Agenda of Policy Review Committee Meeting

Council_Mark_POS_RGB 2013 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

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

23^ü

(7.00pm)

25@

29v

27#

24 *

26@

21∞

25#+

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

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 11 MARCH 2013 AT 7:36PM

PRESENT

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Ross Fowler OAM for the period 8 March 2013 to 25 March 2013 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

PRC9 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that an apology be received from Councillor Jim Aitken OAM.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 11 February 2013

PRC10 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 11 February 2013 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest –Significant in Item 5 – Public Rally regarding Waste from Nelson Road Hunters Hill as his wife is the State Member for Mulgoa. The Mayor indicated that he would leave the meeting during consideration of this item.

Procedural Motion

PRC11 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies that Item 5 be considered before all other business.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies then brought the Councillors’ attention to the retirement this month of Council’s Group Manager – People and Places, Mr Roger Nethercote, noting Mr Nethercote’s valuable contribution to the local community during his employment with Penrith City Council, and advised that further details of Mr Nethercote’s retirement function will be made available in due course.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies, on behalf of Council, also congratulated Councillor Prue Car and her husband on the birth of their first child, last week.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant in Item 5, His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies then vacated the Chair, the time being 7:40 pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, then took the Chair for consideration of Item 5, the time being 7:40 pm.

A Leading City

5 Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill

A MOTION was moved by Councillor Prue Car seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

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

2. Council proceed with Option 2 for hire of the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre for the public rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill, with the cost to be allocated equally from each Ward’s voted works.

PRC12 An AMENDMENT was made by Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the information contained in the report on Public Rally regarding Radioactive Waste from Nelson Parade Hunters Hill be received.

Upon being PUT to the meeting the AMENDMENT was CARRIED and on becoming the MOTION was also CARRIED.

Councillor John Thain called for a DIVISION.

For	Against
Councillor Ben Goldfinch	Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Marcus Cornish	Councillor John Thain
Councillor Bernard Bratusa	Councillor Karen McKeown
Councillor Tricia Hitchen	Councillor Prue Car
Councillor Maurice Girotto	Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM	Councillor Michelle Tormey

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM used his casting vote.

Councillors John Thain, Greg Davies, Prue Car and Karen McKeown then left the meeting at 8:10 pm and did not return.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM then vacated the Chair at 8:12 pm.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies, returned to the meeting and took the Chair, the time being 8:12 pm.

A Liveable City

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

The Manager, Waste and Community Protection, Tracy Chalk introduced the report and invited RID Squad Co-ordinator, Mr Barry Ryan, to give a presentation.

PRC13 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM 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.

A Leading City

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

The Manager, Sustainability and Planning, Paul Grimson introduced the report and gave a presentation.

PRC14 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen

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.

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

For	Against
Councillor Michelle Tormey
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Maurice Girotto
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Mark Davies

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

PRC15 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

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 ”.

2 Status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund

PRC16 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the information contained in the report on Status of the Sustainability Revolving Fund be received.

4 District Open Space Development Contributions Plan Expenditure

PRC17 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

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.

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

For	Against
Councillor Michelle Tormey
Councillor Jackie Greenow
Councillor Maurice Girotto
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Mark Davies

URGENT BUSINESS

UB 1 Leave of Absence

Councillor Jackie Greenow requested Leave of Absence from 22 March 2013 to 4 April 2013 inclusive.

PRC18 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

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

PRC19 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Jackie Greenow from 22 March 2013 to 4 April 2013 inclusive.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:01 pm.

Policy Review Committee Meeting 15 April 2013

A Leading City

2013 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government

Compiled by: Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by: Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer

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

Executive Summary

A report was presented to the Council’s Policy Review Meeting on 25 March 2013 advising the Council of the upcoming 2013 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly (NGA). In that report, Councillors were advised of the proposed Theme for the NGA which is Foundations for the Future: Twenty 13.

At this Policy Review Meeting the Council resolved that the Deputy Mayor, Clr Ross Fowler OAM would be the Council’s voting delegate for the NGA. Clr Fowler OAM has recently advised staff that he is unable to attend the NGA, so the Council will need to nominate its voting delegate for the NGA.

Some Motions that the Council’s staff had considered to be forwarded to the NGA are already adopted positions of both the State and Federal Local Government Associations; namely support for the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government and that a fixed percentage of the Federal taxation revenue is provided to local government via the Financial Assistance Grant (FAG). Another issue concerning a request for investigation into the development of a national community indicator framework for local government was adopted by ALGA in 2012.

Any proposed Motions to the NGA are required to be submitted to the ALGA by Friday 26 April 2013.The Council’s staff are not proposing to submit a Motion to the NGA this year, however, in the event that a Councillor has any proposed Motions to be submitted to the NGA these will be submitted by the due date.

Background

The 2013 National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 16-19 June 2013.

The 2013 National General Assembly, which is sponsored by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), will have as its theme, “Foundations for the Future: Twenty13”.

Submitting Motions

To enhance the quality of outcomes from this year’s National General Assembly and to ensure that motions are relevant to local government nationally, the ALGA Board is calling for motions under the theme of “Foundations for the Future: Twenty13”.

To be eligible for inclusion in the National General Assembly business paper, motions must:

1. Fall under the NGA theme

2. Be relevant to the work of local government nationally; and

3. Complement or build on the policy objectives of state or territory associations.

The Council’s staff have considered the Theme of the NGA and have indicated that there are three issues of relevance to local government nationally, being the recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution, a fixed percentage of the Federal taxation revenue is provided to local government via the Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) and that an investigation is undertaken into the development of a national community indicator framework for local government. The first two issues are already adopted positions of both the State and Federal Local Government Associations, and the last issue was adopted last year by ALGA, so these proposed Motions would not be considered at the NGA.

In respect of the recognition of local government Councillors received an update of this issue in the Councillor Bulletin on 5 April 2013. ALGA has indicated its strong support for constitutional recognition of local government as soon as possible to secure continued direct funding from the Commonwealth. The NGA will include a comprehensive report on the status of constitutional recognition. It is expected by the time that the NGA meets in June that a decision would have been made by the Federal Government as to whether a referendum will proceed.

