6 March 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 March 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

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM - 8 March 2013 to 25 March 2013 inclusive.

 

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

 

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

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 11 February 2013.

 

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 March 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^?

(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

??

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 11 FEBRUARY 2013 AT 7:32PM

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, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Karen McKeown and John Thain.

?

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously requested by Councillor Maurice Girotto for the period 5 February 2013 to 2 March 2013 inclusive.

PRC 1? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that Leave of Absence be granted for Councillor Maurice Girotto for the period 5 February 2013 to 2 March 2013 inclusive.

 

APOLOGIES

PRC 2? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that apologies be received for Councillors Greg Davies, Michelle Tormey and Tricia Hitchen.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 3 December 2012

PRC 3? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 3 December 2012 be confirmed.

?

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM and Marcus Cornish declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest ? Less than Significant in Item 3 - Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors as they are Directors on the Board of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Liveable City

 

4??????? Draft Plans of Management - Penrith Cemeteries

Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager, Yvonne Perkins introduced the report and invited Carolyn Tallents, Landscape Architect from Aeonix Pty Ltd to give a presentation.??????????????????

PRC 4? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

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.

3.???? A priority of works from The Draft Plans of Management ? Penrith Cemeteries for the next four years be detailed.

4.???? A? memo be provided to all Councillors detailing information on a practice that occurs in China where a celebration takes place once a year at cemeteries where families can honour their deceased relatives including opportunities for Penrith to create a similar styled event.

5.???? Council?s former Cemeteries Project Officer, Mrs Mary Thorne be thanked for her long standing commitment and efforts throughout this process.

6.???? The Draft Plans of Management-Penrith Cemeteries be placed on public exhibition for 30 days.

 

A City of opportunities

 

?3?????? Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:42pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:47pm.

Chairperson ? Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM introduced the report and invited Stadium Manager, Jack Hodge to give a presentation.??????????

PRC 5? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

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.?

 

A Vibrant City

 

5??????? Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

Councillors Marcus Cornish and John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:49pm.

Councillors Marcus Cornish and John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:51pm.

Group Manager ? People and Places, Roger Nethercote introduced the report and invited Mr John Reed, Acting CEO, PP&VA to give a presentation?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 6? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

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.

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? The New Model Code of Conduct Framework??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 7? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

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.

 

A City of opportunities

 

2??????? Secondary dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009?????????????????????

PRC 8? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

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 to defer payment of Section 94 Contributions relating to secondary dwelling developments where certain eligibility criteria can be demonstrated as outlined in this report.

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 John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa???

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting the time being 9:32pm and did not return.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:33pm.

????


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

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

 

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Works in Kind / Material Public Benefit Policy applying to Development Contributions 1

 

2??????? Status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 13

 

3??????? Public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include the Panthers Penrith Precinct

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22

 

4??????? District Open Space Development Contributions Plan Expenditure

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26

 

5??????? Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill ??????????????? 33

???

A Liveable City

 

6??????? Illegal Dumping Abatement and Presentation of Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad Annual Report ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 43

??

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

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

 

1??????? Works in Kind / Material Public Benefit Policy applying to Development Contributions 1

 

2??????? Status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 13

 

3??????? Public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include the Panthers Penrith Precinct

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22

 

4??????? District Open Space Development Contributions Plan Expenditure

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 26

 

5??????? Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill ??????????????? 33

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

A Leading City

 

 

1

Works in Kind / Material Public Benefit Policy applying to Development Contributions???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Anthony Milanoli, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

???????

 

Executive Summary

This report presents a draft new policy regarding Works in Kind/ Material Public Benefits.

 

Works in Kind (WIK) involve the provision of the whole or part of a public facility that is included within a development contributions plan, in lieu of payment of a monetary contribution. WIK may also involve the dedication of land required as a condition of development consent.

 

The current WIK policy has been in force since 1993. Although WIK proposals are submitted infrequently, they are typically complex (involving assessment of tenders and technical specifications), and may involve contributions or works valued at several million dollars. A new WIK policy will clarify our expectations for stakeholders (including Council, developers and the public), and ensure delivery of required facilities.

 

The proposed policy outlines the WIK assessment process, the roles of parties involved in the process, the method for analysing proposals against development contribution plan requirements and documentation requirements.

 

The report recommends Council adopt the new policy.

Background

Development contributions are levied under Plans made pursuant to s94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Works in Kind/Material Public Benefits (WIK) involve the provision of the whole or part of a public facility that is included within a contributions plan, in lieu of payment of a monetary contribution. WIK may also involve the dedication of land required as a condition of development consent. Selected s94 Plans enable contributions to be satisfied through WIKs in lieu of financial payments.

 

In November 1993 Council adopted the ?Section 94 Works in Kind Procedures? Policy. A copy of the procedures is shown at Appendix 1 to this report. Since its adoption, an average of between one and three applications per year have been received to carry out WIK proposals. The numbers of WIK proposals vary according to the intensity of development being experienced by the City. With increased levels of development expected across Penrith City over the next decade, WIK proposals can be expected to rise.

Why a new Policy is necessary

Since adoption of the current WIK policy, the development contribution planning process has been subject to numerous reviews, including State Government Inquiries (the Simpson Inquiry), Ministerial Directions, Departmental Circulars and Practice Notes. The Practice Notes require that WIK proposals must be reported to Council. While our assessment of? WIK proposals satisfy all legislative requirements and Departmental guidelines, the Council adopted Procedure now needs updating to ensure it too satisfies relevant standards.

 

Review of the s94 WIK policy is also necessary to make the process clearer for the stakeholders involved, including:

 

-?? Developers proposing WIK in lieu of contributions

-?? Staff? responsible for assessing the merits of WIKs

-? Councillors responsible for determining whether to proceed with WIK proposals; and

-? The broader community, who are the final beneficiaries of the facilities funded through s94 Plans which may be delivered through WIKs.

