Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 30 September 2013

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 2 September, 2013

PRESENT

Michael Alderton – Road Network Services Engineer (Chairperson), Wayne Mitchell – Executive Manager Environment & City Development, Councillor Marcus Cornish, Senior Constable Mark Elliott – St Marys Police, Sergeant Matt Shirvington – Penrith Police, James Suprain – Roads & Maritime Services, Daniel Davidson – Road Safety Co‑ordinator, David Drozd – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes - Senior Traffic Officer, Mark Cremona – Development Engineer, Bernie Meier – Acting Engineering Co-ordinator, Martin Warda – Trainee Engineer, James Koro - Trainee

IN ATTENDANCE

Steve Grady – Busways

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM, Councillor Karen McKeown, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 5 August 2013

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 5 August 2013 were confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

1 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Heights - Request for Provision of Additional Signage

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Old Bathurst Road, Emu Heights - Request for Provision of Additional Signage be received.

2. Community consultation and notification be undertaken with affected residents regarding the installation of the new signage, and any substantial objections be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

3. Subject to no substantial objections being received, four advisory signs be placed along Old Bathurst Road and Russell Street, advising that “Old Bathurst Road past Gosling Street is not suitable for trucks, buses, caravans or trailers over 7.5m or 3.5T – detour via Russell Street and M4 motorway”, using a mixture of graphics and text.

4. Subject to no substantial objections being received, two regulatory signs stating “Trucks Prohibited” with 3.5T and over 7.5m restrictions, be installed on Old Bathurst Road, Emu Heights, near the Gosling Street intersection.

5. Two redundant “Trucks Prohibited” signs be removed; one 200m east of Wedmore Road, Emu Heights and the other 60m west of Glen Road, Blaxland.

6. Blue Mountains City Council be advised of Council’s resolution.

7. Affected residents be advised of Council’s resolution.

2 St Marys Town Centre - Proposed "Mixed Traffic" Lanes within High Pedestrian Activity Area

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on St Marys Town Centre - Proposed "Mixed Traffic" Lanes within High Pedestrian Activity Area be received

2. Bicycle logos (PS-2) be implemented in the St Marys Town Centre in the following streets, in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services’ “NSW Bicycle Guidelines”, approximately every 100m as practical, in each direction of travel:

· Charles Hackett Drive, between entry blister at West Lane and Queen Street;

· Belar Street, between entry signage at West Lane and Queen Street;

· Nariel Street, between entry signage at West Lane and Queen Street;

· Station Street, between entry blister at bus interchange and Queen Street;

· Phillip Street, between pedestrian crossing at Coles entry and Queen Street;

· Chapel Street, between entry blister at East Lane and Queen Street;

· King Street, between entry blister at East Lane and Queen Street;

· Crana Street, between entry signage and Queen Street;

· Queen Street, between Station Street and entry blister at Great Western Highway; and

· East Lane.

3. Funding be made available through the revoted funds for the 2012/13 St Marys High Pedestrian Activity Area Scheme.

4. The Roads and Maritime Services be advised of Council’s resolution.

5. St Marys Town Centre Management Inc, St Marys Police, Westbus and Busways be advised of Council’s resolution.

3 Reddan Avenue, Penrith - Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Reddan Avenue, Penrith - Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions be received.

2. “No Stopping” restrictions outside property number 1 Reddan Avenue, Penrith, on the eastern side, be reduced to a distance of 10m from the intersection of Stafford Street and Reddan Avenue.

3. “No Parking” restrictions be provided outside property number 1 Reddan Avenue, Penrith for a length of 10m immediately following the “No Stopping” restrictions.

4. The resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

4 Nepean Street, Emu Plains - Provision of Pedestrian Refuge for Proposed Shared-Use Path

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Nepean Street, Emu Plains - Provision of Pedestrian Refuge for Proposed Shared-Use Path be received.

2. The Concept Plan prepared by SMEC Urban, numbered 77765.01.CC023, Rev C, dated 15/08/2013 for a pedestrian refuge in Nepean Street, at Great Western Highway, Emu Plains, be endorsed for final design preparation.

3. The property owners and/or residents of house numbers 2 and 8 Nepean Street, and house number 45 Imperial Avenue, Emu Plains be advised of the proposal and Council’s resolution.

4. As part of the final design preparation, Council’s Public Domain Co‑ordinator be requested to obtain a lighting assessment to ensure compliance with minimum lighting standards is achieved.

5. The final design and any comments received from affected residents be presented to the Local Traffic Committee for endorsement and future construction when funding is available.

5 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains - Proposed Relocation of Existing Bus Shelter with New Kerb Alignment for Proposed Shared-Use Path

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Great Western Highway, Emu Plains - Proposed Relocation of Existing Bus Shelter with New Kerb Alignment for Proposed Shared-Use Path be received.

2. The Concept Plan prepared by SMEC Urban, numbered 77765.01.CC021, dated 08/08/13 for the relocation of the bus shelter and kerb realignment in Great Western Highway, Emu Plains, be endorsed for final design preparation.

6 Cary Street, Emu Plains - Provision of Pedestrian Refuge for Proposed Shared-Use Path

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Cary Street, Emu Plains - Provision of Pedestrian Refuge for Proposed Shared-Use Path be received.

2. The concept (prepared by PCC, dated August 2013) for a pedestrian refuge in Cary Street, at the Great Western Highway, Emu Plains, be endorsed for final design preparation.

3. Consultation be conducted with property owners/residents of house numbers 1, 3 and 5 Cary Street, Emu Plains regarding provision of a pedestrian refuge for the proposed shared-use path in Cary Street, at the intersection with Great Western Highway, Emu Plains, and any substantial objections be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

4. As part of the final design preparation, Council’s Public Domain Co‑ordinator be requested to obtain a lighting assessment to ensure compliance with minimum lighting standards is achieved.

5. The final design and any comments received from affected residents be presented to the Local Traffic Committee for endorsement and future construction when funding is available.

7 Nariel Street, St Marys - Proposed Provision of Parking Restrictions

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Nariel Street, St Marys - Proposed Provision of Parking Restrictions be received.

2. The proposed provision of “No Parking” signs be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services for approval under the 1km restriction around a nominated railway station.

3. Residents of 67 Carinya Avenue, St Marys and 3 Nariel Street, St Marys be consulted regarding the proposal, and any substantial objections be referred back to Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

4. Subject to no substantial objections from the community consultation process, a 25m length of “No Parking” restrictions be temporarily installed along the side boundary of 67 Carinya Avenue and 3 Nariel Street, St Marys (southern side of Nariel Street).

5. Subject to approval from the Roads and Maritime Services, the proposed “No Parking” signage be made permanent.

6. St Marys Local Area Command be advised of Council’s resolution.

8 High Street, Penrith - "Triangle Park" Proposed Road Closure

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on High Street, Penrith - "Triangle Park" Proposed Road Closure be received.

2. Council and the Local Traffic Committee note the information.

9 Boundary Road & Cranebrook Road, Cranebrook - Proposed Provision of Median Island Stop Treatment

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Boundary Road & Cranebrook Road, Cranebrook - Proposed Provision of Median Island Stop Treatment be received.

2. The project to provide a Median Island Stop Treatment in Boundary Road at Cranebrook Road, Cranebrook be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Process. When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co‑ordinator be requested to prepare a design for the facility, with a further report submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for design plan finalisation and endorsement.

3. Councillor Thain and the resident be advised of Council’s resolution.

10 Mamre Road & McIntyre Avenue, St Clair - Design Plan Endorsement

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Mamre Road & McIntyre Avenue, St Clair - Design Plan Endorsement be received.

2. Design Plan AM 179 (dated August 2013) for a Median Island Stop Treatment (MIST) at the intersection of Mamre Road and McIntyre Ave, St Clair be endorsed for construction.

3. A lighting assessment be conducted for the intersection.

11 Reserve Street & Woodriff Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Median Island Stop Treatment

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Reserve Street & Woodriff Street, Penrith - Proposed Provision of Median Island Stop Treatment be received.

2. The project to provide a Median Island Stop Treatment at the intersection of Reserve Street and Woodriff Street, Penrith be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Process. When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co‑ordinator be requested to prepare a design for the facility, with a further report submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for design plan finalisation and endorsement.

3. The business owner be advised of Council’s resolution.

12 Traffic Facilities Prioritisation - Additional Project Entries

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Traffic Facilities Prioritisation - Additional Project Entries be received.

2. The projects listed in Table 1 be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Process. When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co-ordinator be requested to prepare a design for the facility, with a further report submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for design plan finalisation and endorsement.

3. Mrs Tanya Davies MP, Member for Mulgoa be advised of the project listing for Blackwell Avenue, St Clair.

4. A lighting assessment be conducted for all sites listed in Table 1.

13 Forrester Road, St Marys - Endorsement of Signage & Linemarking Plan

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Forrester Road, St Marys - Endorsement of Signage & Linemarking Plan be received.

2. The signage and linemarking plans prepared by van der Meer Consulting for Forrester Road, St Marys entry into Masters Home Improvements (Drawing No. C605, dated 2/8/2013 Rev 2), as amended in red, be endorsed for construction.

GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1 Somerset Street, Kingswood – Endorsement of Signage & Linemarking Plan (Raised Council)

Council officers have received signage and linemarking plans from Taylor Thomson Witting (TTW) Consulting Engineers for the Somerset Street, Kingswood roundabout, to access the new hospital multi-deck car park (Drawing No. NHCP-CV-C17 REV 05 dated 11.07.13). In summary, the plans provide a new roundabout at the intersection of Somerset Street and Hargrave Street, Kingswood. The new roundabout has been constructed and provides controlled access into the new multi-deck car park associated with Nepean Hospital.

At its Ordinary Meeting on 3 April 2006, Council resolved, on the recommendation of the Local Traffic Committee, that:

“….delegated authority be given to Council’s Road Network Services Engineer to sign off plans for approval, following concurrence from voting members of the Local Traffic Committee”.

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the signage and linemarking plans for the new roundabout on Somerset Street, Kingswood to access the new hospital multi-deck car park were referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and NSW Police for comments.

No objections were received from the RMS, however no comments had been received from the NSW Police representative at the time of writing this report. Comments from Police will be sought at the Local Traffic Committee meeting.

LTC Comment

At the meeting, the NSW Police representative raised no objections to the proposal.

RECOMMENDED

That the signage and linemarking plans prepared by Taylor Thomson Witting (TTW) Consulting Engineers for the Somerset Street, Kingswood roundabout to access the new hospital multi-deck car park (Drawing No. NHCP-CV-C17 REV 05 dated 11.07.13) be endorsed.

GB 2 Rance Road, Werrington – Endorsement of Signage & Linemarking Plan (Raised Council)

Council officers have received signage and linemarking plans from CAM Consulting for the provision of pedestrian kerb blisters on Rance Road, Werrington (Drawing No. C12205-E06 dated 28.06.13). The kerb blisters are provided to facilitate crossing between the existing footpath along Rance Road, and the new multi-unit housing development at 30‑34 Rance Road, Werrington.

The kerb blisters are to offset a minimum 2.5m from the kerb, thereby necessitating a minimum 7.5m of “No Stopping” restrictions either side. The blisters are set back sufficiently from driveway access swept paths, and a minimum 3.5m through lane is maintained along Rance Road. Existing double-barrier linemarking along Rance Road will not require alteration.

The kerb blister extensions will facilitate a safer crossing point for pedestrians and the subject signage and linemarking plans from CAM Consulting (Drawing No. C12205-E06 dated 28.06.13) are submitted for endorsement.

RECOMMENDED

That the signage and linemarking plans prepared by CAM Consulting for the provision of pedestrian kerb blisters on Rance Road, Werrington (Drawing No. C12205-E06 dated 28.06.13), with amendments as shown in red, be endorsed.

GB 3 Jordan Springs – Introduction of New Bus Route & Approval of New Bus Stops & Bus Zones (Raised Council)

Council has received a request from Busways for the introduction of a new bus service into Jordan Springs. The service is proposed as Route 783 which will run from Penrith Railway Station through to Mulgoa Road, further to Cranebrook Road, into the Waterside Estate, continue to Laycock Street through Cranebrook to Borrowdale Way, and access Jordan Springs via The Northern Road and Jordan Springs Boulevard.

The introduction of the service into Jordan Springs requires the creation of new bus stops and bus zones to service the route. It is proposed to provide nine new (bus stops and bus zones) locations to pick up and set down passengers along the new route.

The route is left into Jordan Springs Boulevard, left into Lakeside Parade, right into Cullen Avenue, left into Allinta Promenade, left into Lakeside Parade, right into Jordan Springs Boulevard and exit Jordan Springs, right onto The Northern Road.

The proposed locations of proposed new bus stops and bus zones are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1

Jordan Springs Bus Stops & Bus Zones

*Bus Stop No.*	*Road Name*	*Details*	*GPS X*	*GPS Y*
Jordan Springs
1	Jordan Springs Bvd	North side 34m west of McGarritys Pde	288930	6265700
2	Jordan Springs Bvd	North side approx 45m west of the prolongation of western kerb alignment of Lakeside Parade (30m Bus Zone)	289251	6265690
3	Cullen Avenue	North side at bridge 9.5m west of eastern pram ramp	289564	6265961
4	Allinta Promenade	West side 52m (TBC) north of Cullen Ave (30m Bus Zone)	289764	6266028
5	Greenwood Pkwy	South side 45m west of the prolongation of the western kerb alignment of Allinta Promenade	289723	6266269
6	Greenwood Pkwy	South side 50m east of the prolongation of eastern kerb alignment of Lakeside Pde	289332	6266224
7	Lakeside Parade	East side approx 45m north of the prolongation of the northern kerb alignment of Cullen Ave (30m Bus Zone)	289300	6265924
8	Jordan Springs Bvd	South side approx 75m west of the prolongation of western kerb alignment of Lakeside Pde (30m Bus Zone)	289222	6265671
9	Jordan Springs Bvd	South side 34m west of and opposite McGarritys Pde	288923	6265683

A map of the proposed service (Route 783) from Penrith to Jordan Springs via Waterside and Cranebrook was submitted to Council. Subsequently, Council officers and Busways staff conducted site assessments to determine site suitability for the proposed bus stop and bus zone locations. Busways advised that Transport for NSW intend to introduce the new service on 6 October 2013.

Council officers are liaising with the developer of the Jordan Springs estate regarding the implementation of bus stop infrastructure to ensure all new bus infrastructures within the estate comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT) and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The report recommends that documentary evidence be provided to Council, prior to the bus stops and bus zones becoming operational, that the approved bus stops and bus zones comply with the legislative requirements of the DDA and the DSAPT for new bus stops.

Council understands the importance of providing public transport services which the community requests and we are always happy to investigate improvements, however we are mindful of the legislative requirements placed on service providers when providing these services, in particular the compulsory requirements of the DDA.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. New bus stops and bus zones be approved at nine locations within the Jordan Springs estate as listed in Table 1, subject to Busways providing documentary evidence to Council, prior to the bus stops and bus zones becoming operational, that the approved bus stops and bus zones comply with the legislative requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport for new bus stops.

2. Busways be advised of Council’s resolution.

GB 4 Waterside – Introduction of New Bus Route & Approval of New Bus Stops & Bus Zones (Raised Council

Council has received a request from Busways for the introduction of a new bus service into Waterside. The service is proposed as Route 783 which will run from Penrith Railway Station through to Mulgoa Road, further to Cranebrook Road, introduce a new service into the Waterside Estate, continue to Laycock Street through Cranebrook to Borrowdale Way and access Jordan Springs via The Northern Road and Jordan Springs Boulevard.

The introduction of the service into Waterside requires the creation of new bus stops and bus zones to service the route. It is proposed to provide five new (bus stops and bus zones) locations to pick up and set down passengers along the new route.

The route is right into Waterside Boulevard, right into Lakeview Drive, continue left into Lakeview Drive, left into Laycock Street and further to Cranebrook and Jordan Springs. The route will run in reverse on the return trip.

The proposed locations of proposed new bus stops and bus zones are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1

Waterside (Cranebrook) Bus Stops & Bus Zones

*Bus Stop No.*	*Road Name*	*Details*	*GPS X*	*GPS Y*
Cranebrook
10	Lakeview Drive	South side 21m east of and opposite Nightjar Ct (at No 93 Lakeside Drive)	287179	6265508
11	Lakeview Drive	North side 31m east of Nightjar Ct	287183	6265517
12	Lakeview Drive	West side 48m south of Wedgebill Pl (convert “No Parking” to Bus Zone)	286907	6265724
13	Lakeview Drive	East side 51m south of Oystercatcher (convert “No Parking” to Bus Zone)	286921	6265715
14	Waterside Bvd	South side 31m east of Jabiru Way (convert “No Parking” to Bus Zone. CPB No 9/10 Waterside Boulevard)	286689	6265954

Council officers are liaising with the developer of the Waterside estate regarding the implementation of bus stop infrastructure to ensure all new bus infrastructures within the estate comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT) and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The report recommends that documentary evidence be provided to Council, prior to the bus stops and bus zones becoming operational, and that the approved bus stops and bus zones comply with the legislative requirements of the DDA and the DSAPT for new bus stops.

Council understands the importance of providing public transport services which the community request and we are always happy to investigate improvements, however we are mindful of the legislative requirements placed on service providers when providing these services, in particular the compulsory requirements of the DDA.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. New bus stops and bus zones be approved at five locations within the Waterside estate as listed in Table 1, subject to Busways providing documentary evidence to Council, prior to the bus stops becoming operational, that the approved bus stops and bus zones comply with the legislative requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport for new bus stops.

2. Busways be advised of Council’s resolution.

GB 5 M4 Eastbound Off-Ramp at The Northern Road, Penrith – (Raised Councillor Cornish)

Councillor Cornish advised that the matter of vehicles queuing on the M4 eastbound off-ramp at The Northern Road still remains an issue, and drivers are now forming two lanes to queue, to allow other vehicles through, despite only one lane being linemarked.

Council’s Road Network Services Engineer advised that Council has previously written to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) regarding this matter, and at this time, no response has been received from the RMS.

RECOMMENDED

That the Committee note the information.

GB 6 The Northern Road/Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook – Information Regarding New Intersection Configuration (Raised Councillor Cornish)

Councillor Cornish asked whether Council has received information regarding the operation of the new “Give Way” intersection configuration at the intersection of The Northern Road and Andromeda Drive, Cranebrook.

Council’s Road Network Services Engineer advised that he has spoken with Police and the Roads and Maritime Services, who suggested that the intersection is operating well. There has been a recent accident at the intersection, where a vehicle turning right from The Northern Road into Andromeda Drive was hit by a through vehicle (northbound) on The Northern Road.

The Committee noted that the intersection is a contemporary intersection configuration, similar to other intersections in the Local Government Area.

RECOMMENDED

That the Committee note the information.

GB 7 Jane Street, Penrith – Proposed Extension (Raised Councillor Cornish)

Councillor Cornish advised that he has concerns regarding the proposed Jane Street extension, due to the project cost. Councillor Cornish suggested that other potential options, such as the Russell Street option, could be considered.

RECOMMENDED

That the Committee not the information.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed, the time being 10:45am.

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 September, 2013 be adopted.

