceptance of the remaining funds to enable construction of the project would be subject to a favourable confirmation of costs and a satisfactory risk assessment. The concept design stage of the project is complete and a decision to proceed to the detailed design stage is now required.

 

It is expected that the Managed Aquifer Recharge project could be constructed on or close to the available budget and funding. However, the concept design stage of the project has determined that the demand for recycled water is not as high as indicated in earlier feasibility studies. It has also been determined that the ongoing operational costs ($410,000) will be substantially higher than originally anticipated and these will be largely borne by Council, due to the fact that customers are yet to commit to the project.  These factors substantially challenge the economic viability of the scheme.

 

The report recommends that Council not proceed with the project at this time.   

 

Background

In September 2010 Senator, The Hon Penny Wong, the then Minister for Climate Change and Water, advised Penrith City Council of the Australian Government’s commitment to provide funding of $1,981,000 through the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for the Penrith Managed Aquifer Recharge Project.

 

Council was also successful in securing a further $2.2 million in funding through the NSW Department of Finance and Services (formally NSW Office of Water). Council has also committed a total of $781,000 to the project. Therefore, a total project budget of $4,962,000 is available for the proposed Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme.

 

The preliminary feasibility of the MAR scheme was initially developed with funding through the National Water Commission and the funding was sought in partnership with Blacktown City Council. The project was intended as a pilot scheme to provide a sustainable recycled water supply using Managed Aquifer Recharge. It was proposed that the scheme would capture, treat and deliver up to 200 ML / annum of stormwater from the Lapstone Creek Catchment in Emu Plains. The water is suitable for the irrigation of sporting ovals and some industrial uses (e.g. Dukes and Darcy Smith Ovals, Leonay Golf Course and Rocla).

 

In December 2010, the application for additional funding for the Penrith Stormwater Harvesting and Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme was submitted to the NSW Office Water. The application consisted of two funding applications. The first application seeks to secure funding in addition to the funding offer from DSEWPC for the project on the Emu Plains side of the Nepean River. The second application sought to secure funding to extend the MAR network across the Nepean to Penrith to support the Penrith Recycled Water Scheme.  The extension of the project reticulation network aimed to expand the customer base which may have increased the viability of the scheme. Customers considered included the Landcom North Penrith development.

 

At its Ordinary meeting of 15 August 2011, Council resolved to engage Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd to;

 

·     Undertake the test drilling, pumping tests for aquifer, hydrological modelling, functional design and reporting for the amount of $367,897 and variation price for provisional items ($277, 754) are accepted if required.

 

·     Undertake the engineering survey, concept design, cost estimating, risk assessment and review of environmental factors of the project for the amount of $173,978. and

 

·     Subject to the acceptance of the risk assessment report Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) Pty Ltd be engaged provided that Australian Groundwater Technologies (AGT) be in partnership throughout the project to undertake the detailed design, cost estimating, and tender documentation for the amount of $127,192.

 

The concept design report, review of environmental factors and preliminary risk assessment are now complete. It is anticipated the scheme consist of a capture basin and holding storage, a series of 3 wetlands to provide water quality improvement and a transfer pump and pipe network as well as 2 aquifer injection and extraction bores (subject to detailed design). The Third Milestone Report has been submitted to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and approval is needed from Council and the Department to proceed to the detailed design stage of the project.

 


Current Status of Project

The investigations to date indicate the construction costs are expected to be $4,362,800 (Table 1). This estimate includes a contingency of 20% or $671,200 as well as project supervision costs of 10% or $335,600. Although, this estimate represents a difference in the order of $187,000 to funds allocated for construction, it is felt that the project could be delivered on budget. The estimated operational costs are noticeably higher than expected in the earlier studies and Business Case and are currently estimated at $409,650 / annum.

 

In terms of the potential demand for the scheme, it is likely that Council and Rocla would be the sole users which results in a demand of 46.6 ML / annum. Based on this scenario, the estimated cost of water per kilolitre would be $8.79 which is considerably higher than the cost of potable water. However, Emu Plains Sports Club in Leonay expressed an interest in the scheme and if they participated, the demand would increase to 150.8 ML / annum which would substantially reduce the cost of water to $2.72 / kilolitre. Although, at this stage Emu Plains Sports Club is unwilling to commit to the scheme and their involvement cannot be guaranteed. It should also be noted that the club is in negotiations with the NSW Office of Water regarding the possibility of increasing the river licence extraction to meet their needs.

 

Table 1 – Costs of the MAR Project

 

Project

Construction Costs

Funds Available

Difference

Annual Operation Costs

Water

Cost / kl

 

Penrith MAR Project

S4,362,800

$4,175,478

$187,322

$409,650

$8.79. for 46.6 ML

 

$2.72 for 150.8 ML

 

$2.05 for 200 ML

 

 

The funding agreement with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community requires that a detailed design to be prepared prior to entering the construction stage of the project. Council’s previous resolution for this project was that a report would be provided to Council on completion of the detailed design stage of the project seeking endorsement to proceed to the construction stage. However, due to the unexpectedly high cost estimates and the difficulty in securing customer commitments, this report has been prepared for Council’s consideration at the conclusion of the Concept Design phase. 

 

Key Issues for Consideration for the Managed Aquifer Recharge Project 

 

·    The initial test bore did not provide the expected yield or pump test results requiring an additional bore for both injection and extraction at additional cost.

 

·    Concept design indicates

o Indicative construction costs of the project are estimated to be around $187,000 over the available budget

o The annual operating costs are expected to be $409,650

 

·    The current demand for MAR recycled water for irrigation of Council sporting fields is 46.6 ML / and would cost Council and Rocla at approximately $8.79 / kilolitre. The current cost for potable water is $2.10 per kilolitre. If Emu Plains Sports Club (Leonay Golf Course) participated, the cost is estimated at $2.72 / kilolitre.  If all 200 ML / annum is used the cost could be $2.05 / kilolitre, this would make the cost comparable to the cost of potable water.

 

·    Leonay Golf Course currently irrigates through extraction from the Nepean River and is pursuing an increase on their licence entitlement with the NSW Office of Water.  The pricing of river water is significantly cheaper (approximately 1%) than current pricing of potable water and also significantly cheaper than any recycled water scheme could deliver.

 

·    The MAR recycled scheme competes for a customer base against river and groundwater extraction.  Water from these sources is significantly cheaper that the cost of potable water.

 

·    There is no evidence that the price of river extraction will increase to be similar to potable water costs in the near future.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

The funding agreements with the State and Federal Governments for this project were negotiated to enable Stage 1 of the project, a detailed feasibility, design, cost and risk analysis, to be completed prior to committing to the construction of the project.  At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 15 August 2011 Council resolved to engage Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR) to complete these steps.  As detailed in this report this work and the analysis and reports provided by KGR have been reviewed by Council Officers.  This has revealed that at this time viability for the project cannot be established due to the high operational and asset renewal costs, limited capacity of the system and absence of a sufficient customer base. The recent development of the 2012-13 Operational Plan and review of Council’s Long Term Financial Plan has not identified any capacity to accommodate the unfunded operational costs of this project.  It is concluded that the continuation of the project to Stage 2 is not recommended at this time and that following the finalisation of the detailed design, included in stage 1, that any unspent funds are returned and that the funding authorities are advised of Council’s decision to withdraw from the project.

Conclusion

The MAR project is extremely innovative and at the forefront of water management technology in NSW. The MAR project was initiated to provide an opportunity for Council to demonstrate its leadership in sustainable water management and reuse. The project also had the potential to afford Council an opportunity to establish an alternative sustainable water supply and provide long term security to Council’s green assets. It is apparent, the project is ahead of its time given government’s water pricing policy for ground water and river water extraction.  

 

Significant efforts have been made by the staff project team to get the project to a workable and deliverable stage. Unfortunately, the investigation stage of the project has determined that the commercial demand for recycled water is not as high as indicated in earlier feasibility studies, as a result, commitments from potential customers to use the scheme have not been able to be secured. This has challenged the viability of the project.

