Council_Mark_POS_RGB

6 May 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 11 May 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

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 20 April 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 11 May 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 20 APRIL 2015 AT 7:05PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies (arrived 7:06pm) and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car MP (arrived 7:12pm), Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish (arrived 7:06pm), Mark Davies, Maurice Girotto, Jackie Greenow OAM, Tricia Hitchen (arrived 7:15pm) and Karen McKeown.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Michelle Tormey for the period 10 April 2015 to 26 April 2015 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Ben Goldfinch for the period 15 April 2015 to 6 May 2015 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

PRC 24  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that an apology be received for Councillor John Thain.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 9 March 2015

PRC 25  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 March 2015 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Proposed Submission on the Draft Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes Parkland

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

PRC 26  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Proposed Submission on the Draft Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes Parkland be received.

2.    The Proposed Submission on the Draft Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes Parkland be endorsed for submission to the NSW Office of Penrith Lakes, subject to the inclusion of the additional matters raised by Councillors tonight.

3.    The results of the NSW Office of Penrith Lakes consultation on the Draft Vision Plan for Penrith Lakes Parkland be reported to Council when published.

4.     The Council Officers be congratulated on the work carried out in preparing the draft submission.

 

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

 

2        Nepean District Tennis Association - Licence Agreement and Facility Development at Woodriff Gardens                                                                                                              

PRC 27  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Nepean District Tennis Association - Licence Agreement and Facility Development at Woodriff Gardens be received.

2.    A licence agreement be finalised with Nepean District Tennis Association for the operation of Woodriff Gardens for a period of five years, renewable for a further five years, including the following terms:

Penrith City Council provides:

a.   Grounds maintenance (lawns, weeding etc).

b.   Building, property and infrastructure maintenance and replacement.

c.   Garbage removal from central pick up bins.

d.   Fence and lighting repairs maintenance and replacement.

 

NDTA provides:

e.   Daily court maintenance.

f.    Daily cleaning of public amenities including bathrooms/showers/toilets.

g.   Removal of rubbish from small bins to central pick up bins.

h.   Daily cleaning of clubhouse and surrounds.

i.    An extensive range of tennis coaching, competition, tournament programming, and social court hire to the community seven days a week.

j.    Trained staff to facilitate delivery of all programs seven days a week.

k.   $2,375 per month indexed annually for 60 months as a contribution to the initial court resurfacing cost with a rent review prior to any future licence renewal.

 

3.    The draft licence for the management and operation of Woodriff Gardens Tennis Complex by Nepean District Tennis Association be advertised in accordance with the terms of s47a of the Local Government Act 1993 with a further report to be presented to Council.

 

4.    Council’s contribution of $210,000 and the establishment of an internal loan of $142,500 be provided as outlined in the report.

 

5.    Council endorse the acceptance of the Tennis Australia contribution of $75,000 and the NSW Government contribution of $75,000.

                            

 

 

 

 

 

3        Synthetic Sports Surfaces Feasibility Study

Councillor Marcus Cornish left the meeting, the time being 7:35pm.

Councillor Marcus Cornish returned to the meeting, the time being 7:36pm.                              

PRC 28  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.         The information contained in the report on Synthetic Sports Surfaces             Feasibility Study be received.

 

2.         A further report be presented to Council detailing the future demand and supply of sporting fields, including all weather surface fields.

 

3.         A further report be presented to Council detailing the cost comparisons between turf sporting field surfaces and synthetic sporting field surfaces.

 

4.         An explanation be sought from the consultants explaining the re-use of textual material from other studies they have previously prepared in their report to Council.

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

4        Regional Strategic Alliance - Co-operation and Management Agreement                

PRC 29  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Regional Strategic Alliance - Co-operation and Management Agreement be received.

2.    Council give authority to the General Manager to enter into a Regional Strategic Alliance Co-operation and Management Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Blue Mountains City Council and Hawkesbury City Council as per Attachment 3.

3.    Council commit to provide up to $40,000 to this Project as part of the terms of the Co-operation and Management Agreement.

4.    Council establish the Joint Committee of Councils as a section 355 committee in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

5.    Council delegate to the Joint Committee of Councils the authority to give advice to Councils on matters relating to the Project vision and general objectives and with respect to regional strategic alliance issues generally.

6.    Council appoint to the Joint Committee of Councils three representatives as voting members, being the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor – who held these positions at the time of executing the Agreement and that they continue to hold their appointment on the Joint Committee of Councils for the duration of the Agreement – and the General Manager or his/her nominee. 

7.    Council appoint a Councillor Alternate to act for the Mayor or Deputy Mayor appointed by Council to the Joint Committee of Councils while such member is absent from any meeting of the Joint Committee of Councils.

8.    Council write to the Minister for Local Government informing the Minister of the formation of this Regional Strategic Alliance between Blue Mountains City Council, Hawkesbury City Council and Penrith City Council and renew requests for State Government funding to contribute towards the work of this Regional Strategic Alliance.

9.    Council write to the local State Members informing them of the formation of this Regional Strategic Alliance between Blue Mountains City Council, Hawkesbury City Council and Penrith City Council and seeking their support for the request made to the Minister for Local Government requesting for State Government funding to contribute towards the work of this Regional Strategic Alliance. 

10.   Letters be prepared and immediately sent to Blue Mountains City Council and Hawkesbury City Council advising them of the Committee’s resolution in respect of this report.

Note:  Please refer to Minute No. 86 of the Ordinary Meeting of 27 April 2015, for amended resolution.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS AND URGENT BUSINESS

 

RR 1           Filling at the ADI Site

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 7:57pm.

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 7:58pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo be sent to all Councillors providing information in relation to the filling of the flood plain at the ADI Site and that all Councillors be entitled to receive a copy of the Council Officer’s report to the JRPP when it becomes publically available.

 

UB 1           Request for Leave of Absence    

Councillor Tricia  Hitchen requested Leave of Absence for the period 24 April 2015 to 2 May 2015 inclusive.

PRC 30  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies 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 31  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that Councillor Tricia  Hitchen be granted Leave of Absence for the period 24 April 2015 to 2 May 2015 inclusive.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:07pm.

 


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (Cnr Russell Street)       

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                                 1

 

2        Western Sydney Airport - Badgerys Creek                                                                       7

 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

3        Council's Fit for the Future submission                                                                            31

 

 


 

 

 

 

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        Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (Cnr Russell Street)  

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                                 1

 

2        Western Sydney Airport - Badgerys Creek                                                                       7

 

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                       11 May 2015

 

 

 

1

Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (Cnr Russell Street)   

 

Compiled by:               Glenn McCarthy, Executive Officer

Authorised by:            Alan Stoneham, General Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet the needs of a growing population

Service Activity

Maintain a contemporary framework of land use and contribution policies, strategies and statutory plans

 

Presenters:                  Shaun Lawer - GHD Pty Ltd - Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains     

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

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to formally consider the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal for Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (the Site) and determine whether to require the proponent to undertake the additional work identified by the public authorities, amend the proposal or request the Minister to determine that the matter not proceed. The Planning Proposal seeks an amendment to Council’s City-wide Local Environmental Plan (Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 – LEP 2010) to apply industrial and environmental zones to the Site.

