Council_Mark_POS_RGB

4 March 2015

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 9 March 2015 at 7:00PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours faithfully

 

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM - 17 February 2015 to 29 March 2015 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 9 February 2015.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 9 March 2015

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2015 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2015 - December 2015

(adopted by Council on 24/11/14)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21^ü

(7.00pm)

 

 

14

(7.00pm)

 

23@

23

27v

25#

29*

27

24@

28

26

23#+

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

 

 

20

11

15

13

10

14

19

9

7

 

9

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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 Meetings are held as required.

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

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

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2015 AT 7:02PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Maurice Girotto, Jackie Greenow OAM, Tricia Hitchen, Karen McKeown (arrived 7:03pm), John Thain (arrived 7:04pm) and Michelle Tormey.

 

APOLOGIES

PRC 1  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor Michelle Tormey that apologies be received for Councillors Mark Davies and Ben Goldfinch.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 2 December 2014

PRC 2  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Tricia  Hitchen that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 2 December 2014 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

5        St Marys Town Centre Corporation

Place Manager, Jeni Pollard introduced the report and invited Paulette Adams, Town Centre Manager and Christine Barnes, Board Member from the St Marys Town Centre Corporation to give a joint presentation.                                                                                                                                  

PRC 3  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on St Marys Town Centre Corporation  be received.

2.     Council receive the Annual Operations Report 2013-14

3.     Council endorse the Annual Business Plan 2014-15.

 

 


 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Sydney Science Park Draft Amendment to Development Control Plan 2014

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

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:17pm.

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:22pm.

Councillor Prue Car left the meeting, the time being 7:39pm.

Councillor Marcus Cornish left the meeting, the time being 7:40pm.

Councillor Marcus Cornish returned to the meeting, the time being 7:41pm.                              

PRC 4  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sydney Science Park Draft Amendment to Development Control Plan 2014 2014 be received.

2.     Further changes be made to the Sydney Science Park section of draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 prior to public exhibition, to ensure consistency with Council’s policy direction and the LEP Amendment for Sydney Science Park.

3.     Council endorse the public exhibition of an amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 to include a site specific section on Sydney Science Park. This amendment be exhibited in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and associated Regulations.

4.     A further report be presented to Council following the Public Exhibition.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

                                                        

Councillor Maurice Girotto                       

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 


 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

2        Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade                                                

PRC 5  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade be received.

2.     The RMS’s preferred Option 12 as described in the Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade Community Update November 2014 be supported subject to consideration of additional matters.

3.     The Engineering Services Manager be authorised to finalise a submission, highlighting those additional matters identified within this report, and forward to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

3        Our River Plan of Management and Riparian Vegetation Management Plan            

PRC 6  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Karen McKeown

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on “Our River Plan of Management and Riparian Vegetation Management Plan be received.

2.     The Final “Our River” Plan of Management for Tench Reserve, River Road Reserve and Weir Reserve be adopted

3.     The Final “Our River” Riparian Vegetation Management Plan be adopted.

 

4        Draft Compliance and Enforcement Policy

Development Services Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report.

Councillor Prue Car returned to the meeting, the time being 7:51pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:52pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 7:54pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:55pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 7:56pm.

PRC 7  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Compliance and Enforcement Policy be received.

2.     The Draft Compliance and Enforcement Policy be placed on public exhibition for 30 days to seek comment from the community.

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS AND URGENT BUSINESS

 

UB 1           Request for Leave of Absence    

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM requested Leave of Absence for the period 17 February 2015 to 29 March 2015 inclusive.

PRC 8  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the matter be brought forward as a matter of urgency.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

 

PRC 9  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia  Hitchen seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM be granted Leave of Absence for the period 17 February 2015 to 29 March 2015 inclusive.

 

 

RR 1           Flood zones and rebuilds  

Councillor John Thain requested a report be brought back to Council concerning an overall review of the City-wide DCP taking into account the rebuild provisions on flood zone lands.

 

RR 2           Flood levels and flood access     

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:06pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:07pm.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a report be brought back to Council detailing the flood levels and the associated effects on flood access roads especially in flood prone areas along Ladbury Avenue and Nepean Avenue, Penrith.

 

RR 3           Responsibility of gate entry at Sportingbet Stadium     

Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply regarding who was responsible for the gate entries at Sportingbet Stadium on 8 February 2015 during the Western Sydney Wanderers and Wellington Phoenix game.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:12pm.

    


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Signs Policy                                                                                                                        1

 

2        Development Control Plan 2014 - Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                                 5

 

3        Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                               17

 

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

4        Trial Pop Up Park Penrith, Final Evaluation Report                                                         27

 

5        The Penrith Mayoral Challenge- Youth Participation and Placemaking Pilot Project     35

 

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

6        Appointment to the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party                                                                                                                   43

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

7        2015 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government                                                                                                                     51

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Signs Policy                                                                                                                        1

 

2        Development Control Plan 2014 - Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                                 5

 

3        Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                               17

 

 

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

1

Signs Policy   

 

Compiled by:               Julie Condon, Development Enquiry Coordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development Services Manager

Tracy Chalk, Waste and Community Protection Manager 

Requested By:            Councillor Greg Davies

 

 

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

      

 

Executive Summary

Moveable signage is becoming an increasingly popular method of promoting businesses, products, organisations and events. This type of advertising is often found to be located on Council owned land, public roads or road reserves where they are not authorised and may cause an obstruction to traffic or pedestrians or be a distraction to drivers.

 

The types of signage discussed in this report are signs painted on vehicles or signs on trailers as well as Variable Message Signs (VMS). An accumulation of these signs result in visual clutter along the roadways and may detract from directional signage placed by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

 

Current legislation is not keeping pace with the breadth and diversity of signs appearing in our urban areas. This report relates only to VMS and signage which is vehicle mounted.

 

The purpose of this report is to outline the planning provisions which relate to these signage types and recommend Council adopt a policy position regarding this matter.

 

Background

Historically, advertising and signage approval have been limited to signage attached to a property, business premises or structure. Consent can be granted for signage on a property where the proposed sign meets the development controls for the zone and use as described in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).

 

More recently there has been a trend for businesses to become more mobile and they are now promoting their activities in locations not limited to the premises they occupy. Examples of this include signage on vehicles and trailers such as coffee carts, mobile dog washes, and the trailers of tradesmen in which they carry their tools. Other examples are trailers with signs built into them which are purpose built for promotions carried out by businesses or organisations or radio stations, or for the promotion of a candidate in a Government election.

 

There is also an increasing trend for the use of VMS. These are used to promote a variety of information from traffic messages legally posted by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), to community events and commercial undertakings. Where a proliferation of these occur there is a danger that motorists’ attention will be diverted from the road and from legal messages posted by the RMS.

 

The type of advertising is often found to be located on Council owned land, public roads or road reserves where they are not authorised and may cause an obstruction to traffic or pedestrians or be a distraction to drivers. They also commonly appear in front of buildings within the building setback without suitable approvals.

 

The current framework of planning policy which relates to advertising and signage contains provisions covering the majority of scenarios where signage is affixed to premises.  The transient nature of some signage is not adequately captured in the regulation of signage.

 

Planning Policy/Legislation Relating to Moveable Advertising and Signage

Many policies provide for advertising and signage across the Local Government Area at a State and local level. They cover zoning, permissibility, design and merit considerations of the development as well as signage on private and publicly owned land.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.64 – Advertising and signage and the associated guidelines prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment provide for assessment and consent requirements for advertising that is visible from public places, including roads. It does not however cover signage on vehicles or signage which is exempt development. Exempt signage types are identified in State Environmental Planning Policy 2008 (Exempt and Complying Development). 

 

Local Environmental Plans provide for zoning and permissibility of advertising and signage, and development control plans provide detail to guide the quality of advertising and signage design and location.

 

In considering the merits of using roads for advertising structures, the ‘Advertising and Signage’ provisions of Council’s Development Control Plans consider the following signs inappropriate:

 

“signs mounted on motor vehicles, trailers (both registered and unregistered) where the principal purpose of the vehicle or trailer is not for the transportation of goods or people but is parked in a location and position as an advertising medium.”

 

This means it may be considered acceptable to have signage painted or mounted on a work vehicle being used by the person travelling to or undertaking the work advertised.  However, it is not appropriate to fit a sign to a trailer or the side of a vehicle purely for the purpose of promoting a business, organisation, person or event or for commercial gain.

 

The existing and exhibited draft DCP also specifies that;

 

1.   “Signs are regarded as prejudicial to the safety of the travelling public and are therefore prohibited if they include variable messages

2.   Signs mounted on parked or stationary motor vehicles or trailers, and parked in a location and position as an advertising medium are inappropriate and will not be supported.”

 

Other legislation is used to determine whether advertising and signage on roads is lawful and Council’s Rangers enforce these policies.

 

1.   Zoning and ownership of roads

The permissibility of signage is dependent on the location of the site and the permitted land uses prescribed by an environmental planning instrument. An application for approval for signage is required to be endorsed by the owner of the land on which the sign is to be located. Where signage requiring consent is not located within or upon privately owned land, the issue of seeking or granting approval becomes problematic This issue is further complicated where the sign is located within a road reserve or on public land. Parking vehicle painted with signage or placing a VMS on a piece of land requires development approval in the same way as erecting a permanent sign or advertisement. 

 

Some roads (usually local roads) are allocated the same zoning as the adjoining land. Other roads that are higher in hierarchy to local roads are usually zoned as “roads” in the LEP. Advertising and signage are prohibited on local roads that are zoned for road purposes only. For other local roads, consent for advertising and/or signage on the road is not likely to be granted despite being ‘permissible’ as consent from the owners of the land (Council) for the submission of the application is unlikely to be issued. 

 

The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) policies advise that for higher order roads such as motorways and freeways in their ownership, advertising signage can contain messages for road users. Where messages on signs are for road users, the RMS have policies ensuring they are put into operation correctly and also have authority to remove the structure where it is not compliant. Other unauthorised signage is not supported by the RMS, owing to safety concerns. The RMS have advised they would not issue owner’s consent for use of their land for moveable advertising structures.

 

2.   Council’s compliance role in ensuring these structures are managed

Council’s Rangers use the following legislation and authority, where appropriate, to enforce car parking requirements:

 

1.  The Local Government Act 1993 outlines circumstances where Council has responsibility to issue orders under the Roads Act 1993 for the removal of an obstruction or encroachment on a road;

 

2.  The Roads Act 1993 defines Council as the “roads authority”, to undertake certain functions, including the above referred orders;

 

3.  Under the Australian Road Rules 2008 (as made under Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999), Council has authority to regulate car parking;

 

4.  Environmental planning policies at a State and Local level (being provisions within Local Environmental Plans (LEP’s) and DCP’s provide for instances where consent is (or is not) required for advertisements and their associated structures or where they are prohibited.

 

In the absence of consent, Council’s Rangers use their authority to order the removal of unauthorised inappropriate moveable advertising and signage under the applicable legislation. This method of controlling moveable signage can only be undertaken where there is an infringement of the legislation. Where the vehicle containing an advertisement is lawfully parked, Council’s ability to undertake compliance action can be compromised. 