The second issue of the FAG is a matter that has been raised consistently by local government. Councils have raised concerns that in recent years there has been a decrease in the value of the FAG compared to the national taxation revenue.

The third issue was concerning the development of a national community indicator framework which was presented at last years NGA conference and was carried.

Delegates

At the Policy Review Meeting held on 25 March 2013 the Council resolved that the Deputy Mayor, Clr Ross Fowler OAM would be the Council’s voting delegate for the NGA. Clr Fowler OAM has recently advised staff that he is unable to attend the NGA, so the Council will need to nominate its voting delegate for the NGA. At that Meeting the Council also resolved that Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Marcus Cornish and Michelle Tormey attend the NGA as observers.

Outcome of 2012 Motions

Council presented four motions to the 2012 NGA Conference. The motions presented are provided below along with the action ALGA undertook. All three motions were carried.

Resolution Number: 8

That the National General Assembly calls on the Federal Government to investigate and

implement new mechanisms to provide infrastructure funding to local governments.

Resolution Number: 63

That the National General Assembly support investigation into a national community

indicator framework, including but not limited to ABS, ABR, ABD, which suits the needs of

local government and links with relevant state and federal frameworks.

For resolutions 8 and 63 the Board decided to write to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Simon Crean MP conveying this Resolution to him and seeking his response to them.

Resolution Number: 68

That the National General Assembly:

a) commends the Australian Federal Government for commencing to improve skills and

employment outcomes

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

The Board decided to refer this Resolution to State and Territory Local Government Associations for them to pursue.

Resolution Number: 83

That the National General Assembly write to the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and

Carers, to make representations to the Minister for Tourism, seeking the establishment of a

national independent access accreditation system for tourist accommodation in Australia.

The Board decided to write to the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Senator the Hon Jan McLucas seeking her policy and views on this Resolution.

ALGA has undertaken to provide Council with a copy of the response from the Ministers when they are received. The information once received will be forwarded to the Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2013 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government be received.

2. Council nominate its voting delegate for the 2013 National General Assembly of Local Government.

3. If the Council wishes to raise a Motion tonight for presentation to the NGA this will be compiled and submitted by the due date of 26 April 2013.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Policy Review Committee Meeting 15 April 2013

A Leading City

Results of the feasibility assessment into Environmental Upgrade Agreements in Penrith City

Compiled by: Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Allegra Zakis, Acting Corporate Development and Sustainability 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	Demonstrate our leadership, and encourage innovation (1.1)

Executive Summary

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 7 May 2012 Council resolved to accept funding from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to undertake a detailed feasibility study into the implementation of an Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA) program in Penrith City.

The first stage of this funding allowed Council to investigate implementing these agreements in commercial and industrial properties in the City and this work is now complete. A number of issues, identified through this process, raise questions regarding the potential success of an EUA program in Penrith at the present time. As a result it is recommended that the opportunity should be considered again in 2-3 years’ time. This will enable us to review the effectiveness of EUAs in other areas, and if any have been established in industrial or commercial buildings similar to our City’s building stock.

Background

The New South Wales Government introduced legislation in February 2011 to establish a legislative framework for the implementation of EUAs. The Local Government (Environmental Upgrade Agreement) Act 2010 amends the Local Government Act 1993 to provide for and authorise councils to enter into EUAs.

EUAs were developed to overcome barriers experienced by building owners in progressing environmental upgrade works on their buildings. These barriers include:

· lack of access to capital

· payback periods for environmental upgrades tend to be longer than traditional loan terms

· split incentives, where a building owner pays for the upgrade but the cost benefits often go directly to the tenant through reduced utility bills.

Further information on EUAs can be found in the fact sheet which is included as an appendix to this report.

OEH is currently implementing a program to develop and promote the uptake of EUAs across NSW. As part of this program a number of councils including the City of Sydney, North Sydney, Parramatta, Wollongong, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and Penrith agreed to take part in a funded project to investigate the feasibility of EUAs in their area and, where it is proven to be feasible, commence implementation.

At its Policy Review Committee Meeting of 7 May 2012 Council resolved to accept funding of $200,000 from OEH to undertake a detailed feasibility study on the implementation of EUAs. The outcomes of this feasibility study were to be reported to Council so that a decision on its ongoing involvement in the project could be taken. The OEH funding was offered without obligation to proceed, with any unspent monies being returned to OEH without penalty if Council decides not to proceed at this time.

The first stage of the project involved a nine month feasibility study and is now complete. The feasibility study included telephone surveys, building stock analysis, upgrade scenarios and wide stakeholder consultation. The results from this project have been invaluable in gaining a detailed insight into the commercial and industrial building sector in the City. This information will assist Council in the development of policies and programs in future.

Stage 1 Outcomes

To be successful, an EUA program requires sufficient eligible building stock together with a strong interest and uptake from commercial and industrial building owners. EUAs have the potential to generate significant benefits such as attracting further investment, reducing environmental impacts and increasing the competitiveness and liveability of local building stock.

The Stage 1 Feasibility and Research project has identified a number of issues that together raise questions regarding the potential success of an EUA program in Penrith at the present time. These include:

· the typical market for EUAs until now has been large commercial office buildings

· Penrith has few buildings with sufficiently high property value to make an EUA an attractive proposition, compared to other areas such as City of Sydney, Parramatta, North Sydney and City of Melbourne

· the City’s older commercial and industrial buildings are generally smaller, which means that the upgrade projects are of lower value, and only a limited number of projects would meet the minimum EUA value thresholds ($100,000 - $200,000)

· the City has a high percentage of owner occupied buildings, which removes the split incentive as a barrier to owners upgrading their buildings through other means

· as part of the EUA, Council would need to recoup the costs of establishing the loan and managing the process. These fees and charges will affect viability, and therefore the level of interest in participating

· the impact and risk to Council of developing and implementing an underutilised EUA program that diverts resources from other core Council programs and activities

· the research indicates there is currently very little interest in the City, which is reflected in the slow uptake experienced in other participating council areas

· the complexity and uncertainty around the inclusion of specific elements, such as industrial processes, in an EUA.

More information on the activities and outcomes of Stage 1 can be found as an appendix to this report.

