30 January 2013

 

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 4 February 2013 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

Councillor Greg Davies – 4 February to 8 February 2013 inclusive.

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 10 December 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

Access Committee Meeting - 12 December 2012.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 4 February 2013

 

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
Mark Davies

 

Senior Governance Officer
Glenn Schuil

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


                                                        

 

 

Text Box: Public Gallery
Text Box: Managers

Group Managers                          

         
          

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 



Council_Mark_POS_RGB2013 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2013 - December 2013

(adopted by Council 19/11/12)

 

 

 

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

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23^ü

(7.00pm)

 

 

16

(7.00pm)

 

25@

25

29v

27#

24 *

22

26@

30

21

25#+

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

 

11

11

15

13

17

8

12

9

14

11

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 v

Meeting at which the draft corporate planning documents (Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Resource Strategy) are endorsed for exhibition

 *

Meeting at which the draft corporate planning documents (Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan, Resource Strategy) are adopted

 #

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews (March and September) are presented

 @

Meetings at which the Delivery Program progress reports (including the Operational Plan quarterly reviews for June and December) are presented

 ^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

 ü

Meeting at which the 2012-2013 Annual Statements are presented

 

Meeting at which any comments on the 2012-2013 Annual Statements are presented

 +

Meeting at which the Annual Report is presented

-            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 10 DECEMBER 2012 AT 7:03PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

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

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Greg Davies, Maurice Girotto, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Tricia Hitchen, Karen McKeown, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 19 November 2012

388  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 19 November 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Maurice Girotto declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant in Item 7 - WSROC Tender WR03-12/13 - Road Rehabilitation & Asphalt Services as a number of the companies subject to the report are clients of his.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 5 - Youth Week 2013 Program as he attends a Church which is a recipient of one of the donations discussed in the report.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 6 - Development Application DA11/1096 boundary adjustment Lot 9 and Lot 10 DP 234345 (No.20) Forbes Street, Emu Plains Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: RK McGarrity as an employee of his is related to the applicant.

 

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

389  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Greg Davies that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:10pm.

 

Mr Akos Lumnitzer

 

Item 1 – Notice of Rescission (relating to Item 8 of Ordinary meeting of 19 November 2012 - Planning Proposal for Penrith City-wide Local Environmental Plan)

 

Mr Lumnitzer, spoke in support of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance’s opposition to the rezoning, and in support of the Rescission Motion. Mr Lumnitzer stated he is a local photographer and has become familiar with the wildlife through his photography. Mr Lumnitzer claimed he understands that progress is important but he is not convinced it should be to the detriment of the environment. Mr Lumnitzer urged Council to consider the future of this site for future generations and listed a number of endangered animals which migrate through this area.

 

Mr Lumnitzer stated that he believed a proper assessment of the area is still required to determine the full extent of the native wildlife which migrate through this area. Mr Lumnitzer concluded by stating that if the area is not protected some of these bird species may not survive.

 

Mr Arthur Ilias

 

Item 13 -   Development Application 12/0897 - Subdivision for 292 Lots Jordan Springs Lot 11 DP1176163 Lakeside Parade Jordan Springs 

 

Mr Ilias, spokesperson for the applicant, spoke in support of the recommendation for approval and cited the demand for land from the community as one of the reasons to support the application. Mr Ilias stated that the development is the fastest residential development in Sydney and that Lend Lease has invested significantly in the area. Mr Ilias stated that Lend Lease has previously amended its plans to incorporate a perimeter road along the regional boundary, in consultation with Council, and has submitted this Plan on the basis that it does not set a precedent for future Development Applications.

 

Mr Ilias concluded by saying that 60% of the properties already sold are to residents from the Penrith Local Government Area and that he looks forward to continuing to work closely with Council and the community.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

390  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:25pm.

 

 

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2        Council wins two national Sustainable Cities awards

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillor Karen McKeown spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.                                                                                                                         

391    RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Council wins two national Sustainable Cities awards be received.

 

1        Congratulations to Valda Silvy on papal award

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM, Greg Davies and Jackie Greenow spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies presented Ms Silvy with a small gift and Council expressed its appreciation by acclamation of her service to the community.

392    RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Congratulations to Valda Silvy on papal award be received.

 

Notices Of Motion to Rescind a Resolution

 

1        Notice of Rescission                                                                                                           

393    RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that Council rescind that part of Recommendation 2, Resolution 378, of the Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 19 November 2012, in respect of focus areas 1,2,4,5 & 7 identified in Part B of Attachment 1 of the Report”.

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

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

Councillor Prue Car

Councillor Maurice Girotto                      

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 21 November 2012                                                                                 

394  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Valley Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 21 November, 2012 be adopted.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 8:16 pm.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 8:17 pm.

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2012                                                                                                                   

395  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 3 December, 2012 be adopted.

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2012                                                                                                                   

396  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 3 December, 2012 be adopted with the deletion of the following words from Recommendation 2 of Item 5 “pending the presentation to the Council of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd Annual Report for 2012/13.”

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Preparations and Financial Settings for the 2013-14 Operational Plan                        

397  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Preparations and Financial Settings for the 2013-14 Operational Plan be received.

2.     Council make initial identification of particular matters to be considered in the preparation of the Draft 2013-14 Operational Plan.

3.     Preparation of the Draft 2013-14 Operational Plan continue in the terms discussed in this report and outlined in the Annual Budget Guidelines (attached).

 

2        Decision Making Arrangements During the Christmas/New Year Council Recess    

398  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Decision Making Arrangements During the Christmas/New Year Council Recess be received.

2.     Development Applications which would normally warrant reporting to Council between 11 December 2012 and 3 February 2013 inclusive be determined under the General Manager’s delegation by the General Manager, after consultation with the Mayor, or in his absence the Deputy Mayor.

3.     A report be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting (if required) to be held on 4 February 2013 relating to the operations of the organisation during this period.

 

4        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 November to 30 November 2012  

399  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

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

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

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

 

3        City Marketing Plan                                                                                                          

400  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the City Marketing Plan be received.

2.     Council endorse the program of activities outlined in this report, with a further report being provided through the December Quarter Review to confirm final funding arrangements.

3.     Council noted that all funding sources should be fully explored (including partners) prior to considering voted works as an option.

 

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

5        Youth Week 2013 Program                                                                                              

401  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Youth Week 2013 Program be received.

2.     Council endorse the three recommended projects and funding amounts to the total value of $6,150 as outlined in Table 1 of this report.

3.     Council allocate $650 from North Ward voted works towards funding the shortfall in activities for Youth Week 2013 for the Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services.

 

6        Development Application DA11/1096 boundary adjustment Lot 9 and Lot 10 DP 234345 (No.20) Forbes Street, Emu Plains Applicant: Freeburn Surveying;  Owner: RK McGarrity                                                                                                                                             

402  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That

1.        The information contained in the report on Development Application DA11/1096 boundary adjustment Lot 9 and Lot 10 DP 234345 (No.20) Forbes Street, Emu Plains be received.

2.        The Development Application be approved subject to the following conditions:

a)                  The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered CC6 - SURVEY4 - DWG33002 drawn by Matthew Freeburn and dated 26 September 2011 and stamped approved by Council, the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions.

 

b)                 All road works, drainage works and dedications, required to effect the consented development shall be undertaken at no cost to Penrith City Council.

 

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

·           Opening the road reserve for the provision of services including stormwater.

 

All works within the road reserve shall be carried out in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works. Penrith City Council (being the Roads Authority under the Roads Act) shall approve the works completed on or over the road reserve.  Contact Council’s City Works  Department on (02) 4732 7777 to arrange an inspection of the works (and payment of inspection fees, if required).

d)                 A Construction Certificate is to be issued by the Certifying Authority for the following subdivision works:

 

                                                                            I.     Provision of a sealed interallotment drainage line along the eastern boundary of lot 1 through to Forbes Street to service lot 2.

 

e)                  Engineering plans, supporting calculations and relevant certification for the subdivision works shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

f)                  Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the subdivision works have been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

g)                 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for subdivision works the Principal Certifying Authority and/ or Certifying Authority shall ensure that a Roads Act application, including the payment of application and inspection fees, has been lodged with, and approved by Penrith City Council (being the Roads Authority under the Roads Act), for the following works.

 

·                Provision of a new kerb inlet pit over an existing drainage pipeline in Forbes Street to service the interallotment drainage line.

 

            Civil design drawings are to be prepared strictly in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

h)                 Work on the subdivision shall not commence until:

·       a Construction Certificate has been issued,

·       a Principal Certifying Authority has been appointed for the          project, and

·       any other matters prescribed in the development consent for the   subdivision and the Environmental Planning and Assessment      Act and Regulation have been complied with.

            A Notice of Commencement is to be submitted to Penrith City Council two (2) days prior to commencement of engineering works or clearing associated with the subdivision.

i) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works within the road reserve have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

j) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the following compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of the following documentation shall be provided to Council where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority: 

                                                                  I.            Work as Executed (WAE) drawings of all civil works. The WAE drawings shall be marked in red on copies of the stamped Construction Certificate drawings signed, certified and dated by a registered surveyor or the design engineer.  The Work as Executed drawings shall be prepared in accordance with Council’s Design Guidelines.

 

                                                               II.            Surveyor’s Certificate certifying that all pipes and services are located wholly within the property or within appropriate easements and that no services encroach boundaries.

 

k)                 A variable width drainage easement shall be provided over the eastern boundary of Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2 in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

 

l) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate legal access to McLean Street from the proposed Lot 2 is to be obtained over Lot 11 of DP 264298 including any necessary road dedication.

 

m)               A restriction as to user and positive covenant relating to mainstream and overland flow flooding shall be registered on the title of the property. The restriction as to user and positive covenant shall require that any future dwelling, structure, alterations or surface levels along with maintenance of any structure and the site be compatible with the flow conveyance function of flooding across the site.  This restriction to user shall also include reference and identification of the Risk Management Plan prepared as a consequence of this development consent.

n)                 The original Linen Plan and ten (10) copies shall be submitted to Council. All drainage easements, rights of way, restrictions and covenants are to be included on the linen plan. All dedications of roads/drainage are to be undertaken at no cost to Penrith City Council.

 

            The following information is to be shown on one (1) copy of the plan.

·      The location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements shall comply with any statutory boundary clearances or setbacks as defined by the Building Code of Australia and Council's resolutions.

·       All existing services are wholly contained within the lot served and/or covered by an appropriate easement.

 

o)                 A Subdivision Certificate is to be obtained prior to the release of the linen plan of subdivision. The Subdivision Certificate will not be issued if any of the conditions in this consent are outstanding.

p)                 All services (water, sewer, electricity and telephone) including the provision of service conduits and stub mains are to be installed within the proposed public roads before final inspection of the engineering works.

 

            Prior to the release of the linen plan, the following service authority clearances shall be obtained:

·  a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney                           Water Act 1994 shall be obtained from Sydney Water.                            This is required prior to the issue of the Subdivision                                Certificate and

·  a letter from Integral Energy stating that satisfactory                                        arrangements have been made for electricity supply to all                       proposed allotments in the subdivision, including any                          necessary easements; and

·    a letter from an approved telecommunications service provider that satisfactory arrangements have been made for underground telephone services to all proposed allotments in the subdivision, including any necessary easements.

These clearances are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

q)                 Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate the applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan for the proposed lot which addresses emergency responses in the event of an extreme flood event. 

r)                   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the plan of subdivision is to include an easement for a right of carriageway for emergency access over proposed Lot 1 in favour of proposed Lot 2.

 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car

Councillor Michelle Tormey

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM (abstained)

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

                                                        

Councillor Maurice Girotto                      

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest - Significant, Councillor Maurice Girotto left the meeting, the time being 8:22pm.

 

 

A Liveable City

 

7        WSROC Tender WR03-12/13 - Road Rehabilitation & Asphalt Services                   

403  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on WSROC Tender WR03-12/13 - Road Rehabilitation & Asphalt Services be received.

2.     A new 3 year contract with the option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods (subject to satisfactory performance) be awarded to the following companies for the specified categories in accordance with the terms and conditions of the WSROC Tender:

(a)  Asphalt deliver and lay be awarded to State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd as the primary contractor and Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(b)  Asphalt Ex-bin supply be awarded to Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd (Wallgrove) as the primary contractor and State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(c)  Crack Sealing Works be awarded to SuperSealing Pty Ltd and SRS Roads Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(d) Mill & Fill Works be awarded to Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd and State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(e)  Pavement Restoration Works be awarded to J&G Excavations & Asphalting (NSW) Pty Ltd and Bernipave Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(f)  Provision of Profiling services be awarded to State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd as the primary contractor and Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(g)  Spray Sealed Bituminous Surfacing be awarded to State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd and All Pavement Solutions Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(h)  Stabilisation and/or Unbound Pavement Reconstruction be awarded to Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd and Stabilised Pavements of Australia Pty Ltd as the secondary contractor.

(i)   Surface Preservation, Enrichment or Rejuvenation be awarded to SRS Roads Pty Ltd as well as Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, subject to a needs basis.

 

Councillor Maurice Girotto returned to the meeting, the time being 8:23pm.

 

8        Arms of Australia Inn mower assistance request                                                           

404  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.        The information contained in the report on Arms of Australia Inn mower assistance request be received.

2.        Council allocate $500 equally from each Ward’s voted works to purchase a  lawn mower for the Arms of Australia Inn.

 

14      Nepean River Green Bridge - Preferred Design Selection                                             

405  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Nepean River Green Bridge - Preferred Design Selection  be received

2.     Council endorses the KI Studio option as its preferred design.

3.     The Minister for Transport be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

A Vibrant City

 

9        Magnetic Places Neighbourhood Renewal Community Cultural Grants Program 2012-13

406  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Magnetic Places Neighbourhood Renewal Community Cultural Grants Program 2012-13 be received.

2.     The eight projects recommended by the assessment panel be funded as listed, under the 2012-13 Summaries of Recommended Projects, in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10      2013 Seniors Week Grants Program                                                                                

407  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2013 Seniors Week Grants Program be received.

2.     Council approve grants to eleven (11) local community organisations to the value of $5,426 for activities to celebrate Seniors Week 2013 as listed in Table 1 of this report.

 

 

11      Development Application 12/0420 - Demolition of existing dwelling & erection of two storey dwelling of child care centre (No. 85) Warburton Crescent, Werrington Country Applicant: Kamam Musa Shahatit and Faridah Shahatit;  Owner: Kamam Musa Shahatit and Faridah Shahatit                                                                                                        

408  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Tricia  Hitchen

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application 12/0420 - Demolition of existing dwelling & erection of two storey dwelling of child care centre (No. 85) Warburton Crescent, Werrington Country be received.

2.    Development Application 12/0420 - Demolition of existing dwelling & erection of two storey dwelling of child care centre (No. 85) Warburton Crescent, Werrington Country be refused for the following reasons:

2.1     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 ( Urban land):

 

·    Clause 12 (3) -The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building in Zone No 2 (b), unless the  minimum landscaped area provided is 50% of the site area and the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards is not well founded.

 

2.2     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the proposal is inconsistent with the following provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006:

 

 

·    Part 3.3. (Child Care Centres ) Part B- Controls- Amenity Clause 3 – which requires a minimum site frontage of 22 metres.

 

2.3     The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the site is not suitable for the scale of the proposed development for the following reasons:

 

·   Site frontage of 22 metres is undersized for the proposed Child Care Centre for operational parking purposes and may lead to parents parking on the street all the time.

 

3.    Those persons who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision and of the consideration given to their concerns.

 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

                                                        

Councillor Maurice Girotto                      

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

12      Development Application DA12/0910 Infrastructure - Gravity sewer pipeline - Lot 1037 (No. 1208-1274) The Northern Road Llandilo Applicant: Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner: St Marys Land Ltd                                                                              

409  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Development Application DA12/0910 Infrastructure - Gravity sewer pipeline - Lot 1037 (No. 1208-1274) The Northern Road Llandilo be received.

2.      Council form the opinion that the subject application does not have a ‘significant effect’ on threatened species, population or an ecological community as concluded in the Independent Peer Review carried out by Anderson Environmental Consultants and discussed throughout this report.

 

3.      Development Application DA12/0810 for the construction of a gravity sewer line Lot 1037 (No. 1208-124) The Northern Road,  Jordan Springs be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

Standard Condition

3.1     A001          Approved plans that are architecturally drawn

A005                    Approval Body’s consent (for Integrated DA’s)

A019                    Occupation Certificate

A046                    Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B004           Dust

B005                    Mud/Soil

D001          Implement approved sediment & erosion control measures

D005          No filling without prior approval

D06A         No filling without prior approval (bulk earthworks/major filling)

D009          Covering of waste storage area (Applies to building works/demolition)

D010                    Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D014                    Plant and equipment noise

H01F                    Stamped plans & erection site notice 2

H002                    All forms of construction

H041                    Hours of work (Other devt)

K502                    Works as executed - General

Q001                    Notice of Commencement & Appointment of PCA1

Special Condition:

 

3.2     Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant shall submit to Penrith City Council a detailed mapping of threatened species on the site.  The detailed mapping shall also include location of fencing to allow the threatened species to be avoided or inadvertently removed outside the construction area.

 

3.3     Post construction rehabilitation of vegetation should be undertaken.  Stockpiling of topsoil and vegetative materials should be undertaken to assist with the bushland restoration in accordance with the Ecology Assessment prepared by Cumberland Ecology dated September 2012.

 

3.4     Prior to commencement of works, the applicant must make a separate application to NSW Environment Protection Authority for an environment protection licence for the scheduled development works. The application should be lodged at least eight weeks prior to the planned commencement of the proposed works. Construction works must not commence until the licence has been issued.

 

The licence application should be accompanied by relevant supporting documentation, which should include (but not be limited to):

a)       the development approval / consent;

b)      the environmental assessment for the proposal;

c)       documentation from Sydney Water that verifies that:

·   Sydney Water has agreed to have the proposed sewer infrastructure connected to the St Marys STS, and that once constructed and commissioned Sydney Water will take ownership and management of this pipeline; and

·   Sydney Water is satisfied that the design of the proposed sewer infrastructure meets Sydney Water’s standards / specifications, and that the proposal will be able to operate as designed without compromising the compliance of the St Marys STS licence.

 

3.5     The applicant shall implement the mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 5 of the Ecology Assessment prepared by Cumberland Ecology dated September 2012.

 

3.6     The applicant shall implement the recommendations in the Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report prepared by Godden Mackay Logan dated September 2012.

 

3.7     The applicant shall implement the mitigation measures as recommended in the Truck Sewage Pipeline Connection EIS Inputs prepared by SKM dated 11 September 2012.

 

3.8     The applicant shall implement the construction traffic management mitigation measures as recommended in the Construction Traffic Management Plan Issue B dated 11/09/12 prepared by GTA Consultants.

 

3.9     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Central and Western Precinct.

 

The applicant shall comply with 2010 Guidelines for Development Adjoining Department of Environment and Climate Change Land and Water particularly in relation to

·        Erosion and sediment controls

·        Stormwater runoff

·        Wastewater

·        Management implications relating to pests, weeds and edge effects

 

3.10   All land that has been disturbed by earthworks is to be treated to establish a grass cover by using use native grass and/or a sterile grass mix.

 

3.11   The applicant must implement the soil salinity management measures outlined within the Western Precinct Plan during construction.

 

3.12   Sewer manholes are not to be located within the road pavement of the future link road.  All sewer ventilation shafts are not to be located in any ‘clear zone’ of the future link road.

