6 February 2013

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 11 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

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 3 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 THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 11 February 2013

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


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

ON MONDAY 3 DECEMBER 2012 AT 7:07PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa (arrived 8:08pm), Prue Car, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Greg Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Tricia Hitchen, Karen McKeown, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Maurice Girotto for the period 20 November 2012 to 5 December 2012 inclusive, and to Councillor Jackie Greenow, requested at the Councillor Briefing on 26 November 2012, for 3 December 2012.

APOLOGIES

PRC 89  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that an apology be received for Councillor Bernard Bratusa.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 12 November 2012

PRC 90  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 12 November 2012 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor John Thain declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 2 - Affordable Housing as he previously worked for the former Minister for Housing who had responsibility for this matter.

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 4 - Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd as her daughter attends one of Council’s Child Care Centres.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 4 - Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd as his daughter in-law works at one of Council’s Child Care Centres.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd

Children’s Services Manager, Janet Keegan introduced the report and invited Max Friend, Chairperson of Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd to give a presentation.          

PRC 91  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd be received.

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd Annual Report for 2012/13.

3.     Council congratulate the Board of the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd for their efforts and achievements during the year.

 

 

A Liveable City

 

5        City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors

Group Manager – City Infrastructure, Wayne Mitchell introduced the report and invited Alan Brown, Chairman of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd and Greg Crawford, General Manager of Ripples to give a presentation.                                                                     

PRC 92  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd for 24 months from 1 July 2012.

 

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 7:50pm.

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish left the meeting, the time being 7:51pm.

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen left the meeting, the time being 7:51pm.

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen returned to the meeting, the time being 7:52pm.

 

3        Neighbourhood Renewal Program - Colyton and Penrith Neighbourhood Action Plans

Councillors Greg Davies and Marcus Cornish returned to the meeting, the time being 7:53pm.

Councillor Bernard Bratusa arrived at the meeting, the time being 8:08pm.

Place Manager, Jeni Pollard introduced the report and invited Acting Coordinator Neighbourhood Renewal, Heather Chaffey to give a presentation.                                                                       

PRC 93  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Neighbourhood Renewal Program - Colyton and Penrith Neighbourhood Action Plans be received.

2.     Council endorse the Colyton Neighbourhood Action Plan 2012 and Penrith Neighbourhood Action Plan 2012 as provided in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to this report.

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS)                                                               

PRC 94  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS) be received.

2.     Council lodge an application for Round 2 of the LIRS for the City Centres Renewal & Improvement Program, in the amount of $4.2M as outlined in the report.

3.     Council lodge an application for Round 2 of the LIRS for the General Revenue Component of AREAS, in the amount of $913,000 as outlined in the report.

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        Affordable Housing

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 8:41pm.

Community and Cultural Development Manager, Erich Weller gave a brief introduction of the report.                                                                                                                                                      

PRC 95  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

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

2.     Council enter into an agreement with Housing NSW (the Centre for Affordable Housing) to facilitate long term affordable rental housing in the Penrith City Local Government Area.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 8:43pm.

 

A Leading City

 

6        Regional Development Australia Fund Round 4

Acting Group Manager – Finance & Workforce, Andrew Moore, gave a brief introduction to the report.                                                                                                                                            

PRC 96  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Regional Development Australia Fund Round 4 be received.

2.     Council endorse an Application being advanced for the registration of interest for the Medical Research Institute as outlined in this report.

3.     A further report be brought back to Council in the New Year outlining in more detail the proposal for a Medical Research Institute.

4.     A further report be brought back to Council regarding discussions with Tennis NSW and Rowing NSW in relation to their respective Centres of Excellence.

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1          Restricted Solid Waste – Landfill Site, Hunters Hill                                             

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM  requested a report to Council regarding the remediation of the Hunters Hill site, including the transfer of restricted solid waste to the landfill site.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:56pm.

    


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        The New Model Code of Conduct Framework

 

A City of Opportunities

 

2        Secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

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

 

3        Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors

  

A Liveable City

 

4        Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries

 

A Vibrant City

 

5        Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        The New Model Code of Conduct Framework

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                  11 February 2013

A Leading City

 

 

1

The New Model Code of Conduct Framework   

 

Compiled by:               Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer

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

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Executive Summary

The Division of Local Government (DLG) has advised the Council that the new Model Code of Conduct and the Procedures for the Administration of the new Model Code of Conduct has been gazetted and the new changes become effective from 1 March 2013.

 

The DLG undertook a range of consultations with a large number of stakeholders about the proposed amendments to the Model Code, the Local Government Act as well as the introduction of the Procedures for the Administration of the Code.

 

The Council is required to adopt the Code by 1 March 2013. The report recommends that the Council adopt the Model Code of Conduct and the Procedures and Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for the Code.

Background

The Division of Local Government (DLG) requires that all Councils must adopt a Code of Conduct. The Code cannot be any less prescriptive than the Model Code of Conduct that the DLG has issued. The Model Code came into effect on 1 January 2005 and the DLG revised the Code effective from 20 June 2008.

 

During 2011 the DLG undertook a two staged consultation process with a range of stakeholders seeking their views about some proposed changes to the Code and to the Local Government Act. The opportunity was taken to lodge a submission with the DLG on both occasions. The Council’s staff have continually raised with the DLG that the Model Code of Conduct is more onerous on Councils than the obligations placed on members of the State Parliament.

 

Current Position

The DLG has advised the Council that the new Model Code of Conduct and the procedures for the administration of the Model Code of Conduct were gazetted on 7 December 2012. The new Code and the legislative amendments come into effect from 1 March 2013.

