Council_Mark_POS_RGB

23 September 2015

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 28 September 2015 at 7:30PM.

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 Tricia  Hitchen - 14 September 2015 to 28 September 2015 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 21 September 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 COUNCIL

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Access Committee Meeting - 12 August 2015.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 31 August 2015.

Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 2 September 2015.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 September 2015.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 14 September 2015.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 28 September 2015

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF PENRITH CITY’S ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CULTURAL HERITAGE

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

COUNCIL CHAMBER seating arrangements

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross

We’ll toil with hearts and hands;

To make this Commonwealth of ours

Renowned of all the lands;

For those who’ve come across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 



Statement of Recognition of

Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage

 

 

Council values the unique status of Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of lands and waters, including the land and waters of Penrith City.

 

Council values the unique status of Torres Strait Islander people as the original owners and custodians of the Torres Strait Islands and surrounding waters.

 

We work together for a united Australia and City that respects this land of ours, that values the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage, and provides justice and equity for all.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

“Sovereign God, tonight as we gather together as a Council we affirm that you are the giver and sustainer of life.  We come together as representatives of our community to make decisions that will benefit this city and the people within it. 

 

We come not in a spirit of competition, not as adversaries, but as colleagues.  Help us to treat each other with respect, with dignity, with interest and with honesty.  Help us not just to hear the words we say, but also to hear each others hearts.  We seek to be wise in all that we say and do.

 

As we meet, our concern is for this city.  Grant us wisdom, courage and strength.

 

Lord, help us.  We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”

 

 

 

 

 


 

Council Chambers

Seating Arrangements


For members of the public addressing the meeting


 

 

 

Lectern


 

 

Executive Managers


 

 

 

Assistant General Manager Craig Butler


Assistant General Manager Barry Husking

General Manager
Alan Stoneham
Her Worship the Mayor Councillor Karen  McKeown


Senior Governance Officer Glenn Schuil






Minute Clerk

MediaClr Marcus Cornish

North Ward

 

Clr Bernard Bratusa

South Ward

 

 

Clr Tricia Hitchen

East Ward

 

 

Clr Ben Goldfinch

South Ward

 

Clr Mark Davies

South Ward

 

 

Clr Jim Aitken OAM

Public GallerySouth Ward

 

 

Clr Kevin Crameri OAM

North Ward

 

 

Clr Maurice Girotto

East Ward

Clr Jackie Greenow OAM

East Ward

 

Clr Michelle Tormey

North Ward

 

Clr Ross Fowler OAM

North Ward

 

Clr John Thain

North Ward

 

Clr Greg Davies

East Ward

 

Clr Prue Car MP

ManagersEast Ward

 

 

Executive Managers


 


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2015 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2015 - December 2015

(adopted by Council on 24/11/14 and amended by Council on 25/5/15 & 27/7/15)

 

 

 

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

22

13

10

14

19

9

7

 

9

9

 

 

 

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

 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 ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2015 AT 7:01PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM read a statement of recognition of Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage.

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by the Rev Neil Checkley.

PRESENT

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

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 24 August 2015

263  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 24 August 2015 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        The Passing of James Bartholomew (Bart) Cummings AM

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.               

264  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the Mayoral Minute on The Passing of James Bartholomew (Bart) Cummings AM be received.

 

2        Year in Review

Councillors John Thain, Mark Davies, Prue Car MP, Greg Davies and Ben Goldfinch spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

The General Manager, Alan Stoneham also spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute and congratulated the Mayor on his term.                                                                                           

265  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the Mayoral Minute on Year in Review be received.

 

Procedural Motion

266  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Prue Car that the order of business be dealt with as Items 4,3,1,2.

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

267  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:35pm.

 

Mr Gary Mottau

 

Mr Gary Mottau, a Director of Hill Rogers Spencer Steer (HR-SS) and Council’s Auditor, addressed Council on the Draft 2014-15 Financial Statements and advised that he would be issuing an unqualified audit report and that the Council's financial position is satisfactory.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

268  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7:38pm.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

4        Draft 2014-15 Financial Statements                                                                                

269  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft 2014-15 Financial Statements be received

2.     Pursuant to s413(2)(c) it is the Council's opinion that:

a.   The financial statements and schedules have been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations, the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting, the Local Government Australian Infrastructure Management Guidelines, and Australian Accounting Standards. The Code requires a phasing in of the new accounting requirements

b.   The statements comply with Australian Statements of Accounting Concepts

c.   The financial statements present fairly the Council's financial position as at 30 June 2015 and the operating result for the year then ended

d.   The statements are in accord with Council's accounting and other records.

3.    Pursuant to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and section 215 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 it is the Council's opinion that:

a.   The accompanying Special Purpose Financial report has been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations, the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting, and the requirements of National Competition Policy. The Code requires the inclusion of various charges and subsidies which are not actually paid or payable.

b.   The report is a special purpose report and is not required to comply with Australian Accounting Standards. The above legislative requirements differ from Australian Accounting Standards and hence the report does not comply with Australian Accounting Standards.

c.   The financial statements present a modelled scenario for comparative purposes. They do not report an actual result.

4.   Council confirm its endorsement of the budget in the knowledge that some of its business activities are not making commercial returns. The existence of notional subsidies represents Council’s commitment to its community service obligations.

5.   The Statements be forwarded to Council's Auditors.

6.   Abandonments for 2014-15 as detailed be written off.

7.   The balance of stores and materials be adjusted in the stores and materials registers in accordance with the various write-offs.

 

3        Councillor Fees                                                                                                                 

270  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Mark Davies that the information contained in the report on Councillor Fees be received.

 

1        Election of Mayor                                                                                                              

271  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Election of Mayor be received.

2.     In the event of more than one Councillor being nominated, Council determine the method of election for the Office of Mayor be open voting, by way of show of hands.

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, handed over to the Returning Officer, (General Manager) Alan Stoneham, to conduct the election of the Mayor.

 

The Returning Officer indicated that he had received two (2) nominations for the position of Mayor and asked whether there were any other nominations.  No other nominations were forthcoming.

 

The Returning Officer stated that the following nominations were in order and that:

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish was nominated by Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM and Marcus Cornish and that Councillor Marcus Cornish accepted the nomination for position of Mayor.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown was nominated by Councillors John Thain, Ross Fowler OAM, Mark Davies, Ben Goldfinch, and that Councillor Karen McKeown accepted the nomination for position of Mayor.