 

Public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, amended as required by the Gateway determination, commenced on Monday 20 October 2014 and concluded on Friday 28 November 2014. A detailed analysis of the submissions has been conducted by Shaun Lawer, Senior Planner, GHD Pty Ltd (GHD).

 

On Monday 20 April 2015, Councillors received a briefing and legal advice on the term “minor significance” in respect of Section 117 Direction 4.3 – Flood Prone Land as it relates to the Planning Proposal. Direction 4.3 applies to the Site because it is flood prone. The advice has been prepared by Philip Clay SC.

 

Mr Lawer has concluded that the Planning Proposal should not be supported in its current form because it is inconsistent with Direction 4.3 and that the inconsistencies are not considered to be minor.

 

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 28 July 2014 the following recommendation of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 14 July 2014 was adopted:

 

That:

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

In accordance with the Council’s resolution, Shaun Lawer, Senior Planner, GHD, revised the Planning Proposal in preparation for public exhibition and consultation with State agencies having regard to the conditions of the Gateway Determination that require the Planning Proposal to be amended to:

 

•        remove reference to the document being prepared for the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)

•        clearly communicate to the public the intention of the proposal and the justification for making the plan

•        provide comprehensive consideration of the planning proposal’s consistency with

•        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Deemed SEPPs

•        Section 117 Directions

•        Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005

•        include any studies necessary to support the planning proposal, including information relating to flooding matters.

 

The public authorities identified for consultation by the Gateway Determination were:

 

•        Office of Environment and Heritage

•        NSW Office of Water

•        State Emergency Services

•        Transport for NSW

•        Roads and Maritime Services

•        Sydney Water

•        Essential Energy

•        Corrective Services NSW

•        Penrith Lakes Development Corporation

•        Department of Primary Industries - Agriculture

•        Department of Primary Industries - Fishing and Aquaculture

 

The Planning Proposal was prepared so as to be consistent with the Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals which, in summary, contains six components:

 

Part 1 – A statement of the objectives and intended outcomes of the proposed instrument Part 2 – An explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed instrument Part 3 – The justification for those objectives, outcomes and the process for their

                   implementation

Part 4 – Maps, where relevant, to identify the intent of the planning proposal and the area to     which it applies

Part 5 – Details of the community consultation that is to be undertaken on the planning

              proposal

Part 6 – Project timeline

 

 

Public exhibition

The public exhibition period commenced on Monday 20 October 2014 and concluded on Friday 28 November 2014. Notification of the public exhibition was advertised in Council’s news page in the Western Weekender on 17 & 24 October and 14 & 21 November as well as by letter to property owners and occupiers in the area.

 

The Planning Proposal, maps and background information, consistent with the Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals, was made available for 28 days at:

 

•        Penrith Civic Centre (High Street) between 8:30am-4pm (Mon-Fri)

•        Council’s St Marys Office: 207-209 Queen Street, St Marys. (Mon-Fri 8:30am- 4pm)

•        Penrith Library, 601 High Street, Penrith (Mon-Fri 9am-8pm; Sat 9am-5pm; and Sun 10am-5pm)

•        St Marys Library, 207-209 Queen Street, St Marys (Mon-Thu 9am-8pm; Fri 9am- 5:30pm; Sat 9am-5pm; and Sun 10am-5pm).

 

A total of 38 submissions were received during the exhibition period. In summary, of the 38 submissions received, 20 submissions (16 written) objected to the Planning Proposal and/or raised concerns; 10 sought advice on the exact location of the site; 6 were from government agencies; and 2 sought additional information.

 

The key issues raised by the community in relation to the Planning Proposal included:

 

•        Increased traffic along Old Bathurst Road and Russell Street and their intersection as a result of the light industrial development on the site

•        Increased noise and air quality impacts from light industrial development on the site

•        Increased flood risk on surrounding residential properties

•        Significant impact on property prices as a result of light industrial development adjoining an existing residential area

•        Degraded views from surrounding residential properties.

 

The submissions received from the following public authorities are also summarised in the attachment:

 

•        Sydney Water

•        Environment Protection Authority

•        Roads and Maritime Services

•        State Emergency Service

•        Department of Primary Industries

•        Office of Environment and Heritage

 

The key issues requiring further information raised by the public authorities in relation to the Planning Proposal included:

 

•        Land use conflict residential/industrial

•        Noise impacts

•        Water quality

•        Stormwater management

•        Sewage management

•        Waste management

•        Traffic assessment

 

Current Situation

The attached report from Shaun Lawer, Senior Planner, GHD updates the Planning Proposal by incorporating the outcome of the community consultation. Mr Lawer has also provided a Summary and Conclusion in which he concludes that the Planning Proposal is not supported in its current form and recommends that a Floodplain Risk Management Plan be prepared and adopted by Council prior to proceeding with the Planning Proposal.

 

Mr Lawer will be in attendance at the meeting to present his report and answer any questions Councillors may have in relation to its recommendations.

 

Independent legal advice has been sought to obtain an interpretation of the potential responsibility of Council with respect to the Section 117 Direction including what is meant by the term “minor significance”. The advice has been prepared by Philip Clay SC.

 

The legal advice is that the provisions of the Planning Proposal that are inconsistent with S117 Direction 4.3 are not of minor significance but given that it has passed through the Gateway, it is still at the Minister’s discretion to make the plan. It is also open to the Council to ask the Minister to determine that the matter not proceed.

 

Mr Clay makes reference to the Planning Proposal’s inconsistency with two specific clauses of Direction 4.3, Clause (5) and (6)(c), which state:

 

(5)     A planning proposal must not rezone land within the flood planning areas from Special Use, Special Purpose, Recreation, Rural or Environmental Protection Zones to a Residential, Business, Industrial, Special Use or Special Purpose Zone.

          …

(6)     A planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

(c) permit a significant increase in the development of that land

 

Mr Clay has reinforced that determining the Planning Proposal’s consistency with s117 Direction 4.3 is not a matter of hydraulic engineering but it is about the scale of potential development on land presently zoned rural.

 

Mr Clay also observes that as a matter of strategic land use planning, it would be preferable that a Floodplain Risk Management Plan be adopted prior to proceeding with the Planning Proposal.

 

Next Steps

The next step in the Gateway process following community consultation is for the relevant planning authority (Council) to consider any submissions made concerning the proposal. The Department of Planning’s Guide to preparing local environmental plans expresses an expectation that a council would formally request the Minister to draft the local environmental plan.

 

Alternatively, if consideration of the submissions and legal advice on the Planning Proposal’s consistency with Direction 4.3 lead Council to decide to not support the proposal further, it has the discretion to either vary the proposal or request the Minister to determine that the matter not proceed.

 

In either case, although the discretion to either make the plan or determine that the matter not proceed rests with the Minister, it is the Council’s role as the Relevant Planning Authority

 to advise whether the matter should proceed. It is thought that the Minister will expect Council to take a position.