 

Where a sign is placed on private land without approval, such as a VMS within the building setback, compliance action can be taken under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This action may include the issuing of an infringement notice or an order for its removal.

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Management of Moveable Signage

Council’s Rangers undertake compliance action where they are authorised to do so however, Council has not taken a formal policy position on this issue, other than that outlined in the adopted DCP controls.

 

Other councils, such as Liverpool, have taken a position and adopted policies strengthening their position in enforcement of signage on roads and Council owned land.

 

These policies contain statements to the effect that signage is not permitted on Council owned land, roads or road reserves, and that Council Officers will enforce the policy and the relevant legislation.

 

Conclusion

Advertising and signage on roads and public land is managed through existing planning policy and legislation. Development consent is not able to be obtained for signage on roads and public land without the endorsement of the land owner (i.e. Council).

 

It is recommended Council adopt a position not to support moveable signage on Council owned land, including public roads and road verges, and that a Policy be prepared regarding signage on Council owned land.

 

Such a Policy may consider the merits of allowing temporary VMS for promotion of community and not-for-profit events on Council owned land.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Signs Policy be received.

2.    A Policy be drafted confirming Council’s position toward movable signage on Council owned and public land.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

2

Development Control Plan 2014 - Outcomes of Public Exhibition   

 

Compiled by:               Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character

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

Over a number of years, Council has worked toward the goal of providing a comprehensive, integrated suite of planning documents to replace the myriad of Local Environmental Plans (LEP) and Development Control Plans (DCP) that currently apply across the City, and to provide a simple contemporary guide for development. Adoption of this DCP is a major milestone in achieving this goal.

 

Currently, Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006 generally applies across the urban areas of the City while Penrith DCP 2010 applies across the rural areas, industrial areas and St Marys Town Centre.

 

Council officers have consolidated both of these DCPs, so that one DCP will support Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4 (the City-wide Plan). This process has required necessary updates to ensure consistency and also to reflect current policy and legislative changes. Furthermore new sections are required to support the special precincts (Penrith Health and Education Precinct and Riverlink Precinct) and certain provisions need to be removed from current LEPs and placed into DCPs to satisfy the requirements of the Standard LEP Template. The consolidated DCP is known as Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (draft DCP 2014).

 

This work represents a consolidation and “tidy up” of the existing DCPs applying to the City. It does not represent a full policy based review of our DCPs. A full review of the DCPs will be carried out when the new legislation is enacted and the form and content of the new Local Land Use Plans (which will include significant changes to how DCP provisions are crafted and how they operate in relation to permissible land uses) is known. Furthermore the strategic review of residential, employment and open space strategies need to be carried out prior to any major review of the DCP.

 

At its Policy Review Committee Meeting of 8 September 2014, Council endorsed the public exhibition of Draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (draft DCP 2014) and that a further report be presented to Council following the Public Exhibition. Subsequently, draft DCP 2014 was exhibited from 13 October 2014 to 14 November 2014.  A total of 56 submissions were received.

Background

Since 2005 Council has been preparing a single, City-wide Local Environmental Plan (the City-wide Plan). The process was split into two stages.  Stage 1 of the City-wide Plan was completed in 2010 and was published as Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).  LEP 2010 sets the planning controls for Penrith’s rural and industrial areas and St Marys Town Centre. Stage 2 of the City-wide Plan was adopted by Council at its Ordinary meetings of 25 November 2013, 16 December 2013 and 28 April 2014 and forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for the Minister to make the Plan. Stage 2 of the City-wide Plan contains planning controls for Penrith’s urban areas, including the Penrith City Centre and Penrith’s smaller commercial centres. Stage 2 of the City-wide Plan progressed as an amendment to the LEP 2010 and is known as Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4. This plan was made by the Minister on 28 January 2015 and commenced on 25 February 2015.

 

Development Control Plans (DCP) are documents that support the LEP with more detailed planning and design guidelines. In 2005, the State Government introduced an amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act which limited, to one, the number of Development Control Plans that could apply to any single block of land.  This was intended to make it easier for users to determine the controls applying to development on any individual property. 

                                                               

Although there was no limit placed on the overall number of DCPs a council could adopt, it was generally expected that there would be one primary DCP for a local government area, to complement the requirement for a single LEP. Council complied with this requirement in August 2006, when it adopted Penrith DCP 2006. Later Council adopted Penrith Development Control Plan 2010 to complement Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Stage 1).

 

Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2006 generally applies across the urban areas of the City while Penrith DCP 2010 applies across the rural areas, industrial areas and St Marys Town Centre. There are some other standalone DCPs such as the Penrith City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 and Werrington Mixed-Use Area Development Control Plan that apply to specific areas.

 

With Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4 now commenced, Penrith DCP 2006 partly applies to the urban areas. However Penrith DCP 2010 still applies to the rural areas, the industrial areas and St Marys Town Centre in its current form. Furthermore Penrith City Centre DCP and Werrington Mixed-Use Area DCP no longer apply to the areas to which they are intended to apply.

 

It is therefore necessary to prepare a DCP that consolidates the controls contained in DCP 2006, DCP 2010, Penrith City Centre DCP and Werrington Mixed-Use Area DCP that will apply to Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4. This consolidated DCP is known as Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (draft DCP 2014).

 

The process to prepare draft DCP 2014 has required the following:

 

i.  Necessary updates to ensure consistency between both major DCPs

ii. Necessary updates to reflect current policy

iii.Necessary updates to reflect legislative changes

iv.A new section on the Penrith Health and Education Precinct

v. A new section on the Riverlink Precinct

vi.Inclusion of certain provisions in the DCP from current LEPs (that could not be included in Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4 given the requirements of the Standard LEP Template)

vii.Inclusion of the Penrith City Centre Development Control Plan 2007

viii.Inclusion of the Werrington Mixed-Use Area Development Control Plan

ix.Amendment of planning controls that have previously been endorsed by Council such as the Penrith City Centre Parking Controls

x. Remove those controls that are no longer relevant

xi.Amendment of planning controls where there is an inconsistency in application between various planning instruments

xii.Any other necessary changes.

 

Draft DCP 2014 is basically a translation of the existing DCPs except for necessary changes as described above. DCP 2014 will cover all areas in the Penrith Local Government Area including areas deferred from or not included in Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4. Attachment 2 provides an outline of the DCP and the changes made as a result of the above process.

 

At its Policy Review Committee Meeting of 8 September 2014, Council endorsed the public exhibition of draft DCP 2014 and that a further report be presented to Council following the Public Exhibition. 

Public Exhibition

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and associated Regulations require a DCP to be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days. Therefore the draft DCP 2014 was exhibited from 13 October 2014 to 14 November 2014. The Exhibited DCP is included as Attachment 4 (provided under separate cover on Council’s website). A range of tasks to support the public exhibition were carried out during this time including:

                     

1.   Notification advertisements in relevant newspapers

2.   Notification letters were sent to landowners in the Riverlink Precinct and Penrith Health and Education Precinct (new chapters).

3.   Notification letters to public authorities

4.   Information and fact sheets on how to have your say, Structure of the DCP, Information on the new chapters of Riverlink Precinct and Penrith Health and Education Precinct.

5.   Information on Council’s website.

6.   Availability of staff at Penrith to answer community enquiries.

Structure for consideration of submissions

A Discussion Paper has been prepared to assist Council in its consideration of submissions received on the draft DCP 2014. The Discussion Paper has been divided in chapters based on the section of DCP to which the submission relates.

 

Each chapter addresses both any submissions from a public authority and any submissions from the community on a particular matter. There are a range of options available for Council to consider at the end of each chapter and an appropriate recommendation/s.

Submissions

A total of 56 submissions were received to the exhibition of draft DCP 2014. The submissions received during the exhibition period for DCP 2014 are summarised in Attachment 1. Detailed discussion is provided in the Discussion Paper included as Attachment 3 (provided under separate cover on Council’s website).  A summary of some significant issues raised in submissions are provided below. More detail on these matters and recommendations on the way forward can be found in the attached discussion paper (Attachment 3 - (provided under separate cover on Council’s website)).

 

C3 Water Management

 

Review of the flood planning controls in the DCP:

The submission from the Engineering Services Department indicates that section 3.5 Flood Planning of the draft DCP requires further review to ensure the controls represent current best practice and reflect Council’s current position regarding development controls on flood liable land.  The submission also indicates that a review would help to resolve some of the uncertainty around the implementation of the controls and reflect current flood study information.

 

While it is acknowledged that this section of the draft DCP should be reviewed, such a review needs to be undertaken in a timely and holistic way.  Presently the State Government has established a task force to lead Stage 2 of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley Flood Management Review.  Stage 2 of the Review will examine the short-listed flood mitigation options from Stage 1, including the flood modelling framework for the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and improved land use planning and development assessment tools. This process is expected to deliver a report to the State Government late this year.

 

In addition, Council is seeking funding to undertake a Floodplain Risk Management Study and to develop a Floodplain Risk Management Plan for South Creek and other local urban catchments.  This process will necessitate a review of, amongst other matters, flood planning controls.

 

Following further discussion with the Engineering Services Department, it is recommended that the review of the flood planning controls in the DCP be undertaken when the outcomes of Stage 2 of the State Government’s Review are available, as well as the Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for South Creek.

 

Updates to certain flood planning controls to bring them in line with recent Council Policy decisions:

Certain flood planning controls in this chapter have been updated to bring them in line with recent policy decisions taken by Council.  At its Ordinary meeting of 28 July 2014, following consideration of a second storey addition to a dwelling house in Ladbury Avenue, Penrith, Council resolved to “adopt as an ‘interim position’ for the purposes of the Flood Policy [that] upper floor additions will not be considered as ‘new development’ provided:

 

a.   The first floor additions are above the Flood Planning Level and

b.   The additions and alterations do not increase the building footprint at ground level”.

 

Council also resolved that “the issue of residential alterations and additions be reported to the Floodplain Management Working Party”.

 

The Floodplain Management Working Party considered the interim position on 4 August 2014 and made the following refinements: “adopt as an ‘interim position’ for the purposes of the Flood Policy [that] upper floor additions will not be considered as ‘new development’ provided:

 

a.       The first floor additions are above the Flood Planning Level and

b.       The additions and alterations do not increase the building footprint at ground level beyond 35m² and

c.       Ground floor additions for the purposes of this policy include all non-habitable buildings such as garages, storage areas, carports and the like.

 

The amended interim position was included in the exhibited draft DCP and no submissions were received in relation to this position (other than the submission from the Engineering Services Department discussed above).  It is therefore proposed to retain the amended interim position in the final DCP.

 

At Council’s Policy Review Committee meeting of 9 February 2015, Councillor John Thain requested a report concerning “an overall review of the City-wide DCP taking into account the rebuild provisions on flood zone lands”. 

 

As discussed above, it is recommended that the review of the flood planning controls in the DCP be undertaken when the outcomes of Stage 2 of the State Government’s Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley Flood Management Review are available, as well as the Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for South Creek.

 

In considering Council’s interim position, the Floodplain Management Working Party also considered rebuild provisions.  The Working Party recommended that a proposal will be required to satisfy (i.e. built at or above) the flood planning level for the proposed development in the following circumstances:

 

·    A knockdown rebuild that retains exactly the same building footprint, and

·    A building burnt down and replaced with the same building footprint.