 

It is evident that there are major challenges to the economic viability of the project. The two key reasons relate to a lack of demand for the water and the relatively high operational costs to deliver the water. Based on the estimated operational costs provided in the Concept Design report, the prospects of securing customers would appear challenging due to the cost of water which far exceeds the current cost of potable water.

 

Further to the challenges presented here, there is little evidence to suggest that the pricing of river and ground water will be changed sufficiently to make the project economically viable in the foreseeable future.

 

For reasons outlined in the report, regrettably it is concluded that Council should not proceed with the project at this time.

 

Given the potential significance of the project to demonstrating innovative, sustainable water management practices, it is intended the newly elected Council be informed of the details of the MAR project and the Council’s decision.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Project be received.

2.     Council not proceed with the Managed Aquifer Recharge project at this time.

3.     This government funding authorities be thanked for their interest in the project and any unspent funds be returned to them.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Green City

 

 

11

Update on proposed transport of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA, Kemps Creek   

 

Compiled by:               Anthony Price,  Environmental Health Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager  

Requested By:             Councillor Prue Car

 

Objective

Our natural habitats are healthy

Community Outcome

A City with healthy waterways and protected natural areas (11)

Strategic Response

Work with others to protect and conserve the River, waterways and catchments, and natural environments (11.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting on 7 November 2011 Council considered a report regarding the NSW State Government’s proposal to remediate land at 7- 9 and 11 Nelson Road, Hunters Hill and to transport restricted solid waste from that site to the SITA landfill facility in Kemps Creek.  On 21 November 2011 Council considered a further urgent report providing an interpretation of the responses from SITA and the State Property Authority (SPA).

 

This report has been prepared in response to Councillor Prue Car’s request for details on the Government’s timeline for the assessment of the Hunters Hill remediation proposal and for the disposal of any restricted solid waste at the SITA facility in Kemps Creek.

 

The report recommends that the information be received.

 

Background

The property at 7-9 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill was the site of a commercial processing plant owned by the Radium Hill Company and used to extract radium from uranium ore between 1911 and 1916, when the company went bankrupt and vacated the site.  The NSW Government acquired 9 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill in 1978 and 7 Nelson Parade in 1983 in the interests of public health following the discovery of radioactive contamination. The State Property Authority (SPA) is proposing to remediate the site and transport contaminated waste from Hunters Hill to the SITA landfill facility in Kemps Creek.  The SITA site is the only site in NSW licensed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to accept the waste that has been classified as “Restricted Solid Waste.”

 

Council resolved at its Ordinary meeting on the 7 November:

 

“That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Transportation of restricted solid   waste to SITA landfill facility be received.

2.      Council oppose the transportation of any waste from the site at Hunters Hill to the SITA landfill facility at Kemps Creek.

3.      A further urgent report be presented to Council detailing Council’s interpretation on the new information received from the NSW State Property Authority and SITA detailing answers to questions raised by Council’s officers regarding the transportation of restricted solid waste to the SITA landfill facility at Kemps Creek.

4.      An urgent meeting be arranged with the Minister for Financial Services and NSW State Property to discuss Council’s concerns with the proposed transportation of restricted solid waste to the SITA landfill facility.”

 

Following Council’s Ordinary meeting on 7 November 2011, a letter informing of Council’s opposition to the transport of any hazardous or radioactive contaminated waste to Kemps Creek was sent to the Premier, Barry O’Farrell MP. Letters seeking support for Council’s position were also sent to local members including Tanya Davies MP, Stuart Ayres MP, Bart Bassett MP and Andrew Rohan MP. A further letter was sent to the Hon Greg Pearce MP - Minister for Finance and Services requesting an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss Council’s concerns.

 

The report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 21 November 2011 provided an interpretation of the responses from SITA and the SPA.  However, it was concluded in the report that there are a number of key matters that need to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the remediation. These include health and environmental risks associated with the transportation, handling, landfill and ongoing security of the contaminated material after disposal.

 

Government responses to Council’s letters state that the SITA site at Kemps Creek is licensed to accept restricted solid waste and that radioactive waste would not be transported to the SITA facility at Kemps Creek.  Unfortunately, there has been no response to the request for the urgent meeting with the Hon Greg Pearce MP.

 

Current Position.

 

Status of the Hunters Hill Remediation Proposal

 

Council recently wrote to SPA seeking further information on the status of the Environmental Assessment, the Remediation Action Plan, anticipated timeframes for the approval process and advice as to the current position.

 

The SPA has responded in writing and advised that it intends to lodge a planning submission to NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) in August or September this year. The Environmental Assessment and Remedial Action Plan for the proposal are in the final stages of drafting. The SPA intends to circulate the draft Environmental Assessment to regulatory agencies before it is finalised.  It is anticipated this will also occur in late 2012.

 

The timeframe for assessment will be governed by the DP&I, although the SPA hopes to receive a decision before the end of the year. If the SPA receives approval, they plan to start remediation work in April 2013 and complete works by the end of 2013. The proposed transport of any restricted solid waste to the SITA facility at Kemps Creek would likely occur within this timeframe.

 

SITA

 

Following discussions with SITA representatives on Monday 20 August 2012, Council has received written confirmation that there is no contract in place between SITA and the SPA for the receipt of restricted solid waste from the Hunters Hill site.  SITA has also advised that they plan to thoroughly review the documents provided by the SPA through the public exhibition process in order to determine the proposed methodology for separation of materials on site prior to disposal to landfill. 

 

Comments by the Hon Greg Pearce, MP in NSW Parliament 16 August 2012

 

In response to a question without notice from Hon. Cate Faehrmann requesting an update on the decontamination of the Hunters Hill site, the Hon Greg Pearce, MP - Minister for Finance and Services, included the following information to the NSW Parliament:

 

·    All of the soil removed from these residential properties in Nelson Parade is expected to comply with the Restricted Solid Waste classification.

·    The waste can then be transported to a landfill approved for such material.

·    It is not anticipated that any of the material from these residential lots would be hazardous and therefore require long-term storage at Lidcombe.

 

Conclusion

Council has written to the Government stating its strong opposition to the transport of any hazardous or radioactive contaminated waste to the SITA facility at Kemps Creek and seeking support from local parliamentary members regarding this position.  Council has also requested an urgent meeting with the Hon Greg Pearce MP - Minister for Finance and Services but unfortunately Council has not been provided with this opportunity to date.  

 

The Government has responded to Council’s letters stating that the SITA site at Kemps Creek is licensed to accept restricted solid waste and that radioactive waste would not be transported to the SITA facility at Kemps Creek.

 

The State Property Authority intends to lodge a planning submission in August or September this year.  It is understood the proposal will be subject to public exhibition and comment.

 

The timeframe for assessment of the Hunters Hill remediation proposal will be governed by the DP&I. If the SPA receives approval they intend to start remediation work in April 2013 and complete works by the end of 2013. The proposed transport of any restricted solid waste to the SITA facility at Kemps Creek would likely occur within this timeframe.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Update on proposed transport of Restricted Solid Waste to SITA, Kemps Creek be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Green City

 

 

12

Information on the Bulk Purchase of Electricity for the City and Use of Micro Hydro Generation   

 

Compiled by:               Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

Bernadette Riad, Sustainability Coordinator 

Authorised by:            Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership   

 

Objective

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

Community Outcome

A Council with a smaller ecological footprint (13)

Strategic Response

Work to reduce the organisation's ecological footprint (13.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report responds to a request by Councillor John Thain at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 21 May 2012 for a report detailing the feasibility of water turbines at Penrith Whitewater Stadium, Penrith Weir and Ripples, and of Council facilitating a City wide bulk purchase of electricity. While assessments of some of these options are still continuing, this report provides details of the investigations undertaken to date, and the resulting advice.

Status of Investigations into Micro-Hydro Water Turbines

Penrith Whitewater Stadium

Management at Penrith Whitewater Stadium has invested considerable efforts over recent years to reduce energy use and associated costs, and is currently working with engineers to examine opportunities to further reduce the Stadium’s energy costs.

 

When asked to advise on the potential viability of water turbines at the Stadium, Heeley’s Consulting has indicated that this would not be a viable option due to the layout of the course and the impact of the obstacles contained within the course on the flow of water.