 

The Returning Officer then conducted the ballot.

 

Voting for Councillor Marcus Cornish – Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM, Maurice Girotto, Jim Aitken OAM and Marcus Cornish.

 

Voting for Councillor Karen McKeown – Councillors Prue Car MP, Greg Davies, John Thain, Karen McKeown, Tricia Hitchen, Jackie Greenow OAM, Mark Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Michelle Tormey, Bernard Bratusa and Ross Fowler OAM.

 

The Returning Officer then declared the voting closed and that the result was as follows:

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish  – 4 votes

Councillor Karen McKeown – 11 votes.

 

The Returning Officer then declared Councillor Karen McKeown duly elected as Mayor for the 2015/2016 Mayoral Term.

 

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown then took the chair and thanked her colleagues, friends and family for their support and spoke of her goals and priorities and commitment to working for the betterment of the Penrith community over the next 12 months.

 

A number of the Councillors then congratulated the Mayor on her election.

 

 

2        Election of Deputy Mayor                                                                                                 

272  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Election of Deputy Mayor be received.

2.     Council consider the Election of a Deputy Mayor.

3.     In the event of more than one Councillor being nominated, Council determine the method of election for the Office of Mayor be open voting, by way of show of hands.

4.     In accordance with Section 231 (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, the term of Office of the Deputy Mayor for the 2015/2016 period be the same as the term of Office of the Mayor (until September 2016).

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, handed over to the Returning Officer, (General Manager) Alan Stoneham, to conduct the election of the Deputy Mayor.

 

The Returning Officer indicated that he had received two (2) nominations for the position of Deputy Mayor and asked whether there were any other nominations.  No other nominations were forthcoming.

 

The Returning Officer stated that the following nominations were in order:

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM was nominated by Councillors Mark Davies, John Thain, Karen McKeown and Prue Car MP and that Councillor Ross Fowler OAM accepted the nomination for position of Deputy Mayor.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM was nominated by Councillors Jackie Greenow OAM, John Thain, Karen McKeown and Prue Car MP and that Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM accepted the nomination for position of Deputy Mayor.

 

The Returning Officer then conducted the ballot.

 

Voting for Councillor Ross Fowler OAM – Councillors Prue Car MP, Greg Davies, John Thain, Mark Davies, Ben Goldfinch, Tricia Hitchen, Bernard Bratusa, Ross Fowler OAM, Karen McKeown.

 

Voting for Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM – Councillors Michelle Tormey, Jackie Greenow OAM, Maurice Girotto, Kevin Crameri OAM, Jim Aitken OAM and Marcus Cornish.

 

The Returning Officer then declared the voting closed and that the result was as follows:

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM – 9 votes

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM – 6 votes.

 

The Returning Officer declared Councillor Ross Fowler OAM duly elected as Deputy Mayor for the same period as the 2015/2016 Mayoral Term.

 

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM also thanked his colleagues and spoke of his eagerness to work with the Mayor, as Deputy Mayor for the City of Penrith over the next 12 months.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:11pm.

 



PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

Anyone can request permission to address a meeting, providing that the number of speakers is limited to three in support of any proposal and three against.

 

Any request about an issue or matter on the Agenda for the meeting can be lodged with the General Manager or Public Officer up until 12 noon on the day of the meeting.

 

Prior to the meeting the person who has requested permission to address the meeting will need to provide the Public Officer with a written statement of the points to be covered during the address in sufficient detail so as to inform the Councillors of the substance of the address and a written copy of any questions to be asked of the Council in order that responses to those questions can be provided in due course.

 

In addition, prior to addressing the meeting a person addressing Council or Committee will be informed that they do not enjoy any privilege and that permission to speak may be withdrawn should they make inappropriate comments.

 

It should be noted that persons who wish to address the Council are addressing a formal part of the Council Meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting should give consideration to their dress attire. Smart casual is a minimum that is thought to be appropriate when addressing such a forum.

 

It should be noted that speakers at meetings of the Council or Committee do not have absolute privilege (parliamentary privilege).  A speaker who makes any potentially offensive or defamatory remarks about any other person may render themselves open to legal action.

 

Prior to addressing the meeting the person will be required to sign the following statement:

 

“I (name) understand that the meeting I intend to address on (date) is a public meeting.  I also understand that should I say or present any material that is inappropriate, I may be subject to legal action.  I also acknowledge that I have been informed to obtain my own legal advice about the appropriateness of the material that I intend to present at the above mentioned meeting”.

 

Should a person fail to sign the above statement then permission to address either the Council or Committee will not be granted.

 

The Public Officer or Minute Clerk will speak to those people who have requested permission to address the meeting, prior to the meeting at 7.15pm.

 

It is up to the Council or Committee to decide if the request to address the meeting will be granted.

 

Where permission is to be granted the Council or Committee, at the appropriate time, will suspend only so much of the Standing Orders to allow the address to occur.

 

The Chairperson will then call the person up to the lectern or speaking area.

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·       Their name;

 

·       Organisation or group they are representing (if applicable);

 

·       Details of the issue to be addressed and the item number of the report in the Business Paper;

 

·       Whether they are opposing or supporting the issue or matter (if applicable) and the action they would like the meeting to take;

 

·   The interest of the speaker (e.g. affected person, neighbour, applicant,        applicants spokesperson, interested citizen etc).

 

Each person then has five minutes to make their address.  Those addressing Council will be required to speak to the written statement they have submitted.  Permission to address Council is not to be taken as an opportunity to refute or otherwise the points made by previous speakers on the same issue. 

 

The Council or Committee can extend this time if they consider if appropriate, however, everyone needs to work on the basis that the address will be for five minutes only.

 

Councillors may have questions about the address so people are asked to remain at the lectern or in the speaking area until the Chairperson has thanked them.

 

When this occurs, they should then return to their seat.

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                

   


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 12 August 2015                                                                                                                                              1

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 31 August 2015                                                                                                                                    6

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 2 September 2015                                                                                                         9

 

4        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 September 2015                                                                                                               14

 

5        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 14 September 2015                                                                                                               26

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Access Committee MEETING

HELD ON 12 August, 2015

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM, Farah Madon, Michael Morris, Councillor Marcus Cornish, Councillor Michelle Tormey, Councillor Tricia Hitchen, David Currie (5.03pm), Carole Grayson (5.05pm).