 

These controls were also included in the exhibited draft DCP and no submissions were received in relation to the controls.  It is therefore proposed to retain the controls relating to rebuilds in the final DCP.

 

C6 Landscape Design

 

Three submissions were received with regard to section C6 of the Draft DCP raising the same concerns and requesting all requirements relating to Council’s Approved Landscape Designer/Consultant be deleted.

         

The concern is that all developments in Penrith are divided into three categories and required to provide proposed landscaping details in accordance with the relevant category. Category 2 and 3 development which include all commercial development, dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing, are required to submit a landscape plan prepared by a consultant who is pre-approved and on Council’s Landscape Designer/Consultant register. Although there is no cost involved in being registered there are criteria to become registered by Council which includes qualifications and experience.

 

The issue raised is that there is inequity in this approach as Council doesn’t require planning consultants or engineers or any other profession dealing with development applications, to be pre-approved and on a register with Council. There is also concern that this register may not be legally enforceable and whether Council has the qualifications to be creating this type of pre-registration system.

 

The quality of the landscape details submitted with any application is the key aim of this register. The requirements for submission are already detailed in this section of the DCP and Appendix F3. The system of pre-registration has often caused a delay in the assessment of applications and has caused some angst amongst major developers in Penrith. As long as the quality of the proposed landscaping is provided then a landscape register is generally seen as unnecessary. The recommendation is therefore to maintain the relevant standards and objectives but delete all requirements for Council’s Approved Landscape Designer/Consultant register.

 

C10 Transport, Access and Parking

 

The key matters raised in the submissions received on Section C10 Transport, Access and Parking section of the DCP are summarised below:

 

Revised parking rates

Revised parking rates were suggested for visitor car parking within residential flat buildings, child care centres, fitness centres (including gyms) and hotel or motel accommodation.  The parking rates in the Draft Penrith DCP 2014 (as exhibited) for these uses are considered both current and appropriate for these uses. As well the parking rate for fitness centres is considered to be consistent with the RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.  Accordingly, it was not recommended to amend the parking rates in the DCP.

 

Consistency with current standards and policies

The submissions requested that a number of the objectives and controls needed to be updated to ensure development complies with current standards, such as Austroad’s Guide to Road Design, Australian Standards and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. This is being addressed through recommendations to amend the relevant objectives and controls of Section C10 Transport, Access and Parking to ensure they require development to address current standards.

 

D2 Residential Development

 

The key matters raised in the 6 submissions received on this section of the DCP are summarised below:

 

Cut and fill

Concerns raised in submissions raise difficulty when dealing with development applications on smaller lots within some of the new release areas as a result of the topography of the land i.e. steep sloping sites. This issue is being addressed through recommendations to insert new objectives and controls to be addressed during the subdivision phase to ensure this issue is looked at in further detail when the land is be subdivided rather than leaving all filling to the dwelling proposal stage or even after the dwelling is constructed. There are also new controls recommended to specifically deal with development on sloping land. Including controls for split level dwellings on steep sloping sites to ensure cut and fill is minimised as far as possible.

 

Building envelope controls

Revisions are recommended to be made to the draft building envelope controls in this section of the DCP. As the submission reveals there is concern that with the translation of controls from the LEP to the DCP now means that rather than a zone wide approach to building envelope which controls the bulk and scale of development. The controls are only consistent for each development typology. As many different developments are permitted in a zone the approach to controlling building envelope may change from one site to another within the same locality. It is therefore recommended the maximum building envelope controls be redrafted in a similar way to the landscape controls for residential development to ensure this is not an issue as shown below.

 

R2 Low Density Residential

R3 Medium Density Residential

Building Enve.bmp

building envelope diagram.bmp

 

Multi dwelling housing urban design

With regard to multi dwelling housing developments some concerns are raised in submissions relating to the break in buildings required, where the building length exceeds 20m. The justification given in the submission to reduce the size of the break in buildings is that a variation to this has been approved in the past. However, the variation is only ever approved where the designer has been able to demonstrate the bulk of the building is sympathetic to surrounding development and that there is a good design outcome. In this case the variation is an exception rather than the rule and therefore it is not recommended to change the policy.

 

E11 Penrith

The key matters raised in the submissions received for Section E11 Penrith of the DCP are summarised below:

 

164 Station Street, Penrith (Parkview site)

It was requested that street setbacks be reduced along the Station Street frontage of the Parkview site (from 5m to 2 – 3m average front setback). It was also requested that the Special Area Provisions for Precinct 2 (which contains the Parkview site) be amended to add new principles relating to density and built form, as well as adding new provisions relating to public domain, built form and at grade parking.

 

It is acknowledged that a reduced setback along the Station Street frontage if carefully designed may provide a good design outcome for the Parkview site. Discussions between Council urban designers and the proponents of the Parkview site could ensure the development of the Parkview site still meets the objectives of the Section without necessarily achieving the 5m setback along the Station Street frontage. As such, it is recommended that the Parkview Site Precinct be amended so that a reduced setback may be considered by Council if the development can demonstrate, to Council’s satisfaction, a quality urban design outcome which responds to the impacts of adjoining land uses.

 

It was recommended that Section E11 Penrith, Part A – Penrith City Centre be amended to include the suggested new principles relating to public domain and built form.

 

Proposed walkways in the Lemongrove Area and King Street, Penrith

A number of concerns were raised relating to the proposed walkways in Penrith which are required under Sections 11.9 Open Space and Walkways, Lemongrove Area and 11.10 Proposed Walkway, King Street, Penrith of the Draft Penrith DCP 2014. These concerns related to the limited development of the proposed walkways and connections since the policy’s introduction in the 1970s; the ability of existing streets to provide more effective pedestrian connections through paved footpaths, street lighting and natural surveillance; the limited (if any) time savings the proposed walkways would provide to pedestrians and the absence of any funding mechanism through Council’s adopted Section 94 Contribution Plans to provide these proposed walkways. It was suggested that the provision of pedestrian connections is better considered in a future review of the Penrith LEP where Council can consider the implications of land reservation provisions to enable these pedestrian links.

It is acknowledged that there are significant constraints in the ability of Council to provide the proposed walkways, particularly the lack of any adopted funding mechanism. It is also acknowledged that existing streets provide better amenity and safety to pedestrians as they contain paved footpaths, street lighting and natural surveillance. In addition, Council’s records indicate that the pedestrian links referred to in the DCP were never formalised as official laneways.

 

Accordingly, it has been recommended that Sections Section 11.9 Open Space and Walkways, Lemongrove Area and 11.10 Proposed Walkway, King Street, North Penrith be deleted from Draft Penrith DCP 2014. In addition, although the submissions did not raise any concern/comments relating to Section 11.11 Walkways, Vicinity Derby and Lethbridge Streets, Penrith, it has been recommended that Council delete Section 11.11 Walkways, Vicinity Derby and Lethbridge Streets, Penrith for the same reasons given for the deletion of Sections 11.9 and 11.10.

 

Outdoor Dining Areas in the Penrith City Centre

There was concern that there is significant overlap between Section E11 Penrith (Section 11.8 Outdoor Dining Areas in the Penrith City Centre) and Section C8 Public Domain (8.4 Outdoor Dining and Trading Areas). These include controls relating to appearance of the area, design of furniture, footpath widths and licensing. After comparison of the outdoor dining area controls within these sections, it is considered the controls relating to outdoor dining areas are better suited to Section C8 Public Domain so that they apply to all outdoor dining areas across the Penrith Local Government Area. It was recommended that Section 11.8 Outdoor Dining Areas in the Penrith City Centre be deleted to remove the overlap.

 

E12 – Penrith Health and Education Precinct

The key matters raised in the 10 submissions received on this section of the DCP are summarised below:

 

Part B Business Park Precinct

 

One submission received raised concerns that the development controls for the Business Park would lead to constrained development outcomes. Particular concerns were raised in regard to the requirement for a Concept Plan for the site.

 

The land to which this chapter applies is currently undeveloped. As such, there are no existing built elements on which controls can be based. The requirement for a Concept Plan is a response to the undeveloped nature of the site and provides scope for future developers to identify and express their overall vision for the Business Park. The listed requirements for a Concept Plan within the DCP are not binding. Through the development of the Concept Plan, if it is determined that some of the requirements are not necessary or can be achieved through another means there will be opportunity for this to be negotiated. Additionally, Concept Plan requirements may be overridden by a site specific (key precinct) chapter within the DCP. Any future Planning Proposals may be accompanied by a site specific chapter in the DCP depending on the scale and nature of the proposal.

 

It should be noted that this chapter relates to land which has been deferred from Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 (Amendment 4). This chapter has been retained in this version of DCP 2014 to ensure that there are controls in place for the future development of the Business Park.

 

Part C South Werrington Urban Village

 

This chapter currently prescribes a minimum density target of 414 dwellings. This figure was the result of detailed studies that recognised the potential of the site to provide higher densities within close proximity to Werrington Railway Station. The submission raises concerns with regard to regulating development proposals that propose 4-5 times the amount of dwellings and as a result create issues with regard to traffic generation, access, environmental constraints, open space allocation and servicing. DCP 2014 is largely a translation of existing controls. The identification of a maximum dwelling yield for the site is beyond the scope of this exercise. Revisions are recommended to reiterate that any proposal seeking densities above 414 dwellings must demonstrate that the site can accommodate the increased population.

 

Part D Werrington Mixed Use

 

The key matters raised in submissions relate to the retention of text and image references to the previously proposed UWS Railway Station. An independent review was undertaken of the proposed station in 2007-2008. The report found that there were alternative means to achieve improved access for residents in the region. Based on that advice, the State Government made the decision not to go ahead with the station. It is recommended that all text and image references to the railway station are removed from this chapter to more accurately reflect the current position.

 

One submission recommends that the dwelling density of 30 dwellings per hectare, developed as a response to the proximity of the station, should be removed as it is now too high.

 

The draft DCP is predominantly a translation of existing controls. Identifying an appropriate density target would require detailed consideration and analysis beyond what is reasonable for this exercise.  Furthermore, the dwelling density is enforced through the DCP and as with any control within the DCP there are circumstances where this can be varied subject to reasonable circumstances, justification and demonstration that the development can still meet the objectives for the control. This matter can be listed for further review and consideration in a future detailed review of the DCP.

 

E13 – Riverlink Precinct

Part A: Riverlink Precinct (Excluding Panthers Penrith Site)

 

The key matters raised in the submissions received on the Riverlink section of the DCP are summarised below:

 

Limited permitted uses in the Riverlink Precinct

There was concern that the zoning of the Blaikie Road properties (RU4 Primary Production Small Lots) permits a limited range of land uses and will devalue these properties. It was also suggested that restaurants, motels and cafes be permitted along the entire length of Tench Avenue to increase uniformity, decentralise visitors and reduce congestion.