 

“Regarding the potential to recover energy from the water flowing through the channel: This is an appealing concept but unfortunately would rely on the presence of ‘surplus’ energy and a means to extract it from the water. Conventional hydroelectric turbine/generators are the means normally used to extract surplus energy from a water supply system. The key requirement to be able to extract surplus energy is a river and a dam to provide a large volume of water and a source of ‘hydraulic head’ to supply a suitable turbine/generator.

The concept of putting turbines in the channel is also problematic because there is little or no surplus energy in the water in the channel. Because the channel contains obstacles to create eddies … all of the energy available to the water in the top pond has been used up by the time the water reaches the bottom pond.”

 


Penrith Weir

As part of initial investigations into the viability of water turbines at Penrith Weir, Council officers made contact with the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) to seek advice regarding the inputs required to conduct a feasibility assessment for a project of this nature and recommendations for suitably experienced consultancies.

 

Based on its experience in assessing similar projects, the SCA has indicated that while potentially technically feasible, the lack of an existing on-site user for the energy produced would require Council to negotiate arrangements to supply the energy back into the grid.  This would impact the financial viability of the project.

 

This site is also likely to have other issues relating to:

-       The relatively small hydraulic head from the top to the bottom of the weir

-       The inconsistency of flow across the weir, particularly during periods of low rainfall

-       The range of legal permits and approvals that would be required to undertake works within the Nepean River, and

-       The listing of the weir as a heritage item in the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation), so any works would need to incorporate an assessment of heritage impact.

A full feasibility assessment for this site cannot be provided without the input of specialist technical consultants, and based on the advice of the SCA will likely require a series of studies into flow regimes, technologies, and supply arrangements. Give the potential already identified at a number of other sites within the LGA resourcing this project cannot be progressed at this stage.

 

Ripples

Council has recently engaged specialist energy consultants Total Energy Solutions Pty Ltd (TES) to assess the various energy options applicable for Ripples Leisure Centre. This project involves a comprehensive feasibility assessment in the context of the constraints and requirements specific to Ripples, and will make recommendations for the most appropriate technology, including sizing and system specifications.

 

It is anticipated that the outcomes will provide Council and Ripples with an adequate information base to pursue the preferred technology, including sourcing additional funding from grants and other sources. The outcomes of this project will be reported to Council when the final report is received from TES.

Status of Investigations into Bulk Energy Purchasing

The New South Wales electricity market is a competitive market with a large number of suppliers offering contracts and deals on electricity and gas. These arrangements vary, based on factors including location, usage rate and the credit history of the consumer. Consumers are able to have their energy supplied through either a standard supply contract, or a negotiated contract as outlined below.

 

 

1.    A standard supply contract – offered by one of the three standard retailers. Under a standard contract the terms and conditions are regulated by the government and the prices are regulated by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

2.    A negotiated contract – all licensed energy retailers can offer a negotiated contract. These contracts generally provide an agreed special rate or deal. In agreeing to accept the offer, the consumer enters into a contract with the company whether the special rate is marketed as a ‘discount’ or ‘saving’.

 

At Councillor Thain’s request Council has researched the viability of Council facilitating a bulk electricity purchase scheme, on behalf of local residents. A bulk electricity purchasing scheme has clear benefits in terms of providing a price competitive energy deal for the participants, driven by the number of participants involved and the competition that is available in the marketplace.

 

In recent years, there have been a number of new businesses entering the market that provide consumers with an opportunity to take part in bulk purchasing schemes. These companies seek registrations from interested individuals and then use their bulk power to negotiate a discounted deal on behalf of those registered.  These discounts are only available for a fixed term period, with schemes varying in their fixed term period and the minimum number of households required by the scheme to obtain a discount.

 

There are a number of ‘on-sellers’ who provide this service, with companies such as One Big Switch  providing reported discounts of between 7% and 12% to retail customers on condition that the billing is paid on time.

 

Significant effort has been invested into researching these schemes and has included consultation with the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), their electricity tender consultant as well as a number of individual WSROC councils.

 

An initial investigation into facilitating a bulk electricity purchase identified two possible options for consideration:

 

-    Tender on behalf of Residents

The first approach could be through a competitive tender on behalf of residents. To negotiate pricing, Council would have to obtain usage information from all participants and also a commitment from them to sign up to the resulting contracts.

 

The cost of collecting and collating usage rates, getting signed commitments and preparing a tender would represent a significant cost to Council. Council would also have to respond to all subsequent enquiries regarding price rises and where incorrect rates were charged.

 

Under this approach the residents would ultimately be customers of the electricity supplier. At completion of the tender, it is possible that some participants could fail the supplier’s credit check and not be permitted to join the contract. This would impact on the quantity of customers guaranteed through the tender.

 

Should all of the participating ratepayers whose information had been used for the tender then not sign up, it may be difficult to keep the agreed pricing due to the lower volumes. It is likely that Council would need to underwrite a minimum usage level.

Given the other options available in the market it is also possible that the tender result, which requires participants to pre-commit, may not provide the cheapest price for all individuals based on their circumstances.

 

-    Tender and become an ‘on-seller’

This approach is similar to the above, except that the responsibility for bill collection and management would fall to Council. Under this approach the distributor would still supply electricity directly to the resident and Council would be responsible for payment to the distributor. Council would then bill the resident the contracted rates, plus any administration fee required.

 

This approach shifts the credit risk directly to Council and would require the establishment and funding of a new ‘electricity collections’ business unit. This service is already available, and it is recommended that Council should not consider entering this market.

 

Unfortunately the results of this initial investigation indicated that pursuing either of the identified options has the potential to expose Council to significant risks, while also adding significantly to existing workloads through the establishment of a new business unit with the administration and operating costs that would entail.

 

Following this, further research has been undertaken which indicates that while the prospect of a facilitated bulk electricity purchase sounds attractive, there is evidence to suggest that should Council proceed down this path it is unlikely that they would be able to offer a better outcome than is already freely available in the commercial marketplace, either through residents directly negotiating with their energy supplier, or by participating in a commercial bulk switching program. In consultation with industry experts, including the consultants used by WSROC for Council’s electricity tenders, it has been advised that it is unlikely that Council, given consideration to the likely size of our tender, would be able to achieve a discount of greater than 8%.

 

Strong competition in the household energy market means that retailers are prepared to negotiate with their customers to secure their business. NSW Fair Trading, in response to a complaint made by Choice in March 2012, reported that consumers are likely to achieve greater savings if they transact directly with their energy retailer than by using energy switching sites. This also has the potential to apply to bulk purchasing schemes.

 

This report also highlighted that the characteristics of retail energy plans, which include various tariffs and fees and charges, make it difficult for a user to compare plans effectively. Without a good understanding of energy plans consumers can find it difficult to make an informed decision about whether energy offers will actually result in savings.

 

Overall, it is considered that in taking on responsibility for a bulk purchasing scheme Council would be unable to offer residents a better deal on their energy than they are already able to access. Instead, it is proposed that Council’s efforts would be better spent in ensuring residents are aware of the wide variety of tools and resources that are available to not only reduce their energy consumption, but also to understand their bill and shop around for a better deal.

Other Options for Assisting our Communities

There are a wide range of programs, incentives, rebates and resources available to assist households with understanding and managing their energy bills, however these are spread across a wide range of government agencies and departments. Some of the key programs and services are outlined briefly below.

 

Energy comparison sites

A number of commercial organisations supply a service that compares electricity and gas offers from commercial providers. While these services are convenient, caution is advised when reviewing the results of these searches, particularly because the variance and complexity of information relating to energy offers is likely to make it difficult for consumers to understand and directly compare plans. Commercial switching sites also may have preferred retailers, or receive commissions from retailers.

 

If residents are searching for a better energy deal it is recommended that they visit www.myenergyoffers.nsw.gov.au which is a comparison website that has been established by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

 

Power-mate Power Meters

Council has a number of Power-mate energy meters available for loan from its libraries. Easy to use, the meters enable households to identify and reduce energy costs by showing how much each appliance actually costs to run.