 

The DLG has split the Code into two documents with the Model Code being supported by the procedures for the administration of the Code. A copy of both documents are attached to this report for Councillor’s information and have also been provided electronically via dropbox for Councillors’ future reference.

 

The Council’s Model Code of Conduct cannot be any less prescriptive than the Model Code prescribed by the DLG. Councils are able to make their Code more stringent than the Model Code if they so desire.

 

Some of the key changes within the Code and the Procedures are as follows:

 

·           The selection process and criteria for conduct reviewers will be prescribed.

 

·           The Mayor and the General Manager  will no longer have a role in the management of complaints, beyond the initial receipt of the complaint, due to the creation of the position of a Complaints Coordinator who will provide administrative support for the Code.

 

·           The investigation process including procedural fairness requirements will be more clearly prescribed.

 

·           Councils will no longer make a determination that there has been a breach of the Code. Determinations will now be made by the Investigator.

 

·           The sanctions available to the Chief Executive of the DLG will be strengthened to include suspension for up to three months.

 

·           There will be limited rights of review to the DLG where a person is subject to an adverse outcome.

 

·           Councillors must not participate in binding caucus votes in relation to matters to be considered at a council or committee meeting.

 

·           Where an Investigator identifies further separate possible breaches of the Code of Conduct that are not related to or arise from the Code of Conduct complaint that has been referred to them, they are to report the matters separately to the General Manager, or, in the case of the alleged conduct on the part of the General Manager, to the Mayor.

 

Two specific actions that Councils have to undertake by 1 March 2013 is to adopt the new Model Code and Procedures and appoint members of staff, other than the General Manager, to act as a Complaints Coordinator.  Under Section 3.12 of the Procedures to the Code, “The General Manager must appoint a member of staff of the Council to act as a complaints coordinator. Where practicable, the complaints coordinator should be a senior and suitably qualified member of staff. Additionally under Section 3.13 of the Procedures, “The General Manager may appoint other members of staff to act as alternates to the complaints coordinator”. It should be noted that under Section 3.14 of the Procedures that “The General Manager must not undertake the role of the complaints coordinator”.

 

In respect of the new Model Code of Conduct, it is proposed that the Council adopts both the New Model Code and the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct, with the addition of the following paragraph that has been part of the Council’s Code since it was first adopted in 2005. It is considered that this additional paragraph should continue in the Council’s Code of Conduct to provide a greater level of transparency.

“If you buy or sell property in the Penrith local government area, other than your own home, you must notify the General Manager within a reasonable time after the transaction has been completed (settlement)”.

 

In respect of the role of the Complaints Coordinator, this position is to coordinate the management of complaints made under the Council’s Code of Conduct and to liaise with and provide administrative support to a conduct reviewer or conduct review committee. The person appointed as the Complaints Coordinator “should be a senior and suitably qualified member of staff” and the person “must also be a nominated  disclosures coordinator appointed for the purpose of receiving and managing reports of wrongdoing under the Public Interests Disclosures Act 1994”.

 

As the Council’s Group Manager - Legal & Governance, Mr Stephen Britten is the Council’s Disclosures Coordinator, it is proposed that he be appointed as the Council’s Complaints Coordinator. It is also proposed that the Council’s Senior Governance Officer, Mr Glenn Schuil and the Senior Legal Officer, Mr Matthew Bullivant be appointed as alternate Complaints Coordinators in the event that the Complaints Coordinator is unavailable or if a conflict of interest occurs.

 

Another action that Councils have to complete by 30 September 2013 is to establish a panel of conduct reviewers using the selection process prescribed under the new Procedures. On 23 February 2009 the Council considered a report that dealt with issues regarding the Code of Conduct, including the need to appoint a Conduct Review Committee. At that meeting the Council resolved “That the Council accepts that in the event there is a need to appoint a Sole Reviewer / Conduct Review Committee the General Manager selects the relevant person (s) from the Panel of persons recommended by WSROC”.  For the information of Councillors the Panel contained the names of 10 persons who had submitted an expression of interest in a process that was coordinated by WSROC.

 

In late 2012 WSROC undertook an expression of interest process for the selection of conduct reviewers to be appointed to a regional Panel. The Council’s Group Manager, Legal and Governance, Stephen Britten was on a Panel, together with representatives from Fairfield City Council, Holroyd City Council and WSROC that assessed the merits of the persons that lodged an expression of interest to be on the WSROC Regional Conduct Review Panel. This Panel shortlisted the Conduct Reviewers to 8 as the most experienced and qualified as follows: Kathy Thane, Train Reaction P/L; Kath Roach, Sinc Solutions; Patrick Brown; Adam Halstead, Bradfield Mills; Graham Evans, O’Connell Workplace Relations; Ian Reynolds, Ian Reynolds & Associates P/L; David Crofts and Lorraine Lopich and Robert Lopich, Mediate Today P/L.

 

Under Part 3.8 of the Procedures for the Administration of the Code “A panel of conduct reviewers established under this Part is to have a term of up to four years”. The EOI conducted by WSROC advised potential applicants that “The term of the appointment to the regional pool will be two (2) years with an option for a further two (2) years”. It is suggested that the Council establish the Panel of Conduct Reviewers as put forward by the Panel established by WSROC for a period of two years.

 

Another important change in the administrative process of dealing with a code of conduct complaint is that complaints referred to a Complaints Coordinator need to be referred within 21 days of receipt for a preliminary assessment by a conduct reviewer.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on The New Model Code of Conduct Framework be received.