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
Penrith Community Safety Partnership MEETING

HELD ON 4 September, 2013

PRESENT

Councillor Karen McKeown; Jennifer Randall, Penrith City Council; Tracy Leahy, Penrith City Council; Nerida Silver, Penrith Youth Interagency; Chris Donzow, Department of Juvenile Justice; Kylie Chang, St Marys Local Area Command; Brad Element, St Marys Local Area Command; Mick Connolly, St Marys Local Area Command; Brett McFadden, Penrith Local Area Command; Grant Healey, Penrith Local Area Command; Julie Graham, Penrith Local Area Command; Julie Page, Needle and Syringe Program; Yvonne Perkins, Penrith City Council; David Burns, Penrith City Council; Erin Davidson, Penrith City Council; Saheed Osikoya, Sydney Trains.

APOLOGIES

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Mark Davies; Glenn Cooper, University of Western Sydney; Stephen Cole, Penrith Youth Interagency; Murray Halls, Penrith City Council; Gina Field, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce; Kim Sindel, St Marys Local Area Command; Kylie Druett, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Area Health District – Drug and Alcohol Service.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 5 June 2013

The minutes of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting of 5 June 2013 were confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

1 Update on the delivery of Community Safety Projects

Litter Management Strategy

Allison Kyriakakis advised that Community Safety is responsible for implementing the Litter Management Strategy. Litter is often linked to poor perceptions of safety and amenity in the community. The Strategy was adopted by Council in May 2013.

A media launch for the strategy is being prepared. Residents will be encouraged to take an online ‘litter free promise’ to encourage greater community involvement in litter prevention. Council aims to obtain 1,000 promises by the end of the year.

Alcohol Free Zones/Alcohol Prohibited Areas

The Partnership was advised that the re-establishment of existing Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas has now been completed. Signage is being updated at new and existing locations across the city.

An additional three (3) locations were requested to be established by St Marys Local Area Command which included two (2) Alcohol Free Zones at Forthorn Place, St Marys and Harris Street, St Marys between Forrester Road and Glossop Street; and an Alcohol Prohibited Area at Bennett Park, Gidley Street, St Marys.

White Ribbon Day

Allison advised that Council will be holding another White Ribbon Day event in November (date to be advised). This year Council will be hosting a lunch time river walk, from Weir Reserve to Tench Reserve. Information stalls and water stations will be available along the walking path.

Activities and a BBQ are to be provided at the end of the walk encouraging more community participation. Local businesses will also be invited to attend.

The White Ribbon oath will be taken at Tench Reserve followed by the traditional signing of the banner. More information will be provided as the project progresses.

Grant Healey advised he could assist by contacting the Police Band to see if they are available for the event.

The Nepean Domestic Violence Network (NDVN) are also holding their own event this year at Penrith Railway Station on Monday 25 November from 6am to 10am.

Yvonne Perkins encouraged anyone with ideas and suggestions to contact Allison Kyriakakis or Jennifer Randall. Yvonne suggested that a small working group be organised to assist with White Ribbon Day preparations.

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on Update on the delivery of Community Safety Projects be received.

2 Update on the Draft Community Safety Plan 2013 – 2016

Allison advised that the 30 day consultation period for the Draft Community Safety Plan 2013 – 2016 has now concluded. A public notice was placed in local newspapers and hard copies of the Draft Plan were made available at Penrith and St Marys libraries. An electronic version was also available on Council’s website.

No public submissions were received. Comments were received from Council’s internal Health team highlighting a link between public health and community safety. As a result of this feedback minor adjustments have been made to the performance measures of the ‘Walk Wise’ project and the Public Domain Lighting Policy to show the link between improved public health as a result of improving the safety of public spaces.

Working Groups

Pending adoption of the Draft Community Safety Plan 2013 – 2016 Allison advised that three (3) working groups will be formed to assist with project implementation. The groups will work on the following projects.

1. ‘Walk Wise’ project

2. Cyber Crime and Online Bullying Projects

3. Community Safety Resources (including podcasts).

A general discussion followed with several suggestions raised including:

· That the ‘Walk Wise’ project incorporates bike safety education for children and the responsibilities of using a shared footpath. It was further suggested that the C.A.R.E.S facility be contacted seeking assistance in this project.

· St Marys Local Area Command is hosting a community forum on Wednesday 25 September. This event targets safe and responsible parties, cyber crime/bullying/safety, alcohol education and social media advertising in relation to parties. It was suggested that adults need to be educated along with children and young people and this should be given consideration in the project development.

· Local Community Development Organisations have been running ‘Wise up to it’ and ‘Think you know’ and other similar cyber crime and online bullying programs for a long time; however they have not always been well attended. This suggests that on-line programs may a viable alternative approach.

· Consultation with young people should be considered in the development of new programs concerning on-line bullying.

· The community safety team are keen to explore Podcasts and YouTube clips to deliver community safety messages and information Podcasts are a good way of delivering community safety messages as they can be translated into many languages.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Update on the Draft Community Safety Plan 2013 – 2016 be received.

2. The Partnership support the presentation of the final Draft Plan to Council recommending adoption, and submission to the NSW Department of Attorney General and Justice.

Regular Items

A) Penrith Local Area Command Crime Statistics – June 2013 to August 2013

	June 2013	July 2013	August 2013
Assault	72	70	62
Robbery	6	6	8
Break & Enter	47	34	59
Stealing	133	142	153
Steal Motor Vehicle	45	22	31
Malicious Damage	122	92	81
Drug Detection	24	30	18
Traffic Offences	477	500	471
Motor Vehicle Accident	74	68	68

Grant Healey provided a brief update on a few crime categories and events that are coming up in the Penrith Local Area Command.

· Break and Enter offences experienced an upward trend this quarter

· Malicious damage experienced a 30% decrease

· Traffic offences and motor vehicle accidents have remained constant.

Events that Penrith Local Area Command are aware of that will require additional resources include:

· DEFQON.1 dance festival at the Regatta Centre

· A League soccer

· Western Sydney Wanderers game

· Fernhill Picnic races.

B) St Marys Local Area Command Crime Statistics - June 2013 to August 2013

Crime Category	June 2013	July 2013	August 2013
Assault	105	90	103
Robbery	8	5	5
Break & Enter	54	57	58
Stealing	124	136	122
Steal Motor Vehicle	26	24	33
Malicious Damage	139	98	132
Drug Detection	27	40	31
Traffic Offences	572	711	884
Motor Vehicle Accident	55	74	68

Mick Connolly advised that most crime categories remain steady. Number plate theft makes up a large proportion of statistics in the stealing category with 90% being attributed to fail to pay petrol drive offs. Mick also added that commercial vehicles continue to be targeted, accounting for the majority of stolen motor vehicles in this category.

Mick further advised that there are two (2) events coming up that require St Marys Local Area Command to be present. These include the St Marys Spring Festival with 20,000 people expected to attend, and during October, Dam Fest will be held at Warragamba Dam with 15,000 people expected to attend.

Mick enquired whether Alcohol Free Signage would be in place at Coachmans Park for the St Marys Spring Festival. Allison advised that Community Safety staff would ensure this is arranged prior to Saturday’s event.

What’s in the Media?

June - August 2013

GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1 David Burns – Funding

David Burns advised that depending on the results of the Federal Election, funding may be announced for the implementation of CCTV at selected locations across the City. Council will scope appropriate locations in conjunction with local police.

GB 2 Tracy Leahy – Mondo Project

Funding for the Mondo Youth Engagement project runs out in January 2014. Tracy advised that Council has submitted a further application for funding to the Federal Attorney General’s Department proposing to deliver a similar project that could also be implemented at other locations. To date, no advice has been received.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 4.20pm.

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 4 September, 2013 be adopted.

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

Development Application 12/0721 Childcare centre at Lot B DP389004 & Lot A DP389004 (No. 168-170) Stafford Street, Penrith Applicant: Nor'side Investments Pty Ltd; Owner: Nor'side Investments Pty Ltd

Compiled by: Gurvinder Singh, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types
Service Activity	Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the demolition of two existing dwellings on-site and construction of a child care centre. The land is zoned 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) and a child care centre is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The application is reported to Council due to the extent of submissions.

The development application was placed on public exhibition from 20 August to 3 September 2012 and twenty five submissions were received. A petition signed by seventy eight residents was also received. The concerns raised in those submissions and the petition are addressed in this report.

The application is accompanied by an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, regarding the minimum landscaped area required for the proposed development. The objection is addressed in this report.

The application was reported to Council’s Ordinary meeting of 27 May 2013 where it was deferred to allow for an on-site meeting and discussion of a number of issues including car parking, access and vacancy numbers.

An on-site meeting was held on 24 June 2013 between Councillors, Council Officers and concerned residents. A number of matters including traffic, parking, access and vacancy numbers were raised by the residents. The matters raised are addressed in this report.

The application was reported to Council’s Ordinary meeting of 26 August 2013 where it was again deferred in response to further questions and concerns raised by objectors addressing the meeting. Council officers subsequently contacted the future operators of the child care centre and sought further information on matters raised at the Council meeting including play times of children, number of toilets, parking requirements when additional regulations may come into place in 2016 and unmet demand. These matters are addressed in this report.

An assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Council’s Community, Engineering, Traffic, Health and Environment Sections have been consulted and the development application is recommended for approval.

Background

The applicant attended a pre-lodgement meeting with Council Officers prior to the lodgement of the Development Application (DA). The applicant responded to the advice given at that meeting and included information required with the DA. After preliminary assessment of the proposed development and submissions received during public exhibition of the DA, Council Officers sent a letter to the applicant that required them to demonstrate the need for child care services in the local area and further address acoustic impacts on the neighbouring properties and traffic impacts on the road network. These matters were adequately responded to by the applicant and they are addressed in this report. The applicant reduced the number of children to be cared from 70 to 62 to address parking matters. In response to the concerns raised at the onsite meeting of 24 June 2013 and conveyed to the applicant, the applicant has submitted plans that show two additional car spaces and turning areas with respect to car and emergency vehicles manoeuvring.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located to the south of Stafford Street around 45m west of its intersection with Doonmore Street, Penrith. It comprises two allotments at Nos. 168 and 170 Stafford Street, Penrith. The site is irregular in shape and it has an area of 1593sqm. The site falls from east to west and it also gently falls to the rear of the site. Two single storey dwellings exist on the site. Twelve trees and seven palms exist on the site.

A child care centre exists around 16m to the east of the site at No. 164 Stafford Street, Penrith. The surrounding area is established residential having mainly single storey dwellings. Shops are located on Stafford Street around 300m west of the site. A locality plan is included as Appendix 1.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development involves demolition of two existing dwellings and construction of a single storey building to be used as a child care centre for 62 children. The age group and number of children to be cared for will be as follows:

Age Number of Children

0 - 2 Years 16 Children

2 - 3 Years 16 Children

3 - 5 Years 30 Children

The proposed hours of operation are 7:00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. Access to the child care centre is proposed via a two way driveway from Stafford Street. Nineteen on-site car parking spaces will be provided.

The Development Application was accompanied by the following documents:

a) Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Building Environments Pty Ltd

b) Site plan, floor plans and elevations prepared by Building Environments Pty Ltd

c) Landscape concept plan prepared by Urban Landscape Planners P/L

d) Traffic Impact Statement prepared by Traffic Solutions

e) Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic

f) Waste Management Plan

g) Arboriculture Impact Assessment Report prepared by Urban Landscape Planners P/L.

(Refer to Appendices No. 1 to 3 for copies of the site plan, floor plans and elevations).

Planning Assessment

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to those matters the following issues have been identified for further consideration:

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

The subject site is zoned 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density) under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land). The proposal is defined as a ‘Child Care Centre’ which is permissible in the zone with development consent.

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the zone objectives as follows:

(i) To reinforce the importance of the natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation value, and

(ii) To protect the character of traditional cottage development and streetscapes, and

(iii) To consolidate population and housing densities, and

(iv) To expand housing choices by allowing multi-unit housing with a single storey appearance, and

(v) To promote a variety of housing types or forms upon the site of each proposed development, and

(vi) To allow a range of compatible non-residential uses.

The surrounding area is characterised by single dwelling houses with established landscaping and gardens. The proposed development is single storey consistent with the character of the surrounding residential streetscape. A child care centre is a non-residential use however the scale of the proposed childcare centre is compatible with that of the existing single storey neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

The relevant development standards under the LEP 1998 Urban Lands are addressed in the following table:

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	REQUIREMENT	PROPOSED	COMPLIANCE
Cl.12 (3) – Building Envelope	1.8 metres from side boundary and 45^oheight plane	The proposed building envelope is within the required measurement.	Yes
Cl.12 (3) & (5) – External Wall Height	3.5m under Clause 12(3)	External wall height will vary from 2.7m to 3.5m.	Yes
Cl.12 (3) – Landscaped Area	40%	38.6% landscaped area is proposed.	No (See SEPP1)
Cl.12 (4) – Rear Setback	4 metres	The proposed rear setback will vary from 4.04m to 5.6m.	Yes
Cl.14 – Design Principles	§ Protect local topography, streetscape and character. · Compatible with scale and design of neighbouring development.	· The proposal is a single storey building. It will protect the local topography and setting and maintain the existing streetscape. · Height of the proposed building is consistent with the existing neighbouring dwellings. Scale is not excessive for the area. Design of the building is compatible with the existing neighbouring dwellings and will not detract from the existing streetscape.	Yes

Clause 28 – Tree Preservation

The application seeks approval to remove twelve existing trees located on site. The proposed tree removal is supported by an Arboriculture Impact Assessment Report prepared by Urban Landscape Planners P/L. This report is an assessment of all (19) trees in and around the site. The report concludes that the trees are an introduced species and only two trees are of moderate to low retention value. This report was evaluated by Council’s Tree Management Officer who has advised that there is no objection to the removal of the majority of trees with the exception of three trees located at the front and rear of the property. At least six trees must be planted on site to compensate for those removed. A condition has been imposed to retain three trees and plant six new trees in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. (See condition number 3.34).

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP1)

The proposed development does not comply with Council’s development standard relating to the minimum landscaped area of the site. Clause 12(2) of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land) defines the landscaped area of a site as follows:

landscaped area, of a site, means that part of the site not occupied by a building and which is predominantly landscaped with gardens, lawns, shrubs and trees and is available for the use and enjoyment of the occupants of the site. It does not include areas used for driveways, parking areas, garbage storage areas or any area less than 2 metres wide, except a verge at least 1 metre wide that is located next to a driveway and landscaped with trees and shrubs, but may include a verandah associated with a landscaped area.

Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 (Urban Land) stipulates that in the 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density) zone the minimum required landscaped area of a site is 40%. The proposed development includes a landscaped area of 38.6% representing a proposed variation from the relevant development standard of 1.4%.

The application was accompanied by a written objection to the landscaped area development standard under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1). SEPP 1 enables Council to approve a development that does not comply with a particular development standard where in the circumstances of the case the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the standard to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection in relation to the non-compliance with the landscaped area development standard is reproduced in part below:

“The development will meet the underlying objectives of the control despite the variation. The proposal provides adequate deep soil landscaping and building setbacks.

Deep soil planting to Stafford Street and the side boundary is allowed for landscaping such that the built form will not dominate.

To require compliance would be unreasonable and unnecessary given that adequate on site landscaping and satisfactory building line setbacks and building separations are provided. This development standard is specific for multi-unit housing and not the alternate building form and use permissible with consent.

Strict compliance would compromise a practical and logical development outcome.”

The objectives of the minimum landscape area are to achieve an appropriate separation between buildings, preserve private open space corridors, minimise the impact of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views by requiring sufficient space on-site for effective landscaping. The proposal maintains an open space corridor along the rear fence line in keeping with the adjoining properties. The applicant’s objection is consistent with the aims of the SEPP. The SEPP 1 objection has adequately addressed the matters prescribed in State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has demonstrated that compliance with the prescribed minimum landscaped area would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean

SREP No. 20 applies to the subject land and stipulates that the consent authority shall not grant consent to a development application unless it is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is consistent with any relevant, general and specific aim of SREP 20. The general aims and objectives of the plan are directed towards improving the amenity of the river and protecting the lands within the river valley, including scenic quality.

The proposal will have minimal impacts on the river environment as it will not compromise the water or scenic qualities of the river given the satisfactory drainage arrangements and erosion and sediment control measures to be installed during construction. Council’s Development Engineering Section has reviewed the proposed development with regard to stormwater drainage and is satisfied with this aspect of the proposal.

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

No draft environmental planning instruments are relevant to the proposed development.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – The Provisions of any Development Control Plan

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006

Section 2.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) aims to ensure development is appropriately designed to reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed. By introducing measures to achieve appropriate natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and space management, it is anticipated that this will assist in minimising the incidence of crime and contribute to perceptions of increased public safety.

The proposed development provides opportunities for natural surveillance to access points and car parking areas from the windows of the office and staff room. In order to ensure that a safe environment is provided for the child care centre including the car parking and outdoor play areas, conditions are recommended to enhance the safety and security of all users of the development and to minimise the crime risk associated with the development. These conditions relate to matters such as securing the premises, landscape design and provision of lighting (see condition number 3.2).

Section 2.9 Waste Planning

The application was accompanied by a Waste Management Plan (WMP). The WMP has adequately addressed management of waste generated during construction of the building and the ongoing use by the proposed child care use. The design and location of the waste disposal and recycling bin storage area at the rear of the site and its collection at the street is appropriate. In order to ensure that the odour from the waste generated from the childcare centre is managed adequately, it is recommended that the childcare centre have a weekly collection of the waste organised via a private contractor (see condition number 3.3).

There is potential for the proposed construction works to generate significant levels of dust. The following conditions (see condition number 3.36) are recommended to control dust:

a) Trucks entering and leaving the site carrying construction materials that may generate dust shall be covered.

b) Stockpiles of soil or other materials shall be covered or sprayed with water on a regular basis, particularly during dry or windy conditions.

Section 3.3 Child Care Centres

The relevant development controls under this section are addressed in the following table:

*Development Controls*	*Requirement*	*Compliance*
Amenity	§ Purpose designed and built if catering for 15 or more children. § Lot width 22m § Scale and character compatible with surrounding residential development.	§ Yes. § Yes. Lot width is 46.62m. § Addressed under The Likely Impacts in a further section of this report. Design responds to scale and character.
Location	§ No adverse traffic impacts.	§ Addressed under Access, Traffic and Parking. No substantial traffic impacts expected on local road network.
Vehicle Access and Parking	§ 1 car space per 4 children (15.5 car spaces, say 16 spaces required). § 1 additional car space per staff member where staff members catering for younger (say 0-2 years) or special needs children.	§ Yes. 19 car spaces are proposed. This matter is addressed in detail in a further section of this report.
Noise	§ Acoustic fencing.	§ Yes. Acoustic fence to rear and side boundaries is proposed. Addressed under The Likely Impacts in a further section of this report.
Shade	§ Shade to 50% of outdoor play area.	§ Yes
Toilet Facilities	§ 1 water closet fixture per 8 children (8 w.c.). § 1 water closet fixture and wash basin per 20 female staff (1 w.c. and a wash basin).	§ No. (7 w.c.). A condition is recommended to require an additional toilet. § Yes (1 w.c. and a wash basin).
*Development Controls*	*Requirement*	*Compliance*
Floor Space	§ 3.25m² indoor play space per child (201.5m²). § 7m² outdoor play space per child (434m²).	§ Yes (268m²) § Yes (505m²)

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Provisions of the Regulations

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

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

Social and Economic Impact and Community Need

A Child Care Centre known as ‘Bright Stars Kindergarten’ is located at No. 164 Stafford Street, Penrith. Concerns were raised by the centre during public exhibition of the development application that the proposed development:

· does not address the economic impacts on the immediate locality and the broader Penrith LGA community

· would generate unacceptable traffic impacts on Stafford Street and surrounding street network

· would generate unacceptable noise impacts on the surrounding residents and occupants of the locality

· when assessed in conjunction with existing surrounding uses would generate unacceptable cumulative amenity impacts on surrounding residents, including noise and traffic impacts

· does not adequately provide for car parking and the management of traffic

· would not be in the public interest.