 

Home Power Saving Program

The NSW Government currently offers this program for eligible households, including those where a member holds a Veterans’ Affairs, Low Income Health Care or Pensioner Concession card. The program provides free home power assessments, a power savings kit and a personal power saving action plan for participating households.

 

Energy Accounts Payment Assistance Scheme

The Energy Accounts Payment Assistance (EAPA) Scheme helps financially disadvantaged people experiencing difficulty paying their electricity or gas bill because of a crisis or emergency situation. The scheme helps people stay connected to essential energy services during a financial crisis. This scheme is not available on an ongoing basis. EAPA is only one type of assistance available and should not be considered as the only option for those unable to pay their electricity or gas bill.

Rebates

The NSW Government’s Family Energy Rebate came into effect on 1 July, and is one of a number of measures designed to assist families manage their energy costs. To be eligible for the Family Energy Rebate, residents need to have received and been assessed as eligible for the Commonwealth Government’s Family Tax Benefit A or B, and must apply for the rebate through the NSW Department of Trade and Investment each year.

 

Households may also be able to apply to their electricity retailer for another NSW energy rebate, called the Low Income Household Rebate. It should be noted that the combined payment a household can receive is capped at $250 per annum, which means that the Family Energy Rebate annual payments will be either $75 or $35 in 2012-13 depending on eligibility for the Low Income Household Rebate.

 

Rebate Type

2012-13  Amount per Household

Low Income Household Rebate ONLY

$215

Family Energy Rebate ONLY

$75

Low Income Household Rebate  AND

Family Energy Rebate

$250 (= $215 + $35)

 

Incentives for Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy Systems

Households across Australia installing a small scale solar, wind or hydro renewable electricity system; or a solar or heat pump hot water system may be eligible for a benefit through Small-scale Technology Certificates and Solar Credits. These certificates/credits are an electronic form of currency with a value that can be redeemed by selling or assigning them.

 

The number of Small-scale Technology Certificates created is based on the amount of renewable electricity the system produces or the amount of electricity consumption it reduces, and the climate region where it is installed. While it is possible for purchasers of renewable energy systems to create and sell the STCs themselves, in practice the installers of these systems usually offer a discount on the price of an installation, or a cash payment, in return for the STCs.

 

Solar Credits provide additional support to households, businesses and community groups that install small renewable energy systems, such as rooftop solar panels and small‑scale wind and hydro electricity systems. Solar Credits applies to the first 1.5 kilowatts (kW) of capacity installed for systems connected to a main electricity grid, and up to the first 20 kW of capacity for off-grid systems. These credits work by multiplying the number of STCs that these systems would generally be eligible to create. The multiplier that applies for eligible systems installed between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2013 is two.

 

Online Resources

There are a significant number of websites providing information on how to most effectively reduce household energy consumption and reduce electricity and gas bills. These websites are wide ranging and include:

-       Simple energy tips for around the home

-       Household energy efficiency calculators

-       Guidance on selecting energy efficient appliances

-       Guidance on how to read and understand your electricity bill, and

-       How to choose the best energy offers.

 

Given broad public concern regarding rising energy prices, it is timely to provide our communities with additional information about the range of resources, tools and incentives now available to assist them. An information evening could be held for interested local residents, potentially during October 2012, with relevant organisations invited to profile the tools and resources outlined above.

 

A range of supporting fact sheets will also be finalised and made available on Council’s website, at relevant community events and in Council’s administration centres. This material would include information on the various services available to ensure residents have the most appropriate and cost-effective service for their needs.

Conclusion

The effective management of resources remains a priority for Council. Building on the knowledge gained from our progress in this area over recent years and the successes achieved, Council will continue with our efforts to improve our energy management practices and associated costs.

 

Council will also continue to work with external stakeholders to assist our communities in reducing their energy use and managing the pressures of increasing energy costs. Opportunities to participate in bulk purchase of electricity are already available in the marketplace. The development of a similar service by Council would require considerable resourcing and expose it to unnecessary risk. It is recommended that Council does not pursue the facilitation of a tender on behalf of our communities for the supply of electricity.

 

It is recommended instead that Council continues to actively promote the available and viable options for bulk energy purchase. The proposed information evening, together with an ongoing program of advice and education, will continue to promote the range of resources, tools and incentives available to assist our communities.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Information on the Bulk Purchase of Electricity for the City and Use of Micro Hydro Generation be received.

2.     That an information evening be held for local residents to promote available resources, tools and incentives.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

13      St Marys CBD 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme - Roads & Maritime Services Funding Offer

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Liveable City

 

 

13

St Marys CBD 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme - Roads & Maritime Services Funding Offer   

 

Compiled by:               David Drozd, Senior Traffic Engineer

Authorised by:            Adam Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with an integrated local road and pathways network (16)

Strategic Response

Implement effective traffic and parking responses (16.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to consider a funding offer from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for implementation of a 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area (HPAA) Scheme for the St Marys CBD.  The report recommends that Council accept the RMS offer and implement the Scheme.

Background

In 2003 the RMS (then known as Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)) introduced the 40km/h HPAA program which aims to reduce vehicle speeds in areas of high pedestrian activity in order to improve pedestrian safety.  This program is intended for use in areas with a high number of pedestrian movements, typically characterised by commercial areas such as town centres.

 

In April 2008 the RTA offered Council funding towards the preparation of two reports for HPAA Schemes in the Penrith and St Marys CBDs.  The Local Traffic Committee, at its meeting on the 5 May 2008, considered a report on the 40km/h HPAA Scheme and Council, at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 May 2008, resolved on the recommendation of the Committee that:

 

“1.  The information contained in the report on 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme be received.

2.     Council accept the Roads & Traffic Authority’s offer of 100% funding for the preparation of a 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme.

3.     Council engage its preferred consultant to prepare a detailed cost estimate for submission to the Roads & Traffic Authority and, subject to approval from the Roads & Traffic Authority, engage the consultant to prepare the report.

4.     The outcomes of the process be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.”

 

Subsequently, Council engaged traffic and transport consultant Transport and Urban Planning to undertake studies in both the Penrith and St Marys CBDs.  The study prepared by the consultant in line with Resolution 3 was formally endorsed by the RTA in 2008.  Due to the high number of pedestrian injury accidents occurring, the Penrith City Centre 40km/h HPAA Scheme was formally endorsed and implemented in 2009.

 

Current Situation

An analysis of crash data within the St Marys CBD indicated that there have been ten pedestrian crashes in the five-year period between July 2006 and June 2011.  Five of those reported incidents occurred on Queen Street, with the remainder scattered at random locations on peripheral streets to Queen Street.  Whilst these results are significantly lower than that recorded for the Penrith City Centre, the RMS still see the merits of implementing the scheme for the St Marys CBD due to the injury savings involved.

 

The RMS has now formally offered Council $250,000 for the implementation of the HPAA Scheme in the St Marys CBD.  The Scheme will require the installation of six gateway traffic calming treatments located at each entry point of the 40km/h area, together with three mid‑block watts profile humps and three raised pedestrian crossings.  These devices are reinforced by the installation of “40 Area” and “High Pedestrian Activity” signage, which will be installed and funded by the RMS separately.

 

The list of devices with estimated costs is shown in Table 1, below.  It should be noted that items 3, 4 and 7 in Queen Street have already been funded out of the current year’s 2012/13 Nation Building Black Spot Program.  The 100% funding of $200,000 for these projects is a significant contribution to the Scheme.