2.     The Council adopts the Model Code of Conduct as the Council’s Code of Conduct, and the Procedures for the Administration of the Code of Conduct incorporating the suggested amendment contained within this Report.

3.     The Council accepts that in the event there is a need to appoint a Conduct Reviewer / Conduct Review Committee the Complaints Coordinator selects a person(s) from the panel of persons recommended by WSROC detailed within this report.

4.     The Council adopt the Panel of Conduct Reviewers as detailed within this Report for a period of two years, with an option for a further two (2) years.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

22 Pages

Attachment

2. View

Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

33 Pages

Attachment

   


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

2        Secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009

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

 

3        Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                  11 February 2013

A City of Opportunities

 

 

2

Secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009   

 

Compiled by:               Julie Condon, Development Enquiry Unit Coordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

      

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

 

Executive Summary

 

In 2012 Councillors received a briefing and report to the Policy Review Committee on the implementation of secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (ARH SEPP). Implementation of the SEPP has resulted in identification of a number of issues regarding development outcomes and Council has made submissions to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) regarding these.

 

The SEPP has also introduced some uncertainty in relation to the method and amount of Section 94 contributions being levied on secondary dwelling developments and previous reports have been submitted to Council regarding this issue.

 

This report outlines the role which secondary dwellings have in the housing market, including exploration of their role as social housing, and discusses the rationale of applying Section 94 contributions.

 

Background

 

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

 

The SEPP provides the capacity for secondary dwellings to be determined as complying development by either Council or a private certifier. Alternatively, they may be the subject of a development application to Council. The majority of secondary dwellings constructed in the Penrith LGA to date have been approved as Complying Development Certificates (CDC) issued by private certifiers.

 

Since the commencement of the SEPP a number of issues have been identified with its implementation including concerns regarding the quality of outcomes being delivered and uncertainty surrounding the levying of Section 94 contributions. These have been the subject of representations to the DoPI and previous reports and briefings to Council.

 

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 2 July 2012 it was resolved that:

 

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

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

 

This report contains further discussion on whether secondary dwellings fulfil a role as social housing and the reasonableness of levying developer contributions on these developments. It also explores Council’s advocacy options to seek to improve development outcomes.

 

Implementation of the ARH SEPP 2009 as it relates to Secondary Dwellings

 

Since coming into effect in July 2009, Penrith City Council has seen a significant uptake in the development of secondary dwellings facilitated by the ARH SEPP 2009. Between July 2009 and January 2013, 209 secondary dwellings have been approved in the Penrith LGA under the SEPP provisions. Of these, 184 Complying Development Certificates (CDC) were issued by private certifiers.

 

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

 

Calendar Year

Number of CDCs Issued by Council

Number of CDCs issued by Private Certifiers

Total

2009

1

0

1

2010

12

31

43

2011

5

72

77

2012

7

81

88

Total

25

184

209

 

Of the 165 (77 + 88) CDCs issued in the Penrith LGA for secondary dwellings during 2011/2012, one hundred and twenty eight (128) or 77.6% do not have the primary dwelling on the site occupied by the owner of the property; indicating the secondary dwelling has been constructed for rental, rather than relative accommodation.

 

To date, Section 94 Contributions have been paid for 69 of the 88 secondary dwelling approvals issued in 2012.

 

Advocacy

 

The vast majority of the secondary dwellings have been built as privately issued CDCs and are manufactured/relocatable homes. These developments typically are of poor quality design and while they meet minimum standards, do not provide satisfactory outcomes for the amenity of the occupants, the site or the locality.

 

Council has made a number of submissions/representations regarding its concerns with the developments being delivered including; a submission to the ARH SEPP review, providing support to Blacktown City Council in a report to WSROC, writing to the DoPI Affordable Housing Taskforce and making representations to Local Members.

 

As identified in submissions Council has made to the DoPI, the limited development standards prescribed by the SEPP have resulted in poor quality development outcomes throughout the Penrith area. While the SEPP contains provisions regulating the siting, size and setbacks for secondary dwellings, there is no consideration of issues such as the built form, visual impact, or relationship to the principal dwelling and dwellings on neighbouring properties.

 

It is arguable whether development being delivered as secondary dwellings under the ARH SEPP is meeting the intent of the development standards to provide low rental or relative accommodation in association with a primary dwelling. Rather, the majority of resulting developments appear to be competing with the primary dwelling and are not appropriately catered for in terms of access and private open space.

 

As the take up of secondary dwelling developments in the city has steadily increased since the commencement of the ARH SEPP, the likelihood for the poor quality development outcomes to have a cumulative impact also increases.

 

Council has to date received no response from the DoPI to the representations made regarding the SEPP. Other avenues for advocacy should now be pursued such as making further representations to Local Members and seeking the support of industry bodies such as WSROC and the LGSA.

 

Affordable Housing and the Section 94 Process

 

The key issues which this report has been requested to address are;

 

1.      Do secondary dwellings serve a role in the community as social housing, and

2.      Is it reasonable to levy Section 94 contributions on secondary dwellings, particularly   those that are occupied by relatives or extended family?

 

1.   Do secondary dwellings serve a role in the community as social housing?

The term social housing is commonly used interchangeably with “affordable”, “public” or “low cost” housing, however social housing is only one mechanism adopted by Government to address housing affordability issues.

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, defines affordable housing as follows:

 

“affordable housing means housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households as are prescribed by the regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument.”

 

In the ARH SEPP, a household is taken to be a very low income household, low income household or moderate income household if the household:

 

“(a)  has a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income for the time being for the Sydney Statistical Division (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent, or

(b)  is eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.”