 

3.13   Compaction testing of any backfilling operations shall be undertaken by an accredited Geotechnical Engineer.  The level of testing shall be determined by the Geotechnical Testing Authority / Superintendant in consultation with the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

3.14   Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a Geotechnical Report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority certifying that all earthworks have been completed in accordance with AS3798.  The report shall include:

·        Compaction reports for all backfilling operations

·        Statement of Compliance

 

A copy of the Geotechnical Report shall be submitted to Penrith City Council where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

3.15   Construction works are not to commence until an Environment Protection Licence has been issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority for the development and a copy of this Licence has been submitted to Council.

 

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

                                                        

Councillor Maurice Girotto                      

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

13      Development Application 12/0897 - Subdivision for 292 Lots Jordan Springs Lot 11 DP1176163 Lakeside Parade Jordan Springs Applicant: Maryland Development Pty Ltd;  Owner: St Mary's Land Limited                                                                                      

410  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.         The information contained in the report on Development Application 12/0897 - Subdivision for 292 Lots Jordan Springs Lot 11 DP1176163 Lakeside Parade Jordan Springs be received.

2.         Council form the opinion that the subject application does not have a ‘significant effect’ on threatened species, population or an ecological community as concluded in the Independent Peer Review carried out by Anderson Environmental Consultants and discussed throughout this report.

3.         Development Application DA12/0897 for Subdivision of Lot 11 DP 1176163 Jordan Springs be determined by granting Deferred Commencement consent subject to the following conditions.

Schedule 1 : Conditions to be Complied with Prior to Consent Becoming Operational:

 

3.1         Within twelve (12) months from the date of decision of this Deferred Commencement, the applicant shall amend and re-submit to Penrith City Council all supporting documents incorporating a perimeter road in accordance with the revised layout.

 

3.2         Within twelve (12) months from the date of decision of this Deferred Commencement, the applicant shall obtain a revised Bush Fire Safety Authority from NSW Rural Fire Service based on the revised layout.

 

Schedule 2

Standard Conditions

 

3.3     A001     Approved plans that are architecturally drawn

A003     Deferred Commencement use

A005     Approval Body’s consent (for Integrated DA’s)

A041     Construction in bushfire areas

A042     Asset protection zones in bushfire areas

A046     Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B004      Dust

B005      Mud/Soil

C003      Uncovering relics

D001     Implement approved sediment & erosion control measures

D005     No filling without prior approval

D009     Covering of waste storage area

D010     Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D014     Plant and equipment noise

G001     Installation of services and service clearance (subdivision)

H01F     Stamped plans & erection site notice 2

H002     All forms of construction

H041     Hours of work

K101     Works at no cost to Council

K201     Sediment & Erosion Control – CC approval

K202     Roads Act – Minor roadworks

K205     Construction Certificate for Subdivision Works

K206     Road design criteria table

K207     Road Safety Audit

K213     Water Quality

K224     Inter-allotment drainage

K225     Bus Stops

K301     Sediment & Erosion Control - Installation

K302     Traffic Control Plan

K304     Matters to be addressed prior to commencement of Subdivision Works

K401     Erosion and sediment control

K404     Services - Underground

K405     Street Lighting

K407     Major Filling

K408     Soil testing - Subdivisions

K503     Stormwater Compliance

K504     Restriction as to User and Positive Covenant

K507     Linemarking & Signage

K510     Street Signs

K511     Bond for final wearing course

K513     Maintenance Bond

K514     Subdivision Compliance documentation

L002      Landscape construction

L005      Planting of plant material

L006      AS requirements

L009      Tree Preservation Order (for subdivision)

M001     Prior to subdivision work

M008     Linen Plan

M009     88B Instrument

M011     Soil testing

M014     Surveyors certificate

P001      Costs

P002      Fees associated with Council land

Q001     Notice of Commencement & Appointment of PCA1

Q008     Subdivision Certificate

Special Conditions

 

3.4     Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant shall submit to Penrith City Council the following documents to achieve compliance with the Director General’s Requirement:

 

(a)                A detailed survey for Grevillea juniperina on the site taking into consideration the potential for higher numbers within the soil stored seedbank both of Grevillea juniperina, Dillwynia tenuifolia, Pimelea spicata and Pultenaea parvilflora in the eastern quarter of the site

(b)               Description and mapping of vegetation, flora and fauna surveys indicating the location of any of the threatened species, their habitats found on the site nor map their extent or the extent of potential habitat.

(c)                A management plan to minimise the potential impacts on the adjoining bushland.  The area to be managed should entail the first 50 metres from the southern edge of the allotments to control any weed incursion, breaks in fencing and dumping of garden waste/rubbish into the bushland conservation area.  The management plan should be in perpetuity and entail works annually to ensure the protection and enhancement of this bushland area.

 

3.5     The Construction Certificate will not be issued over any part of the site requiring a Controlled Activity Approval until a copy of the approval has been provided to Council.

 

3.6     The applicant shall at all times comply with the Bush Fire Safety Authority issued by NSW Rural Fire Service (Ref D12/2115 DA 12092484896 KV) dated 8 November 2012 and the following conditions:

 

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building.  To achieve this, the following condition shall apply:

 

(a)           The stipulated Asset Protection Zones (APZs) are to be provided within the proposed lots where they cannot be achieved by the perimeter road according to the recommendations in ‘Bushfire Protection Assessment – Proposed Subdivision: Jordan Springs Village 4’ prepared by Ecological Australia dated 11 September 2012.

 

In accordance with section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 a restriction to the land use shall be placed on these lots requiring the provision of this APZ which shall be maintained as outlined within Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’ and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document ‘ Standards for asset protection zones’.  This restriction can be extinguished upon commencement of any future proposed residential development on the adjacent lot but only if the hazard is removed as part of the proposal.

 

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the risk of fire to a building.  To achieve this, the following condition shall apply:

 

(b)          Water, electricity and gas are to comply with Section 4.1.3 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

 

Access

The intent of measures for public roads is to provide safe operational access to structures and water supply for emergency services, while residents are seeking to evacuate from an area.  To achieve this, the following condition shall apply:

 

(c)           Public roads shall comply with Section 4.1.3(1) of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’, except the requirement for a continuous perimeter road.

 

3.7     The proposed access points along sections of northern and southern interfaces without perimeter public road shall be provided as recommended in the ‘Bushfire Protection Assessment – Proposed Subdivision ; Jordan Springs Village 4’ prepared by Ecological Australia dated 11 September 2012 and  the correspondence from Ecological Australia date 06 November 2012.

 

3.8     All works/regulatory signposting associated with the proposed development are to be at no cost to Roads and Maritime Services

 

3.9     A Construction Traffic Management Plan for the subdivision, detailing construction vehicle routes, number of trucks, hours of operation, access arrangements and traffic control should be submitted to Penrith City Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for the subdivision.

 

3.10   Traffic calming is to be incorporated into the proposed road servicing Lots 4001 to 4006 due to the acute left hand turn (adjacent to Lot 4015) and potential for high vehicle speeds in this area.  The applicant shall consult Council’s Traffic Engineer for the type and position of device required.

 

3.11   All bicycle path construction is to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Roads and Maritime Services’ NSW Bicycle Guidelines and AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 Bicycles.

 

3.12   The soil salinity management measures outlined within the Western Precinct Plan must be implemented during construction.  The measures and recommendations outlined in the Salinity Review prepared by Geotech Testing Pty Ltd Ref 7508/23-AA Final Revised dated 8 March 2012 are to be adopted and implemented as a part of the development.

 

3.13   The development and salvage works must be conducted in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP Permit No. 10996059) issued on 13 February 2009.

 

3.14   The development shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Western Precinct Contamination Management Plan and the conditions and procedures set out in the Site Audit Statements relating to the Western Precinct.

 

3.15   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, Penrith City Council is to approve of the type of Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT’s), the location of the GPT’s, and the access arrangements for maintenance purposes. 

 

3.16   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate provision is to be made for concrete access hardstand areas to all GPT’s to allow maintenance vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction.  Full details are to be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

3.17   The temporary on-site detention and erosion and sediment control basin as shown on plans by J Wyndham Prince, reference number 9408 sheets DA01-DA26, revision B, dated 10/09/2012 shall be relocated clear of the footprint of the proposed eastern lake. 

 

Engineering plans and supporting calculations for the on-site detention system are to be prepared by a qualified Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineer and shall accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

 

An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be approved by the Certifying Authority as part of the Construction Certificate documentation.  A copy of the Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be submitted to Penrith City Council if Council is not the Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

3.18   Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works relating to the utility service lead in works within public road reserves have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

 

3.19   Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate street trees are to be planted in accordance with the street tree plan numbered WP V4 STP sheets A1, A2, B, C, D, E & F, Issue A dated 11/09/2012.

 

Prior to the planting of street trees, the street tree plan, plant species and location are to be approved by Penrith City Council.  In this regard, please contact Council’s Development Services Unit on 4732 7777.

 

3.20   The temporary on-site detention system and erosion and sediment control system shall be maintained by the person with the benefit of the development consent until development runoff is diverted into the ultimate water quality / detention system and the temporary system has been decommissioned.  A minimum 12 month maintenance period will apply to the ultimate water quality / detention system when completed.

 

3.21   The following aspect in relation to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTPED) principles should incorporated into the proposed subdivision to enhance the safety and security of all users and minimise the crime risk associated with this development:

 

(a)     Lighting

·      All street lighting shall be designed in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy, and in accordance with Integral Energy standards and requirements.

 

·      All pedestrian and cycle networks shall be well lit in accordance with the abovementioned standards.

 

·      Lighting should take into account all vegetation and landscaping that may act as an entrapment spot.

 

(b)     Landscaping

·      Planting along pedestrian / cycle pathways should promote passive surveillance and clear lines of sight. Trees should have a high canopy so as not to provide concealment opportunities. Dense shrubs and heavy undergrowth should be avoided along the pathways.

 

·      The pedestrian / cycle pathways shall be marked and signposted to clearly delineate the portion pathway to be used by pedestrians and cyclists.

 

(c)     Neighbourhood Park

·      Any new planting within the local park must have a high canopy and minimal undergrowth to enable passive surveillance, promote clear lines of sight and reduce entrapment spots. Dense shrubs will be avoided.

 

·      Park furniture (i.e. seating, shelters) and play equipment must utilise vandal resistant treatments where possible, and should be constructed of sturdy materials to minimise opportunities for malicious damage, graffiti, vandalism and theft. Graffiti resistant coatings must be applied to any surfaces subject to graffiti to assist with removal.

 

·      Future park furniture and playground equipment must be positioned in a location with good levels of surveillance to minimise the risk of vandalism or other forms of antisocial behaviour, particularly at night.

 

3.22   Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant must liaise with Council’s Landscape Architecture Supervisor for the provision of a more suitable species for street tree planting on Roads No.1, 5 and 21.

 

Advisory Condition

 

3.23   The site is subject to the provisions of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended. The applicant is reminded of the obligations under the Planning Agreement with regard to the delivery of certain infrastructure and services as part of the development of the Western Precinct. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement, as amended.

 

4.         Those who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car

Councillor Michelle Tormey

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

                                                        

Councillor Maurice Girotto                      

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen left the meeting, the time being 8:29pm.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Storage of ‘Healthy Harold’ Trailers                                                                      

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested a memo reply to all Councillors on the options for storage of the ‘Healthy Harold’ trailers at the Penrith Works Depot and also what assistance can be provided in towing the trailers to sites.

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen returned to the meeting, the time being 8:32pm.

 

RR 2          Recycling Bin Collection                                                                                          

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested a memo reply to all Councillors detailing the cost of  introducing a weekly recycling bin collection, including the Council’s contractual obligations.

 

RR 3          Traffic Issues - Laycock Street, Cranebrook                                                        

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested that the provision of calming devices and flashing lights outside Braddock Public School in Laycock Street, Cranebrook be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for investigation.

 

 

RR 4          Request for Funding - St Marys Rugby League Netball Club                            

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a report to Council, and memo reply to all Councillors, responding to a request from the Director/President of the St Marys Rugby League Netball Club for funding of two netball courts at the Boronia Road netball complex.

 

RR 5          Christmas message displayed on local roadside signs                                           

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memo reply detailing the reasons for the change in the Christmas message on Council roadside signs to ‘Seasons Greetings’ instead of the traditional Christian message. 

 

RR 6          Road surfaces in Glenmore Park                                                                            

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memo reply regarding the condition of road surfaces in Kiber Drive, Muru Drive and surrounding streets in Glenmore Park, which are in need of repair, and also providing details on the slope of the footpaths which may be greater than required.

 

RR 7          Parks in South Penrith & Jamisontown                                                                 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a report to Council on parks in South Penrith and Jamisontown regarding funding of play equipment and other amenities needed at these parks, and funding options available.

 

RR 8          Maintenance of Roads                                                                                             

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to a future Policy Review Committee Meeting regarding road maintenance and preventative maintenance and the repair of pot holes which appear after road patching works, as well as cracked roads not being repaired, resulting in severe failures.

Councillor Crameri OAM also requested a memo reply specifically regarding the road surfaces in Ninth Avenue, Sixth Avenue and Third Road, in Llandilo.

 

RR 9          Replacement of Llandilo Rural Fire Service Shed                                                

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply providing a complete chronology, from the last three years, of the Llandilo Rural Fire Shed replacement.

 

RR 10        Repairs to Llandilo Rural Fire Service Shed                                                         

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to Council outlining the provision of various repairs to the Llandilo Rural Fire Service Shed, including replacement of the kitchen and awning at the side of the shed, as well as provision of a lock up storage at the back of the building, including a roof; and in addition the provision of two small fences with gates and an awning for the catering trailer.

 

 

 

 

RR 11        Provision of Playground in Nash Street, Penrith                                                  

Councillor Karen McKeown requested a report to Council regarding the provision of a playground in Nash Street, Penrith, with the report to identify which appropriate surplus land may be sold for affordable housing to fund a playground with an estimated value of $75,000.

 

RR 12        Community Meeting concerning a Planning Proposal for Remediation of Contaminated Soil     

Councillor Prue Car requested a memo reply detailing how Council is advertising the community meeting to be held on Monday 17 December 2012 in relation to the Planning Proposal to remediate the contaminated soil at 7-9 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill and its transfer to the SITA facility at Kemps Creek.

 

RR 13        Use of vehicles as advertising structures                                                                

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report to Council outlining options to address the issue of vehicles being used as advertising structures from avoiding a loophole in Legislation regarding the use of on-street parking.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

411  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Maurice Girotto seconded Councillor     Marcus Cornish that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:41 pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Maurice Girotto seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        Development Application DA11/0546 Werrington Signals Subdivision DP1069025 Lots 50-58 (No.731-769) Great Western Highway (Car French Street) Werrington  Applicant: Middle East Pty Ltd;  Owner: Middle East Pty Ltd, Highway Pty Ltd, Western Highway Pty Ltd, Great Western Highway Pty Ltd, Eastern O'Connell Pty Ltd, George W. Pty Ltd    

 

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.

 

 

The meeting resumed at 8:43 pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:41 pm on 10 December 2012, the following being present

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Greg Davies, Maurice Girotto, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Tricia Hitchen, Karen McKeown, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

 

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

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Development Application DA11/0546 Werrington Signals Subdivision DP1069025 Lots 50-58 (No.731-769) Great Western Highway (Car French Street) Werrington  Applicant: Middle East Pty Ltd;  Owner: Middle East Pty Ltd, Highway Pty Ltd, Western Highway Pty Ltd, Great Western Highway Pty Ltd, Eastern O'Connell Pty Ltd, George W. Pty Ltd                                                                                                                                             

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in Development Application DA11/0546 Werrington Signals Subdivision DP1069025 Lots 50-58 (No.731-769) Great Western Highway (Car French Street) Werrington be received.

2.     Council and the owner of the subject land enter into Voluntary Planning Agreement as per the letter of offer, that the developer provide

o All roads provided as part of the current DA be provided as part of each stage;

o All stormwater work required to satisfy the entire development of the site (Stages 1-5);

o Bicycle paths and bus facilities required to service the site (cost expected to be in the order of $125,000);

o Dedication of land containing the drainage basins and conservation corridor to Council at no cost to Council; and

o $3.6 Million developer contributions

3.     The Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) be publicly notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Regulations 2000.

4.     The General Manager be granted delegated authority to finalise the VPA after it has been publicly notified.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

                                                        

Councillor Maurice Girotto                      

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

412  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1 and CW2 be adopted.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:46 pm.

 


PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·     Their name;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                     


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Australia Day honours   

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Leading City

Mayoral Minute

Australia Day honours 

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

           

 

I am particularly proud to recognise outstanding Penrith citizens who received Australia Day awards on Thursday 24 January. Demonstrating excellence in their field and serving as an inspiration to our community, the award winners include: 

 

Jessica Fox (Penrith), Penrith Citizen of the Year and Penrith Sports Person of the Year won a silver medal for canoeing in the 2012 London Olympics. In 2010, she won gold in the Singapore Summer Youth Olympics and a bronze in the Canoe Slalom World Championships.


Dr William Gayed (Emu Plains), Penrith Appreciation Award, has worked tirelessly as a general practitioner, surgeon, former Penrith Mayor (1992-93), founder of the Senior Citizens’ Club in Werrington and local radio station WOWFM, plus he is a Coptic Achievement Award winner for his work and service with Egyptian Coptics in Australia. Dr Gayed formed the Nile Family Association to help families from Egypt and the Sudan, the Sub Federation of Egyptian Migrants and was co-founder of the Arabic Medical Association.


Jan Bradley (Luddenham), Penrith Appreciation Award. A stalwart of the Wallacia and Mulgoa Rotary Club, Jan was named as its president twice in the past 12 years. She was also involved in donating furniture to a local youth homelessness service.


Benjamin Egge (Claremont Meadows), Penrith Appreciation Award. Benjamin’s work as a corrections officer inspired him to train females in self defence. He has provided coaching in anti-bullying, work ethics and in boosting self identity for troubled people. He is also committed to environmental conservation through protecting the endangered Kite bird.


Michael and Jo-ann Morris (Cranebrook), Penrith Appreciation Award set up the renowned Samuel Morris Foundation to raise awareness about children’s drowning after nearly losing their two-year-old son, Samuel, in 2006 to a drowning accident.

 

I also commend media personality and former Panthers player Mark Geyer (South Penrith) for his Medal of the Order of Australia in the General Division. This great honour was bestowed for service to the sport of rugby league football and to the community through a range of charitable organisations.   

 

Another very worthy recipient of the Medal of the Order of Australia was Diane Langmack. Well known for her work for Women in League at Penrith Panthers, Diane received her OAM for service to the community through charitable and women's organisations.  

 

Congratulations also to Kenneth Charles Wheeler (Colyton), part of the Australia Day Honours List for 2013 as one of four people in NSW to receive an Ambulance Service Medal.

 

The success stories of these worthy recipients reflect the very best qualities of our residents; community-mindedness, generosity, perseverance and the pursuit of excellence. On behalf of our City, I congratulate all Penrith’s Australia Day award winners on their notable achievements.

 

Councillor Mark Davies

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Australia Day honours  be received.

 

 

  


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 12 December 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A City of Opportunities

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 12 December, 2012

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Jackie Greenow (Chair), Councillor Tricia Hitchen, Melanie Coid, Michael Morris, Denise Heath, Councillor Michelle Tormey (arrived 5.17pm), Councillor Prue Car (arrived 5.19pm).

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Roger Nethercote - Group Manager-People and Places, Joe Ibbitson – Community Programs Coordinator, Robyn Brookes – Disability Services Officer, Erich Weller – Community and Cultural Development Manager, Hans Meijer – City Works Manager, Ben Felten – Disability Access Officer, Peter Wood – Development Assessment Coordinator, Hannah Van de Werff – Graduate Environmental Planner, Colin Wood – Fire Safety, Certification and Compliance Coordinator.