Matters addressed in the new Policy

The new Policy is modelled on ? and has extended upon - what was found to be best practice following an audit of selected other growth areas in NSW. Key components of the new Policy include:

 

-?? Objectives underpinning the Policy

-? The legislative and Departmental guidelines which provide the framework for analysis of WIK proposals

-?? The scope of application for the policy

-?? Definitions of relevant terminology

-? The WIK assessment process and roles of key players, including consideration by Council

-?? Application specifications, including tender requirements; and

-?? Administration requirements

 

In summary, the process for assessing a WIK/MPB offer will be as follows:

 

Step 1???? -??? The developer meets with Council staff to discuss the proposed WIK or MPB

Step 2???? -??? The developer makes an initial written application to Council for a WIK or MPB, submitting details described in the policy

Step 3???? -??? Council officers assess the merit of the application in accordance with the policy?s requirements (described in 2.3 below) and advise the developer if the offer is acceptable ?in principle?

Step 4???? -??? A report is presented to Council on the proposed WIK or MPB and Council resolves whether to proceed with the proposal in principle

Step 5???? -??? The developer submits detailed information (described in the policy) regarding the WIK or MPB proposed

Step 6???? -??? Council officers assess the submission and engage (at the developer?s expense) an independent Quantity Surveyor to cost the proposed WIK or MPB or a land valuer/economist in respect of land

Step 7???? -??? Subject to Council endorsement, a WIK or MPB agreement is entered into with Council

Step 8???? -??? A Construction Certificate is issued

Step 9???? -??? Construction of the WIK or MPB is undertaken

Step 10?? -??? The WIK or MPB facility is dedicated to Council

 

As described above, the draft policy makes clear that the acceptance of any WIK/MPB offer is at the sole discretion of Council and that a Council resolution will be required to accept such offers. A copy of the revised Policy is shown at Appendix 2 to this report.

Consultation

Staff from Council?s Engineering, Development Assessment, Legal, Parks and Finance Departments were consulted in the preparation of the policy and the developed document reflects their input and has received their endorsement.

 

In terms of the property development community, the Policy has been modelled on that used by Maitland City Council, and applied to new projects in their LGA. Maitland Council advises the Policy has been welcomed by the development industry in its application over the past two years and was drafted by the development and planning industry expert on s94 Planning, Lindsay Taylor Solicitors.

Conclusion

The new WIK Policy provides a clear and contemporary description of Council?s expectations with respect to WIKs, ensuring our adopted position satisfies all legislative and Departmental requirements. Through its clear explanation of the assessment process and the role of relevant players, the Policy is likely to be welcomed by key stakeholders. In light of the above, this report recommends adoption of the Policy by Council, upon which it will be brought into effect.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Works in Kind / Material Public Benefit Policy applying to Development Contributions be received.

2.???? Council adopts the Works In Kind/ Material Public Benefit Policy shown at Appendix 2 to this report.

3.???? Council rescind the current policy, known as ?Section 94 Works in Kind Procedures ?.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Current Works In Kind Policy

1 Page

Appendix

2. View

Proposed Works in Kind Policy

8 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Appendix 1 - Current Works In Kind Policy

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Appendix 2 - Proposed Works in Kind Policy

 









Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

A Leading City

 

 

2

Status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Bernadette Riad, Sustainability Coordinator

Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

Authorised by:??????????? Tanya Jackson, Corporate Development and Sustainability Manager ??

Requested by:????????????? Councillor Greg Davies

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

???????

 

Executive Summary

This report has been prepared in response to a request made by Councillor Greg Davies at the Ordinary Meeting of 5 November 2012 for information on the status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund.

 

Established in 2003, the Sustainability Revolving Fund has been used as a source of funding for a wide range of energy and water efficiency projects. A recent review of the operation of the Fund and associated Guidelines has resulted in the adoption of a new set of Guidelines designed to ensure that projected savings are captured for reinvestment.

 

A working group has been established to review funding applications with the results reported to Council?s executive. A number of upcoming projects have been identified as possible applications under the Sustainability Revolving Fund.

Background

The Sustainability Revolving Fund was established in 2003. It was intended to provide a complementary funding source to support projects which deliver against sustainability objectives, with the savings made from these projects reinvested into the fund to assist in financing further sustainability initiatives. The fund is available across Council?s operations.

 

The original guidelines for the management and administration of the fund were adopted in 2005. The guidelines outlined:

~??? the types of projects eligible for funding

~??? the application process to access funds

~??? the requirement for monitoring project savings.

 

Last year the Sustainability and Financial Services teams reviewed the framework for the fund?s ongoing management, with the revised guidelines approved by Council?s Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) on 20 November 2012 (copy attached).An overview of the issues identified, and subsequent improvements, are outlined in this report.

Current status of the fund

The Revolving Fund has a projected closing balance of $310,555 at 30 June 2013 (as detailed in the attached statement). Since its inception, the fund has provided almost $1.5 million towards sustainability projects, the majority of which would not otherwise have been implemented.

 

The most successful ?Revolving Fund? project was the Energy Performance Contract (EPC), which was completed in 2003. This project incorporated improvements to lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, energy management systems, and domestic hot water heating systems in the Penrith Civic Centre and the Queen Street Centre. This project was so successful that the actual savings were greater than initially projected.? The loan was repaid in three years rather than the expected period of five years. Of particular importance is that ongoing monitoring and reporting has ensured that these savings were identified and re-invested into the fund.

 

Unfortunately, not all projects have been as successful. There were some larger projects that did not deliver the projected savings. In addition, not all of the projected savings have been reinvested into the fund. Based on calculations made on each of the applications, the fund has total projected savings of $290,000 each year.

Outcomes from the review and subsequent improvements

The review identified that one challenge in managing the fund has been the capture and reinvestment of savings. Historically, identified project savings were drawn from operational accounts at the end of the financial year and transferred to the Revolving Fund reserve for reinvestment. This approach relied on the savings being available in the operational accounts at the end of the financial year, and did not account for other changes in operational activities.

 

Combined with the lack of systems to accurately track savings, this has made it difficult to ensure that savings are properly verified and repaid into the fund. One example saw a substantial investment in new infrastructure based upon assumptions around both maintenance and energy savings. These savings were not easily measured, and they were not realised as the operating environment changed.

 

The review also demonstrated that a common attribute of the successful projects was development of a detailed business case, with comprehensive analysis of costs and projected savings. The new process will require the savings (identified and agreed in the application process) to be transferred into the reserve from operational budgets at the start of each financial year. More detailed scrutiny will be given to the calculations in funding applications, with a Financial Services representative involved in this process to ensure that the calculations, assumptions, and tariffs used in the calculation of proposed savings are reasonable.