The matter relating to economic impact and related community need is addressed below. Other matters are addressed in a further section of this report.

The applicant was advised by Council Officers that the development application does not demonstrate a need for child care services in the local area and that a community needs analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Council for consideration. Unmet demand in the community could be assessed through waiting lists of centres in surrounding areas, a comparison of the number of children aged 0-5 recorded in the census for the area and the number of child care places available.

The applicant’s response to the above matter is partly reproduced below:

The proposed child care centre is located in a residential precinct bounded by High Street, Woodriff Street, Jamison Road and Parker Street, Penrith. This residential precinct has mixed residential zonings that permit substantial increase in residential density. The predominant development residential zone is 2(c) Residential (Low-Medium Density). A typical residential parcel of land having the 2(c) zoning generated a two fold increase in density.

This entire precinct is undergoing residential growth by way of re-development.

There are seven child care centres located in this residential precinct. Of the seven Child Care Centres in this residential precinct, Pasadena Pre- School, Bright Star Kindergarten and Little Learners Pre-School do not offer care for children in the 0-2 Year age range. Of the remaining 4 centres, the large facilities such as Spunkey Monkies and High Street Pre-School offer 0-2 Years accommodation but have no vacancies. Vacancies for 0-2 Year are available at both Nepean Tiny Tots and Penrith Early Learners. Both these centres are smaller cottage based and located in Woodriff Street on the fringe of the residential precinct.

Centres that are larger based have greater flexibility and opportunity to allow for multiple age group enrolments for families. That is a family with 0-2 and 2-3 years and 4 year olds are more likely to find bulk enrolments for all siblings on the same days at the same centre.

The smaller centres due to their size have limited flexibility in this regard. The medium to large centres which offer 0 – 2 year old care have no vacancies and have waiting lists.

The proposed development at No. 168 Stafford Street offers care accommodation for 0-2 Years, 2-3 Years & 3-5 Years. Our neighbour Bright Star Kindergarten at No. 164 Stafford Street does not offer 0 – 2 year care. There is no conflict with regard to the provision of competing services in this instance. The geographical relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring pre-school in our view should not be considered as detrimental as each centre is unique in its character and services offered. The three Pre-Schools in Woodriff Street; Little Learners, Nepean Tiny Tots and Penrith Early Learners are grouped together within 6 residential lots with both Nepean Tiny Tots and Penrith Early Learning being neighbours. These child cares centres have co-existed for many years in this geographical relationship and continue to operate.

There is a trend towards large based centres which offer a wide range of services and learning options providing opportunities for bulk enrolments for families in all age groups.

The proposal is justifiable and meets the objectives with respect to unmet need due to the following:

· The continuous increase of residential densities in the nominated precinct

· The increased population densities generating families which will require community based services

· The clear need for Child Care facilities for 0-2 Year olds

· The lack of 0-2 Year accommodation in the existing pre-schools within the eastern sections of the residential precinct

· The need for larger centres that offer a full range of Child Care services

· The need to provide multiple enrolments for siblings in the same centre.

In response to questions raised at Council’s meeting of 26 August 2013, Council Officers sought additional information from the future operators of the child care centre regarding demand for child care places in the city. They have submitted information from ‘mywaitlist’ website and carried out a telephonic survey of nearby centres. This information has shown that there is an unmet need for 0- 3 year age group and that the new child care centre can co – exist with the surrounding services for the benefit of the community. This information is attached at Appendix 4 of this report.

The application was referred to Council’s Community Services Section for advice on community need for the proposed child care centre and related social and economic impacts on the locality particularly any impacts on ‘Bright Stars Kindergarten’. The Section provided a commentary which is reproduced in part below:

Unmet Need

From a social planning perspective, the proposed child care centre does meet some of the unmet child care needs of Penrith. It is a well known fact that there is an acute shortage of 0-2 child care places in the Penrith Local Government Area. The proposed centre will provide 16 places for the age group 0-2.

The argument put forward by the applicant that a larger centre will provide greater opportunity to allow multiple age group enrolments for families is a valid one.

The Child Care Centre at No. 164 Stafford Street Penrith does not offer 0-2 year care.

Nature of Child Care Industry & Impacts of the Proposed Development in its Locality

The submission received during public exhibition of the DA argued that the establishment of another child care centre next door would have a detrimental economic impact on the community as child care centre is a “community facility” and child care centres should not be considered as a private business as they do serve important community functions.

Privately owned child care centres are private businesses that provide a specific service for the customers with fees attached. Similar to other private businesses, the bottom line for each privately owned child care operator is to make a profit for the business to sustain. It is acknowledged that privately owned child care centres provide essential services for families who require child care. However they are not different from other private businesses such as doctors’ surgery, pharmacy, bakery, retail stores which all provide specific services required by the local community with fees attached.

In terms of economic impact in the locality, it is important to take a broader approach instead of merely focusing its likely impact on the existing businesses. The proposed development will deliver some positive impact for the local community. By accessing quality child care, it will assist some parents to enter/re-enter the workforce. The proposed child care centre will provide additional employment opportunities for the local residents. The presence of a number of child care centres in the vicinity will provide parents with a choice as each centre is unique in its services offered and the fees charged by each centre vary.

Current Supply of Child Care

The submission claimed that “there has been a proliferation of Child Care Centres in Penrith LGA to the detriment of the community at large. The following figures were quoted:

· 16 Centres in the suburb of Penrith, including South Penrith

· 68 Centres within a 5 kilometre radius

· 78 Centres with a 10 kilometre radius

· 129 centres within a 15 kilometre radius

It is not clear how these figures were obtained as there is no reference to the source of the information. According to the “Marketing Plan Children’s Services” prepared by Council’s Children Services Department, at present, there are a total of 112 child care services operating in the Penrith LGA. The centres offer the following services: Long Day Care, Before School Care, After School Care and Vacation Care.

A “Viability Report” was presented to Council as part of the submission prepared by the consultant representing Bright Stars Kindergarten 164 Stafford Street Penrith. The report argued that there is currently an oversupply of child care centres in the Penrith LGA. The conclusion is based on the data available on federal government website (www.mychild.gov.au).

There are serious shortcomings in using the vacancy number appearing on this website to conclude there is an oversupply of child care services in certain area. The figures shown on my child website is based on the number self reporting by individual centres. The information on the website has caused confusion to parents because centres are not required to say whether they have waiting lists.

Vacancy Numbers

Vacancy numbers were sought from Council’s Community Services Section in response to Councils previous resolution and concern raised regarding the accuracy of relying on waiting lists as an indicator of demand. Community Services have advised that there is no Council run child care centre operating at Stafford Street, however there are three Council run child care centres nearby whose recent vacancy rates are as follows:

Name of Centre	Address	Vacancy as at 15-8-13
Jamisontown Children’s Centre	70 Glenbrook St Jamisontown	0-2 years 4 2-3 years 0 3-5 years 5
Carita Children’s Centre	Lot 99 Trent St South Penrith	0-2 years 1 2-3 years 2 3-5 years 4
Platypus Playground Children’s Centre	61 Wardwell Drive, South Penrith	0-2 years 0 2-3 years 0 3-5 years 1

Based on the above findings, the following comments from Council’s Community Services Department as outlined in the original report to Council remain relevant:

From a social planning perspective, the proposed development will meet some of the child care needs of the Penrith area. Currently, there is a serious shortage of 0-2 care. Census 2011 figures indicated that there were increase of the babies and pre-school age groups (0-4) since 2006. The waiting list compiled by Council confirmed there is a need for more child care places for Penrith.

It is understandable the proposed development has drawn strong objections from the owners of the Bright Stars Kindergarten who are concerned of the direct competition from the proposed development. The matter relating to direct competition is not a relevant matter in the assessment of the development application.

Access, Parking and Traffic

Access to the site is proposed from Stafford Street through a 6m wide driveway. A separate access for pedestrians is proposed from the frontage of the site to the building to ensure pedestrian safety. Council’s Senior Traffic Officer has reviewed the subject application in respect of parking, traffic generation and access arrangements and concludes the following:

· The traffic movements into/out of the site would yield some 53 additional movements per peak hour (two-way). Although the proposal does produce a minor increase in local traffic flow, no adverse traffic generation impacts are expected from the development and it is anticipated that the local road network has adequate spare capacity to cater for this increase.

· The parking requirements for the site conform to Council’s DCP. As 19 spaces have been provided, the requirements of the Parking DCP are met. A condition is recommended to ensure that all car parking and manoeuvring is in accordance with AS2890.1-2004; AS2890.6-2009 (see condition number 3.4).

· Sight distance and access arrangements are acceptable for both directions of travel in Stafford Street.

Car Parking Calculation

Car parking has been calculated in accordance with Penrith DCP 2006 and compared to that required under the ‘RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ as follows:

a) Penrith DCP 2006

The above DCP requires that:

‘Car parking spaces shall be provided on site at the rate of 1 car parking space for every 4 children.

One parking space shall also be provided for each additional staff member where

child care centres are catering for younger children, or children with special needs, and the ratio of staff to children is increased.’

Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012 requires the ratio of primary contact staff to children as follows:

i) 1:4 in respect of all children who are under the age of 2 years

ii) 1:8 in respect of all children who are 2 or more years of age but less than 3 years of age

iii) 1:10 in respect of all children who are 3 or more years of age but less than 6 years of age.

The number of staff required is therefore calculated as follows:

Age Bracket	No. of Children	Staff per children	No. of Staff
0-2	16	1 for 4	4
2-3	16	1 for 8	2
3-6	30	1 for 10	3
TOTAL	62		9

Younger children are considered under the age bracket of 0-2 and two additional staff are required for this age bracket than would otherwise be required for an older age bracket.

One car parking space for four children equates to 15.5 (say 16) spaces. Two additional spaces are required for the 2 additional staff for the younger children (0-2) age bracket.

Total car spaces required therefore = 16 + 2 = 18 spaces.

Nineteen on site car spaces are now provided which is satisfactory.

b) RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments

This Guide requires that:

‘Off-street parking must be provided at the rate of one space for every four children in attendance.

Given the short length of stay (the RTA's surveys found an average length of stay of 6.8 minutes), parking must be provided in a convenient location, allowing safe movement of children to and from the centre.

Consideration could be given to reducing the parking required if convenient and safe on-street parking is available (e.g. indented parking bays), provided that the use of such parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the adjacent area.’

One space for four children equates to 15.5 (say 16) spaces.

Nineteen on site car spaces are provided which is satisfactory.

Impact of Future Regulations in 2016

The change of Regulations (Children & Care Services Regulations) in 2016 may require the ratio of primary contact staff to children when caring for the 2-3yrs age group to change from: 1:8 to 1:5. To meet this requirement in 2016, the service may be required to employ an additional staff member.

The increase in staff may increase the onsite parking required to 18.5 which will be less than 19 onsite available car spaces.

Noise Impacts

The application was accompanied by an acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Logic which provided a review of the potential noise impacts from the proposed child care centre. Council Officers reviewed that report and found some shortcomings. Council Officers wrote to the applicant and advised them that ‘the report stated that a maximum of 8 children between the ages of 3-5 would be in the outdoor play area at certain times, which indicated that a child of this age group would only be allowed outside for half an hour in a given day. Eighteen 2-3 year olds would all have to be outside between 11 and 12 noon for 15 minutes each. This seemed quite unlikely and further explanation was needed regarding this aspect.’

The applicant submitted a revised acoustic report that included recommendations to mitigate acoustic impacts. The key recommendations of this report are provided below.

· Install a minimum 2.2m high acoustic screen along the eastern and southern boundaries of the playground.

· Install a minimum 2.2m high acoustic screen along the western and southern boundaries of the carpark.

· The use of the outdoor play area is limited to sixteen 0-2 year olds and groups of twenty 3-5 year olds.

· The doors for internal play areas shall be closed when children are playing indoors, unless the indoor play period is a substitute for outdoor play.

· Signs reminding staff and visitors to minimise noise at all times shall be installed at

ingress/egress points from the child care centre.

· Management is to ensure children are supervised at all times to minimise noise generated by the children whenever practical and possible.

Council’s Environment Section has checked the acoustic report and recommended further conditions to mitigate noise impacts from the child care centre. These conditions include:

· A maximum of sixteen (16) children aged between 0-2 years and twenty (20) children aged between 3-5 years are allowed to play outside in any one time.

· The use of a PA system or amplified music is not permitted to be used in the outdoor play area. The use of amplified music within the building shall not be audible from residential boundaries.

· In order to ensure that all noise related aspects for construction and operational phases are managed a Noise Management Plan (NMP) is to be prepared and submitted to Penrith City Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

· Within 12 months from the date of issuing the Occupation Certificate, a compliance report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to ensure that noise levels from and inside the development meet the noise emissions criteria set in the Noise Report (see condition number 3.16).

Play times of children

A question was raised in the Council’s ordinary meeting of 26 August 2013 that the outdoor play between 11:00am and 3:00pm will contradict sun safety regulations. This matter was raised with the operators of the child care centre who have sought to change the above timings. They have provided a daily routine which shows that outdoor play times vary. This routine is attached at Appendix 5 of this report. By restricting the number of children playing outdoors, any noise impacts on the surrounding properties will also be minimised.

Built form and Character

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the existing residential character of the area which has predominantly older style single storey dwellings. The proposed single storey child care centre will blend into the streetscape as it has a built form compatible with single dwellings. A front building setback varying from 5.5m to 6.5m will be provided which is consistent with the streetscape. As such, impacts to the streetscape, local topography and character of the area will be minimal. Landscaping in the form of low shrubs and grass will be carried out in appropriate locations to ensure the green corridor that exists in the immediate area will not be affected in the long term.

Privacy

As the new building will be single storey there are limited opportunities for overlooking from the windows of the building to the neighbouring properties. The 2.2m high fence to the east, west and south of the site will curtail any views to the neighbouring properties. The land is relatively flat and cutting/filling will generally be less than 500mm, which will not impact on privacy matters.

Sunlight Access to Neighbouring Properties

Sunlight access to private courtyards of the neighbouring properties will not be impacted as a translucent fence component is proposed above 1.8m high solid fence.

Asbestos Handling and Disposal

A standard condition of consent has been imposed that any demolition works that require removal of asbestos shall only be carried out by a licensed asbestos removal contractor who has a current Workcover Asbestos License and all asbestos laden waste must be disposed at a tipping facility licensed by the Environmental Protection Authority to receive asbestos waste.

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

The subject site is within an established residential area that is zoned for low-medium density housing development. The site is not affected by any overland flows, landslip or movement. It is located close to public transport. Local shops on Stafford Street are located less than 400m from the site. The proposed development has been designed to minimise and mitigate any adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties. By adopting the recommendations of the Acoustic Report and subject to recommended conditions, the site is suitable for a childcare centre of this scale.

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

Community Consultation

In accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2006, the proposed development was notified to nearby and adjoining residents/owners and advertised in local newspapers with submissions invited from 20 August to 3 September 2012. Twenty five submissions and a petition signed by seventy eight residents were received in response. An on-site meeting was held on 24 June 2013 between Councillors, Council Officers and concerned residents. Overall the following concerns were raised:

a) Traffic congestion and safety along Stafford Street and surrounding streets

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Access Parking & Traffic

b) Pedestrian safety during drop-off and pick-up from “Bright Stars Kindergarten” given the proximity of the proposed development

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Access Parking & Traffic

c) The number of child care centres is extremely high. A Viability Report is provided that notes the high vacancy rates in most centres in Penrith. ‘Location’ provisions of Council’s DCP for Child Care Centres and express concern that the above matter is not included within those controls. For the purposes of assessing this application, and perhaps also to assist in amending Council’s DCP, we would therefore like to refer to the equivalent DCP controls in neighbouring Councils. The Blacktown approach of not allowing Child Care Centres within one (1) kilometre of other child care centres provides clear direction for potential proponents of child care centre developments.

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Social and Economic Impact and Community Need

d) The proposal is for 70 children and Council’s basic requirement is 1 space per 4 children. This equates to a total of 18 spaces. We note though, that clause 10 provides that “1 additional space shall be provided for each additional staff member where child care centres are catering for younger children...” We assume that this means that the “1 space per 4 children” rate is determined on the basis of 1 staff member for 10 children in the 3-6 age bracket. If all the children were in this age bracket, then the 70 children would equate to 7 staff. So by our calculations, the requirement is for 22 spaces. The applicant proposes 17 spaces, a shortfall of 5 spaces.

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Access Parking & Traffic

e) Noise Impacts - We have already mentioned the noise impacts on other local residents arising from traffic congestion and from children and refer to the assessment of noise impacts in the SEE. We have attached an assessment of noise impacts carried out by our consultants that confirms that there are number of matters were either addressed:

· noise from mechanical plant was not addressed

· four (4) children (age 2-3) or eight (8) children (age 3-5) playing outdoor at any time is not considered realistic for a child care centre with up to 54 children age 2-5

· children (age 2-3) playing outdoor for 12 minutes a day and children (age 3-5) playing outdoor for 24 minutes a day is not considered realistic, considering children age 0-2 are allowed to play outdoor for two (2) hours a day

· vehicle movements in the car-park, adopted for the noise assessment are not considered representative of vehicle movements during the peak hours

· given the levels of noise our opinion is that it would not be feasible to reduce noise from the proposed child care centre at 168-170 Stafford Street, Penrith to within the assessment objectives under normal operating conditions.

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Noise Impacts

f) The proposed Development Application does not comply with Sun Safety Regulations for children. For the 3-6 age groups – there are 36 children in that group. The applicant has indicated the children will go out in groups of 8 to reduce noise impact. This means the children will go out in a minimum of 5 groups again. If you divide the 5 groups into the designated 2hr block, this only allows 24 minutes of outdoor play for each child per day in the 3-6 year age group. The applicant’s allocated time for children to play outdoors is not appropriate for child development.

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Noise Impacts

A condition of consent recommends that the child care centre shall comply with the requirements of the Children’s Services Regulation 2004 and shall be appropriately licensed by NSW Community Services prior to the commencement of operation.

g) Asbestos removal during demolition.

See Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development – Asbestos Handling and Disposal

Referrals

The table below summarises the results of internal referrals in relation to the proposal:

Referral	Comments
Building Surveyor	No objection, subject to standard conditions.
Development Engineer	No objection, subject to standard conditions and special conditions.
Environmental Officer	No objection, subject to standard conditions and special conditions.
Health Officer	No objection, subject to standard conditions.
Traffic Engineer	No objection, subject to standard conditions and special conditions.
Tree Management Officer	No objection, subject to standard conditions and special conditions.