 

APOLOGIES

AC26 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Denise Heath seconded Michael Morris that apologies be accepted from Ronda Hopkins, Councillor Marcus Cornish, Farah Madon, David Currie.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 8 August 2012

AC27  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Michael Morris seconded Denise Heath that the minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 8 August 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen declared a Non Pecuniary Interest – Significant in Item 4 - Development Application Referrals to the Access Committee – Sports and Leisure Centre (Gymnasium), Lambridge Place, Penrith as she is acquainted with the owners.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Vibrant City

 

4        Development Applications referred to Access Committee                                             

Discussion was held regarding the quality of the plans in the business paper.  Melanie Coid requested a digital copy of the plans and Peter Wood suggested these were available on the online tracker.

 

DA12/1168                   Existing Dwelling at a Health Care Consulting Room, Kingswood

 

Peter Wood advised that the development application is for the conversion of an existing dwelling to a health care consulting room.

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey arrived at the meeting at 5.17pm.

 

Councillor Prue Car arrived at the meeting at 5.19pm.

 

The Committee discussed parking and the number of accessible spaces.  Peter Wood will address whether seven spaces are provided for medical centres.

 

Discussion was also held around whether the front door will be accessible by wheelchair.  Peter Wood advised there is a graded ramp from the front door and accessible paths of travel from the front boundary and the rear carpark.

 

Colin Wood advised that as this is a conversion only one exit is required.  There is also a set down area with accessible spaces.

 

DA12/1128         Go-Kart Track, Driver Safety Training Facility and Paintball Centre, Luddenham

 

Peter Wood introduced the development application for a Go Kart Track, Driver Safety Training Facility and Paintball Centre at Luddenham.

 

The proposed development includes construction of a central amenities block, storage sheds, a control tower and workshop building. Accessible parking, a graded pathway from the carpark to the entrance of the karting track and to the accessible amenities building will be provided.

 

Peter Wood advised that the application did not provide great detail and a letter has been sent to request further detailed information.

 

Peter Wood also referred to other issues regarding permissibility of use and noise impacts.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    pathway access around the development

·    ambulant toilets

·    accessible parking in each carpark

·    provision of a sluice.

 

DA12/1200                   Single Storey Building for Place of Public Worship, Mulgoa

 

Peter Wood explained that the development application is for construction of a single storey building for a place of public worship in Stage 2 of Glenmore Park.

 

The site is the current carpark of the existing Norwest exhibition sales office.  It is a narrow and deep site.  The proposed building is fairly modest in scale.  Accessible amenities and an accessible path of travel are proposed.  Twenty onsite parking spaces will be provided with one accessible parking space. 

 

Discussion was held about the number of exits from the building and assessment will ensure that there are no steps between floor levels.

 

DA12/0913                   Two Storey Commercial Building, Jordan Springs

 

Hannah Van de Werff reported on the development application received for a two storey commercial building in Water Gum Drive, Jordan Springs.

 

The development will include two accessible parking spaces with a shared zone, a lift to service two floors, toilets on each floor, and ground floor unit entry which is flush with the path.  An Access Report was provided with the application.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·      accessible parking spaces

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

·      the bus route through the main street of Jordan Springs.

 

DA10/0531.07     Sports and Leisure Centre (Gymnasium), Lambridge Place, Penrith

 

Hannah Van de Werff spoke to the approved sports and leisure facility in the industrial estate in Lambridge Place, Penrith.

 

The development includes access to the first and second floor by a wheelchair accessible lift.  Accessible parking is provided in stage 1 and 2 carparks.

 

Discussion was held regarding the height of the basement carparking and the possibility of getting the height increased.

 

Other issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    access point into the pool – use of aquatic wheelchair with a ramp

·    accessible toilets separate to other toilets.

   

RECOMMENDATION

AC28 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Michelle Tormey seconded Denise Heath that the information contained in the report on Development Applications referred to Access Committee be received.

 

 A supper break was held at 6.19pm.

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen left the meeting at 6.20pm.

 

Peter Wood and Hannah Van de Werff left the meeting at 6.26pm.

 

The meeting resumed at 6.35pm.

 

A City of Opportunities

 

1        Disability Access Improvement Program Budget Expenditure 2012/13                       

Ben Felten spoke to the Disability Access Improvement Program (DAIP) report.  This is an ongoing annual program with a budget allocation of $25,000 a year. 

 

Ben Felten provided information to the meeting on the proposed 2012/13 project allocation and costs.

 

A recommendation from the Access Committee to increase the allocation to the DAIP is being given consideration as part of the 2013/14 budget review process.

 

RECOMMENDATION

AC 29 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Car seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that the information contained in the report on Disability Access Improvement Program Budget Expenditure 2012/13 be received.

 

2        The No Boundaries Project                                                                                              

Robyn Brookes spoke to The No Boundaries report.  The No Boundaries project was a year long program of participation by people with disability including artists in a range of creative activities.  It involved many different groups and individuals.  Cindy Drennan, creative director and artist, designed different mediums and activities for participants.  An art projection was created and an event was held in September 2012 to showcase the results.

 

Robyn Brookes advised that an evaluation was undertaken of the project by surveying participants involved in the activities and the audience on the evenings of the projections.  Copies of the evaluation can be provided if required.  The evaluation confirms the power of art to provide new experiences and to encourage inclusion.  There was some disappointment at the attendance by the broader community at the Friday evening event.  At the similar IDPwD event there was a large audience which was an indication that word about the project had spread. 

 

Discussion was held around the digital project which was shown at the meeting, though unfortunately the sound was not working.  If members would like a copy please contact Robyn Brookes.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that Cindy Drennan is putting together a DVD of the projection with a menu.  Segments of video of young people at the workshops will be included.

 

Joe Ibbitson attended the Art of Health and Wellbeing Conference in Perth where he spoke to the DVD of the project and received a good reception.

 

Roger Nethercote congratulated those who worked on the project.  He said it was a marvellous outcome and the community reaction was very positive.  This fantastic art experience is all about building social inclusion and put Penrith on the map in another unique way – it is Vivid Penrith in the making.

 

The No Boundaries Project will be submitted to the National Local Government Awards and the Disability Awards.

 

RECOMMENDATION

AC30 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Michael Morris seconded Melanie Coid that the information contained in the report on The No Boundaries Project be received.

 

 

 

3        2012 Nepean Disability Expo                                                                                            

Ben Felten spoke to the Disability Expo report.  The 2012 Nepean Disability Expo was held in September at the Penrith Panthers Exhibition Pavilion to display various products and services.  The Organising Committee, with leadership provided by Nepean Area Disability Organisation (NADO), developed a new brand, a website and Facebook page.

 

After evaluation of the previous Disability Expo a number of improvements were made in 2012 including improved signage, sending out 5,000 postcards, better lighting and catering.  Feedback from the 2012 Expo will be analysed to make further improvements to future Expos.

 

Denise Heath advised that the numbers were down to approximately 1,400 over the two days, which was disappointing.  Visitors to the Expo were interested and engaged with the exhibitors.  The variety of exhibitors was pleasing, the catering was too expensive for some, and feedback was that entertainment should have been provided.  The changed layout created some issues with the way people walked around with “cross streets” becoming empty.  Overall the 2012 Disability Expo was a great success.

 

Ben Felten thanked Denise Heath for her leadership of the Expo Organising Committee and NADO for the administrative services they provided.  He said this is a good example of Council working together with the disability sector.  Penrith Panthers were also thanked for their donation of the venue.

 

RECOMMENDATION

AC31 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Michael Morris seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that:

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

2.     Council write a letter of appreciation to NADO acknowledging their leadership, coordination and administrative support for the 2012 Nepean Disability Expo.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          All Welcome Project Update                                                                                   

Joe Ibbitson advised that a memo was sent out with an update of the All Welcome Project.  A meeting has been held with Gai Hawthorn of the Penrith City Centre Association.  Gai Hawthorn is very supportive of the project and has suggested ways to move the project forward.  Businesses which have shown interest in the project are being pursued individually. A sticker strategy to reward accessible premises was discussed.  A builder is being sought to provide quotes to interested businesses.

 

GB 2          Family Fun Day - Sunday 24 February 2013 - York Public School                    

A Family Fun Day will be held at York Public School on Sunday 24 February 2013.  ADHC in partnership with Council is organising the day particularly focusing on families, carers and people with a disability as well as services for these client groups.

 

GB 3          National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Funding Announcement            

Denise Heath advised that on 10 December 2012 the Hon Andrew Constance MP, NSW Minister for Disability Services, announced that from 2018 $6.4 billion NDIS funding will be provided by the State and Federal governments. This funding will assist more than 140,000 people with a disability living in NSW each year.

 

GB 4          Memo regarding Construction of a Library at University of Western Sydney, Kingswood Campus

Ben Felten spoke to a memo sent to the Access Committee regarding the construction of a library at UWS.  He advised that overall it was a really good outcome with the exception of the widening of the aisles between the bookshelves.

 

GB 5          Construction of Footpaths                                                                                       

Hans Meijer advised that a local company constructed a half kilometre footpath along Lambridge Place and the south side of Andrews Road, Penrith which links up with the existing path along Castlereagh Road.

 

Construction has commenced on the shared pathway along the Great Western Highway between Penrith and St Marys which will make it much safer for anyone walking or cycling. Construction commenced just east of O’Connell Street to the bridge at UWS.

 

GB 6          2013 Review of the National Disability Transport Standards                              

Ben Felten advised that the 2013 Review of the National Disability Transport Standards is now open for comment. A major review is being undertaken of all transport and it is understood that Council is considering preparation of a submission.  A link can be provided to the Terms of Reference and Issues Paper if required.

 

Joe Ibbitson advised that submissions will be accepted until April, then a public hearing will be held and a draft paper prepared.  The final paper is expected early 2014. Erich Weller advised that further information will come to a future Access Committee meeting.

 

GB 7          NSW Government National Disability Strategy Implementation Plan 2012-2014        

Erich Weller advised that the State Government released its National Disability Strategy Implementation Plan 2012-2014 a week ago.  Further information on that strategy will be provided next year.

 

Denise Heath congratulated the Council officers on the work they undertake with inclusion programs in the Penrith community.

 

GB 8          Penrith Sailability Celebrates Ten Years                                                               

Councillor Greenow congratulated Penrith Sailability on their 10 year anniversary.  A very successful Open Day was held at the centre.

 

Councillor Greenow wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7.25pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 12 December, 2012 be adopted.

 

 

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Funding of the Environmental Defenders Office

 

2        A Digital Economy Strategy for the City of Penrith

 

3        Macrofauna Management - Jordan Springs and Wianamatta Regional Park

 

4        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 December 2012 to 31 December 2012

 

A City of Opportunities

 

5        Development Application DA12/0931 demolition of existing dwelling & construction of medical centre Lot 57 DP 215146 (No.32) Somerset Street, Kingswood Applicant: Stimson Consultant Services Pty Ltd;  Owner: Angelo Peter Preketes

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

 

A Green City

 

6        Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority funding for two natural areas

 

7        Funding Arrangements for installation of Solar Thermal at Ripples Leisure Centre

 

A Liveable City

 

8        Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 - Review of Environmental Factors

 

9        Tender Reference 12/13-11 - Refurbishment of Coachmans Park

 

10      Tender Reference 12/13-10 - Construction Works to Three Toilet Amenities

 

11      Tender Reference 12/13-04 - Suction Eductor - Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Truck

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Vibrant City

 

12      DA12/0308 for a Dwelling at Lot 1 DP237071 (No. 265) Seventh Avenue, Llandilo Applicant: Sharon Jones Architectural Design;  Owner: Adam John McBurney & Tennille Gay McBurney

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

 

 


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Funding of the Environmental Defenders Office

 

2        A Digital Economy Strategy for the City of Penrith

 

3        Macrofauna Management - Jordan Springs and Wianamatta Regional Park

 

4        Summary of Investments and Banking for the period 1 December 2012 to 31 December 2012

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Leading City

 

 

1

Funding of the Environmental Defenders Office   

 

Compiled by:               Matthew Bullivant, Senior Legal Officer

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

Requested By:             Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

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

This report was requested by Councillor Tormey. The report addresses the role of EDO NSW (formerly referred to as the Environmental Defenders Office), how EDO NSW (“EDO”) is currently funded and also addresses the funding changes to the EDO.

Background

Councillor Tormey has requested an urgent report which addresses the following matters:

 

1.    The role of the EDO including how they assist the public with planning and public interest matters.

 

2.    Examples of how the EDO has assisted public members and community groups protect their environment.

 

3.    How is the EDO currently funded and what is the NSW Government proposing and why?

 

4.    What are the likely implications for EDO and the public if their funding is cut and they cease to exist?

 

Councillor Tormey has also requested that Council write to the NSW Government urging that the EDO be fully funded “so that it can continue to provide free and cost effective legal advice to the public of NSW”.

 

The report will respond to each of the above matters in turn.

 

The role of the EDO including how they assist the public with planning and public interest matters.

According to the EDO’s Annual Report for 2011-2012 it has four (4) core areas of operation. The 4 core areas of operation are:

 

•        Legal advice and litigation;

•             Policy and law reform;

•             Scientific and technical advice; and

•             Community programs (legal outreach, international and Indigenous engagement).

According to the EDO, it is the only legal centre in NSW that provides specialist advice about public interest environmental law matters. The EDO was established in 1985 and since then the EDO states in its annual report (2011-2012) that it has pursued its mission of providing public interest legal services to regional, state and national conservation groups, resident action groups and individuals, to protect the built and natural environment.

The EDO’s vision is to strive to create a society that values and protects the environment, and its mission is to promote the public interest and improve environmental outcomes through the informed use of the law.

 

Examples of how the EDO has assisted public members and community groups protect their environment.

According to the EDO, the organisation provides free initial telephone advice and, if appropriate, written advice on environmental law and policy.

 

According to its annual report, in 2011-2012:

 

EDO staff provided 1428 telephone advices. Of these about 63% were to clients in rural and regional New South Wales. The subject matter of these advices is varied, but common issues include planning and development, tree disputes, zoning, public land management, compliance and enforcement, major projects and State significant developments, access to government information, Aboriginal cultural heritage, pollution and contamination, threatened species, private conservation, biobanking, defamation, community rights, mining, water, marine biodiversity, forestry and misleading and deceptive conduct. 285 casework files were opened during the reporting period. 448 casework files were closed, of which 125 were minor assistance files.

 

EDO NSW also represents individuals and community organisations in public interest litigation to protect the environment. In the past year [2011-12] there has been a substantial increase in calls for assistance, particularly in the areas of mining and pollution/enforcement. As well as running test cases, we have been involved in providing expert advice and assistance in a range of matters, and assisted in obtaining significant outcomes for local communities. For example, in Blue Mountains Conservation Society v Delta Electricity, EDO NSW obtained a satisfactory resolution of a water pollution issue through voluntary mediation. Delta admitted it had discharged waste waters into the Coxs River in breach of pollution laws and agreed to undertake work to stop the pollution. On this basis, proceedings were discontinued. Often a letter from EDO NSW will also result in better legal processes, including better community engagement and better analysis of the potential environmental impacts of a project.

 

In 2011-2012, EDO NSW pursued a number of cases involving issues of significant public concern including planning, pollution, mining, biodiversity issues, Aboriginal cultural heritage and climate change.

 

EDO NSW continues to be involved in planning matters to improve biodiversity outcomes and public participation in the planning system. In South East Forest Rescue v Bega Council & Ors, our client was successful in invalidating a decision that failed to consider the objectives of the zoning, submissions of the public and the concept of ecologically sustainable development. In Western Sydney Conservation Alliance v Penrith City Council & Ors, the argument related to the consideration of the Recovery Plan for the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland. Although our client’s argument that the decision must be consistent with the Recovery Plan was unsuccessful, the Court found the Plan must still be considered.

 

EDO NSW was also able to engage in alternative dispute resolution in two other planning matters. In Yass Environmental Responsibility Network v Yass Council, our client challenged the Council’s decision to approve a new subdivision on the grounds that the Council failed to consider threatened species which existed on the site. EDO NSW mediated on behalf of our client with the developer and Council to ensure the new subdivision was built in a way that protected the striped legless lizard.

 

In Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association v Minister for Planning & Ors, the parties (including the developer) all agreed to mediate the proceedings. After lengthy discussions, the proceedings were discontinued on the basis that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure recommended to the Minister for Planning an amendment to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 to remove the area from the application of that Code. A revised Development Control Plan for the site was also to be placed on exhibition.

 

Issues stemming from the regulation of mining have also been a feature of the work of EDO NSW in the past year. EDO NSW has been involved in three merits appeals challenging mining projects to achieve better environmental outcomes - Hunter Environment Lobby v Minister for Planning & Ors, Ironstone Community Action Group v Minister for Planning & Ors, and Coastwatchers Inc. & South East Regional Conservation Alliance v Minister for Planning. In all of these cases, the merits appeal resulted in significantly strengthened conditions attached to the approval of the mine, including for monitoring, public information, transparency and better wildlife corridors.

 

EDO NSW was also involved in assisting communities with coal seam gas (CSG) activities in NSW. In Barrington Gloucester Stroud Preservation Alliance v Minister for Planning, EDO NSW is involved in the first case in the Land and Environment Court to test the consideration of environmental impacts from CSG mining. The case was heard in October 2011 and judgment is reserved.”

 

How is the EDO currently funded and what is the NSW Government proposing and why?

According to the EDO Annual Report for 2011-12, the EDO is ‘overwhelmingly’ dependent on grants to fund its operations. The major source of funding for the organisation is the Public Purpose Fund (PPF), which is discussed in more detail below.

 

Funds from the PPF have been based on triennial funding and the current grant is for the period 2009 to 2012. The PPF provided $1,642,127 or about 72% of EDO’s income in 2011-2012.

 

According to the EDO Annual Report for 2011-12 triennial funding is also received from both the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department and Legal Aid NSW through the Community Legal Services Program (CLSP). The current Funding Agreement covers 2010–2013. CLSP funds from the NSW Government accounted for $188,824 or about 8.3% of the income of EDO in 2011-2012; Commonwealth funding amounted to $93,928 or 4.2% of overall revenue.

 

EDO also benefitted from a triennial grant from the NSW Government through its Environmental Trust under the Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants Program which contributes to the organisation’s administrative costs. EDO was awarded $180,000 in funding for the period 2009–2012. As only $36,000 of this grant was taken up in the first year, $72,000 was available last year and this year.

 

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is another major funder of EDO with triennial funding of $US210,000 from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. This funding is for legal capacity building work in Papua New Guinea and the Pacific.

 

In addition to the triennial grants outlined above, the EDO received a number of smaller grants allocated for a shorter time and for specific projects during 2011-2012.

 

The EDO also generates income from a range of sources. In 2011-2012, the EDO received other income of $173,866. A proportion of this was income from professional fees ($78,321). Fees may also be received for legal advice, consultancies or presentations. Other income came from memberships and donations ($20,000); income from bank interest; sale of publications and copyright licensing.

 

The EDO also relies on law firms’ in-kind pro-bono support and a range of volunteers to carry out its functions.

 

In 2011-2012, the EDO received income to the value of $2,286,693 and expenditure was $2,252,595, achieving a surplus of $34,098.

 

Public Purpose Fund (PPF)

The PPF is administered by the Law Society of NSW. The PPF collects the interest earned on clients’ money that is held on deposit in solicitors’ trust accounts.