 

In the Penrith LGA the median household income from the 2011 Census is $1,398/week or $72,696/annum. The median income for the Sydney Statistical Division, now known as the Greater Sydney Statistical Area (GSSA) is $1,447/week or $75,244/annum. 

 

The table below provides a comparison of household incomes in each of the income brackets referred to in the above definition and as described by the Family and Community Services NSW Housing Affordability Guidelines.

 

 

Very Low income

(less than 50% of median)

Low Income

(between 50% and 80% of median

Moderate Income

(between 80% and 120% of median)

 

GSSA

Penrith

GSSA

Penrith

GSSA

Penrith

Weekly

< $723

< $699

$723 -$1,157

$699 - $1,184

$1,157 - $1,736

$1,184 -$1,677

Annual

< $37,622

< $36,348

$37,622 - $60,195

$36,348 - $58,156

$60,195-$90,292

$58,156 -$87,235

30% of income rental pressure point/week

< $217

< $209

$217 - $347

$209 - $355

$347 - $520

$355 - $503

 

The 2011 Census data identifies the Median weekly rent for the GSSA as $351/week and the median rent for Penrith as $300/week.

 

A review of the current local real estate listings demonstrates that the market rate for the rent payable for a secondary dwelling ($225 to $335/week) is comparable to that of many two or three bedroom dwellings or town houses in similar areas. Therefore privately rented secondary dwellings do not provide any significant advantages in terms of housing affordability, other than to those at the higher end of the moderate income bracket.

 

“Social housing” provides secure, affordable housing for people with a housing need on low incomes. These households generally have very low incomes and rely on a government pension as their main source of income. Social housing encompasses properties owned or managed by Housing NSW, community housing providers or the Aboriginal Housing Office. The social housing sector provides most forms of social housing assistance in NSW under Housing Pathways.

 

In the ARH SEPP, a social housing provider means any of the following:

 

(a)  the Department of Human Services,

(b)  the Land and Housing Corporation,

(c)  a registered community housing provider,

(d)  the Aboriginal Housing Office,

(e)  a registered Aboriginal housing organisation within the meaning of the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998,

(f)  a local government authority that provides affordable housing,

(g)  a not-for-profit organisation that is a direct provider of rental housing to tenants.

 

It does not include private landlords who offer property for rent to achieve a commercial gain.

 

With regard to the question as to whether secondary dwellings fulfil a role as social housing, the following comments are made:

 

·        A 2011 NSW Parliamentary Report into Social Housing identifies that since the 1980’s, social housing providers have been responding more and more to the needs of households with special needs or challenging circumstances, rather than providing affordable properties for rental or purchase to low and middle income working families.

 

·        The secondary dwelling provisions under the ARH SEPP are intended to help mums and dads create a place for those who need a space of their own, like elderly relatives or younger people who have not left home. The secondary dwelling can be rented out or occupied by a friend or relative.  It is not social housing as defined.  Secondary dwellings and social housing serve different purposes as they serve different housing needs of the community.

 

·        A secondary dwelling may, in some cases, be used to house a relative who would otherwise be eligible for government assisted social housing, such as the elderly or disabled. In these instances while, not social housing, the secondary dwelling would relieve pressure on demands for social housing, as well as providing increased care and support for the occupant/s.

 

·        The market rate for the rent payable for a secondary dwelling does not provide any advantages in terms of housing affordability.

 

2.   Is it reasonable to levy Section 94 contributions secondary dwellings, particularly those that are occupied by relatives or extended family?

The reasonableness of applying developer contributions to secondary dwellings has been the subject of past debate. The appropriateness of levying contributions on this development type should be measured in reference to the three principles underpinning all Section 94 Development Contributions Plans, being reasonableness, apportionment and nexus.

 

Contributions plans are required to be consistent and equitable in their application. Secondary dwellings generate growth in demands for infrastructure from an increase in population in the same way as other residential dwelling types. Levying contributions for secondary dwellings is therefore consistent with all other dwelling types and thus reasonableness, apportionment and nexus principles are addressed.

 

The current NSW legislative framework clearly demonstrates that it is acceptable to levy Section 94 Contributions on Affordable Housing development, including secondary dwellings.

 

The ARH SEPP does not affect the levying of development contributions under section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. With social housing it remains the established practice of Housing NSW to pay contributions determined in accordance with the relevant Council’s contributions plan unless a Ministerial exemption is in force.

 

With regard to Local Government practice concerning payment of developer contributions on secondary dwellings, the industry bodies, the Local Government and Shires Association (LGSA) and Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), made the following comments in their submissions to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in response to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP review in March 2011:

 

LGSA Comments

 “The recommendation to remove the power of Local Government to levy s94 contributions on secondary dwellings is based on the premise that, individually such dwellings do not significantly increase the demand on local infrastructure.  However the report notes that the cumulative impact of such dwellings may result in additional demand for local services.

The Association supports a standard levy but do not support the proposed exemption from s94 contributions for secondary dwellings which cost less than $100,000 given

·    The majority of secondary dwellings cost less than $100,000;

·    They add to the local population; and

·    The additional demand on local services will remain unfunded and accumulate over time.”

WSROC comments

 “Council rely on Section 94 developer contributions to provide important support infrastructure to residential developments.  These contributions are particularly critical in NSW where local councils have had their incomes restricted by rate pegging for many years.  While WSROC acknowledges that the cost of providing infrastructure to a Greenfield site is significantly higher than that of a secondary dwelling, it is still important that councils are given some leeway in recouping costs associated with new developments particularly where there may be individual circumstances that require a significant developer contribution.  WSROC does not believe that residents and rate payers should bear the cost of an individual property development and so would prefer that Section 94 developer levies be assessed on an individual development basis, with provision for appeal to an independent authority if required..”