 

Table 1

St Marys HPAA Preliminary Cost Estimate & Device List

 

Primary Road

Intersecting Street or Section of Road

Proposed Treatment

Estimated Cost

Comment

1

Queen St

King St

Entry blister, signage and pavement treatment

$35,000

 

2

King St

East Lane

Entry blister, signage and pavement treatment

$35,000

 

3

Queen St

At Library

Raised marked footcrossing inc fencing

$0

Funded through Black Spot Program

4

Queen St

Adj to Crana

Fencing/landscaping adj to Bus Zone

$0

Funded through Black Spot Program

5

East Ln

Adj to car park (1)

Watts profile speed hump

$15,000

 

6

Crana St

Adj to car park

Entry signage

$0

RMS contributed

7

Queen St

At Chapel St

Raised marked footcrossing inc fencing

$0

Funded through Black Spot Program

8

Chapel St

East Lane

Entry blister, signage and pavement treatment

$35,000

 

9

Charles Hackett Dve

Carinya St

Entry blister, signage and pavement treatment

$50,000

 

10

East Ln

Adj to car park (2)

Watts profile speed hump

$15,000

 

11

East Ln

Adj to car park (3)

Watts profile speed hump

$15,000

 

12

Belar St

Carinya St

Entry signage

$0

RMS contributed

13

Nariel Street

Carinya St

Entry signage

$0

RMS contributed

14

Station St

Before bus interchange

Entry blister, signage and pavement treatment

$35,000

 

15

Phillip St

Coles entry

Raised marked footcrossing inc fencing

$100,000

Involves removal of existing refuge

16

Phillip St

At Blair St

Entry blister, signage and pavement treatment

$35,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total for work

$370,000

 

Survey and design

20%

 

$74,000

 

Contingency

10%

 

$37,000

 

Project management

5%

 

$19,000

 

 

 

Total for work

$500,000

 

RMS Contributed

 $    250,000

Council to fund

 $    250,000

 

Conditions of acceptance of the $250,000 funding offer from the RMS are that:

 

1.   Civil works must be completed and billed prior to 30 June 2013.

2.   Council is to provide the RMS with a detailed design and quotation for each device prior to final funding approval.

3.   Council will be required to initiate a Stage 3 road safety audit of all designs and address audit findings prior to construction.

 

Funding

As detailed in Table 1, a preliminary estimate for the total cost of installation of traffic facilities for this project is $500,000 (excluding signage and linemarking and projects already funded through the Black Spot Program).  The figure will be confirmed once funding has been accepted and detailed design and survey are completed.  The RMS has offered $250,000 towards the cost, with Council to fund the remaining $250,000.

 

The RMS have confirmed that they will fund the cost of installation of all 40km/h signage and linemarking, the cost of all Stage 3 design audits, and the cost of the public education campaign in addition to their funding offer of $250,000.

 

The RMS has also advised that should the Scheme not be able to be fully completed by 30 June 2013, they may accrue a portion of their funds to the 2013/14 financial year.

 

 

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

Acceptance of the RMS funding will require Council to make a contribution to the project of $250,000.  Available funding of $200,000 has been identified from within Council’s existing budget with some of the work being already funded through the 2012-13 Nation Building Black Spot Program.  It is proposed that the remaining $50,000 be allocated from the City Centres Renewal and Improvement project to complement the works program underway for Coachman’s Park and surrounds. The total of these funds would meet Council’s financial requirements of $250,000 for this project.

 

Community Consultation

As part of the design and approval process, each design will be reported to Council’s Local Traffic Committee for consideration.  Part of this process will be liaising with shop owners, shop tenants and major stakeholders for their comments regarding the location of the traffic facilities proposed as part of the HPAA Scheme.  Any submissions received will be considered similarly to those lodged in response to Council’s annual Traffic Facilities Program.

 

To ensure public awareness of the 40km/h HPAA Scheme, a public education campaign will be implemented at a local level prior to the installation of the 40km/h signage.  The campaign will use a range of resources developed by the RMS and adapted for the local community.  The elements considered will include Variable Message Signs (VMS), banners on Council’s banner sites in the St Marys CBD, letterbox drops of brochures, advertisements in the local press and poster distribution.

 

Conclusion

The proposed traffic calming measures and installation of a 40km/h HPAA Scheme is aimed at reducing the risk to pedestrians and general traffic, whilst improving pedestrian amenity and the streetscape.  With the inclusion of gateway treatments, mid‑block treatments, and repeater signage throughout the CBD, vehicle speeds will be reduced and pedestrian permeability increased, creating a more pedestrian-friendly St Marys CBD.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council accept the RMS offer for funding and implementation of the 40km/h HPAA Scheme for the St Marys CBD.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on St Marys CBD 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme - Roads & Maritime Services Funding Offer be received.

2.     A 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme be designed and implemented in the St Marys CBD, as detailed in this report.

 

3.     Council accept the Roads and Maritime Services offer of $250,000 for the implementation of traffic calming devices associated with the St Marys CBD 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme.

4.     Council’s contribution to the project of $250,000 be funded from existing programs identified in the report.

5.     Consultation with affected stakeholders be carried out prior to the implementation of traffic calming devices within the St Marys CBD.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

14      Development Application DA12/0349 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Ancillary Structures and Construction of a 2 storey dwelling Lot 2105 DP 263159 (No. 13)  Dianella Place, Kingswood Applicant: Innovation Planning Australia P/L;  Owner: J and S Joyce

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

 

15      Board Member Recruitment - St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Corporation

 

16      St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct - Family Fun Day

 

17      St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team Request for Funding

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Vibrant City

 

 

14

Development Application DA12/0349 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Ancillary Structures and Construction of a 2 storey dwelling Lot 2105 DP 263159 (No. 13)  Dianella Place, Kingswood  Applicant:  Innovation Planning Australia P/L;  Owner:  J and S Joyce    

 

Compiled by:               Damien  Saaghy, Trainee Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We build on our strengths, value our heritage, celebrate our cultural diversity, and foster creativity

Community Outcome

A City with design excellence that respects our local identity (22)

Strategic Response

Promote good design, sustainable buildings, and development that enhances our City (22.1)

      

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a two storey dwelling. The application seeks to vary the 6 metre rear setback requirement of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands). The application is supported by an objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 development standards.

The proposal seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of a 5 bedroom two storey dwelling.

The objectives of the Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands, are to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value, and to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses. The dwelling achieves these objectives as discussed in the planning assessment of this report.

 

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated full compliance with the rear setback requirement is unreasonable due to the irregular shape of the site and the use of articulation treatment in the building to provide design responses to the unusual appearance of the dwelling. The variations to the planning instrument and the proposed two storey dwelling are unlikely to have any significant impact on the amenity and locality of the area.

 

The proposal was notified to 5 nearby adjoining neighbours and 1 submission was received in relation to privacy and overlooking and increased traffic impacts. It is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed the issues raised.


Site and Surrounds

The site is located at the entrance of Dianella Place being a cul-de-sac. The site is 890m² in area and has a Southern orientation. The site has a fall of approximately 2m across the site from west to east. The site currently contains a single storey, brick veneer dwelling, awning and detached carport.

The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of single and two storey dwellings of varying scales.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of a new 2 storey brick veneer and tiled roof dwelling. The site is accessed from the south of the site from Dianella Place via a driveway leading to a double garage which has a proposed setback of 8.75m from the front boundary. The proposed front setback from the front boundary to the south is 7.253m. The proposed side setback from the garage to the western boundary is 1.2m and the proposed side setback to the eastern boundary is 0.995m. The proposed rear setback from the northern boundary is 3.256m. The proposed dwelling footprint and driveway measure 430m² and will result in 51% landscaped area being provided to the site.

The development application was accompanied by:

 

·    An objection under the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Land.

·    Statement of Environmental Effects

·    Site and Building Plans

·    Shadow Diagrams

·    BASIX certificate

·    Waste Management Plan

 

Planning Assessment

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards

 

An objection to the development standards within LEP 1998 (Urban Lands) have been lodged to vary the minimum rear setback requirement as shown in the following table.

 

 

Minimum required under LEP

Proposed

Rear Setback

6.0 metres

3.256 metres

 

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

 

Variation of rear setback

 

The SEPP 1 objection has been lodged in relation to the provisions of Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Urban Lands, and in particular the provisions of Clause 12(4). The relevant clause states:

 

“The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building unless:

(a) that building is set back at least 6 metres from the rear boundary of the site or, in the case of a single storey building in Zone No. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e), at least 4 metres from the rear boundary of the site; and

(b) the land within the rear boundary setback is used for the purposes of landscaped area only”.

 

The SEPP 1 objection seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling with rear setback of 3.256m (an encroachment of 2.744m) to the Toy Room which is a single storey portion of the proposal and the closest point to the rear boundary. The first floor is setback approximately 8.5m from the rear boundary at the closest point. This variation proposes a departure of 46% from the development standard.