 

Options

Although Council has the option of sending the Planning Proposal, as exhibited, to the Minister to make the plan, it is likely that the Planning Proposal would be returned to Council for additional work to address the concerns of the public authorities.

 

Two options are therefore available to Council, being:

 

Option 1

 

Amend the Planning Proposal in accordance with the public authority and community concerns before forwarding it to the Minister to make the plan. In that case the resolution would be:

 

(a)     The proponents for Planning Proposal – Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains be requested to prepare further studies as required by the public authorities.

(b)     The Planning Proposal – Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains be amended to address the concerns of the public authorities and the community

(c)     The Planning Proposal – Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Environment with a request that:

i)        the Minister consider the changes made to the Planning Proposal in response to the public exhibition, and

ii)       the Minister consider the Planning Proposal’s inconsistency with Section 117 Direction 4.3, and

ii)       make a determination as to whether the Planning Proposal is to be re- exhibited in accordance with s58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(d)     The Minister be requested to make the plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, should he determine that re- exhibition of the Planning Proposal is not required.

 

The Council would be required to express its position with regard to the Planning Proposal’s consistency with s117 Direction 4.3. This option does not foreshadow the Minister’s acceptance of the Planning Proposal’s inconsistency with Direction 4.3.

 

Option 2

Request the Minister to determine that the matter not proceed. In that case the resolution would be:

 

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

 

Conclusion

The report of the independent Senior Planner and legal advice of Senior Counsel recommend that the Planning Proposal not be supported. Both advisers provide comprehensive consideration of the Planning Proposal’s consistency with s117 Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land, a condition of the Gateway determination. Having regard to this advice, it

is open to the Council to adopt Option 2 and request the Minister to determine that the matter not proceed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in this report and the report of Shaun Lawer, Senior Planner, on Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (Cnr Russell Street) be received.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Planning Proposal Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains - GHD Report April 2015

64 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                       11 May 2015

 

 

 

2

Western Sydney Airport - Badgerys Creek   

 

Compiled by:               Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior 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

Undertake priority planning projects and statutory processes that contribute to Penrith's role as a Regional City

      

 

Executive Summary

Over recent months, Council has received briefings on a range of contemporary issues associated with airport operations and the nature of airports in the 21st century. This has been to assist in understanding what a proposed Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek might look like and its potential impacts and benefits.

 

This report consolidates information presented at the briefings and provided separately by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the proposed Airport. The draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is currently in preparation and expected to be released for public comment in the second half of this year.

 

Given the EIS will likely deal with how to manage the impacts of the proposed Airport, it is important that Council positions itself proactively to maximise its input to the draft EIS and to ensure both State and Federal Governments engage with Council in all aspects of planning for the Airport and the surrounding area. This report suggests potential actions/advocacy in relation to the Airport for Council’s consideration. It also suggests Council participate in a proposal to pool resources with other Councils and engage consultants in readiness for the release of the draft EIS.

 

Introduction

On 15 April 2014, the Federal Government announced that the Government owned land at Badgerys Creek will be the site of the new Western Sydney Airport (the Airport) – a decision which now has bipartisan support at both the Federal and State Government level.  On 16 April 2014, the Federal and State Governments released the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, which proposes the investment of $3.6 billion over 10 years in major road infrastructure upgrades to support the development of the Airport. On 28 April 2014, the State  Government announced the concept of a future rail corridor, which would extend the South West Rail Link to the Airport, and further north, to the Main Western Line.

 

Since these announcements, Council’s executive has assigned the Airport and the associated infrastructure package the highest status and formed a team to oversee activities relating to these matters. The team is also monitoring any formal State Government announcements in relation to the proposed corridor for the Outer Sydney Orbital.

 

Council has received briefings on a range of contemporary issues associated with airport operations and the nature of airports in the 21st century.  Given the EIS will likely deal with how to manage the impacts of the proposed Airport, it is important that Council positions itself proactively to maximise its input to the draft EIS and to ensure both State and Federal Governments engage with Council in all aspects of planning for the Airport and the surrounding area.

This report consolidates what information is known at this point in time, recognising that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is not expected to be released until the second half of 2015. It also discusses an approach to the assessment of the draft EIS and suggests potential actions/advocacy for Council’s consideration.

 

Background

Since early 2013, Council has again given increasing attention to the Federal Government’s proposal for a second airport at Badgerys Creek.

 

At its Policy Review Committee meeting of 15 April 2013, Council considered a report on the history of the Badgerys Creek airport. This report outlined the 1985 proposal for a supplementary airport to Kingsford Smith (Sydney) Airport, which included time and aircraft capacity limits, as well as the 1996 proposal for a curfew free airport capable of handling domestic and international traffic. The report indicated that Council generally supported the 1985 proposal, whereas the 1996 proposal was strongly opposed. The reasons for  opposing the 1996 proposal related to noise, air and water quality impacts, the character of the locality, agriculture, other environmental and health impacts, operational best practice and economic and transport alternatives.  Council became a member of the Western Sydney Alliance, which was formed in 1997 to oppose the 1996 proposal. Attachment 1 includes a copy of the Executive Summary from the Western Sydney Alliance’s report - Badgerys  Creek Airport: The Environmental “No” Case and provides further details on the reasons for opposing the 1996 proposal.

 

Overarching all of this was the concern that the airport proposal was being offered as a solution for existing inner metropolitan areas affected by the existing Kingsford Smith Airport, and the fact that the airport proposal was not deeply embedded into Western Sydney so that it benefitted from jobs and infrastructure.

 

In February 2014, Council resolved to undertake a telephone survey to gauge community sentiment on a proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. The results of that survey generally indicated that:

•        57.8% of residents support a second Sydney airport, while 21.9% oppose it;

•        52.2% of residents support a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek, compared to 31.5% of residents who oppose this location; and

•        Overall, 69.1% of residents felt that Penrith would be ‘better off’ with an airport at Badgerys Creek, while 18.5% felt it would be ‘worse off’.

 

Following the Federal Government’s announcement on 15 April 2014, Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 April 2014, resolved that:

1.       Council write to the Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia and the Hon Warren Truss MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development as well as Ms Fiona Scott MP, Member for Lindsay, asking the following question:

          ‘At what stage will a new EIS be released for the proposed Badgerys Creek airport site and when will Council be invited to have input?’

2.       Council enter into a procurement process to obtain a suitably qualified consultant to review the EIS and flight paths for the proposed Badgerys Creek Airport.

3.       In the event that the EIS supports a second airport that Council oppose a 24 hour second airport with no curfew.

4.       Council officers are encouraged to communicate with both State and Federal Departments to maximise the economic benefits that will accrue from the airport for Western Sydney.

5.       Council write to the local State and Federal Members of Parliament seeking support for the proposed infrastructure improvements announced whether the EIS supports a second airport or not.

6.       On receipt of an EIS, that a Councillor Briefing be held, followed by Council holding residents forums outlining what the EIS means.