 

Another issue has been that projects are often initiated and delivered by departments other than those responsible for the subsequent operational budgets. The revised application form now requires approval for the savings to be drawn down from the manager responsible for the relevant operational budget.

 

The final change broadens the scope of projects that are eligible for funding, to include projects that do not have a financial return. This recognises sustainability?s quadruple bottom line, and will enable projects with strong social, governance and environmental benefits to be considered as part of an overall package of initiatives approved under the fund. To ensure that the fund remains viable it is proposed to limit these types of projects in a single year to a maximum of 10% of the opening balance of the fund.

Ongoing fund management

Management of the fund was initially overseen by the Sustainable Penrith Steering Committee, which consisted of the then Corporate Development Manager, Financial Services Manager, Environmental Health Manager, Sustainability Coordinator, and Building Services Manager. This formal committee dispersed over time as a result of staffing changes and restructures, leaving the primary responsibility for administering the fund with Financial Services.

 

At its meeting of 20 November 2012, CLT endorsed the establishment of a new working group for the assessment of applications, allocation of funds, and reinvestment into the fund. This working group will consist of senior staff members from Financial Services, Sustainability, City Works, Engineering Services, Environmental Health, and Business Improvement to ensure the assessment of applications considers financial, environmental, social, governance and operational implications.

 

This working group will meet at least six monthly and report on the status of the fund, the reinvestment of savings and recommendations relating to individual project applications to the Corporate Leadership Team.

Potential future initiatives

One project, proposed by Council?s Public Domain Amenity and Safety Department, is to part-fund a project to replace inefficient street lighting with more energy efficient technologies. This project was supported by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 25 February 2013.

 

The business case in the report recommended replacing 1,816, 80 watt mercury vapour lights with 25 watt LED fittings at a total cost of $993,000. Council is seeking part-funding of $662,000 through a grant application by WSROC to the Federal Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP). It is anticipated that the remaining $331,000 could be drawn from the Revolving Fund. Should this application be successful, the change to more energy efficient fittings is estimated to provide annual savings of $148,000 each year. This means that the fund would be repaid in approximately 2 years and 3 months, through the combined savings in reduced energy and maintenance costs.

 

There are also initiatives identified in Council?s Energy and Water Savings Action Plans which have undergone rigorous analysis in the calculation of proposed savings, and would be eligible for funding from the Revolving Fund. Some of these initiatives, together with other possible projects to be further reviewed, are outlined below.

 

Initiatives - Water Efficiency and Energy Savings Action Plans

Cost

Annual savings

Payback period

Lighting upgrades at the Civic Centre

$161,820

$41,177

3.9

Lighting upgrades at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre

$98,440

$28,490

3.5

Lighting upgrades at the Penrith Regional Gallery

$28,435

$16,715

1.7

Reduce irrigation water use at Civic Centre

$5,000

$8,030

0.7

Installation of soil moisture sensors in 3 parks

$36,000

$8,200

4.4

Initiatives ? other projects

Cost

Annual savings

Payback period

Replacement of halogen downlights with Luma LX1660 LED downlights

$12,942

$3,167.72

4.1

 

 

 

 

Next steps

The first meeting of the new working group is planned for March 2013, and applications are already being received and reviewed. The Sustainability Team will undertake an information and promotional program to ensure all staff are aware of the Revolving Fund and to encourage further applications.

 

It is anticipated that the improvements outlined in this report will ensure that the Revolving Fund operates effectively in future, and will be able to fund many more sustainability initiatives across Council?s operations.

Conclusion

The Sustainability Revolving Fund has been a valuable funding source for energy and water efficiency projects, contributing almost $1.5m towards these projects since its inception in 2003.

 

A recent review of the operation of the fund has identified opportunities to improve the management of the fund through greater scrutiny of applications, reinstatement of a cross functional working group to assess applications and a commitment to transfer projected savings at the start of each financial year from the relevant budgets to ensure savings are not redirected to other projects. It is anticipated that these improvements will ensure that the Revolving Fund operates more effectively in the future and that more savings are able to be captured in the fund.

 

A range of projects have been identified as possible applications to be made under the Revolving Fund and these applications will be assessed using the new Guidelines to help ensure the ongoing viability of the fund.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Sustainability Revolving Fund Guidelines

4 Pages

Appendix

2. View

Sustainability Revolving Fund Statement February 2013

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Appendix 1 - Sustainability Revolving Fund Guidelines

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Appendix 2 - Sustainability Revolving Fund Statement February 2013

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

A Leading City

 

 

3

Public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include the Panthers Penrith Precinct???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Natasha Baker, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

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)

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting of 25 June 2012, Council endorsed the preparation of a draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP 2010) to incorporate specific development controls for the Panthers Penrith Precinct to guide future development of the site and to address concerns raised in submissions on the related Planning Proposal.

 

Panthers, in collaboration with Council staff, have now finalised and submitted the draft amendment to DCP 2010 and Council?s endorsement is sought for public exhibition.

 

The draft amendment to DCP 2010 is attached.

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting of 26 March 2012, Council endorsed the Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal which has been forwarded to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) for a Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to be made.

 

The Panthers Penrith Planning Proposal proposes zones and development controls for the Panthers site that enable the staged development of a range of land uses within an integrated ?entertainment, leisure and lifestyle precinct?.

 

The Planning Proposal also sets out the intended outcomes to guide development on the site. Any future LEP will require that a DCP be made prior to development occurring on the site. The LEP is currently being drafted by DP&I and is identified as Amendment No. 2 to Penrith LEP 2010. The Amendment of LEP 2010 will require DCP 2010 to be amended to include the Panthers Penrith Precinct in the Key Precincts chapter. The DCP amendment will not come into force until the LEP is made for the site.

 

Panthers have been working closely with Council officers to develop the controls for the Panthers Penrith Precinct. This is to ensure that the intentions of the LEP are reinforced in guiding development of the precinct over the next 20 years. Due to the duration of the development and the DCP acting as a guiding tool for this development to occur, the DCP allows flexibility in moving forward.

 

The DCP is the final component of planning documents which will guide the development of an entertainment, leisure and lifestyle precinct on the Panthers site. In addition to the LEP and DCP, Council with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) entered into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Panthers for the delivery of road infrastructure attributable to the development. Council has also entered into a separate VPA with Panthers for the ongoing management of an Outlet Centre for the site.