The conclusion of the Stage 1 research is that EUAs are not viable in Penrith at the present time, and will not generate sufficient benefit to offset the cost. EUAs are a new financial mechanism, and their application and implementation is evolving. Some of these issues will be resolved as EUAs settle over the next few years. Accordingly, it is recommended that the implementation of EUAs should be reconsidered in 2-3 years’ time. This will enable us to review the effectiveness of EUAs in other areas, particularly if any have been successfully established in developments that more closely resemble the City’s building stock.

It is worth noting that most of the participating councils, with the exception of Wollongong City Council, already have a strong focus on engaging with their local building and business owners to improve environmental management and performance. The development and implementation of these programs has given these councils a strong background and information base from which to build their EUA program. To date, Penrith Council’s involvement with our local building and business owners in relation to environmental management and the opportunities available to improve the sustainability of their operations has been limited.

The research, however, identified a strong level of interest among commercial and industrial building owners in improving the environmental performance of their buildings. An engagement program, focusing on the wider commercial and industrial building and business owners, could be considered for implementation as part of the Delivery Program for 2013-2017. This would be designed to provide building and business owners with information on the range of programs, rebates and tools available to assist in reducing energy use and improving the environmental performance of their buildings and operations. Council could also consider being an advocate for change to improve and strengthen existing legal frameworks and requirements to assist commercial and industrial building owners to improve the environmental performance of their buildings.

In addition, it is proposed that a register of inquiries or expressions of interest relating to EUAs be developed as a way of gauging interest in the future viability of this financial product in the City.

Next Steps

Under the Funding Agreement with OEH, Council committed to a number of project milestones associated with the receipt of funds for the project:

· Council must consider the outcomes of the Stage 1 feasibility assessment and notify OEH of its decision regarding whether it will proceed to further stages by 3 May 2013

· Should Council decide to proceed, resources would need to be diverted from other services and activities over the next 12 months. It would require a significant work program to develop the relevant systems, processes and procedures to support an EUA program. Additional funding of $70,000 from OEH would be available in line with the current funding agreement

· Should Council endorse the recommendation not to proceed at this time, discussions regarding the balance of unspent funds (approximately $48,000) and requirements relating to a final project report will be discussed with OEH.

Conclusion

Council’s feasibility study into the implementation of an Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA) program has been invaluable in providing a detailed insight into the commercial and industrial building sector in Penrith City. The results have shown that the local level of owner interest in improving the environmental performance of buildings, and our local building stock, are different to other council areas. These differences make the success of an EUA program in Penrith questionable at this time.

It is recommended that Council should not proceed with the establishment of an EUA program at present, but that it should be considered again in 2-3 years’ time in the context of the knowledge and experiences developed by similar councils.

A targeted engagement and education program may be more effective at this stage, as it would assist commercial and industrial building owners and tenants to improve their knowledge of resources, tools and rebates available to assist with improving the environmental performance of their buildings.

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage will be notified of Council’s decision. Our key stakeholders and City partners, including the Penrith Business Alliance and the City Centre Corporations, will also be advised of the outcomes of the analysis and Council’s future directions in helping to improve the environmental performance of the City’s commercial and industrial buildings.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Results of the feasibility assessment into Environmental Upgrade Agreements in Penrith City be received.

2. Council does not proceed with an Environmental Upgrade Agreement program at this time.

3. Council reviews the opportunities for an Environmental Upgrade Agreement program in 2-3 years.

4. An education program focusing on commercial and industrial building owners is considered as part of the Delivery Program 2013-2017.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Environmental Upgrade Agreement Fact Sheet	2 Pages	Appendix
2. View	Summary of Stage 1 Feasibility Assessment	8 Pages	Appendix

Policy Review Committee Meeting 15 April 2013

A Leading City

St Marys Village Precinct Development

Compiled by: Karl Berzins, Consultant Planner

Mark Broderick, Planning Projects Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, Strategic 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

Mirvac has approached Council with regard to a proposed expansion of its Village Shopping Centre at St Marys. To advance this proposal, investigations in the form of economic, traffic and stormwater studies need to be undertaken and stakeholders consulted. Based on the outcomes of the studies and consultation it is likely that a masterplan will be produced focusing on the integration of the redeveloped shopping centre with the Queen Street retail and commercial strip. These studies and the masterplan will quantify the consequences of this major development proposal. They will also assist in determining the overall potential community benefit from the proposal.

For Mirvac to be successful in achieving their development vision they will need to purchase Council owned land. Some of this land is currently classified as community land. If the proposal proceeds Council must reclassify this land to Operational. It is recommended that the decision to reclassify this land be undertaken when the matter is again reported to Council after all the studies and public consultation have been undertaken. This is intended to occur in the second half of the year.

The project has been scoped as having a capital value in the range of $80-120M and the potential to create 1000 additional jobs. Council officers have participated in discussions with Mirvac on the basis that there is an opportunity to advance the strategic planning direction as documented in the adopted St Marys Town Centre Strategy and at the same time maximise the potential to revitalise Queen Street.

Introduction

In 2006 Council adopted the St Marys Town Centre Strategy (the Strategy) following extensive community consultation. Mirvac, who owns the St Marys Village Shopping Centre, made submissions to Council with regard to the draft Strategy and the future potential for expansion of its shopping centre. Council adopted the St Marys Town Centre Strategy that would enable an eastern expansion of the existing shopping centre to encourage improved pedestrian connectivity to Queen Street. It was understood at the time that to achieve pedestrian connectivity to Queen Street via Mirvac’s shopping centre expansion it would be necessary to reconfigure and /or redevelop public open space to the east of the existing shopping centre, notably Lang Park and Kokoda Park.

Utilising this strategy, the zones and development controls for St Marys Town Centre were subsequently adopted by Council and came into effect in 2010 (Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith DCP 2010). These plans underpin the adopted strategic directions with a mixed use business zone (B4 Mixed Use) applying over all of the St Marys Town Centre and appropriate development controls to encourage integration of land uses over the private and public domains.

Arising from recent discussions with Mirvac, a project program has been drawn up to guide the actions required to advance the preparation of a master plan pertaining to the redevelopment site and land in the vicinity.

Mirvac’s Position

In the preliminary discussions that have been held, Mirvac provided a clear signal that they are keen to participate with Council on the analysis of their proposal and resolution of the identified matters, with a view to contributing to the St Marys Town Centre vision.