 

Since this resolution, Council has received a number of briefings on the proposed Airport.  On 5 May 2014, Council received further details on the Federal and State Governments’ announcements in relation to the Airport and the associated infrastructure. On 17 November 2014, Council was briefed on the actions taken by Council officers since the Federal Government’s announcement on the proposed Airport, and the key steps in the planning process. On 30 March 2015 and 22 April 2015, Council received presentations from a number of independent experts and key players involved in airport planning. Topics  included the land use planning context for the Airport, airports in Australia and  internationally, the nature of airports in the 21st century, air quality in the Sydney Basin and the impacts of airports on air quality, and the assessment and management of airport noise. The Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DI&RD) also provided further details on the proposed Airport and outlined the key issues that will need to be addressed in the draft EIS. These briefings were designed to provide context and contemporary information so that Council is better equipped to participate in the planning process for the proposed Airport.

 

Current Situation

The following discussion provides further context and consolidates information, primarily from the briefings, on the proposed Airport and the key issues.

 

Challenges and opportunities for Penrith and Western Sydney

Currently, the population of Penrith City is estimated to be about 193,300 people and, by 2031, this is forecast to grow by around 15% to about 224,000 people (profile.id).

 

The current population for Western Sydney1 is estimated to be around 2,009,000 people (profile.id) or about 47% of Sydney’s total population. Under the State Government’s Metropolitan Plan for Growing Sydney (the Metropolitan Plan), Western Sydney’s population is forecast to grow by 900,000 people by 2031 - an increase of about 45% over the current population of Western Sydney or about 56% of the forecast population growth of Sydney.

 

According to the Metropolitan Plan, Western Sydney has about 36% of Sydney’s jobs. In 2012, it was estimated that Western Sydney had a jobs deficit of about 182,000 jobs (Urbis). The Metropolitan Plan does not specifically forecast the number of jobs needed in Western Sydney by 2031.  Job forecasts are proposed to be identified in subregional plans.  In 2012, however, the ‘jobs gap’ was predicted to grow to around 280,000 jobs by 2031.

 

About 64% of all workers living in Penrith City currently commute to jobs outside the local government area (Penrith Progression). Many Western Sydney residents also travel outside of the region for work, particularly for well-paid knowledge-based jobs.  According to the Metropolitan Plan, around 28% of Western Sydney’s resident workforce, or close to 226,000 people, leave the region for work. This is expected to rise significantly by 2031 placing further pressure on Sydney's transport network.

 

 

1 Western Sydney includes the local government areas of Auburn, Bankstown, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith, The Hills and Wollondilly.

Metropolitan Plan’s Response:

In response to the need for more and diverse jobs, closer to home, the Metropolitan Plan identifies the proposed Airport as part of the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area (BWSEA) and as a ‘transport gateway’ to connect Sydney with locations across Australia and the world, and to support large concentrations of complementary business activity and employment.

 

Among the Metropolitan Plan’s actions are:

·    Action 1.4.1: Improve transport links and create a new services centre and industrial precinct to support the growth of Badgerys Creek Airport. This includes:

Protecting the future operating capacity of the airport by ensuring adequate buffers for areas affected by aircraft noise and airspace to provide for future aviation needs;

Preserving land for complementary airport-related activity including a jet fuel pipeline to service the airport and freight-related uses; and

Identifying and preserving future transport and infrastructure corridors and related sites.

·    Action 1.4.2: Develop new strategic employment corridors along transport infrastructure investments that will service Badgerys Creek Airport investment. This includes:

Directing economic growth to the BWSEA, other identified enterprise corridors and existing and proposed strategic centres including Penrith City Centre and the Penrith Health and Education Precinct.

·    Action 1.7.4: Continue to grow Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown-Macarthur as regional city centres supporting their surrounding communities. This includes:

Recognising Penrith as an important centre for additional housing, employment and services to benefit local areas.

 

While these actions will be critical to increasing the number and range of jobs available to Penrith and Western Sydney residents closer to home, a more significant step change is required. Sydney remains profoundly imbalanced in terms of effective jobs density.  Further, Western Sydney is grossly under-represented in terms of knowledge-based and other 21st century jobs.

 

Proposed Airport

Our current understanding of the proposed Airport at Badgerys Creek, based on information provided by the DI&RD, is summarised below:

 

Need for the proposed Airport:

Demand for passenger journeys in the Sydney region is forecast to increase from 40 to 87 million in 20 years and to further increase to 165 million by 2060.  Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport alone will not be able to meet this demand. If no additional capacity is provided, 54 million forecast passenger journeys will be unmet by 2060. Further, by 2060, it is estimated that $17.5 billion in NSW gross state product and $34 billion in gross domestic product will be foregone.

 

Nature of the proposed Airport:

The 1,700ha of land acquired by the Federal Government between 1986 and 1991 is said to be sufficient for the proposed Airport and further land acquisition is unlikely to be required.

 

 

 

The Airport will be staged over time. Initially, it is proposed to be an airport with a single runway, similar to Canberra or Gold Coast Airports, which currently service three to five million passengers per year. The Federal Government anticipates that the Airport would only require one runway for the first 20 years or so of operation. Ultimately, the Airport is proposed to be developed into a full scale airport with two parallel runways, with a capacity for around 80 million passengers per year.

 

The runways will be up to 4,000 metres in length, configured on a north-east/south-west alignment and contained within the land already acquired by the Federal Government  (similar to Option A in the EIS completed in 1999). However, the DI&RD has indicated that a 3,700 metre runway length could cater for contemporary and likely future aircraft.

 

While the decision on a curfew is yet to be made, the proposed Airport is being planned as a 24 hour operation.

 

The proposed Airport could be operational by the mid-2020s.

 

The proposed Airport is expected to include significant ancillary commercial potential.

 

The proposed Airport will involve earthworks of 51 million cubic metres, relocation of high

tension power lines and realignment of part of The Northern Road.

 

Right of First Refusal:

The Federal Government intends that most of the cost of the Airport will ultimately be met by a private sector operator. To facilitate this, the Federal Government must meet its obligations under the ‘Right of First Refusal’ provisions of the 2002 Sydney (Kingsford- Smith) Airport Share Sale Agreement, which provide the purchaser, in this case the Sydney Airport Group, with the opportunity to develop and operate a second major airport in the Sydney Region. This right was included in the sale agreement due to the uncertainty at the time over the development of a second airport. It is also contended that the Federal Government at the time envisaged that it would be effective for the two airports to operate together to service the aviation needs of Sydney and NSW as the primary gateway to Australia.  Several global cities have multiple airports operating as a system to maximise their use and support economic growth.

 

The Right of First Refusal process consists of a number of phases, including a consultative phase and a contractual phase. The consultative phase involves the Federal Government issuing a ‘Notice to Consult’ to the Sydney Airport Group. This notice was issued on 18 August 2014 with consultation formally commencing on 1 October 2014. The consultation phase deals with the nature and economics of a second airport and is expected to conclude on 30 June 2015.

 

Following the consultative phase, the Federal Government may decide to make a  contractual offer to the Sydney Airport Group. The contractual offer would involve issuing a ‘Notice of Intention’ to the Sydney Airport Group, setting out the detailed terms for the development and operation of an airport at Badgerys Creek. It would also include technical specifications, contractual terms and a timetable. The Sydney Airport Group would then have four or nine months to consider exercising its option to develop and operate the airport. If the Sydney Airport Group declines the opportunity to develop the airport, the Federal Government may approach the market or choose to develop and/or operate the airport itself.