 

Draft Amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 ? Panthers Penrith Precinct

A draft amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 (draft DCP) for Panthers Penrith Precinct has been prepared by Panthers in consultation with Council officers and is intended to be included in the Key Precincts chapter.

 

The initial draft DCP was reviewed by Council?s Urban Design Review Panel, for preliminary guidance on the structure and content. Panthers have considered the Panel?s feedback where possible. Given the scale and type of development proposed for the site, future developments applications will be referred to the Panel.

 

The draft DCP structure is consistent with DCP 2010 where it establishes objectives and development controls that will apply to the Precinct. The draft DCP will make provisions for:

 

??? Precinct Vision and objectives

??? Urban Framework including site structure, landscaping, views and public art

??? Sub precincts to provide specific character objectives and controls

??? Connectivity relating to street design and character, pedestrian and cycle networks, public transport, traffic, parking and site access.

??? Built Form relating to street alignment, wall height, setbacks, active street frontages, awnings, building depth and bulk, building articulation and design excellence.

??? Delivery with regard to flooding, drainage, utilities and staging.

 

Some of the key components of the draft DCP include:

 

1.?? Sub precincts ?The Panthers Penrith precinct has been divided into sub precincts to provide specific character statements and controls. These sub precincts are based on key developments across the site including the existing club, proposed outlet centre, campus style office development, multi use/exhibition arena, infrastructure and recreational opportunities.

 

2.?? Public Domain and Landscaping - The plan makes provisions for creating a vibrant new destination through extensive open space areas and well designed and defined public domain areas. The plan provides for approximately 26 ha of open green space, sporting fields, landscaping, lake area and public plazas and also includes the important landscaped link to the river know as the ?Riverlink?.

 

3.?? Views - Informed by the Urban Design Study prepared for Riverlink, key views and vistas have been identified to maintain and enhance key views to the mountains and view lines between the Club and the Stadium. These views are fundamental to the identity and characteristics of the Panthers site within the City.

 

4.?? Strategies ? As more detailed designs become available regarding development of the site there will be requirements for additional analysis and strategies required for landscaping, public art, traffic, car parking, stormwater management, event management and flooding.

 

5.?? Consideration of adjoining residences - In addition to the existing chapters in DCP 2010 to address matters relating to noise, traffic, parking, landscape design and water management, there are also specific controls within the draft DCP to address the amenity of adjoining residences and include:

 

???? Maintaining the existing and significant vegetated buffer (approximately 50m-70m wide and 6,400sqm) between the existing Mountainview Retreat Retirement Village and the Panthers Site known as Utilities sub precinct.

???? Landscaped interface setback to residential development and North sub precinct

???? Consideration of restricted vehicle access

???? Additional traffic reports for development to assess the traffic requirements when more detailed designs become available

???? Car parking strategy to manage parking on site

 

Adjoining residents will have an opportunity to provide feedback on both the draft DCP and specific DAs as they are lodged for the site. This will allow a more detailed consideration and amelioration of any potential impacts of development.

 

Next Steps

Once endorsed by Council for public exhibition, the draft DCP will be exhibited for 28 days in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and its Regulations. The draft DCP will be made publicly available at Council offices in Penrith and St Marys and on Council?s website. Surrounding land owners/occupiers will be notified by letter as well as those that made a written submission to the Planning Proposal.

 

A further report will be presented to Council following the exhibition process outlining an assessment of the submissions received and relevant recommendations relating to the adoption of the final DCP.

 

The DCP will only come into effect when a notice is given in the newspaper and when Amendment No. 2 to Penrith LEP 2010 is made.

 

Conclusion

 

The LEP for the Panthers site is with the DP&I for finalisation and Council has successfully negotiated two VPAs for the delivery of road infrastructure and management of an outlet centre on the site. The draft DCP is now the final statutory document required to guide future development of the Panthers site as an entertainment, leisure and lifestyle precinct for Penrith, as a Regional City. On this basis, it is recommended that the draft amendment to Penrith DCP 2010 be endorsed for public exhibition.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include the Panthers Penrith Precinct be received

2.???? In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Regulations 2000, a draft amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 Chapter E6 ? Panthers Penrith Precinct be publicly exhibited.

3.???? A further report be presented to Council following public exhibition of the draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 advising of the outcomes of the exhibition and making further recommendations for adoption.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

E6 Panthers Penrith - Key Precincts DCP 2010

67 Pages

Attachment

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

A Leading City

 

 

4

District Open Space Development Contributions Plan Expenditure? ??

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Anthony Milanoli, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

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

Strategic Response

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

??????

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

 

Executive Summary

$5.45 million in development contributions is now available to spend on recreation facilities identified in the District Open Space Development Contributions Plan. A further $1.7 million in contributions will be available in the next year. This report discusses the options available to Council in spending these funds, so that it can determine those facilities it wishes to prioritise.

 

Development contributions are levied to ensure the needs of additional development are addressed. The District Open Space (DOS) development contributions plan addresses the City-wide recreation needs of additional residential development. Over the past five years, contributions received under this plan have been spent on a variety of projects, however changes to the NSW planning process may challenge continuation of the Plan and allocation of its funds. It is therefore prudent to prioritise expenditure of available contributions.

 

Council?s Recreation Working Party reviewed the expenditure options for DOS Plan contributions at its meeting of 6 February 2013. The Working Party determined a list of prioritised facilities, as shown at Appendix 1 to this report. This list is consistent with the limitations of the DOS Plan and legislation and is recommended as the basis for spending available and future envisaged contributions.

 

Spending current contributions will ensure we continue to meet the needs of additional residents and satisfy our obligations under the DOS Plan and legislation. Expenditure will also complete many of the park improvement projects described in the Plan, such as Tench Reserve, Werrington Creek Park and Regatta Park West.

 

Introduction

Under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act, Council may condition a development consent to require the payment of a contribution. Contributions are levied to deliver local facilities which will be required as a result of new development. Facilities funded include parks, roads, community centres and drainage. The contributions can only be used for the facilities described in the s94 plan. Contributions must be spent within a ?reasonable? timeframe, (approximately three to five years). The levying and spending of contributions is restricted by the Environmental Planning & Assessment (EP&A) Act, Ministerial Directions, Departmental Practice Notes and Court rulings.