 

These comments demonstrate a consistent view that secondary dwellings have the potential to contribute to an increase in population and a demand for services and infrastructure. This matter has been the subject of previous Councillor Briefings and reports to the Policy Review Committee. At Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting of 2 July 2012, it was resolved that:

 

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

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

 

This resolution was made based on the conclusion that although the option of not applying a Section 94 contribution to secondary dwellings is clearly available to Council, the potential of a secondary dwelling being constructed for use for commercial gain was recognised, and the recommendation that Section 94 contributions be levied at the rate of 1.5 persons per secondary dwelling was supported.

 

In recognition of the role secondary dwellings may play in supporting the elderly, or those with disabilities in our community it is appropriate for the option of deferral of Section 94 contributions to be explored in some cases.

 

The Section 94 Plans which apply to secondary dwellings are District Open Space, Local Open Space, Cultural Facilities, Footpaths Construction and some locally specific plans, such as Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre. The Section 94 Contributions Plans contain various provisions allowing for payment of contributions to be deferred or made by periodic payments where certain circumstances can be demonstrated. The District Open Space Plan is the only one which provides for periodic payments, the others allow only for deferred payments.

 

Deferred contribution payment requests require a process to be undertaken which requires a written application and may be conditional on a suitable bank guarantee and deed of agreement being provided to Council. This process is costly and may outweigh any benefit gained from having the Section 94 amount deferred. Preparation and registration of the deed will involve legal costs to the applicant, which may erode the benefits of undertaking the deferment for a development of this nature. 

 

The deferred payment provisions should only be able to be utilised by applicants for secondary dwellings who can demonstrate they meet agreed criteria which might attest to hardship. The criteria could include;

 

i.  A demonstration from the owner that the secondary dwelling will be genuinely used to help create a place for elderly relatives, relatives with a disability or relatives who are carers of those with a disability, or younger people who have not left home, and

 

ii.  That the imposition of the Section 94 contribution would result in additional financial hardship.

 

Evidence of how the above criteria are met would need to be submitted for Council’s consideration and approval.  In order to provide a more consistent approach to the assessment of hardship, a policy approach is needed by Council.

The Council would be required to determine any application for hardship and deferment of Section 94 contributions.

 

 

Conclusion

The uptake of secondary dwelling developments under the ARH SEPP in the Penrith LGA has been significant. The issues identified with the provisions of the SEPP and their implementation has the potential to create considerable cumulative impacts based on the low quality development being delivered. Support for Council’s representations to the Affordable Housing Taskforce of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure regarding the issues which have been identified with the implementation of the SEPP should be sought from Local Members and industry bodies such as WSROC and the LGSA.

 

Council recognises the benefits of facilitating secondary dwelling or granny flat type developments as an additional housing choice for the community. 

 

The practice of levying Section 94 Contributions on secondary dwellings is provided for in the legislation and supported by Local Government and its representative organisations. It has also been previously supported by resolution of Council.

 

A practice could be established to regulate the process to be undertaken by applicants with special circumstances who wish to apply to Council to defer payment of the Section 94 Contributions where prescribed eligibility criteria can be met. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 be received.

2.     Council seek the support of Local Members and industry bodies such as WSROC and the LGSA in its representations to the Affordable Housing Taskforce of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure regarding the provisions relating to secondary dwellings in the ARH SEPP.

3.     A policy be developed for endorsement by Council which incorporates a procedure for defer payment of Section 94 Contributions relating to secondary dwelling developments where certain eligibility criteria can be demonstrated as outlined in this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                  11 February 2013

A City of Opportunities

 

 

3

Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer  

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Presenters:         Councillor Ross Fowler OAM Chairperson – Penrith Whitewater Stadium – Chairperson’s Annual Report

                                      Jack Hodge – Stadium Manager – Penrith Whitewater Stadium – Stadium Manager’s Report

Executive Summary

Each year, following the Annual General Meeting of the Company, a report is presented to the Council on the year’s activities of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium (PWS), including the financial performance.

 

The reports from both the Chairman and the Stadium Manager highlight the major activities of the Stadium over the last year. The venue has continued throughout the year to attract professional athletes, sporting championships and casual users, the participation rates in each activity are detailed in the report.

Annual Report

The Fourteenth Annual General Meeting of the Company was held on 4 October 2012 for the period ended 30 June 2012.

 

The Chairman of the Board and Stadium Manager will be in attendance tonight to make a short presentation which will focus on:

 

·    The Past year – highlights, financial position and issues arising; and

·    The Year ahead.

 

Following are their reports that have been extracted from the Annual Report of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited (PWS).

 

Chairman’s Report

 

It gives me much pleasure to present the Chairman’s Report to the Fourteenth Annual General Meeting of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited.

Patronage for whitewater rafting and canoeing based activities remains healthy. Revenue for the year was $1,803,785 which is 15% less than $2,111,881 for 2011. The financial outcome for the year ended 30 June 2012 resulted in a surplus before depreciation, amortisation and interest of $102,650, a decrease of 75% when compared to the surplus achieved in 2011 of $416,965.  During the year some $26,190 was spent on capital improvements.

 

The Stadium continues to contribute to the overall Penrith economy and to the advancement of the sport of canoe slalom both locally and internationally.