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Joe Ibbitson – Community Programs Coordinator, Robyn Brookes – Disability Services Officer, Robert Craig – Principal Planner, Mathew Rawson – Environmental Planner, Hans Meijer – City Works Manager, Graham Howe – Building Projects Coordinator, Jane Hetherington – Environmental Planner, Colin Wood – Building Compliance Coordinator (5.10pm).

 

GUESTS

Maurice Tulich – Director – Tulich Retirement and Aged Care Services, Be Valenzuela – General Manager – Tulich Family Communities, Brett Stevens – Director Operations – Emcorp Group (evacuation and safety management), Kerry Longford – Consultant Town Planner.

 

APOLOGIES

Apologies were accepted from Denise Heath, Erich Weller and Emma Husar.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Access Committee Meeting - 10 June 2015

The minutes of the Access Committee Meeting of 10 June 2015 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Development Applications Referred To The Access Committee                               

 

DA15/0504        Seniors Housing Development, 123-135 Mulgoa Road, Penrith

 

Robert Craig introduced Mathew Rawson who advised that the development application for the Seniors Housing Development includes 157 independent living units, a 126 bed residential aged care facility, retail services including medical suites, basement carparking, a landscaped courtyard and dementia garden.

 

Carole Grayson arrived at the meeting at 5.05pm.

 

Maurice Tulich thanked the Access Committee for allowing him to give a presentation to the meeting. He gave an overview of Tulich aged care facilities and staff and also advised that they are approved providers under the Aged Care Act.  Tulich facilities support older people to control their own lives and provide a continuum of care.

 

Colin Wood arrived at the meeting at 5.10pm.

 

A variety of units will be provided in the development – one bedroom, one bedroom plus study, two bedroom, two bedroom plus study and three bedroom units.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    Provision of an adult change table in the general area for people visiting the building

·    Shared zone in carparking area

·    Access to medical rooms and pharmacy

·    Redesign of the stairs going down to main area

·    Rethinking the use of curved stairs throughout development

·    Hearing loop to be provided in the theatrette

·    Ramp to be provided next to substation steps

·    Look at the change in the levels from level 1 up

·    Consideration of providing a lift on both sides of the building on level two.

 

Colin Wood stated that overall the Committee was happy with the application.  He undertook to provide advice in writing regarding suggested changes.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM thanked the guests for their presentation.

 

RECOMMENDED

That the information regarding the Seniors Housing Development, 123-135 Mulgoa Road, Penrith be received.

 

Maurice Tulich, Be Valenzuela, Brett Stevens and Kerry Longford left the meeting at 5.50pm.

 

DA15/0536          Recreation Facility, 2-6 John Oxley Avenue, Werrington County

 

Jane Hetherington spoke to the development application which is for a recreation facility including a multifunctional sports centre, a five lane bowling alley, gymnasium, function centre with the capacity for 250 people, café and associated carparking, landscaping and drainage works. 

 

The site is currently vacant.  Six accessible parking spaces are planned with a shared zone located between the spaces.  It is proposed to have three accessible bathrooms – one on the first floor and two on the ground floor – one in the sports centre and another in the bowling alley.

 

There is provision of a passenger lift for people using the function centre on the first floor.  An access report accompanied the development application.

 

Issues discussed by the Committee included:

 

·    Provision of an adult change table

·    Provision of a wall mounted shower

·    A hearing loop to be provided in the function area

·    The southern exits on the ground floor to be ramped

·    An 800mm set down section to be provided in the reception area

·    Right-hand and left-hand transfers to the accessible toilets

·    TGSIs to be provided

·    Path to be provided at Dunheved Road

·    Pathway at main entrance area

·    Set down for bus drop off

·    Lighting and security

·    Concerns about the way the site links to the external road network and existing and proposed pathways.

 

Michael Morris suggested it may be useful to look at material to be presented to the Committee beforehand and guests be briefed about the work of the Access Committee.

 

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Development Applications referred to the Access Committee be received.

 

Robert Craig left the meeting at 6.10pm.

 

The Committee held a supper break at 6.10pm and resumed the meeting at 6.13pm.

 

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

 

3        Inclusive Play Design – New and Redeveloped Playgrounds                                     

John Gordon advised of a framework to ensure that the principles of “inclusive” and “all ability play” are incorporated into all new and redeveloped playgrounds provided in Penrith City.

 

John Gordon advised that six years ago $37,000 a year was allocated for playgrounds.  Currently the playground replacement element of the program is allocated $300,000 annually.

 

Council has 135 playgrounds across the City.  The replacement and/or upgrade of these playgrounds forms part of the Parks Assets Renewal Program which aims to ensure that the park assets are contemporary, fit for purpose and meet community expectations.

 

Elements of inclusive play are being incorporated into all playground replacements as part of the Asset Renewal Program. Council has given endorsement for all abilities elements in future playground upgrades.

 

John Gordon advised that significant strides have been made with the inclusion of inclusive play in playgrounds, citing Thornton, North Penrith and the “Touched by Olivia” all abilities playground at Jordan Springs as examples.

 

David Currie said this was a wonderful move forward, a mindset of inclusion and will make Penrith unique.  Michael Morris commended the work Council is doing in this area and said there has been a great increase in usage.

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM congratulated John Gordon and thanked him for his report.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

 

1.    The information contained in the report on Inclusive Play Design – New and Redeveloped Playgrounds be received.

2.    The provision of ‘Inclusive Play’ be incorporated into the development of the new Recreation Plan for Penrith City.

John Gordon left the meeting at 6.25pm.

 

2        Disability Access Improvement Program                                                                       

Joe Ibbitson presented the report on the Disability Access Improvement Program (DAIP).  The successful outcomes for DAIP for 2014-15 were highlighted.  The preliminary list of proposed DAIP projects and activities for 2015-16 was also discussed.

 

Discussion was held regarding the sliding doors which had been installed at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.  It was noted that advertising placed over the panes of glass made it difficult to detect where the doors are.  It was suggested to provide feedback to the Joan regarding this matter.

 

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Disability Access Improvement Program be received.

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          National Disability Insurance Agency - 331 High Street, Penrith

Joe Ibbitson advised that the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to be located at 331 High Street, Penrith from 31 August 2015, currently has a difficult access into the building. He advised that work is being undertaken by the owners of the building and NDIA to try and resolve this issue.