 

Background

The Penrith City District Open Space Development Contributions Plan was adopted by Council on 17 December 2007. The Plan levies contributions on additional residential development across Penrith City. The purpose of the Plan is to meet the City-wide open space needs of additional development by improving existing parks to increase their recreational capacity. The Plan incorporates a works schedule for improvements to twelve of the City?s parks and recreation facilities. The Plan classifies these improvements into ?high?, ?medium? and ?low? priorities for implementation.

 

In May 2010, Council adopted a revised version of the Plan in response to the $30,000 cap on residential contributions. The revised Plan deleted facilities which no longer complied with s94 legislation and Departmental Practice Notes. The revised Plan incorporates yet to be completed facilities valued at $33.1 million.

 

Current Situation

$7.342 million in DOS Plan s94 contributions (including interest) have been collected since its adoption in December 2007. Most of the contributions currently held in the Plan accounts were received in the past 12 months, due to the strong growth in residential development over that period.

 

Approximately $1.676 million in DOS Plan contributions has been spent on park and recreation facility improvements across the City in the past five years. These improvements include new pathways, amenities buildings, child play equipment, netball courts and seating. A further $220,500 is programmed for improvements to the great River Walk and Jamison Park this financial year. Expenditure to date has been endorsed by Council through the annually adopted Operational Plan.

 

Total contributions expected to be available for expenditure over the next year is $7.15 million. This sum comprises:

 

? $5.45 million currently available within the DOS account;

? $1.4 million in DOS contributions projected over the next 3-4 months from the Jordan Springs development; and

? $300,000 expected to be received from large subdivisions at Caddens, Glenmore Park Stage 2 and North Penrith Urban Area over the next year.

 

The above figures vary slightly from those provided to the Recreation Working Party on 6 February 2013 as a further $300,000 in contributions has been received since that date.

 

Until recently, Council enjoyed relative certainty that contributions collected under the DOS Plan would pay for all the park improvements described in the Plan. This allowed flexible delivery of park improvements.? In July 2012, however, the NSW Government released a Green Paper on a New Planning System for NSW. The Green Paper proposes a number of changes to contributions planning which may mean no further District Open Space contributions can be collected. The Green Paper is silent regarding the future of funds held in existing open space plans.

 

Which facilities can be funded under the District Open Space Plan ?

Only the twelve parks and recreation facility improvement projects included in the DOS Plan can be funded by the available s94 contributions. These twelve facilities are classified as being? ?high?, ?medium? or ?low? priority for expenditure.

 

The recreation facilities identified as ?high? priority in the DOS Plan are as follows:

 

???? South Creek Park

???? Werrington Creek Park

???? Jamison Park

???? Tench Reserve

???? Ripples Leisure Centre and Hydro Pool.

 

In light of their ?high? priority status, it is considered these facilities should receive the bulk of available contributions, along with those ?medium? priority projects that are substantially commenced, such as The Great River Walk and Gipps Street Park. Minor works in lower priority facilities may also be funded if sufficient contributions are available.

 

Can other park improvement projects be funded by the DOS Plan?

Alternative projects cannot be funded through the DOS Plan unless the Plan is amended, publicly exhibited and adopted by Council. Amending a s94 Plan now requires endorsement by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I). It is unlikely plan amendments would be supported by DP&I and hence this report does not explore this option further.

 

Why spend the contributions?

Primarily, DOS Plan contributions should be spent so that the purpose for which they were collected is satisfied, namely, to meet the rising recreation needs of our expanding population. Additionally, development contributions should be spent within approximately 3-5 years from the date of their collection. The DOS Plan proposes spending contributions on ?high? priority projects within 5 years. Given the DOS Plan has been in force for 5 years, it is timely contributions be spent to ensure our continuing compliance with s94 planning principles and Court rulings. Finally, initiatives associated with the new Planning Green Paper may impact on the future of DOS contributions.

 

Assessment Criteria for allocating DOS Plan funds

To assist Council in determining which DOS Plan facilities should receive funding, the following criteria were used to assess a project?s merit:

 

?? it satisfies the relevant legislation, Court rulings and Departmental guidelines applying to contributions planning

?? it is identified as ?High? priority under the DOS Plan or is a medium priority project which has been substantially commenced

?? it is consistent with the recreation needs of Penrith City, as described in the study, which underpins the DOS Plan

?? it will be accessible and affordable to large numbers of Penrith City residents

?? it will lead to completion of our intentions for the park/ facility

?? it may integrate with other Council objectives (for example, health and wellbeing, community safety or neighbourhood renewal)

?? its ongoing maintenance/running costs are manageable

?? it may attract further grants, thus increasing total funding available

?? the works are likely to commence within the next 12 months.

 

Council Recreation Working Party

On 6 February 2013, Council?s Recreation Working Party explored prioritising projects within the District Open Space Plan using available contributions. Following examination of a potential works expenditure program, the Working Party endorsed the budget and table of works shown at Appendix 1 to this report. The table of works is consistent with the DOS Plan and legislation and is supported as the basis for spending available and future envisaged contributions.

?

The expenditure program endorsed by the Working Party allocates a large proportion of the budget to the DOS Plan?s ?High Priority? projects. In addition, both Gipps Street Community Park and the Great River Walk are accorded a budget allocation as ?medium? priority projects that have been substantially commenced.?

 

The Working Party asked for specific comments on several expenditure items, which are discussed below:

 

?Jamison Park

The Working Party asked whether a synthetic playing field could be funded from the DOS Plan contributions available, rather than irrigating fields at a cost of $155,000. The Working Party agreed to segregate $155,000 from the contributions to be spent, examine the issue of the playing field merit and that it be the subject of a separate report from the Parks and Recreation Departments.

 

The Kingsway Playing Fields

The Working Party inquired as to whether a small contribution could be allocated to the fields to address users? needs. Since the report for the Working Party was prepared approximately $300,000 in additional DOS Plan contributions have been received. It is proposed that these additional contributions be allocated to the Kingsway Playing Fields.