 

Site activities:

The DI&RD has commenced a number of activities on the site of the proposed Airport. They include demolition of vacated buildings and structures (excluding heritage items), work to

relocate two cemeteries, environmental surveys to inform the EIS, work to identify the sequencing for the relocation of key infrastructure, and geotechnical investigations to help develop detailed construction plans and cost estimates.

 

Western Sydney Infrastructure Package:

To support the development of the proposed Airport, the Federal and State Governments released the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. This Plan proposes the investment of

$3.6 billion over 10 years in major road infrastructure upgrades and includes:

·    upgrading The Northern Road to a minimum of four lanes from Narellan to the M4 Motorway;

·    constructing a new east-west motorway to the Airport between the M7 Motorway and The Northern Road;

·    upgrading Bringelly Road to a minimum of four lanes between The Northern Road and Camden Valley Way; and

·    a $200 million package for local road upgrades.

 

Further details of the Infrastructure Plan, including where works have commenced, are provided in Attachment 2.

 

In addition to the Infrastructure Plan, the State Government intends to preserve corridors for a future rail line from the South West Rail Link to the proposed Airport, and further north, to the Main Western Line, as well as for the Outer Sydney Orbital.

 

These corridor concepts and the Infrastructure Plan include transport connections that Council has strongly advocated for over many years, regardless of an airport. They are critical to realising the economic potential of the City to create local and diverse jobs, including helping to unlock the potential of the BWSEA and the Penrith Health and Education Precinct.

 

Management arrangements and planning process

Western Sydney Infrastructure Unit:

The Western Sydney Infrastructure Unit has been established within the DI&RD to progress the development of the proposed Airport. It is responsible for developing detailed airport design concepts, undertaking environmental assessments and engaging with the Sydney Airport Group on commercial arrangements. It is also responsible for undertaking consultation with local councils, the community and other stakeholders, including the aviation industry.

 

To achieve world class aviation, urban and employment outcomes for Western Sydney, Sydney and NSW, Council officers have advocated for a joint government planning arrangement/task force to develop planning strategies for land both within and outside the Airport site. We have also advocated for this arrangement/task force to involve relevant local councils, including Penrith.

 

Environmental Assessment Process:

The proposed Airport is subject to Commonwealth legislation, in particular, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). State legislation and relevant local environmental planning instruments may only be triggered if works are proposed off the site of the Airport.

 

As required under the EPBC Act, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development submitted an ‘environmental referral’ to the Minister for the Environment on 4 December

 

 

2014. On 23 December 2014, the Minister for the Environment determined the proposed Airport to be a ‘controlled action’ that will be assessed through an EIS. On 29 January 2015, the Guidelines for the EIS were issued. The EIS is required to include:

·    Background information, including the need for the proposal, strategic context and alternatives considered;

·    A description of the proposal;

·    Potential impacts of noise and vibration, including all potential flight paths, height and frequency of flights, aircraft types, noise exposure patterns and noise contours;

·    Potential impacts on air and water quality;

·    Assessment of local historic and Indigenous heritage values, including a full heritage impact assessment;

·    Potential impacts on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, in accordance with Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention;

·    Potential impacts on affected flora and fauna species and ecological communities;

·    The likely extent of native habitat removal and degradation; and

·    Recommended measures to minimise and manage potential environmental impacts.

 

The DI&RD has engaged consultants GHD to prepare the EIS. Once a draft EIS is  prepared, the Minister for the Environment must then approve its publication and issue the requirements for public consultation. The DI&RD has indicated that the draft EIS is expected to be released for public consultation in the second half of 2015.

 

To assist community access to information on the proposed Airport, the DI&RD has established an information telephone hotline, a web site and an email inbox. The DI&RD is also preparing “a comprehensive engagement strategy (which) will outline different mediums and activities to ensure the full range of stakeholders, including Indigenous stakeholders, are informed and have the opportunity to be consulted on the proposed airport. Part of this strategy will include an on-ground presence in Western Sydney”.

 

Once consultation is completed, the DI&RD finalises the draft EIS taking into account public comments. The DI&RD then provides the final EIS to the Minister for the Environment and publishes the EIS.

 

The Department of the Environment (DoE) prepares a recommendation report for the Minister for the Environment, who then makes a decision on whether to approve or not approve the Airport proposal.

 

Key Issues

Council has received presentations from a number of independent experts and key players involved in airport planning to provide context and contemporary information on key issues relating to airports, generally, and the proposed Airport at Badgerys Creek, in particular. The draft EIS will test these issues.  The following section provides some general commentary on the key issues for Council’s consideration.

 

Social and environmental impacts of the proposed Airport:

 

Noise

Operation of the proposed Airport will result in some areas of Western Sydney being newly exposed to aircraft noise.

 

The EIS is required to assess potential flight paths, height and frequency of flights, types of aircraft, noise exposure patterns and noise contours.

 

The noise exposure contours that currently apply to the site were determined based on a lower number of aircraft movements than that are now expected for the proposed Airport at its ultimate capacity. While modern aircraft using the Airport from the mid-2020s are likely to be quieter, due to technological advances, the effect of these factors will need to be investigated in the EIS.

 

It is contended by some that while aircraft have become significantly quieter, further improvements in noise reduction may be difficult to realise in the longer term.

 

Effective land use controls are the primary mechanism for reducing the impacts of aircraft noise on local residents and those living under flight paths. The land surrounding the site of the proposed Airport has been protected from incompatible development due to long standing planning restrictions. These restrictions, based on noise exposure contours for an airport with parallel runways of similar alignment to that proposed, have provided an important mechanism for reducing the encroachment of noise sensitive land uses towards the site. Other regional planning decisions, such as the establishment of the BWSEA, have also meant that areas adjoining the site and potentially exposed to the highest noise levels will be developed for commercial and industrial uses.

 

The DI&RD has indicated that the measures of noise exposure to be used in the assessment of aircraft noise will include a cumulative noise index, the ANEC (Australian Noise Exposure Concept) and ‘Number Above’ contours, such as the N70 contours, which show the number of single events exceeding a given peak noise level.  This approach is supported, as together, these measures should provide an indication of the spatial extent of noise  exposure and the frequency and loudness of individual significant noise events, including for specific time periods such as the evening hours.

 

The DI&RD has indicated that to maximise the potential of the site and its commercial viability, the proposed Airport would operate on a 24 hour basis. The EIS must identify and assess all potential noise abatement measures to reduce noise exposure for different periods of the day.  In particular, the economic, social and environmental consequences of a 24 hour operation must be detailed in the EIS.

 

The site has the benefit of being, by and large, separated from noise sensitive land uses and is able to be maintained as such through regulation.

 

Air Quality

Air quality in Western Sydney has been a concern for many years due to the movement of air pollution generated in other areas of Sydney into the region under the influence of meteorological and topographical features. These factors can hinder dispersal and concentrate air pollution within the region.