 

The PPF is controlled by a board of trustees (4) appointed by the Attorney-General. Funds from the PPF go towards regulating the State’s lawyers and about one-quarter of it goes towards funding Legal Aid NSW ($44 million in 2011-2012).

 

According to recent reports, a review of the PPF has been requested by the Attorney-General after the NSW Law Society raised concerns about the deteriorating position of the PPF.

The PPF has reportedly suffered because of lower interest rates after the Global Financial Crisis and increased payments to Legal Aid NSW.

 

Apparently, the PPF has been operating in deficit since 2009, with a deficit of $6.7 million last financial year. Net assets fell from $181.2m in 2008 to $139m last financial year. It has been reported that the payments to Legal Aid NSW almost doubled between 2006 and 2012.

In the 2004-05 year the EDO received $462,000 from the PPF, which represented 42% of the EDO’s revenue. In 2011-12 the EDO received $1,642,127 which represented 72% of the EDO’s revenue.

 

 

According to the EDO, the major source of its annual funding (from the PPF) has been cut. The EDO has been receiving PPF funding since 1996, normally under three-year grant agreements.

 

The EDO states that the first cut in PPF funding was to 6 months (July-December 2012); and it has apparently been reduced to only 3 months (January-March 2013), with the dollar value cut from $420,000 to $300,000 for the quarter.

 

Other recipients of funds from the PPF include the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the NSW Law Society, the NSW Bar Association, the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner and the State’s law libraries.

 

What are the likely implications for EDO and the public if their funding is cut and they cease to exist? 

According to the EDO the funding cut “makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a strong, independent EDO, that can offer ongoing help to clients, and serve the wider community, while operating free of the politics of the day. If our PPF funding is not restored and public funding affirmed then EDO NSW as you know it will be decimated if not destroyed in the New Year.

 

It has been reported that the Attorney-General has not made a final decision on whether to cut long term funding to the EDO. The PPF guidelines are currently under review.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Funding of the Environmental Defenders Office be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Leading City

 

 

2

A Digital Economy Strategy for the City of Penrith   

 

Compiled by:               Chris Gardner, Information Management & Technology Manager

Ray Richardson, Grants Support Officer

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

Stephen Britten, Group Manager - Legal & Governance   

 

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

Penrith City Council engaged Attentive Consulting Pty Ltd to develop a Digital Economy Strategy for the City of Penrith, along with a Business Case for an application to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy’s Digital Local Government Program.

 

The team from Attentive Consulting, led by Senior Partner and CEO, Sam Austrin-Miner, conducted a series of public meetings in Penrith and St Marys, met with individual stakeholders in the City and conducted a business and public survey.

 

Sam Austrin-Miner presented the draft Digital Economy Strategy at a Councillor Briefing on 7 November 2012. As a result of the response from the Councillors in attendance this report recommends that Council adopt the Digital Economy Strategy.

 

Because of the size of the electronic form of the Digital Economy Strategy, which means it cannot be emailed, a hard copy has been previously supplied to Councillors, and this is also available for download in the Drop Box.

 

A summary version of the Digital Economy Strategy has also been produced and that has been distributed to all Councillors.

Background

In October 2011, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced the first Councils to receive the National Broadband Network (NBN).

 

A map of the first area in Penrith to receive the NBN rollout was released on 14 December 2011.

 

Invitations to eligible organisations in Penrith to apply for the Digital Hubs and Digital Enterprise Programs were made early in 2012, followed by an announcement of Councils eligibility to apply under Round 3 of the Digital Local Government Program.

 

Attentive Consulting Pty Ltd was engaged to prepare Council’s Business Case for the Digital Local Government Program and to develop a Digital Economy Strategy for the City.

 

Attentive Consulting staff interviewed staff, conducted six public meetings (four in Penrith and two in St Marys), met with representatives of a wide range of businesses and organisations and conducted two public surveys: one for individuals and one for business.

 

The resulting information, informed by references and statistics on the City, Australia and key comparative societies across the world, was analysed and shaped into the Digital Economy Strategy.

 

Sam Austrin-Miner led Councillors through the document, including the background, methodology, key findings and recommendations at the Councillor Briefing of 7 November 2012. The report was warmly welcomed and options to capitalise on the recommendations were discussed enthusiastically by the attending Councillors.

 

A Playback Session was held on 22 November to which all members of the Penrith community who contributed to the development of the Digital Economy Strategy were invited. Attendees received a copy of the summary Strategy.

 

The summary version of the Digital Economy Strategy was distributed to attendees at the Penrith Business Alliance’s Business Forum on Innovation which was held at the Penrith RSL on 23 November.

 

Some of the Digital Economy Strategy’s thirty eight recommendations have direct implications for Penrith City Council in preparing the organisation for the new, faster digital highway.

 

Many of the recommendations require input from key businesses, institutions and organisations across the City.

 

The first recommendation of the Strategy is to establish a Governance Structure in the form of a Working Party, involving key stakeholders and representation from Council, to ensure that this community can leverage the maximum possible advantage from the opportunity that an early rollout of the NBN provides.

 

Following the public Playback Session and Business Forum on Innovation there has been interest shown by key stakeholders willing to be involved.

 

Those who have expressed an interest include:

·    Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District

·    Nepean Community College

·    University of Western Sydney

·    Western Sydney Institute of TAFE

·    National Disability Coordination Officer Program

·    Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce

·    Penrith Valley Business Enterprise Centre.

 

When the Working Party is appointed, the members will commence to prioritise and coordinate the implementation of recommendations contained in the Strategy.

 

The Penrith Business Alliance (PBA) also supports Council’s plan to implement a Digital Economy Strategy to take advantage of the NBN being laid out in Penrith.  The PBA has provided some academic and industry based contacts which they believe would be able to add value to the Digital Economy Strategy process.  The PBA is currently looking to develop an App to promote development priorities and build on their innovation agenda for enterprises and would prefer to progress this through Council’s Digital Economy Strategy.

 

Two recommendations of the Digital Economy Strategy already underway with funding from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) are:

 

·    Recommendation R15 - Digital Local Government Program (video conferencing pilot for Council’s customer services);

 

·    Recommendation R16 - Digital Hubs Program (community education on use of the NBN for Penrith Library and Nepean Community College).

 

A third recommendation being implemented by the Nepean Community College and Penrith Business Enterprise Centre is the DBCDE funded Digital Enterprise Program, to provide training on use of the NBN for small businesses and organisations (Recommendation R17).

 

Conclusion

It is imperative that once this Digital Economy Strategy is adopted, a number of steps are undertaken urgently.

 

It is recommended that Council endorse the following actions:

 

1.       The composition of the Digital Working Party be determined and appointments made      (Recommendation G1).

 

2.       Council appoint a Digital Strategy Program Manager to facilitate the operations of the Digital Working Party (Recommendation R1).

 

3.       At least one Digital Strategy Project Officer be appointed to facilitate the implementation of Council projects identified in the Strategy (Recommendation R3).

 

4.       Council commence implementation of at least one Wireless site within the City (Recommendation R5).

 

5.       Council commence investigation for the implementation of a pilot Teleworking Hub (Recommendation R7).

 

6.       Council commence planning for a national launch of Penrith as a Digital City – Globally Connected (Recommendation R10).

 

7.       Council commence development of a national marketing campaign to promote Penrith as a Digital City – Globally Connected (Recommendation G4).

 

Acting Financial Services Manager’s comment

In keeping with the priority Councillors have expressed for this project, provision within Council’s overall employee costs budget will be proposed in the December Quarterly Review.  The estimated cost to implement the DES over 3 years is $700,000, with approximately $170,000 being required in the current year to undertake the roles as detailed in the recommendations of the Digital Economy Strategy.  Should Council be of a mind to implement the DES as outlined in this report, the current year funding can be allocated from salary savings identified in the December Quarterly Review to be reported to Council on 25th February.  The remaining years funding for this project will be included in the establishment of future budgets, and once again will be offset against additional organisational salary savings that may occur.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on A Digital Economy Strategy for the City of Penrith be received.

2.     A Digital Economy Working Party be established and invitations be extended to the organisations that have expressed an interest to be on the Working Party, including PBA, and interested Councillors.

3.     The Digital Economy Strategy for the City of Penrith and its recommendations be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Leading City

 

 

3

Macrofauna Management - Jordan Springs and Wianamatta Regional Park   

 

Compiled by:               Tony Crichton, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Roger Nethercote, Group Manager - People and Places  

Requested By:             Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

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

Councillor Michelle Tormey has requested the preparation of an urgent Council report to address the recent escape of emus from the former ADI site.   

 

The management of emus and kangaroos within the site is governed by the ‘Macrofauna Management Plan’ which was endorsed by the Department of Environment & Conservation (now the Office of Environment & Heritage) in March 2004. 

 

The management of emus and kangaroos within the former ADI site (the site) is the responsibility of Lend Lease.  It is also the responsibility of Lend Lease to retrieve any macrofauna that have escaped and to return them to the site, as outlined in the conditions of their licence under the National Parks & Wildlife Act.  Lend Lease has accepted this obligation and has over time returned a number of emus and kangaroos to the site.  The extent of this recapture obligation is determined by NP&WS.

 

Over recent months, Lend Lease, NP&WS, RSPCA and WIRES have all actively contributed in returning emus to the site.  On 25 January, 2013 Council’s Newspage featured a short statement to the local community on this issue, providing phone numbers for the community to contact either WIRES or the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NP&WS) in the event macrofauna are located beyond the site.

 

The report recommends the information be received.

Background

The eastern end of the former ADI site between Forrester Road and the suburb of Ropes Crossing was gazetted as Wianamatta Regional Park in early 2007 and is owned and managed by NP&WS.  No macrofauna remain on this part of the site as they were removed some years ago.  The remainder of the proposed Park is still in the ownership of Lend Lease and will be progressively transferred to NP&WS ownership and management.

 

 

 

Macrofauna Management Plan

The management of emus and kangaroos on the site is governed by the ‘Macrofauna Management Plan’ (MMP).  The primary purpose of this MMP is to provide a plan for the humane management of the macrofauna populations (kangaroos and emus) that exist on the site. 

 

Key components of the MMP include:

 

§ long term plans to retain a small population of eastern grey kangaroos and emus in the Wianamatta Regional Park,

§ detailed provisions for the humane treatment of sick and injured animals,

§ reduction of eastern grey population density to a target density of between 0.3 and 0.5 animals per hectare by means of translocation and fertility control, and

§ location of macrofauna within the central and western portions of the site by fencing.

 

Lend Lease Macrofauna Licence Requirements

Lend Lease has been issued with an annual General Licence for the property under the National Parks & Wildlife Act, 1974 that is renewable annually which permits Lend Lease to hold, care and manage captive populations of kangaroos and emus introduced to the site.  Lend Lease has a responsibility to manage the macrofauna within that portion of the site under their control until such time as it is transferred to NP&WS.  Lend Lease also has an obligation to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to provide food and water supply to the macrofauna and to monitor the animals for injury and sickness.  We have discussed this matter with Lend Lease, which is well aware of its obligations. 

 

The Licence conditions for the St Marys Macrofauna address a number of matters, including requiring Lend Lease to:

 

§ ensure that there is an annual population census of macrofauna on the property,

§ maintain perimeter fences to a sufficient standard that macrofauna escapes are minimised,

§ actively patrol any fences used to contain macrofauna with the aim of identifying and repairing breaches at the earliest opportunity,

§ institute an education program in the local area targeting local schools, to educate the community as to the danger that breaching the perimeter fence causes to the macrofauna that may thereby escape from the site,

§ respond to any report of escaped macrofauna from the site.  This response shall be provided on a 24 hour basis.  The response shall include the capability to capture and return escaped animals to the site.

 

Both Lend Lease and NP&WS, in liaison with the RSPCA, have recently returned a number of emus to the site. 

 

Current Situation

At present approximately 900 eastern grey kangaroos and 20 emus are located within the central and western sectors of the site.  All of the kangaroos have been tagged and fertility control has been carried out.  No emus within the site were required to be tagged or subject to fertility control under the MMP.

 

NP&WS has advised Council that it is not possible to tag the emus due to animal welfare concerns, so it is difficult to determine whether emus outside the property have escaped from the former ADI site.  NP&WS has advised Council that Lend Lease has no obligation to manage ‘wild populations’ of emus that live outside the property.  However, NP&WS has also advised that “it is reasonable to assume that the most likely source of emus around St Marys is the captive population within the former ADI site and so Lend Lease is obliged to recapture these escaped animals.”  We have communicated this requirement to Lend Lease. 

 

Lend Lease has erected macrofauna fencing to enclose the kangaroos and emus within   specific portions of the site where NP&WS has directed they have responsibility for management.  Lend Lease carries out daily inspections of the fence line to check for any damage to the fence and repairs are made as soon as practicable.  Enquiries by Council suggest that damage to fencing caused by vandals has occurred recently on a number of occasions. 

 

NP&WS has advised that the public should not approach emus roaming outside the site and report their location to them.  In order to respond to this recent issue, Council issued a statement within the Council Newspage on 25 January 2013 advising that the property owners Lend Lease and NP&WS are working to ensure the ongoing safety of wildlife within the site.  It noted that residents can assist by being on the lookout for vandalism to the site’s fencing and gates and by reporting vandalism to the Police.  Residents are also encouraged to report any emu sightings to NP&WS or WIRES.  Phone numbers for these agencies were also provided.

 

Over recent months, Lend Lease, NP&WS, RSPCA and WIRES have all actively contributed in returning emus to the site.  Recapture is carried out as soon as possible, but is dependent on the available resources of these organisations at the time. 

 

Council staff have not been involved in any attempts to capture emus as it is not a Council responsibility.  Advice to Council on any future incidents of kangaroos or emus being sighted in urban areas around the site will continue to be referred to NP&WS and Lend Lease.

 

Conclusion

It is clear that all parties are working together to return any escaped emus to the site.  Whilst this is not a responsibility for Council, we will continue to consult with Lend Lease and NP&WS where appropriate to maintain effective management solutions for the retention of macrofauna within the former ADI site.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Macrofauna Management - Jordan Springs and Wianamatta Regional Park be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Leading City

 

 

4

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

 

Compiled by:               Pauline Johnston, Expenditure Accountant

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

 

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 December 2012 to 31 December 2012, a reconciliation of invested funds at 31 December 2012 and the Agency Collection Methods at 31 December 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 December 2012.

Vicki O’Kelly

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

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

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

4.     The Agency Collection Methods be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Investments

4 Pages

Appendix

2.  

Agency Collection Methods

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 1 - Summary of Investments

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 2 - Agency Collection Methods

 

The following is an update of the methods to make payments to Council through various agencies.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

5        Development Application DA12/0931 demolition of existing dwelling & construction of medical centre Lot 57 DP 215146 (No.32) Somerset Street, Kingswood Applicant: Stimson Consultant Services Pty Ltd;  Owner: Angelo Peter Preketes

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A City of Opportunities

 

 

5

Development Application DA12/0931 demolition of existing dwelling & construction of medical centre Lot 57 DP 215146 (No.32) Somerset Street, Kingswood  Applicant:  Stimson Consultant Services Pty Ltd;  Owner:  Angelo Peter Preketes    

 

Compiled by:               Kate Smith, Trainee Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with a strong local economy and access to jobs (6)

Strategic Response

Facilitate a diverse economy, sustainable businesses and secure employment base (6.1)

      

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 Demolition of an Existing Dwelling & Construction of a Health Services Facility at 32 Somerset Street, Kingswood.

The subject site is zoned 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed health services facility is a prohibited form of development in the zone. Notwithstanding the provisions of the LEP, the proposal is permissible with consent under Clause 57(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Council has recently resolved to assign a B4 Mixed Use zone to the site as part of the establishment of the Penrith Health and Education Precinct. This change is to occur as part of the Stage 2 City-wide Local Environmental Plan which is scheduled to be placed on public exhibition within the next month. Despite the strategic direction as indicated, in the interim, the development is required to remain compatible with the existing character of the area consistent with the objectives of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land).

In this regard, the application is seeking variations to provisions contained within Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) relating to building envelope, maximum wall height and rear setback requirements. The assessment of the application has concluded that given the strategic direction of the area and the building’s compatibility with surrounding land uses, the variations can be supported.

The subject proposal involves a 33% variation to Council’s development standard relating to the rear setback requirement. The Development Application is therefore reported to Council for determination. The NSW Department of Planning now requires that proposed variations to development standards greater than 10% be determined by full Council.

 

An assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the application is recommended for approval.

Background

Over the past few years Council has been working towards implementing a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan for Penrith in two stages. Stage 1 was gazetted on 22 September 2010 and covered the rural lands, industrial areas, heritage items and St Marys Towns Centre. Stage 2 will generally cover all other lands not identified within Stage 1.

On 2 July 2012, the Penrith Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 Local Environmental Plan was reported to Council’s Policy Review Committee. The Planning Proposal reflected future growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy for the City. The proposal identified a number of sites for specific ‘rezoning’ including the ‘Penrith Health and Education Precinct’ within Kingswood. To align with the strategic direction for the overall precinct, the residential area adjacent to the Nepean Hospital site was proposed as a B4 Mixed Use zone. This would permit a variety of uses including higher density residential housing, retail, business, commercial and medical related land uses.

On 19 November 2012, Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting to assign a B4 Mixed Use zone to the subject site as part of the Planning Proposal for the Stage 2 Local Environmental Plan. The Stage 2 City-wide Local Environmental Plan is scheduled to be placed on public exhibition by mid 2013.

The applicant attended a pre-lodgement meeting on 10 July 2012 in relation to the subject application. Council identified a number of key issues including compatibility with surrounding land uses, dominant presentation, car parking, and building envelope and minimum rear setback non-compliances.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Somerset and Hargrave Street. The site is 569m² in area and is orientated in an east-west direction. The site is generally flat with an approximate 1m fall to the north-east. The site is currently occupied by a fibro cottage, detached garage and metal shed.

The surrounding area to the north, east and south of the site contains a mix of single dwelling houses and infill multi-unit housing developments. Single dwelling houses immediately adjoin the site to the north and east.

Directly west of the site is the Nepean District Hospital precinct. This area contains a number of medical related land uses including Nepean District, Private Hospital and University of Sydney Clinical School.  Recently this site has been the subject of numerous redevelopment proposals to improve facilities on the site with a multi-deck car park, Dental Clinic and Mental Health Unit recently approved and under construction.

The subject site is also located approximately 400m south of a strip of neighbourhood shops and the Kingswood Railway Station.

Refer to Appendix No. 1 for a locality plan.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

·    Demolition of all existing structures on the site including the fibro dwelling, detached garage and metal shed.

·    Construction of a contemporary two storey building containing on the first floor a reception area, 2 consultation rooms, procedure room and a number of  staff support areas.

·    Access to the first floor of the building is via an internal staircase and lift from the ground floor lobby to the first floor.

·    Under croft car parking area for 8 vehicles at ground level with vehicular access located off Hargrave Street. Pedestrian access is proposed off Somerset Street.

·    Retention of an existing tree situated on the south-west corner of the site.

·    Landscaping throughout the site containing a variety of tree and shrub species.

·    The building is purpose designed for use by a medical practitioner specialising in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

·    2-6 appointments arranged per hour on an appointment only basis for consultations and procedures.

·    Hours of operation vary each day, however, will generally be between the hours of 8am – 6pm, Monday to Friday. The medical centre is closed one day per week, on days where the medical practitioner operates from other medical centres and hospitals.

Refer to Appendix No. 2 for A4 copies of the site plan, floor plan, elevations and perspectives submitted with the application.