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

A childcare centre is permissible in the 2(c) Residential (Medium Density) zone and the proposal meets the aims and objectives of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan -1998 (Urban Land). The proposed childcare centre will provide community benefits by providing a service for 0-5 year olds. Employment opportunities will be increased during construction of the centre. Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environment and it is considered to be in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

There are no Section 94 contributions applicable to the proposed development.

Conclusion

The proposed child care centre has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is consistent with the requirements of the relevant planning instruments and development control plan and is a permissible land use in a 2(c) Residential (Low- Medium Density) zone under the provisions of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land). In addition to Council’s development controls, the proposal will need to comply with the Children’s Services Regulation 2004. NSW Community Services will determine compliance with this regulation as part of the licensing requirements for the facility based on children and staff numbers.

The key issue relating to the proposed development raised in submissions is the impact on an existing child care centre located at No. 164 Stafford Street, Penrith. Council’s Community Services Section has reviewed this matter and has advised that the proposed development will meet some of the child care needs of the Penrith area. Currently, there is a serious shortage of 0-2 care. Census 2011 figures indicated that there was an increase of the babies and pre-school age groups (0-4) since 2006. The waiting list compiled by Council confirmed there is a need for more child care places for Penrith. The geographical relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring pre-school may not be considered as detrimental as each centre is unique in its character and services offered.

Noise impacts from the proposed centre will be reduced by carrying out acoustical treatment of the boundary fences as recommended in the acoustic report submitted with the development application. The site is suitable for the proposed development. Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environment and it is considered to be in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application 12/0721 Childcare centre at Lot B DP389004 & Lot A DP389004 (No. 168-170) Stafford Street, Penrith be received.

2. The objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards regarding landscaped area development standard under Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) be supported.

3. Development Application 12/0721 Childcare centre at Lot B DP389004 & Lot A DP389004 (No. 168-170) Stafford Street, Penrith be approved subject to the following conditions:

Standard Conditions

3.1 A001 Approved plans

A008 Works to BCA requirements

A009 Residential works DCP

A011 Engineering works DCP

A012 Food shop

A019 Occupation Certificate

A020 Use of building

A021 Business registration

A023 Limit number of children (24)

A026 Advertising sign

A029 Hours of operation

A039 Graffiti

A043 Air conditioning unit

A046 Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B002 Australian Standard for demolition and disposal to approved landfill site and Occupational Hygienist clearance report prior to Occupational Certificate.

B003 Asbestos disposal

B004 Dust suppression

B005 Mud/Soil

B006 Hours of work

D001 Implement approved sediment and erosion control measures

D005 No filling without prior approval

D009 Covering of waste storage area

D010 Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

D014 Plant and equipment noise

E001A BCA compliance (Class 2-9)

E002 BCA issued to be addressed

E006 Disabled access and facilities

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

F022 Commercial kitchens

G002 Section 73 (not for single dwellings)

G004 Integral Energy

H001 Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002 Provision of site facilities prior to commencement of construction works

H006 Implementation of waste management plan

H013 Further details of building components

H024 Glass installations to comply with AS 1288

H041 Hours of construction work

K101 Works at no cost to Council

K202 Roads Act- Minor Works

K203 S138 – Roads Act

K210 On site detention

K213 Water quality

K221 Access car parking and manoeuvring

K501 Roads Authority Clearance

K502 Works as executed plans

K503 Stormwater compliance

K504 Restriction as to user

L001 Approved landscaping plans

L003 Landscaping report requirements

L005 Planting of plant material

L006 Australian Standard landscaping requirements

L007 Tree protection measures

L008 Tree preservation order

Q01F Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q006 Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.2 The development shall comply with the following community safety and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) matters:

(a) All gates shall be lockable.

(b) The landscaping in the form of shrubs to the front of the car parking area shall be low in height. Dense vegetation with concentrated top to bottom foliage shall be avoided. The use of low vegetation will improve surveillance, provide clear lines of sight and avoid concealment areas along the frontage of the site.

(c) The external lighting facing the driveway area shall have a wide beam of illumination which reaches to the beam of the next light, or the perimeter of the area being traversed (i.e. the car parking area)

(d) Lighting shall be directed towards access/egress routes to illuminate potential offenders as well as the areas where people are most vulnerable

(e) Lighting shall be contained within the property boundary and no light shall be projected upwards

(f) Where appropriate, movement sensitive and diffused lights shall be used

(g) All lighting shall be vandal resistant where practical.

3.3 Waste Management Plan for the development shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section 2.9 (Waste Planning) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 and the childcare centre component must have as a minimum a weekly collection of the waste organised via a private contractor.

3.4 All car parking and manoeuvring must be in accordance with AS2890.1-2004; AS2890.6-2009 and Council's requirements.

Appropriate sight lines shall be maintained from the driveway in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004)

3.5 Dust suppression techniques are to be employed during demolition and construction to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties.

3.6 The hours of operation for the centre are 7:00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. The centre is not to operate on weekends or public holidays. Staff are not to generate noise that can be heard from an adjacent premises before 7am. Deliveries and waste removal are to occur between 7.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays.

3.7 A maximum of sixty two (62) children are permitted in the centre at any one time.

3.8 An additional toilet shall be provided. Details shall accompany the application for a construction certificate.

3.9 A maximum of sixteen (16) children aged between 0-2 years are allowed to play outside at any one time and twenty (20) children aged between 3-5 years are allowed to play outside at any one time.

3.10 The use of a public address system or amplified music is not permitted to be used in the outdoor play area. The use of amplified music within the building shall not be audible from residential boundaries.

3.11 The windows and doors of the indoor play rooms are to be kept closed when children are playing indoors.

3.12 Noise levels from the premises shall not exceed the relevant noise criteria detailed in the “Noise Assessment” by Acoustic Logic (dated 31/1/2013, refer 20120617.1/3007A/R1/JZ, revision 1). The recommendations provided in the above-mentioned documents are to be implemented and incorporated into the design and construction of the development, and shall be shown on plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

3.13 A report is to be obtained from a qualified acoustic consultant certifying that the development meets the relevant noise criteria and conditions of this consent. This report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 apply to the development, in terms of regulating offensive noise.

3.14 A noise barrier is to be provided along all boundaries as recommended in the acoustic report entitled “Noise Assessment” by Acoustic Logic (dated 31/1/2013, refer 20120617.1/3007A/R1/JZ, revision 1). The noise barrier is to be 2.2 metres in height, of construction certified by the acoustic consultant.

3.15 Detailed plans and specifications of the sound barrier walls are to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The walls are to be satisfactorily completed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

3.16 Within 12 months from the date of issuing the Occupation Certificate, a compliance report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to ensure that noise levels from and inside the development meet the noise emissions criteria set in the “Noise Assessment” by Acoustic Logic (dated 31/1/2013, refer 20120617.1/3007A/R1/JZ, revision 1).

A Compliance Report on this testing is to be prepared using the test data and it is to determine whether the noise emissions criteria for the development are being complied with and whether any mitigation works are required.

This report is to be prepared and provided to Council within sixty days of the testing. The report is to be approved by Council, with any recommendations being implemented in accordance with the approved report within twenty-one days from the direction of Council unless otherwise specified by Council. If Council is not the certifying authority for this development, the report is required to be provided to Penrith City Council for approval.

3.17 A Noise Management Plan (NMP) is to be prepared and submitted to Penrith City Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The NMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant and may need to be amended to include the any comments provided by Council. The NMP is to:

a) address all noise related aspects of the development's construction and operational phases, including:

i) how the restriction on the number of children playing outside will be managed; and

ii) a schedule describing the times of outdoor play for each group of children; and

iii) the management of visitors in the carpark attending the site picking up/dropping of children.

b) Address the relevant conditions of this consent

c) Recommend any systems/controls to be implemented to minimise the potential for any adverse noise impact(s).

d) Incorporate a program for ongoing monitoring and review to ensure that the NMP remains contemporary with relevant environmental standards.

The approved Noise Management Plan is to be implemented and complied with at all times.

3.18 Appropriate signage is to be provided to the carpark and entrance of the centre requesting patrons to minimise noise and protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood. Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate a suitable signage plan is to be submitted to Council for approval. The signage plan is to provide details on the location, sizing and wording of the proposed signs. The signs are to be erected prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

3.19 A public contact number is to be displayed on the childcare centre signage and this phone line must be operational during business hours. A complaint register is to be maintained and must include complaint details and any actions taken to address those complaints. A copy of the complaint register is to be provided to Council upon request.

3.20 In the event of on going noise complaints relating to the development being received by Council, the owner and/or occupier of the development maybe required by Council to obtain the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to undertake a noise impact assessment on the development to address the concerns of the community. The noise impact assessment report is to be prepared and provided to Council within 45 days of being requested. The assessment report is to be approved by Council, with any recommendations being implemented in accordance with the approved assessment report.

3.21 Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, a lighting system shall be installed for the development to provide uniform lighting across common areas and driveways.

Exterior lighting shall be located and directed in such a manner so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding landuses. The lighting shall be the minimum level of illumination necessary for safe operation. The lighting shall be in accordance with AS 4282 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” (1997).

3.22 A designated hand wash basin must be supplied within the food preparation area for hand washing only. It must be supplied with warm water through a common spout in compliance with AS 4674- 2004 and Food Safety Standard 3.2.3. The hand wash basin must also be supplied with soap and paper towel. The hand wash basin must be hands free as required by AS 4674-2004. If there is a separate bottle preparation area within the Centre then it must also be supplied with an additional hand wash basin supplied with warm water through a common spout.

3.23 The garbage area must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Food Safety Standard 3.2.3 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Specifically, external garbage storage areas are to be paved, graded, drained to a waste disposal system and provided with a hose tap to facilitate cleaning.

3.24 If the Centre wishes to utilize a dishwasher to sanitise food utensils and equipment, it must be capable of reaching 80^oC for 2 minutes, 75^oC for 10 min or 70^oC for 15 min in the rinse cycle as required by A S4674-2004.

3.25 As required by AS 4674-2004, mechanical ventilation shall be provided in accordance with AS1668 Parts 1 & 2 to the dishwasher if it vents steam into the surrounding area to the extent that there is, or likely to be, condensation collecting on walls and ceilings. If required, the installer of the exhaust system shall certify and submit appropriate documentation to Council prior to the issuing of the Occupation Certificate that the system has been installed in accordance with AS1668.

3.26 All floors within the food business are to be constructed, finished and appropriately coved in accordance with AS 4674 – 2004.

3.27 All walls within the food business are to be of solid construction and finished in accordance with AS 4674 – 2004.

3.28 The ceiling is to be constructed in accordance with AS 4674 – 2004. Please note drop-in panels are not permitted.

3.29 The premise is to be proofed against the entry of pests in accordance with AS 4674 – 2004.

3.30 In addition to the hand wash basin located in the food preparation area, a hand wash basin with warm water through a common spout in compliance with AS 4674-2004 and Food Safety Standard 3.2.3 must be installed within or immediately adjacent to the toilet. This hand wash basin must also be supplied with soap and paper towel.

3.31 Wastewater generated from mop buckets, cleaning mops and other cleaning activities must be disposed of in a cleaner’s sink or other approved facility.

3.32 A food business notification reference number shall be obtained from the NSW Food Authority prior to commencement of business operations and a copy of the notification shall be submitted to Council. Notification can be completed on the NSW Food Authority’s Food Notify website at www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au.

3.33 A satisfactory inspection from Council’s Environmental Health Department will be required prior to the issuing of the Occupation Certificate and operation of the business. The occupier is to contact the department to organise an appointment.

3.34 The recommendations of the Arboriculture Impact Assessment Report prepared by Urban Landscape Planners P/L shall be complied with. The trees required to be retained in accordance with this report shall be retained and at least 6 trees shall be planted on site to compensate for those removed.

3.35 The child care centre shall comply with the requirements of the Children’s Services Regulation 2004 and shall be appropriately licensed by NSW Community Services prior to the commencement of operation.

3.36 Trucks entering and leaving the site carrying construction materials that may generate dust shall be covered. Stockpiles of soil or other materials shall be covered or sprayed with water on a regular basis, particularly during dry or windy conditions.

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

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Locality Map	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Site & Floor Map	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	Elevation Map	1 Page	Appendix
4. View	Submissions to Council	8 Pages	Appendix
5. View	Explore and Develop Penrith	4 Pages	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

Development Application DA13/0656 single storey dwelling & variation of 88B instrument to remove trees and build within a restricted area at Lot 18 DP1083294 (No. 26-28) Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park Applicant: Cityscape Planning & Projects; Owner: Parkes (Survey) Pty Ltd

Compiled by: Stephen Krimmer, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types
Service Activity	Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a single storey dwelling. The application seeks to lift the restrictive covenant numbered 9 referred to in the Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 Instrument applying to the site at No. 26 – 28 Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park.

The covenant relates to a restricted building area. Penrith City Council is nominated as the authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify the terms of the restriction.

The dwelling achieves the objectives of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) by providing a design that is compatible with the surrounding area and minimises impacts on adjoining properties. The proposal has demonstrated that it is unlikely to have any significant impacts on achieving the outcomes intended by the planning and subdivision controls for the property.

It is recommended that the Section 88B Instrument be varied and the dwelling be constructed in the location proposed subject to the included conditions.

Background

On 17 March 2000 Council approved a subdivision application DA99/0677 for the creation of thirty seven (37) allotments for residential purposes. As a part of that approval, a restrictive covenant under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 was imposed.

Restriction numbered 9 referred to in the Section 88B Instrument applying to Deposited Plan No.1083294 burdens Lots 6-7, 18-19 & 21 and states:

“No building is to be constructed within the area marked ‘T’ on the subject plan”.

A development application for the construction of a single storey dwelling and a variation of the Section 88B Instrument to remove trees and build within the restricted area at Lot 18 DP 1083294, No. 26 – 28 Manifold Crescent Glenmore Park was lodged with Council on 2 July 2013 (DA13/0656).

Site and Surrounds

The site is situated on the bend of Manifold Crescent Glenmore Park and has an area of 1069m2. The site is irregular in shape and has a slope from the East to the West. The site is located south of the M4 Motorway.

The surrounding area is characterised by residential development. (See Locality Map in Appendix No. 1)

The Proposed Development

The proposal is to construct a single storey dwelling seeks a variation of the Section 88B Instrument to remove trees and build within a restricted area.

The development application was accompanied by:

· Site and elevation plans (See Appendix No. 2)

· Statement of Environmental Effects

· Tree impact report

· Basix certificate

Assessment relating to the Section 88B restriction

The development consent issued by Council for the subdivision identified a building restriction to retain trees on the site as shown on the Plan of Subdivision, Plan No. A1 8261 P11, drawn by Byrne & Associates Pty Ltd and dated 02/07/1999.

Council’s assessment report for the Subdivision Development Application stated:

The DCP for this area indicates that due to the location of the site and its prominence from the M4 that development for dwelling needs to be sensitive and trees retained, together with additional planting to screen development from the motorway.

It is proposed in the application to retain existing trees on the site by the use of underboring for services in some locations and building areas are proposed on some lots. The applicant also proposed extensive planting so as to further screen the site.

The assessment report also stated:

A Flora and Fauna report submitted with the application indicates that the existing vegetation is not significant, however trees should be retained if possible due to the visual significance of the site.

The subdivision approval also included requirements to construct an acoustic wall and subsequent landscaping between the subdivision and the M4. Additionally, there is an 88B restriction to limit dwellings to a single storey.

The developer planted two hundred and eighty (280) trees and shrubs which was substantially more than the fifty nine (59) specified in the original planting regime of the landscape architect. The grass and ground covers were also planted in volumes far in excess of that specified.

These measures now provide a visual screen from the M4 and the retention of the trees on the subject lot is considered less of a necessity than previously envisaged.

The arborist’s tree impact report submitted with the current proposed dwelling application indicates many of the trees on the site are in poor health and/or condition. The Report also notes that previous mechanical damage and site levelling/regrading has resulted in stress to many species, with subsequent secondary diseases.

The subject site contains seven (7) trees of which six (6) are proposed to be removed. There are an additional four (4) trees on the adjoining site. At this stage there is no development application for the adjoining site, as such these trees will be retained. The arborist’s tree impact report includes recommended tree protection measures for the trees being retained that may be impacted by the proposed development.

Due to the above matters the lifting of the restrictive covenant to remove trees and build within a restricted area would have minimal impact visually, or on the amenity or streetscape of the locality and will maintain a streetscape character conducive to the subdivision. The development complies with the key development standards in the Local Environmental Plan.

It is proposed that Councils seal be offered to the lifting of the covenant as it applies to the other lots burden (Lots 6, 7, 19, 21) to allow any future development applications on these lots to be determined on merit.

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to those matters. The following issues have been identified for further consideration:

1. Section 79C(1)(a)(i) - Any environmental planning instrument

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (SREP 20)

The development has been assessed with regard to the general planning considerations and the specific planning policies and recommended strategies of SREP 20. The proposed development will have minimal impacts on the total catchment management of water quality and water quantity. The development provides for stormwater to be disposed to a drainage easement at the rear corner of the site. Conditions of development consent are recommended to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures are provided during construction of the development. The proposal satisfies the considerations under SREP 20.

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) (LEP 1998)

The site is zoned 2(b) Residential (Low Density) under the provisions of LEP 1998. The proposed development is defined as a dwelling house, which is permissible with development consent. The proposal satisfies the objectives and provisions of LEP 1998 including the key development standards under Clause 12. The relevant sections are shown below.

	Standard	Proposed	Compliance
*Clause 12(3)* *Building envelope*	1.8 metres at side boundary with 45⁰ angle inwards	The building will fit within the nominated building envelope.	Yes
*Clause 12(3)* *Maximum external wall height*	6.5 metres	2.4m to approximately 4.4m at rear of dwelling (due to fall of land)	Yes
*Clause 12(3)* *Minimum landscape area*	50%	59% (634sqm)	Yes
*Clause 12(4)* *Rear setback*	4 metres (for a single storey development)	4 metres minimum	Yes

2. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) - Any draft environmental planning instrument

The site is subject to the draft Penrith City-wide Local Environmental Plan 2010 stage 2. Under the draft LEP the land is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed dwelling is a permissible use and is consistent with objectives and provisions of the draft LEP.

3. Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) - Any development control plan

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006)

DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the current development application. The development has been assessed with regard to the general development considerations of DCP 2006 such as front, side and rear setbacks, landscaped area and parking, solar planning, building design and energy efficiency. The proposal complies with the numerical development standards and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

4. Section 79C (1)(b) - The likely impacts of the development

Built and Natural Environment

The development is sympathetic to the streetscape and is consistent with the bulk, scale and design of other dwellings in the area. The development provides for appropriate separation between dwellings and does not detract from the amenity of neighbouring properties. The development will be conditioned to provide additional landscaping that will serve to enhance the development and the overall built and natural environment in the locality.

The development satisfies Council requirements for the provision of car parking and traffic generated by the development can be accommodated by the capacity of the existing road network in the locality.