 

Hans Meijer advised that the existing level area outside the building entry sliding doors will be doubled in width to improve accessibility after negotiations with the building owner, Council staff and NDIA representatives.

 

GB 2          Footpath - High Street, Penrith   

Joe Ibbitson advised that a contract has been organised for design of the proposed new footpath in High Street that will take into account existing entry levels to shopfronts. This work will make the shops on High Street more accessible.

 

GB 3          Disability Inclusion Action Planning Guidelines for Local Government Workshop 

Joe Ibbitson advised of a workshop held on 4 August 2015 with Marrickville Council regarding the Local Government of NSW Guidelines for Disability Inclusion Action Planning.  Approximately 15 people from different sections of Penrith Council are considering what to include in the next iteration of the inclusion plan.  This information will be included in the development of guidelines for councils across NSW.

 

 

 

GB 4          New Design Guideline for SEPP 65     

Farah Madon advised that Objective 4Q-1 of the design guide for SEPP 65 requires development to achieve a benchmark of 20% of the total apartments incorporating the Liveable Housing Guidelines’ silver level universal design features.  Details of the Liveable Housing Guidelines can be viewed at www.livablehousingaustralia.org.au.

 

GB 5          Thornton Stage 2       

Councillor Marcus Cornish advised that he held discussions with the developers of Thornton Stage 2 regarding the width of doorways being a minimum of 920mm and the provision of hobless showers.  It was agreed that this request would be taken into account on all designs at Thornton.

 

GB 6          Request for Removal of Sales Tax or Tariffs from Converted Vehicles  

Councillor Tricia Hitchen advised that her family put in a submission to the Federal Government requesting consideration of the removal of sales tax from vehicles to be converted for use by people with disabilities or for tariffs to be taken off for suitable vehicles which have already come into the country. 

 

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 6.40pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 12 August, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 31 August, 2015

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies and Councillors Prue Car MP (arrived 7:02pm), Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Maurice Girotto, Jackie Greenow OAM, Karen McKeown, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 24 August 2015 to 4 September 2015 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received for Councillors Bernard Bratusa, Ben Goldfinch, Mark Davies and Tricia Hitchen.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 10 August 2015

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 10 August 2015 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 3 - Penrith Affordable Housing Project as Wentworth Community Housing is her landlord.

 

Councillor Prue Car MP arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:02pm.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Western Sydney Airport, Badgerys Creek                                                                     

RECOMMENDED (MOTION)

That the information contained in the report on Western Sydney Airport, Badgerys Creek be received.

RECOMMENDED (AMENDMENT)

That:

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

2.   Council note the position it adopted on 25 May 2015 regarding the Badgerys Creek Airport.

 

The AMENDMENT was PUT.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM called for a DIVISION.

For

Against

Councillor John Thain

Councillor Maurice Girotto

Councillor Prue Car MP

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

Councillor Michelle Tormey

Councillor Karen McKeown

Councillor Marcus Cornish

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

The AMENDMENT was CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was also CARRIED.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM called for a DIVISION.

For

Against

Councillor John Thain

Councillor Maurice Girotto

Councillor Prue Car MP

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

Councillor Michelle Tormey

Councillor Karen McKeown

Councillor Marcus Cornish

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

2        Draft Community Gardens Policy and Guidelines

The Organisational Performance and Development Manager, Fiona Plesman introduced the report and invited Sustainability Co-ordinator Carmel Hamilton to give a presentation.              

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Community Gardens Policy and Guidelines be received.

2.     The draft Community Gardens Policy and Guidelines be endorsed by Council.

 

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

 

3        Penrith Affordable Housing Project

The Community and Cultural Development Manager, Erich Weller introduced the report and gave a presentation.                                                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Affordable Housing Project be received.

2.     Council authorise the General Manager to execute the Deed of Agreement between Council and the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (Housing Agency) as provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

3.     The Council invite the new CEO of Wentworth Community Housing to present to a Council Policy Review Committee Meeting on the Organisation’s vision, plans and directions.

4.     Council thank the Community and Cultural Development Manager, Erich Weller for developing the policy on Affordable Housing.

 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

4        Sustainability Initiatives - draft policy, strategy and targets

The Organisational Performance and Development Manager, Fiona Plesman introduced the report and invited Sustainability Co-ordinator Carmel Hamilton to give a presentation.              

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sustainability Initiatives - draft policy, strategy and targets be received.

2.     The Sustainability Policy, Strategy and associated targets by endorsed by Council.

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 31 August, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Penrith Community Safety Partnership MEETING

HELD ON 2 September, 2015

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Karen McKeown, Penrith City Council; Allison Kyriakakis, Penrith City Council; Barry Vincent, St Marys Local Area Command; Danielle Corliss, St Marys Local Area Command; David Burns, Penrith City Council; Erin Davidson, Penrith City Council; Glenn Cooper, Western Sydney University; Kylie Druett, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Area Health District; Olivia Kidon, Penrith City Council; Kevin Cotter, Education – Safety and Security; Julie Anne Downie, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District – Needle and Syringe Program; Larissa Leatuavao, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District – Needle and Syringe Program; Yvonne Perkins, Penrith City Council; Judy Cobb, Penrith City Council; Brett McFadden, Penrith Local Area Command; Grant Healey, Penrith Local Area Command; Ken Innes, Glenmore Park Residents Group.

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 24 August 2015 to 4 September 2015 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM; Councillor Marcus Cornish, Penrith City Council; Murray Halls, Penrith City Council; Gina Field, Penrith Chamber of Commerce; Tracy Leahy, Penrith City Council; Mark Kearns, Education – Safety and Security; Julie Graham, Penrith Local Area Command; Gai Hawthorn, Penrith CBD Corporation; Robert Drage, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce; Katerina Tahija, Penrith City Council; Julie Page, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Area Health District – Needle and Syringe Program; Gregory Peters, St Marys Local Area Command.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting - 3 June 2015

The minutes of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting of 3 June 2015 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

1        Update on the delivery of projects under the Penrith Community Safety Plan 2013-2016

 

Jamison Park Solar Lighting Project

 

Allison Kyriakakis provided a PowerPoint presentation to update the Partnership on the solar lighting project at Jamison Park. Solar lighting has been installed along a 550 metre section of footpath adjacent to Racecourse Road in response to community reports that this section of footpath was dark and unsafe for night-time use.