 

Construction of the proposed Airport will generate dust and fine particulate matter from the exposure of soils and emissions such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide from vehicles and machinery used to undertake land clearing and earthworks.

 

Operation of the proposed Airport will also contribute to increased concentrations of NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and some particulate matter. While emissions from aircraft engines dominate, emissions from passenger and service vehicles off-site and ground support vehicles also contribute. These emissions can lead to ozone formation.

 

According to a 2014 report by the Office of Environment and Heritage, air quality in the Sydney basin has generally improved. The report indicates that:

 

·    In the Sydney region, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and lead concentrations are consistently well below national standards.

·    Total emissions of ozone precursors and particles have decreased in Sydney over  the last decade despite the growth in vehicle activity, energy consumption, population and the economy.

·    Reductions in on-road mobile source emissions have been significant over the last decade due to improved fuel quality and more stringent vehicle emission standards.

·    Despite reductions in vehicle emissions, road transport remains a major source of air pollution in Sydney, being the largest source of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide emissions and contributing significantly to total emissions of volatile organic compounds and fine particles.

·    Regional modelling for Sydney has indicated that the pattern of motor vehicle emissions is a major factor determining the timing and peak of ozone concentrations in the region.

 

The EIS for the proposed Airport is required to consider all potential sources of air emissions and the likely impact on air quality in the region.

 

For comparative purposes, Sydney Airport contributes about 1.2% of NOX and about 0.5% of VOCs to the Sydney air shed.

 

The striking point that Council heard at one of its briefings is that whilst the construction and operation of the Airport will contribute additional emissions, urban development of the site would potentially make a greater contribution.

 

Heritage

 

There are eight items of historic heritage value on the site of the proposed Airport and 20 within the vicinity of the site. Not all are listed in Penrith or Liverpool’s LEPs.  Land clearing and earthworks are likely to destroy most of the items on the site, with two cemeteries proposed to be relocated.

 

Numerous Aboriginal heritage sites have previously been recorded on the site, however, archaeological investigations have not to date incorporated excavations. The EIS will include further archaeological surveys, in consultation with Aboriginal community stakeholders.

 

The EIS is required to assess local historic and Aboriginal heritage values and the impacts of the proposed Airport on these values, including the heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA).

 

Biodiversity

 

The construction of the proposed Airport is likely to require most of the 1,700ha site to be cleared of vegetation, including the potential removal of up to 161ha of threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act. The proposed Airport would also require the removal of about 440ha of threatened ecological communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.  Further, the vegetation clearing is likely to remove known occurrences of vulnerable species, such as Pultenaea parviflora, and could remove occurrences of other listed threatened flora species. A number of native fauna species, including threatened species, are likely to be displaced and the movement of fauna in the area significantly reduced.

 

 

The EIS is required to assess the impacts on biodiversity, including on threatened flora and fauna species and ecological communities. It is anticipated that offset arrangements would need to be developed and implemented in accordance with the EPBC Act Offsets Policy to compensate for the impacts on biodiversity.

 

Other Impacts

 

Other impacts that will need to be assessed in the EIS include surface transport and access, planning and land use, water quality, hazards and risks, amenity and visual impacts, and other social impacts.

 

Economic benefits of the proposed Airport:

The EIS is also required to assess the economic impacts and benefits of the proposed Airport. These benefits are likely to be:

 

·    Increased employment opportunities closer to home: The DI&RD has suggested that around 4,000 jobs are expected to be generated in the initial construction phase of the Airport. Once operating, the Airport is expected to generate about 4,000 jobs on opening; around 11,000 jobs after five years of operation; increasing to 30,000 jobs by 2060.  For comparison, Sydney Airport, which serviced 38.5 million passengers in 2014, provides about 29,000 direct jobs. Around 75% of Sydney Airport workers live in the local communities surrounding the airport.

There is also significant potential for indirect employment. The DI&RD has suggested around 30,000 jobs by 2060. In the case of Sydney Airport, however, the number of indirect jobs in 2014 was estimated to be in the order of 275,000.

While the number of direct and indirect jobs generated by the proposed Airport is arguable, it is clear that the Airport will generate substantial employment opportunities closer to home for Penrith and Western Sydney residents.

·    More diverse employment opportunities closer to home: The DI&RD has suggested employment opportunities ranging from transport and hospitality to IT professionals and administrative support.  For comparison, Sydney Airport provides employment opportunities in retail, hotels, property and car rental, car parking and ground transport, aeronautical services and facilities and government agencies such as Airservices, and Customs and Border Protection.

·    Growth of the Western Sydney economy: The DI&RD has suggested that when airport operations commence, direct expenditure is forecast to be about $2.4 billion, growing to $7.5 billion by 2035 and $24 billion by 2060. While the amount of direct expenditure is also arguable, it is clear that the Airport will generate significant economic activity and be a catalyst for investment in the BWSEA and Western Sydney.

·    Increased access to aviation for the growing Western Sydney market.

·    Better infrastructure for Western Sydney residents.

 

Airports of the 21st century:

 

The proposed Airport will be a ‘greenfield’ airport development. These developments are rare and provide a unique opportunity to create a sense of place and community, designed to meet passenger needs.

 

An airport of the 21st century would incorporate the following principles in its design and operation: ‘fit for purpose’; flexible; provide a high quality passenger and meeter/greeter experience; efficient and ‘future proof’.  An airport for the 21st century would deliver the best in:

 

·    Sustainable development;

·    Passenger-centric design;

·    Seamless travel;

·    Technology;

·    Integrated transport modes; and

·    Creation of a sense of place that respects the local community, heritage and Indigenous history.

 

By way of example2, “one possibility is to have passengers check in remotely at Liverpool, Parramatta or Penrith city centres. They could leave their bags at these intermodal hubs in the nearby CBD, attend a meeting or perhaps do a bit of shopping, then as their flight time approaches, travel to the airport by pod, similar to the ones currently available at Heathrow Terminal 5”. On arrival, passengers might then use biometric scanning, mobile boarding passes or a single key to take them through multiple processes such as passport control and onto aircraft. An airport of the 21st century might also include buildings with lots of natural light, generous seating areas at gates and clear and intuitive wayfinding to create a welcoming and pleasant environment for passengers.

 

Another feature of an airport of the 21st century is that it is likely to be part of an ‘aerotropolis’ – a metropolitan area whose infrastructure, land use and economy are centred on an airport. It consists of the airport’s aeronautical, logistics and commercial elements, connecting surface transportation infrastructure, and outlying corridors and clusters of aviation-oriented businesses and residential developments that feed off each other and their accessibility to the airport. Examples include Amsterdam Schiphol and Dallas Fort Worth, with Auckland and Brisbane currently developing ‘aerotropolis master plans’.

 

If the proposed Airport is to proceed, then it is these types of features that we should expect of the development. In particular, in planning for the Airport, there needs to be a long term vision of what the Airport will be in 2050. To develop the Airport in a piecemeal fashion runs the risk of the Airport becoming outdated quickly and not delivering the optimum economic and place making outcomes.