 

Draft Penrith DCP 2014 does not zone land to permit land uses. The zoning of the properties along Blaikie Road, under Penrith LEP 2010 Amendment 4, are a ‘translation’ of the previous zone (Rural 1(a1)) which permits a similar range of uses, such as animal boarding establishments, dwelling houses and some agricultural uses. As well, the flood affectation of properties along Blaikie Road limits the development potential of these properties. The zoning of land along Tench Avenue (SP3 Tourist) already permits cafes, restaurants and tourist and visitor accommodation.  Accordingly, no revisions to the DCP are required.

 

Road network in the Riverlink Precinct

A number of submissions raised concern about the proposed road network in the Riverlink Precinct. These related to the lack of support for new vehicular connections within the Riverlink Precinct and the need to maintain the existing road access along the entire length of Tench Avenue. There was also concern about the impact of future development on Mulgoa Road given the current saturation peaks along Mulgoa Road due to vehicular movements and the reliance of many businesses to use Mulgoa Road for customer access and product delivery. 

 

The proposed road network within the Riverlink Precinct has considered its role in the Penrith LGA as a living, entertainment and working hub, as well as the required road connections with the Panthers Precinct. The proposed new links are, therefore, required to improve connectivity both within and around the Precinct. As well, development along Mulgoa Road will consider traffic impacts during the development application stage. As such, there are no appropriate options or recommendations for these concerns.

 

Inconsistency and illegibility of the figures

A number of submissions raised concern that the figures in the Riverlink Precinct were illegible and difficult to understand. The submissions also stated that the figures are inconsistent with the zoning of the area. It is recommended that the figures be amended to simplify them, remove inconsistencies and reduce duplication.

 

Revisions to active street frontages and setbacks

It was requested that amendments be made to the active street frontages (ASF) figure as the active street frontage requirement along Jamison Road is problematic in terms of heritage curtilage. There was also concern that a 3m setback requirement along Tench Avenue is insufficient to achieve a good design outcome. It was also suggested that the gateway site on the corner of Jamison Road and Tench Avenue be identified. These concerns are considered appropriate given the constraints of the Riverlink Precinct. It is recommended that the ASF figure be amended to delete the ASF requirement along Tench Avenue (north of Jamison Road) and along both sides of Jamison Road.  It is also recommended that the street setbacks figure be amended to delete the 3m setback requirement along Tench Avenue (north of Jamison Road) and along the northern side of Jamison Road, and to increase the minimum setback along Tench Avenue (south of Jamison Road) from 3m to 8-10m and along the southern side of Jamison Road from 3m to 10m.

 

Part B: Panthers Penrith Precinct

 

The amendment to this section of the DCP has occurred due to an application for a variation to the DCP submitted by Panthers on 3 September 2014.

 

Shortly after the adoption of the site specific section on Panthers in DCP 2010, Panthers engaged Brookfield Multiplex to review all aspects of the proposed redevelopment, in particular the commercial and financial feasibility of the project’s delivery. This review considered the key elements of the redevelopment contained in the Concept Plan and Council’s statutory documents and identified a range of adjustments considered necessary to achieve a commercially successful outcome and a vibrant, attractive place.

 

Panthers refined Master Plan proposes a mix of uses within the Precinct consistent with those permitted under the LEP and aims to respond to the site specific controls established in the DCP.  There is significant alignment between the current DCP for the site and the desired future character of the Precinct.  However, an amendment to the DCP is required to accommodate the range of changes proposed by the refined Master Plan. The key adjustments to the current DCP for the Panthers Precinct is provided below. These adjustments have been exhibited as part of the draft Penrith DCP 2014.

 

Emphasis on the Lake:

·    One of the key visual changes in the approach of the refined Master Plan is that it seeks to emphasise the Lake as the key feature of the Precinct and provides a new promenade to the lake frontage to leverage the visual amenity and views to the mountains, and connect and activate the adjacent buildings. Wording changes reflecting this emphasis have been made throughout this section.

 

Traffic, Access and Parking:

·    A realigned North – South vehicular street to exit the Panthers site further east at Harris Street.  This will still achieve the intended outcomes for the Precinct.

·    Deletion of a section of the Central Link Road to provide improved public domain quality and pedestrian based activity between the future Club extensions and the Lake to the west.  The deletion of this section has meant minor adjustment to the placement of Active Frontages, Awnings and Restricted Vehicular Access to complement the new road layout.

·    Removal of on-street parking on most internal roads which will be addressed by providing formalised off-street parking in the proposed multi-decked car park, off-street parking facilities in conjunction with each key facility and in overflow parking arrangements.

·    Reduction in width of internal streets to reduce the cost of road construction. 

During and after the exhibition period, there have been ongoing negotiations and discussions between Panthers representatives and Council Officers. Changes proposed since public exhibition that require Council’s endorsement are:

 

Riverlink Plan:

In response to other submissions made to Part A of the Riverlink chapter and to provide consistency throughout, it is proposed to delete Figure E13.18 Riverlink Precinct Plan and replace it with a simple location plan.

 

Road Hierarchy:

At the time of exhibition, Panthers had not completed a revised Transport Strategy to support the new internal road layout to the satisfaction of Council.  Therefore the exhibited DCP had a notation regarding a ‘possible future road’ at the northern end of the site connecting Ransley Street to the Park Edge Street. 

 

A revised Transport Strategy has since been undertaken by GHD to support the refined Master Plan, including changes to the internal road network to ensure that the level of service does not affect the external road network.  Council and RMS have reviewed the Transport Strategy and supporting data. There is agreement that no additional external road infrastructure or a ‘possible future road’ is required.

 

Restricted Vehicular Access: 

The realignment of the North-South Vehicular Street and the removal of the Central Link Road have meant some minor changes to the locations where vehicular access is restricted to ensure efficient movement of traffic and to minimise vehicular/pedestrian conflict in high pedestrian areas. 

 

Flooding:

Managing the development footprint of the Panthers site with respect to its unique flooding characteristics is one of the most critical considerations for redevelopment and urban sustainability on the subject site. 

Additional flood modelling is required to be undertaken during the preparation of the Infrastructure and Public Domain Master Plan.  This is to ensure that it is consistent with the flood modelling undertaken at the time of rezoning to ensure strategic floodplain management. This modelling is currently being undertaken by Panthers.  The aim of this modelling is to confirm that the level of impact contemplated at the rezoning stage is achieved as a consequence of the changes to the Master Plan and the fully developed site. 

 

Conclusion

 

This work represents a consolidation and “tidy up” of the existing DCPs applying to the City. It does not represent a full policy based review of our DCPs. A full review of the DCPs will be carried out when the new legislation is enacted and the form and content of the new Local Land Use Plans (which will include significant changes to how DCP provisions are crafted and how they operate in relation to permissible land uses) is known. Furthermore the strategic review of residential, employment and open space strategies need to be carried out prior to any major review of the DCP.

 

The preparation of draft Penrith DCP 2014 will assist in making planning information more accessible to residents, developers, business owners, community groups and staff. Draft Penrith DCP 2014 has been developed as an integrated plan, and exhibition of the draft plan has provided an opportunity for the community, including landowners and developers, to provide comments.  This feedback has been used to further improve the draft DCP2014, prior to its presentation to Council for endorsement.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Development Control Plan 2014 - Outcomes of Public Exhibition be received.

2.    In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations 2000, Council adopt Penrith Development Control Plan 2014, as tabled (provided under separate cover on Council’s website), amended in accordance with the recommendations for each chapter in Attachment 3 (provided under separate cover on Council’s website).

3.    The General Manager be delegated authority to make any necessary minor changes required to the Development Control Plan 2014 in accordance with Council’s adopted policy position before notification in the newspaper.

4.    In accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, Council give public notice of its decision in a local newspaper within 28 days, with the Development Control Plan coming into effect immediately upon notification in the newspaper. 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Summary of Submissions

18 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Outline of DCP 2014

7 Pages

Attachments Included

3.  

Discussion Paper

277 Pages

Attachments Included

 Under Separate Cover (Website)

4.  

Exhibited Development Control Plan 2014

1433 Pages

Attachments Included

 Under Separate Cover (Website)

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

3

Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)   

 

Compiled by:               Alison Butler, Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character

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

 

Precinct C is located at the western edge of the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area, adjacent to the Mulgoa Nature Reserve. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Amendment 4). Precinct C has been envisaged as providing a transition between the urban areas of the release area and the rural and conservation land to the west by providing low density housing on larger lots.

 

The draft Planning Proposal seeks to amend the minimum lot size and maximum dwelling cap provisions within Penrith LEP 2010 to allow for a greater transition of lot sizes and housing product towards the adjoining rural and conservation lands. 

 

This report provides a summary of the results of the officer’s review of the draft Planning Proposal and seeks Council’s endorsement to forward the draft Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment, seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’ to commence the LEP amendment process and to commence a consultation program with public authorities and the community as required by the Gateway Determination.

 

A copy of the draft Planning Proposal is provided as Attachment 1 and the draft Concept Plan is included as Attachment 2 to this report for the information of the Councillors.

 

Background

 

Precinct C is at the western edge of the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area, adjacent to the Mulgoa Nature Reserve. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Amendment 4). The Precinct is approximately 37.3 hectares.

 

The original Local Environmental Study undertaken for the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area recognised the special environmental and rural values of the Western Precinct. This Study identified an appropriate development outcome for the land as being low density, single family homes on large lots and highly site responsive designs. This in effect compelled consideration of a rural/residential development outcome. Council acknowledged the need to recognise an appropriate transition of housing from the main residential precinct in the east and a large lot residential outcome was ultimately incorporated through the inclusion of minimum lot sizes and maximum dwelling yields for the Precinct.

 

During the exhibition of the draft Planning Proposal for Stage 2 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010, the owners of Precinct C requested that the minimum lot size be reduced and the dwelling cap removed. Council officers at this time advised that any amendment that would result in an increase in housing density was considered significant enough to warrant much more detailed analysis and further study. It was recommended that should the owners wish to promote further adjustments to residential yields within the Precinct that this should be subject to a separate Planning Proposal.  

 

The landowners approached Council in early 2014 with the intention to submit a Planning Proposal for the land. Some significant concerns regarding a proposed increase in density of approximately 60% were raised by Council officers. Since these initial discussions the Planning Proposal has been revised to significantly reduce the number of lots proposed for Precinct C. The revised Planning Proposal is described below.

 

Description of Proposal

 

Precinct C is divided into two “Areas”. Penrith LEP 2010 (Amendment 4) currently specifies minimum lot sizes within these areas of 750m2 for the eastern portion and 1000m2 for the western portion, with a maximum dwelling yield for the Precinct of 250 dwellings. 

 

The draft Planning Proposal seeks to amend land use provisions and associated maps within Penrith LEP 2010 (Amendment 4) to achieve a more gradual transition of lot sizes and housing product towards the adjoining rural and conservation lands through the following mechanisms:

 

1.   Modifying the minimum Lot Size Map to allow a minimum lot size of 450m2 adjacent to residential development in the eastern portion of the Precinct and 750m2 for the western portion.

2.   Removing the maximum dwelling yield provisions within the LEP.

 

No amendments are proposed to the zoning of the land.

 

Concept Plan

 

A Concept Plan has also been submitted with the draft Planning Proposal demonstrating how the proposed amendments to the land use provisions and lot sizes will achieve a transition between the adjoining residential areas and the rural and conservation lands.