 

The Development Application has been accompanied by the following related documents:

·    Architectural Plans – Thomson Adsett

·    Landscape Plan – Monaco Designs P/L

·    Stormwater Drainage Details – Williams Consulting Engineers Australia P/L

·    Statement of Environmental Effects – Stimson Consulting Services

·    Waste Management Plan – Stimson Consulting Services

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 (Infrastructure) 2007

Division 10 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 provides controls relating to Health Services Facilities. The proposed development is suitably defined as a health service facility which means a facility used to provide medical or other services relating to the maintenance or improvement of the health, or the restoration to health, of persons or the prevention of disease in or treatment of injury to persons, and includes the following:

(a)  day surgeries and medical centres,

(b)  community health service facilities,

(c)  health consulting rooms,

(d) facilities for the transport of patients, including helipads and ambulance facilities,

(e)  hospitals.

Clause 57(1) provides for the development of ‘health services facilities’ to be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone. In this case, an R3 Medium Density zone is considered a prescribed zone and is the equivalent zone to the 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) zoning of the site. As such, the proposed health services facility is permissible with consent.

In addition to permissibility, Clause 57(4) (a) (ii) states that nothing in this Clause prevents a consent authority from refusing to grant consent for development by reference to the consent authority’s own assessment of compatibility of the development with the surrounding land uses. In this regard, the compatibly of the development does not require ‘sameness’, rather the new development should reflect and interpret design elements of the site’s immediate surrounds. Compatibility of the development with the surrounding land uses is discussed throughout this report.

There are no other provisions within this policy or clause relevant to the subject application.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

The subject site is zoned 2(d) Residential (Medium Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). The proposed development is defined as a health service facility and is a prohibited land use in the zone. As discussed previously, the development relies on the provisions within State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 for permissibility.

The relevant sections of Penrith Local Environment Plan 1998 (Urban Land) are discussed in turn below.

Clause 7. Aims and Objectives

The proposed development is considered consistent with the relevant aims and objectives for residential character, residential amenity, employment and community service, and infrastructure.

The health services facility is proposed within an area identified as a future health and educational services precinct. Key elements of the proposed striking contemporary design achieve reasonable compatibility with the existing character of the area which is predominantly single dwellings and scattered two-storey townhouses. This is achieved through the building’s two-storey height, presentation to the street frontage, front landscape setbacks and articulation.

The siting and form of the building does not compromise solar amenity of any adjoining properties. The arrangement of the internal access and proposed room usage ensures that the development maintains acoustic and visual privacy for adjoining dwellings.

The proposed development will provide employment opportunities within an area identified as a health precinct and will not significantly affect the residential amenity of the area.

The proposal will ensure that appropriate health services are provided to the community. The site will provide infrastructure relevant to the proposed built form and operations on the site.

Clause 9. Zone objectives and development control table

The development is consistent with the zone objectives which promote compatible non-residential land uses. The proposed development will not compromise the residential amenity of the area. In addition, the development is opposite an established health services site containing the Nepean Hospital and other various medical-related land uses. Given the greater locality extends to provide many health-related services, the development is appropriate in the greater context of the subject site.

Clause 12. Building envelopes, heights, landscaped areas and rear boundary setbacks for development that requires consent

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant development standards contained in the LEP relating to development generally in the 2(d) Residential (Medium  Density) zone, as detailed below.

Development Standards

Requirement

Compliance

Clause 12(3)

Building Envelope

1.8m from property boundary and 45o height plane.

No. Variation sought under 12(6) (see discussion below).

Clause 12(3)

External Wall Height

6.5m

No. (7.5m proposed). Variation sought under 12(6) (see discussion below).

Clause 12(3)

Landscaped Area

40%

Yes.

Clause 12(4)

Rear Setback

6m for double-storey.

No (4m proposed). Variation proposed under SEPP 1 (see following discussion).

Clause 12(6) states that despite any other provisions of this clause, Council may consent to a building which is not wholly within the relevant building envelope or contravenes the maximum wall height control if, in the opinion of Council, the application demonstrates that a variation to those controls is necessary to improve the design, external appearance or utility of the proposed building.

The applicant states that the building envelope and maximum wall height non-compliance is proposed in order to maximise the efficiencies of the floor space on a relatively small site while providing appropriate separation between the built form and adjoining properties. The applicant argues that the development is not dissimilar in bulk and scale to that of a contemporary two storey dwelling.

The maximum external wall height standard in a 2(d) zone is 6.5 metres. The application proposes a 7.5 metre external wall height. The applicant provides that given that the development provides a flat roof the external wall height of the building is also the overall building height. In this case the overall bulk and scale of the building is less than that of a building with a pitched roof.

The application has suitably demonstrated that the proposed variation can be supported in this instance as the variations are necessary to improve the design, external appearance and utility of the proposed development.

Clause 14. Provision for design principles in development generally

The proposed development has taken into account the design principles detailed in this clause and relating to protection of local topography, streetscape and character, compatibility with the scale and design of neighbouring development and provision of contemporary standards of amenity within dwellings and open space areas.

In this regard, the following is noted:

·    The extent of cut and fill on the site is minor with minor retaining walls provided to the north-east corner, protecting the local topography.

·    The proposed built form relates well to the existing buildings in the surrounding area, particularly given that the building is directly opposite to the Nepean Hospital site, which in recent years has undergone a number of building alterations and additions promoting a modern facade.

·    The scale of the proposed building is compatible with existing dwellings in the locality and does not impact on the amenity of the residential neighbourhood in which the development is situated.

·    The proposed building will contribute to providing an attractive streetscape through the diversity of its built form and landscaped areas.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards

The applicant seeks a variation to the provisions relating to the minimum rear setback of 6 metres under Clause 12(4) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land). The development proposes a 4 metre rear building setback to the eastern boundary equating to a 33% variation to the development standard. The development also includes a hard stand area for car parking within the rear setback area which is required to be used for the purpose of landscaped area only.

Council’s requirement relating to the minimum rear setback is a development standard and Council is therefore only able to consider an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 objection (SEPP 1).

SEPP 1 aims to allow flexibility in the application of development standards where strict compliance with those standards would in any particular case be unreasonable or unnecessary.

In accordance with Clause 6, the applicant’s written SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the rear boundary setback development standard is reproduced in part below.

·    This precinct is in transition from a largely low density residential area to a mixed use precinct closely aligned to the adjoining Nepean Hospital. The proposal represents a contemporary and innovative built form that will provide not only a contribution to medically related land uses in the precinct, but also towards the higher use of the land that the zoning change will facilitate.

·    The setback variation will facilitate an appropriate sized floor plate and through the introduction of landscaping along the eastern boundary, there will be no unacceptable ‘overbearing visual element’ when viewed from either public domain or the property to the east.

·    In this instance, a proposal that is fully compliant with the LEP in unnecessary. Given the proposed setback, it is considered that full compliance (an additional 2m) would not achieve any improved outcome above and beyond what the proposed setback would achieve and that the non-compliance will be imperceptible in the relationship between the adjoining sites.

The applicant’s proposed variation to the minimum rear setback requirement was assessed against the objectives of the standard. The objectives of the development standard are discussed below.

(a)  Achieve site responsive development at a scale which is compatible with existing housing in the locality by controlling visual impacts relating to height and bulk, and

The building is compatible with existing housing stock in the locality, the building presents as two storeys in height, the building provides landscaping setbacks consistent with adjoining properties and appropriate articulation is provided through the use of window screens.

(b)  Minimise the impact of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views, and

The development will not overshadow adjoining properties, or impact on the privacy of adjoining dwellings. Overshadowing is limited to the adjoining property on Hargrave Street, with shadows extending progressively across the front yard after 11am. Where windows are proposed along common boundaries the height is limited to 1.5m from ground level or the windows are provided with window screens and obscure glazing. The proposed palisade fencing will potentially impact on the privacy of adjoining properties with direct views into adjoining rear yards, a recommended condition of consent will require the fencing to be provided as timber or similar and not of see-through construction (see special condition 3.9). 

(c)  Achieve an appropriate separation between buildings and site boundaries and preserve private open space corridors along rear fence lines, and

Given the strategic direction proposed for the area the development provides an appropriate level of separation between buildings. The development ensures that the existing private open space corridors throughout the site are maintained along the rear fence line.

(d)  Protect and enhance the environmental features, which are a characteristic of each of the residential zones, by requiring sufficient space on-site for effective landscaping and on-site stormwater detention.

Appropriate stormwater solutions are proposed for the site with minimal retaining walls. The development provides suitable embellishment of the site through landscaping and retention of existing trees on the site.

In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 1, the applicant’s objection is well founded and is consistent with the aims of the SEPP outlined in Clause 3. The SEPP 1 objection has adequately addressed the matters prescribed and demonstrated that full compliance with the minimum rear boundary setback requirement under Clause 12(4) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The subject proposal involves a 33% variation to Council’s development standard relating to the rear setback requirement. The NSW Department of Planning now requires that proposed variations to development standards greater than 10% be determined by the full Council. The Development Application is therefore reported to Council for determination and in accordance with recommendation 2 of this report the SEPP 1 objection be supported.

2.   Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There is no draft Environmental Planning Instruments applicable to the subject application.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

The development satisfies the relevant aims and objectives of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006.

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

The building generally complies with the provisions contained within this section. The following treatments should be applied to enhance safety of adjoining residents, visitors and staff and will form recommended conditions of consent.

·    Lighting must be provided to cover all entrances/exits to the centre, all communal spaces, car park areas, driveways and all walkways to clearly provide safe access for clients, staff and visitors.

·    Lighting shall be contained within the property boundary and no lights shall be projected upwards. No lighting shall be projected in such a manner that it would create glare issues for vehicles or pedestrians.

·    Fencing shall not extend past the front building line of the development to eliminate entrapment areas.

·    Signage must be in place to indicate that parking bays are for staff and authorised vehicles only.

·    Vegetation that borders the car park area must be high-canopied or low in height to ensure sightlines are maintained between the buildings and car park areas and that concealment/entrapment opportunities are minimised.

Landscape

The application has been accompanied by a detailed landscape plan prepared by a Category 2 landscape designer (Monaco Designs). The submitted landscape plan will provide for the high-quality embellishment of the site by suitable ground covers, shrubs and trees which, at maturity, will complement the height, scale, design and function of the proposed development.

The development includes the retention of a significant Jacaranda Mimosaefolia and Cinnamomum Camphora Tree positioned on the south-west corner of the site (see standard conditions L007). Some minor trees and shrubs within the development site are proposed to be removed, however, will be suitably replaced with new landscaping.

Council’s Urban Design Consultant indicated that an additional two canopy trees should be provided to visually soften the built form along the south-east of the site extending forward of the established building line in Hargrave Street. This aspect is recommended to be conditioned accordingly (see special condition 3.8).

Waste Planning

The application has been accompanied by a waste management plan which suitably describes the likely waste generation of the proposal and identifies appropriate actions to manage the generation, storage and disposal of waste from the site. Suitable provision has been made for the storage of waste and recycling bins on the site, including the provision of a storage area located adjacent to the ground floor car park area.

Recommended conditions of consent (Standard D009 & D010) will ensure that the development appropriately disposes of waste generated on the site throughout the construction phases and the ongoing use of the site.

Car Parking

This section provides guidance in relation to the requirements for car parking for new development. Although not stated, it is reasonable to assume the objective of this section is to ensure that adequate car parking is provided for the development proportionate to the likely traffic generated by the development.

This section of the DCP does not provide specific requirements in relation to the use of the site as a medical services facility. The applicant provided information on the operations of the site and it is considered that the car parking arrangements proposed for this development are adequate in terms of the scale and intensity of the proposed use. A total of 8 car parking spaces will be provided on-site for the development with access off Hargrave Street.

The following matters have been considered in this assessment:

The applicant has indicated that there are a total of 3 staff members on site and on duty at any one time including the medical practitioner. The applicant has also indicated that 2-6 appointments are arranged each hour. The development therefore has a shortfall in parking of one space. An inspection of the site reveals that Hargrave Street and surrounding streets are afforded with restricted on-street car parking spaces.

Given the shortfall is only one space and the surrounding area provides for on-street parking, it is considered unlikely to adversely effect the existing local traffic conditions.

·    The site is unlikely to receive visitors which would increase car parking beyond the above requirements. Patients will be seen on an appointment only basis.

·    The proposal is in close proximity to Penrith’s public transportation network (Kingswood train station ≤ 500 metres away) providing alternative options for staff and visitors accessing the site.

·    The proposed floor plan indicates that a higher number of staff may be accommodated on the site. In order to ensure that the site provides proportionate car parking to the intended use and likely traffic generation, a recommended condition of consent will restrict the number of staff and visitors to the site (see special condition 3.2).

·    The car park layout contains a garage area. Due to the position of the garage and potential for conflicts to occur with vehicles entering and exiting the site, recommended conditions of consent will require the spaces within the garage be dedicated as staff parking (see special condition 3.7).

Advertising Signs

This section provides provisions for advertising signage for certain development types. The application has not made provision for signage. A recommended condition requiring separate consent for the provision of advertising signage can be imposed on the consent (see standard condition A026).

Non-Residential Development

The objectives of this section relating to non-residential development is that non-residential development should be planned and designed according to principles of traditional suburban design and to preserve amenity of the neighbourhood. It is considered that the compatibility of the design and proposed use has been discussed extensively throughout the report and concludes the development has incorporated traditional design principles and will not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

4.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

Subject to the imposition of conditions of consent, Council’s Building Surveyor has raised no objection to the proposed development regarding fire safety considerations as prescribed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

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

Built and Natural Environment

·    The public domain and the public/private interface

To ensure that the development does not impact on the amenity of the area and remains compatible with residential developments throughout the operation and management of the facility, recommended conditions of consent will restrict the hours of operation to those supplied in the application (see standard condition A029).

·    The character of the place and its local and regional context

The character of the area is currently defined by single dwellings with scattered in-fill two-storey townhouse developments. This is in direct contrast to the proposed future character of the area which has recently been adopted by Council to re-zone the land to a B4 Mixed Use zone.

This re-zoning is supported by a number of planning strategies namely the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 which has identified the subject site within a proposed Health and Education Precinct. These strategies are supported by the site’s proximity to the existing Nepean Hospital Site and various medical-related land uses and direct links to the city’s public transport network.

The development of the site will in the short term be slightly displaced within the existing residential context, however, in the long term the use of the site is consistent with the intended future character of the area.

·    Urban design matters such as visual impacts, workability, and connections to existing movement and infrastructure systems.

Although the modern building form has no design precedent within the surrounding residential area, adequate compatibility is achieved through proposed landscaping and articulation of the building form. The ‘egg-crate’ screens proposed over the majority of the windows with presentation to the street frontage contribute to articulation and provide shadow casting elements.

Although effective articulation is provided along the south, east and western elevations, the north elevation displays very limited articulation. In order to assist in activating this elevation, the applicant amended the plans to provide a change in brick colour and an additional window and screen elements.

Council engaged an Urban Design Consultant to review the architectural plans and provide comments. The consultant indicated that a number of minor amendments to the built form and landscaping would increase compatibility with the surrounding residential area (see special conditions 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10). A number of suggestions were put forward to the applicant and subsequently the plans were amended incorporating the proposed design amendments.

·    Access, traffic and transportation impacts

The likely generation of traffic and shortfall of one car parking space is unlikely to impact on the existing road network within the locality. 

Social and Economic

The development will result in positive social and economic impacts for the immediate and wider community. The proposal will assist in centralising medical services for the community consistent with the broader strategic direction for the region. The development will offer direct links to existing medical-related land uses which adjoin the site to the west. In addition, it is likely that the development will contribute to employment generation within the medical sector.

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development due to its location near the existing hospital and adjacent health-related land uses. The facility is positioned in an accessible location to maximise the use of public transport and other utilities and services within the proposed health and education precinct.

The development is compatible with the immediate residential land uses adjoining the site to the north and east. The development will not cause overshadowing and is comparable to that of a large two-storey dwelling.

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

Referrals

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

Referral Body

Comments Received

Building Surveyor

No objections subject to the imposition of standard conditions.

Development Engineer

No objections subject to the imposition of standard conditions.

Public Health

No objections subject to the imposition of standard and special conditions (see special conditions 3.3 – 3.6)

Urban Design Consultant

No objections to building design. Some minor changes are suggested to reduce bulk and scale and complement the surrounding residential developments in the locality.

Comment:

Applicant accommodated appropriate changes to the built form consistent with the comments from Council’s Urban Design Consultant (see special conditions 3.8 – 3.10)

Community Consultation

In accordance with Section 2.7 (Notification and Advertising) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposed development was advertised in the local newspaper and notified to nearby and adjoining residents and occupiers.

The application was placed on public exhibition between 2/10/2012 and 16/10/2012. Council notified 107 residences in the area and received no submissions in response.

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

Council has recently resolved to assign a B4 Mixed Use zone to the site as part of the establishment of the Penrith Health and Education Precinct. This change is to occur as part of the Stage 2 City-wide Local Environmental Plan which is scheduled to be placed on public exhibition within the next few months. Given this new strategic direction, the new health services facility will contribute positively to the adoption of this area for medical and educational services providing social and economic benefits to the community including access to services and employment.

 

Section 94 Contributions

There are no Section 94 Contributions applicable to the subject proposal.

Conclusion

With the recommended conditions of consent, the development is considered unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and environment, the site is suitable for the development proposed and is considered to complement the existing residential character of the surrounding developments.

The new strategic direction indicated by the proposed zoning change will ensure the facility increases social and economic benefits to the community including access to services and employment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Development Application DA12/0931 demolition of existing dwelling & construction of medical centre Lot 57 DP 215146 (No.32) Somerset Street, Kingswood be received.

2.     The objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 -Development Standards to the rear boundary setback development standard under Clause 12(4) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) be supported.

3.     DA12/0931 for Demolition of Existing Dwelling & Construction of Medical Centre at Lot 57 DP 215146, (No. 32) Somerset Street, KINGSWOOD, be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1       A001 Approved Plans

            A019 Occupation Certificate

            A026 Advertising sign (not for residential)

            A029 Hours of Operation

            A032 Goods in buildings

          A038 Lighting Locations

          A039 Graffiti

          A046 Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of                      works

          B001 Demolition of existing structures

          B002 Australian Standards for demolition and disposal to approved               landfill sites

          B003 Asbestos

          B004 Dust

          B005 Mud/Soil

          B006 Hours of demolition work

          D001 Implement approved sediment and erosion control measures

          D009 Covering of waste storage area

          D010 Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

          D014 Plant and equipment noise

          E006 Disabled access and facilities

          E008 Fire safety list with construction certificate

          E009 Annual fire safety-essential fire safety (Class 2-9 buildings)

          E01A          BCA compliance for Class 2-9

          G002 Section 73

          G004 Integral Energy

          H001 Stamped plans and erection of site notice (Class 2-9)

          H002 All forms of construction

          H011 Engineering plans and specifications

          H041 Hours of work (other devt)

          K041 Infrastructure Restoration Bond

          K202 Roads Act Approval (minor works)

          K209 Stormwater concept plan

          K222 Access car parking and manoeuvring

          K501 Roads authority clearance     

          K509 Directional Signage

          L001 General Landscaping

          L005 Planting of plant material

          L006 Australian Standard requirements

          L007 Tree protection measures - no Tree Management Plan

          P001 Costs

          P002 Fees associated with council land

          Q01F          Notice of commencement and appointment of Principal                          Certifying Authority

Special Conditions

3.2         Customer visits to the site shall be arranged on an appointment only basis so that there are no more than 6 customers and 3 staff members including the consulting doctor on-site at any one time.