To achieve this vision, Mirvac representatives stated that there is a real need to refurbish the centre and that Mirvac has programmed this project for delivery, provided certain milestones are met. Mirvac’s development objectives for this project are to-

· strengthen the retail offer by the introduction a new Discount Department Store and a new Supermarket

· integrate the proposed redevelopment with St Marys Town Centre with strong pedestrian connections and activated edges to a new “Town Square”

· provide an entertainment and dining based precinct adjacent to a new ‘Town Square”

· improve the existing fashion offer by the introduction of higher quality and younger brands

· acquire additional adjoining land (from Council) to expand the existing centre toward Queen Street.

Mirvac have provided early-phase indicative ‘block diagrams’ of the possible extent of a staged building footprint for an expanded St Marys Village shopping centre. It should be noted that these block diagrams are a first step only and require considerable further examination, particularly in regard to how public lands would be used or replaced. Mirvac’s block diagram is appended to this report as Appendix 1.

Matters for Consideration

Studies

The proposed redevelopment of the St Marys Shopping Village has major implications for the St Marys businesses and the community. Support for Mirvac’s proposal will have regard for the following investigations -

· the economic impact of the proposed increased retail floor space on business activities in St Marys (including Station Street Plaza) and the net community benefit of the proposal

· the changes to traffic movements in and around the St Marys business district resulting from an expanded St Marys Village shopping centre and the opportunity to resolve existing traffic shortcomings in the locality

· the impacts of a redevelopment of the St Marys Village shopping centre on the stormwater infrastructure in the locality as well as obtaining expert advice regarding any necessary upgrading of this infrastructure.

Study briefs are currently being prepared by Council officers so that independent consultants can be engaged to undertake the economic, traffic and stormwater studies.

Once the studies have been completed there will be a clearer understanding of the impact and positive benefits of Mirvac’s redevelopment proposal. Mirvac wrote to Council on the 20^th March 2013 advising:

We also advise that as well as dedicating resources and time to this project we are also committing funds as requested by Council officers in a number of areas being:

· An economic impact assessment;

· Traffic engineering report;

· Stormwater assessment;

· Part funding Council’s contracted planning resource for this project.

Material Public Benefit (MPB)

There needs to be an identification of appropriate material public benefit commensurate with the commercial benefits arising from the redevelopment of the shopping centre over public land. Matters for consideration are –

· identifying the principles for MPB (for example quantification of replacement public lands utilised)

· ensuring that MPBs are consistent with and achieve Council’s endorsed Town Centre Strategy for St Marys

· clear benefits arise for the community

· development provides a clear attractor for investment opportunities, visitation rates for the St Marys Town Centre.

These issues will be examined in detail in the economic impact study.

Consultation

Stakeholder consultation is a very important part of the planning process leading to the preparation of a master plan for the area subject to the shopping centre redevelopment.

Council endorsement is required for the early participation of stakeholders in the process.

Program and Timing

Based on the outcomes of the studies and the stakeholder consultation the proposal may, over time, be refined or redefined. The information gained from the studies and stakeholder consultation will, if appropriate, be used to prepare a masterplan. The masterplan will show a revised shopping centre footprint, new traffic arrangements and reconfigured public open space as well as any other MPBs that may be delivered through the project. A draft project program is appended to this report as Appendix 2.

Probity Issues

A probity plan has been be prepared to administer the governance of Council’s planning function and its property management function and to isolate the management of these distinct functions.

Property Development Manager’s Comments:

The reclassification of land classified as “community” to operational involves an LEP process with public notification of not less than 28 days in which submissions can be made.

After the close of the exhibition period a public hearing chaired by an independent person must also be held with a minimum of 21 days notice of the hearing. Adequate time should be allowed for the public to inspect the draft LEP and for any submissions to be assessed prior to the public hearing being held. The independent Chair is to provide a written report of the public hearing.

The discharge of any trust, dedication, conditions, restrictions or covenants etc is to be included in the LEP and the LEP can also include a rezoning of the land if required.

After consideration of submissions and the public hearing, Council then resolves whether or not to reclassify the land as operational.

The reclassification process will not commence until the masterplan proposal has been considered and Council has resolved to proceed.

The study and possible reclassification will also consider carparking lands owned by Council that could also contribute to the revitalisation of Queen Street and St Marys Town Centre generally.

Road Closure

Kokoda Place, St Marys is currently an unused paper road which adjoins the St Marys Village Shopping Centre and Council’s adjacent Community & Operational Lands. The location of this parcel of land is shown in a map appended to this report as Appendix 3. This parcel of land has no utility as a public road and it is recommended that this stub of public road be closed. The closure of this small portion of road will not prejudice the outcome of the planning studies and public consultation but will enable the land to be used for either community or commercial uses in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act (1993).

Kokoda Place was originally part of Crana Street, St Marys but was partly closed as a public road by Council many years ago and sold of to allow construction of the Village Shopping Centre and its car park. Part of this original public road was not wanted and left unused.

Where it is determined that there is no impediment to the closure of an unused public road it can be legally closed and offered for sale to the adjoining property owners or consolidated with adjoining land or used by Council as required for public use.

Council does not have the authority to legally close a public road however it can resolve to legally close it by application to the Department of Primary Industry - Crown Lands Division for approval to have a public road permanently closed under The Roads Act 1993, Part 4, Division 1, Section 34.

If the proposed road is vested in Council then upon permanent road closure Council can deal with it by consolidation, sale to adjoining owners of land or use it for public purpose.

If a public road is vested in the Crown then Council will have no interest in the land when it is permanently closed.

Once the road closure is approved and finalised by Crown Lands, Kokoda Place would vest in Council, as it has been maintained by Council. Road closures can be time consuming and it is recommended that the process to close this small section of road be commenced immediately.

Conclusion

A clear sequence of steps and considerations have emerged in relation to the development proposal:

1. Qualified approval being given to Mirvac that the public land can be considered for the development (zoned commercial, surplus and current users or public intention can be dealt with).

2. Understanding that the acquisition terms will be commercial.

3. The project is conceptual until the master planning defines the development format and footprint and the works required to offset the impact of the development in the precinct.