 

Lot sizes in the area immediately adjoining existing residential homes range from 450m2 to 600m2 with larger lots of 800m2 and 1200m2 transitioning to the western portion of the site. The largest allotments are located on the outer edges of the development providing a transition to the surrounding environmental and rural lands consistent with the existing DCP and LEP controls.

 

The Concept Plan shows a total of 344 lots ranging from 450m2 to 1300m2. The lot size and yield breakdown is as follows:

 

Lot Size

No.Lots

% Total Lots

450m2 – 599m2

89

26%

600m2 – 799m2

106

31%

800m2 – 999m2

92

27%

1000m2 +

57

16%

Total Number of Lots

344

100%

 

The proposed lot density as shown in the Concept Plan proposes an additional 94 lots for Precinct C, approximately a 35% increase.

Planning Proposal Justification

 

The planning investigations that determined the current lot size controls were undertaken between 2002 and 2005, before any physical detailed design had been undertaken for the area. Typical residential lots during this period were around 600m2 - 700m2 with large lot housing in the range of 900m2 - 1200m2. As a result of changing market demands and housing affordability, lots larger than 1,000m2 are generally now undesirable and unaffordable within the local market. The vast majority of current traditional housing lots are between 350m2 - 450m2 and larger home sites are between 750m2 – 1000m2. Furthermore, physical design work for Precinct C has identified a disparity between the minimum lot size and the maximum dwelling yield provisions which would ultimately see the development of lots between 900m2 – 1200m2, much greater than the minimum lot sizes currently prescribed for Precinct C.

 

Reducing the minimum lot sizes would result in a more gradual transition of lot sizes from the existing urban areas to the rural and conservation lands to the west, while providing more affordable housing options and housing diversity. Existing subdivision approvals for the adjoining residential areas of Glenmore Park Stage 2 have allowed for lot sizes of 450m2 right up to the eastern boundary of Precinct C. Requiring a minimum lot size of 750m2 on this boundary would result in a dramatic change of residential character between Precinct C and the existing area which is considered undesirable from an urban design perspective.

 

The development of land within Penrith’s existing release areas is well underway and as such, there is increasing pressure on Council to unlock greenfield land for out of sequence residential development. The proposal will assist in a modest way to maximise residential yields within existing release areas, taking advantage of existing servicing and infrastructure. Increasing the residential density as proposed will assist in forestalling the need for further ad hoc development in greenfield areas.

 

It should be noted that there are no proposed changes to the zoning of the land and the R2 Low Density Residential zone will remain. Medium to high density development such as townhouses and residential flat buildings are not permissible within the R2 Low Density zone, differentiating this Precinct from the rest of Glenmore Park Stage 2. 

 

Review of the Planning Proposal

 

The preliminary review of the draft Planning Proposal is now complete. The overall justification and rationale presented within the Proposal is generally supported from a planning perspective. However, the intended character of the Precinct is a transitional area that accommodates larger lot sizes. It is important that these characteristics are not diminished through the removal of environmental planning provisions that control lot sizes and density figures.

 

The draft Planning Proposal in its current form seeks to remove the clause within the LEP that caps the maximum dwelling yield for the precinct at 250 dwellings. It is the preferred option that rather than deleting this clause entirely, the density figure is instead increased to 344 dwellings to align with what is demonstrated within the Concept Plan submitted with the Proposal.

 

Additionally, to ensure that a gradual transition of lot sizes is achieved and statutorily enforceable it is proposed that the minimum lot sizes for the Precinct are amended to reflect the lot layout within the Concept Plan. That is, rather than apply a minimum lot size of 450m2 and 750m2 to the whole of Area 4 and Area 5 as currently proposed, additional “Areas” would be included to provide a transition of lot size arrangements starting from 450m2 on the east of the Precinct, and transitioning to minimum lot sizes of 1000m2 for the land adjoining the rural and conservation lands.

 

Next Steps

 

Should Council endorse the recommendation tonight, the following steps will occur in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

1.   Council officers will continue to update the Planning Proposal, written instrument and associated maps.

2.   Council will forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning, seeking a ‘Gateway Determination’ and authorisation that the LEP plan making process may proceed.

3.   Council officers will liaise with the Department of Planning & Environment and negotiate any changes sought by the Department in the lead up to the Gateway Determination.

4.   The Gateway Determination will, amongst other things, authorise a list of public authorities that Council must consult prior to finalisation of the Planning Proposal for public exhibition.

5.   The Planning Proposal will be publicly exhibited.

6.   Submissions to the Planning Proposal exhibition will be reviewed, and recommendations prepared for Council’s consideration.

7.   The Planning Proposal will be presented to Council for endorsement and then forwarded to the Minister of Planning to make the LEP.

 

During these processes, amendments to the draft Planning Proposal will continue to be made. These changes may result from further consultations (such as with relevant government agencies), directions or suggestions from the DP&E or additional technical information, that subsequently affect the draft Planning Proposal.

 

Council officers will update Councillors of any significant changes to the draft Planning Proposal through briefings and relevant reports. 

 

Conclusion

 

Precinct C has always been envisaged as providing a gradual transition between the urban areas of the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area and the rural and conservation land to the west. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the minimum lot size and density controls within Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 to ensure that this transition occurs in a more gradual way while offering affordable and diverse housing product within an existing release area.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to commence a Gateway process through the Department of Planning and Environment for the ultimate consideration of the Planning Proposal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C) be received.

2.    Council commence a Gateway process for the ultimate consideration of a Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C) in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.    The General Manager be granted delegation to update and finalise the Planning Proposal, written instrument and associated maps before submitting it to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking a Gateway Determination.

4.    Council publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C) in accordance with the community consultation requirements under s57 of the EP&A Act, and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by the Department of Planning & Environment as part of the s56 Gateway Determination.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Draft Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

44 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Draft Concept Plan for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

1 Page

Attachments Included

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Trial Pop Up Park Penrith, Final Evaluation Report                                                         27

 

5        The Penrith Mayoral Challenge- Youth Participation and Placemaking Pilot Project     35

 

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

4

Trial Pop Up Park Penrith, Final Evaluation Report   

 

Compiled by:               Terry Agar, City Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Jeni Pollard, Place Manager  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Grow and revitalise our centres and neighbourhoods

Service Activity

Work with the community to deliver priority infrastructure and activation projects in identified established areas of the City

      

 

Executive Summary

The 12 month trial of the Pop Up Park was adopted in the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan on 24 June 2013. Construction of the temporary park was completed in October 2013 with a small amount of funding provided for ongoing activation events.  The mid-term evaluation of the Pop Up Park was reported to the Policy Review Committee meeting on 12 May 2014.  At that time Council resolved to reduce the area of the temporary park and introduce a car parking area.  At the same time Council extended the trial period by 3 months until March 2015 to include the Christmas trading period and summer activities.

 

Urban design and planning consultants, Hames Sharley Pty Ltd were engaged to do a final assessment of the impact of the Trial Triangle Park which is entitled the “Penrith Pop Up Park Review Part 2” (the Final Review).  The report describes the evaluation processes, key outcomes and recommends that the temporary park be retained in its current configuration whilst a new permanent park design is prepared.  Design elements identified by the community to improve the space and documented in the Final Review are suggested for consideration in the new design.

 

Background

The Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan recommended the establishment of a small park on the road reserve at the western end of High Street, between Riley Street and Henry Street.  In order to “test” the likely success of a permanent park in that location, Council endorsed a recommendation to conduct a 12 month trial of the proposed park through the development of a Pop Up Park, as part of its adoption of the Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan on 24 June 2013.

 

The objectives of the community designed Pop Up Park are:

 

·    To create a unique city centre identity and sense of place that enhances the connection between people and place.

·    Improve the quality of the urban environment to encourage economic growth and support new investment.

·    To meet the current and anticipated demands of the city’s users.

 

Construction of the Pop Up Park was completed in October 2013.  The design was based on community and business ideas generated as part of a collaborative design process. The key design parameters of the project were that it should be simple, low cost and reversible.  The park, as constructed, is shown in Figure 1.  The Pop Up Park was commended by the Planning Institute of Australia (NSW) in their Great Place Award, 2014.

 

Nearmap Park 080214

Figure 1: Trial park concept plan.

 

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Department prepared and implemented an activation program from the park’s opening in October until Christmas 2013.  The Penrith CBD Corporation took over primary responsibility for activation in January 2014 and has continued this role until Christmas 2014.

 

An assessment of the performance of the Pop Up Park was reported to the Policy and Review Committee on 12 May 2014. At that time Council resolved to reduce the area of the temporary park and introduce a car parking area at its eastern end.  Matters such as usage patterns, attitude surveys of users and business owners, as well as traffic impacts formed part of the assessment at that time.

 

At that time of the Policy Review Committee meeting report, Council also resolved to extend the trial period by 4 months until March 2015 to include the Christmas 2014 trading period and summer activities.

 

The eastern end of the park was re-configured to accommodate vehicle parking and provide an area for larger events in June 2014.

 

Urban Design and Planning Consultants, Hames Sharley Pty Ltd were engaged to undertake the mid-term and final assessments of the performance of the Pop Up Park. GHD Pty Ltd was engaged for the mid-term pedestrian and traffic evaluation.  Council officer pedestrian and traffic counts for the nearby road network were reported to the Local Traffic Committee on 2 February 2015.

 

Summary of First Review Findings

 

Urban Design and Planning Consultants, Hames Sharley Pty Ltd were engaged to evaluate the success of the park midway (the First Review) during the trial.  The performance of the park was assessed against the design objectives previously outlined above. The key findings of the first review’s surveys are as follows:

 

·    The community design approach and subsequent activation programming is in line with best practice.

·    People tend to pass through the park along its edges;

·    More people stay and sit in the western end than the eastern end;

·    Half of those surveyed used the park on a weekly basis

·    Half of the businesses surveyed want the park to be made permanent

·    The majority of non-business users want the park to be made permanent

·    The eastern end of the park attracted more negative comments about its amenity

·    The western end of the park attracted more positive comments about its amenity.

·    Most people wanted regular events in the park.

·    The park is highly walkable, but access to it after standard business hours through the arcades could be improved

·    Toilets were considered to be a necessary addition by some.

 

The consultant’s concluded that there were no overwhelming reason to abandon the Pop Up Park prior to the conclusion of the full trial period and that the western end out-performed the eastern end.  In addition, they did not find any reason to reopen the connection between High Street and Henry Street.  They recommended that the trial be continued, with alterations to the eastern end in response to business and community user concerns to improve its functionality.  The modified eastern end of the park is shown in Figure 2.

 

 

Figure 2: Trial Park aerial photo showing the introduction of traffic and car parking.

 

In June 2014, Council responded to the feedback from users and business owners and the consultant’s recommendation to improve the park’s performance.  The eastern end was reopened to vehicle traffic with the introduction of parking spaces for short term parking.  To accommodate larger events in the Pop Up Park, this area may be closed off to traffic and parking for the use of exhibits, stalls, pedestrians etc.

 

This has happened on a number of occasions, including during the lighting of the Christmas Tree held in late 2014. The arrangements worked well with the space fully utilised by market stalls and people, with minimal impact on traffic.