 

Penrith Whitewater Stadium continues to generate a great deal of publicity both nationally and internationally, adding to its reputation as one of the world’s premier sporting facilities. Again the venue has successfully hosted both international and local competitions and has continued to attract a significant number of athletes who see the Stadium as their preferred off-season training venue.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Venue Manager, Jack Hodge and his management team (Simonetta, Jeff, and Vicki) for leading the organization throughout the year.  Penrith Whitewater staff continues to show great dedication and commitment to the business. The underlying enthusiasm and commitment of staff is fundamental to the Venue’s continuing success.

I would also like to thank my fellow directors for their continuing commitment and input to the operations of Penrith Whitewater Stadium.

 

Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the members of the Australian Canoe Slalom Team and coaches on their results throughout the year, particularly the outstanding Silver Medal winning performance of Jessica Fox at the London Olympics.  In addition Jessica also won gold medals in K1W, C1W and C1W Teams at the Junior World Championships and Rosalyn Lawrence won the World Cup Series for the second year in succession.

 

Stadium Manager’s Report

 

Overall participation in the activities offered by PWS was steady in 2011-12.  Rafting decreased by 14% and Canoe/Kayak increased by 119%.  The significant increase in Canoe/Kayak was due to strong participation in the international competitions.  Swiftwater Rescue courses decreased by 66%.

 

Whitewater rafting remains the most popular activity and the highest revenue earner for PWS.  Rafting participation decreased from 17,196 to 14,786.  Total revenue for rafting decreased by 14% from $1,404,122 to 1,210,305.

 

Total PWS income decreased by 15% from $2,111,881 in 2010-11 to $1,803,785 in 2011-12.  Total expenses decreased by 6% from $1,962,557 to $1,829,920 resulting in a decrease in operating profit from $149,324 to -$26,134.  Net profit decreased from $185,545 to -$99,721 due to decreases in other income, rafting and rescue income.

 

PWS maintained its strong support for the sport of canoeing throughout the year.  The venue hosted the Oceania Canoe Slalom Open, Oceania Olympic Qualification and Australian Olympic Team selection events in February.  PWS facilitated over 664 hours of slalom training and competitions for Australian and International paddlers.  This included 263 hours for the Australian team as part of the Canoe Slalom National Centre of Excellence (NCE) Agreement between PWS, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), the New South Wales Institute of Sport (NSWIS) and Australian Canoeing.  The value of PWS’s contribution to the agreement was approximately $92,000.

 

PWS continued its support of various charitable and community organisations.  This included hosting the annual Rotary Club Duck race and the donation of 181 gift certificates to the value of $16,109.

 

Thanks to all PWS staff for their assistance during the year.  Thanks also to the PWS Board of Directors for their ongoing dedication and support. The successful operation of PWS relies upon the support of the general public and a network of companies and organisations.  PWS would like to thank the general public, suppliers, venue stakeholders and neighbouring organisations for their support and looks forward to working together more closely in the future to maximise the ongoing success of PWS and Penrith Lakes.

 

Board of Directors

 

The Constitution of the Company provides, in part, that:

 

1.   To provide continuity the members of the Board shall resign on a rotating basis. At the First Annual General Meeting, three (3) Directors (including one (1) Councillor) shall resign. At the Second Annual General Meeting, three (3) members shall resign (including one (1) Councillor). Thereafter, the members of the Board, except the Council Officer, shall resign after they have served on the Board for three (3) years after appointment or re-appointment to the Board.        

2.   All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re-appointment.

 

Council should note that the positions of Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Company Secretary were declared vacant. Elections were held for the vacant positions at the Fourteenth Annual General Meeting.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM was re-appointed to the position of Chairman, Helen Brownlee OAM was re-appointed to the position of Deputy Chair and the Council’s Group Manager City Presentation, Mr David Burns was re-appointed to be the Council’s General Manager’s representative and Company Secretary on the Board.

 

It was resolved that Penrith City Council be requested to endorse the reappointment of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Patrick Sheehy AM as continuing Directors of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd, the appointment of Councillor Marcus Cornish as a Director of Penrith Whitewater Stadium and note the resignation of former Councillor Kathryn Presdee.

 

Business Support Accountant

 

Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited reported a net deficit for the 2011-12 financial year of $99,721. This is a decrease of $285,267 from their 2010-11 profit of $185,546 which equates to a 153.74% decrease. No direct subsidy was provided by Council to the Company.  Income in 2011-12 decreased by $408,334 from 2010-11, a decrease of 18.28%, with Services revenue being the main income line affected (14.62%).

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Annual Report for 2012-13.

3.     Council note and support the appointment and re-appointment of the persons named in the report to the Board of Directors of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd. 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                  11 February 2013

A Liveable City

 

 

4

Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries   

 

Compiled by:               Lynda Lowe, Cemeteries Supervisor

Authorised by:            Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager   

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with active and healthy communities (19)

Strategic Response

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

       

 

Presenter:           Carolyn Tallents, Landscape Architect, Aeonix Pty Ltd

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the Draft Plans of Management – Penrith Cemeteries (see attached) for all cemeteries under the care and control of Penrith City Council. Council’s brief was to review existing plans and develop Draft Plans of Management for the conservation and long term maintenance of all cemeteries, including heritage cemeteries closed for burial and operational cemeteries, under Council management.  This Draft Plan incorporates all relevant and current information from previous reports, studies, plans of management, heritage assessments and master plans.  The report recommends that the Draft Plans of Management- Penrith Cemeteries be adopted.

 

Background

 

Penrith City Council is responsible for five cemeteries within the Penrith Local Government Area.  These are the operational cemeteries at Penrith, St Marys and Emu Plains and the Castlereagh and St Stephens Heritage Cemeteries.