 

Assessment of SEPP 1 Objections

 

1) Development Standard

 

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

 

The objectives for Zone 2(b) Residential (low density) are as follows: 

 

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

 

The proposed two storey dwelling complies with the planning instruments in all respects except the rear setback requirement. The proposal has been designed to take advantage of the natural landscape settings of the location and provides a site responsive design which minimises potential impacts. The proposed cutting and filling is within the acceptable tolerances outline in DCP 2006 resulting in minimal disturbance to the site. The proposal involves the removal of 1 mature tree and a condition will be provided to replant an equivalent tree in its place. Other landscaping will be maintained and the proposed landscaping meets the landscaped area requirements of the LEP.

 

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

 

A dwelling is a permissible land use. The proposed two storey dwelling is consistent with established development within the area. There is no indication that the proposed use will be for anything other than residential purposes.

 

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

 

The proposed development is for a dwelling and does not include other non-residential uses.

 

The objectives for Section 12 of LEP 1998 Urban Lands are as follows:

 

(a)  Achieve site-responsive development at a scale which is compatible with existing housing in the locality by controlling visual impacts relating height and bulk.

(b)  Minimise the impact of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views.

(c)  Achieve an appropriate separation between buildings and site boundaries and preserve private open space corridors along rear lines.

(d)  Protect and enhance the environmental features, which are characteristic of each of the residential zones, by requiring sufficient space on-site for effective landscaping and on-site stormwater detention.

 

The subject site is an irregular shape located on the corner at the entry of a cul-de-sac. The encroachment into the rear setback is considered to satisfy the objectives of the rear setback control by being compatible with existing established housing in the locality. The existing residential dwelling proposed to be demolished as part of this proposal presently has a rear setback of 1.3m. The visual impacts of the proposal are considered to be minimal as the rear setback non-compliance is to a single storey portion of the proposal located in the rear yard.

 

A rear setback of 3.256m (an encroachment of 2.744m) is proposed to the Toy Room which is a single storey portion of the proposal and the closest point to the rear boundary. This variation proposes a departure of 46% from the development standard. The first floor is setback approximately 8.5m from the rear boundary at the closest point. The width of the encroachment is 5.5m. This represents 26% of the overall width of the elevation adjacent to the rear boundary. 74% of the building complies with the required setback. This represents an encroachment of 14% in relation to the length of rear boundary. In this respect the encroachment is small and will have minimal impact on the adjoining allotments.

 

DCP 2006 Clause 5.3 C(1) & (2) specifies that irregular shaped allotments should adopt a 6m average rear boundary setback and with the exception of eaves does not permit building encroachments within the rear setback. The resultant average setback is 5.878m which is only slightly under the 6m rear setback requirement and represents a variation to the development standard of approximately 2%. The proposal will increase the existing rear setback significantly and the proposed impervious landscaped area within the rear setback will reinstate the green corridor. In this regard the variation to the rear setback is considered minimal and will improve the existing site conditions. The request to vary the development standard is considered suitable.

 

Windows to living areas and outdoor entertaining areas have been oriented toward the north to enable maximum solar access to living areas and private open spaces of the proposal. The shadow diagram submitted shows that the side of the dwelling on the adjoining allotment to the west will receive some overshadowing between 9am and 12am and no overshadowing will occur to the private open space. The shadow diagram demonstrates that the proposal will allow the adjoining allotment to the west to receive in excess of 3 hours solar access at the winter solstice. Overshadowing will mainly affect the street in Dianella Place to the south and the reserve to the east. Minimal overshadowing to neighbouring properties will occur given the orientation of the dwelling and the articulated design to the first floor. The proposal meets the objectives and development standards of DCP 2006 for solar access and as such will have minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

 

The privacy impacts of the rear setback encroachment are considered to be negligible when compared to a 6m rear setback. Windows facing the boundary will cause minimal privacy impacts on neighbours as mature vegetation on the adjoining sites will help maintain the existing levels of privacy.

 

The SEPP 1 objections are considered suitable on the premise that the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the following basis:

 

·    The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

·    The proposed development is reasonable development for the site.

·    The proposed rear setback is consistent with the surrounding area.

·    A rear landscape corridor is maintained and minimal loss of privacy is likely to occur as the encroachment is to a single storey portion and the first floor is setback greater than 6 metres.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

Under the terms of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) the land is zoned as Zone No 2(b) Residential (Low Density). The proposed development is defined as a dwelling, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone as described in the above SEPP 1 assessment.

 

Development Standards

 

Section 12 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands) provides requirements for building envelopes, heights of buildings, landscape areas and rear boundary setbacks for development that requires consent.

 

The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum external wall heights, landscaped area and building envelope requirements.

 

Rear Boundary Setback

 

The minimum rear setback non-compliance has been addressed above in the assessment of the SEPP1 objection.

 

 

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

 

Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the current development application. The proposed two storey dwelling meets the development standard of DCP 2006 in all respects except for the rear setback requirement. Appendix 1 shows the relevant standards and how the dwelling satisfies the requirements of Penrith DCP 2006.

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

 

The development generally complies with the objectives of the planning controls and the impacts of the development are expected to be minimal.

 

Stormwater is to be directed to the street via a rainwater tank, minimising impacts on adjoining properties.

 

Appropriate conditions are to be included relating to site management during construction. An appropriate waste management plan has been provided. Hours of work and construction noise will also be subject to consent conditions.

The proposed dwelling is located and designed to make the most economic use of the site and provides minimal adverse impacts to the subject site and adjoining properties.

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

 

The site is suitable for the construction of a new residential dwelling. The proposal is considered to address and satisfy the objectives of the relevant planning documents despite the variation to the LEP.

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith 2006 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was notified to 5 nearby and adjoining residents. One submission was received in relation to privacy and overlooking and increased traffic impacts.

It is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed privacy and overlooking impacts as the windows overlooking the adjoining allotments are to first floor bedrooms which are considered to be low use rooms. Further to this, the ground floor windows and alfresco area are at ground level and combined with the existing vegetation of the adjoining sites will have minimal privacy impacts on neighbours as existing mature vegetation on the adjoining sites will help maintain the existing level of privacy. The site is currently used for residential purposes and the proposal is for a residential dwelling. There is no indication that the proposed 2 storey dwelling will increase traffic impacts on the street as the use has not changed.

Conclusion                                                                          

The subject development application seeks approval to construct a new two storey dwelling and is supported by SEPP 1 objections seeking a variation of the minimum rear setback requirement.

 

The SEPP 1 objection is supported as it has been demonstrated that full compliance with the rear setback requirement is unreasonable in this case and that the objectives of LEP are satisfied by the proposal.

 

Whilst the proposed development application requires variations to minimum rear setbacks, it is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning instruments as outlined in this report. The development is considered to be site responsive and consistent with the existing character of the established area. The development represents an appropriate improvement for the site and an example of urban renewal in the established areas. The development is supported subject to conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA12/0349 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Ancillary Structures and Construction of a 2 storey dwelling Lot 2105 DP 263159 (No. 13)  Dianella Place, Kingswood be received.