 

Solar G were selected to install their ‘light house’ light poles following an assessment of quotations. This was carried out in three stages during June, July and August. Minor cabling was installed near the off leash dog park during stage one (1). 

 

17 light poles were installed in total. Lighting is on a timer function to automatically switch on at dusk and switch off at 9pm.

 

Allison noted that the installation of solar lighting fits in with the Walk Wise project, activating pathways and promoting pedestrian safety at night in this highly utilised location.

 

Walk Wise App

 

Allison provided an update on the Walk Wise App.

 

Community Safety staff are working with Council’s Information Communications and Technology (ICT)  department to assist with the transfer of the App to Council servers. This will require some rewriting of the software. Western Sydney University have been contacted again to seek opportunities for interns to assist with this process.

 

Allison further advised that the University students received a High Distinction for the project.

 

Yvonne advised that there will be a launch event for the Walk Wise project and App once it is finalised.

 

Glenn Cooper advised that the University is undergoing a name change and has been rebranded as Western Sydney University.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown asked if there was an opportunity to write to the University students to thank them for their efforts in creating the App and congratulate them on their High Distinction. Allison advised that the students have been given thank you letters from Council and this would be followed up with congratulatory acknowledgement of the high distinction achieved.

 

Cranebrook Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

 

Allison advised the Partnership that Community Safety received a request from Penrith Police to conduct a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) audit in and around the Cranebrook Housing NSW estate. The audit aimed to look at the physical environment and identify potential treatments that can be implemented to minimise opportunities for crime in the area.

 

Representatives from the Integrated Complex Case Management Panel (ICCMP) were also invited to participate in the audit, including representatives from Housing NSW, Wentworth Area Community Housing and Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services (NCNS).

 

A daytime audit was conducted on Tuesday 28 July 2015 and a night time audit held the following week on Tuesday 4 August 2015.

 

A report is currently being compiled detailing the audit findings and recommendations.

 

 

Update on the Public Spaces CCTV Project – Federal Government Safer Streets Programme

 

Allison advised that the Federal Attorney General’s Department has agreed to extend the Public Spaces CCTV project deadline to June 2016. This will enable cameras to be installed in coordination with upcoming streetscape improvement works in Queen Street, St Marys.

 

The installation of CCTV cameras to High Street and Station Street, Penrith presents some technical challenges regarding camera placement, connection to power and the transmission of data. Community Safety staff are continuing to work with Council’s ICT Department towards suitable solutions.

 

White Ribbon Day Twilight River Walk Event – 25 November 2015

 

Olivia Kidon provided an update on the progress of the White Ribbon Day event for 2015.

 

‘Save the date’ cards were made available to Partnership members to distribute further to promote the event and encourage community participation.

 

Olivia advised that this year’s event will follow a similar format as in previous years. A walk from Weir Reserve to Tench Reserve will be followed by speeches, music entertainment and food stalls. A shuttle bus service will provide transfers from Tench Reserve back to Weir Reserve at the completion of the event.

 

The theme of ‘people in uniform’ will be promoted this year to recognise the role of emergency services in responding to domestic and family violence.

 

Olivia encouraged anyone with event ideas to forward them to the community safety team.

 

NSW Crime Prevention Grant Application

 

Olivia advised that Council’s application to the NSW Department of Justice for Crime Prevention Project Grants Program was unfortunately unsuccessful. Council applied for funding to coordinate a Domestic Violence Forum for the Penrith region and to update the domestic violence referral guide.

 

The Nepean Domestic Violence Network has also reinstated a new community banner with the message ‘Penrith says NO to domestic violence’. The banner is currently hanging on the Penrith Women’s Health Centre balcony at the old Penrith Council Chamber on the corner of Station and Henry Streets, Penrith.

 

Jordan Springs Community Meeting 20 August 2015

 

Olivia advised that Community Safety staff were invited to attend a Q&A panel discussion, along with representatives from Penrith Police and Lend Lease, at Jordan Springs on Thursday 20 August 2015. The community meeting was hosted by Ms Prue Car MP, Member for Londonderry.

 

Olivia noted that approximately 20 residents attended the forum and concerns were mainly minor traffic issues and incidents of anti-social behaviour.

 

Community safety information was distributed on the night and residents were reminded of the importance of reporting to police.

 

         

RECOMMENDED

That the information contained in the report on Update on the delivery of projects under the Penrith Community Safety Plan 2013-2016  be received.

 

 

Regular Items

 

A)      Penrith Local Area Command Crime Statistics

 

Grant Healey reported that the four (4) crime categories are trending on or below target and provided the following update:

 

·    Break and Enter offences are just over target

·    Steal from dwellings are well within business plan targets

·    Steal from retail shops has increased with up to 25% of theft being reported from bottle shops. Grant noted that retail theft has increased in reporting as more businesses are utilising CCTV and employing loss prevention officers.

 

B)   St Marys Local Area Command Crime Statistics

 

Barry Vincent reported that crime categories are on target. Stealing from garages and motor vehicle theft is on the increase in the Werrington area. Stealing from petrol stations and bottle shops has increased with a number of stolen number plates found on vehicles failing to pay for petrol.

 

Barry advised that St Marys Local Area Command are hoping to work with the Traffic and Highway Command at the end of the year to target rural areas.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Outreach Service at Cranebrook

Kylie Druett advised that there is now a Drug and Alcohol outreach clinic operating at Cranebrook in the Neighbourhood Centre on Thursdays from 12noon to 4.00pm.

 

GB 2          Colyton Shopping Centre  

Danielle Corliss invited advice from the Partnership on issues occurring at the small shopping centre on Hewitt Street, Colyton. A number of residents have complained about the congregation of people drinking in front of the TAB and Bottle shop, impacting negatively on perceptions of safety. Alcohol Free Zones are established on streets around the perimeter of the shopping centre and the property manager has installed private alcohol free zones signs within the car park.

 

          Yvonne Perkins provided Danielle with some background to the issues and advised that Council would continue to work with police on possible strategies to assist.

 


 

 

GB 3          Lighting at Floribunda Community Centre            

Ken Innes commented that the lighting at Jamison Park, Penrith has been received well by residents. Ken asked why requests for lighting along the footpath behind Floribunda Community Centre have not been supported by Council, as residents frequently walk this route.