4. Stakeholder consultation will be undertaken as part of the development of the draft masterplan.

5. The consultation program will involve both Council and stakeholders at key points. Those stakeholders will include the St Marys Town Centre Management Corporation, St Marys Band Club, St Marys Public School, current users of the public land and nearby residents. A complete list will be finalised as part of the consultation program.

6. Report to Council outlining the outcomes of the studies and stakeholder consultation, the rationale behind the masterplan and whether to proceed with the reclassification of certain parcels of land to enable redevelopment to occur in accordance with the masterplan.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on St Marys Village Precinct Development be received.

2. Council give its qualified approval to:

· the preparation of a masterplan over public land

· the undertaking of studies relating to economic, traffic and parking, and stormwater impacts, and

· extensive stakeholder consultation

for the redevelopment of the St Marys Village Shopping Centre.

3. The outcomes of the studies, stakeholder consultation and masterplan preparation, be reported to Council seeking direction on the next steps for the project.

4. Council submit an application recommending to the Department of Primary Industry (Crown Lands Division) that a permanent legal closure of the remaining part of Kokoda Place, St Marys be approved.

5. Following approval and legal closure of Kokoda Place, St Marys it be consolidated with adjoining land.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Mirvac St Marys Proposal 2013 Block Diagram	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	St Marys Village Precinct Development Work Program	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	Mirvac St Marys Location Map	1 Page	Appendix

Policy Review Committee Meeting 15 April 2013

Appendix 2 - St Marys Village Precinct Development Work Program

St Marys Village Precinct Development Work Program

Tasks	Feb	March	April	May	June	July

Meeting with MIRVAC and Council Officers	*	*	*	*	*	*

Preparation of briefing report to Council

MIRVAC to address Council	*

Preparation of report to Economic Opportunities Working Party

Economic Opportunities Working Party Meeting		*

Preparation of report to Council on work program, Masterplan and planning proposal

Council Policy Review Meeting 15 April 2013			*

Stakeholder consultation

Commercial impact study - Preparation of brief

Commercial impact study - Undertaking of study

Traffic impact study - Preparation of brief

Traffic impact study - Undertaking of study

Drainage Study – Preparation of Brief

Drainage Study – Undertaking of study

Urban design collaboration (PCC and MIRVAC)

Preparation of Shopping Village Precinct Masterplan

Preparation of Planning Proposal Documentation

Preparation of report to Council to exhibit Masterplan and Planning Proposal

Council Policy Review Meeting 8 July2013						*

Policy Review Committee Meeting 15 April 2013

A Leading City

Badgerys Creek Airport Site

Compiled by: Amanda McMurtrie, Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, Strategic Planning Manager

Requested By: Councillor John Thain

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

In February of this year, the WSROC Board considered the issue of Sydney’s Airport Needs and Western Sydney. It was resolved at that meeting that, should the Wilton option be ruled out, WSROC would undertake consultation to determine the views of Western Sydney residents towards building a second airport at Badgerys Creek.

This report provides a summary of background consideration of the Badgerys Creek site for a second Sydney airport.

Successive Commonwealth and State governments have grappled with the need for additional aviation capacity in the Sydney region to supplement the existing Kingsford Smith Airport since the 1940s. This ongoing proposition has been driven by concerns of how to accommodate the aviation capacity of a swiftly growing city.

Following the Commonwealth – State governments Committee’s Major Airport Needs of Sydney Study (MANS) in the 1970s, Badgerys Creek was nominated in the 1980s by the Commonwealth Government as its preferred site for Sydney’s second airport. Penrith Council at that time supported the concept of a supplementary airport at Badgerys Creek. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), with the exception of Holroyd, also supported the proposal.

In the lead up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, a very different proposal for the development of a second airport at Badgerys Creek emerged. Council had a number of serious concerns regarding the scale and impacts of the new proposal and formed an opposition alliance with nine other councils and community groups from North Western, Western and South Western Sydney. WSROC, with the exception of Liverpool Council, also opposed a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek or elsewhere within the Sydney basin.

Following overwhelming public opposition to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process undertaken in the late 1990s, and in part also in response to a reassessment of the capacity and potential of Sydney’s existing airport the Commonwealth Government in 2000 deferred making a decision about a second airport in Sydney.

In 2012 the Commonwealth and State Governments initiated a ‘Joint Study on Aviation Capacity in the Sydney Region’ to investigate options to meet growing demand. This Study identified Badgerys Creek as the best option, followed by Wilton. In its 2012-13 Budget the Commonwealth Government announced its intention to begin a more detailed investigation of the suitability of Wilton as a second airport site for Sydney, while ensuring that Sydney Airport Corporation continued to invest in the existing airport.

The Commonwealth Government has stated that it supports the concept of a second airport for Sydney, but is awaiting the outcome of the Wilton investigation before it makes a decision. The State Government has stated that it strongly opposes another airport being built in the Sydney Basin, favouring increasing capacity at Kingsford Smith and building a high-speed rail connection between Sydney and Canberra Airport.

In light of the above positions by the Commonwealth and State governments it seemed premature for WSROC to be discussing the option of a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek – especially when this was unaccompanied by factual accounts of the social, economic and environmental benefits and shortcomings of such an option. For these reasons, Penrith Council representatives voted against WSROC’s motion.

Background

First proposal for Badgerys Creek as a secondary airport

In 1985, a site selection EIS for the Second Sydney Airport was undertaken. The EIS considered ten possible locations for a second airport. Two of the sites were evaluated in detail, these being Wilton and Badgerys Creek. In 1986 the Commonwealth government selected Badgerys Creek as the preferred site for Sydney’s second airport and the required property acquisition and preparatory works commenced. Between 1986 and 1991 1,700 hectares of land were acquired by the Commonwealth Government. Kingsford Smith Airport was to remain the principal airport for Sydney.

The airport proposed at that time was seen as one which would operate as an overflow facility to Kingsford Smith Airport, with time curfew restrictions and limits on the range of aircraft capacity. Council supported this airport proposal at the time because of the limited nature of its operation and the positive economic impact it would bring to Western Sydney. The support was qualified in that any airport would need to operate within the environmental constraints of the South Creek Valley. At that point in time all WSROC Councils, excluding Holroyd, supported this Badgerys Creek option.