 

Final Independent Review Findings

Urban Design and Planning Consultants, Hames Sharley Pty Ltd were again engaged to evaluate the success of the Pop Up Park at the conclusion of the 16 month trial period (the Final Review).  The performance of the park was assessed against the design objectives previously outlined above and the changes made in response to the First Review.  The Final Review report is provided as Attachment 1.

 

Final Review User and Business Owner Findings

 

The Final Review was based on two sources of information, a survey and public realm toolkit analysis of the place compared to best practice criteria. The survey engaged face to face with 50 park users and 50 businesses.

 

The key findings of the Final Review’s surveys are as follows:

 

·    Park users were more positive about the character of the park than business owners

·    Both users and business owners agree that the park experience could be improved with more shade and seating and public toilets.

·    Both users and business owners would prefer to have events in the park on a weekly or monthly basis

·    Park users would prefer to have events during weekday afternoons in contrast to business owners who would prefer them on the weekends.

·    Both users and business owners would like to see events involving live music, markets and children’s activities in the park.

 

The public realm toolkit analysis benchmarked the place against general best practice for similar places throughout Australia. Performance of the space on these measures between the first and the final review was also assessed.  The key findings are summarised as follows:

 

·    The management of the space and the diversity of businesses fronting it, is rated as ‘good’ and has not changed;

·    The quality of the public domain has declined and needs improvement;

·    The identity of the place has improved;

·    Accessibility to public transport is relatively good, but afterhours access through arcades to car parks remains a problem;

·    The place has remained highly permeable for pedestrians; and

·    Events programming has continued to be problematic since the park’s inception.

 

In relation to the public domain quality, the temporary nature of the place meant that some compromises in the choice of construction material was made to ensure that the trial was low cost.  Unfortunately, this necessitated the laying of grass over existing road surface which has resulted in it wearing badly despite regular watering.  Some of the trees in tubs have not flourished either.

 

Activation events that were initially run by Council and then by the Penrith CBD Corporation have not been as successful as initially hoped.  Despite a modest budget, it is believed that the temporary nature of the construction materials of the trial park has meant there has not been sufficient shade for events during the warmer days.  Successful events, facilitated by the Penrith CBD Corporation such as the Annual Christmas Tree Lighting and an outdoor broadcast from a Sydney radio station have drawn large numbers of people to the Pop Up Park. However smaller events have been hampered by poor weather and less than desirable amenity in the park.

 

The consultants have suggested that a permanent park with shade trees and structures combined with a targeted events program will improve the park’s attractiveness to more people.

 

Traffic and Pedestrian Analysis

 

Pedestrian and traffic counts and observations by Council officers for the nearby road network were reported to the Local Traffic Committee on 2 February 2015.

 

The report stated that the re-configuration of the park to re-introduce parking in the eastern end of the park was undertaken in June 2014 was operating satisfactorily. Traffic movements through High Street, Riley Street and Henry Street were also considered to be operating satisfactorily.

 

In conclusion, the report stated that the Riley and Henry Streets intersection was working well, with no significant delays for either vehicles or pedestrians in any direction.  This situation is consistent with the GHD Traffic and Pedestrian Analysis findings that were presented in the first mid-term report.

 

Procedurally, if Council were to resolve to retain the Pop Up Park in its current configuration until a permanent park is constructed in its place, specific traffic management arrangements would also need to be resolved by Council in accordance with the Roads Act 1993.  The following traffic management arrangements described below and shown in Attachment 2 would be required:

 

“The Pop Up Park, or its permanent replacement, in High Street between Riley Street and Henry Street, Penrith remain restricted to through traffic and the car park at its eastern end, with seven angled parking spaces designated “1/2 Hour Parking 8:30am - 6:00pm Mon - Fri and 8:30am - 12:30pm Sat”, one angled “Disabled Parking” space, two-way aisle, “No Parking” zone, “No Stopping” zones, “Give Way” sign and linemarking, painted driveway, median with double centre lines, left-turn pavement arrow, “One Way” sign and “No Entry” sign, be remain in High Street, Penrith, as shown on Attachment 2.”

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The final review made a range of conclusions based on the results of the users and business owners’ surveys.  The majority of respondents have a positive opinion on the benefits of the Pop Up Park and would like to see it established as a permanent facility.  If indeed the park was permanently established, a number of significant amenity issues would need to be addressed in a new park design. 

 

Despite the generally more positive disposition respondents now have towards a park in the current location, some business owners responded that High Street should be reopened to traffic and that the pre-trial park car parking provision should be reinstated.

 

The public realm toolkit analysis found that the identity of the trial park had significantly improved between the first and final reviews.  Although many of the indicators remained ‘good’ between reviews, the quality of the landscape materials declined and after hours pedestrian access through the arcades to the car park remained restricted.  The programming of relevant events was identified as a challenge.

 

The final review recommended that a new permanent park should be developed on the current Pop Up Park site.   Furthermore it recommended that a new design should address the need for more shade, a variety of seating options, events capacity, public toilets, and retention of the eastern car park area as a shared multi-function space. 

 

To support the viability of the new park the final review recommended that Council continue to work with the Penrith CBD Corporation to continue activation of the space with events and outdoor dining; improve evening pedestrian access through arcades and measure the ongoing performance of the park.

 

Landowner Submission

During the final evaluation process Mr Robbie Martin, owner of a significant property adjoining the Pop Up Park, as well as other properties in the vicinity of the Park made a submission outlining his concerns.  It is emphasised that the views of Mr Martin were actively sought during both of the review processes and his ideas and feedback have been incorporated into the conclusions and recommendations of the Final Survey report as attached.  Mr Martin’s submission is in Attachment 3 of this report. 

 

In summary, Mr Martin contends that the Pop Up Park has had, or may have the following impacts on his tenants:

 

·    denied his tenants exposure to passing trade from vehicle drivers and conversely improved the exposure of businesses fronting Riley Street who now receive the extra traffic;

·    reduced the availability of parking to clients of businesses by 6 spaces

·    the need to lower rents, or the loss of tenants

 

The submission maintains that the park has not been as popular as anticipated and the number of people attending it has not been a sufficient offset for his tenants to overcome the impacts stated above. This combined with the degradation of the park’s grass, the lack of an alcohol free status and the absence of toilet facilities compounds the perceived disadvantage to his tenants.

 

The submission goes on to suggest that if the physical issues outlined above were addressed with the development of a high quality public space it may be sufficient compensation for the impacts of the park to be offset.

 

For the owner to withdraw his objection to the establishment of a permanent park, his request is that Council demonstrate its commitment by immediately revealing detailed plans and the budget allocation for a permanent park.

 

Place Manager’s Assessment

Over many years, Council has expressed a commitment to revitalising the city centre of Penrith. The decision by Council to seek a special rate variation for city centre and town centre enhancements is a demonstration of this commitment to pushing forward with an active program of place shaping elements.

 

The Penrith City Centre Public Domain Masterplan was developed with significant contribution from businesses and the community. The option of a park located at the western end of the Penrith City Centre, including the closure of High Street was the subject of a special consultation process with businesses from the impacted area, as a component of the Masterplan development.

 

Business owners, property owners and the community have told Council that they want action to support the City Centre and this call has been received and acted upon. The development of the Pop Up Park as a trial has been a conservative and responsible approach, providing Council with an opportunity to test the option for 16 months through a range of seasons and events. 

 

The final survey has revealed that a majority of Pop Up Park users and business owners would like the trial park to be made permanent.  These findings confirm the findings of the first review.

 

The first review documented the limitations of the eastern end of the original trial park.  Council acknowledged these limitations and concerns expressed by business owners over the loss of parking and responded appropriately by re-instating parking as part of a shared area that may be used for larger events in the western end of the park.

 

Council embarked on the trial Pop Up Park to test whether a unique place could be developed in the western end of the city centre to foster business and meet user needs.  The final review assessed a range of impacts that the park has had on users and adjacent business owners.  Pedestrian and traffic movement in the city centre has not been adversely affected by the closure of High Street. The re-instatement of parking after the first review has improved the perception of business owners about the trial park.  The majority of users now support the park and would like to see it established permanently on the site. 

 

A corresponding rise in the identity of the park as a positive asset to the city centre supports this position.  A number of elements currently missing from the current design were identified as being essential for incorporation into a new permanent design.  Importantly, activation of a permanent park through a funded events program will be necessary to ensure its tong term viability and relevance to the community.

 

As a place making exercise, the process of constructing a temporary park for a defined time period has been a fruitful endeavour.  Through this process Council has been able to consult broadly with users to establish whether or not a permanent park would be successful without the expenditure of considerable funds. Best practice experience from around the world suggests that this approach of ‘testing’ the impacts, both positive and negative, produce superior, more robust public infrastructure outcomes that benefit communities in the long term.

 

The recognition for the Pop Up Park project through the prestigious Planning Institute of Australia (NSW) Awards program is testament to Council’s innovative approach to trialling changes in public space. The lessons learnt during the Pop Up Park trial will significantly inform the development of a permanent space should Council endorse this approach.  

 

Adoption of this place making model could be considered for other public space proposals that Council is contemplating at minimal cost. Testing of the value of public infrastructure and the opportunity to gain community insights to inform final designs is a cost effective way of ‘reality checking’ such initiatives. 

 

The continuance of the trial park in its current configuration is supported whilst a new design for a permanent park is prepared.  The physical limitations of the current temporary park design should be addressed in the new design.  The ongoing success of the space as a permanent park will, to some extent, be determined by the ‘soft’ infrastructure that Council and the community add to the space.  Ongoing efforts in partnership with the Penrith CBD Corporation will be required to improve the activation of the place through a regular events program, increasing outdoor dining and improving pedestrian access through the arcades during the evening.

 

Conclusion

The Pop Up Park has been a successful process for gaining an insight into the benefits of a providing major piece of public infrastructure.  The construction of the Pop Up Park has allowed Council to assess the need and impacts of a permanent facility at minimal cost.  The community has benefitted by being able to express more informed opinion on a potential project that is tangible in its temporary state.

 

The trial of the park has been reasonably successful and, in response, Council should consider constructing a permanent park on the current site. The current Pop Up Park should be retained, in the interim, until a new permanent park can be designed and constructed in its place. The design of a permanent new park will be informed by the findings of this Final Review and, after its construction, will need to be supported by an adequately funded activation program.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Trial Pop Up Park Penrith, Final Evaluation Report be received.

2.    The Pop Up Park be retained in its current configuration with ongoing maintenance whilst a new permanent park design is prepared in consultation with local businesses and the Penrith CBD Corporation.

3.    In the interim, negotiations commence with the Penrith CBD Corporation to extend their current events program in the park.

4.    Council commence a design process for a permanent park that is informed by the findings of the consultant’s final review.

5.    The traffic management arrangements specifically outlined in this report are implemented in accordance with the Roads Act 1993.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Penrith Pop Up Park Review Part 2 (Final)

33 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Penrith Pop Up Park Traffic Management Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

3.  