2.     The SEPP 1 objection relating to the rear setback be supported.

3.     Development Application DA12/0349 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Ancillary Structures and Construction of a 2 storey dwelling Lot 2105 DP 263159 (No. 13)  Dianella Place, Kingswood be approved subject to the attached conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1       A001 -  Approved Plans

            A008 – Works to BCA requirements

                   A009 – Residential Works DCP

                   A019 – Occupation Certificate

                   A046 – Issue of Construction Certificate

                   B001 – Demolition of Existing Structures

                   B002 – AS for Demolition and Disposal to Approved Landfill Site

                   B003 - Asbestos

                   B004 - Dust

                   B005 – Mud/Soil

                   B006 – Hours of Work

                   D001 – Implement Sediment and Erosion Control Measures

                   D007 – Cut and fill of land requiring Validation Certificate

                   D009 – Covering Waste Storage area

                   D010 – Waste disposal

                   E001 – BCA compliance

                   H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

                   H002 – All Forms of Construction

                   H009 – Cut/Fill Details

                   H022 - Survey

                   H030 – Roof colours

                   H036 – Rainwater Tank

                   H037 – Safe Supply of Water From Catchment

                   H038 – Connection of Rainwater Tank Supply

                   H039 – Rainwater Tank Pumps

                   H041 – Hours of work

                   I003 – Roads Act Approval 1

                   K016 – Stormwater

                   K026 – Stabilised Access

                   K0041 – Infrastructure Bond

                   L008 – Tree preservation order

                   P002 – Fees

                   Q01f – Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

                   Q05f – Occupation Certificate

4.       Special Conditions

K Special – The proposed stormwater drainage system shall be designed and certified by a qualified practising Hydraulic Engineer or suitably qualified person. Details are to be provided for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

L Special – Two trees capable of obtaining a minimum height of 10m at maturity are to be planted on the site.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Assessment checklist of Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 - "Residential Single Dwellings"

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 1 - Assessment checklist of Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 - "Residential Single Dwellings"

 

temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Vibrant City

 

 

15

Board Member Recruitment - St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Corporation   

 

Compiled by:               Jeni Pollard, Place Manager

Authorised by:            Roger Nethercote, Group Manager - People and Places   

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors on the recruitment of board members for the St Marys Town Centre Corporation and the Penrith City Centre Corporation and detail the recommendations of the assessment panel following the recruitment process. The report recommends that Council receive the report and endorse the recommendations of the assessment panel. The report also recommends that a letter of thanks be prepared to all current association members.

Background

Council endorsed in a report to its Ordinary Meeting of 25 June 2012 that Expressions of Interest would be sought from the public for members to sit on the boards of the new St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Management Corporations. In accordance with the report, a selection panel was established consisting of the Mayor, Clr Greg Davies, Director - Craig Butler as the General Manager’s delegate, Group Manager People and Places - Roger Nethercote, and Jo Kelly from People, Place and Partnership as an independent consultant.

 

There was an extensive recruitment process including newspaper advertising, a social media campaign and a hand delivered information leaflet that went to each business in the designated area. There was significant media attention to the call out.

 

The response to the recruitment process was positive with 10 people responding in St Marys and 20 people responding in Penrith. In each area, some of the existing centre association members applied to join the new centre management corporation boards.

 

The assessment panel met on Friday, 3 August 2012 and reviewed the responses from candidates. Eight positions were available in each area with the following areas of interest:

 

5 business/ property representatives

1 community organisations representative

1 industry expert

1 person who represents the views of people under 25 years of age.

 

A Councillor will be elected to each Board after 8 September. Attachment 2 shows the guiding information that the panel used in the assessment process.

 

The panel noted the high quality of many of the applications and was encouraged by the interest and enthusiasm that many of the applicants expressed. The panel acknowledged that due to the quality and number of applications, some highly regarded and well deserving applicants would miss out on a board position.

 

After much discussion and deliberation, the assessment panel offers the following recommendations to each board:

 

St Marys Town Centre Corporation

Community Organisation representative

 

Marlene Shipley

 

CEO St Marys Band Club

Great Western Highway

Industry Expert

 

Anthony Hammon

Centre Manager

St Marys Shopping Village

Person who represents the views of people under 25 years

Dave Hamond

CEO Fusion Western Sydney

Carsons Lane

Business and property representatives

 

Christine Barnes

 

Classic Conveyancing

Queen Street

Annette Blissett

 

Giggles Fancy Dress Hire

Queen Street

Thierry Grabara

Surveyor

Queen Street

Alex Karavas

Party Pit Stop

Queen Street

Steve Perry

St Marys Sound

Queen Street

Penrith City Centre Corporation

Community Organisation representative

Michael Todd

Marketing & Business Manager

Business Enterprise Centre

Industry Expert

 

Warwick Stimson

Director Stimson Consulting

Boardwalk Arcade

High Street

Person who represents the views of people under 25 years

Tiffany Martinez

Resident

Business and property representatives

 

Vanessa Graydon

Skiptons Café

Skiptons Arcade

High Street

Darren Latty

PRD Nationwide Real Estate

High St

Dave Morton

Centre Manager

Westfield Penrith

Debbie O’Connor

White River Design

Henry Street

Owen Rogers

Mul-T-Security

Henry Street

Creation of the two new Corporations

The Division of Local Government (DLG) has received Council’s application to establish the two new Corporations for the centre management. Council officers have contacted the Division for updates on progress of the application but no date has been established when that may be expected. 

Next Steps

Following Council’s endorsement on the make up of the board, all applicants will be notified of the outcomes of the process. A letter will be sent to the current members of the two associations thanking them for their continued support and hard work in contributing to positive outcomes in the St Marys Town Centre and Penrith Town Centre.

 

The newly appointed board members will take up positions on the Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association at their respective AGMs to be held in September until such time as notice is received from the DLG on the establishment of the corporations.

Conclusion

The St Marys Town Centre Corporation and Penrith City Centre Corporation will work with Council and other strategic partners to further develop these important places in our regional city.

 

The extensive recruitment process for new members has brought forward a pleasing number of high quality applicants and the assessment panel has met to review the applications and make recommendations to Council for filling all positions on the boards of the St Marys Town Centre Corporation and Penrith City Centre Corporation.

 

The board members will take up their positions on the Penrith City Centre Association and St Marys Town Centre Association at their respective AGMs to be held in September until such time that the Division of Local Government responds to the application for the creation of two new Corporations for centre management.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Board Member Recruitment - St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Corporation be received.

2.     Council endorse the recommendations of the assessment panel with regard to the make up of the new St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Corporations.

3.     A letter is sent to all current members of the St Marys Town Centre and Penrith City Centre Associations thanking them for their work and contribution to the two centres.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Guiding information for the Panel – Board Member Recruitment

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Appendix 1 - Guiding information for the Panel – Board Member Recruitment

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Vibrant City

 

 

16

St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct - Family Fun Day   

 

Compiled by:               Sonia Dalitz, Social Planner

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager  

Requested By:             Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information about a proposed community event at St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct to take place on Sunday 18 November.

 

Following the recent successful event ‘Spicy Penrith’, which was supported by Council but developed by the local Nepalese, Indian, Sri Lankan and Bhutanese communities, the proposed Family Fun Day is planned to showcase the St. Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct and encourage further use by local community groups. The estimated budget of the Family Fun Day event is $12,500.

 

A contribution of $5,000 has been secured from local corporate sponsor Sims Metal Limited and a further $1,000 is being sought from local St Marys’ businesses to support the event. However an outstanding amount of $6,500 will be required for the successful production of this event.

 

This report provides further details about the proposed Fun Day event and recommends the information be received.

Background

The St Marys Corner Community and Cultural precinct is situated in St Marys on the corner of the Great Western Highway and Mamre Road. The precinct was opened in May 2010 and is a landmark investment project by Penrith City Council. St Marys Corner consists of five facilities: the St Marys Memorial Hall, St Marys Community Centre, St Marys Senior Citizens Centre, the former St Marys Council Chambers and the Arts and Craft Studio. These facilities surround the landscaped St Marys Piazza. The Don Bosco Youth and Recreation Centre is at the south-western edge of the precinct.

 

St Marys Community Centre is home to Nepean Migrant Access and St Marys Area Community Development Project, while the Senior Citizens Centre is the home of the St Marys Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association. These organisations provide a range of important community activities, information, referral and development services. The former Chambers building is used by the St Marys and District Historical Society while the Arts and Craft Studios are occupied by the Nepean Potters Society and other craft groups.

 

Council has a role to play in building the capacity of these existing services to create a vibrant social and cultural precinct with a diversity of programs and activities.

 

Family Fun Day Event

 

St Marys Corner is a multi purpose community and cultural precinct that delivers a range of social services and activities as well as cultural programs. The cultural programming at the Centre relies strongly on the support of the community.

 

The proposal to hold a Family Fun Day follows a successful community event held by the local Nepalese, Indian, Sri Lankan and Bhutanese communities which attracted more than 400 people to experience the culture, dance and cuisine of the Indian subcontinent. Proceeds from this event were donated to Mamre House in support of their Sudanese refugee programs.