Noise restrictions on development (particularly residential) in the surrounding areas, including parts of the Penrith LGA, were established to protect the future potential of this site. Council was provided with a noise contour map, which showed where development must be restricted and where development would require additional sound proofing. Council’s local planning instruments continue to reflect these restrictions.

The decision in 1989 to construct the third runway at Kingsford Smith Airport enabled deferral of a decision on Sydney’s second airport at that time.

1996 Proposal – Curfew free airport capable of handling domestic and international traffic

Sydney’s winning bid for the Olympics in 1993 caused the Commonwealth Government to reconsider Sydney’s aviation capacity, leading to an announcement of funding in 1995 for Badgerys Creek Airport in an effort to have the airport operational in time for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. In early 1996, the Commonwealth Government commissioned consultants to prepare a draft EIS for a curfew free airport capable of handling domestic and international traffic.

In 1996 Penrith Council objected to this airport given that the scale of the airport that was then being proposed was such that the region could not accommodate it without an unacceptable impact on the character, air and water quality of the area, and on the health and wellbeing of the population. These changes would bring environmental impacts far greater than those identified in the 1985 EIS. The initial 1985 site selection exercise was based on the premise that the airport would be a secondary airport and mainly cater for any overload in demand from Sydney International Airport. The original site selection exercise did not conceive a major, curfew free international airport, rivalling the capacity of Sydney International Airport.

The Western Sydney Alliance (the Alliance) was formed in 1997 to oppose the proposal for a second international airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek. The Alliance included the Mayors, Councils and associated community groups of ten Western and South Western Sydney Local Government Areas and WSROC. The Alliance opposed the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek, or anywhere else in the Sydney basin, as being environmentally, operationally and economically unsustainable. WSROC members, excluding Liverpool, supported the Alliance position at this time.

In December 2000, the Commonwealth Government announced that it had deferred the decision on a second airport for Sydney for further consideration in 2005.

During that time, the Alliance still maintained an active campaign of opposition to the Badgerys Creek airport proposal in partnership with community groups. The main focus of the Alliance at that time was to convince the government to undertake a promised review of Sydney’s airport needs in 2005, with the objective being the removal of the formal reservation of the Badgerys Creek site as an airport site under the Airports Act 1996. The Alliance believed that removal of the increasing uncertainty surrounding the Badgerys Creek Airport matter was of vital importance to the future of Western Sydney.

The Alliance continued to monitor all issues relevant to the airport and related transport options up until 2010 when it finally concluded.

Current Situation

In early 2009, the Commonwealth Government approved Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport's 2009 Master Plan, while at the same time noting that its long term forecasts were further evidence that Sydney will require new airport capacity and that a second airport in Sydney was required. The Commonwealth Government invited the State Government at that time to participate in a joint study to assess options, identify potential sites and evaluate investment strategies for delivering additional airport capacity. The joint study was to look at ways of providing integrated transport solutions for the existing airport as well as consider any second airport. It was also to consider the future of the Badgerys Creek site given the Government had ruled it out as an option for a second airport. The Study was overseen by an independent Steering Committee of government and industry experts.

In December 2009 the National Aviation Policy White Paper – Flight Path to the Future was released by the Commonwealth Government. It suggested initial usage of RAAF Richmond as a Second Sydney Airport, ruled out Badgerys Creek and committed to the airport capacity needs joint study.

The Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the Sydney Region (the Study) was released in 2012. Selected recommendations made by the Steering Committee included that Sydney will begin to need a second airport by 2030 and that Badgerys Creek is the best greenfield site for an additional major Regular Public Transport airport, followed by Wilton. The Study also maintains that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will continue to be the most important airport for the Sydney region and for Australia, both for passengers and freight.

The Commonwealth Government’s response to this document was to reiterate that they would not build an airport at Badgerys Creek. Instead they would begin a scoping study to assess the impact and viability of an airport at Wilton.

The State Government has stated that it would not support a second major airport for the Sydney Basin. As of February 2013, the Commonwealth Government supports the concept of a second Sydney airport, but is awaiting the outcome of the Wilton investigation before it makes a decision.

At the WSROC Board meeting held on 21 February 2013, the Board considered the matter of Sydney’s Airport Needs and Western Sydney. In relation to that matter, it was resolved:

“That in relation to the second Sydney Airport, it is recommended that if the Wilton option is ruled out, WSROC undertakes extensive consultation with Western Sydney communities to gauge community attitudes on the Badgerys Creek option”.

It was also noted in the minutes of that meeting that representatives from Penrith, Blue Mountains and Fairfield opposed this resolution.

Conclusion

Having its origins as a supplementary airport in 1985, Badgerys Creek was generally supported by Council and WSROC. When the scale of the proposal changed significantly, Council became concerned about the impacts on the community and formed an alliance with other Western Sydney Councils and community groups to oppose an airport at Badgerys Creek or anywhere else in the Sydney Basin.

There is no doubt that to support Sydney’s growth and its role in the Asia-Pacific region, it will be critical to address Sydney’s aviation capacity in the near future. Given the long lead times required to plan, fund and deliver such a major piece of infrastructure, decisions on how and where an additional airport will be provided will need to be made sooner rather than later.

The communities and their representatives and local councils will only be in a position to undertake a balanced consideration of the case for or against another major airport for Sydney when such a concept is designed and its impacts are scoped and opened up to public scrutiny.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Badgerys Creek Airport Site be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Policy Review Committee Meeting 15 April 2013

A Leading City

Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan

Compiled by: Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Planner

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, Strategic 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

§ Over the past few years Council has been developing a single comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in two stages. Stage 1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre. Stage 1 of the LEP was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010. Stage 2 (Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP) generally covers all residential areas and local retail/commercial centres.

§ At its Ordinary Meeting of 19 November 2012, Council endorsed the Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a revised Gateway Determination.

§ On 2 April 2013, Council received the revised Gateway Determination. In particular, the Gateway Determination requires a policy change to the Planning Proposal in relation to the zoning of the E2 Environmental Conservation Land at Castlereagh. The Gateway Determination advises that the Department does not support Council’s position to apply an E2 zone over those lands granted to the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) at Castlereagh. Instead, Council is directed to either zone the lands to an appropriate rural zone which best translates the existing zone or defer the lands from the LEP altogether.