A general discussion followed regarding the assessment of specific locations for lighting installations.

 

David Burns advised that each request for lighting is assessed independently and each location is not the same. The meeting was advised that lighting is not recommended for this location as there is minimal passive surveillance.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 4.15pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 2 September, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 7 September, 2015

 

 

 

PRESENT

Councillor Marcus Cornish, Councillor Karen McKeown (Representative for Member for Londonderry), Mark Elliott – St Marys LAC, Wayne Mitchell (Chair) – Executive Manager Environment and City Development, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, David Drozd – Traffic Engineering Coordinator, Bernie Meier – Signs and Linemarking Officer, Steven Purvis – Senior Ranger, Daniel Davidson – Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes – Senior Traffic Officer, Graham Green – Senior Traffic Engineer, Catherine Waerner – Road Safety Officer, Caitlin Bailey – Trainee Engineer, James Suprain – Roads and Maritime Services, Mark Carruthers – Roads and Maritime Services, Steve Grady – Busways.

 

ABSENT

Matt Shirvington – Penrith LAC.

 

APOLOGIES

Councillor Tricia Hitchen (Representative for Member for Penrith), Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 3 August 2015

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 3 August 2015 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

1        High and Riley Streets, Penrith - Christmas Tree Lighting Event, Friday 6 November, 2015                                                                                                                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on High and Riley Streets, Penrith - Christmas Tree Lighting Event, Friday 6 November, 2015  be received.

2.       Approval be given for the temporary closure of High Street, Penrith, between Station Street and the Triangle Park; and Riley Street, Penrith, between Henry and High Streets, on Friday 6 November 2015 between 2.00pm to 11.00pm, subject to the following conditions:

a)   The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 2 Event under the “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified in the Guide must be complied with prior to the event.

b)  A Traffic Management Plan including a Risk Management Plan be lodged by the event applicant with the Roads and Maritime Services and Traffic Management Centre for approval, prior to the event.  A copy of the Roads and Maritime Services approval must be submitted to Council prior to the event.

c)  The event applicant obtains separate approval from the NSW Police and submits a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council prior to the event.

d)  The event applicant submits to Council a copy of Public Liability Insurance (usually a Certificate of Currency) of minimum $10 million, 30 days prior to the event.  In addition, the event applicant indemnifies Council, in writing, against all claims for damage and injury which may result from the proposed event.

e)  A detailed Traffic Control Plan be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police prior to the event.  The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how a minimum 4.0m emergency lane is maintained at all times during the event.

f)  The event applicant arrange to place barricades and provide Roads and Maritime Services accredited Traffic Controllers where required by the approved Traffic Management Plan.  Where the Traffic Management and Traffic Control Plans indicate Traffic Controllers are to be used, all Traffic Controllers must have current Roads and Maritime Services certification.

g)  The event applicant provides advice to Council prior to the event that the event complies with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001.

h)  The event applicant advertise the proposed temporary road closure in local newspapers a minimum of two weeks prior to the event, and provide variable message signs (VMS) in appropriate locations a minimum of one week prior to the event, with the locations of the VMS boards submitted to Council for endorsement prior to their erection.  VMS boards should be located in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services Technical Direction TDT2002/11c.

i)   The event applicant arranges an information letterbox drop and personal communication to all business proprietors, property owners/tenants, residents and other occupants in the affected streets two weeks prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements must be resolved by the applicant or referred back to Council for consideration.

j)   Signposting advising the date and time of all closures be provided by the event organiser and be provided two weeks prior to the event.  The applicant is to liaise with the Roads and Maritime Services regarding size of sign and text height.

k)  The event applicant notifies the Ambulance Service of NSW, fire brigades (Fire & Rescue NSW and NSW Rural Fire Service) and NSW State Emergency Service of the proposed event and submits a copy of the notification to Council prior to the event.

l)   The event applicant notifies private bus companies of the proposed event and submits a copy of the notification to Council prior to the event.  Bus companies shall be requested to advertise the changed route for affected buses at least one week prior to, and during, the event.

m) Should the consultation process resolve to temporarily relocate bus stops or bus routes that were not indicated in the original Traffic Management Plan, a further report be required to be submitted to the next available Local Traffic Committee meeting.

n)  The event applicant ensures that noise control measures are in place as required by the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000.

3.     The applicant be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

2        Factory Road, Regentville - Proposed Stop Signage and Line Marking at Mulgoa Road Intersection                                                                                                              

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Factory Road, Regentville - Proposed Stop Signage and Line Marking at Mulgoa Road Intersection be received.

2.     Stop signage and associated line marking be provided at the intersection of Factory Road and Mulgoa Road, Regentville as shown on Appendix 1.

3.     The resident who reported the matter and the residents adjacent to the affected intersection of Factory Road and Mulgoa Road, Regentville be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

3        Fowler Street and Blackwood Street, Claremont Meadows - Proposed Signage and Line Marking                                                                                                                      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Fowler Street and Blackwood Street, Claremont Meadows - Proposed Signage and Line Marking be received.

2.     Give Way signage and associated line marking be provided on Fowler Street at Blackwood Street, Claremont Meadows as shown on Appendix 1.

3.     Temporary “No Stopping” signage be provided on Blackwood Street for the length of the route diversion as shown on Appendices 1 and 2.

4.     The resident who reported the matter be advised of Council’s resolution

 

 

 

 

 

4        Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook - Endorsement for Signage and Line Marking Plans

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook - Endorsement for Signage and Line Marking Plans be received.

2.     The signage and line marking plans prepared by Henry & Hymas for Borrowdale Way, Cranebrook (Plan No. 13709_CC_C700, Issue 05, dated 24 July 2015, Plan No. 13709_CC_C701, Issue 03, dated 24 July 2015, Plan No. 13709_CC_C702, Issue 02, dated 22 July 2015 and; Plan No. 13709_CC_C703, Issue 03, dated 30 July 2015) be endorsed for construction (as shown in Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4).

3.     All associated signage and line marking is to be installed in accordance with Australian Standards.

4.     Henry & Hymas be advised of Council’s resolution.

5.     All costs associated with the installation of the construction of the pedestrian refuge and the associated signage and line marking be funded by the applicant.

6.     A street lighting assessment be conducted in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy (August 2004) to ensure compliance with the relevant lighting category be funded by the applicant.