 

Council engagement in planning for the Airport

Given the EIS will likely deal with how to manage the impacts of the proposed Airport, it is important that Council positions itself proactively to maximise its input to the draft EIS and to ensure both State and Federal Governments engage with Council in all aspects of planning for the Airport and the surrounding area.

 

Assessment of the EIS:

In relation to the EIS, Council has previously resolved to enter into a procurement process to obtain a suitably qualified consultant to review the EIS and flight paths for the proposed Airport, and arrangements were being made by Council officers in this regard. On 9 April 2015, a forum was hosted by Blacktown City Council to discuss the assessment of the EIS and, in particular, a proposal for councils to pool their resources and engage consultants in readiness for the release of the EIS, given the expected timeframe for public exhibition and the likely volume of detailed material. The suggested approach is that each participating council contributes funds on a pro rata population basis, with WSROC coordinating procurement.  A Steering Committee, chaired by WSROC/MACROC, would be formed comprising each Council’s Strategic Planning Manager to coordinate the appointment and management of consultants and to engage a project manager to oversee the studies required for an objective peer review of the EIS. It is also suggested that only key EIS

________________________

2 Described by Ronan Delaney, Aviation Business Leader for Arup in Australasia.

elements be peer reviewed. Initial estimates of the cost of the project manager and consultants are in the order of $250,000. Depending on the extent of participation, Council’s contribution could be between $25,000 and $60,000.

 

The benefits of pooling funds are that a more detailed and expert analysis can be done, with councils not having to compete for the same expertise. There will be considerable cost savings for our communities because councils will not be undertaking separate reviews and duplicating the efforts of other councils.  Further, in addition to the independent expert analysis being used by all councils, it could be used by the community more generally in the preparation of submissions to the Federal Government.

 

The intended structure of this proposal should ensure that the management of the consultants is undertaken objectively and allow councils to draw from the studies to develop their individual submissions. Accordingly, it is considered that Council should participate in this proposal, subject to an upper limit of $60,000 for its contribution.

 

Potential action/advocacy

Council has an opportunity to undertake a number of potential actions and advocacy in advance of the EIS being finalised to ensure that critical issues are properly addressed in the EIS and the planning for the Airport and surrounding area. The following initial actions are suggested for Council’s consideration:

·    Write to the DI&RD to clarify what measures can be used by the Federal Government to ensure both airports operate as a system and the proposed Airport grows to its maximum potential.

·    Write to the DI&RD and Transport for NSW to advocate for the delivery of public transport from day one of the proposed Airport operating, including delivery of rail from the Airport to the Main Western line.

·    Continue to advocate for the establishment of a joint government planning arrangement/task force to develop planning strategies for land both within and outside the Airport site, involving all relevant local councils.

·    Write to the DI&RD and the DoE to ensure the draft EIS addresses noise management for the operation of a 24 hour airport, including ‘Number Above’ contours, such as the N60 and N70 contours, and details the economic, social and environmental consequences of a 24 hour operation.

·    Write to the DI&RD and the DP&E to advocate for intervention to ensure the economic opportunities arising from the proposed Airport are embedded into Western Sydney.

·    Write to the DI&RD and the DP&E to advocate for the acceleration of the BWSEA, informed by an economic strategy that is cognisant of an airport.

 

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

 

This report outlines an opportunity for Council to consider being part of a group of WRSOC and MACROC Council’s that collectively project management and engage relevant experts to assess the Draft EIS upon release. This approach will provide a cost effective solution for Council to position itself to consider a response. The likely contribution for Penrith has been estimated at between $25,000 and $60,000 and the report proposes that an upper limit of our contribution be set at $60,000, significantly less than the cost estimate of pursuing an individual assessment. Should Council be of a mind to endorse the recommended approach outlined in the report, it is proposed that an allocation of $60,000 would be incorporated into the final 2015-16 budget scheduled for consideration at Council’s 29 June Ordinary Meeting.

 

 

Conclusion

The Federal Government’s decision on a proposed Airport at Badgerys Creek has bipartisan support and substantial funding has been provided for infrastructure projects around the site. Given this, it is important for Council to engage with both State and Federal Governments to ensure the Airport and the associated infrastructure is delivered in a timely and deliberative manner to bring maximum benefits and uplift to Western Sydney and Penrith.

 

Council has heard from six experts on various aspects of airport development and  operations to assist in our engagement with the upcoming EIS and in our ongoing advocacy. A number of important steps can be taken in advance of the EIS being finalised to ensure that issues we see as critical are properly addressed in the EIS.  It would be helpful, in taking our messages strongly to Government, both in relation to the EIS and ongoing planning, for Council to have a clear statement on the proposed Airport at Badgerys Creek.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Western Sydney Airport - Badgerys Creek be received.

2.    Council undertake the potential actions/advocacy identified in this report.

3.    Council participate in the proposal for councils to pool their resources and engage consultants in readiness for the release of the EIS, subject to an upper limit of $60,000.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Western Sydney Alliance's Badgerys Creek Airport: The Environmental "No" Case

8 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan

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

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

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

 

3        Council's Fit for the Future submission                                                                            31

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                       11 May 2015

 

 

 

3

Council's Fit for the Future submission   

 

Compiled by:               Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Fiona Plesman, Organisational Performance & Development Manager

Authorised by:            Vicki O’Kelly, Executive Manager - Corporate  

 

Outcome

We have confidence in our Council

Strategy

Provide opportunities for our community to participate in making decisions about the City's future

Service Activity

Manage Council's corporate reporting

      

 

Executive Summary

In September 2014 the Office of Local Government (OLG) announced the Fit for the Future Reform Agenda. The Fit for the Future (FFTF) Reform Agenda is intended to provide local communities with confidence that their Council has the scale and capacity to meet community needs into the future, that it is financially sound, operating efficiently and is in a strong position to guide community growth and deliver quality services.

 

This report outlines the principles of Penrith City Council’s submission, how we meet the criteria and will address the Fit for the Future benchmarks.

 

Councils that are not identified by the Independent Local Government Review Panel report (October 2013) as having Scale and Capacity were recommended to merge or join a local organisation of councils that would have capacity to deliver a range of shared services. Penrith City Council was identified as having Scale and Capacity and as such is a no change council.

 

All 152 local governments are required to make a submission to the Office of Local Government by 30 June 2015 addressing the Fit for the Future criteria and three Sustainability benchmarks.

 

The Fit for the Future criteria are:

           Sustainability

           Effective infrastructure and service management

           Efficiency

           Scale and capacity

 

The three sustainability benchmarks are:

           Operating Performance Ratio

           Own Source Operating Ratio

           Building and infrastructure asset renewal ratio

 

The Office of Local Government has selected IPART to undertake the role of Expert Panel to assess local government Fit for the Future submissions. IPART has invited comment on its recently published assessment methodology by 25th May and will confirm the Fit for the Future methodology in the first week of June. IPART has committed to provide the Government with a final assessment against the Fit for the Future criteria by 16th October 2015.