§ The purpose of this report is to advise Councillors of the details of the Gateway Determination, including the Department’s reasons for not supporting the E2 zone at this stage, and to seek Council’s endorsement to defer the lands as shown in Appendix 1 from Stage 2 of the City-wide LEP.

Background

Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to prepare a new City-wide LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP). The new City-wide LEP must comply with the Government’s Standard Instrument Template for LEPs.

At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2005, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive LEP for the City, which has been brought forward in two stages as follows:

v Stage 1 generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items. Stage 1 of the LEP was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.

v Stage 2 primarily covers the residential, local/neighbourhood centres, and release areas. Stage 2, known as Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP, also incorporates a number of specific rezoning proposals and adopted or gazetted LEPs.

The Stage 2 Planning Proposal for the majority of sites proposes a direct translation of the existing planning controls into the Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next five years.

The Stage 2 Planning Proposal also includes a number of site-specific ‘rezoning’ proposals, ‘deferred’ matters from Penrith LEP 2010 and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone is proposed.

Further, the Planning Proposal includes a number of recently adopted or gazetted LEPs. These include the release area LEPs (Glenmore Park Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), Penrith City Centre LEP 2008, Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage Conservation).

At its Ordinary Meeting of 19 November 2012, Council endorsed the Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a revised Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the Act. The Planning Proposal was subsequently submitted to the Department on 14 December 2012. While Council anticipated a Gateway Determination by 1 February 2013, in accordance with the agreed timeframe to meet the Minister’s deadline, Council has only now received that determination on 2 April 2013. A copy of the determination is appended to this report (Appendix 2).

E2 Environmental Conservation Land, Castlereagh

The E2 Environmental Conservation land at Castlereagh refers to those land holdings granted to the DLALC, which were proposed to be zoned as E2 in Stage 1 of the City-wide LEP, but were subsequently deferred for further consideration in Stage 2 (the E2 lands). These land holdings are shown in Appendix 1.

At its Ordinary Meeting of 19 November 2012, Council resolved, in relation to the E2 lands, that:

“1. The suggested positions for the focus areas, as outlined in Table B1, and for the remainder of the land holdings be endorsed for further discussion with the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Office of Environment and Heritage. [The suggested positions are that 5 of the 8 focus areas be zoned RU4 Primary Production Small Lots with Natural Resource Sensitive Land Hatching, and the remaining land holdings be zoned E2 with some additional compatible uses, such as eco-tourist facilities and information and education facilities, permitted with consent].

2. The suggested positions for the focus areas and the remainder of the land holdings be included in the Planning Proposal delivering Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan only as an interim position subject to the outcome of discussions with the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Office of Environment and Heritage”.

Council further resolved to “seek urgent discussions between the Office of Environment and Heritage, Deerubbin Aboriginal Land Council and Penrith City Council regarding potential State Government acquisition of the remaining bulk of the proposed E2 zoned land owned by the Deerubbin Aboriginal Land Council in Castlereagh and … seek the support of the Local Member to facilitate these discussions”.

On 21 January 2013, senior officers from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Council, representatives of the DLALC and officers of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure met for initial discussions on the future zoning and management of the E2 lands, including the potential for voluntary acquisition of part or all of the lands through the Growth Centres Conservation Fund. At the meeting, it was acknowledged that any proposed management of the E2 lands within the Priority Conservation Lands under the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan must take into account the aspirations and objectives of the DLALC as a result of its successful land claim under the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. Given the complexity of the issue and the bearing it may have on the ultimate zoning of the lands, it was agreed that a specific priority project be undertaken by the OEH to examine, with the DLALC, the means by which the DLALC could benefit from the State Government’s full range of biodiversity management and conservation programs for the Priority Conservation Lands (including acquisition, if appropriate).

Following that meeting, the OEH has written to the DLALC providing a package of information on available conservation mechanisms for further discussion. The OEH has advised, however, that outright acquisition of all of the E2 lands is not a financially feasible option.

During discussions with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure prior to the issue of the Gateway Determination, Council officers received verbal advice indicating that the Department was intending to require the application of a rural zone over the E2 lands as a direct translation of the current zone. In response to this advice, the Mayor wrote to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure expressing concern about this requirement and requesting an urgent meeting with the Minister and the Director General. Council argued that a direct translation is not considered appropriate as it would be inconsistent with the recommendations of the OEH and the requirement to have regard to the Priority Conservation Lands when preparing LEPs. It would also predetermine the outcomes of the priority project agreed to at the meeting of 21 January 2013.

Council received a response from the Minister on 27 March 2013. The response includes the following statements:

“… at this stage the information provided to justify the application of an E2 zone is not sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, Council has been required to either translate the existing zoning controls to a zone similar to the existing zone or defer the land from the LEP”.

“… it remains important the Cumberland Plain Woodland (sic) Recovery Plan be reflected in Penrith’s local planning instrument. I therefore encourage Council, the Land Council and relevant Government agencies to continue working towards identifying a mutually agreeable outcome which ensures both the … Recovery Plan and the objectives of the Land Council can be realised”.

“ … When a clearer path forward for the subject land at Castlereagh is determined, a future amendment that provides a clear evidence base for the proposed zoning can be instigated. I do not wish for the complexities of this matter to create further and ongoing delays to the implementation of Council’s LEP”.

The Gateway Determination further states “It is Government policy that the use of restrictive environmental zones is only applied to land that can be strategically justified and supported by relevant studies. Without this ground-truthed supporting documentation, an environmental zone can not be supported at this time”.

While it is acknowledged that all of the E2 lands have not been “ground-truthed”, there have been a number of studies undertaken which identify the high conservation values of the E2 lands and support their inclusion as Priority Conservation Lands in the Recovery Plan. These studies include:

· 1997 – Council’s Fauna and Flora Corridors Study – prepared by Land and Environmental Planning – review of previous studies, collation and review of fauna and flora records, including environmental impact statements, consultation with relevant State authorities and adjoining councils, and review of land use information.

· 1997 – National Parks and Wildlife Service’s (NPWS) Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey – survey of selected vegetation remnants across 12 local government areas in Western Sydney.