Submission by Mr Robbie Martin 3 February 2015

2 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

5

The Penrith Mayoral Challenge- Youth Participation and Placemaking Pilot Project   

 

Compiled by:               Lila Kennelly, Community Engagement Officer

Heather Chaffey, Neighbourhood Renewal Coordinator 

Authorised by:            Jeni Pollard, Place Manager 

Requested By:            Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Grow and revitalise our centres and neighbourhoods

Service Activity

Engage the community in identified priority established areas of the City

      

 

Executive Summary

This report provides Council with an overview of the proposed Penrith Mayoral Challenge - Youth Participation and Placemaking Pilot Project 2015-2018. The report includes background information regarding the success of the 2014 Callisto Drive playground enhancement project in Cranebrook and an overview of the pilot project scope including; objectives, schedule of works, and estimated costs. Maps of the proposed park renewal sites for 2015-2018 are attached as Attachment 1. 

 

The proposed Penrith Mayoral Challenge is a pilot project focused on engaging young people in the design and delivery of enhancements to public space in priority Neighbourhood Renewal areas. The project will offer young people the opportunity to engage in place making activities, build a range of skills, and participate in civic life through direct engagement with the Mayor and Council’s project management and decision making processes. The program is designed to spark interest in young civic participants in future study and career opportunities in public, community and political service. Acting as local place makers, young people will have a leading voice in the enhancement of local parks, and the opportunity to connect with their local community.

 

Supported by the Neighbourhood Renewal team, the Penrith Mayoral Challenge seeks to strengthen Council’s connection with young people, offer leadership development opportunities, and provide a creative space for young people to explore civic engagement and potential careers.          

Background to the Mayoral Challenge – Callisto Drive, Cranebrook

In 2014, the Neighbourhood Renewal Program carried out community engagement work in Cranebrook, and supported the establishment of the Cranebrook Youth Leadership Forum. The Mayor, Ross Fowler OAM, was invited to participate on a panel of local leaders at the Cranebrook Youth Leadership Forum during Youth Week.

 

The forum, organised in partnership with Nepean Neighbourhood and Community Services, encouraged young people who were members of the Indigenous Leadership Group (ILG) and Student Representative Council (SRC) to make short speeches to an audience of their peers, interested community service representatives, school leaders and the local leadership panel.

 

Young people spoke eloquently about their concerns for other young people and for their loved ones in Cranebrook. Some spoke to the stigma of living in social housing, others reflected on disability access, and the consensus message was that without the provision of quality, contemporary, and well planned public places, that stigma and anti-social behaviour would prevail in Cranebrook.

 

As a member of the local leadership panel the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, was impressed by the young leaders and put forward a challenge. The Mayor challenged the young people to work on a proposal for a public space they would like to see improved and to present those ideas to him, in the Mayor’s Office, within two weeks.

 

The young leaders rose to this challenge, putting together a convincing and focussed proposal including agreed priorities; disability access, shade, and a park for the whole community (not just young people). The group then made a submission to the 2014-15 Operational Plan and spoke to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 June 2014 regarding this submission.

With the endorsement of the Operational Plan on 23 June 2014 the Callisto Playground Enhancement Project was funded.

 

Subsequent to this funding the young people worked in collaboration with Victoria Patterson (Landscape Architect), Matthew Morris (Parks Coordinator), and Heather Chaffey (Coordinator Neighbourhood Renewal), to design and deliver the playground enhancements. Young people were engaged in meetings to make key design decisions and remained focussed on their agreed priorities; disability access, shade, and a park for the whole community. Crucially, these priorities informed their decision making on budgeting and design as they chose to use more resources in ensuring the playground was accessible to those with mobility restrictions and less on equipment and gardens. Young participants selected colours and type of equipment installed, made decisions on what types of shade structures and seating to install, and were consulted regarding changes to design which were required due to the land survey results.

 

 

Mayor Ross Fowler OAM, Councillor John Thain, Cranebrook High School SRC Coordinating Teacher Dani Saxon and Youth Recreation Worker Aldo Trapanese and members of the Indigenous Leadership Group and Student Representative Committee at the launch event on 8 November 2014

 

 

Participants were provided with a budget and decision making responsibilities regarding the launch event which was held on Saturday 8 November 2014. The event date was chosen by the young people to accommodate the HSC exams. Participants made decisions about what type of activities to book for the event and were privy to a range of consideration including the risk assessment process for the event. The group chose representatives to speak at the event on their behalf and co-created the invitation list with Council officers.

 

The young people who participated in the project were, and continue to be, outstanding. Their eloquence, community mindedness and leadership are to be commended.

 

The outcomes of this project go far beyond the vastly improved public space which these young leaders have transformed in collaboration with Council. Engagement in this process led to questions about career opportunities in local government, in community service, and in politics and social policy development. The young people were encouraged to see themselves as leaders and to challenge dominant negative narratives of young people and of Cranebrook.

 

As a result of the highly successful Callisto Playground Enhancement Project the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, has requested that opportunities to replicate this outstanding process of youth civic engagement in other parts of the city be further explored. As a result of this investigation The Penrith Mayoral Challenge has been developed as a potential pilot project over a three year period. 

 

 

Mayor Ross Fowler, Cranebrook High School students Michaela Price and Rory O’Connor cutting the ribbon to open the enhanced playground

 

 

The Penrith Mayoral Challenge Pilot Project Scope and Delivery

 

It is proposed that the Penrith Mayoral Challenge will commence in Barr and Bass Park, Colyton in 2015-16, followed by Chapman Gardens in Kingswood in 2016-17, and Lincoln Park in Cambridge Park 2017-18. The sites have been put forward by the Parks Department as part of the scheduled playground renewal program funded through the 2011 Special Rates Variation.  The sites are located in close proximity to local public schools.

 

 

 

 

The Penrith Mayoral Challenge overall objectives include:

 

To provide the opportunity for young people to take leadership on the enhancement of local parks including some decision making opportunities

To engage young people with civic processes that develop future leadership capacity, confidence, aspiration and connection with the broader community

To support young people to plan for the needs of others within their community.

To provide young people the opportunity to develop their capacity for critical thinking and interpersonal skills

To support positive stories of young people in Penrith

 

The project will work on a flexible delivery model that considers local context, and collaborates with local partners in order to deliver project outcomes. The Penrith Mayoral Challenge will be delivered in collaboration with local schools, community centres, and faith based groups. The Neighbourhood Renewal team will lead the project, and deliver all community engagement and stakeholder management. The Design and Projects Department and the Parks Departments will collaborate with young participants on landscape design and decision making processes, and the Parks Department will implement the associated works.

 

The model for the Penrith Mayoral Challenge pilot is structured around a series of workshops designed to engage young people with their area and community, and the design and planning process for park renewal. The initial Visioning Workshop will commence in Youth Week (April 4-13, 2015), and is suggested to be opened by the Mayor who will give the young people a challenging theme to consider throughout the project. After developing their initial concepts, the young people will be invited to share their aspirations with the Mayor and Councillors before commencing workshops with Council officers on the planning and design of the park.

 

Youth Visioning Workshop (Youth Week)
The first workshop will focus on the initial visions young people have for their neighbourhood and for their park, and will be opened by the Mayor. The Mayor will deliver a ‘challenge’ in the form of a theme or topic the young people must consider in their design, for example accessibility for people with disability.

 

The findings from the visioning and engagement process will be presented to the Mayor and Councillors. This will be supported by the Council officer and a school representative including travel arrangements and catering.

 

Planning Workshop

In the planning workshop the young people will consider the budget, and work with a range of Council officers to formalise their plans. This will give young people the chance to engage with Council officers from Major Projects, Parks, Finance and other relevant departments. Young people will discuss and agree on the works they wish to carry out, and the lead designer will integrate their ideas into a concept design.

 

Design
Following the planning session, young people will work more closely with the landscape architect, community engagement officer and possibly artist/s to work on delivery of creative outcomes and provide feedback an implementation and installation decisions.

 

In addition to the renewal workshops, the young people will take an active role in documenting the project, and support with planning a public celebration for the park. The Penrith Mayoral Challenge will allow young people to explore a range of career options, and develop skills and experience around their interests.     

 

Program Schedule

 

A proposed schedule of works for the 2015-2016 phase of the pilot is offered below. However, the timing of workshops and delivery will depend on availability of partners and stakeholders.

.

Proposed schedule in Colyton, 2015-16

 

Feb-Mar 2015:              Report to Council for endorsement

Engagement with local partners

 

April 2015:                              Mayoral Challenge opened by the Mayor at Youth Visioning        Workshop

                                       Council Address

 

May - Jun 2015:            Planning Workshop

                                      Designer begins design plan

 

Nov 2015:                     Design workshop

                                      Design finalised

 

Jun 2016:                      Works completed

                            

July – August 2016       Public celebration

 

 

Budget Considerations

 

It is estimated that in order to produce quality outcomes in regard to capital works related to the project that a budget of approximately $100,000 per year will be required for this project. As a benchmark the Callisto Playground Enhancement Project required a budget of $150,000 excluding funding for engagement activities and the launch event. This benchmark produced a high quality outcome in a high profile area of Cranebrook, it is not envisaged that all projects will require the same level of response but a base line should be considered in each of the proposed areas.

 

The Parks Department has made funds available for the Penrith Mayoral Challenge through the Playground Enhancement Project as funded through the 2011 Special Rates Variation.

 

Year                     Site                                                  Current budget allocation (SRV)

 

2015-16               Barr and Bass Park, Colyton           $37,500

2016-17               Chapman Gardens, Kingswood      $75,000

2017-18               Lincoln Park, Cambridge Park        $75,000

 

In the 2015-16 year, the Neighbourhood Renewal Program will allocate $37,500 to the project in Colyton. This means that each year there will be a budget shortfall of $25,000. This shortfall will be the subject of a Resource Allocation Request in the near future. This will provide a base line of $100,000 per project.

 

 

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

The development of the 2015-16 Budget is currently underway and consideration of capacity and how any Councillor Resource Allocation Requests may be accommodated is scheduled for a briefing in early April.  If Councillors are of a mind to endorse the pilot as outlined in this report, subject to identification of the remaining funding, options can be prepared as part of the budget development process for Councillor consideration and subsequent inclusion in the 2015-16 budget.

 

Reporting

 

The project will be reported on as part of an annual update to Council on the Neighbourhood Renewal Program. A final report on the pilot project, including evaluation of the engagement process and outcomes, will be delivered to Council in 2018.

 

Conclusion

 

The Callisto Playground Enhancement Project 2014 was an outstanding project. The significant outcomes for the community of Cranebrook, for Council, and for the young leaders who took the challenge and engaged in the project so actively, are evident.

 

The proposed pilot project makes use of existing resources to ensure that this process of civic youth engagement can take place in three other communities over the next three years.

 

The Penrith Mayoral Challenge will build opportunities for skill development and civic engagement and will create positive narratives of young people in Penrith. The project will provide Council with opportunities to further develop and assess its capacity for participatory budgeting and collaborative projects with community.  

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on The Penrith Mayoral Challenge- Youth Participation and Placemaking Pilot Project be received.