The development satisfies sustainable development principles through its BASIX certificate commitments including a rainwater tank and improved thermal comfort by the use of wall and ceiling insulation.

The site has adequate utility services & infrastructure. Appropriate controls for the disposal of stormwater, in addition to soil erosion and sediment control measures are recommended as conditions of consent and will ensure the development does not have an adverse impact on the natural environment.

Social and Economic

The proposed dwelling is compatible with the surrounding and adjacent residential land uses and does not pose any adverse social or economic impact.

5. Section 79C(1)(c) - The suitability of the site for development

The subject site is within an established residential area that is zoned for low density housing development. The site is not known to be affected by any overland flows, landslip, bushfire or heritage controls. In view of the assessment, the site attributes are conducive to the type of development proposed and its integration with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed development fits the locality.

6. Section 79C(1)(d) - Any submissions made in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Regulations

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was notified to nearby and adjoining residents from 8 July 2013 to 22 July 2013. The proposed dwelling was mainly notified due to the request to vary the Section 88B Instrument.

Fifty (50) notification letters sent to the owners/occupiers with in the area covered by this subdivision. Two (2) submission were received, one (1) in favour (from the original developer, who is also listed as the owner of the subject site) and one (1) objection.

The matters raised in the objection submission included:

· Objection to the removal of trees within the restricted area.

· Some of the reasons they purchased land in this area were that a number of trees were protected and that you can only build single storey dwellings.

· The trees provide a visual screen between their home and the M4.

The matters raised were considered and the following is noted:

The conclusion of the arborist’s report is that many trees on site are in poor health and/or condition. Previous mechanical damage and site levelling / regrading has resulted in stress to many species, with subsequent secondary diseases.

The proposal is for a single storey dwelling and if approved it is proposed to be conditioned that filling is reduced/eliminated beyond the dwelling’s footprint and that the dwelling be moved slightly to further protect the tree being retained.

A number of the trees are on the adjoining site (lot 19) and are therefore not proposed to be removed as part of this application. Additional landscaping would also be conditioned.

7. Section 79C(1)(e) - The public interest

The proposal provides a development that is compatible with the existing streetscape, with no adverse impacts on the amenity of the area. The development will provide for additional housing in the area and will not generate any significant issues of public interest.

Conclusion

Assessment of the application to construct a single storey dwelling and to lift the restrictive covenant on the use of land numbered 9 referred to in the subject deposited plan applying to Lot 18 DP 1083294, has demonstrated that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the achievement of the outcomes intended by the planning and subdivision controls for this site. The proposed lifting of restrictive covenant will not compromise the safety, character or amenity of the locality.

The dwelling and the lifting of the restrictive covenant is therefore recommended for approval.

It is proposed that the lifting of the covenant also applies to the other lots burden (Lots 6, 7, 19, 21) to allow any future development applications on these lots to be determined on merit under Delegated Authority.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA13/0656 single storey dwelling & variation of 88B instrument to remove trees and build within a restricted area at Lot 18 DP1083294 (No. 26-28) Manifold Crescent, Glenmore Park be received.

2. The restrictive covenant on the use of land numbered 9 referred to in the Section 88B Instrument of the Conveyancing Act 1919 applying to Lot 18 in DP 1083294 (known as No. 26-28) Manifold Crescent Glenmore Park be lifted/released to allow building within the restricted area.

3. That all other lots burden by the restrictive covenant on the use of land numbered 9 (being Lots 6, 7, 19, 21 in DP1083294) also be lifted/released.

4. The Common Seal of Penrith City Council be affixed to all necessary documentation to vary/release the covenant.

5. That the application be approved subject to the following conditions.

Standard Conditions

a. A001 – Stamped approved plans

A008 – Works to BCA requirements

A019 – Occupation Certificate

A046 – Construction Certificate

D001 – Sediment and erosion controls

D009 – Waste storage

D010 – Disposal of waste

E001 – BCA compliance

F006 – Water tank

H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002 – All forms of construction

H022 - Survey

H036 – Water tank

H037 – Safe supply of water

H038 – Connection of tank

H039 – Tank pump

H041 – Hours of work

K016 – Stormwater

K026 – Stabilised access

P002 – Fees

Q01F – Notice of commencement

Q05F – Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

5.2 To further protect the trees being retained, the dwelling is to be positioned 1 metre closer to the North Eastern boundary of Manifold Crescent.

The revised dwelling position must maintain a rear setback of 4 metres measured to the external wall of the theatre room.

Amended plans showing the revised setbacks are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

5.3 Cut operations on the property are only permitted in conjunction with the building works as detailed on the approved plans and specifications, and shall not extend more than 2 metres past the defined building footprint or where tree protection measures are required. All fill is to be contained within the building footprint by the use of dropped edge beams.

Before any fill material is imported to site, a validation certificate issued by an appropriately qualified person is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The validation certificate must demonstrate that the fill material is free from contaminants and weeds, that it is suitable for its intended purpose and land use, and that it will not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

If Penrith City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the validation certificate is to be submitted to Council for their reference.

{Note: Penrith Contaminated Land Development Control Plan defines an appropriately qualified person as “a person who, in the opinion of Council, has a demonstrated experience, or access to experience in hydrology, environmental chemistry, soil science, eco-toxicology, sampling and analytical procedures, risk evaluation and remediation technologies. In addition, the person will be required to have appropriate professional indemnity and public risk insurance.”}

5.4 An Infrastructure Restoration Bond is to be lodged with Penrith City Council for development involving works around Council's Public Infrastructure Assets. The bond is to be lodged with Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The bond is based upon the estimated value of the works with a bond of $500.00 payable for the subject development.

The bond is refundable once a final inspection has been carried out by Council's Works Department and the works have been completed to Council's satisfaction. The bond may be used to repair or reinstate any damage that occurs to Council's Public Infrastructure Assets as a result of the development works. Contact Council's City Works Department on 4732 7777 or visit website to obtain the form and request for final inspection.

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

a) Provision of a vehicular crossing/s.

b) Opening the road reserve for the provision of services including stormwater.

c) Placing of hoardings, containers, waste skips, etc. in the road reserve.

All works within the road reserve shall be carried out in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

Penrith City Council (being the Roads Authority under the Roads Act) shall approve the works completed on or over the road reserve. Contact Council’s City Works Department on (02) 4732 7777 to arrange an inspection of the works (and payment of inspection fees, if required).

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

5.7 Prior A landscape plan is to be prepared by a professional listed in Council's Approved Landscape Consultants Register and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscape plan should include suitable replacement trees for those being removed.

All landscape works are to be constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Sections F5 “Planting Techniques”, F8 “Quality Assurance Standards”, F9 “Site Management Plan” of Penrith Council’s Landscape Development Control Plan.

Landscaping shall be maintained:

· in accordance with the approved plan, and

· in a healthy state, and

· in perpetuity by the existing or future owners and occupiers of the property.

If any of the vegetation comprising that landscaping dies or is removed, it is to be replaced with vegetation of the same species and, to the greatest extent practicable, the same maturity, as the vegetation which died or was removed.

5.8 The development is to be carried out in accordance with the stamped-approved Tree Impact Report No. 3406, by Monaco Designs P/L, and dated 07th June 2013, including:

· Replacement trees must be planted and the trees to be retained must be protected.

· The recommendations in the Tree Impact Report must be adopted.

· The owner/builder must employ an arborist to supervise and install tree protection measures in accordance with the Tree Impact Report and AS4970- 2009 Australian Standard® Protection of Trees on Development Sites prior to commencement of any works or construction.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Locality Map	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Site Plan	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	Floor Plan	1 Page	Appendix
4. View	Elevation Plans	2 Pages	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

Development Application DA13/0592 proposed demolition of existing structures, construction of a new community facility for supported employment at Lot 1 DP132721 (47-49) Rance Road, Werrington Applicant: Paynter Dixon; Owner: Thorndale Foundations Ltd

Compiled by: Jonathon Wood, Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types
Service Activity	Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the demolition of existing structures on the site and the construction of a Community Facility to be operated by Thorndale Foundation. The proposal is for a purpose built facility to be used for the delivery of day programme activities for persons with a disability as well as a disability enterprise- which involves light packaging and assembly by people attending the day programme activities.

Under Penrith Local Environmental Plan (South Werrington Urban Village) 2009 the site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The proposal is defined as a community facility which is permissible in the zone with the packaging component being an ancillary and incidental use and permissible on that basis.

The key issues identified as part of the planning assessment are as follows:

· Permissibility;

· Section 94 Contributions;

· Traffic and Parking;

· Acoustic Impacts to Adjoining R3 Land.

The applicant has requested that the Section 94 Contributions, payable under the Werrington Enterprise Living & Learning Precinct (WELL) Precinct Development Contributions Plan 2008, be waived in the current case given the nature of the use, not-for-profit status of Thorndale Foundation, and the community benefit provided by the proposal. The monetary value of the Section 94 Contributions is $99,909 and relates to roads and traffic facilities. Given the implications of waiving the Section 94 contributions, being a monetary shortfall in the Section 94 plan, the application has been referred to Council for determination.

An assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been undertaken and the application has been found to be satisfactory and is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

Background

Thorndale Foundation has owned the subject site since the 1960’s when the land was gifted by Penrith Council. The site operated for several decades as a community facility but has recently fallen into a dilapidated state and requires extensive works to provide a modern and contemporary facility. Thorndale currently operates from a number of sites across the LGA and intends to provide a single ‘flagship’ site that accommodates all of the relevant activities of the Thorndale Foundation.

The applicant attended a pre-lodgement meeting (PL13/0001) on 24 January 2013 with a number of issues discussed including:

· Zoning and Permissibility of the warehouse/production component of the development;

· Flood and Overland Flow Issues;

· Requirement for disables access and an Access Report;

· Requirement for a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report;

· Side boundary setbacks (2m recommended);

· Implications for future development of South Werrington Urban Village & Section 94 Contributions;

The issues identified at the pre-lodgement meeting have been addressed by the proponent, with additional information submitted in relation to permissibility and drainage/on-site detention that are now considered to be satisfactory.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated on the western side of Rance Road, approximately 50m north of the intersection of Rance Road and Werrington Road. The subject site is 8400m² in area with a 45.8m frontage to Rance Road. The site is orientated in an east/west direction and has a gentle slope west (rear, RL26) to east (front RL 24). A locality map is provided at Appendix 1.

The site currently contains an existing single storey dwelling that previously operated as a community facility. The site also contains an informal driveway access along the southern edge of the site and a small number of outbuildings behind the main building on the site. The site also contains a number of small trees and shrubs.

The site adjoins land owned by Sydney Water that shares the northern boundary with the subject site. The Pared School is located to the south-west of the site and the land to the west is owned by University of Western Sydney (UWS) and will facilitate the delivery of medium density housing in the future. Land to the south is identified for the future Werrington Arterial that is currently in its initial design stage. An extract of the South Werrington Urban Village Structure Plan is provided at Appendix 2 that shows the approximate location of the subject site within the WELL. The site is located to the north of the new east/west collector road and the drainage basin does not sit on the subject site.

The Proposed Development

The key aspects of the proposal are as follows:

· Demolition of existing structures on the site;

· Construction of a purpose built community facility comprising 3 key elements:

o Administration offices for Thorndale Foundation, these areas will be contained within the north wing of the building;

o Teaching Space;

o Factory used for the assembly and packaging of light goods, this will be located in the buildings western wing;

· Vehicular access via a driveway cross-over in the north-east corner of the site that connects to the 21 space car park and associated truck turning bay towards the rear of the site. The proposal incorporates a drop off zone at the front of the administration building and four (4) accessible parking spaces are proposed.

· Business Identification signage is also proposed on the buildings eastern façade;

· Powder coated palisade fencing is to be provided on the boundaries of the site with a new 1.8m x 1.2m freestanding sign proposed within the front setback area. Fencing is setback 5m-8m from the front boundary with a number of groundcovers proposed in front of the fencing.

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and having regard to those matters, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

1. Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007

The proposal is not identified as ‘traffic generating development’ however commentary was sought from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) given the proximity to the Werrington Arterial. See stakeholder discussion further in this report for further discussion noting the RMS has no objections to the proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

The applicant has outlined that the site has been owned and operated by the Thorndale Foundation for a period of several decades (1960’s) and no potentially contaminating activities have occurred on the site during this period. Councils Environment Unit have reviewed the proposal and the site and have outlined that contamination on the site is unlikely and therefore the site is deemed suitable for the use as per the provisions of Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

The proposal incorporates the erection of ‘business identification signage’ which means that the detailed provisions contained within Part 3 of the SEPP (which relate to ‘advertisements’) are not relevant to the application. However the proposal was assessed against the criteria specified in Schedule 1 of the SEPP. Compliance with the policy is outlined in the table below.

SEPP No. 64 – Advertising and Signage Assessment Criteria Checklist
1	Character of the area
	How is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?	The sign is considered compatible with the existing character of the area particularly when compared to the existing signage associated with Thorndale, and the fact that the signage is largely for the replacement of existing signage.
2	Special Areas
	Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?	No- Not Applicable
3	Views and Vistas
	Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?	No
	Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?	No
	Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?	Yes
4	Streetscape, Setting or Landscape
	How is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?	The proposed signage is suitable for the building, as it involves the provision of a sign affixed to the building façade itself. The freestanding sign is a replacement of an existing sign and the overall size is suitable in the context of the size of the site.
	How does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?	The signage breaks up the bulk of the building structures and marginally improves the visual interest of the streetscape.
	Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?	No. The signage will not protrude above the buildings.
5	Site and building
	How is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?	The proposal is compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the building.
	Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?	The proposal incorporates the name of the tenant and is consistent with other signage in the locality.
6	Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures
	Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage on which it is displayed?	No
7	Illumination
	Will illumination of the signs result in unacceptable glare?	No
	Will illumination affect the safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?	No
	Will illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?	No
	Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?	N/A
	Is the illumination subject to a curfew?	N/A
8	Safety
	Will the proposal reduce the safety of any public road?	No
	Will the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?	No
	Will the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?	No

As can be seen from the compliance table above the proposal is generally compliant with the provisions of the SEPP. The proposal has been assessed against the other relevant provisions contained with the SEPP and found to be consistent.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No.20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River

SREP No. 20 applies to the subject land and stipulates that the consent authority shall not grant consent to an application unless it is of the opinion that the carrying out of the development is consistent with any relevant, general and specific aim of SREP 20.

The general aims and objectives of the plan are directed towards improving the amenity of the river and protecting the lands within the river valley, including scenic quality. The proposal will have minimal impacts and will not compromise the water or scenic qualities of the river environment given the satisfactory drainage arrangements proposed that will sufficiently manage any wastewater movement to the street network. Erosion and sediment control measures are to be employed during construction and reinforced by conditions.

Penrith LEP 2009- South Werrington Urban Village

As shown on the zoning map extract below the subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the PLEP 2009.

Permissibility

Community Facilities are permitted within the R3 Medium Density zone, with the following definition contained within the LEP:

community facility means a building or place:

(a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

(b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

The day programmes and administration activities fit comfortably within the definition of community facility noting Thorndale Foundation is a not for profit organisation.

The factory/warehouse element would be defined as a light industry that is prohibited within the zone. However the proponent has outlined in detail the nature of the operations within the factory portion of the site that relate to the delivery of day programmes and the provision of supported employment for persons with an intellectual disability. The packaging activities are designed to provide for the continued development of clients of Thorndale, with those who progress through the program able to undertake the light packaging work in the factory area as part of their continued skills development and training. This progression demonstrates that the factory element is an integral part of the broader community facility rather than a separate element that would be prohibited in the zone.

In this case the factory element is considered ancillary based on the following assessment:

· The factory element is to be used by Thorndale Foundation for ongoing training and intellectual development of persons with disabilities;

· The factory element is purpose built and designed to cater for the needs of people with disabilities who are clients of the Thorndale Foundation;

· The use of the factory element is an integral aspect of the community facility and the use of the factory is dependent upon the community facility operating from the site, rather than a ‘separate and separable’ element that can operate in isolation of the community facility;

· The factory element is run entirely by Thorndale Foundation.

In The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSW LEC 1082 a café and convenience store were permitted in a residential zone as part of an aged care facility, despite the café and convenience store being prohibited in the zone. In that case those elements were considered to be ancillary to the aged care facility and conditions of consent were imposed to reflect this ancillary element. It is proposed to impose a condition of consent outlining that the factory element is only authorised to be operated in conjunction with the community facility and by the Thorndale Foundation to ensure that the operations remain ancillary at all times.

Based on the above discussion the proposal is considered to be permissible with consent as a community facility with ancillary factory element.

Zone Objectives

The objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone are prescribed as follows:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To provide for a concentration of housing with access to services and facilities.

• To ensure that a reasonable high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

• To ensure new development reflects the desired future character described in the Penrith Development Control Plan.

The development proposal is consistent with the third objective of the zone through provision of a community facility designed to provide a key service for the locality and broader region. In addition the proposal does not compromise future development of the subject site, or adjoining sites, for residential development in the future.

Part 4 Principal Development Standards

The proposal complies with the 15m maximum building height control contained in the LEP, with the building incorporating a maximum height of approximately 7.63m.

Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions

The proposal involves the removal of a number of trees that is considered satisfactory in the context of the development. The proposal will have no impact on the heritage significance of Werrington Park House which is located some 900m to the west of the subject site.

Part 6 Urban Release Areas

Clause 6.2 requires satisfactory public utility infrastructure to service the development. The site is serviced with power, sewer, and potable water and as such public utilities are available and the provisions of the clause are satisfied.

Part 7 Additional Local Provisions

Clause 7.1: Sustainable Development

The proposal is designed to incorporate sustainability measures including orientation of buildings/windows to promote natural light and passive heating and cooling. The proposal makes appropriate provision for waste storage and the site is within walking distance to the railway station that enables a reduction in car dependence.

Clause 7.2: Flood Planning Land

The development site is partly identified as flood prone and comments received from Council’s Development Engineers indicate the information submitted is satisfactory and therefore the proposal is considered consistent with Clause 7.2 Flood Planning Land.

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

Draft Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

The Draft LEP is predominantly a translation of existing controls into a single standard instrument format. The Draft LEP continues to apply an R3 Medium Density zoning and the proposal remains permissible with consent as per the discussion provided previously in this report. The proposal satisfies the relevant LEP provisions with those provisions worthy of further discussion provided below:

· 4.3 Height of Buildings: The proposal has a maximum building height of 7.63m which is less than the maximum building height of 8.5m;

· 7.3 Flood Planning: The proposal incorporates a 500mm freeboard which complies with the relevant flooding planning requirements. In addition Council Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and found the development satisfactory in terms of flood impacts;

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

Penrith DCP 2006

1.7 Notification and Advertising

The development proposal was notified to adjoining properties and no submissions were received in response.

2.9 Waste Planning

A waste management plan was submitted with the development application and found to be satisfactory.

2.10 Flood Liable Land

The subject site is identified as flood prone and this is discussed further in relation to Development Engineering referral comments. In summary the proposal adopts an appropriate flood level, noting the flood level is 24.2m and the finished floor levels are at RL26.7m. This matter is also reinforced by consent conditions.