· 2002 - NPWS’s Native Vegetation Maps of the Cumberland Plain – systematic survey, classification, modelling and mapping of native vegetation communities across the Cumberland Plain.

· 2005 – Council’s Penrith Vegetation Mapping and Conservation Significance Assessment – prepared by Eco Logical Australia – review and extension of NPWS’s native vegetation maps – interpretation of aerial photography with some field validation.

· 2010 – Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water’s (DECCW) Ecological Assessment of the DLALC lands in the Stage 2 Planning Proposal – review of previous studies including:

o NPWS’s Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey (1997);

o Council’s Vegetation Mapping and Conservation Significance Assessment (2005);

o Department of Environment and Conservation’s Western Sydney fauna survey - rapid fauna assessment (2005);

o Scientific Committee and C. C. Simpson’s Update of NPWS’s native vegetation maps (2008); and

o DECCW’s Identification of Priority Conservation Lands (2008).

· 2010 – DLALC’s Identification and Assessment of Deerubbin LALC lands in proposed E2 zoning – prepared by Eco Logical Australia – initial desktop review of previous studies and targeted rapid assessment of focus areas.

Further advice will be sought from the Department on the extent of the additional work required to justify an E2 zone. The Gateway Determination notes that the Department has commissioned a review of the application of the E2 zone and expects that this will provide clear guidance regarding the application of E2 zones.

Nevertheless, applying a translated rural zone to all of the E2 lands is not an appropriate option as it would be inconsistent with the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan (implementation of which is a priority in the recently released Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney), as well as the advice of the OEH and the background technical studies already undertaken. It could also compromise ongoing discussions between the DLALC and the OEH and the opportunity to conserve one of the largest remnants of intact native vegetation on the Cumberland Plain.

The preferred option is to defer all of the land that is granted to DLALC at Castlereagh as shown in Appendix 1. Deferring these lands would allow the discussions between the DLALC and the OEH to continue. It would also provide the opportunity to undertake further studies required to provide a “clear evidence base” for any proposed zoning. Importantly, it would enable the bulk of the LEP to proceed, allowing other major regional city scaled projects, such as the Penrith Health and Education Precinct, to progress. Zoning of the E2 lands would then need to proceed as a separate Planning Proposal.

Other Matters Arising from the Gateway Determination

There are a number of other matters that have arisen from the Gateway Determination. Some of the significant matters are listed below:

1. Penrith Lakes Scheme: Following earlier advice from the Department, Council’s original intention was to apply a direct translation of the existing planning controls into the Standard Instrument for this land. The Department has now instructed Council to exclude the Penrith Lakes land (until such time as the current master planning process being undertaken by the Office of Penrith Lakes is further advanced). Council has previously been required to exclude other land including land covered by “State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009” and “Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 30—St Marys”. The SEPP (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 does not zone the land but allows development for the purpose of implementing the Lakes Scheme and for recreation.

2. The Waterside Estate (additional residential zoning): The Department has requested some additional information post exhibition on flooding, certain Ministerial (section 117) directions and land contamination.

3. The Riverlink Precinct: The Department has requested some additional information post exhibition on flooding.

4. Penrith Panthers Planning Proposal: The Department has required that the Planning Proposal must be amended to reflect the provisions and planning outcomes of Penrith Panthers Planning Proposal. The issue with this requirement is that Council officers are still negotiating the drafting of the instrument with Parliamentary Counsel and the current clauses are not appropriate to be included in the Planning Proposal. Council officers will continue liaison with the Department of Planning to resolve this requirement. In the interim, Council and DP&I officers have agreed that it is premature to include any draft written instrument and mapping related to the proposed Panthers redevelopment. It is agreed that this matter is subject to a separate Planning Proposal and should run its own course.

Public Exhibition

The Gateway Determination requires that the Stage 2 Planning Proposal is to be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days (4 weeks). However, in accordance with Council’s resolution of 19 November 2012, and as supported by the Minister in his letter of 16 January 2013, the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for 8 weeks. It is intended to carry out a range of tasks to support the public exhibition, including:

1. Media releases

2. Notification advertisements in relevant newspapers

3. Weekly newspaper articles

4. Notification letters to all property owners and tenants in the LGA

5. Notification letters to public agencies

6. Information and fact sheets on understanding the LEP, zones, how to have a say, etc.

7. An online mapping system for individuals to obtain information (zones, heights, FSRs, etc.) about their property

8. Pro-forma for making submissions.

9. Availability of staff at Penrith and St Marys to answer public enquiries.

Documents will be available on Council’s website and at four exhibition venues.

The Department has advised that Council should aim to start the exhibition within 4 weeks. However, the Policy Review Committee needs to make a policy decision regarding the DLALC holdings in Castlereagh at tonight’s meeting and this needs to be ratified at the Ordinary Meeting of 29 April 2013. Given this and the lead-in time for placing advertisements and mailing notification letters, exhibition would not be able to commence until 13 May 2013. While this is outside the Department’s requirements, this timeframe is necessary to ensure the Planning Proposal reflects Council’s policy position and a proper community consultation process is followed.

Penrith Urban Study and Strategy

At its Ordinary Meeting of 29 November 2010, Council endorsed the Penrith Urban Study and draft Penrith Urban Strategy for community consultation and that the matter be reported back to Council after consideration of submissions received as a result of community consultation.

As part of the separate integrated planning and reporting process, the new Penrith City Strategy now incorporates all Council’s previously adopted and current draft strategies including the draft Penrith Urban Strategy. The City Strategy will be a supporting information document for Council’s corporate planning documents (such as the Community Strategic Plan, four year Delivery Program etc.) when they are publicly exhibited from 3 May 2013, prior to the start of the exhibition for Stage 2 LEP. Therefore, it is now only necessary for the Penrith Urban Study and Strategy to be exhibited as a background document to the Planning Proposal for Stage 2 LEP.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan be received.

2. Council defer the lands as shown in Appendix 1 from Stage 2 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan (to allow further negotiations with the State Government to reach its conclusion) and amend the Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan accordingly.

3. Penrith Urban Study and Strategy be exhibited as a background document to the Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Map showing E2 Environmental Conservation Land, Castlereagh	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Gateway Determination - Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP (Stage 2)	6 Pages	Appendix