3.3         Public waiting areas and toilets in the premises shall be maintained in a clean and hygienic condition free from a build up of waste at all times.

3.4         Suitably constructed waste disposal containers with securely fitting lids must be kept on the property for the storage of any clinical, contaminated or related waste prior to final disposal of the material at a facility approved by the NSW Environment Protection Authority.  An appropriately licensed waste contractor must be engaged to collect and dispose of all waste generated on site. Receipts of service must be kept on site specifying the volume collected and the dates of service.

3.5         If using ionising radiation equipment this must be registered with the NSW EPA prior to its use. Note: Guidance may be obtained from the NSW EPA guidelines “Radiation Guideline 6 - Registration requirements and industry best practice for ionising radiation apparatus used in diagnostic imaging”. Any X-ray device must incorporate all necessary safety features to prevent exposure to radiation in excess of that permitted by the Radiation Control Act 1990 and Regulations and any other relevant legislation, code or standard.

3.6         The use of the premises must not give rise to the emission of gases, vapours, dusts or other impurities which are a nuisance, injurious or prejudicial to health or the environment. The operation of the premises must be in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and associated regulations.

3.7         The proposed garage shall be utilised for parking by staff only. Directional signage indicating the location of customer and staff car parking is to be provided prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

3.8         An additional canopy tree shall be provided between the car parking spaces and the eastern boundary and to the south-east corner of the site to visually soften the built form. Details shall be provided on the landscape plan prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

3.9         To protect the privacy of adjoining properties, the proposed palisade fencing shall be provided as timber paling or similar and shall not be of see-through construction. The fencing shall not extend past the front building line to Somerset Street and Hargrave Street. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

3.10       The proposed sliding gate to the car parking area shall be relocated to run along the inner face of the southern facade. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

3.11       Details of materials, finishes and colours for the proposed retaining walls shall be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In this regard, retaining walls shall not be of timber construction.

3.12       Vegetation that borders the car park area must be high-canopied or low in height to ensure sightlines are maintained between the buildings and car park areas, and that concealment/entrapment opportunities are minimised.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Ground Floor Plan

1 Page

Appendix

4.  

First Floor Plan

1 Page

Appendix

5.  

Perspectives

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 3 - Ground Floor Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 4 - First Floor Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 5 - Perspectives

 

temp

 


A Green City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

6        Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority funding for two natural areas

 

7        Funding Arrangements for installation of Solar Thermal at Ripples Leisure Centre

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Green City

 

 

6

Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority funding for two natural areas   

 

Compiled by:               Janet Rannard, Bushland Management Officer

Authorised by:            John Gordon, Parks Manager  

 

Objective

Our natural habitats are healthy

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

Protect and conserve the natural areas under Council's responsibility (11.2)

       

 

Executive Summary

The Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Authority (HNCMA) has provided two funding opportunities for bushland rehabilitation in areas along the Nepean River, Penrith and beside Ropes Creek, North St Marys. As a condition of the grants Council will provide in kind works to complement the funding received. Council was advised in December 2012 that it had been successful in obtaining grant funding totalling $51,818.50 (GST inclusive).

Background

Expressions of Interest were sought by HNCMA for Biodiversity projects. Penrith City Council submitted expressions of interest and was successful with funding being provided for two areas – sections of the Nepean River and Ropes Creek.

 

Grant funding received for the Nepean River is $31,818.50 (GST inclusive).

 

These funds will be expended in the area adjacent to the Nepean River between Cassola Place and Boundary Creek, Penrith. Council’s Bush Regeneration staff will provide $20,000.00 of in kind project management and on ground work. Work will target noxious and invasive environmental weeds as well as some revegetation.

 

Grant funding received for Ropes Creek is $20,000 (GST inclusive).

 

The second area is adjacent to Ropes Creek, North St Marys. Four sites will benefit from weed control and in fill plantings. Council’s Bush Regeneration staff will provide $7,618.00 of in kind project management, purchase of local provenance plants and on ground work. TAFE students will provide $2,792.00 of in kind work.

 

The grants require the projects to be completed within 18 months.

 

The grants will provide an opportunity to build upon the ongoing works being undertaken by Council’s Bushland Management staff in these areas. The works will protect and enhance the riparian zones, improve the soil stability, water quality and the condition of the native vegetation and ecosystems.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority funding for two natural areas be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Green City

 

 

7

Funding Arrangements for installation of Solar Thermal at Ripples Leisure Centre   

 

Compiled by:               Jennifer Moses, Sustainability Research Planner

Stephen Krimmer, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

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 outlines a grant application being put forward by Ripples Leisure Centre to install energy efficient solar thermal pool heating technology.  The CEEP application will be formally considered by the Ripples Board shortly.  This report is seeking approval for an internal Council loan to Ripples of $130,000, subject to the Board’s decision, to cover 50% of the project cost.

Background

In June 2012, the Sustainability Team and Ripples Leisure Centre (RLC) contracted Total Energy Solutions (TES) to undertake an Alternative Energy Study for Ripples Leisure Centre.  The objective of the study was to investigate different alternative energy options at Ripples with the goal of significantly reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

 

The Study undertook an engineering assessment of Ripples’ electricity and thermal demand profiles and financial modelling.  Technologies investigated included cogeneration, tri-generation, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, air source heat pump, ground source heat pump, gas heat pump, gas variable refrigerant flow system, wind power, heat recovery chillers, and high efficiency condensing boilers.

 

The report determined solar thermal to be the most cost effective technology at a cost of approximately $260,000 delivering a payback of 9.8 years with approximate annual savings of $26,000 at current electricity prices.

Solar Thermal Project

The proposed project will involve the installation of solar thermal pool heating to replace the existing electric heat pump system.  Solar pool heating collectors will be installed on the main roof of the Leisure Centre.  Filtered pool water is pumped to these rooftop solar collectors where heat from the sun is absorbed into the water as it passes through tubing.  The heated water is then returned to the pool.

 

An opportunity to seek part funding for the solar thermal project has been identified through the Commonwealth Government’s Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP).  CEEP is a competitive merit-based grant program that was developed to provide co-funding to local governing bodies and non-profit community organisations to implement projects that deliver a range of energy efficiency measures as part of the adjustment to the introduction of the carbon price.  This is the second round of funding under the program and applications for funding close on 7 February 2013.

 

Council and Ripples have been working together to prepare a grant application for the current round of CEEP funding.  This has involved undertaking a risk assessment, identifying the significant benefits of the project for the community, and developing a comprehensive communication strategy to promote the positive outcomes of the project to the community and other councils.

Project Funding

CEEP applications cannot be submitted unless the ability to co-fund the remaining finance is demonstrated.  Funding of up to 66% is available, however this is based on a local government area being regarded as having low socio-economic status and proposed projects focussing on benefitting low socio-economic and other disadvantaged communities.

 

Penrith is not identified in this category, however a significant proportion of the area serviced by RLC could be classified in this way.  Based on this context the project team, comprising the General Manager of Ripples, Council’s Grant Support Officer, Financial Services and Sustainability representatives determined that seeking 50% funding would offer a competitive application.

 

RLC is proposing to contribute 50% of the cost of installing the solar thermal system at a cost of approximately $130,000, and to seek $130,000 from CEEP.  It is estimated that the community engagement and education strategy component of the project will cost approximately $5,000, resulting in a total project cost of $265,000.  The $5,000 could be made available from the Sustainability budget for education projects.

 

Through the project team meetings, it was determined that the best co-contribution financing option for RLC would be a Council loan, repaid through a reduced subsidy.

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comments

If Council supports this CEEP grant application to be made by Ripples it is estimated that, based on the feasibility study provided by Total Energy Solutions Pty Ltd, the total cost of the solar thermal system will be approximately $260,000. As it is proposed in this report to request a grant of only 50% ($130,000), the remaining 50% ($130,000) will need to be funded by Council.

 

It is proposed that the Council funding will be provided by way of an interest free loan of $130,000 to Ripples Leisure Centre for the installation of a solar thermal system.  The loan is able to be sourced from the Sustainability Revolving Fund which currently has a predicted closing balance as at 30 June 2013 of $310,550. This proposal will be subject to obtaining approval from the Ripples Board for the loan and the establishment of an agreed repayment schedule.  The loan repayments will be deducted bi-annually from the subsidy paid by Council to Ripples in accordance with this repayment schedule. 

Conclusion

The proposed solar thermal heating project will benefit the community of Penrith by improving the energy efficiency of pool water heating at RLC.  The proposal replaces an existing inefficient pool water heater with an energy efficient system which is expected to save $26,000 per year in energy costs at current rates.

 

In applying for the CEEP funding, Ripples will have the opportunity to seek financial assistance for half of the project costs to ensure a viable project with a relatively short payback.  Council’s support of RLC in this endeavour will demonstrate its continuing commitment to improving the energy efficiency of our community facilities and buildings.  It is also an opportunity to demonstrate and encourage the adoption of improved energy management practices through a comprehensive community engagement strategy to promote the benefits of the project.

 

A new, energy efficient solar thermal water heating system at RLC will improve the amenity of the existing facility, minimise energy consumption and costs, build community knowledge and encourage energy efficient practices across the Penrith region.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Funding Arrangements for installation of Solar Thermal at Ripples Leisure Centre be received.

2.     Subject to the Board of Ripples supporting the CEEP application, Council endorse an interest free loan of $130,000 to Ripples Leisure Centre, with repayments to be deducted bi-annually from the Council subsidy to Ripples, to be used as co-contribution for this project.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

8        Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 - Review of Environmental Factors

 

9        Tender Reference 12/13-11 - Refurbishment of Coachmans Park

 

10      Tender Reference 12/13-10 - Construction Works to Three Toilet Amenities

 

11      Tender Reference 12/13-04 - Suction Eductor - Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Truck

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Liveable City

 

 

8

Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 - Review of Environmental Factors   

 

Compiled by:               Walter Sinnadurai, Transportation Planner

Authorised by:            Eric Hausfeld, Acting 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

Provide a safe, efficient local road network (16.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present Council with information relating to the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) undertaken by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) of the Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 and provide assessment of the key issues within the REF.   The report recommends that the information be received and that the Acting Engineering Services Manager be authorised to finalise a submission, based on the assessment of the REF, and forward it to the RMS by the closing date of 15 February 2013.

Background

Council, in conjunction with the RMS (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority) and Department of Planning and Infrastructure, developed the Penrith Arterial Roads Study (PARS) in 2007. This Study has identified existing deficiencies in the road network across the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA) as well as future upgrades required to meet the demands of the anticipated growth.

 

Together, with the release of significant land within our LGA, the development of the Regional North-West and South-West Growth Centres will result in increased traffic and transport demands in the Penrith area, particularly the North-West Growth Centre.

 

The Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) for the Werrington Enterprise Living & Learning (WELL) Precinct identified part of the arterial link (M4 to Dunheved Road/Christie Street) as a necessary piece of infrastructure to support the growth in this precinct. The PARS Study has included some assumptions regarding the North-West Centre and has also identified the need for an arterial link connecting an extension from the M4 to the M2/M7 (the Werrington Arterial).

 

As such, Council has been advocating for the State Government to include this project in the RMS’s short term development programs. Council has previously secured a commitment from the Federal Government to contribute $7 million towards Stage 1 of the Werrington Arterial between the M4 (including eastbound facing ramps) and the Great Western Highway. This funding was secured through the Auslink2 Program. In addition, the State Government committed $10 million in 2011 for this project.

 

Since late November 2011, Council officers have been assisting the RMS project team in the development of the designs for the Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 to ensure that the upgrade delivers appropriate outcomes for all stakeholders.

 

Current Situation

The Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 REF documentation has been placed on public exhibition at the RMS Motor Registry offices including St Marys, Penrith South, Mount Druitt and also the Penrith Library at the Penrith Civic Centre. Written submissions are to be made to the RMS by the closing date of 1 February 2013. The RMS has granted an extension of time until 15 February 2013 for Council submissions.

 

Council’s Advocacy Program includes the Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 as a high priority. This proposal would improve access for urban development in Claremont Meadows and near the University of Western Sydney’s Werrington/Kingswood campus. It would also reduce traffic congestion on sections of The Northern Road/Parker Street and Mamre Road and support the projected traffic generated by the WELL Precinct. In the long-term, the Werrington Arterial Road corridor would ultimately link the M4 motorway at Claremont Meadows with the Castlereagh Freeway corridor in the vicinity of Marsden Park.

 

The main features of the Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 are:

 

·  widening Kent Road and Gipps Street from two lanes to four lanes between the M4 motorway and the Great Western Highway

·  east-facing ramps connecting Kent Road to and from the M4 motorway

·  upgrading of four existing intersections:

Ø the four-way signalised intersection of Gipps Street and Caddens Road

Ø the four-way signalised intersection of Gipps Street and Sunflower Drive (south)

Ø the four-way signalised intersection of Gipps Street, Sunflower Drive (north) and the eastern leg of Gipps Street

Ø the T-intersection of Gipps Street and Great Western Highway to allow a new left-turn lane from the Great Western Highway to Gipps Street;

·  a 3m wide shared pedestrian bridge, crossing the M4 motorway, located about 22m west of and running adjacent to the Kent Road Bridge

·  a 3m wide shared pedestrian path along the western side of Kent Road and Gipps Street between the M4 motorway and the Great Western Highway

·  a 1.5m wide pedestrian path along the eastern side of Gipps Street between Caddens Road  and the Great Western Highway

·  establishment of six bus stop facilities including shelters and indented bus bays

·  construction of retaining walls where required on both sides of Kent Road and Gipps Street and at the M4 motorway exit ramp.

 

A copy of the location plan and the proposed design layout have been included in the appendices.

 

This proposal has been found to be consistent with the relevant Government plans and strategies as summarised below:

 

·  NSW 2021 – upgrading local roads to provide adequate road capacity for projected population growth and improve road safety

·  Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 (2010) – support transport networks in the regional cities and to provide transport to hospitals

·  NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (December 2012) – the Master Plan specifically acknowledges this proposal as part of the Outer Sydney Orbital/M9

·  NSW Bike Plan – the proposal is consistent with NSW Bike Plan as it would include 3m wide shared off-road pedestrian and cycle facilities.

 

The proposal is also consistent with objectives of the TMAP for the WELL Precinct and will be suitable for the projected increase in traffic demand to 2026 and beyond.

 

Following finalisation of the REF and approval by the Roads Minister, the proposal will then move into the detailed design and contract documentation phase.  During this phase RMS will undertake community consultation.

Key Issues

Local Road Traffic Impacts

The Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 proposal incorporates the signalisation of six intersections along the existing Gipps Street alignment, which will service the local road interfaces between the Great Western Highway and the M4 motorway. All proposed signalised intersections will operate at a satisfactory level of service – at either level A or B – for the projected years 2016, 2026 and 2031.

 

Caddens Road

The existing vertical alignment of Caddens Road is poor and identified safety issues exist with respect to sight distances at the crests. To overcome this, Council has previously installed channelling devices and speed humps at the crests. The additional traffic from the development of the Caddens Release Area, the WELL Precinct and the proposed east-facing ramps connecting Kent Road to and from the M4 motorway and the associated direct link to educational establishments (UWS & TAFE) has the potential to further exacerbate this safety problem. According to the RMS traffic modelling predictions, the traffic volumes along Caddens Road would be increased from 700 (2012) to 1,140 (2031) during peak hour. 

 

It should be noted that the impact on Caddens Road will be reduced by the implementation of the Caddens bypass and subsequent closures of Caddens Road as part of the rollout of the Caddens Release Area in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006 Section 6.21 Caddens (adopted August 2006). Timing for construction of the Caddens bypass road is uncertain and will be dependent upon the urban development of the land upon which the bypass road is located.

 

Sunflower Drive South

Sunflower Drive South is a local residential street. According to the RMS traffic modelling predictions, the traffic volumes along Sunflower Drive South would be increased from 310 (2012) to 340 (2031) during peak hour due to the proposed east-facing ramps connecting Sunflower Drive South to and from the M4 motorway.

 

 

Kent Road

Kent Road is a rural road and has lane capacity of 1,200 vehicles per hour. The proposed east‑facing ramps connecting Kent Road to and from the M4 motorway would be increased from 240 (2012) to 520 (2031) during peak hour, however, the road has sufficient capacity for this increased traffic volume.

 

The REF concept plan indicates that kerb and gutter on the eastern side of the southern exit ramp in Kent Road stops short of the limit of works. The RMS will be requested to extend the kerb and gutter to the limit of works and reconstruct the road pavement to meet Council’s standard.

 

Furthermore it is recognised that 27 Kent Road (Lot 1001 DP 1131997) would experience changed access as a result of the proposal. This property currently has full vehicular access to and from Kent Road. The proposed centre median would restrict access at this property to left in/left out only. If travelling south from this property, vehicles would need to travel north to Caddens Road to make a safe turning movement back onto the southbound lane of Kent Road. If accessing this property from the north, vehicles would need to travel south of the M4 motorway along Kent Street to make a safe turning movement via local roads to access the northbound lane and travel back to the property. The furthest detour would be no more than one kilometre. The northern boundary of this property has direct access to the end of Silkwood Avenue; however, construction of an internal all-weather access driveway would be required for approximately 280m. The RMS will be requested to consult with the affected property owner in regard to future access arrangements.

 

Future Traffic Impact – Orchard Hills

Orchard Hills is a rural area, with undulating rural roads. There are 70km/h speed limits on all roads, except for Darvill Road.

 

The proposed scheme includes east-facing ramps onto the M4 from Kent Road towards Parramatta and Sydney. This will provide Orchard Hills residents quicker access onto the M4 eastbound; however, access to the M4 would attract traffic through the Orchard Hills area.

 

There are three possible route choices through the Orchard Hills area, from the intersection of The Northern Road and Glenmore Parkway to the M4/ Kent Street. These options are:

 

·  Route 1 via The Northern Road onto the M4

·  Route 2 via Homestead Road, Calverts Road, Lansdowne Road and Kent Road

·  Route 3 via Wentworth Road, Kingswood Road and Homestead Road (or Darvill Road), Calverts Road, Lansdowne Road and Kent Road.

Comparing travel distances shows that Route 1 is approximately 5.5km, which is shorter by 1km compared with Routes 2 and 3; however, it requires vehicles to pass through two traffic signals.  Routes 2 and 3 discourage through traffic due to the alignment and undulation of these roads, which will reduce the speed and hence increase the travel time. Furthermore, traffic on Route 2 needs to negotiate against two-lane busy southbound traffic lanes along The Northern Road to enter into Homestead Road, hence increasing the travel time. It is expected that Route 1 will be the most attractive route for motorists. Although Routes 2 and 3 will see an increase in traffic, these roads will have sufficient capacity to cater for the increase.

 

 

Shared Pathway

A 3m wide shared-use path along the western side of the proposed Werrington Arterial will provide excellent off-road links for active transport. The proposal is also consistent with the Penrith Accessible Trails Hierarchy Strategy (PATHS), adopted by Council on 25 June 2012, which proposes a major district shared-use path along Gipps Street. It will connect with the Penrith-St Marys off-road shared use path along the south side of the Great Western Highway, currently under construction as part of the NSW Bike Plan – River Cities Program.

 

The RMS will be requested to ensure that the pedestrian and bike lanterns are part of all signalised intersections/crossings to allow connectivity across the arterial road, particularly at the southern end where the paths end. This would ensure safe cycle connections to the M4.

 

Hydrology and Drainage

The REF report has recommended further hydrological and hydraulic assessment to be undertaken during the detail design and has recognised that the existing local catchment drainage systems shall not be overcharged due to the proposed upgrade works.