2.    That Council endorse the implementation of the Penrith Mayoral Challenge as a three year pilot project.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

PMC Park Maps

6 Pages

Attachments Included

   


Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

6        Appointment to the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party                                                                                                                   43

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

6

Appointment to the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer 

Requested By:            Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Outcome

We care for our environment

Strategy

Minimise risks to our community form natural disasters

Service Activity

Provide a strategic framework to manage floodplains and inform land use policy

      

 

Executive Summary

A Councillor request has been received from Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM proposing that Councillor Marcus Cornish be added to both the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and the Floodplain Management Working Party. Both the Committee and Working Party were subject of reports in late 2013 and 2014 where they were formed and Councillors nominated to be members. All Councillors are invited to attend both meetings when they are held.

Background

On 25 November 2013 Council considered a report on “Penrith City Council Floodplain Management Framework” and resolved that:

1.    The information contained in the report on Appointment to the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party be received.

2.    An internal Floodplain Management Working Party be established to oversee the management and delivery of a contemporary floodplain management framework.

3.    Council nominate Councillors Greg Davies, Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM and Jackie Greenow OAM to be members of the Floodplain Management Working Party, with all Councillors invited to attend.

4.    Council adopt the Draft Terms of Reference for the Floodplain Management Working Party.

As resolved, the Floodplain Management Working Party (FMWP) was established and has been meeting regularly since 17 February 2014. The principal objective of the FMWP is to assist Council in the development and implementation of floodplain risk management plans and to oversee Council’s development of a contemporary floodplain management framework for the City.

 

On 28 April 2014, Council further considered a report on the establishment of a Floodplain Risk Management Committee and resolved that:

 

“That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Floodplain Risk Management Committee be received.

2.   Council establish a Floodplain Risk Management Committee to assist Council in the development and implementation of floodplain management plans.

3.   Council nominate Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM, Jackie Greenow OAM and Greg Davies as members of the Floodplain Risk Management Committee, with all Councillors invited to attend.

4.   Council forward invitations to relevant State agencies inviting one representative to join the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

5.   Council, through the Floodplain Management Working Party, develop a recruitment and communication strategy to seek nominations to join the Floodplain Risk Management Committee as community representatives.

6.   Authority be delegated to the General Manager to determine, in consultation with the Floodplain Management Working Party, community membership on the Floodplain Risk Management Committee. “

Current Situation

The Floodplain Management Working Party has now been meeting for over 12 months. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 28 April 2014 a report was considered to establish a Floodplain Risk Management Committee in accordance with the NSW Government Flood Prone Land Policy and the NSW Floodplain Development Manual. The first meeting of the Floodplain Risk Management Committee is scheduled for 16 March 2015.

 

The current members of the Floodplain Risk Management Committee are Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM, Jackie Greenow OAM and Greg Davies, with all other Councillors invited to attend.

 

At the Councillor Briefing held on 2 March 2015, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested through a Councillor request form that “Councillor Marcus Cornish be added to the Floodplain Management Working Party and the Floodplain Risk Management Committee as he attends all meetings”.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has previously considered and nominated its members to both the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party. Given that all Councillors are invited to attend both meetings, and that both the Working Party and Committee only have an advisory function, the report recommends formalising Councillor Marcus Cornish’s membership as per the Councillor request submitted by Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Appointment to the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party be received.

2.   Councillor Marcus Cornish be appointed as a member of the Floodplain Risk Management Committee and Floodplain Management Working Party.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 6 - We're healthy and share strong community spirit

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

7        2015 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government                                                                                                                     51

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     9 March 2015

 

 

 

7

2015 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government   

 

Compiled by:               Adam Beggs, Governance Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior 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

The 2015 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 14-17 June 2015.

 

Penrith City Council is entitled to have one voting delegate at each plenary session and it is open to Councils to send additional Councillors as observers to the Assembly.

 

As in previous years presentations will be given at the Assembly from key political leaders, and a number of other speakers. At this stage the program (attached) outlines a number of speakers including the Prime Minister, The Hon Tony Abbott MP (invited), Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Bill Shorten MP (invited), Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne (invited), President of Local Government NZ, Mayor Lawrence Yule, Deputy Prime Minister and Infrastructure and Regional Development, The Hon Warren Truss MP, and Prof Jean Palutikoff from the National Climate Change and Research Facilities.

 

Council should nominate its voting delegate to attend the Assembly and any observers who wish to attend, and grant leave of absence as appropriate.

 

Motions for the Assembly this year must fall under the theme “Closest to the Community Local Government in the Federation” and need to be submitted to the ALGA by no later than Friday 17 April 2015. A copy of the invitation, program and discussion paper is attached to this report. It is recommended that a further report detailing suggested motions be considered at Council’s Ordinary meeting to be held on 23 March 2015. Councillors are welcome to put forward any suggested motions at tonight’s meeting or prior to the next Council meeting which will allow staff time to develop any motions that are put forward for endorsement.

 

The Council’s Financial Services Manager has suggested that two Motions be submitted to the Assembly, relating to pensioner rates and returning indexation and increase the level of Federal Government support to the Financial Assistance Grants.

Background

The 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government will be held in Canberra from 14–17 June 2015.

 

The National General Assembly, which is sponsored by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), will have as its theme, “Closest to the Community Local Government in the Federation”.

 

As in previous years presentations will be given at the Assembly from key political leaders, and a number of other speakers. At this stage the program (attached) outlines a number of speakers including Prime Minister, The Hon Tony Abbott MP (invited), Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Bill Shorten MP (invited), Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne (invited), President of Local Government NZ, Mayor Lawrence Yule, Deputy Prime Minister and Infrastructure and Regional Development, The Hon Warren Truss MP, and Prof Jean Palutikoff from the National Climate Change and Research Facilities.  A full list of confirmed speakers will be provided to Councillors prior to the conference.

 

Delegates

Each Council is entitled to have one voting delegate at each plenary session. In addition to selecting its voting delegate, it is open to Council to send additional Councillors as observers.

 

In 2014, Council’s voting delegate to the National General Assembly was the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, and additional observers were Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Marcus Cornish and Tricia Hitchen.

 

Submitting Motions

To enhance the quality of outcomes from this year’s National General Assembly, and to ensure that motions are relevant to local government nationally, the ALGA Board is calling for motions under the theme of “Closest to the Community Local Government in the Federation”.

 

The theme for 2015 has been selected as the Federal government has invited interested parties to consider potential reform of the Federation and of taxation through the release of a White Paper on the matter. The National General Assembly in 2015 will be an opportunity for local government to take a serious look at what business local government is in, how we do it and where we fit in the Federation both now and in the future, particularly in relation to 5 issues papers that the Commonwealth has released to engage interested parties on the key issues that will be considered. The issues papers released were:

 

Issues Paper 1 - A Federation for Our Future

Issues Paper 2 - Roles and Responsibilities in Housing and Homelessness

Issues Paper 3 - Roles and Responsibilities in Health

Issues Paper 4 - Roles and Responsibilities in Education

Issues Paper 5 - COAG and Federal Financial Relations

 

To be eligible for inclusion in the National General Assembly Business Papers motions must:

 

1.   Be relevant to the work of local government nationally;

2.   Be consistent with the themes of the Assembly

3.   Complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government association;

4.   Propose a clear action and outcome, and

5.   Not be advanced on behalf of external third parties which may seek to use the NGA to apply pressure to Board members, to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of local government.

 

The topics raised under this theme in the discussion paper relate to the White Paper Terms of Reference which pose a number of overarching questions which include:

 

1.   What are the practicalities of limiting policy and funding to core national interest matters, as typified by the matters in section 51 of the Constitution?

 

2.   How can overlap between Local, State and Commonwealth responsibilities or involvement in the delivery and funding of public programs be reduced or, if appropriate be eliminated?

 

3.   How can we achieve agreement between States and Commonwealth Governments about their distinct and mutually exclusive responsibilities and subsequent funding sources for associated programs?

 

4.   How can we achieve equity and sustainability in the funding of any programmes that are deemed to be the responsibility of more than one level of government.

 

These questions should be considered in consultation with the Issues Papers which have been released, to form the basis of any Council Motion.

 

Motions that are carried by the National General Assembly become Resolutions. These Resolutions are then considered by the ALGA Board when setting national local government policy and will also feed into the Australian Council of Local Government processes.

 

The Council’s Financial Services Manager has suggested that two Motions be endorsed and submitted to the Assembly, these are appended to the report. The two motions relate to pensioner rates and returning indexation and increase the level of Federal Government support to the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

It is proposed to report on any further draft Motions, which are identified at tonight’s meeting or before the next Council meeting by Councillors or staff to the Ordinary Council meeting scheduled for 23 March 2015 meeting prior to submission to the ALGA by no later than Friday 17 April 2015.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on 2015 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government be received.

2.    Council nominate its voting delegate for the 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government.

3.    Council nominate those Councillors that will attend as observers at the 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government.

4.    Leave of Absence be granted to all Councillors attending the 2015 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from 14-17 June 2015.

5.    Council endorse the draft motions appended to the report relating to Financial Assistance Grants and Pensioner Rebates and submit to the 2015 National General Assembly.

6.    A further report detailing further suggested motions be considered at Council’s Ordinary meeting to be held on 23 March 2015. 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

National General Assembly  - Call for Motions and Invite

1 Page

Attachments Included

2.  

National General Assembly Conference Program

16 Pages

Attachments Included

3.  

National General Assembly - Discussion Paper

12 Pages

Attachments Included

4.  

Motion - Pensioners (2015 ALGA)

1 Page

Attachments Included

5.  

Motion - Financial Assistance Grants (2015 ALGA)

1 Page

Attachments Included

   


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 9 March 2015

Report Title:            Development Control Plan 2014 - Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Attachments:           Summary of Submissions

                                Outline of DCP 2014



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 2 - Outline of DCP 2014

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 9 March 2015

Report Title:            Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

Attachments:           Draft Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

                                Draft Concept Plan for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 1 - Draft Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 2 - Draft Concept Plan for Glenmore Park Stage 2 (Precinct C)

 

PDF Creator



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 9 March 2015

Report Title:            Trial Pop Up Park Penrith, Final Evaluation Report

Attachments:           Penrith Pop Up Park Review Part 2 (Final)

                                Penrith Pop Up Park Traffic Management Plan

                                Submission by Mr Robbie Martin 3 February 2015



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 1 - Penrith Pop Up Park Review Part 2 (Final)

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 2 - Penrith Pop Up Park Traffic Management Plan

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 3 - Submission by Mr Robbie Martin 3 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 9 March 2015

Report Title:            The Penrith Mayoral Challenge- Youth Participation and Placemaking Pilot Project

Attachments:           PMC Park Maps



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 1 - PMC Park Maps

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 9 March 2015

Report Title:            2015 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly of Local Government

Attachments:           National General Assembly  - Call for Motions and Invite

                                National General Assembly Conference Program

                                National General Assembly - Discussion Paper

                                Motion - Pensioners (2015 ALGA)

                                Motion - Financial Assistance Grants (2015 ALGA)



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 1 - National General Assembly  - Call for Motions and Invite

 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 2 - National General Assembly Conference Program

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 3 - National General Assembly - Discussion Paper

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 4 - Motion - Pensioners (2015 ALGA)

 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   9 March 2015

Attachment 5 - Motion - Financial Assistance Grants (2015 ALGA)

 

PDF Creator