 

 

5        "Ironman 70.3 - Sydney 2015" Event - Sunday 29 November, 2015                            

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on "Ironman 70.3 - Sydney 2015" Event - Sunday 29 November, 2015  be received.

2.    The event applicant be advised that this is a Class 2 Event under the “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events”, and that all conditions and requirements specified must be complied with prior to the event.

3.    The Traffic Management Plan be approved for the temporary closure of:

 

*      McCarthy’s Lane, between gate and Castlereagh Road

*      Old Castlereagh Road, between SIRC and Castlereagh Road

*      Castlereagh Road, between Andrews Road and Brooks lane

*      Brooks Lane, between Castlereagh Road and Wilshire Road

*      Wilshire Road, between Brooks Lane and Jockbett Road

*      Jockbett Road, between Wilshire Road and The Driftway

*      The Driftway, between Castlereagh Road and Londonderry Road

*      Hinxman Road, between Castlereagh Road and Post Office Road

*      Post office Road, between Hinxman Road and Devlin Road;

 

from 4.30am to 12.00pm on Sunday 29 November 2015 for the cycle leg of the “Ironman 70.3 – Sydney 2015” event, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.    A Traffic Management Plan including a Risk Management Plan be lodged by the event applicant with the Roads and Maritime Services for approval, prior to the event.  A copy of the Roads and Maritime Services approval must be submitted to Council prior to the event.

b.    The event applicant obtain separate approval from the NSW Police and submit a Schedule 1 Form under the Summary Offences Act to the NSW Police prior to the event.  A copy of the NSW Police approval must be submitted to Council prior to the event.

c.    The applicant consult in person with all residents and businesses along Castlereagh Road affected by the proposed closures and make arrangements as required for access to their properties throughout the event.

d.    The event applicant submit to Council a copy of Public Liability Insurance (usually a Certificate of Currency) of minimum $10 million, 30 days prior to the event.  In addition, the event applicant indemnify Council in writing against all claims for damage and injury which may result from the proposed event.

e.    A detailed Traffic Control Plan be prepared by a qualified and certified professional and submitted to Council, the Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police prior to the event.  The Traffic Control Plan shall detail how a minimum 4.0m emergency lane is maintained at all times during the event.

f.     The event applicant arrange to place barricades and provide Roads and Maritime Services accredited Traffic Controllers where required by the approved Traffic Management Plan.  Where the Traffic Management and Traffic Control Plans indicate Traffic Controllers are to be used, all Traffic Controllers must have current Roads and Maritime Services certification.

g.    The event applicant provide advice to Council prior to the event that the event complies with the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and the NSW Occupational Health & Safety Regulations 2001.

h.    The event applicant advertise the proposed temporary road closures in local newspapers a minimum of two weeks prior to the event, and provide variable message signs (VMS) in appropriate locations a minimum of two weeks prior to the event, with the locations of the VMS boards submitted to Council for endorsement prior to their erection.  VMS boards should be located in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Services Technical Direction TDT2002/11c.

i.     The event organiser notify the Ambulance Service of NSW and fire brigades (Fire & Rescue NSW and NSW Rural Fire Service) and NSW State Emergency Services of the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council prior to the event.

j.     The event applicant notify private bus companies of the proposed event and submit a copy of the notification to Council prior to the event.  Bus companies shall be requested to advertise the changed route for affected buses at least one week prior to, and during, the event.

k.    Should the consultation process resolve to temporarily relocate bus stops or bus routes that were not indicated in the original Traffic Management Plan, a further report be required to be submitted to the next available Local Traffic Committee meeting.

l.     The event applicant ensure that noise control measures are in place as required by the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000.

m.   The event applicant advise competitors to obey road rules and Police directions during the event.

4.    Any proposed speed limit reductions are subject to the separate approval of the Roads and Maritime Services.

5.    All works as part of this approval be conducted at no cost to Council.

                   6.    The applicant be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

6        Caddens Rise Stage 3 - Endorsement for Signage and Line Marking Plan               

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Caddens Rise Stage 3 - Endorsement for Signage and Line Marking Plan be received.

2.     The signage and line marking plans prepared by J. Wyndham Prince for Caddens Rise, Stage 3 (Plan No. 9336/CC338, Issue D, dated 27 June 2013) be endorsed for construction (as shown in Appendix 1).

3.     All associated signage and line marking is to be installed in accordance with Australian Standards.

4.     J. Wyndham Prince be advised of Council’s resolution.

5.     All costs associated with the installation of the signage and line marking be funded by the applicant.

 

 

7        Hewitt Street, Colyton - Proposed Pedestrian Facility                                                 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Hewitt Street, Colyton - Proposed Pedestrian Facility be received.

2.     A project be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Program for the design and construction of an appropriate pedestrian facility on Hewitt Street at Huddleston Avenue, Colyton.

3.     When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co‑ordinator be requested to prepare a design for the facilities, with a further report submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for design plan finalisation and endorsement.

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

 

 

 

 

 

8        Nepean Street, Emu Plains - Adjustments to "No Stopping" signage and linemarking at existing Pedestrian Refuge                                                                    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Nepean Street, Emu Plains - Adjustments to "No Stopping" signage and linemarking at existing Pedestrian Refuge be received.

2.     The “No Stopping” zone on the eastern side of Nepean Street be extended approximately 14 metres to the south, at the driveway of No 8 Nepean Street.

3.     The single barrier linemarking at the south of the refuge be removed.

4.     Double barrier linemarking be installed south of the chevron to align with the “No Stopping” zone above (approximately 6 metres).

5.     Residents/owners of No 2-6 and No 8 Nepean Street, Emu Plains be notified of the above adjustments.

6.     Subject to no substantial objections being received, the works be implemented.

 

 

9        Cooee Avenue, Glenmore Park - Adjustment of Existing Double Barrier Centre Line Marking and Provision of "No Stopping" Signage                                                       

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Cooee Avenue, Glenmore Park - Adjustment of Existing Double Barrier Centre Line Marking and Provision of "No Stopping" Signage” be received.

2.     The existing double barrier centre line marking be adjusted and “No Stopping” sign posting be provided at the bend in Cooee Avenue, Glenmore Park as shown on Appendix 1.

3.     Adjacent residents be informed.

 

 

10      Wrench Street, Cambridge Park - Proposed New and Relocated Bus Stops           

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Wrench Street, Cambridge Park - Proposed New and Relocated Bus Stops be received.