 

Allocation of projected $1.7 million in further contributions

The Working Party considered that rather than allocating the projected $1.7 million in further DOS contributions to Ripples Gym expansion, these funds should be the subject of a further Business Case report by the Parks and Recreation Departments in approximately 12 months, when contributions become available. References to expending further contributions on the Ripples facility have been deleted from the expenditure table shown at Appendix 1 to this report.

 

Recreation Manager Comment on Ripples

As part of the establishment of the joint governance model for Ripples Leisure Centre and Penrith Swimming Centre it was determined that a five year facility development plan, business model and capital investment program be developed for the facilities based on the findings included in the Council endorsed ?Aquatics Business Modelling Review?, one of which was the expansion of the health and fitness facilities at Ripples. A business case analysis for the aquatics joint entity, with associated master plans for both Penrith Swimming Centre and Ripples Leisure Centre, is scheduled to be complete by the end of April 2013 with a report to be presented to Council on finalisation. The business plan will provide Council with information for it to assess the value of expending $1.7m, to be collected from Section 94 contributions in the next 12 months, on the expansion of the Health and Fitness facilities at Ripples or, allocating funds to projects in the list at Appendix 1 that are currently unfunded. In particular, Council could give consideration to investment at Gipps Street Community Park should this be seen as a greater priority.

 

 

Parks Manager and Recreation Manager Comments

The proposed works identified in the DOS Contributions Plan support many of the strategies identified in Council?s PLANS study (Recreation and Culture Strategy), Sportsground Management Strategy, adopted relevant Plans of Management, and support the Parks Asset Renewal Program. The identified works will make a significant contribution towards meeting the future sporting, recreational and leisure needs of the new population in the Penrith local government area, and embellish existing facilities to a level and standard that will support increased utilisation and, in the case of Ripples Leisure and Hydrotherapy Centre, potentially benefit the overall business performance of the new joint aquatics entity, including Penrith Swimming Centre.

 

The proposed prioritised project list and budget allocation presents a significant opportunity to realise a diverse range of projects. Expenditure of the funds available will undoubtedly contribute to providing safe, inviting parks and public open spaces which promote active and healthy communities.

 

Next Steps

The next steps in expending funds within the DOS Plan are as follows:

 

1.?? Council adopts a prioritised list of facilities to be funded using DOS Plan contributions;

2.?? Planning and design of the projects is undertaken;

3.?? Works commence within the next 12 months; and

4.?? Projects are completed, all contributions are spent.

 

Conclusion

Spending contributions currently held in the District Open Space s94 Plan will help ensure that the recreation needs of new residents across our City are met and undue pressure is not placed on existing facilities. Expenditure proposed by Council?s Recreation Working Party will also ensure that we meet our obligations under the Plan and legislation. In light of the above, this report concludes that remaining District Open Space s94 Plan contributions be spent in accordance with the Table shown at ?Appendix? 1? to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on District Open Space Development Contributions Plan Expenditure be received.

2.???? Current District Open Space Plan contributions be spent in accordance with the Table shown at Appendix 1 to this report.

3.???? In the event that any further contributions are available ? either through additional contributions, interest earned or savings to project costs described in this report ? these funds be spent on remaining facilities described within the DOS s94 Plan, as outlined in the Table shown at Appendix 1 to this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Table of proposed expenditures for District Open Space s94 Plan Contributions

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Appendix 1 - Table of proposed expenditures for District Open Space s94 Plan Contributions

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

A Leading City

 

 

5

Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill???

?

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

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

Wayne Mitchell, Group Manager - City Infrastructure ?

Requested By:???????????? Councillor Prue Car

 

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

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 February 2013, Councillor Prue Car requested that a report be brought back to tonight?s meeting detailing the cost of hiring a venue in April 2013 and assisting with advertising funding for a Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill.

 

The report will detail the Council facilities which may be able to accommodate such a rally in terms of capacity and room layout and also detail the costs involved in venue and security hire along with possible advertising costs.

 

A brief background will also be provided on occasions where Council has assisted with similar such rallies.

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 February 2013, Councillor Prue Car requested that a report be brought back to tonight?s meeting detailing the cost of hiring a venue in April 2013 and assisting with advertising funding for a Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill.

 

Council has over many years been, and continues to be, involved either directly or indirectly in a vast array of matters that carry significant community interest and importance, many of which have included some form of public meeting or rally. Some of these matters that Council has been involved in include:

 

ADI Site

 

In early 2001 Council considered a report on funding an ADI rally held at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre. It appears that at this time representatives from the ADI Residents Action Group (ADIRAG) had presented a proposal to Council seeking financial support to the total of $15,400. This proposal detailed the expenditure items of the request including:

???? JSPAC Venue Hire

???? PA System

???? Newspaper Advertising/Signs/Banners/Trailer Signs

???? Mail out and distribution

???? Entertainment and Misc

 

On 12 February 2001, Council resolved to provide ADIRAG with $15,400 in accordance with their submission. It is understood that after the event a total of $2,877.54 which was not expended at the event was returned to Council.

 

Badgerys Creek Airport

 

Council over many years has been very active in campaigning against any proposed Airport at Badgerys Creek. Over the past 10-15 years Council has expended a significant sum of money supporting Badgerys Creek Airport campaigning. A large proportion of campaign work on this matter was managed by the Western Sydney Alliance (WSA) to which Council contributed funds over the life of the campaign. It is difficult to estimate the precise contribution Council made in organising the large rally that was held at Jamison Park in 1999, but Council was heavily involved in producing posters, stickers, trailer signage and other advertising for the event as well as significant staff resources. In 1999 Council spent $86,270 on campaigning of which a proportion would have been used to fund this rally.

 

Current Situation

 

A previous public meeting on this matter was held by the State Member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies, in Council?s Nepean Room in December last year. At this meeting it is estimated there were 150-200 people in attendance, which caused a number of logistical issues. It is considered that this room or any other room similar in nature would be unsuitable for this type of a meeting. Furthermore, the attendance figures of this public meeting provide a good indication of the expected numbers at any future public meeting. With this in mind, after a review of possible suitable venues, it appears that only two Council facilities (including Entities) may be viable. The details of these are provided below:

 

St Marys Memorial Hall, St Marys

 

Capacity: ? 380

Pricing:????? Mon - Thurs???????? $26 p/hour ????????? Bond ???????? $250

?????????????????? Fri - Sun?????????????? $900 flat fee??????? Bond????????? $500?