 

By showcasing the activities and groups that regularly use the St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct, the Family Fun Day aims to encourage other community groups to utilise the Centre to profile their culture, music, art or other characteristics and attributes to the broader community.

 

Some examples of current users include the Folk Art Group, Nepean Potters Society, St Marys District Historical Society, the Encore Sewing group and Philippine Language and Cultural Association of Australia. Other local groups will also be invited to participate, including Don Bosco Youth Centre, Mamre House, Vietnam Veterans St Marys sub-branch and WOW FM.

 

The proposed event date of 18 November coincides with the Western Sydney Community Indoor Markets, a bi-monthly small business market held at the Memorial Hall since May 2011. It is anticipated that running the St Marys Corner Family Fun Day concurrently with the Indoor Market will maximise attendance and contribute to the efficient use of available resources as well as assisting with the market’s long term sustainability.

 

Budget and Sponsorship

 

The estimated budget for the Family Fun Day event is $12,500. Council officers have sourced a confirmed contribution of $5,000 sponsorship from Sims Metal Limited for the event. A further $1,000 is being sought from local St Marys’ businesses.

 

Currently there is no available Council budget to meet the cost of the event and it is proposed that Council considers a contribution of $6,500 towards the Family Fun Day.

 

Summary

 

This report provides information about a proposed community event at St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct on Sunday 18 November 2012. The proposed St Marys Corner Family Fun Day will support the activation of the Community and Cultural precinct by providing an opportunity to raise awareness of local community groups that use the facilities and encouraging residents to participate in their local community. A total of $5,000 funding has been sourced from local corporate sponsor Sims Metal Limited. A further $1,000 is being sought from local St Marys’ businesses to support the proposed Family Fun Day.  There is no available Council budget to meet the remaining $6,500 to run this event.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct - Family Fun Day be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Vibrant City

 

 

17

St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team Request for Funding   

 

Compiled by:               Katerina Tahija, Youth Development Officer

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager  

Requested By:             Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies

 

Objective

We build on our strengths, value our heritage, celebrate our cultural diversity, and foster creativity

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Encourage vibrant places in the City, and creativity, inclusivity and diversity in our communities (20.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

This report provides information about a request from the St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team Youth Project for a funding contribution of $1,250 for a youth program activity as part of the October 2012 school holiday program for young people.

 

Currently there is no budget to make this funding contribution.

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report on St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team Request for Funding be received.

Background

St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood team (SCYNT) provide services for a wide range of community members that live in the east ward of Penrith City. The organisation receives core funding from NSW Family and Community Services to deliver services to the St Clair, Erskine Park and Colyton communities.

 

The St Clair Youth project receives limited funding to deliver services to all three areas detailed above. The service employs two part time workers to run after school and school holiday activities. There is a very limited budget for any program and resource expenses. 

 

The need for recreational activities to be provided for young people out of school hours has been identified in Council’s 2010-2013 Youth Action Plan and Penrith Youth Interagency Action Plan 2012.

 

The St Clair Youth project has requested a funding contribution to assist with costs associated with the delivery of a youth camp to be held in the October school holidays.

 

The Youth project has undertaken activities with young people to raise funds to contribute to the costs of the school holiday camp.

 

 

 

School Holiday Program – request for funding

 

The St Clair Youth project provides a school holiday program four times each year. They provide a range of centre based activities as well as visits to various recreational facilities. The focus is to provide opportunities for young people while ensuring that the activities are affordable.

 

The St Clair Youth project has identified with young people the benefit of providing an opportunity to have a camp as part of their October 2012 school holiday program. The camp is an opportunity for young people to explore concepts of team work, lifestyle choices and building resilience. There is also opportunity to learn new skills and engage in physical activity. The theme for this camp will focus on building strategies and ideas on how to reduce bullying and how bullying affects young people, both as perpetrator and as victims. This issue has been identified by the workers and young people as an emerging trend in their community. The challenge with the camp is affordability for both the Centre and for individual young people.

 

The St Clair Youth project and young people have undertaken various activities to raise funds toward the camp expenses. This has included selling chocolates, plans to have a dog and car wash day and seeking donations to have a community raffle. The service has forecast that these fundraising efforts will raise 50% of the required funds to pay for the camp.

 

The St Clair Youth project has written to the Mayor requesting assistance with funding for this camp. They have requested $1,250 from Council to contribute to the camp and to assist young people that would not be able to afford attendance at the camp to participate in this activity.

 

Currently there is no budget to make a contribution of $1,250 as requested by the St Clair Youth project.

 

Summary

 

St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood team (SCYNT) provide services for a wide range of community members that live in the east ward of Penrith City. The St Clair Youth project is funded to run activities for young people both after school and during school holidays. The project receives limited funding, particularly for program and resource costs.

 

The St Clair Youth project and young people have identified that a camp as part of the October 2012 school holiday program would be beneficial activity for the participants of the youth project. While efforts are being made to fundraise for this camp, this will only contribute 50% of the costs. The St Clair Youth project has requested the support of Council to provide $1,250 funding towards the camp. There is no budget allocation to meet this request.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on St Clair Youth and Neighbourhood Team Request for Funding be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday 27 August 2012

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 4 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to Sen Khun & Boyanmolika Kong

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - No. 121 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains

 

4        Commercial Matter - 33-37 Cook Parade, St Clair

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                27 August 2012

A Leading City

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

Everyone is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council and those of its Committees of which all members are Councillors, except as provided by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

A Council, or a Committee of the Council of which all the members are Councillors, may close to the public so much of its meeting as comprises:

 

(a)                the discussion of any of the matters listed below; or

(b)               the receipt or discussion of any of the information so listed.

The matters and information are the following:

 

(a)                personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

(b)               the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers;

(c)                information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

(d)               commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

·                          prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or

 

·                          confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or

 

·                          reveal a trade secret.

 

(e)                information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of the law;

(f)                matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property;

(g)        advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

The grounds on which part of a meeting is closed must be stated in the decision to close that part of the meeting and must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

The grounds must specify the following:

(a)                the relevant provision of section 10A(2);

(b)               the matter that is to be discussed during the closed part of the meeting;

(c)                the reasons why the part of the meeting is being closed, including (if the matter concerned is a matter other than a personnel matter concerning particular individuals, the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer or a trade secret) an explanation of the way in which discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

Members of the public may make representations at a Council or Committee Meeting as to whether a part of a meeting should be closed to the public

 

The process which should be followed is:

 

·         a motion, based on the recommendation below, is moved and seconded

·         the Chairperson then asks if any member/s of the public would like to make representations as to whether a part of the meeting is closed to the public

·         if a member/s of the public wish to make representations, the Chairperson invites them to speak before the Committee makes its decision on whether to close the part of the meeting or not to the public.

·         if no member/s of the public wish to make representations the Chairperson can then put the motion to close the meeting to the public.

 

The first action is for a motion to be moved and seconded based on the recommendation below.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

A Leading City

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Shop 4 at Cranebrook Village Shopping Centre to Sen Khun & Boyanmolika Kong

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

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - No. 121 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains

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

 

4        Commercial Matter - 33-37 Cook Parade, St Clair

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

 

 

 


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 27 August 2012

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

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

Report Title:                Delivery Program 2009-13 - Six Monthly Review. 2011-12 Operational Plan - June Quarter Review

Attachments:               Organisational Performance Summary & Financial Review Summary



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Attachment 1 - Organisational Performance Summary & Financial Review Summary

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Delivery Program 2009-13 - Six Monthly Review. 2011-12 Operational Plan - June Quarter Review

 

 

 

Organisational Performance Summary & Financial Review Summary

 

101 Pages

 



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 27 August 2012

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

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

Report Title:                A New Planning System for NSW - Green Paper

Attachments:               Penrith City Council’s Submission to the Green Paper



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                                27 August 2012

Attachment 1 - Penrith City Council’s Submission to the Green Paper

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp

 


 

ATTACHMENT       

 

 

 


Date of Meeting:          27 August 2012

 

Delivery Program:       A Leading City   

 

Program:                      Corporate Finance

 

Report Title:                 2012-2013 Voted Works