 

The RMS will be requested to ensure that particular consideration is given to the drainage design at the intersection of Gipps Street with the Great Western Highway in association with flood constraints of Claremont Creek. 

 

Road Maintenance

Council currently maintains Kent Road and Gipps Street, Claremont Meadows as a road authority under the delegations of the RMS. It is expected that as part of the upgrade works the Werrington Arterial Road will be reclassified as a State Road under the care and control of the RMS.

 

Gipps Street Community Park

The proposed Gipps Street Community Park's endorsed Masterplan will, when funds become available, realise the development of the Park which includes active sports grounds and ancillary facilities, a significant universal designed playground, large tracts of passive recreation areas and opportunities for environmental and heritage education, skate and BMX area, walking and cycling trails, with public art features.

 

With its pivotal location between Penrith and St Marys, close proximity to the M4, Great Western Highway and the proposed Werrington Arterial Road will support effective access to the Park.

 

This recreation precinct will provide an important hub of local community, district and regional sport competition and training, as well as the opportunity for sports and cultural events, school and community organisation visits, and daily family use. Depending on the week and types of activity occurring, visitation could be between 5,000-10,000 per week with, on occasions, large events attracting a minimum of 5,000 on a single day. Traffic management measures in the development of the Werrington Arterial that assist with vehicular ingress and egress for these types of use are supported.

 

At a local level, easy and safe community access to the facility is essential and the RMS will be requested to ensure that there are signalised crossing points to the venue from the neighbouring residential hubs in recognition that users of all ages will be walking, cycling, skateboarding, and using scooters, prams and mobility aids.

 

Impacts on Council’s Gipps Street Reserve (Old Landfill Facility)

A review of the details in the REF and of the existing infrastructure on Gipps Street Reserve has shown the leachate collection drains and associated stormwater drainage are situated within the proposed road reserve.

 

The leachate collection drain is a vital piece of infrastructure within the former landfill site and is designed to collect and drain leachate to treatment cells located on the opposite side of the site. It must be noted that if the roadway goes ahead, then the manner in which leachate is managed in this area needs to be thoroughly assessed by a suitably qualified consultant. The RMS will be requested to assess the impact of the development on the leachate and stormwater systems and provide suitable solutions to ensure the system can continue to operate in an environmental satisfactory manner.

 

Noise Impacts on Residential Properties

Construction noise has the potential to be a major concern for residents. The REF highlights that noise will be a significant issue to residents during and the construction and operational phases of the Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1.

 

To address this, the REF outlines that all feasible and reasonable actions will be taken to reduce noise levels during the construction and operational phases in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority’s Construction Noise Guidelines, NSW Road Noise Policy (DECCW, March 2011) and the RMS Environmental Noise Management Manual (ENMM).

 

Further the REF states that the RMS will consult with each affected property owner regarding their individual needs. The final noise mitigation measures would be determined at the detailed design phase of the proposal.

 

Considering the above, the RMS will be requested to consult with Council during the detailed design phase to ensure that any proposed noise mitigation measures required to address both construction and operational noise are adequate and do not pose any other long‑term concerns for the affected residents or Council.

 

Conclusion

The assessment of the REF has identified a number of key issues for further consideration by the RMS.  These issues can all be satisfactorily addressed during the detailed design phase.  The key issues will be included in Council’s submission to the RMS and Council officers will continue to work with the RMS to ensure that the future upgrade delivers appropriate outcomes for all stakeholders.

 

The progress of the Werrington Arterial: Stage 1 to design concept and preparation of the REF is a significant step towards the development of this important transport link for the city.

The proposal would meet the projected traffic demand generated by the WELL Precinct and would improve access for urban development in Claremont Meadows and near the University of Western Sydney’s Werrington/Kingswood campus. The Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 will ultimately link with the Castlereagh Freeway corridor in the vicinity of Marsden Park to increase transport accessibility for Western Sydney.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 - Review of Environmental Factors be received.

2.     Council officers finalise a submission on the Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 – REF and submit it to the Roads and Maritime Services by 15 February 2013.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Werrington Arterial Stage 1 - Locality Map

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Werrington Arterial Stage 1 - Proposed Layout

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                4 February 2013

Appendix 1 - Werrington Arterial Stage 1 - Locality Map

 

APPENDIX 1:  Werrington Arterial Road: Stage 1 – Locality Map


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                       4 February 2013

Appendix 2 - Werrington Arterial Stage 1 - Proposed Layout

 

Appendix 2:  Werrington Arterial: Stage 1 – Proposed Design layout


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Liveable City

 

 

9

Tender Reference 12/13-11 - Refurbishment of Coachmans Park    

 

Compiled by:               Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

Authorised by:            Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure   

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with safe, inviting parks and public spaces (18)

Strategic Response

Provide safe, well-maintained public spaces and parks (18.1)

  

Previous Items:            Coachmans Park Improvement Project - Ordinary Meeting - 23 April 2012    

 

Executive Summary

The refurbishment of Coachmans Park was supported as a major project in Council’s adopted Funding our Future (SRV) program.  The redevelopment of Coachmans Park aims to provide a contemporary, inviting and functional public space in the heart of St Marys.  Following the 23 April 2012 Council endorsement of the design to proceed to detail documentation and tender, a public tender process has been undertaken.

 

It is recommended that the tender from Design Landscape Pty Ltd for the provision of the Refurbishment of Coachmans Park and associated stormwater drainage works be accepted as the successful tender.

Background

The Coachmans Park Improvement Project was endorsed to proceed to detailed documentation and tender on 23 April 2012.  The project is split into two parts, the Park refurbishment works and a stormwater drainage component which will see the duplication of a trunk drainage pipe which runs through the middle of the Park in an east west direction. The Park Refurbishment is funded via the SRV with an initial budget allocation of $1.1M, and the Stormwater Drainage duplication is funded from the Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC) with an allocation of $300,000. Budget figures quoted are inclusive of all consultancy fees, contingencies and charges.

 

Tenders were advertised in the Western Weekender and on the e-Tendering website on 19 November 2012 and the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 November 2012.  Tenders closed on 6 December 2012.

 

Tenderers were required to submit their tender either by using the APET 360 online Portal or alternately a hard copy on a standard pro forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.  Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule.

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Ari Fernando (Major Projects and Design Coordinator), Elizabeth Roxburgh (Landscape Architect), Karin Schicht (Landscape Architecture Supervisor) and Laura Schuil (Supply Officer- Contracts) and was Chaired by Michael Jackson (Major Projects Manager).  The evaluation criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

 

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Works Method and Program

·    Financials

·    Employment Policies (Apprenticeships)

·    Quality Assurance Systems

·    Environmental Management Systems

·    Work Health & Safety

·    Industrial Relations

·    Commercial Requirements

·    Conflict of Interest

 

Following the assessment of the tenders in line with the evaluation criteria and the completion of financial assessments, the shortlisted tenderers were interviewed and references checked.

Initial Tender Review

A full listing of the tenders received and considered is detailed below in price order (ex GST).

 

Company

Tendered Price

Design Landscapes Pty Ltd

$834,002.60

Bermagui Constructions

$859,985.19

Civil Constructions

$1,011,010.00

Glascott Group

$1,016,621.70

Furnass Landscaping Enterprises Pty Ltd

$1,455,588.00

Ford Civil Contracting Pty Ltd

No Pricing schedule submitted

 

Following a detailed analysis of all completed responses, each tender was evaluated against the above evaluation criteria to determine an initial ranking.  Consideration was then given to the tenderer’s price schedules to determine the best value for money solution and the three lowest priced tenders, with competency in technical aspects of the tender, were further analysed for short listing.

 

Bermagui Constructions Pty Ltd were eliminated from further assessment based on their failure to demonstrate competency in technical aspects of the tender. Additionally the Company did not demonstrate experience in either landscape or civil works.

 

Following the initial assessment and clarification, the tenders received from Design Landscapes Pty Ltd, Civil Constructions and Glascott Group were considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to be suitable for short listing and further analysis.

Evaluation of Shortlisted Tenders

The three shortlisted tenderers were subjected to an independent financial evaluation and all received a positive financial evaluation. The tenderers were then interviewed by the Tender Evaluation Committee to confirm their understanding of the scope and answer any minor queries arising from their submissions.

 

The recommended Company, Design Landscapes Pty Ltd, was selected based on their;-

1)   Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria,

2)   Demonstrated ability to meet Council’s requirements; and

3)   Competitive price for the services offered.

 

Design Landscapes Pty Ltd is a Sydney based landscape Company that specialises in the project management and construction of large scale commercial landscape projects. Established in March 1985, the business specialised in quality, high end residential projects, carried out on a design and construct basis before expanding into large scale commercial and local government projects in the mid 90s.

 

Reference checks completed with Landcom and JMD Design indicated that all were satisfied with the performance of Design Landscapes Pty Ltd.

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on Design Landscapes Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review no concerns were raised as to the ability of Design Landscapes Pty Ltd to perform the works described. This work includes stormwater drainage and landscaping components and is expected to be completed in early 2013-14. The tendered price for this project from Design Landscapes of $834,003 is included in funding provided over two years under projects for City Centre Improvements and Coachmans Park Drainage Design and Construction.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager - Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider the tender for the refurbishment of Coachmans Park. The TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report.

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that Design Landscapes Pty Ltd has provided the most advantageous tender and it is recommended that the Company be awarded the contract for a contract sum of $834,002.60 ex GST.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 12/13-11 - Refurbishment of Coachmans Park be received.

 

2.     The Tender for the refurbishment of Coachmans Park from Design Landscapes Pty Ltd for the amount of $834,002.60 (ex GST) be accepted.

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Liveable City

 

 

10

Tender Reference 12/13-10 - Construction Works to Three Toilet Amenities   

 

Compiled by:               Michael Jackson, Major Projects Manager

Authorised by:            Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure   

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with active and healthy communities (19)

Strategic Response

Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The construction works to three toilet amenities in the Nepean River Precinct is a priority under the public domain amenities upgrade program and a public tender process has been undertaken for the works at Tench Reserve (nearest boat ramp), Factory Road and Regatta Park West.

 

It is recommended that the tender from Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd for the provision of the construction works to three toilet amenities be accepted as the successful tenderer.

Background

The public domain amenities upgrade program provides funding for a rolling program of amenities refurbishments, replacements and additions.  The three facilities in this scope of work are at Tench Reserve (nearest boat ramp), Factory Road and Regatta Park West.  Section 94 funding under the District Open Space (DOS) Plan will also provide funding towards the provision of an accessible toilet at the Regatta Park West site as that is included within the DOS plan.

Tenders were advertised in the Western Weekender and on the e-Tendering website on 19 November 2012 and the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 November 2012.  Tenders closed on 6 December 2012.

Tenderers were required to submit their tender either by using the APET 360 online Portal or alternately a hard copy on a standard pro forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.  Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule.

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Ari Fernando (Major Projects and Design Coordinator), Rosemarie Canales (Architectual Supervisor), Ajmal Siddiq (Urban Designer), Laura Schuil (Supply Officer- Contracts) and was Chaired by Michael Jackson (Major Projects Manager).  The selection criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

 

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Works Method and Program

·    Financials

·    Employment Policies (Apprenticeships)

·    Quality Assurance Systems

·    Environmental Management Systems

·    Work Health & Safety

·    Industrial Relations

·    Commercial Requirements

·    Conflict of Interest

 

Following the assessment of the tenders in line with the evaluation criteria and the completion of financial assessments, the shortlisted tenderers were interviewed and references checked.

Initial Tender Review

A full listing of the tenders received and considered is detailed below in price order (ex GST).

 

Company

Tendered Price

Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd

$503,015.00

C + M Constructions Pty Ltd

$676,986.00

Momentum Built

$697,665.00

Mullaly Pty Ltd

$743,500.00

ProGroup

$764,976.00

Sydney Design & Construction Pty Ltd

$896,531.00

 

Following a detailed analysis of all completed responses, each tender was evaluated against the above evaluation criteria to determine an initial ranking.  Consideration was then given to the tenderers’ price schedules to determine the best value for money solution and the lowest priced tenders, with competency in technical aspects of the tender.

 

Following initial assessment and clarification, the tender from Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to be suitable for short listing and further analysis.

Evaluation of Shortlisted Tenders

The shortlisted tenderer was subjected to an independent financial evaluation and received a positive financial evaluation. The tenderer was then interviewed by the Tender Evaluation Committee to confirm their understanding of the scope and answer any minor queries arising from their submission.

 

The recommended company, Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd, was selected based on their compliance to tender evaluation criteria, their demonstrated ability to meet Council’s requirements and competitive price for the services offered.

 

Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd are a Penrith based building firm that has undertaken a wide range of projects for Penrith City Council since 2005.   Westco have successfully delivered previous amenities construction projects, as well as a large quantity and wide range of works for Council’s  Property Development and City Works Departments, undertaking construction, fitout, refurbishment, make good and repair works on Council properties.  Westco have delivered building projects for the commercial and education sectors throughout the Penrith & neighbouring LGAs for more than 20 years.

 

A reference check was completed with Corporate Scorecard that indicated that the performance of Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd was satisfactory.

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of the tender was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review no concerns were raised as to the ability of Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd to perform the works described.

 

Funding for the works tendered by Westco Building Consultants Pt Ltd is provided for under the 10-year program for Public Amenities Replacement that was adopted by Council in 2008-09, and is included in the 2012-13 Operational Plan. The balance of funds will be provided from the District Open Space Section 94 Plan for Regatta Park West.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager - Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider the tender for construction works to three toilet amenities. The TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report.

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd has provided the most advantageous tender and it is recommended that the Company be awarded the contract for a contract sum of $503,015 ex GST.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 12/13-10 - Construction Works to Three Toilet Amenities be received.

2.     The tender for the construction works to three toilet amenities for the amount of $503,95.00 (ex GST) from Westco Building Consultants Pty Ltd be accepted.

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Liveable City

 

 

11

Tender Reference 12/13-04 - Suction Eductor - Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Truck   

 

Compiled by:               Gowry Gowrythasan, Civil Operations Engineer

Laura Schuil, Supply Officer - Contracts

Greg Rodwell, Fleet Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, City Works Manager   

 

Objective

Our physical infrastructure is adaptable, and responds to changing needs

Community Outcome

A City with infrastructure that responds to community needs (17)

Strategic Response

Improve the City's drainage network (17.2)

       

Previous Item:                       Tender Reference 11/12-14 – Suction Eductor – Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Truck – Ordinary Meeting – 23 April 2012

Executive Summary

A tender for the Supply, Delivery & Commissioning of one (1) Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Eductor Truck with a hopper capacity of 4 – 7 cu.m and to a cleaning depth of 6 metres below ground level, was advertised on 12 October 2012 in the Western Weekender and on the e-Tendering website and the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 October 2012. Tenders closed on 8 November 2012.

 

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that an order be placed with MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd for the purchase price of $257,174.50 and that the existing unit to be replaced be used as a trade-in at the agreed value tendered of $9,090.90 excluding GST.

Background

A tender for a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner was presented to the Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 23 April 2012. The Tender Evaluation Committee recommended (and this was adopted by the Council) that none of the tenders received be accepted, because they did not meet the specifications as detailed within the tender. The Council resolved that a new tender be called for the supply of a Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner.

Council currently operates a fleet of two (2) Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner Trucks to maintain Council’s stormwater drainage pits and Gross Pollutant Traps.

 

The upgrade of the older of these 2 units was planned during 2012-2013 as part of the asset replacement program.

 

Tenders were advertised on 12 October 2012 in the Western Weekender and on the e-Tendering website and the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 October 2012. Tenders closed on 8 November 2012.

 

Tenderers were required to submit their tender either by using the APET 360 online Portal or alternately a hard copy on a standard pro forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria. Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule setting out the unit rates for whole of life costs and spare parts.

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Greg Rodwell (Acting Fleet Coordinator), Gowry Gowrythasan (Civil Operations Engineer), Matthew Nicholson (Senior Works Coordinator), Michael Doggett (Supply Coordinator) and Laura Schuil (Supply Officer- Contracts).


Tender Evaluation Criteria

The selection criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders were:

 

Scope of Requirements

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Delivery Time

·    Equipment Specifications & Demonstrated Compliance

·    Australian Content

·    Documentation and Training

·    Safety

·    Service, Spare Parts & Warranty

·    Operator Acceptability

Price

·    The Lump Sum Price

·    Whole of Life Cost

·    Trade in Valuation

·    Payment

·    Imported Content

Management and Administration

·    Quality Assurance System

·    Environmental Management

·    Work Health & Safety Management

Further Evaluation

·    A practical evaluation by Council’s operators and Tender Evaluation Committee

 

Summary of Tenders Received

A total of three (3) submissions were received from the following respondents (listed in alphabetical order) in response to the advertised tender.

 

·    Chemstore International Group

·    MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd

·    Rosmech Sales & Service PTY LTD (the Company submitted two options in their tender)

 

Chemstore International Group’s principal place of business is 19-21 Clarke St, Parkes, NSW.

 

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd’s principal place of business is Unit 2/9 Enterprise Place, Wetherill Park, NSW.

 

Rosmech Sales & Service PTY LTD’s principal place of business is 30 Stanbel Road, Salisbury Plain, SA.

 

Criteria Evaluation

A practical evaluation was carried out by Council’s operators as part of the evaluation process, excluding the unit offered by Chemstore, as there was no advantage to Council when considering its higher capital price and fuel costs compared to the other submitted units as detailed in the price evaluation below. The price evaluation was performed prior to inviting the companies to supply their units for Council staff to undertake a practical evaluation.


When evaluated on site, the MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd unit was considerably less noisy than the Rosmech unit (the option 1 unit was only provided for evaluation). This is considered a major advantage to both the operators and the public. The operation of the pit lifting crane was easy to use. Storage and retrieval of the longer suction hoses, along the side of the unit, made manual handling better for the operator. Fuel consumption of the MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd unit is 10.2 litres per hour.

 

Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd submitted two options in their tender.
Option 1:    SCARAB MISTRAL on a Hino FG1628 (Euro 5 Auto Chassis) and
Option 2:    SCARAB MISTRAL on an Isuzu FSR 700 (Euro 5 Auto Chassis).

When Option 1 was evaluated, it was noted that the unit had less storage and suction capacity compared to other units. Fuel consumption of the Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd unit is 11.0 litres per hour.

 

Table 1 below summarises the specifications of each machine compared to the Tender requirements in relation to hopper capacity and cleaning depth.

 

Table 1

Tenderer

Hopper Capacity

(m3)

Able to clean ≥5m depth

Chemstore International Group

4.7

Stated

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd

6.5

Stated

Rosmech Sales & Service PTY LTD (option 1)

6.2

Stated

Rosmech Sales & Service PTY LTD (option 2)

6.2

Stated

 

The annual running costs of the MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd unit have been calculated to be approximately $7,000 per annum less than the Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd unit. As the intention is to utilise this unit for over 5 years, there is at least a $35,000 difference in running costs over the life of the Eductor Truck, between these two units.

 

Price Evaluation

Based on the prices submitted all tenders were initially considered.

 

The following Table 2 shows the total tendered prices (excluding GST) for each of the tenders including additional safety options. The tender specified a number of optional items that may be required. Tenderers were requested to submit separate prices for various options. The cost of the options is incorporated in the table below. This includes CCTV cameras and weather shields, which are considered necessary to enhance Work Health and Safety operational aspects of the plant.