Hours: ????? Sun-Thurs ?????????? 10:00pm

Fri & Sat ???????????? 1:00am

Security:??? $936 + GST.

 

The Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre (JSPAC)

 

Capacity: ? 550

Pricing:????? $660

Staffing:??? $3,436 (Mon to Sat) or $5,486 (Sun)

Security:??? $936.00 + GST.

 

Both facilities provide raised stages, with the St Marys Memorial Hall requiring set up of temporary seating, while the JSPAC has fixed seating, both halls have parking available. The capacity of St Marys Memorial Hall could limit the public?s opportunity to attend based on the numbers that attended the previous meeting in the Nepean Room in December 2012. Security at both halls could be provided by Council?s Security Contractor.

 

Advertising Costs

 

The cost for advertising the event is difficult to gauge depending on the length of the campaign. Indicative costs for local newspapers are provided below:

 

Western Weekender ????????????????????????????????? Penrith Press

 

Half page $630.00 + GST???????????????????????? Half page $1,795.04, + GST

 

Full page $1,013.25 + GST?????????????????????? Full page $3,190.08. + GST

There are a number of other advertising options that could be organised however this report has not investigated those. The cost of advertising in metropolitan papers is likely to be prohibitive and unnecessary given the rally would be aimed at the local community. As an indication only, two half page advertisements in the Western Weekender and Penrith Press over 2 weeks prior to the event would cost $4,850.00 + GST. If Council wishes the event could also be publicised through Council?s website and social media presence (Facebook & Twitter) for no cost in the lead up to the rally.

 

Cost

 

Based on the above figures an estimated cost of holding a rally, depending on when and where the rally is held and the level of advertising conducted, could vary significantly. There may also be additional consequential costs associated with staff time depending on the level of involvement for Council in organising the rally. These costs have not been accounted for.

 

For the purposes of the report it is assumed that two half page advertisements would be taken out in each of the identified local papers. This figure could be adjusted either higher or lower depending on the needs of this particular event. The options available for consideration along with the estimated total cost are provided below:

 

Option 1

 

St Marys Memorial Hall, St Marys

 

Capacity:????????????????????? 380

Venue Cost:???????????????? $156 (6 Hours/Weekday)

????????????????????????????????????? $900 (Weekend)

Security Cost:????????????? $936 + GST

Advertising Cost:??????? $4,850 (two half page ads in each local paper for two weeks)

Contingency:?????????????? $1,000

 

Total Cost:?????????????????? $7,686 ($6,942 - 6 Hours/Weekday)

 

Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre Penrith

 

Option 2

 

Capacity:?? ?????????????????? 550

Venue Cost:???????????????? $660

Security Cost:????????????? $936 + GST

Staffing Costs:???????????? $3,436 (Mon to Sat) or $5,486 (Sun)

Advertising Cost:??????? $4,850 (two half page ads in each local paper for two weeks)

Contingency:?????????????? $1,000

 

Total Cost:?????????????????? $ 10,882 ($12,932 ? Sunday Rate)

 

An amount of $1,000 has been provided for any other costs which could possibly be incurred during the organisation of the event.

 

Financial Services Manager?s comment

This Report outlines the likely costs that will be incurred in facilitating the Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill, and that depending on the preferred venue and timing of the event the costs for Council will vary between $6,942 and $12,932. However, managing the 2012-13 budget continues to present a number of challenges and Councillors will recall that the December Quarter Review projected a deficit for 30 June 2013. To date no capacity has been identified within current programs to accommodate these proposals and if Council is of a mind to progress one of the alternatives, consideration will need to be given to reducing another program as part of the March Review.

 

Conclusion

 

The report identifies the likely costs involved in funding a public rally on this matter with the costs varying significantly depending on the venue and timing of the event. Should Council wish to proceed in providing assistance for a Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill, a funding source will need to be identified.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

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

 

6??????? Illegal Dumping Abatement and Presentation of Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad Annual Report ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 43

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

A Liveable City

 

 

6

Illegal Dumping Abatement and Presentation of Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad Annual Report???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Barry Ryan, RID Squad Co-ordinator

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

Requested By:???????????? Councillor Prue Car

 

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)

?

Presenters:?????????????????? Barry Ryan - Penrith City Council - Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad Annual Report??????

 

Executive Summary

 

At Council?s Ordinary Meeting of 4 February 2013 Cr Prue Car requested a report on illegal dumping.? This request coincided with the annual presentation and report of Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad to Council.?

 

In the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA) RID Squad Investigators primarily patrol the rural areas of the city for illegal dumping and respond to requests for assistance concerning reports of dumping. Council Rangers target the urban areas.? Additionally, Penrith Council officers implement a number of abatement initiatives including the Eye Spy Hotline and anti-littering programs.? Council also provides extra Christmas domestic waste and clean-up collections; electronic waste recycling drop-off days and participates in the Household Chemical Collection Day to assist residents to responsibly dispose of their waste.

 

This report provides a summary of abatement programs conducted by Council within the Penrith Local Government Area and across Western Sydney through Penrith?s participation in the Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad.? Barry Ryan, RID Squad Coordinator will provide a presentation on the Squad?s activities with particular reference to the 2011-2012 financial year detailing how illegal dumping is managed across Western Sydney including the Penrith LGA.

 

Penrith City Council is a member of the Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad, which was formed in 1999 to provide additional resources to tackle the issue of illegal dumping and the Squad is hosted by Penrith City Council through an operational agreement.

 

The Squad comprises membership from seven Councils - being Bankstown, Fairfield, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith and The Hills, and the NSW EPA with seven investigators being employed to tackle the problem of illegal dumping.

 

The prevention of illegal dumping within the Penrith LGA is a joint initiative conducted by the RID Squad and Penrith City Council Rangers.

The Squad has been successful in identifying offenders who dump waste in urban, industrial and rural areas and have, in addition to having the offender clean up the waste, issued over $1.5m in fines since its inception.

 

A copy of the 2011-2012 annual report has been provided to Councillors as an attachment to this report.

 

Background

 

The Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad was formed in 1999, through the then Western Sydney Waste Board, with Penrith City Council being a founding member, to assist in tackling the problem of illegal dumping.