 

A key action in the Penrith Valley Cemeteries Action Plan was to review the 1989 Godden Conservation Plan, the 2001 Conservation Management and Maintenance Plan for Castlereagh Cemetery and the 1995 Master Plan for Penrith General Cemetery.

 

The aim of this review process was not to replace these studies, rather it was to amalgamate and contemporise relevant components of the documents to bring together new Plans of Management for the operational cemeteries and to develop strategies for conservation, maintenance and management of heritage cemeteries. 

 

Following an expression of interest process, Carolyn Tallents, BLArch (Hons) Registered Landscape Architect, Aeonix Pty Ltd, was engaged to undertake the work required for the preparation of new Draft Plans of Management.

 

With over 29 year’s experience, Ms Tallents has a detailed understanding of Cemetery Planning, Environmental Assessment, Conservation Plans and Plans of Management. She is also knowledgeable of the pressures being placed on current Cemeteries for sustainability, and the NSW Government’s “Sustainable burials in Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area” paper.

 

All of the cemeteries convey aspects of the settlement history within Penrith from the pioneering days through to the post war settlement as Sydney’s population expanded, to the present day.  Two (2) of the cemeteries have been closed for burial. The remaining three (3) cemeteries continue to provide burial grounds and will need to address the varying demands for interment and memorialisation of the deceased.

 

In order to ensure that this occurs, whilst respecting the values that each cemetery possesses, appropriate infrastructure and ongoing management issues will need to be set in place.

 

The Draft Plans of Management presented to Council for adoption provides the basis for this management. 

 

Draft Plans of Management

 

As mentioned earlier in this report the cemeteries under care, control and management of Penrith City Council include:

 

Heritage Cemeteries

 

-     St Stephen’s Anglican Churchyard Cemetery 1838 – 1943

-     Castlereagh Cemetery 1811 - 1973 

 

Operational Cemeteries

 

-     Penrith General Cemetery 1903 – current

-     St Marys General Cemetery 1881 – current

-     Emu Plains General Cemetery 1858 – Current

 

Although the five (5) cemeteries covered by the Draft Plans of Management have similarities, each is unique in their values. The values of each cemetery are described under the same headings to ensure consistency in the approach and to enable management/conservation strategies to address threats to these values.  These headings are heritage values, landscape and visual values, infrastructure and management.

 

St Stephens and Castlereagh are heritage cemeteries and require conservation, maintenance and management to ensure the heritage value is retained. Under the Draft Plans of Management, these two (2) heritage cemeteries will be managed to conserve these important heritage places for future generations to gain an understanding of the origins of the nation and the early settlement of pioneers within Penrith.

 

 Emu Plains, St Marys and Penrith are active cemeteries and have their own unique characteristics. These include heritage value, landscape and cultural significance, visual amenity, infrastructure and management activities. Under the Draft Plans of Management, these three (3) active cemeteries will be managed as sustainable burial grounds, whilst interpreting their rich past. The values of heritage, landscape, visual amenity, ecology, social aspects, infrastructure and sustainability will be paramount in the management actions.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Plans of Management provide the basis for the management and conservation for all Cemeteries under the care and control of Council.

 

The recommendations from the Draft Plans of Management will provide the way forward to ensure a sustainable supply of interment options, ongoing enhancements and maintenance to meet community expectations and provide strategies for conservation, maintenance, and management of all five cemeteries.

 

For these reasons it is therefore recommended that the Draft Plans of Management be adopted.

 

A number of the recommendations in the Draft Plans of Management will be able to be implemented within existing resources, whereas some recommendations will be subject to the availability of grant funding.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on The Draft Plans of Management-Penrith Cemeteries be received.

2.     The Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries as detailed in this report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft Plans of Management - Penrith  Cemeteries

74 Pages

Attachment

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

5        Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                  11 February 2013

A Vibrant City

 

 

5

Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer   

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

       

 

Presenters:                             Mr John Reed – Acting CEO - Penrith Performing & Visual Arts Ltd – Annual Report

                                      Mr Tony Lackey, Director – Penrith Performing & Visual Arts Ltd

Executive Summary

This report details the performance of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd (PP&VA) for the financial year 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012.

The report details the significant advancements that have been made by the Q Theatre, the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, the Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest and the Penrith Conservatorium of Music during 2011/2012.

The report recommends that the information be received and the Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Company for a further period of 12 months until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2012/13.

Background

Penrith Performing & Visual Arts (PP&VA) aims to develop and deliver cultural programs that enrich, educate, entertain and empower.  Each year PP&VA produces and presents cultural and arts education programs for the people of Penrith and western Sydney via:

Q Theatre Company

Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest

Penrith Conservatorium of Music.

 

2011/12 was a year of great challenge for PP&VA, particular to the following:

 

§ Decline in Q Theatre Company revenue due to decreased ticket sales

§ Not achieving targeted ticket sale income for the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre Music Program

§ Not achieving income stream targets for Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre venue hires

§ Increased electricity charges for the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

§ Increased electricity charges for the Penrith Regional Gallery & The Lewers Bequest

§ Increased PP&VA insurance charges by PCC

§ Increased operational costs due to increased education and Disability programs.

 

Highlights for 2011/12 include:

 

§ Increased Education, Indigenous and Disability program activity and participation

§ Mondo Project involving the activation of the Civic Space on Thursday evenings

§ Ongoing Lachlan Shire Council cultural partnership and programs

§ Continuing partnerships with a range of premier Australian arts organisations/institutions e.g. Australian Ballet, ABC Classic FM, 2MBS FM and the Museum of Contemporary Art (Sydney).