 

Table2

Tenderer

Tendered Price $

Additional Inclusions $

Trade in Valuation for Current Unit $

Total Cost $

Chemstore International Group

339,885.00

1,562.20

-

341,447.20

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd

263,129.40

3,136.00

9,090.90

257,174.50

Rosmech Sales & Service PTY LTD (option 1)

253,448.00

Incl. in tender price

5,000.00

248,448.00

Rosmech Sales & Service PTY LTD (option 2)

254,585.00

Incl. in tender price

5,000.00

249,585.00

 

Trade in Valuation

 

As noted in Table 2 above the following trade in valuations were submitted for the old unit as part of the tendered prices. The trade in unit is approximately 20 years old and is reaching the end of its life.

 

Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd            $5,000.00

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd                   $9,090.90

 

Whole of life Cost Analysis

The tender requested companies to provide a trade in value for the old unit as well as providing details of maintenance and operating costs over a 5 year period. The Tender Evaluation Committee reviewed the costing information provided by the three companies on the whole of life scenarios for the plant unit and are of the opinion that the estimated costs are indicative of the likely costs for the units. As noted elsewhere within this report, the estimated fuel consumption for the MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd has a more favourable litre per hour’s usage than the tender submitted by others.

 

Table 3 below summarises both proposals for each of the cost elements for the short listed tenderers.

Table 3

Cost Item

Chemstore International Group

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd

Rosmech Sales & Services Pty Ltd

Capital (Purchase) Delivered Ex GST

$341,447.20

$257,174.50

249,585.00

Fuel Cost Over 5 years based on 1000 hours of operation per year @$1.50/litre

$142,500.00

 

$72,800.00

 

$82,500.00

Maintenance cost over 5 years

Not provided

18,740.00

44,200.00

Total

$483,947.20

348,714.50

376,285.00

 

MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd have supplied Road Sweepers to Council for a number of years, and product support has always been available with spare parts and their workshop is located at Wetherill Park.

 

Conclusion

The MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd tender for the supply and delivery of the Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner represents the best overall value for money to Council and is recommended for purchase by the Tender Evaluation Committee on the basis of the following:

·    Whole of life cost advantage over the other units

·    Better fuel economy

·    Practical evaluation by the operators

·    The unit offered is quieter than the other units

 

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comments

This report proposes the acceptance of the tender from MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd for the supply and delivery of the Suction Eductor Pit Cleaner based on an analysis conducted by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Funding for this purchase is available from the annual allocation for Plant Replacement which has an annual budget in 2012-13 of $1.2m and current available funds of $700,000. The tendered price of $257,174.50 can be accommodated within this allocation.

 

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) comments

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Group Manager – Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider the tender for the purchase of a Suction Eductor Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Truck. The TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 12/13-04 - Suction Eductor - Stormwater Drainage Pit Cleaner Truck be received.

2.     The tender from MacDonald Johnston Pty Ltd for the purchase price of $257,174.50 and that the existing unit to be replaced be used as a trade-in at the agreed value tendered of $9,090.90 (excluding GST) be accepted.

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

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

12      DA12/0308 for a Dwelling at Lot 1 DP237071 (No. 265) Seventh Avenue, Llandilo Applicant: Sharon Jones Architectural Design;  Owner: Adam John McBurney & Tennille Gay McBurney

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

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

A Vibrant City

 

 

12

DA12/0308 for a Dwelling at Lot 1 DP237071 (No. 265) Seventh Avenue, Llandilo  Applicant:  Sharon Jones Architectural Design;  Owner:  Adam John McBurney & Tennille Gay McBurney    

 

Compiled by:               Damien Saaghy, Graduate 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

This application was presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 19 November 2012 and was deferred pending a site inspection by Councillors. The site inspection was held on 3 December 2012. The issues raised at the Council meeting and the site inspection are addressed in this report.

The development application is for the construction of a split level dwelling on Lot 1, DP237071 (No. 265) Seventh Avenue, Llandilo. A dwelling house is a permissible land use in the zone with consent of Council. 

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Engineering Services Department and has been determined to be incompatible with relevant flood planning controls which regulate development. The site is within the South Creek floodway (draft) as informed by the current flood study being undertaken for Council. There is a significant risk to personal safety and property associated with the high depth and velocity of flood water over the site in the 1 in 100 year floods and major flood events. The characteristics of this site render it unsuitable for a residential dwelling.

An assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken. As the site is located within a “floodway” and identified as a high hazard area the application is recommended for refusal.

History of site and adjoining sites

Lot 1 forms part of Deposited Plan DP237071 which was registered on 7 November 1968. The plan consisted of boundary adjustments to provide individual lots with a minimum size of 5 acres conforming to the Non Urban (Rural) zoning in 1968. These lots have remained unchanged until present day. Council records indicate that between 1985 and 1989 seven dwellings / additions were approved in the local vicinity. The approval of these structures on lots in the local vicinity predates Council’s flood policy which came into force in 1991. The subject lot has remained vacant.

Mr & Mrs McBurney purchased the property on 11 December 2009. A S149 certificate issued on 27 October 2009 identifies that the subject site is subject to flood related developments controls. The S149 certificate identifies that a flood report, upon payment of applicable fees, can be obtained detailing relevant information related to flood planning level and the floodway if the latter is available. A flood level enquiry was obtained by the owners on 7 May 2010. The flood levels provided to the applicant also note that rarer and more extreme flood events may have greater impact on the property.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject lot is currently vacant and is situated on the southern end of Seventh Avenue, approximately 400m west of South Creek. The site is approximately 100.585m wide by 201.250m deep and covers an area of 2.026Ha. The site is orientated in a northerly direction and is relatively level. A locality map is provided at Appendix 1 to this report.

The site is situated in the South Creek floodplain. Major flood events in South Creek have occurred in 1956 and 1988.  The flood level for the site is 18.1m AHD (Australian Height Datum). Based on Council’s Airborne Laser Scanning data, the natural ground level in the location of the dwelling is approximately 16m Australian Height Datum resulting in depths of water in the 100 year flood event of 2.1m  in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling.

The surrounding area is characterised by rural and rural-residential development with intensive horticulture in the form of market gardens to the south and further north of the site.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development would consist of the construction of a 16.44m wide by 18.5m deep split level dwelling. The dwelling is split across three defined levels and comprises a double garage, tools/store room and wash room, at ground level; laundry, family/dining, study, lounge, patio and alfresco on the elevated ground floor level; four bedrooms, bathroom, ensuite, TV area and balcony on the upper floor level positioned over the garage and tool/store room.

The development is proposed to be located 20m from the front northern boundary and 25m from the eastern side boundary. A set of architectural plans and elevations is provided at Appendix 2 & 3 to this report.

The development application was lodged in April 2012 and was referred to Council’s development engineers who could not support the application as the site is located within a high hazard area and floodway. Because of the extent of flooding affecting the site, it was the officer’s view that seeking a separate flood report with the applicant would place an unreasonable expense on the applicant and would be unlikely to satisfactory address and resolve the flooding issues.

The application was referred to Council at the request of Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM and Ross Fowler OAM. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 19 November 2012, Councillors resolved to have a site meeting to discuss the issues of the project.  At this meeting a number of questions were raised to be addressed in this report. These questions have been addressed under in this report under “Public Interest”.


Planning Assessment

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

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

Permissibility

The subject site is zoned RU4 Primary Production Small Lots under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposed development is for a dwelling house, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

Objectives of the Zone

•  To enable sustainable primary industry and other compatible land uses.

•  To encourage and promote diversity and employment opportunities in relation to primary industry enterprises, particularly those that require smaller lots or that are more intensive in nature.

•  To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

•  To ensure land uses are of a scale and nature that is compatible with the environmental capabilities of the land.

•  To preserve and improve natural resources through appropriate land management practices.

The proposed dwelling generally complies with the objectives and development standards of zone RU4. In particular, the LEP aims to ensure land uses are of a scale and nature that is compatible with the environmental capabilities of the land. A site inspection conducted on 11 May 2012 identified that the subject lot, located approximately 400m west of South Creek, was vacant and relatively level. The character of the area is defined by a mix of rural and rural residential uses.

The development however, is not consistent with the objectives and development standards of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 Clause 6.3 Flood Planning.

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the clause as follows:

(a)  to minimise the flood risk associated with the use of the land,

(b)  to limit uses to those compatible with flow conveyance function and flood hazard,

(c)  to manage uses to be compatible with flood risks,

(d)  to enable safe and effective evacuation of land,

The clause at 6.3(4) further states that development consent must not be granted for development on land that is flood planning area or other land at or below the flood planning level unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

 (a)  is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b)  if located in a floodway, is compatible with the flow conveyance function of the floodway and the flood hazard within the floodway, and

(c)  is not likely to adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(d)  is not likely to significantly alter flow distributions and velocities to the detriment of other properties or the environment, and

(e)  is not likely to adversely affect the safe and effective evacuation of the land and the surrounding area, and

(f)  is not likely to significantly detrimentally affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or waterways, and

(g)  is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a   consequence of flooding, and

(h)  is consistent with any relevant floodplain risk management plan.

The proposal is sited within the South Creek floodway (draft) as informed by the current flood study being undertaken for Council.  The flood study is being undertaken in fulfilment of Council’s obligations under the State Government’s Flood Liable Land Policy and associated Floodplain Development Manual. A map of the South Creek floodway (draft) is appended to this report.

Floodplain Development Manual 2005

The 2005 Floodplain Development Manual replaces the 1986 Floodplain Development Manual as the NSW Government’s Manual relating to the management of flood liable land. The manual seeks a holistic approach to how government bodies deal with the consequences of flooding as they relate to human occupation for urban development.

The Floodplain Development Manual seeks to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on owners and occupiers of flood prone land and to reduce private and public losses resulting from floods. The manual seeks a balanced approach to risk management taking into account existing flood risk, future flood risk and continued flood risk based on flood data. This data has been collected and, as detailed above, has not changed since the implementation of Council’s Interim Flood Policy 1991.

The risks associated with construction of a dwelling on the subject lot are determined by the data which currently identifies:

1.   The site is affected by 1% AEP flooding of South Creek

2.   The property is located within a floodway and High to Very High Hazard area

3.   Depths across the site range from 1.2m to 3m with velocities up to 0.6m/s during the 1 in 100 flood event

Put simply, the flood waters will be deeper than an Olympic swimming pool, be moving at a speed of approximately 2km/h and is expected to contain large amounts of debris (branches, logs, livestock, equipment and other light structures). Once the flood waters reach approximately 700mm in depth, this together with the velocity and composition of the flood water would pose a threat to personal safety making it difficult for an able bodied adult to wade to safety.  As the flood waters rise personal safety is placed at more risk as is the potential to cause significant structural damage to buildings.

The proposed development in this location will restrict the floodway and thereby adversely impact on flood behaviour. The impact would be exacerbated when considered on a cumulative basis. The floodway area itself has been defined in the current study on the premise that any obstruction or change in levels within the designated area will have a significant adverse impact on flood behaviour and therefore on other properties.

 

The risk associated with existing development and future development in the floodway is directly related to the measure of the hazard, i.e. the hydraulic categorisation of high to very high hazard. Coupled with the hydraulic categorisation are other factors such flood awareness and the complexity of flood evacuation which can exacerbate the risk.

2.   Section 79C (1) (a) (ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There is no draft Environmental Planning Instrument applicable to the site or this development application.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2010

DCP Objectives

The proposed development is consistent with the overall objectives of Chapter D1 Rural Land Uses in DCP 2010. Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 Chapter C3 Clause 3.5(C)(2)(a) states that Council will consider development on flood liable land but will not grant consent to development in floodways or in high hazard areas.  The issues associated with floodways and high hazard areas have been discussed in the section of the report relating to Cl 6.3 of PLEP 2010.

4.   Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

The building will need to comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. The building would be able to achieve compliance. Special consideration would need to be given to the potential loading of impacting flood waters.

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

The construction of a new dwelling in the floodway will change the characteristics of the floodway leading to rises in flood levels, velocities and thereby increasing affectation of other properties.  In assessing the merits of a development application the impacts of the development on adjoining properties and the community need to be considered.  The measure for this assessment process is the 1 in 100 year scenario and the implications that this event would introduce.  Development should be able to demonstrate that by virtue of the development taking place that no other property will be disadvantaged or the people are place at risk.  This site is located within a floodway which is considered to be the highest level of flood risk.  The floodway is a consequence of the drainage pattern of the floodplain.  Development that impedes or changes the character of a floodway will have the potential to influence the flooding characteristics of the floodplain. It is these impacts that are of concern in respect to this development application such as raising flood levels, increasing flood water velocities and redirection of flows.  All of these have potential to impact other properties.

The proposed dwelling would create precedence within the broader area which could result in more people and property being placed at risk.

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

The site is not suitable for the proposed development due to the adverse impact on the floodway and the high hazard to the future occupants as addressed under the LEP controls.

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

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers. The development proposal could not be supported by Council’s Development Engineers because:

·    The site is located within a floodway identified in Council’s South Creek model,

·    The site is subject to high depths of water in major flood events,

·    Of high flood hazard due to the depth of water and associated velocity in major flood events.

 

In accordance with the DCP 2006, the proposal was notified to the adjoining properties. No submissions were received.

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

As requested at Council’s Ordinary Meeting dated 19 November 2012 a site meeting occurred to discuss the issues of the project. The following comments address relevant questions arising from discussion:

(a)  The flood modelling came into effect in 1991.  How many dwellings have been approved in this area since this time?

In the vicinity of the subject site, there are 48 allotments impacted by the floodway.  Twenty-four (24) dwellings had been approved prior to 1991 and six (6) dwellings and two (2) dwelling additions have been approved since 1991.  There are 16 sites that do not have dwellings erected on them and each of these has similar constraints to the subject site.

Of the six (6) dwellings approved since 1991, all were approved before and up to 2003.  One (1) dwelling addition was approved in 2003 and the other on 1 November 2005 (DA05/1783).  These dwelling additions were approximately 30m2 in size

(b)  When did the requirement for construction in a floodway come into effect?

The requirement prohibiting the construction of dwellings in a floodway was first raised in the “NSW Flood Plain Development Manual 2005”. This was gazetted on 6 May 2005. 

A Ministerial Direction on 31 January 2007 required Councils to consider flood prone land in the making of a draft LEP to ensure consistency with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual.  The Ministerial Direction stated:

“(3)          A draft LEP shall not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

(a)  Permit development in floodway areas.”

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 has taken into consideration flooding within the Local Government Area and where information is available identifying lots with a floodway, development consent should not be granted.

(c)  Whether or not the land would be sterilised by Council’s refusal of the application?

Whilst the zoning would permit a dwelling to be constructed on the allotment with consent of Council, the assessment process has identified the entire allotment is within a floodway and this cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Council Officers cannot support the approval of a dwelling on this allotment.

The site can be used for agricultural purposes including market gardening which is extensive in the floodplain in this area.  It is conceded that the flooding characteristics of the site pose significant limitations on the use of the land.

(d)  Are there any design proposals or other matters the applicant can do to reduce the risk?

Council Officers do not support a dwelling in the floodway as there are no design options which would satisfactorily mitigate the risk to the dwelling and its occupants. The early evacuation of the site is unpredictable and there is a possibility of injury to occupants or those assisting in their evacuation.

(e)  How will an additional dwelling place more of a burden on emergency services personnel?

Another dwelling would set a precedent for potentially 16 more dwellings in the floodway area of the South Creek floodplain.  This will intensify risk in this hazardous area and will stretch emergency services resources and logistics. The current proposal is contrary to sound flood plain management and it contradicts proper precautionary principles for development on seriously constrained land.

Additionally, as the site is within a floodway with depths of high water and associated velocity, if people become trapped on site it will make it extremely difficult and hazardous for emergency services personnel to rescue these people.

In assessing this application against the current relevant planning instruments, being the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and the Penrith Development Control Plan 2010, the proposal is found to be unsatisfactory.

The proposed development is not in the public interest due to the following:

·    Adverse impact on flood behaviour and other properties by restricting the floodway,

·    Places additional demand on emergency services,

·    Increases risk to the public,

·    Sets an undesirable precedent for other development,

·    Council may not be indemnified from future liability if approved.

Council Officers have had multiple meetings regarding the proposal and discussed at length the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal for both the owners of the site and the greater Llandilo community. The ramifications of permitting development on the site are such that Council Officers cannot find a solution to the issue where the risk to occupants would be reduced to an acceptable level.

Conclusion

The assessment of the application for the split level dwelling demonstrates that it is not in accordance with the flood planning objectives and requirements of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and Penrith Development Control Plan 2010. The development is within a floodway in a high hazard area and presents a serious safety concern for the occupants of the development and emergency services personnel.

The proposed development is recommended for refusal on the basis it does not comply with the development standards of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 as assessed by Council. The proposed development is also inconsistent with the NSW Flood Plain Development Manual 2005 including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report for DA12/0308 for a Dwelling at Lot 1 DP237071 (No. 265) Seventh Avenue, Llandilo be received.

2.     DA12/0308 for a Dwelling at Lot 1 DP237071 (No. 265) Seventh Avenue, Llandilo be refused for the following reasons:

(i)   Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 – The proposed development is inconsistent with the following objectives of the RU4 zone under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010:

a)   is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

 

b)   if located in a floodway, is compatible with the flow conveyance function of the floodway and the flood hazard within the floodway, and

 

c)   is not likely to adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

 

d)   is not likely to significantly alter flow distributions and velocities to the detriment of other properties or the environment, and

 

e)   is not likely to adversely affect the safe and effective evacuation of the land and the surrounding area, and

(ii)   Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 – The proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of  Penrith Development Control Plan 2010.

 

Flood Hazard Classifications

 

a)   Council will consider development on flood liable land but will not grant consent to development in floodways or in high hazard areas.

 

b)   Consideration will be given to such matters as depth and nature of flood waters, whether the area forms flood storage, the nature and risk posed to the development by flood waters, the velocity of floodwaters and the speed of inundation, and whether the development lies in an area classed as a ‘floodway’, ‘flood fringe area’ or ‘flood storage area’.

(iii) Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 – The proposal is located in a floodway and is not considered to be in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 2010 and Development Control Plan 2010 and as a result is unsuitable for the subject site.

(iv) Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 – The proposed development will impact on the flood characteristics of the floodway. The cumulative effect of future like development could further increase potential impacts on the flood characteristics of the floodway to the detriment of the occupiers of the subject land, present and future owners, property and the community and is therefore not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Floor Plans

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Site Plan

1 Page

Appendix

4.  

South Creek Floodway

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 2 - Floor Plans

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 3 - Site Plan

 

temp


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                              4 February 2013

Appendix 4 - South Creek Floodway

 

temp

 



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday February 4 2013

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                        1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of space housing an Automatic Teller Machine within 209 Queen Street St Marys to CUSCAL Limited

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of 118 Henry Street Penrith to Rivers (Australia) Pty Limited

 

4        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Suite 2 at Community Connections 114-116 Henry Street Penrith to A-Live Performing Arts Centre                                                   3

 

5        Personnel Matter - Senior Staff Matters

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                               4 February 2013

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 space housing an Automatic Teller Machine within 209 Queen Street St Marys to CUSCAL Limited

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

 

3        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of 118 Henry Street Penrith to Rivers (Australia) Pty Limited

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

 

 

 

4        Commercial Matter - Council Property - Leasing of Suite 2 at Community Connections 114-116 Henry Street Penrith to A-Live Performing Arts Centre

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.

 

5        Personnel Matter - Senior Staff Matters

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to personnel matters concerning particular individuals and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

ATTACHMENT       

 

 

 


Date of Meeting:          4 February 2013

 

Delivery Program:       A Leading City   

 

Program:                      Corporate Finance

 

Report Title:                 2012-2013 Voted Works