 

It was recognised by the member Councils that illegal dumping is not only an issue for each Council, but also that particular offenders are common to several Council areas.

 

The Squad currently comprises membership from seven Councils - being Bankstown, Fairfield, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith and The Hills, and the NSW EPA, with seven investigators being employed to tackle the problem of illegal dumping.

 

Penrith City Council is the ?host? Council for the Squad, employing each investigator and providing accommodation, vehicles and administration support.? The current management fee charged by Council is $63,744.

 

The cost of the Squad is determined by a 50% contribution by the NSW EPA and the balance evenly divided amongst the seven Council members.? The current cost to Council for RID Squad membership is $58,430.?

 

Whilst not all waste is able to be traced to the offender, the Squad has been successful in identifying numerous persons who have dumped waste ranging from small bags of residential garbage, industrial waste, waste from the demolition of buildings, old furniture and filling.

 

When identified, the investigator will require the offender to remove the waste in addition to issuing the appropriate Penalty Infringement Notice. The removal and proper disposal of the waste represents a significant saving to each Council or private landowner, which would otherwise need to bear the cost of disposal.

 

Current Situation

 

The Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad has been operating since 1999 and currently has seven member Councils represented by senior staff members on the RID Squad Committee.

 

The establishment of Regional Illegal Dumping Squads has been shown to be a successful and cost effective model to tackle to tackle the issue of illegal dumping.

 

 

 

 

 

The NSW 2021 Plan recognised this and has a priority action of:

 

?Illegal dumping of waste is a criminal activity causing environmental pollution, risks to human health and reducing the local amenity of an area. Actions to meet this target include:

? Target illegal dumping of waste by creating two Regional Illegal Dumping Squads to enforce breaches of waste regulations in the construction and demolition waste sector.?

 

Two new RID Squads are currently proposed for the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra/South Coast.

 

In the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA) RID Squad Investigators primarily patrol the rural areas of the city and respond to requests for assistance (reports of dumping). Council Rangers target the urban areas.

 

The illegal dumping of waste is an issue that can occur at any time, but often investigators have ?busier and quieter? periods. The lead up to Christmas for example, can be a quieter period, whilst after Christmas people often move houses, and ?clean-up? their properties, and the number of illegal dumping incidents increase.

 

Investigators respond to these periods by changing from a pro-active program of inspecting known illegal dumping areas, conducting operations and tracking vehicles to responding to specific illegal dumping incidents.

 

Illegal dumping of waste in the bushland (particularly crown land) areas of Castlereagh and Londonderry remains an issue. Investigators target this area with regular patrols (both covert and overt surveillance) on a regular basis.

 

Penalty Infringement Notices totalling $41,500 were issued for illegal dumping and littering offences in the Penrith LGA in 2011/12.

 

In 2011-2012, $229,530 in Penalty Infringement Notices were issued by Investigators in all seven LGAs.

 

When offenders are identified, investigators require the removal and proper disposal of the waste, thereby saving Councils funding that would otherwise be needed to remove the waste.? The estimated savings to councils (all LGAs) for 2011/12 is $238,480 (savings include both an estimate or actual tipping costs and savings in administration costs to require the waste to be removed).

 

In 2011/12 several successful operations were held including joint operations with the NSW EPA. In one such operation (over two days) heavy vehicles were followed and eight incidents of illegal dumping of contaminated fill were identified (in five of these incidents the fill contained asbestos).

 

Each year the Squad produces an annual report detailing statistics and operational data for the member Councils and NSW EPA. A copy of this report has been provided to Councillors for information.

 

Penrith City Council A/Coordinator Ranger & Animal Services Comment

 

Rubbish Dumping in Urban Areas

 

Council?s Rangers monitor and inspect rubbish outside residential premises, and in reserves in the urban area.? Rangers provide community education regarding responsible rubbish disposal and provide information on Council?s on-call clean-up services.? Rangers also provide enforcement regarding illegal rubbish dumping through verbal warnings, notices or penalty infringement notices.?

 

Rangers liaise with staff of Council?s Public Domain & Amenity Department and its waste contractor, SITA, regarding the removal of illegally dumped rubbish where the culprit cannot be identified.

 

For the period 1 February 2012 to 1 February 2013 Rangers investigated over 726 complaints regarding illegally dumped rubbish.

 

Eye Spy Hotline and Anti-Littering Programs

 

Rangers are proactive against littering and rubbish dumping.? Rangers actively promote Council?s Eye Spy Hotline (1800 393 779) where observers of illegal dumping may report such activities.?

 

Programs such as ?Don?t be a tosser? have been conducted.

 

Currently, Rangers are conducting a ?Keep Australia Butt Free? program.? This program focuses on cigarette butt littering (including from motor vehicles) addressing issues such as fire safety from lit cigarette butts being irresponsibly disposed of and butts being washed into stormwater drains and rivers.? Council is installing specifically designed cigarette butt bins outside high traffic areas, such as outside Centrelink.? Also, people may receive a free personal cigarette butt pouch by visiting www.notagoodlook.com.au?

 

Additional Waste Services

 

Council provides and facilitates a range of additional waste services for the community.? This includes two electronic waste recycling drop-off days and one household hazardous waste disposal drop-off day each year, the provision of additional garbage and recycling collections during the Christmas period and on-call clean up collections for residents to dispose of bulky household waste up to four times each year.? Further, residents may register for free text message reminders about such waste and resource recovery initiatives by contacting Council with their details.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Illegal Dumping Abatement and Presentation of Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad Annual Report be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

RID Squad Annual Report 2011-2012

64 Pages

Attachment

???

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

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



 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 11 March 2013

Delivery Program:????? A Leading City

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

Report Title:??????????????? Public exhibition of draft amendment to Development Control Plan 2010 to include the Panthers Penrith Precinct

Attachments:?????????????? E6 Panthers Penrith - Key Precincts DCP 2010



Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Attachment 1 - E6 Panthers Penrith - Key Precincts DCP 2010

 





































































 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 11 March 2013

Delivery Program:????? A Liveable City

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

Report Title:??????????????? Illegal Dumping Abatement and Presentation of Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad Annual Report

Attachments:?????????????? RID Squad Annual Report 2011-2012



Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11 March 2013

Attachment 1 - RID Squad Annual Report 2011-2012

 
































































?