 

This report recommends that Council Officers continue to prepare our FFTF submission in line with the principles outlined in this report and provide feedback to IPART on the assessment methodology as outlined in this report. Following the finalisation of the IPART methodology a further report be presented to the Policy Review Committee meeting in June for further Councillor feedback prior to the submission being lodged.

 

Assessment Ratings

 

IPART proposes to assess Councils’ FFTF proposals as:

 

Fit – if the Council has scale and capacity, is broadly consistent with the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s preferred published options and satisfies the FFTF criteria. The assessment methodology requires councils to demonstrate how they meet or seek to improve over a five year period.

 

Not fit – if the proposal does not satisfy scale and capacity or the other criteria based on assessment.

 

Not assessed, deemed Not Fit – if a Council has not submitted a proposal to be assessed.

 

IPART proposes that Councils report annually on their future FFTF performance in Council

Annual Reports and that the Auditor General reassess performance periodically as part of

the Audit Office of NSW’s new auditing role in the sector.

 

Council Officers are reviewing the methodology proposed by IPART and propose to provide comment back to IPART by the deadline that, based on the initial review, would generally support IPART’s methodology particularly around the scaling of benchmarks and the opportunity to show detailed improvement plans and report on performance in the Annual Report. It is also proposed to comment on constraints within the process in relation to timeframes for meaningful community engagement. In addition the methodology has introduced changes to the Operating Performance Ratio that acknowledges the impact of Community agreed changes to services levels, this approach is supported and it is proposed to also comment on the prescribed population growth indexation, which is linked to Sydney data, and request that the increased growth being experienced by growth Councils be incorporated.

 

Penrith City Council’s Fit for the Future Submission

 

Since the release of the FFTF reform agenda a number of opportunities have been used to engage with Councillors to build on the already commenced Capacity Review process and formulate how Penrith would respond. The principles that have been developed to underpin Penrith City Council’s submission include:

 

·    We have Scale and Capacity as assessed in the October 2013 Independent Local Government Review Panel’s preferred published options and can demonstrate that we meet and/or show improvement against the criteria and the benchmarks as required;

·    Demonstrate a dynamic and growth oriented future as a Regional City with

o        Strong fiscal management, which includes the outcomes of the Financial      Capacity Review

o        Forward thinking efficient asset and service management

o        Regional leadership; and

o        Strategic partnerships at local, state and federal level.

 

 

 

Impact of the Financial Capacity Review

 

The progress of the Financial Capacity Review has seen a number of identified financial initiatives developed that will strengthen our long term financial position including fundamental changes to service cost alignments, Property Development “dividends” and increased investments in Asset Management, ICT and Major Project funding and design. Council recently endorsed these initiatives and the broader community consultation as part  of the 2015-16 Operational Plan. The option that will be consulted includes a potential future Special Rate Variation (SRV) option.  Council’s Long Term Financial Plan acknowledges that the projections to be used for the FFTF submission will be based on the proposed SRV and as a result our performance against these benchmarks is detailed below.

 

Measure/benchmark

2013-14

Status against the FFTF

benchmark

2019-20

With SRV

Status against the FFTF

benchmark

Sustainability

Operating Performance Ratio

(Greater than or equal to

break-even average over 3 years)

 

-4.3%

We currently don’t meet this benchmark

2.4%

We meet this benchmark

Own Source Revenue Ratio (Greater than 60% average over 3 years)

 

67.54%

We meet this benchmark

78.62%

We meet this benchmark

Building and Infrastructure Asset Renewal Ratio (Greater than 100%  average over 3 years)

44.38%

We currently don’t meet this benchmark

Review underway

-

Infrastructure and Services

Infrastructure backlog ratio

(less than 2%)

 

 

4.43%

We currently don’t meet this benchmark

Review underway

-

Asset maintenance ratio  (greater than 100% average over 3 years)

114.10%

We meet this benchmark

101.59%

We meet this benchmark

Debt service

(greater than 0% and less than or equal to 20% average over 3 years)

7.03%

 

We meet this benchmark

6.32%

We meet this benchmark

Efficiency

Real Operating Expenditure per capita

 

A decrease in Real Operating Expenditure per capita over time

0.86

 

-

0.86

We expect to meet this benchmark once finalised by IPART

 

 

 

Overall our Fit for the Future submission is in line with our long term financial plan, Community Plan, Delivery Program and Resourcing strategy.

 

As a Council that meets the Scale and Capacity benchmark we will submit our report to the June Policy Review Committee meeting with reference to our position as a high growth local government that pursues its community’s aspirations and builds strong international and local partnerships.

 

Our key strategies to improve performance against the Sustainability benchmarks in the 2016-20 period are:

·    Implement the Building and Infrastructure Asset Renewal program as outlined in the Asset management strategy.

·    Growth to our own source revenue

·    Improve our operating performance through realisation of targeted cost savings and productivity improvements.

 

Our key strategies to improve performance against the Infrastructure and service management benchmarks in the 2016-20 period are:

·    Introduction of a comprehensive asset management strategy that includes rationalisation of assets

·    The Asset Management Plan will identify asset service standards and asset risk management.

·    Confirmation of service levels; and

·    Scaling of asset standards and levels. The Asset Management Strategy will identify

assets that are critical to the council’s operations, expenditure will be in proportion to standard, level and risk rating.

 

Our key strategies to improve performance against the Efficiency measures in the 2016-20 period are:

·    Introduce service level agreements and service specifications that reduce duplication, double handling, waste of time and effort

·    Improve overall performance to key business processes.

·    Comprehensive improvement plans that show a decrease in operating expenditure per capita over time achieved through savings realised through improved productivity

and efficiency in service delivery and asset management.

 

Conclusion

Council’s actions to initiate a comprehensive Capacity Review, commencing with the Financial Capacity Review in early 2014, has ensured that we were well placed to respond to the NSW Government’s FFTF reforms. A significant amount of work has now been completed and the release of the IPART assessment methodology means that Council’s submission can now be further advanced. This report recommends that Council Officers provide the requested feedback to IPART on the assessment methodology and continue to prepare Council’s FFTF submission in line with the principles detailed in this report and the feedback received from Councillors tonight. A further report on the final FFTF submission will be presented to the June Policy Review Committee meeting prior to it being lodged.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Council's Fit for the Future submission be received.

2.    Council endorses the principles of Penrith City Council’s Fit for the Future submission.

3.    Council Officers review the IPART Fit for the Future assessment methodology and provide comment to IPART as discussed in this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  



 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 11 May 2015

Report Title:            Planning Proposal - Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains (Cnr Russell Street)

Attachments:           Planning Proposal Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains - GHD Report April 2015



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     11 May 2015

Attachment 1 - Planning Proposal Lots 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains - GHD Report April 2015

 

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


 

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


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 11 May 2015

Report Title:            Western Sydney Airport - Badgerys Creek

Attachments:           Western Sydney Alliance's Badgerys Creek Airport: The Environmental "No" Case

                                Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     11 May 2015

Attachment 1 - Western Sydney Alliance's Badgerys Creek Airport: The Environmental "No" Case

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     11 May 2015

Attachment 2 - Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan

 

PDF Creator