3.1 Advertising Signs

The proposed signage is consistent with the relevant DCP provisions and the freestanding sign of 1.8m x 1.2m is appropriate given the size of the site and width of the allotment. No signage is illuminated.

6.32 South Werrington Urban Village

The development proposal has been assessed against the provisions of this section of the DCP, noting that given the nature of the use the majority of the DCP provisions are not relevant to the proposal. Those of relevance, which relate predominantly to ensuring that the dwelling yield and new roads are not compromised, are discussed in turn.

Clause 1.9 Concept Plans

The DCP provides the following:

A Concept Plan setting out proposals for the development on each of the different development zones (ie: Residential and Light Industry) is required to be lodged prior to, or with, the first subdivision development application for each of the different development zones.

The application is not for residential subdivision and therefore there is no need for the submission of a Concept Plan.

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

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

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

(i) Context and Setting

The proposal is located within the South Werrington Urban Village release area and is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The proposed community facility, whilst not being a residential use, has been designed to be compatible with the industrial lands to the south and the residential lands to the north and west. The design of the development does not prejudice future development to the north and west with the acoustic impacts of the development not exceeding relevant criteria. The design of the development provides a substantial front setbacks and landscape works within the front and side setback areas to screen the hardstand areas of the development and the building itself presents a well articulated single storey form to the street.

(ii) Access, Parking and Traffic

The proposed vehicle access arrangements and car parking on the site will be adequate for the proposal.

The proposal will have no adverse traffic generation impacts on the local road system.

Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal with regard to parking and traffic considerations and has provided the following comments:

Parking

DCP 2006 does not specify a parking rate applicable to this development. The traffic report has based the calculations for parking on other similar activities conducted by the Thorndale Foundation. In consideration of staff and clients that do and do not drive to the facilities, it is expected that 21 spaces, including 4 accessible spaces, will be adequate for the facility. Ample area on-site is available for future parking if required.

If calculated on the DCP 2006 for office (1/40m² for approx 587m²) and warehouse (1/100m² for approx 1017m²), this could require say 25 spaces.

Therefore, 21 spaces seem appropriate for this particular use, with potential to expand if necessary.

Consideration should be given to the installation of bicycle racks at convenient and safe locations at the premises for use by staff and clients.

Access and Circulation

Access is provided via a new 6.2m wide driveway to the northbound only section of Rance Road. Southbound vehicular entry to the site is not available.

Turning area for heavy vehicles 12.5m, garbage collection and shuttle buses is proposed at the rear of the site. All vehicles are to leave the site in a forward direction.

The required sight lines around the driveway entrance are not to be compromised by street trees, landscaping or fencing.

Traffic Generation

Based on similar developments, traffic movements have been estimated to be 15 vehicles in the am peak and 15 vehicles in the pm peak. No adverse traffic impacts are expected from the additional traffic generated by the development and it is anticipated that the local road network will have adequate spare capacity to cater for this traffic generation.

The application was also referred to the RMS who outlined there was no objection to the development.

In summary, Council’s Traffic Engineer and the RMS are satisfied with the proposed parking and traffic related aspects of the proposal.

(iii) Hours of Operation

The proposed hours of operation are 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday. The hours of operation are considered reasonable in the circumstances noting the land to the south is zoned IN2 and the land to the north and west is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The Acoustic Report, prepared by Acoustic Logic, outlines that the development will not result in breaching relevant Acoustic Criteria, subject to recommendations regarding plan equipment that are reinforced by proposed conditions of consent.

(iv) Social and Economic Impacts

The proposal poses no potential adverse social or economic impacts.

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

The site attributes are conducive to the development proposal. The proposal has been designed in a manner consistent with the character of the locality and the specific constraints identified on the subject site- i.e. vehicular access point and relationship to adjoining R3 zoned land to the north and west.

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

Referrals

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

*Referral Body*	*Comments Received*
Traffic	No objections, subject to conditions, and parking and traffic generation considered satisfactory.
Building	No objections, subject to conditions.
Community Safety	No objections, subject to conditions.
Access Committee	No objections.
Roads and Maritime Services	RMS has no approved proposal that requires any part of the subject property for road purposes however the subject property is within the study area for corridor reservation for both Stage 2 of the Werrington Arterial and the Outer Sydney Orbital. Investigations to develop a corridor for Stage 2 of the Werrington Arterial are expected to commence during the 2013/2014 financial year. RMS raised no objection to the proposed access to Rance Road however any changes to the access arrangements as a result of the design and construction of the Werrington Arterial, the Outer Sydney Orbital and the local precinct are to be at no cost to RMS.
Development Engineer	The northern edge of the site is required to provide a catch drain to deal with overland flow from the Sydney Water site however there is a pedestrian path along part of this area. Otherwise no objections, subject to conditions. Comment: A condition is proposed outlining that the catch drain is to be designed and located to ensure that an accessible path of travel is maintained and that the design be reviewed by an appropriate qualified access consultant.
Environment	Contamination is not considered to be an issue given the historical use of the site by the Thorndale Foundation (since 1950’s) and based on the information submitted with the application. An acoustic report was requested detailing impacts to adjoining properties (zoned R3 Medium Density Residential). The acoustic report was reviewed and found to be satisfactory subject to conditions.

Community Consultation

In accordance with Section 2.7 (Notification and Advertising) of Penrith DCP 2006 the proposed development was notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties. The public exhibition period for the proposal was from 1 July 2013 to 15 July 2013. There were no public submissions received by Council received in relation to the proposal.

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

The site is suitable for the proposed development. The proposed development is permissible under the site’s zoning and the proposal meets the aims and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instruments. The proposed development is likely to improve the overall appearance of the site.

The properties in the immediate vicinity of the site were notified of the development proposal. It is unlikely that the proposed development will adversely impact on adjoining properties, subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Section 94 Contributions

The WELL Precinct Section 94 Contributions Plan applies to the land. The S94 plan provides for a number of key pieces of infrastructure within the SWUV, including:

· East/West Collector Road (located to the north of the site);

· Drainage Facilities;

· Cycleways;

· Open Space Networks.

The current proposal is for a community facility and as such there is no residential component that means there is no demand for community facilities, and open space generated by the proposal. Discussion with Councils Section 94 Coordinator has revealed that as there is no nexus between the development and the delivery of community facilities and open space within the precinct, then Section 94 will not be levied on this aspect of the development. In addition, as the development deals with stormwater on the site, through the use of an on-site detention system, there is no nexus/requirement to levy drainage contributions.

The subject site equates to 0.84Ha of Net Developable Area, and 0.7804ha after giving a credit for the existing building on the site. This means that the proposal should be levied Section 94 contributions towards roadworks as required by the Contributions Plan. Without levying these contributions there may be a funding shortfall that would needed to be funded by Council to ensure delivery of the relevant infrastructure.

The development contribution equates to $99,909 that is required by the current plan to be levied prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. It is noted that there is an amended WELL Precinct S94 Contributions Plan that was adopted by Council on 27 June 2011, however the plan has not been exhibited nor made, and therefore has no effect. The amended plan is yet to be made due to broader external review implications, which could affect the delivery of itemised infrastructure outlined with the Contributions Plan. It is noted that if the amended plan was to come into effect, it would see the required contributions for road works and traffic infrastructure being reduced to approximately $13,900 as significant road works, including collector roads relating to other development sites are removed from the plans. As the amended plan is not yet in force however the reduced rate cannot be applied by Council.

The proponent has provided a request to vary the requirement for the imposition of Section 94 Contributions based on a number of key grounds:

1. Thorndale is a not-for profit organisation and the imposition of the $99,909 contributions would affect the feasibility of the project and the future support services able to be offered;

2. Thorndale Foundation provides a valuable Community facility that will cater for existing people with disability within the Community, as well as being located to cater for potential clients within the future population within the WELL Precinct.

3. The particular circumstances associated with this proposal means that negligible demand or impact is likely to arise in relation to the need for improvements to road or transport infrastructure arising from the development.

4. The proposal complies with the required levels of on-site parking and all driveway relocation works are being carried out at the cost of Thorndale Foundation. In addition the operations include a private shuttle bus to transport clients to/from the site which aligns with the intent of Section 3.2 of the plan to achieve the 10% reduction in private transportation. Negligible increase in traffic volumes associated with the development that maintains the existing level of service as stipulated in Section 3.2 of the Contributions Plan.

5. The proposal involves a significant reduction in both parking and traffic generation as compared to the primary purpose of the zoning- being medium density development.

The views are expressed have merit, noting the significant benefits the proposal will bring to the site and the large reduction in land use intensity compared to a medium density development on the site. Such a medium density development could conceivably accommodate 60-80 medium density dwellings being located on the site if developed for residential purposes.

The request to fully waive the Section 94 contributions will result in a funding shortfall of $99,909 based on the current Section 94 Plan and approximately $13,900 under the adopted, but not yet in force plan. As a result the following options are available for Council to consider:-

1. The request to waive the Section 94 contributions be supported given the grounds put forward by the proponent and as such no Section 94 Contributions are imposed on the consent;

2. The request to waive the Section 94 contributions be supported, and the full Section 94 contributions of $99,909 are imposed on the consent.

It is considered in this instance however, that a waiver of all Section 94 Contributions is appropriate for the reasons submitted by the applicant and having specific regard to the limited demand on services which will actually now be delivered in the catchment and the overall community benefit that the development will provide if it proceeds.

Conclusion

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory. The site is suitable for the proposed development and the proposal is in the public interest. The proposal is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA13/0592 proposed demolition of existing structures, construction of a new community facility for supported employment at Lot 1 DP132721 (47-49) Rance Road, Werrington be received.

2. That the request to waive the Section 94 Contributions be supported based on the information contained within this report.

3. Development Application 13/0592 at Lot 1 DP 132721 (47-49) Rance Road be granted consent subject to the following conditions:

3.1 A001 The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and documents contained within the table below and stamped approved by Council, the application form, and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions.

Plan/Document	Reference No.	Prepared by	Dated
Proposed Site Plans	Project Number 12-0091 Dwg No.s: DA-A-050, DA-A-051, DA-A-052	Quattro Architecture	12 June 2013
Administration and Day Programs	Project Number 12-0091 Dwg No.s: DA-A-100 DA-A-101, DA-A-102	Quattro Architecture	12 June 2013
Warehouse and Production Space	Project Number 12-0091 Dwg No.s: DA-A-120, DA-A-121, DA-A-122, DA-A-123	Quattro Architecture	12 June 2013
Plan/Document	Reference No.	Prepared by	Dated
Finishes Schedule	DA-A-1000	Quattro Architecture	12 June 2013
Perspective Site Views	DA-A-1001	Quattro Architecture	12 June 2013
Landscape Plans	SS12-2556 Dwg No. 101 & 102 Rev B	Site Image	12 June 2013
Stormwater Concept Plans & Erosion and Sediment Control Plans	2248 Drawing No. SW-1 to SW-5 Issue B	Abel & Brown Pty Ltd	August 2013
Traffic and Parking Assessment Report	12163 Rev B	Transport and Traffic Planning Associates	May 2013
Statement of Environmental Effects	SA 4764	Urbis	June 2013
Acoustic Report	20130727.1/2907A/R0/JZ	Acoustic Logic	29 July 2013
Accessibility Report	Thorndale Foundation DA Access Report	Access Australia	12 June 2013

A019 The development shall not be used or occupied until an Occupation Certificate has been issued.

A029 The operating hours are from 8 am to 5 pm Mondays to Fridays. Delivery and service vehicles generated by the development are limited to 7am and 6 pm Monday to Friday.

A039 Procedures should be in place to ensure that any vandalism, damage or broken fixtures are repaired promptly. This includes replacement of broken lights, removal of graffiti, litter removal and other general maintenance to ensure the development is clean and tidy.

A046 A Construction Certificate shall be obtained prior to commencement of any building works.

B002 All demolition works are to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of AS 2601-1991 “The Demolition of Structures”. Prior to demolition, all services shall be suitably disconnected and capped off or sealed to the satisfaction of the relevant service authority requirements.

All demolition and excavated material shall be disposed of at a Council approved site or waste facility. Details of the proposed disposal location(s) of all excavated material from the development site shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of demolition.

B003 Prior to commencement of demolition works on site the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:

· Measures are in place so as to comply with the WorkCover Authority's "Short Guide to Working with Asbestos Cement" and

· The person employed to undertake the works is a licensed asbestos removal contractor and is holder of a current WorkCover Asbestos Licence.

Any demolition works involving the removal of all asbestos shall only be carried out by a licensed asbestos removal contractor who has a current WorkCover Asbestos Licence.

All asbestos laden waste, including asbestos cement flat and corrugated sheeting must be disposed of at a tipping facility licensed by the Environmental Protection Authority to receive asbestos wastes.

B004 Dust suppression techniques are to be employed during demolition to reduce any potential nuisances to surrounding properties.

B005 Mud and soil from vehicular movements to and from the site must not be deposited on the road.

B006 Demolition works will be restricted to the following hours in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines:

· Mondays to Fridays, 7am to 6pm

· Saturdays, 7am to 1pm (if inaudible on neighbouring residential premises), otherwise 8am to 1pm

· No demolition work is permitted on Sundays and Public Holidays.

In the event that the demolition relates to works inside the building and do not involve external walls or the roof, and do not involve the use of equipment that emits noise then the demolition works are not restricted to the hours stated above.

The provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 in regulating offensive noise also apply to all construction works.

D001 Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to the commencement of works on site including approved clearing of site vegetation. The erosion and sediment control measures are to be maintained in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan(s) for the development and the Housing NSW “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” 2004.

(Note: To obtain a copy of the publication, you should contact Urban Growth NSW on (02) 98418600).

D006 No fill material shall be imported to the site until such time as a Validation Certificate (with a copy of any report forming the basis for the validation) for the fill material has been submitted to the PCA and Council. The Validation Certificate shall:

· state the legal property description of the fill material source site,

· be prepared by an appropriately qualified person,

· clearly indicate the legal property description of the fill material source site,

· provide details of the volume of fill material to be used in the filling operations,

· provide a classification of the fill material to be imported to the site in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority's "Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classification & Management of Non-Liquid Wastes" 1997, and

· based on the fill classification) determine whether the fill material is suitable for its intended purpose and land use and whether the fill material will or will not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

If the Principal Certifying Authority or Penrith City Council is not satisfied that suitable fill materials have been used on the site, further site investigations or remediation works may be requested. In these circumstances the works shall be carried out prior to any further approved works.

D009 All waste materials stored on-site are to be contained within a designated area such as a waste bay or bin to ensure that no waste materials are allowed to enter the stormwater system or neighbouring properties. The designated waste storage areas shall provide at least two waste bays / bins so as to allow for the separation of wastes, and are to be fully enclosed when the site is unattended.

D010 All excavated material and other wastes generated as a result of the development are to be re-used, recycled or disposed of in accordance with the approved waste management plan.

Waste materials not specified in the approved waste management plan are to be disposed of at a lawful waste management facility. Where the disposal location or waste materials have not been identified in the waste management plan, details shall be provided to the Certifying Authority as part of the waste management documentation accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

All receipts and supporting documentation must be retained in order to verify lawful disposal of materials and are to be made available to Penrith City Council on request.

E006 Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities are to be provided and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428 “Design for Access and Mobility”. Details of compliance are to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

E008 A fire safety list of essential fire or other safety measures shall be submitted to Penrith City Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The fire safety list shall specify all measures (both current and proposed) that are required for the building so as to ensure the safety of persons in the building in the event of fire. The fire safety list must distinguish between:

· the measures that are currently implemented in the building premises, and

· the measures that are to be proposed to be implemented in the building premises, and must specify the minimum standard of performance for each measure.

E009 The owner of a building, to which an essential fire safety measure is applicable, shall provide Penrith City Council with an annual fire safety statement for the building. The annual fire safety statement for a building must:

a) deal with each essential fire safety measure in the building premises, and

b) be given:

· within 12 months after the last such statement was given, or

· if no such statement has previously been given, within 12 months after a final fire safety certificate was first issued for the building.

· As soon as practicable after the annual fire safety statement is issued, the owner of the building to which the statement relates:

· must also provide a copy of the statement (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) to the Commissioner of New South Wales Fire Brigades, and

· prominently display a copy of the statement (together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule) in the building.

E01A All aspects of the building design shall comply with the applicable performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia so as to achieve and maintain acceptable standards of structural sufficiency, safety (including fire safety), health and amenity for the on-going benefit of the community. Compliance with the performance requirements can only be achieved by:

a) complying with the deemed to satisfy provisions, or

b) formulating an alternative solution which:

· complies with the performance requirements, or

· is shown to be at least equivalent to the deemed to satisfy provision, or

c) a combination of (a) and (b).

It is the owner's responsibility to place on display, in a prominent position within the building at all times, a copy of the latest fire safety schedule and fire safety certificate/ statement for the building.

H001 Stamped plans, specifications, a copy of the development consent, the Construction Certificate and any other Certificates to be relied upon shall be available on site at all times during construction.

The following details are to be displayed in a maximum of 2 signs to be erected on the site:

· the name of the Principal Certifying Authority, their address and telephone number,

· the name of the person in charge of the work site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted during work hours,

· that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited,

· the designated waste storage area must be covered when the site is unattended, and

· all sediment and erosion control measures shall be fully maintained until completion of the construction phase.

· Signage but no more than 2 signs stating the above details is to be erected:

· at the commencement of, and for the full length of the, construction works onsite, and

· in a prominent position on the work site and in a manner that can be easily read by pedestrian traffic.

All construction signage is to be removed when the Occupation Certificate has been issued for the development.

H002 Prior to the commencement of construction works:

a) Toilet facilities at or in the vicinity of the work site shall be provided at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided must be:

· a standard flushing toilet connected to a public sewer, or

· if that is not practicable, an accredited sewage management facility approved by the council, or

· alternatively, any other sewage management facility approved by council.

b) All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with the appropriate professional standards. All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

c) If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation to be made:

· must preserve and protect the building from damage, and

· if necessary, must underpin and support the building in an approved manner, and

· must, at least 7 days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished. The owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of work carried out for the purposes of this condition, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on the adjoining allotment of land, (includes a public road and any other public place).

d) If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient, or involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place:

· if necessary, an awning is to be erected, sufficient to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work falling into the public place,

· the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place, and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

H011 Detailed engineering plans and specifications relating to the work shall be submitted for consideration and approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

H041 Construction works or subdivision works that are carried out in accordance with an approved consent that involve the use of heavy vehicles, heavy machinery and other equipment likely to cause offence to adjoining properties shall be restricted to the following hours in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines:

· Mondays to Fridays, 7am to 6pm

· Saturdays, 7am to 1pm (if inaudible on neighbouring residential premises), otherwise 8am to 1pm

· No work is permitted on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Other construction works carried out inside a building/tenancy and do not involve the use of equipment that emits noise are not restricted to the construction hours stated above.

The provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 in regulating offensive noise also apply to all construction works.

K010 All roadworks, drainage works and dedications, required to effect the consented development shall be undertaken at no cost to Penrith City Council.

K203 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for building or subdivision works the Principal Certifying Authority and/ or Certifying Authority shall ensure that a Roads Act application, including the payment of application and inspection fees, has been lodged with, and approved by Penrith City Council (being the Roads Authority under the Roads Act), for the following works.

· Provision of kerb and gutter, drainage and ancillary works in Rance Road

· Removal of redundant vehicular crossings and reinstatement of kerb and gutter including associated path paving

· Provisions of heavy-duty vehicular crossing

· Provisions for signage indicating one way movements for Rance Road (for exiting traffic)

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

Note:

1) Where Penrith City Council is the Certifying Authority for the development the Roads Act approval for the above works may be issued concurrently with the Construction Certificate.

2) Contact Penrith City Council’s Development Engineering Unit on (02) 4732 7777 to ascertain applicable fees.

K210 Stormwater drainage shall be provided generally in accordance with the concept plan/s lodged for development approval, prepared by Abel and Brown Pty Ltd, reference number 2248, revision B, dated August 2013.

The proposed development and stormwater drainage system shall be designed to ensure that stormwater runoff from upstream properties is conveyed through the site without adverse impact on the development or adjoining properties.

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

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

K215 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that all habitable floor levels are a minimum of RL 24.7m AHD (standard flood level + 0.5m).

K221 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that vehicular access, circulation, manoeuvring, pedestrian and parking areas associated with the subject development are in accordance with AS 2890.1, AS2890.2, AS2890.6 and Penrith City Council’s Development Control Plan.

K223 Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate a performance bond is to be lodged with Penrith City Council for all works in Rance Road.

The value of the bond shall be determined in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Bond Policy. The bond will be administered in accordance with this policy.

Note:

Contact Council’s Development Engineering Unit on 4732 7777 for further information relating to bond requirements.

K501 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all works within the road reserve have been inspected and approved by Penrith City Council.

K502 After completion of all civil works, works-as-executed drawings and compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

An original set of works-as-executed drawings and copies of compliance documentation shall also be submitted to Penrith City Council with notification of the issue of the Occupation Certificate where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority.

K503 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that the:

a) Stormwater System & OSD System

· Have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate and the requirements of this consent.

· Have met the design intent with regard to any construction variations to the approved design.

· Any remedial works required to been undertaken have been satisfactorily completed.

Details of the approved and constructed system/s shall be provided as part of the works-as-executed drawings.

K504 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a restriction as to user and positive covenant relating to the:

a) On-site detention system/s

Shall be registered on the title of the property. The restriction as to user and positive covenant shall be in Penrith City Council’s standard wording as detailed in Penrith City Council’s Design and Construction Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

K509 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate directional signage and linemarking shall be installed indicating directional movements and the location of customer parking to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

K513 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate a maintenance bond is to be lodged with Penrith City Council for all works located in Rance Road.

The value of the bond shall be determined in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Bond Policy. The bond will be administered in accordance with this policy.

Note:

Contact Council’s Development Engineering Unit on 4732 7777 for further information relating to bond requirements.

L001 All landscape works are to be constructed in accordance with the stamped-approved plan and Sections F5 "Planting Techniques", F8 "Quality Assurance Standards", F9 "Site Management Plan" of Penrith Council's Landscape Development Control Plan.

Landscaping shall be maintained:

· in accordance with the approved plan, and

· in a healthy state, and in perpetuity by the existing or future owners and occupiers of the property.

Q01F Prior to the commencement of any earthworks or construction works on site, the proponent is to:

a) employ a Principal Certifying Authority to oversee that the said works carried out on the site are in accordance with the development consent and related Construction Certificate issued for the approved development, and with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and accompanying Regulation, and

b) submit a Notice of Commencement to Penrith City Council.

The Principal Certifying Authority shall submit to Council an “Appointment of Principal Certifying Authority” in accordance with Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Information to accompany the Notice of Commencement

Two (2) days before any earthworks or construction/demolition works are to commence on site (including the clearing site vegetation), the proponent shall submit a “Notice of Commencement” to Council in accordance with Section 81A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Special Conditions

3.2 Lighting is to be installed to the building entrance and drop-off point and is to provide sufficient illumination to ensure appropriate levels of visibility.

3.3 The catch drain along the northern edge of the site is to be designed to ensure that the accessible path of travel from the street frontage to the building entry is maintained. The final design of the catch drain is to be reviewed by an access consultant and certification provided that the path will continue to meeting relevant access standards. A heel safe, or similar, type drainage grate is to be provided.

3.4 The factory production area is only permitted to operate as an ancillary element to the Thorndale Foundation Community Facility. The factory production area is to be used for supported employment and continued development of persons with a disability who are clients of the Thorndale Foundation.

3.5 Noise levels from the premises shall not exceed the relevant noise criteria detailed in the Acoustic Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic (dated 29/7/2013 ref 20130727.1/2907A/RO/JZ). The recommendations provided in the above-mentioned documents are to be implemented and incorporated into the design and construction of the development, and shall be shown on plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application. In this regard the recommendations are to include:

· The glazing requirements stipulated in Section 6.1; and

· The detailed review of the mechanical plant prior to Construction Certificate in Section 6.4; and

· The enclosure constructed around the compressor as detailed in Section 6.4.

A report is to be obtained from a qualified acoustic consultant certifying that the development meets the relevant noise criteria and conditions of this consent. This report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

The provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 apply to the development, in terms of regulating offensive noise.

3.6 A Noise Management Plan (NMP) is to be prepared and submitted to Penrith City Council for consideration and approval prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The NMP shall be prepared by suitably qualified consultants and may need to be amended to include the any comments provided by Council. The NMP is to:

· address all noise related aspects of the development's operational phases, including;

- management of the car park;

- Operations of the warehousing component; and

- Visitors to the site for day programs.

· address the relevant conditions of this consent.

· recommend any systems/controls to be implemented to minimise the potential for any adverse noise impact(s).

· incorporate a program for ongoing monitoring and review to ensure that the NMP remains contemporary with relevant environmental standards.

The approved Noise Management Plan is to be implemented and complied with at all times. Any proposed changes to this Plan require approval from Council.

3.7 A public contact number is to be displayed on the facility signage and this phone line must be operational during business hours. A complaint register is to be maintained and must include complaint details and any actions taken to address those complaints. A copy of the complaint register is to be provided to Council upon request.

In the event of on going noise complaints relating to the development being received by Council, the owner and/or occupier of the development maybe required by Council to obtain the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to undertake a noise impact assessment on the development to address the concerns of the community.

The noise impact assessment report is to be prepared and provided to Council within 45 days of being requested. The assessment report is to be approved by Council, with any recommendations being implemented in accordance with the approved assessment report.

3.8 All car parking and manoeuvring must be in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 and AS2890.6-2009.

3.9 The required sight lines around the driveway entrance are not to be compromised by street trees, landscaping or fencing.

3.10 All vehicles are to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

3.11 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the access driveway on Rance Road has been designed to facilitate two way heavy vehicular movements between the property boundary and the roadway.

3.12 Landscape plantings are to be maintained to ensure passive surveillance from the landscaped terrace and street frontage.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Locality Map	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Internal Plan	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	External Plans	2 Pages	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

Development Application DA13/0405 Proposed Dwelling Addition to Existing Residence at Lot 97 DP 706003 (No. 4) Ogden Close, St Clair Applicant: Evolving Design & Drafting; Owner: Kerry Miles

Compiled by: Stephen Krimmer, Environmental Health and Building Surveyor

Authorised by: Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types
Service Activity	Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a ground floor addition to the existing single storey dwelling at 4 Ogden Close, St Clair. In accordance with reporting procedures provided by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the matter is forwarded to Council for determination as the variation to the rear setback exceeds 25%. The report recommends the SEPP1 objection be supported and the development application be approved.

The site is zoned 2 (b) Residential (Low Density) under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998 Urban Land. Under the objectives of the LEP, development is required to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings, protect landscapes and urban areas with traditional residential character and to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

The dwelling addition achieves these objectives by providing a site responsive development that compliments the surrounding area and minimises impacts on adjoining properties.

The application is supported by the submission of an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 and seeks a variation to the rear setback requirement and minimum landscaped area.

The SEPP 1 objection has demonstrated that full compliance with the rear setback and minimum landscaped area requirements is unreasonable due to the existing dwelling encroachment, irregular shape of the lot and similar developments in the locality. The variation to the planning control associated with the proposed addition is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is situated at the end of a cul-de-sac in Ogden Close and is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling. The site is 751m² in area and is an irregular shape (a Locality Map is attached in Appendix No 1.).

There is currently a single storey dwelling located on the site with a 1.425 rear setback and covered patio to the rear boundary. This dwelling was constructed in 1985 prior to the development standards required under LEP 1998 Urban Lands.

The surrounding area is characterised by established residential development.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the construction of a rumpus room, lounge room, laundry and bedroom. The applicant has confirmed the proposed addition will not be used for dual occupancy purposes.

The development application was accompanied by:

· An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to Clause 12 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands.

· Statement of Environmental Effects

· Site and building plans

· BASIX certificate

Site Plan, Elevation Plan and Ground Floor Plan are attached in Appendix No. 2, 3 and 4.

Planning Assessment

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Having regard to those matters, the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20.

The provisions of SREP 20 apply to the property as it falls within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment. SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the potential impact on residential development and water quality.

The proposed development will have minimal impacts on the total catchment management, water quality and water quantity. No heritage items are located on the site. No tree removal is required as part of this development. The dwelling addition is considered to have minimal adverse impact on visibility from the riverine corridor and its scenic quality. The proposed dwelling addition is consistent with surrounding development.

The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the SREP.

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land)

Under the terms of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) the land is zoned as Zone No 2(b) Residential (Low Density). The proposed development is defined as a dwelling addition, which is permissible with the consent of Council.

The proposed development is a site responsive development, compatible with surrounding residential development. The design is compatible with the existing housing in the locality.

The dwelling addition application proposes the following variations:

Relevant Clause 12(3) and 12(4) requirements	Requirements for Zone No. 2(b)	Proposal	Extent of Variation
Landscaped Area	50%	37.6%	24.8%
Rear Setback	4 metres	1.0m	75%

A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) objection has been lodged in support of the development application to vary the minimum landscaped area and rear setback requirements.

SEPP 1 seeks to provide flexibility in the application of planning controls where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives stated in Section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These objectives relate to the proper management of resources to promote the welfare of the community and environment and to promote the orderly and economic use of development of the land.

The SEPP 1 objection is required to demonstrate that compliance with the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instrument and zone can still be achieved regardless of the variation to the development standard.

The objectives for Zone 2(b) Residential (Low Density) are as follows:

(i) to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation value.

Comment - The proposed development is sited so as to minimise the amount of vegetation required to be removed. The site is not identified as being in a Heritage Conservation Area.

(ii) to promote the established urban and landscape character of traditional residential subdivisions by limiting the range of permissible uses.

Comment - The proposed development is designed in a manner which is responsive to the site. The proposed development is compatible with surrounding land uses.

(iii) to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

Comment - The proposed development does not include further non-residential uses.

The objectives for Section 12 of LEP 1998 Urban Land are as follows:

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

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

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

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

In regard to these objectives, the proposed development has been designed to make the most of the site constraints. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, it is considered the setback achieved and associated landscaped area is appropriate and will not have adverse impact on the subject site or surrounding sites.

Assessment of Minimum Landscaped Area variation

The subject site is zoned 2(b) Residential Low Density under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Lands). A minimum landscaped area of 50% is applicable to the subject site. The proposed landscaped area is 280.3m² (37.6%) of the site.

Clause 12(3) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) outlines:

(3) The council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building in Zone No 2(a1), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) or 2(e) unless the building is wholly within the building envelope, and does not contravene the maximum external wall height or minimum landscaped area, for the zone calculated in accordance with Table 4.

A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted requesting a variation to this control and is considered acceptable on the following grounds:

· The subject site is part of an older subdivision, registered prior to the introduction of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) The proposed addition is consistent with the established landscape coverage of the locality and is compatible with the older subdivision characteristic of the residential zone which predominantly consists of additions and alterations to established older brick homes;

· The proposed addition is compatible in scale with established housing development in the locality and is consistent with established landscape area coverage which is in the vicinity of some 35-40%;

· The proposed addition is single storey in height to ensure no additional adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours are to arise by way of loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of views;

· The proposed addition retains the established separation between adjoining buildings;

Council supports the variation to Clause 12(3) of LEP 1998 as the proposal achieves the relevant objectives of the clause and is compatible with the predominant established landscape coverage of surrounding development in the locality. As such it is considered that the proposed development, while contravening the numerical controls of Clause 12(3), is consistent with the established landscape characteristic of the locality and achieves the objectives for landscaped area. Council supports this variation based on the above reasons.

Assessment of Rear Setback variation

The rear setback of the existing dwelling is 1.425m. A small portion the proposed western rumpus wall proposes a rear setback of 1.0m.

Clause 12(4) of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Urban Land) states:

(4) the council must not grant consent to development that involves the erection of a building unless:

(a) that building is set back at least 6 metres from the rear boundary of the site or, in the case of a single storey building in Zone No 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), 2 (d) or 2 (e), at least 4 metres from the rear boundary of the site, and

(b) the land within the rear boundary setback is used for the purposes of landscaped area only.

The subject site is zoned 2(b) and therefore a minimum rear setback of 4.0m is applicable to the subject site.

A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted requesting a variation to this control and is considered acceptable on the following grounds:

· The rear setback of the existing dwelling is 1.425m. It is therefore noted that the existing development does not comply with rear setback provisions. The proposed addition will have a similar setback to the existing dwelling.

· The overall extent of non compliance is minor as it only applies to a portion of the dwelling;

· The extent of non compliance is limited to a small section of the rear corner wall to the proposed rumpus room. This will have no adverse overshadowing or overlooking impacts to the rear adjoining property being single storey components;

· The extent of non compliance is also considered minor given site constraints, such as a relatively shallow lot depth and the irregular shape of the allotment;

· The proposed additions remains consistent with the zone objectives particularly in relation to promoting the urban character of the area;

· The development as proposed will have no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties or detrimentally impact on the streetscape character.

The extent of non compliance is considered minimal in comparison to the existing rear setback non compliance. The failure of the development to meet the rear setback requirements has not diminished the ability of the proposal to achieve the aims and objectives of Penrith LEP 1998 (Urban Land).

It is considered that the proposed development, while contravening the numerical controls of Clause 12(4), is consistent with the established landscape characteristic of the locality and achieves the objectives for rear setback requirements. Council supports this variation based on the above reasons.

The SEPP 1 objection is also made on the premise that the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the following basis:

· The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

· The dwelling addition is reasonable development for the site considering the existing dwelling encroachments, irregular shape of the lot and similar development in the locality.

Section 5 - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Assessment of the SEPP 1 objection also needs to consider against the objectives stated in Section 5(a) (ii) of the EP&A Act which is as follows:

“(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land”

It is considered the proposed dwelling addition and associated rear setback and landscaped area will ensure attainment of the objectives of section (ii) and refusal would be unreasonable in this regard for the following reasons:

· The proposed development does not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

· The proposed dwelling addition is reasonable development for the site.

· The proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone.

· The dwelling addition has been designed to be site responsive

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

Penrith DCP 2006 Part 4 Section 4.2 – “Residential Single Dwellings” is applicable to the current development application and the following sections are relevant to the assessment process.

Section 5.3 Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

The objective is to ensure setbacks reflect the character of established garden suburbs, and provide for development of flora and fauna corridors. The proposed development does not comply with the 4.0m rear setback requirements and proposes a rear setback of 1.0m. This is addressed in the SEPP1 discussion above. The proposed front and side setbacks do not extend closer than the setbacks of the existing dwelling.

Section 5.4 Landscaped Area and Parking

The objective is to retain a reasonable proportion of each site for landscaped garden areas, conserve significant existing vegetation and provide reasonable separation between neighbouring dwellings. The proposed development does not comply with the 50% minimum landscaped area requirement. This is addressed in the SEPP1 discussion above.

Section 5.5 Solar Planning

The objective is to improve the energy efficiency of dwellings and achieve a high standard of residential amenity. The applicant has demonstrated the dwelling meets acceptable solar standards and that existing neighbouring and proposed private open spaces receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21^st June.

Section 6.3 Building Design

The objective is that dwellings be surrounded by private gardens, their facades should display a variety of materials and shading structures and garages should be integrated with the overall architectural form and design. The addition will be of single storey appearance, constructed of matching brick and tiles to complement the existing dwelling.

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

The development complies with the objectives of the planning controls and the impacts of the development are expected to be minimal.

Stormwater is to be directed to the existing stormwater system.

Appropriate conditions are recommended relating to site management during construction. Hours of work and construction noise will also be subject to recommended consent conditions.

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

The site is suitable for the construction of a dwelling addition. Whilst there are some limitations resulting from the irregular shape of the site, these issues have been addressed to ensure a suitable design has been proposed in keeping with the objectives of the relevant planning documents.

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

Community Consultation

In accordance with Chapter 2.7 of the Penrith Development Control Plan for the City of Penrith 2006 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was notified to nearby and adjoining residents from 13 – 27 May 2013. No objections were received.

Conclusion

Under the objectives of Local Environmental Plan 1998 Urban Lands, development is required to reinforce the importance of natural landscape settings and areas with heritage conservation value, protect landscapes and urban areas with identified conservation value by limiting the range of permissible uses and requiring larger residential allotments and to allow a limited range of compatible non-residential uses.

The subject development application seeks approval to construct a dwelling addition and is supported by a SEPP 1 objection seeking a variation to the required rear setback and minimum landscaped area.

The SEPP 1 objection is supported as it is demonstrated that the rear setback requirement and minimum landscaped area is unreasonable in this case and that the attainment of the objectives of Section 5(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will not be hindered by the proposal.

The development is considered satisfactory under the heads of consideration of Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The proposed dwelling addition is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

The proposed dwelling addition is considered to comply with the objectives of the relevant planning instruments as outlined above and a site responsive development is achieved.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA13/0405 Proposed Dwelling Addition to Existing Residence at Lot 97 DP 706003 (No. 4) Ogden Close, St Clair be received.

2. The SEPP 1objection be supported.

3. The application be approved subject to the following conditions.

3.1 A001 Approved plans that are architecturally drawn

A008 Works to BCA requirements

A019 Occupation Certificate

A046 Obtain a Construction Certificate

D001 Implement approved sediment & erosion control measures

D007 Filling of land

D009 Covering of waste storage area

D010 Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

E001 BCA compliance

ESPECIAL Smoke detector

H001 Stamped plans

H009 Cut/fill details

H030 Roof finishes

H041 Hours of Work

J004 Pool fencing

K016 Stormwater

K041 Bond

L008 Tree Preservation Order

P002 Fees associated with Council land

Q01F Notice of Commencement of Appointment of PCA

Q05F Occupation/Compliance Certificate

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View	Locality Map	1 Page	Appendix
2. View	Site Plan	1 Page	Appendix
3. View	Elevation Plan	1 Page	Appendix
4. View	Floor Plan	1 Page	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 30 September 2013

Tender Reference 12/13-05 Disposal of Construction, Street Sweeper and Drainage Waste

Compiled by: Gowry Gowrythasan, Civil Operations Engineer

Michael Doggett, Supply Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Hans Meijer, City Works Manager

Outcome	We can get around the City
Strategy	Provide a safe, efficient road network supported by parking
Service Activity	Construct, manage and maintain Council's roads, drains, bridges and paths

Executive Summary

A tender for the disposal of construction, street sweeper and drainage waste was advertised on 26 and 30 April 2013 and closed on 23 May 2013.

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tender from:

1. Hi Quality Recycling Services Pty Ltd be accepted for the disposal of Broken Concrete, Broken Concrete Containing Reinforcement, Broken Asphalt, Road Profiled Asphalt Materials, Road Profiled Asphalt and Base Materials, Top Soil, Top Soil including Vegetation, Clay, Clay including Tree Roots, General Council Spoils (Combination of above materials) and Green Waste, and;

2. The alternate offer from Express Waste Pty Ltd be accepted for the provision of the disposal of Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers.

Both of these services are on an as required basis for a period of three (3) years, with an option to extend each contract for a further two (2) x (1) year periods, subject to satisfactory performance.

Background

The tender was designed so that tenderers would submit cost information in a format that would allow Council to assess the most economical and environmentally efficient way of dealing with waste generated from Council activities. The structure invited tenderers to submit prices for components of the task and for combined transport and disposal. Analysis of the submissions then allowed Council officers to determine whether the best outcome would be from combining tasks (allowing the supplier to achieve economies of scale) or from dealing with each component separately (where multiple suppliers each perform that component they are best at). Tenderers were also invited to submit alternate methods of achieving the required outcomes and one tenderer submitted a pricing structure based on volume rather than weight.

Tenders were advertised in the Western Weekender and the e-tendering website on 26 April 2013 and in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 April 2013 and closed on 23 May 2013 for the reliable and cost effective performance of Disposal of Construction, Street Sweeper and Drainage Waste on an as required basis.

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

Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule setting out the unit rates for the provision of disposal of waste from construction, street sweeping and drainage cleaning.

Table 1 of the pricing table was for Disposal of waste (construction and drainage material from open drains & street sweepers) delivered to a facility by Council staff or contractors.

Table 2 of the pricing table was for the Transport and Disposal of waste (drainage material from open drains & street sweepers only) from Council depot to a facility by a contractor. This also includes the provision by the contractor of bins with a capacity of 10 cubic metres.

Table 3 of the pricing table was Transport only of waste (drainage material from open drains & street sweepers only) from Council depot to a facility by a contractor. This also includes the provision of bins by the contractor with a capacity of 10 cubic metres. In this table the facility to be nominated by Council is from the offer received in Table 1.

All prospective tenderers were invited to attend a pre-tender briefing on 2 May 2013. This briefing included an online demonstration on Council’s electronic tendering portal, and provided an opportunity for prospective tenderers to seek any necessary clarification of the specifications required to perform the tender.

Tender Evaluation Panel

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of Hans Meijer (City Works Manager), Gowry Gowrythasan (Civil Operations Engineer), Murray Halls (Public Domain Co-ordinator) and Michael Doggett (Supply Co-ordinator). Peter Browne (Internal Auditor) was appointed as the Probity Advisor (a probity advisor is appointed where the estimated value of the tender is greater than $1m).

Evaluation Process

The process for the evaluation of tenders was as follows:

1. Initial review of tenders to determine compliance with the tender evaluation criteria, including the ability of tenderers to provide the full range of services specified;

2. Assessment of costs based on the unit rates tendered and the resources allocated to perform the services. Consideration of best options available and their costs and risks;

3. Determination of a short-list based on the best rankings;

4. Review of process with probity advisor to ensure procedural fairness is being achieved, planned responses to any unexpected issues are appropriate and opportunity for Evaluation Panel members to discuss any concerns;

5. Conduct a meeting to discuss with the tenderers’ key staff regarding the content of their tender;

6. Consideration of ratings and selection of tenderer(s) that the Panel intends to recommend.

Tender Evaluation Criteria

The criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders were:

Scope of Requirements

· Demonstrated Ability

· Facility Location

· Facility Operating Hours

· Recording and Invoicing Requirements

· Pricing Requirement

· Resources and Personnel

· Quality Assurance

· Environmental Management

· Industrial Relations

· Work Health & Safety

Summary of Tenders Received

A total of 7 tenders were received from the following respondents (listed in alphabetical order) in response to the advertised tender:

Tenderer	Location of the Business	Location of Disposal Facility	Tables Tendered For
Boral Recycling	Wildemere Road, Wetherill Park NSW 2164	Wetherill Park	1
Enviroguard Pty Ltd	50 Quarry Road, Erskine Park NSW 2759	Erskine Park	1,2,3
Express Waste Pty Ltd	1C Grand Ave, Camellia NSW 2142	Camellia and Eastern Creek	2,3
Hi Quality Recycling Services	Cnr Mamre Rd & Elizabeth Dr Kemps Creek NSW 2178	St Marys, Wallacia, Menangle, Bringelly, Kemps Creek and Goulburn	1,2
Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste	21 Dunheved Crt St Marys NSW 2760	St Marys and Blacktown	1,2,3
REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd	Level 5, 241 O’Riordan St, Mascot NSW 2020	Marsden Park and St Marys	1,2,3
SITA Australia Pty Ltd	Level 3, 3 Rider Boulevard Rhodes NSW 2138	Eastern Creek and Kemps Creek	1

The tender received from Boral Recycling was a non conforming tender and was not considered further by the Evaluation Panel. The Company did not provide any response for contract terms, WH& S, environmental licensing, business references, financial information, resources and personnel, their quality assurance program, or environmental management.

The tender from Remondis Australia Pty Ltd was non conforming for Table 1 of the pricing table and so was only considered for Table 2 & 3. Remondis was non conforming for Table 1 as they stated ‘n/a’ within the Table.

The details of Tables 1, 2 and 3 are shown below under the Pricing Schedule.

SITA Australia Pty Ltd and Express Waste Pty Ltd both submitted complying and alternate tender offers which was allowed in the tender document.

Pricing Schedule

Prices were requested for the following services as per Table 1, 2 & 3 of the pricing table:

Table 1 - Disposal

Requires tenderers to accept the material at their facility for disposal (waste material delivered to this location by Council or Council’s Contractors).

· Broken Concrete

· Broken Concrete Containing Reinforcement

· Broken Asphalt

· Road Profiled Asphalt Materials

· Road Profiled Asphalt and Base Materials

· Top Soil

· Top Soil Including Vegetation

· Clay

· Clay Including Tree Roots

· General Council Spoils (Combination of above materials)

· Green Waste

· Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers

Table 2 – Transport and Disposal

Requires tenderers to provide a 10 cubic metre bin at the Council Depot, then when full, transport this bin to their disposal facility and dispose of the drainage materials from open drains and street sweepers. (The cost of the disposal is included in the pricing).

Table 3 - Transport

Requires tenderers to provide a 10 cubic metre bin at the Council Depot, then when full, transport this bin to a Council nominated disposal facility. (Council would pay separately for the cost of disposal of the drainage materials from open drains and street sweepers as per price given in Table 1).

The tables were structured in this way to enable the breakdown of the components of the disposal method for the Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers which allowed the Evaluation Panel to determine the most efficient and best possible outcome.

Capability Evaluation

Table 1 – Disposal

The tenders from Hi Quality Recycling Services, Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste, Enviroguard Pty Ltd and SITA Australia Pty Ltd were assessed against the evaluation criteria. All of these tenders were deemed to be acceptable.

Table 2 – Transport and Disposal

The tenders from Express Waste Pty Ltd, Remondis Australia Pty Ltd, Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste, Hi Quality Recycling Services and Enviroguard Pty Ltd were assessed against the evaluation criteria. All of these tenders were deemed to be acceptable.

Table 3 – Transport

The tenders from Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste, REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd, Express Waste Pty Ltd, Enviroguard Pty Ltd were assessed against the evaluation criteria. All of these tenders were deemed to be acceptable.

Price Evaluation

Table 1 - Disposal

The table below ranks the conforming tenders received from lowest to highest price in respect of Council’s estimated annual quantity for the Table 1 - Disposal, for all items to be disposed of with the exception of Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers. This item was considered later in combination with Tables 2 – Transport and Disposal, and Table 3 - Transport.

Table 1

Tenderer’s Name	Estimated Annual Cost
Hi Quality Recycling Services	$501,278
Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste	$596,413
Enviroguard Pty Ltd	$1,440,099
SITA Australia Pty Ltd	$1,757,247
SITA Australia Pty Ltd (Alternative Offer)	$1,513,107

The pricing from REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd was non-conforming for Table 1 – Disposal, as there was no firm price offered directly from them. Express Waste Pty Ltd did not tender for Table 1. Due to the higher pricing, the offer from SITA Australia Pty LTD was not considered further. The alternative offer from SITA Australia Pty Ltd required a number of changes to Council’s contract conditions and was for disposal at another waste facility, however there was no guarantee how long the facility would be available for. Due to this the alternate offer from SITA Australia Pty Ltd was also not considered further.

Table 2 – Transport & Disposal Drainage & Street Sweeper Waste

The table below ranks the conforming tenders received from lowest to highest price in respect of Council’s estimated annual quantity for Table 2 – Transport and Disposal, which requires tenderers to provide a 10 cubic metre skip bin at the Council Depot, then when full, transport this bin to a disposal location and dispose of the material. (The cost of the disposal is included in the pricing).

Table 2

Tenderer’s Name	Estimated Annual Cost
Express Waste Pty Ltd (Alternative Offer)	$375,000
REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd	$385,200
Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste	$466,601
Hi Quality Recycling Services	$521.250
Express Waste Pty Ltd	$524,880
Enviroguard Pty Ltd	$526,720

SITA Australia Pty Ltd did not tender for Table 2 – Transport and Disposal.

Express Waste Pty Ltd provided an alternative offer where the disposal charge was per bin, not by weight. This allows Council to fill the bin to its maximum allowable capacity and pay a fixed cost for the transport and disposal, this gives Council the potential for further savings. In addition to this Express Waste Pty Ltd sort the material into reusable material and waste, with a reduced amount going to landfill. REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd would take all the material to landfill.

Table 3 – Transport only of Drainage & Street Sweeper Waste

The table below ranks the conforming tenders received from lowest to highest price in respect of Council’s estimated annual quantity for Table 3 - Transport, which requires tenderers to provide a 10 cubic metre bin at the Council Depot, then when full, transport this bin to a Council nominated disposal location. Council would pay separately for the cost of disposal as per the lowest price from Table 1.

Table 3

Tenderer’s Name	Estimated Annual Cost
Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste	$52,500
REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd	$54,000
Express Waste Pty Ltd	$66,000
Enviroguard Pty Ltd	$75,000

Hi Quality Recycling Services and SITA Australia Pty Ltd did not tender for Table 3 - Transport.

Cost Analysis

All the pricing options of Tables 1, 2 and 3 were considered to determine which combination of offers represented the best overall value for money to Council.

Table 1

Due to the relatively higher pricing of the offers from SITA Australia Pty Ltd, Enviroguard Pty Ltd and Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste, it was not considered to be an advantage to Council to consider their offers further at this point for Table 1 (Disposal) of the pricing table. Hi Quality Recycling Services demonstrated that they recycle the majority of the waste to minimise the environmental impact and also offered the most cost effective price for Table 1 - Disposal.

Table 2 and 3

The prices offered for Tables 2 and 3, and the price for Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers in Table 1 have to be considered together as these are options for the disposal of the Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers.

· In Table 1 the tenderer is asked to provide a price for the disposal of this material delivered to them.

· In Table 2 the tenderer is asked to provide a price to supply a 10 cubic metre bin at Councils Depot, transport this material to their waste facility and dispose of it.

· In Table 3 the tenderer is asked to provide a price to supply a 10 cubic metre bin at Councils Depot and transport this to a Council nominated disposal location. Council would be directly responsible for paying the cost of disposal of the material to the nominated waste facility.

The tables were structured in this way to enable the breakdown of the components of the disposal method to be considered both separately and as a whole with Council then able to choose the most advantageous method.

The evaluation committee considered the cost of all the pricing combinations offered for the disposal of drainage material from open drains and street sweepers under Tables 1, 2 and 3 including the alternative tender offered by Express Waste Pty Ltd.

Tenderer’s Name	Table 3 (Transport bin)	Table 1 (Disposal cost) Council Nominated Site	Table 1 + Table 3	Alternative Offer Table 2
Ian's Transport Pty Ltd trading as Grundy's Waste	$52,500	$331,200	$383,700	-
REMONDIS Australia Pty Ltd	$54,000		$385,200	-
Express Waste Pty Ltd	$66,000		$397,200	$375,000
Enviroguard Pty Ltd	$75,000		$406,200	-

Comparing the costs associated with Table 2 and 3 for the disposal of drainage materials and street sweeper waste, it was determined that the alternative offer from Express Waste Pty Ltd was the most advantageous to Council. Under the alternate offer Express Waste Pty Ltd will provide a 10 cubic metre bin at the Council depot and transport this bin to their facility. This offer allows Council to fill the bin to its maximum capacity and pay a fixed cost for the disposal, including transport. This was demonstrated to be the most cost effective and also the most environmentally friendly, as Express Waste Pty Ltd will separate the material into reusable material and waste, therefore reducing the amount going to landfill.

Shortlisted Tenderers

The tenders from Hi Quality Recycling Services for the disposal of construction waste and Express Waste Pty Ltd for the disposal of drainage materials from open drains and street sweepers were shortlisted for further consideration.

Interviews

An interview was conducted with Express Waste Pty Ltd and minuted to clarify aspects of their tender. All the panel’s operational questions were answered by them satisfactorily in reference to their ability to provide the service required.

As Council has been working with High Quality Recycling Services for the provision of similar services for a number of years, the panel determined that a meeting with them was not required.

Conclusion

Based on the tenders submitted the panel recommends the appointment of contractors as per the table below.

Tenderer’s Name	Type of Service
Hi Quality Recycling Services	Disposal of Construction Waste as in Table 1 (excluding the Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers)
Express Waste Pty Ltd	Transport and Disposal of Drainage Materials from Open Drains and Street Sweepers (alternate offer – cost per bin, not weight)

Probity Advisor Comment

I have reviewed the process undertaken and the methodology used by the Tender Evaluation Panel. I am satisfied that the steps and decisions made during the evaluation process were carried out in an appropriate manner. I have discussed with the Panel the rationale in determining the final recommendations and based on the information provided, I support the recommendations as contained within the Report.

Acting Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of the tender was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on High Quality Recycling Services and Express Waste Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. High Quality Recycling Services has been in operation since 1995 and Express Waste Pty Ltd has been in operation since 1986. Based on the review by Financial Services, no issues were raised as to the ability of either provider to perform the services described.

The tendered cost of $501,278 by High Quality Recycling Services Pty Ltd is covered in the 2013-14 Operational Budget allocation for Civil Construction and Maintenance. The tendered cost of $375,000 by Express Waste Pty Ltd is covered in the 2013-14 Operational Budget allocation for Public Domain Maintenance and Civil Construction & Maintenance.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Chief Governance Officer, Stephen Britten, Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil and the Governance Officer, Adam Beggs met to consider the tender for the Disposal of Construction, Street Sweeper and Drainage Waste. The TAG made further enquiries with the Panel regarding the rationale for not considering the tender submitted by Boral Recycling. Based upon the information that was made available, the TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 12/13-05 Disposal of Construction, Street Sweeper and Drainage Waste be received.

2. A new three (3) year contract with the option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods (subject to satisfactory performance) be awarded to Hi Quality Recycling Services for the disposal of Broken Concrete, Broken Concrete Containing Reinforcement, Broken Asphalt, Road Profiled Asphalt Materials, Road Profiled Asphalt and Base Materials, Top Soil, Top Soil Including Vegetation, Clay, Clay Including Tree Roots, General Council Spoils (Combination of above materials) and Green Waste.

3. A new three (3) year contract with the option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods (subject to satisfactory performance) be awarded to Express Waste Pty Ltd for the transport and disposal of Drainage Materials from the Open Drains and Street Sweepers as per the alternate offer provided based on disposal per bin and not weight.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Tenderer’s Name	Location of the Business
Allstate Linemarking Pty Ltd	1/25 Stennett Road, Ingleburn NSW 2565
Atlantis Group of Companies Pty Ltd	2/24 Prince William Drive, Seven Hills NSW 2153
Combined Traffic Management Pty Ltd	38 Regent Cres, Moorebank NSW 2170
Complete Linemarking Services Pty Ltd	14 Toohey Road, Wetherill Park NSW 2164
Gumbay Holdings Pty Ltd t/a Avante Linemarking	113 Dunheved Circuit, St Marys NSW 2760
Longlife Linemarking Pty Ltd	31 Lincoln Street, Minto NSW 2560
National Road Sealing Pty Ltd	1/ 27 Jack Williams Drive, Penrith NSW 2750
Workforce Road Services Pty Ltd	92-94 Redfern Street, Wetherill Park NSW 2164

Tenderer’s Name	Annualised Cost (WSROC)
Complete Linemarking Services Pty Ltd	$451,849
Combined Traffic Management Pty Ltd	$551,494
Allstate Linemarking Services Pty Ltd	$595,399
Gumbay Holdings t/a Avante Linemarking	$608,778
Workforce Road Services Pty Ltd	$615,935

Preferred Tenderer Ranking
Rank	Tenderer’s Name
1	Complete Linemarking Services Pty Ltd
2	Combined Traffic Management Pty Ltd

Tenderer’s Name	Location of the Business
Connect Infrastructure Construction Pty Ltd	6 Progress Circuit Prestons NSW 2170
Lend Lease Infrastructure Services Pty Limited	3 Richardson Place North Ryde NSW 2113
Tony Pollard Electrics Pty Ltd trading as Transelect	18 Investigator Drive Unanderra NSW 2526
UEA Electrical Pty Ltd	Unit 5/2 Southridge Street Eastern Creek NSW 2766
Wilken Service Pty Ltd	178 Princes Highway Arncliffe NSW 2205

Outcome	We can work close to home
Strategy	Diversify the region's economy and attract investment, particularly targeting new and emerging employment sectors
Service Activity	Utilise Council's property portfolio to stimulate growth and development opportunities in the City

Tenderer’s Name	Total Lump Sum (EX GST)
Lend Lease Infrastructure Services Pty Limited	$43,446
Tony Pollard Electrics Pty Ltd trading as Transelect	$79,670
Connect Infrastructure Construction Pty Ltd	$85,300
UEA Electrical Pty Ltd	$92,316
Wilken Service Pty Ltd	$99,244

	*Riley Street*	High Street West of Riley Street	Riley Street Left into Henry Street
Existing conditions	116	221	7
With closure (no distribution)	337	0	228
Modelled (with distribution)	257	0	153

	Riley Street/ Henry Street	Riley Street/ Henry Street Left Turn	*Station Street/ Henry Street*	Station Street/ High Street
LOS Pre Closure	B	B	C	B
LOS Post Closure	B	B	C	B

*“Level of Service”*	*Average Delay per Vehicle (secs/veh)*	*Traffic Signals & Roundabouts*
A	<14	Good operation
B	15-28	Good with acceptable delays and spare capacity
C	29-42	Satisfactory
D	43-56	Operating near capacity
E	57-70	At Capacity; at signals, incidents will cause excessive delays. Roundabouts will require other control mode
F