§ Q Theatre production of Jean Genet’s The Maids which toured to Lachlan Shire Council

§ Q Theatre production of Lachlan Philpott’s critically acclaimed Truck Stop which also toured to the Seymour Centre.

 

The following major issues were of concern throughout 2011/12

 

1.    Maintenance Works and Capital Replacement. The need to maintain and replace essential capital items across PP&VA continued to impact heavily on the annual budget.

2.    Utilities Costs.  Costs for utilities – electricity, water rates and telephone charges increased dramatically in 2011/12.

3.    Insurance Costs. Due to new insurance arrangements required by Council PP&VA insurance costs have increased dramatically, and not considered proportionate given the low level of claims made by the Company.

4.    Funding. The funding environment for NSW is increasingly competitive

5.    Ticket Sales. Less than expected Q Theatre Company and JSPAC ticket sale income due to depressed economy.

 

2011/12 Financial Result

 

The financial year of 2011/12 incurred a loss of $15,754, as compared to a profit of $69,184 in 2010/11. This is a reflection of the challenging economic times we are experiencing with extreme pressures being placed on discretionary income.

 

Total revenue was down by 6.8%, from $3,491,108 to $3,248,025, with the major impact being a 22.1% drop in ticket sales from music performances and theatre. On the positive side there were increases in venue hire, education fees, booking fees, catering and conference revenues.

 

Costs of operating PP&VA dropped by 3.8%, to $3,263,778, despite an increase in employment costs of 4.9%. It is pointed out employment costs account for 56.7% of the total expense budget.

 

In addition, it must be noted there was also a significant impact on the expenses of the organisation due to continuing maintenance requirements to buildings and equipment, plus higher utility costs and insurances.

 

It is further pointed out, the PP&VA has a primary brief and responsibility to the development of innovative artistic productions, in the year direct costs of overall performance productions slightly decreased, an economic decision.

Cash flows have remained strong, with passive income of slightly over $50K being earned in the year. Liabilities continue to fall but this year it is reported that equity has also fallen (2.4%) after four years of continued growth.

 

The year ahead has many challenges, the economic future is still uncertain, so management has the task of being vigilant in the monitoring of financial performance and more importantly the continued role of keeping the staff of PP&VA professionally led, focussed and enthused.

 

PP&VA Board of Directors

 

The Constitution of the above Company provides, in part, that

 

1.       To provide continuity the members of the Board of Directors, except for the General Manager or his/her nominee, shall retire on a rotating basis. At the first Annual General Meeting after 1 July 2006, five (5) Directors shall retire (including one (1) Councillor). At the second Annual General Meeting after 1 July 2006 five (5) directors shall retire (including one (1) Councillor). At the third General Meeting after 1 July 2006 five (5) directors shall retire. Thereafter, the members of the Board of Directors shall retire after they have served on the Board of Directors for three (3) years after  appointment or re-appointment to the Board of Directors.

 

2.       All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re- appointment.

 

Council should note that, as per the Constitution, Catherine Jarman and Tony Lackey retired in accordance with the Constitution at the sixth Annual General Meeting of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd held on 24 October 2012 (Catherine Jarman and Tony Lackey both nominated for re-election). It was resolved, at the Sixth Annual General Meeting of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd that Penrith City Council be requested to endorse the appointment of Catherine Jarman and Tony Lackey as Directors of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd.

 

The Board resolved not to fill the vacancies created by the resignations Councillor Robert  Ardill and Gillian Appleton as it believed that the number of Directors on the Board was the appropriate size for the Board.

 

Council Group Manager, Roger Nethercote is the General Manager’s representative and was re-elected Company Secretary.

 

The Hon Peter Anderson AM was re-appointed Chairman and Mr John Mullane was re-appointed as Deputy Chairman.

 

Business Support Accountant’s Comments

Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Limited incurred a deficit of $15,754, after accounting for Council’s contribution of $1,461,518 in 2011-12 compared to their 2010-11 result of $68,184 surplus after accounting for Council’s contribution of $1,461,518.

 

The company relies on contributions and grants to assist in funding its operations.  Government Grants to the company increased in 2011-12 to $503,155 from $425,728 in 2010-11, an increase of 18.19%.

 

Of its own funding sources Venue Hiring fees (5.53%), Government Grants received (4.10%), and Tuition fees (31.77%) increased in 2011-12, whilst revenue decreased for Ticket sales (14.09%), Bar sales (14.44%), Catering/Conference revenue (31.00%) and Sundry income (39.17%).  The decline in Ticket Sales are mainly attributable to the Q Theatre Company and the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre music program.   Overall funding from its own operations decreased for the year to $1,287,908 from $1,603,863 (19.70%).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report be received.

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2012/2013.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

PP&VA Entity Report - Highlights & Activities

39 Pages

Attachment

   


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 11 February 2013

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

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

Report Title:                The New Model Code of Conduct Framework

Attachments:               The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

                                      Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                  11 February 2013

Attachment 1 - The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                  11 February 2013

Attachment 2 - Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 11 February 2013

Delivery Program:      A Liveable City

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

Report Title:                Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries

Attachments:               Draft Plans of Management - Penrith  Cemeteries



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                  11 February 2013

Attachment 1 - Draft Plans of Management - Penrith  Cemeteries

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries

 

 

 

Draft Plans of Management - Penrith  Cemeteries

 

74 Pages

 



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 11 February 2013

Delivery Program:      A Vibrant City

Issue:                            Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

Report Title:                Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

Attachments:               PP&VA Entity Report - Highlights & Activities



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                  11 February 2013

Attachment 1 - PP&VA Entity Report - Highlights & Activities

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp