Agenda of Policy Review Committee Meeting

Council_Mark_POS_RGB 2014 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2014 - December 2014

(adopted by Council on 25/11/13 and amended by Council on 26/5/14)

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

10&

22^ü

(7.00pm)

24@

28v

26#

23 *

25@

27∞

24#+

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

v	Meeting at which the draft corporate planning documents (Delivery Program and Operational Plan) are endorsed for exhibition
*	Meeting at which the draft corporate planning documents (Delivery Program and Operational Plan) 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 December and June) are presented
^	Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor
ü	Meeting at which the 2013-2014 Annual Statements are presented
∞	Meeting at which any comments on the 2013-2014 Annual Statements are presented
+	Meeting at which the Annual Report is presented
&	Extraordinary Meeting

- Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

- Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee).

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

Policy Review Committee Meeting 14 July 2014

Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains

Compiled by: Glenn McCarthy, Executive Officer

Authorised by: Alan Stoneham, General Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet the needs of a growing population
Service Activity	Maintain a contemporary framework of land use and contribution policies, strategies and statutory plans

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

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the review of flooding matters associated with the Planning Proposal for land located at 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (the Site). The Planning Proposal seeks an amendment to Council’s City-wide Local Environmental Plan (Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 – LEP 2010) to apply industrial and environmental zones to the Site.

Council has sought and received a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal. This determination set a number of conditions that Council is required to comply with prior to public exhibition. The conditions include the need for studies to support the planning proposal, including information relating to flooding matters, and comprehensive consideration of the planning proposal’s consistency with Directions made under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). Of particular relevance is Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land.

The attached report by GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) presents the independent review of the flooding matters associated with the planning proposal and its consistency with Section 117 Direction 4.3 as required by the Gateway Determination. The report also provides information on the options available to Council through the Department of Planning and Environment’s (DoP&E) Gateway process.

At the Councillor Briefing on 11 June, it was suggested that the independent reviewer and the proponents’ consulting water engineer meet to discuss the issues that have prompted the independent reviewer to recommend that Council not support the re-zoning. Dr Ian Joliffe (Independent Reviewer, GHD) and Dr Brett Phillips (Proponents’ Water Engineer, Cardno) met on Friday 4 July 2014. The notes of their meeting with matters that are agreed/disagreed are attached.

Background

The Site

1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains is a rectangular site of approximately 22.1 hectares consisting of the following four lots:

· Lot 1 DP 517958	· Lot 3 DP 574650
· Lot 2 DP 517958	· Lot 4 DP 574650

The Site is located on the north eastern corner of Old Bathurst Road and Russell Street, Emu Plains and is bounded to the north by the Nepean River and its riparian corridor, to the east by the Emu Plains Prison Farm, to the south by light industrial development and some commercial premises, and to the west by low density residential development.

The current planning document applying to the Site is IDO 93. IDO 93 zones the Site as Rural “D” (Future Urban). LEP 2010 zones an additional 1.1 hectares fronting Old Bathurst Road (not part of the Planning Proposal) as IN2 Light Industrial.

The Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks the amendment of Penrith Local Environmental Plan

2010 (LEP 2010) to:

· Expand the application of LEP 2010 to include the Site;

· Repeal Penrith Interim Development Order No. 93 (IDO 93) as it currently applies to part of the Site;

· Apply the IN2 Light Industrial zone to approximately 18 hectares of the Site and apply the E3 Environmental Management zone to the remainder of the Site; and

· Apply development standards to the Site that set the minimum lot size for subdivision and maximum height of buildings at 2,000m² and 12 metres respectively.

The following is a chronology of the Planning Proposal from the original re-zoning application (spot re-zoning) in February 2006.

February 2006	“Spot” re-zoning application received
March 2007	Council adopts the Employment Lands Strategy and resolves to zone the Site General Industrial in the City-wide Local Environmental Plan
May 2008	Re-zoning application withdrawn
October – December 2008	The part of the Site above the flood planning level exhibited as IN1 General Industrial (LEP Stage 1). The remainder of the Site was exhibited with the E4 Environmental Living zone.
November 2009	Council resolves to re-zone the part of the Site south of the flood planning level (1.1ha) IN2 Light Industrial and defer the part of the site north of the flood planning level to LEP Stage 2.
December 2010	Independent assessment of the proposal sought from Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoP&I)
July 2011	Minister for Planning and Infrastructure requests the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for advice on the suitability of the Site for industrial purposes
March 2012	JRPP advises the Minister that “the Panel sees no reason to give priority to the rezoning of the subject site in the near term”
May 2012	Proponents make submissions to Council and the DoP&I refuting the JRPP’s assessment and findings
July 2012	DoP&I Director General undertakes to have his Department conduct an independent review of the proposal
September 2012	DoP&I Evaluation Report concludes that “there is sufficient strategic justification to demonstrate the land is suitable for future industrial uses subject to future planning studies (including a review of flooding)”
October 2012	Council resolves to seek a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal and engage a suitably qualified consultant to conduct an independent review of flooding matters
January 2013	Gateway Determination issued by DoP&I with conditions requiring Council to: · Undertaking of studies to support the Planning Proposal, including information relating to flooding matters; and · Provision of comprehensive consideration of the Planning Proposal’s consistency with Local Planning Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005.
August 2013	The report of the independent review of flooding matters by GHD received by Council and forwarded to the proponents
August 2013	Submission in response to the GHD report received from the proponents and forwarded to GHD for comment
October 2013	GHD response to proponents’ submission received and forwarded to proponent
December 2013	Letter received from proponents requesting that the Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition in its current form and raising further contentions to the GHD report.
January 2014	Further contentions raised by proponents forward to GHD for comment
February 2014	GHD response to further contentions received
May 2014	GHD re-engaged to advise Council of the options available through the Gateway process
June 2014	Advice received that, on balance, GHD is of the opinion that Council would have difficulty in both satisfying itself, the community and the Director-General that the Planning Proposal, in its current form, is consistent with the s117 Direction in compliance with section 55(2)(c) of the EP&A Act.

Independent Review

As indicated above, when Council resolved to seek a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal, it was also decided to engage a suitably qualified consultant to conduct an independent review of flooding matters. This was consistent with the recommendation of the DoP&I Evaluation Report of September 2012. The Terms of Reference for the review included a requirement that the independent reviewer “identify whether the proposed flood mitigation works are consistent with the S117 Direction (Clause 9) by demonstrating that the proposal is in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005”.

Clause 9 of S117 Direction 4.3 provides that

(9) A planning proposal may be inconsistent with this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that:

(a) the planning proposal is in accordance with a floodplain risk management plan prepared in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005,

(b) the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are of minor significance.

Council does not have a Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the area, requiring the Planning Proposal’s inconsistency with Direction 4.3 to be considered under Clause 9(b).

In the Planning Proposal as submitted to the DoP&I, the proponents addressed S117 Direction 4.3 by acknowledging that the provisions of the Planning Proposal are inconsistent with the Direction but that the inconsistency is considered to be of “minor significance”. The Independent Reviewer has concluded that Council would have difficulty in satisfying itself, the community and the Director-General that the Planning Proposal, in its current form, is consistent with the S117 Direction.

The Independent Reviewer proposed two Options for consideration. Those options were to either reject the Planning Proposal pursuant to Section 58 of the Act or proceed with the Planning Proposal after seeking additional information from the proponents. As an outcome of the Councillor Briefing on 11 June, the Independent Reviewer and the proponents’ consultant water engineer met on 4 July.

4 July 2014 meeting of Drs Joliffe and Phillips

As an outcome of the Councillor Briefing held on 11 June 2014, Dr Ian Joliffe of GHD and Dr Brett Phillips of Cardno met on 4 July 2014 to discuss and document the provisions of the planning proposal upon which they agree and disagree. The matters for discussion were:

1. Confirmation Planning Proposal is to be considered under Clause 4.3(9) of S117 Direction.

2. Justification of opinions in relation to magnitudes of inconsistencies to Clauses 4.3(4) to 4.3(8) of S117 Direction.

3. Consistency of Planning Proposal with government policies and Council planning instruments relating to flooding and flood management matters.

4. Ongoing maintenance issues, costs and responsibilities of Council, if land rezoned.

At the meeting, the Planning Proposal’s inconsistency with S117 Direction 4.3 being characterised as being of “minor significance” was discussed and documented in the meeting notes attached to Dr Joliffe’s summary of advice. Drs Joliffe and Phillips have indicated that they disagree on this point. As the relevant planning authority, Council is required to prepare a document that sets out the justification for making the LEP amendment including justification for any inconsistency with Directions made under S117. In the circumstances it would be necessary for Council to express a preference for the position taken by either Dr Joliffe or Dr Phillips and for that position to form the basis upon which the inconsistency with S117 is justified in the Planning Proposal prior to public exhibition.

Conclusion

The conditions of the Gateway determination for the Planning Proposal to re-zone land at Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains required Council to undertake studies to support the Planning Proposal, including information relating to flooding matters, and comprehensive consideration of the Planning Proposal’s consistency with Local Planning Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005. Dr Phillips and Dr Joliffe met and after this meeting Dr Joliffe is of the view “that several aspects of the planning proposal have significant inconsistencies with the floodplain development manual requirements”. Dr Phillips however is of the view that the inconsistencies “are minor”. It is understood that Dr Phillips and Dr Joliffe believe that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Section 117 Direction and accordingly the only mechanism to proceed with the planning proposal is via clause 4.3(9)(b) of the Direction.

For the Planning Proposal to meet the requirements of the Direction then, in the absence of a floodplain risk management plan, the provisions of the Planning Proposal that are inconsistent must be of a minor significance. It is also understood that this is a point where Dr Phillips and Dr Joliffe disagree.

Dr Joliffe is his letter to the Council states: “In reviewing the Section 117 Directions, GHD is of the opinion that to be able to support the Planning Proposal Council would have to be satisfied that the inconsistencies between the Planning Proposal and requirements of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 are of “minor significance”. In our opinion the inconsistencies listed below are not minor.” The letter further states that “GHD has not been able to locate a definition of “minor significance”. Should Council not accept the GHD assessment of the Planning Proposal, then it is suggested independent legal advice be sought in respect to an interpretation of the responsibility and obligations of Council in respect to the Section 117 Direction.”

Where To From Here

Council has conflicting advice from two highly qualified flood engineers. The conflict turns on how the provisions of the Planning Proposal are characterised. Both experts agree that the Planning Proposal is to be considered under Clause 9(b) of S117 Direction 4.3 which requires any inconsistency with the Direction to be of minor significance. Dr Phillips says the inconsistency is of minor significance. Dr Jollife says the inconsistency is not of minor significance but acknowledges he has not been able to locate a definition of the term and suggests Council seek legal advice on this point.

Given the disagreement between Dr Joliffe and Dr Phillips as to the characterisation of the Planning Proposal and consistency with S117 Direction 4.3, it would appear that Council has two main options available to it, which are as follows:

If Council prefers the view of Dr Joliffe, that the provisions of the Planning Proposal that are inconsistent with S117 Direction 4.3 are not of minor significance then it is open to the Council to resolve as follows:

That Council request the Minister for Planning to determine that the matter not proceed on the basis that the provisions of the Planning Proposal are inconsistent with Section 117 Direction 4.3 and that the inconsistency is not considered to be of minor significance.

However, if Council wishes to pursue the suggestion by Dr Joliffe and obtain legal advice in the interpretation of “minor significance”, the legal advice and public consultation could be progressed concurrently. The advantage of this option would be that the consultation as anticipated by the gateway process would assist Council in being informed by the legal advice and by the consultation with relevant agencies and the community. The obtaining of legal advice would not delay the progression of this matter.

A suggested recommendation is as follows:

That:

1. Council seek independent legal advice to obtain an interpretation of the potential responsibility of Council in respect to the Section 117 Direction including what is meant by the term “minor significance”.

2. In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulations, 2000, Council commence the consultation program with State Agencies and the community in accordance with the Gateway Determination.

3. A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal advising of the outcomes of the community and State Agency consultation and legal advice.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	GHD - summary of advice and record of Joliffe/Phillips meeting 4 July 2014	13 Pages	Attachments Included
2.	S117 Direction 4.3 - Flood Prone Land	1 Page	Attachments Included
3.	GHD Report	100 Pages	Attachments Included
4.	Cardno presentation	11 Pages	Attachments Included
5.	Submission by Ken Kanjian, Solicitor on behalf of proponents	3 Pages	Attachments Included

Policy Review Committee Meeting 14 July 2014

Penrith City Centre Park Update

Compiled by: Terry Agar, City Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Jeni Pollard, Place Manager

Requested By: Councillor Bernard Bratusa

Outcome	We have safe, vibrant places
Strategy	Grow and revitalise our centres and neighbourhoods
Service Activity	Support the revitalisation of Penrith City Centre, St Marys Town Centre and other key identified places in the City

Executive Summary

A report on the new central City Park was requested following a presentation on the redevelopment of the funeral parlour site on the corner of Station and Henry Streets.

This report briefly explores the history of the development of Penrith as a town without a large civic space, and the recent planning to support the development of such a space within the City Centre. Whilst the desire for a centrally located City Park has been confirmed through the current Penrith Progression process, its size, scale and the needs it should address are less well defined.

A detailed investigation of the City Park concept will commence shortly, to determine the future form, functions and connections of this community and civic asset. It is intended that the outcomes will be reported to Council through the Penrith Progression process before the end of the year.

This report recommends that Council receive the information.

Background

Council considered a report on the purchase and leasing of the funeral parlour site, 42-44 Station Street Penrith on 3 February 2014. At the meeting, Council resolved that a further report be prepared on the proposed delivery of the new central City Park.

This report explores the history, context and next steps in creating a diverse, vibrant and safe park in the City Centre. The interaction of this process with Penrith Progression is also canvassed.

Historical Context

Historically, Penrith grew as a private town after the mapping of a route over the Blue Mountains and the construction of a road commenced in 1815. The Western Road traversed major land grants and leases were subsequently given by the grantees to businesses that provided services to travellers.

Unlike the Macquarie towns of the era Penrith was never surveyed, meaning that land was not allocated to specific uses such as a central park or cemetery. Over time the railway came, business leases were converted to freehold title, and the town continued to grow in an elongated shape. It was not until 1922 that Penrith created its own small civic space, through public subscription to acquire the land, with the dedication of Memory Park. Memory Park was intended as a place for the community to reflect on the contribution of local men and women who served the country during times of war, conflict and in peace keeping activities. Memory Park continues to be a ‘quiet’ place within the city, with a significant proportion of the space dedicated to the memorial.

Thus, unlike many other towns developed around the same time, Penrith evolved without an identified ‘meeting place’ and site for community gatherings and celebrations.

The City Park Concept

The genesis of the idea to create a centrally located City Park emerged in 2006. Council’s adopted Penrith City Centre Strategy recommended location of a City Park on the existing Allen Place and Edwards Place carparks, stretching from Riley Street through to Lawson Street. This idea was incorporated and expanded by the NSW Cities Taskforce in its vision document for the Penrith City Centre which concluded that...“the city centre lacks a cohesive system of civic spaces, those spaces which are highly urban in character and cater for intensive use such as festivals and cultural celebrations.”

The creation of a City gathering space was considered to be a crucial element to support the NSW Regional Cities Taskforce’s 25 year vision for a vibrant, economically robust regional city that will accommodate 12,000 new jobs and 10,000 new residents with quality working and living opportunities.

Figure 1: Plan showing the location of the City Park and Square proposed by the NSW Cities Taskforce in 2007.

The Taskforce proposed the creation of a 12,500m2 park, predominantly using Allen Place and Edwards Place carpark land. In addition, it included a public square adjoining the City Park which fronted onto Station Street and extended between Henry and High Streets. The intention of the square fronting Station Street was to create a ‘boulevard’ effect with a wider tree-lined street attracting pedestrians from the railway station into High Street. The acquisition of private properties was required to form the square (Figure 1).

The NSW Regional Cities Taskforce recommendation for a City Park reinforced the need for such a space in the Penrith City Centre. The form of the space was the first iteration in the consideration of the City Park and was somewhat imposed at the time. It relied heavily on Council’s current ownership pattern, as the Taskforce process had very restricted timeframes. However, identification of the City Park was an important step in the process that has since evolved with more local input and consideration.

Local Planning Summary

As discussed above, the planning to develop the City Park has evolved over time. The following is a summary of the significant steps that have been undertaken by Council to date.

Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008

In 2007 Council endorsed the draft Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) that was prepared by the NSW Regional Cities Taskforce and gazetted by the Minister for Planning in 2008.

The LEP zoned the Allen Place Car Park RE1 Public Recreation as shown in Figure 2, but did not include any recreation zone or land acquisition requirements for the proposed City Square on land fronting High and Henry Streets.

Figure 2: Plan showing the current zoning of the proposed City Park and Square land under the Penrith City Centre LEP (2008)

Urban Design Review

A review of the NSW Regional Cities Taskforce’s proposed City Park was undertaken by Council’s consultant Urban Designer in 2009. The urban design review found that the irregularly shaped park proposed by the Taskforce would not effectively provide the benefits sought, and would create significant management challenges for Council in the longer term. A long thin park would be subject to significant over-shadowing during winter if the adjoining developments to the north were built to their statutory height limits. Enclosure of a long thin park behind buildings on the two longest sides would also limit its appeal to passersby, and could encourage anti-social behaviour, particularly at night.

To overcome these concerns the consultant recommended establishing a rectangular shaped park of the same overall size, with two dominant street frontages and two service lanes on its perimeter providing access to adjoining buildings (Figure 3). The park includes an area of hard surface ‘square’ fronting Station and Henry Streets. This configuration would enable better passive surveillance and an attractive green presentation to surrounding properties.

Figure 3: Plan showing the consultant urban designer’s recommendation for a rectangular shaped park incorporating an area for a ‘square’.

The extension of the ‘square’ to High Street was not, in the urban designer’s opinion, essential to the success of the overall park and could proceed at a later date, if desired. It was also not considered essential to incorporate the linear Edwards Place carpark into the City Park, as it would experience the same issues of overshadowing and lack of amenity as mentioned above.

LEP 2008 Amendment

As part of the review of the Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan, the rectangular shaped park was discussed at Council’s then City Centres Working Party on 17 March 2010. Subsequently this concept was incorporated into a Councillor briefing on the LEP amendment planning proposal on 5 July 2010.

The City Park shape and location was formally reported to Council in November 2012 as part of the draft amendments to zonings in the Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LEP 2008). At that time Council resolved to take a staged approach with the progressive rezoning of the proposed Park, in accordance with Figure 4, to allow more certainty of financial planning and reduce Council’s exposure to demands for compulsory acquisition.

The current LEP amendment changed the zone for Area 1 of the City Park to RE1 Recreation, and included an acquisition clause for the land. The amendment also involved changing the zoning of the eastern end of the Allen Place Car Park from RE1 to B3 Mixed Use, to recognise the proposed future incorporation of Council’s existing buildings along Henry Street into the park area – essentially a ‘swap’ in terms of commercially zoned land. The LEP amendment is currently with the Department of Planning and Environment, awaiting gazettal by the Minister.

In the medium term, the Area 2 land is proposed to be rezoned to RE1 Recreation to reflect the preference for a more compact and regular shaped City Park. However the current zoning of Area 2 does not prevent development of this land as a park.

The rezoning and acquisition of the Area 3 land is a long term option that is currently not being contemplated for inclusion in the City Park.

Figure 4: Plan showing the draft zone changes for the City Park under Penrith City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LEP 2008) and areas for future zoning amendments..

Property Ownership

The proposed City Park land ownership is shown on Figure 5. The majority of the land is currently owned by Council. The funeral parlour site on the corner of Henry and Station Streets was recently purchased by Council. This represents a significant step towards the creation of the City Park, with its potential commencement on this highly visible intersection.

Opportunities to purchase the remaining two freehold properties at 46 and 48-50 Station Street continue to be monitored. At this stage there is no intention to purchase any of the properties fronting High Street.

Figure 5: Plan showing the land ownership for the proposed City Park and Square

Relationship to Memory Park and Trial Park

The City Park proposal was always envisaged to be the premier civic space in the Penrith City Centre. The planned accommodation of an additional 10,000 jobs and 10,000 residents in the City Centre will generate a stronger demand for a major civic space with a unique identity that signifies Penrith as a regional city centre.

During the preparation of the recent Public Domain Masterplan the concept of another small ‘casual’ civic space, similar in scale, but different in function to Memory Park, was proposed. The idea was to ‘bookend’ High Street with two civic spaces offering opportunities to sit, gather, eat and enjoy entertainment. The current Trial ‘Pop up’ Park at the intersection of High and Henry Streets is testing the viability of such a space with a view to the possible development of a permanent park in this area.

The existence of these smaller spaces does not obviate the need for a major civic space like the City Park, which will satisfy a much greater range and scale of civic needs. These spaces are intended to complement and support the City Park and define the City Centre area.

Penrith Progression

The Penrith Progression process has confirmed the desire from the community, including businesses, to enhance the City Centre through the development of a green and connected City Park. The current location, size and shape of the City Park has been informed through community engagement, strategy and plan preparation processes previously described in this report.

The Penrith Progression process includes discussion and ideas regarding the use of the City Park as a catalyst for development in the City Centre. Participants in the many forums and focus groups held as part of the Penrith Progression have re-confirmed the need for a local gathering space, a place for connection with other people and to the environment. Further to this, the momentum for more density and housing options in the City Centre is building and being canvassed through this process. A City Park supports these options, providing much needed open space.

The location for the City Park has been confirmed through successive planning processes. It is timely to undertake a detailed investigation of the future form and function of the space in the context of an economic and social catalyst for the growth of the city. This analysis will be tested through the Penrith Progression process and be assessed against other priorities.

Next Steps

City Park review

Since 2006, a range of internal discussions and statutory planning processes have shaped the proposed nature and role of the City Park. The opportunity now exists for the rigour of an external process such as the Penrith Progression to inform the future delivery of the City Park. It is proposed that the City Park concept should be reviewed, with assessment and testing of the following elements:

· the strategic context and its role as a catalyst project to attract investment

· the range and scale of uses, taking into account anticipated future growth of the City Centre

· the size, shape and boundaries in the context of these uses

· a broad structure plan for the Park, particularly in relationship to adjoining uses.

The findings of the review will be integrated into the Penrith Progression process, and the final recommendations of the Penrith Progression to Council. It is intended that this will be reported to Council before the end of this year. Subject to the outcomes of the City Park review and Penrith Progression feedback, the next step will be to prepare a park delivery plan.

Proposed City Park delivery model

Preparation of a delivery model for the City Park will comprise two parts – a design master plan and a funding model. The design master plan will build on the outcomes of the City Park review, and will identify how and when the elements of the Park will be constructed to meet the needs of different user groups. The cost of constructing the Park’s elements will also be determined.

A challenge in taking the City Park concept through to delivery is the lack of available funding. A funding model will be prepared in concert with the design master plan to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available, during the Park’s construction, to fund specific elements. It is envisaged that the City Park will take several years to complete, and it is imperative to ensure that its development occurs smoothly to minimise disruption to businesses in the area.

Conclusion

This report outlines the historical development of Penrith without a major civic space such as a City Park. The concept of a significant central park in the Penrith City Centre has been evolving since 2006 with the current rectangular form now part of an amendment to the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2008.

The recent purchase of the funeral parlour site represents a potential significant step towards commencing construction of the City Park. A review of the City Park will inform the Penrith Progression process and, subject to those findings, a Delivery Plan will be prepared to finalise the detailed design and funding needed to construct a vibrant, safe and accessible City Park.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith City Centre Park Update be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Policy Review Committee Meeting 14 July 2014

Regional Waste Strategy

Compiled by: Sarah Callus, Waste Education Officer

Authorised by: Tracy Chalk, Waste and Community Protection Manager

Outcome	We care for our environment
Strategy	Support our communities to live more sustainably and use resources wisely
Service Activity	Manage resource recovery and waste collection services

Presenters: Amanda Bombaci - WSROC - Regional Waste Strategy

Tracy Chalk - Waste and Community Protection - Regional Waste Strategy

Executive Summary

The Regional Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy (Strategy) is a strategy for the nominated Western Sydney Councils. The aim of the Strategy is to ensure that the future direction of the region is one which maximises waste avoidance and resource recovery, whilst considering population growth and the visions of the region.

Background

The Western Regional Waste Group is made up of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) members Auburn, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta and Penrith. Although not formally part of WSROC, The Hills Shire Council is a group member and participating in the Strategy. Bankstown has elected to participate in the Southern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy. The Strategy is designed to ensure that future direction of the region is one which maximises waste avoidance and resource recovery.

The Regional Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy

Waste management has been identified as a priority under NSW 2012: A plan to make NSW Number 1. The Strategy demonstrates the region’s commitment to a strategic and unified approach to waste management and resource recovery, and takes into account the population growth that the region will see over the next few years. The Strategy has been developed in accordance with Environment Protection Authority 2014 guidelines and the State Government’s NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2013- 2021.

The Strategy also fits within the wider policy context set by the State and Federal governments and seeks to maximise funding opportunities under the “Waste Less Recycle More Initiative.”

The Strategy outlines the Western Region collectively in terms of where the region is now, where the region hopes to go in terms of vision over the next few years and how we will achieve the visions and targets. The Strategy takes into consideration population growth in the area and varying targets of the group’s member councils. Implementation of this Strategy can assist councils to:

• Improve recycling and resource recovery rates;

• Reduce contamination of recyclables;

• Reduce waste going to landfill;

• Achieve cost savings;

• Deliver educational campaigns to improve waste management behaviour;

• Increase productive economy of the region;

• Achieve higher environmental standards; and

• Improve community reputation and standing

The Draft Strategy has now been submitted to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and subject to endorsement by the member councils will be published alongside other NSW regional strategies.

Conclusion

The Western Sydney Regional Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy is a strategy designed so participating councils in the region have a unified approach to maximising waste avoidance and resource recovery.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Regional Waste Strategy be received.

2. Penrith City Council endorse the Regional Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

Draft Western Sydney Regional Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy

53 Pages

Attachments Included

Policy Review Committee Meeting 14 July 2014

2014 Local Government NSW Annual Conference

Compiled by: Adam Beggs, Acting Senior Governance Officer

Authorised by: Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer

Outcome	We have confidence in our Council
Strategy	Demonstrate transparency and ethical behaviour
Service Activity	Support the Councillors in meeting their statutory obligations and roles as community representatives

Executive Summary

This report advises Council of a proposed Issue to be raised at the Local Government NSW (LGNSW) Annual Conference to be held in Coffs Harbour from 19-21 October 2014 and seeks endorsement from Council to submit the provided Issue, as detailed, to the Conference. Tonight’s meeting is also the final opportunity for Councillors to raise any additional Issues for the Conference. Staff will prepare supporting cases to any additional Issues raised tonight and will submit these to LGNSW prior to the due date of Friday 1 August 2014.

The proposed Issue put forward by staff relates to the category of Social Policy and in particular pensioner rebates and maintaining the level of State Government support.

The report recommends that the information be received and the Issue detailed in the report in addition to any Issues suggested this evening be submitted for inclusion in the 2014 Local Government NSW Annual Conference Business Paper.

Background

Local Government NSW (LGNSW) will hold its Annual Conference at Coffs Ex-Service Club, Coffs Harbour from 19-21 October 2014.

The election of the LGNSW Board took place at the first Annual Conference held at Sydney Town Hall, Sydney last year. This included the election of the first LGNSW President, two Vice Presidents and a Treasurer.

Over the years, Council has been very successful at influencing the development of statewide LGA policy, particularly in the areas of planning, the environment, community planning, fire and emergency services, roads and transport and rating policy.

Current Situation

Council’s voting delegates were determined for the LGNSW Conference at the Ordinary Meeting on 23 June 2014. In addition, at this meeting it was determined that up to three (3) Aboriginal observers, nominated by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council, will also attend as observers.

Feedback from the 2013 Conference indicated that some delegates preferred discussing specific motions and others requested the discussion be consolidated to overarching issues. The Board has written to Council advising that they will try to balance both methods by setting aside the first day of business as the primary time to discuss all issues and motions, with an additional session time put aside to ask how motions and issues are dealt with into the future.

Accordingly, councils have been requested to identify up to 3-5 important issues/motions which they believe are causing concern to the Council and/or the community. Councils have been encouraged to suggest an appropriate solution by including either a motion which could be considered by the Conference or notes which might guide delegates to an agreed position. The issues must fall under one of the following categories:

1. Industrial relations and employment

2. Economic

3. Environmental

4. Governance/Civic Leadership

5. Social Policy

Local Government NSW has advised that the submission of Council’s identified issues or motions and any accompanying notes must be completed and submitted prior to 1 August 2014.

ISSUE 1

Subject:

Pensioner Rebates – Maintaining level of State Government support

Issue Details:

Since 1988 pensioners in NSW have received a mandatory subsidy of up to $250 on residential rates.

Currently, councils receive reimbursement of 55% of this subsidy from the State Government. The Local Government Act (s581) only requires 50% of the rebate to be reimbursed from the State Government with the additional 5% currently being paid as a result of the additional funding the State receives.

The recent Federal Budget announced the early cessation of the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioners Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders. This agreement between the Federal Government and the States provided funding to the States for additional assistance for pensioner concessions, including funding for the Local Government Pensioners rebate.

The remaining 45% is borne by ratepayers – currently more than $1.2 million in Penrith City.

The NSW State Government announced in their budget that the 55% reimbursement will be continued for 2014-15. Penrith City Council believes that the 55% reimbursement to councils should be continued indefinitely and calls on the State Government to confirm its continuation beyond 2014-15.

Supporting Case/Motion:

That Local Government NSW call on the NSW State Government to:

1. Confirm that they will continue to reimburse Councils 55% of pensioner rebates provided and amend the Local Government Act to preserve this important level of support to pensioners.

2013 Conference Actions

Council put forward a number of issues to the 2013 LGNSW Conference, including topics on:

1. Independent Local Government Review Panel

2. White Paper – A New Planning System for NSW

3. TCorp

4. Hoarding and Domestic Squalor

A number of Council’s Issues were considered by the Board prior to the Conference or were referred to the Board for consideration after the Conference. Full details of the Record of Decisions and other actions for the 2013 Conference are attached to this report.

Conclusion

It is important to recognise the significant contribution that Council has made to framing policy and advocating for the community through the motions it has raised at previous Local Government Association Conferences. The Delivery Program for 2013-17 identifies Council’s role in monitoring the impact of emerging policies and seeking to influence State and Federal Governments through a strong advocacy role. Council’s attendance and involvement at the Local Government NSW Conference is one of the activities that contribute to achieving these delivery actions.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2014 Local Government NSW Annual Conference be received.

2. The Issue detailed in the report be submitted for inclusion in the 2014 Local Government NSW Annual Conference Business Paper prior to 1 August 2014.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	2013 LG NSW Record of Decisions	5 Pages	Attachments Included
2.	2013 Motions considered by the Board	2 Pages	Attachments Included

Policy Review Committee Meeting 14 July 2014

Community Building Partnership 2014

Compiled by: Natalie Benzie, Acting Business Support Accountant

Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Authorised by: Vicki O’Kelly, Executive Manager Corporate

Outcome	We have confidence in our Council
Strategy	Ensure our finances and assets are sustainable and services are delivered efficiently
Service Activity	Manage Council's financial sustainability and meet statutory requirements

Executive Summary

The 2014 Community Building Partnership Program has been announced by the NSW Government.

Applications close Friday 18 July 2014.

Funds allocated for distribution in each State Electoral District have been returned this year to a base allocation of $300,000, within an additional $100,000 available for identified electorates.

Council Officers have reviewed current programs and proposed a number of projects which would be eligible for funding under this program. These proposals were considered and prioritised by the Corporate Leadership Team.

Applications from Council must identify, as a minimum, sources of matching funding to the Community Building Partnership grants. Council is only allowed one application per electorate.

This report recommends that Council endorse the preparation of four applications, one per State Electoral District within the Penrith LGA, for the projects nominated and allocate the relevant sources of identified Council funding, pending the applicants being successful.

Background

The 2014 Community Building Partnership Program is now open and the allocations under the program by Electoral District within the Penrith LGA are:

Londonderry $400,000

Mulgoa $300,000

Penrith $300,000

Smithfield $400,000

Applications close 18 July 2014 with decisions expected to be announced in December 2014. Successful projects must be completed by March 2016.

The objectives of the NSW Community Building Partnership program are to:

· Improve local community participation and cohesion through the delivery of social, environmental or recreational services or activities by enhancement of community infrastructure.

· Improve opportunities for people from disadvantaged or otherwise isolated groups to be included in community activities.

The general criteria for funding include:

· Applicants should demonstrate how their project will benefit their local community through the building or improvement of facilities to deliver positive social, recreational or environmental outcomes.

· Applications from Council require a commitment of matching cash funding by Council. Matching cash funding can be provided from council income sources or from other external funding sources.

· Council may submit one proposal for each electorate within their area.

· Not-for-profit organisations are eligible to seek the entire project cost as a grant. Favourable consideration will be given to those projects with contributions from their own or from other sources.

Proposals

Following short listing and prioritisation, Local Members have been requested to provide feedback on the priority projects. This request was made in the context of understanding that this feedback was not a guarantee of funding however Local Members will make funding recommendations to the Premier.

The short listed projects, by electorate, in priority order are as follows:

Penrith

1. Interactive Active Zone - Tench Reserve - This application seeks matching grant funds to allow the delivery of shade over the new playground to be built in the northern sector of Tench Reserve, along with creating a wireless hub that would be accessible throughout the ‘River Loop Walk”.

The new playground and associated facilities are in accordance with the Our River Masterplan, which highlighted the need for more diverse recreational facilities in Tench Reserve. The location for the new playground and shade is also in accordance with the intensions of the Masterplan, and the wireless hub will enable an interactive river loop walk experience with information available at various points of interest.

The total estimated project cost is $94,000. The grant request would be $47,000, with council funding of $27,000 from the Parks Asset Renewal program and $20,000 from the Digital Economy Strategy.

2. Building a Digital Community – There are three elements to this project which will support community recreation and increase the profile of and community engagement with local sporting organisations through the creation of a community portal. Total estimated project cost of $197,600. The grant request would be $90,300, with total council funding of $107,300 (includes $16,600 of work in kind). Council funding would come from the Digital Economy Strategy project. The three elements of this project are as follows:

I. Create a Gaming Hub Centre – create a space in the Library or in the shopping precincts around the gaming shops that caters for gaming from K-12. During school hours the centre could cater for younger children and the disadvantaged and elderly. The total estimated project cost is $81,600. The grant request would be $42,000, with total Council funding of $39,600 (includes $6,600 work in kind)

II. Create a ‘Wireless CBD’ Project – Deliver wireless access in parts of the Penrith CBD, to encourage tourists and locals to stop and access local businesses and to promote the digital branding of the City. The total estimated project cost is $40,000. The grant request would be $16,000, with Council funding of $24,000 (includes $4,000 work in kind).

III. Create a Digital Economy Information Portal for Business and Community – Develop a Digital Economy Information Portal to support the Digital Economy Strategy program and to create a new channel for information relating to the Digital Economy. This project would include the development of a template for sporting and community groups to use and then post to the portal. The total estimated project cost is $76,000. The grant request would be $32,300 with council funding of $43,700 (includes $6,000 work in kind).

3. Cranebrook Park, new amenity facilities – Stage 1 of this project includes the provision of 3 unisex toilets, an accessible toilet facility, canteen, storage area and awning. The grant funds would enable Stage 2 of this project, which includes the provision of 2 change room facilities, to be provided concurrently to stage 1.

The inclusion of change rooms within this project will enable competition matches to be played at this site that meet the facility requirements for each of the sports who utilise this venue and to date no other funding source has been identified.

The total estimated project cost is $330,000. The grant request would be for $80,000, with Council funding of $250,000 from the Lakes Environs (Waterside Green) section 94 plan.

Londonderry

1. Playground Replacements at Cranebrook. This project will enable the replacement of playgrounds at Callisto Drive and Andromeda Drive Oval.

The replacement of the kids playground at Callisto Drive will complement the construction of the new youth playground that will occur this financial year, while the playground replacement at Andromeda Drive Oval would enable a high priority replacement to be brought forward in the Parks Asset Renewal program.

The total estimated project cost is $292,348. The grant request would be $112,500, with Council funding of $179,848 ($142,348 already included in the 2014-15 operational plan and $37,500 from Parks Asset Renewal program).

2. Pedestrian bridge upgrade at Werrington Lake. This asset renewal project upgrades a critical link in the pathway network around the lake, providing enhanced recreational opportunities for the community.

This project complements new picnic and amenity facilities at Werrington Lake being delivered as part of the District Open Space S94 Plan.

The total estimated project cost of $376,000. The grant request would be $60,000 with Council funding of $316,000 from the District Open Space section 94 plan.

3. New subsurface irrigation system at Londonderry Oval – This project proposes the installation of a subsurface irrigation system that will improve the playing field surface condition to support additional community and sporting use. This work builds on a number of recent projects at Londonderry Oval.

The total estimated project cost is $40,000. The grant request would be $20,000, with matching council funding of $20,000 from the Local Open Space section 94 plan.

Mulgoa

1. Installation of an outdoor health and fitness zone at Myrtle Road Reserve, Claremont Meadows. The proposed project would install a health and fitness zone near an existing amenities building in Myrtle Road Reserve, Claremont Meadows.

The equipment will be modelled on a number of successful installations of this type of equipment undertaken by Council over recent years, including two piloted in Glenmore Park. This project will create an active exercise facility for Claremont Meadows.

The total estimated project cost is $100,000. The grant request would be for $50,000, with matching Council funding of $50,000 from the Local Open Space section 94 plan.

2. Installation of Sub Surface Sportsfield Drainage at Ched Towns Reserve.

This capital works project will address drainage problems on the football fields, improving field playability and sustainability. These works will compliment planned playing field surface embellishment works designed to support high levels of facility utilisation.

The total estimated project cost is $103,000. The grant request would be for $50,000, with Council funding of $53,000 from the Local Open Space section 94 plan.

Smithfield

1. Playground replacement at Kestral Cres Reserve, Erskine Park. The playground at Kestral Cres Reserve has been listed for replacement as part of the Parks Asset Renewal Program. The grant funding, if successful, will enable the program to be accelerated and this and other playgrounds in the Parks Asset Renewal program delivered earlier.

The total estimated project cost is $75,000. The grant request would be for $37,500, with matching council funding of $37,500 from the Parks Asset Renewal program.

2. Pathways, Landscaping and Floodlighting at Peppertree Oval, Erskine Park. This project will commence the first stage of floodlight upgrades to improve training opportunities for community sporting groups.

The total estimated project cost of $130,000. The grant request would be for $65,000 with matching council funding of $65,000 from the Local Open Space Section 94 plan.

Council should also be aware that a number of applications will be lodged from community organisations. Many of these, particularly in the sport and recreation area, will result in a request for a Council contribution. This demand arises from groups not requesting sufficient funds, not being approved or sufficient funds not being provided to complete their proposed project. Resources are also required to arrange and coordinate the works that are the subject of the project, on behalf of the successful applicants.

A list of community organisation projects that Council Officers are currently aware of has been provided under separate cover.

Conclusion

Council is requested to endorse the development of four applications, one for each local State Electoral District, and the source of matching funds, in accordance with the Program guidelines.

The four projects identified (one per electorate) through the process outlined in the report, including requesting feedback from Local Members, and consideration of available matching funding sources are:

Electorate	Proposed Project	Funding Comment
Penrith	Interactive Active Zone – Trench Reserve	Total cost $94,000. The grant request would be $47,000, with council funding of $27,000 from the Parks Asset Renewal program and $20,000 from the Digital Economy Strategy
Londonderry	Playground Replacements at Cranebrook	Total cost $292,348. The grant request would be $112,500, with Council funding of $179,848 ($142,348 already included in the 2014-15 Operational Plan and $37,500 from Parks Asset Renewal program)
Mulgoa	Installation of an outdoor health and fitness zone at Myrtle Road Reserve, Claremont Meadows	Total cost $100,000. The grant request would be for $50,000, with matching Council funding of $50,000 from the Local Open Space section 94 plan
Smithfield	Playground replacement at Kestral Cres Reserve, Erskine Park	Total cost $75,000. The grant request would be for $37,500, with matching council funding of $37,500 from the Parks Asset Renewal program.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Community Building Partnership 2014 be received

2. Council endorse the submission of application for the following four projects to the 2014 Community Building Partnership Program and confirm the source of matching funds, pending the application being successful:

Penrith: Interactive Active Zone - Tench Reserve

Estimate project cost: $94,000

Grant Request: $47,000

Council contribution: $47,000 from the Parks Asset Renewal ($27,000) program and the Digital Economy Strategy project ($20,000).

Londonderry: Playground Replacements at Cranebrook

Estimate project cost: $292,348

Grant Request:$112,500

Council contribution: $179,848 from the existing Parks Program ($142,348) and the Parks Asset Renewal program ($37,500)

Mulgoa: Installation of an outdoor health and fitness zone at Myrtle Road Reserve, Claremont Meadows

Estimate project cost: $100,000

Grant Request: $50,000

Council contribution: $50,000 from the Local Open Space Section 94 plan