2.     The installation of two new bus stops (at the public reserve on the western side of Wrench Street at House Number 129 and at the eastern kerb at the side boundary of House Number 94, Wrench Street) and relocated bus stops (presently located in front of House Number 3, Cambridge Street, relocated to property boundary of Cambridge Park High School and House Number 60, Wrench Street, and presently adjacent to the public reserve opposite House Number 3, Cambridge Street, relocated to the same public reserve and opposite House Number 60, Wrench Street) be endorsed for installation.

3.     All costs associated with the installation and relocation of bus stops be funded by Busways.

 

 

11      Kurrajong and Boronia Roads, St Marys - Endorsement of Design Plan AK054     

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Kurrajong and Boronia Roads, St Marys - Endorsement of Design Plan AK054 be received.

2.     Design Plan AK054 (date August 2015) be endorsed for construction, with funding provided from the 2015/16 Nation Building Black Spot Program.

3.     A street lighting assessment be conducted in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy (August 2004) to ensure compliance with the relevant lighting category.

4.     Council notify all affected residents of the proposed changes.

 

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1          Jordan Springs Village 5 – Endorsement of Signage and Line        Marking Plan          

Council has received four signage and linemarking plans from J. Wyndham Prince for Jordan Springs Village 5 (Plan No. 9343/03CC63, Issue E, dated 28 July 2015, Plan No. 9343/03CC64, Issue G, dated 31 July 2015, Plan No. 9343/03CC65, Issue G, dated 31 July 2015, and Plan No. 9343/03CC66, Issue G, dated 31 July 2015). 

 

In summary, Plan No. 9343/03CC63 to Plan No. 9343/03CC66 proposes a built median to promote left in-left out traffic movements at the intersection of Road 6 and Road 1 with 10m lead in double barrier centre line marking and an additional 95m of double barrier line marking along a swept bend on Road 1.  Jordan Springs Village 5 is an approved residential development and the proposed signage and line marking plans are consistent with this type of development.

 

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

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the signage plan was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Police for comments, and no objections were raised.

 

All costs associated with the installation of the signage shall be funded by the applicant.

 

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    The signage plan prepared by J. Wyndham Prince for Jordan Springs, Village 5 (Plan No. 9343/03CC63, Issue E, dated 28 July 2015, Plan No. 9343/03CC64, Issue G, dated 31 July 2015, Plan No. 9343/03CC65, Issue G, dated 31 July 2015, and Plan No. 9343/03CC66, Issue G, dated 31 July 2015) be endorsed for construction (as shown in Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4).

2.    All associated signage and line marking is to be installed in accordance with the Australian Standards.

3.    All costs associated with the installation of the signage be funded by the applicant.

4.    J. Wyndham Prince be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

GB 2          St Marys Southwest Precinct LATM Scheme - Design Plan                      Endorsement    

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of design plans for St Marys Southwest Precinct. The report recommends that the design plans (AW148, AW149, and AP110 dated August and September 2015) be endorsed for construction.

 

The Local Traffic Committee (LTC), at its meeting of 2 March 2015, considered a report on “St Marys Southwest Precinct - Concept Proposal for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Scheme”.  The report considered the proposal for a number of traffic calming devices appropriately spaced throughout the precinct and recommended that a project for the design and construction of the devices be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Program.

 

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 23 March 2015, resolved on the recommendation of the Committee, that:

 

“1.   The information contained in the report on St Marys Southwest Precinct - Concept Proposal for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Scheme be received.

2.    Consultation be undertaken with all residents within the area generally bounded by the Great Western Highway, Mamre Road, Hall Street and Pages Road, regarding the concept plan for proposed traffic calming treatments as part of the LATM scheme.

3.    Following the community consultation process, the project for St Marys Southwest Precinct LATM be entered into Council’s Traffic Facilities Prioritisation Process.  When the project receives priority against other listed sites, Council’s Design Co‑ordinator be requested to prepare a design for the facilities, with a further report submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for design plan finalisation and endorsement.

4.    “No Trucks” signage with 3-tonne load limit be implemented in the St Marys Southwest Precinct as shown in Appendix 2.

5.    The proposed tonnage limit be advertised in local newspapers and Government Gazette for a period of 2 weeks.

6.    Roads and Maritime Services and Council’s Ranger Services be advised of Council’s resolution with regard to the proposed tonnage limit.

 

Council’s Design Section has now provided detailed Design Plans for two (2) Pedestrian Refuge Islands and one (1) Median Island Intersection Treatment, which constitutes stage two of the overall LATM scheme. The overall project cost, which also includes six (6) “Watts Profile” Speed Humps, is estimated to be approximately $130,000 and is to be funded from the 2015/16 Major Traffic Facilities program. Council’s Design Section advises that the facilities are designed to comply with Design requirements of the Austroads Standards (which is a service vehicle as per attached).

 

It is recommended that a further period of consultation be undertaken with residents now that detailed design plans are available, including copies of relevant portions of Council’s Design Plan to be sent to affected residents for comment. Subject to no substantial objections, it is recommended that Council’s Design Plans (AW148, AW149, and AP110 dated August and September 2015) be finalised and endorsed for construction.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    Further consultation be undertaken with affected residents, including copies of relevant portions of Council’s Design Plan, with any substantial objections to be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

2.    Subject to no substantial objections, Council’s Design Plans (AW148, AW149, and AP110 dated August and September 2015) be finalised and endorsed for construction, to be funded from the 2015/16 Major Traffic Facilities program.

3.    A lighting assessment be undertaken at the abovementioned locations.

4.    Letters be sent to Visy and SIMS Metal advising of the load limit restrictions once they have been implemented.

 

 

GB 3          Welcome to Kristy Enman 

Kristy Enman was welcomed to the Local Traffic Committee by the Engineering Services Manager.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

 

GB 4          New Busways Timetable - Region 1 - Effective Sunday 29     November 2015 (Raised Steve Grady - Busways)

Steve Grady of Busways advised the Committee that there will be changes to the Region 1 Timetable effective Sunday 29 November 2015. The Region 1 area encompasses  Warragamba to Wisemans Ferry, Blacktown to Mt Tomah.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

GB 5          St Marys Festival -  Commendation     

Steve Grady of Busways advised the Committee that the St Marys Festival was conducted well from a traffic perspective, with no adverse impact on buses.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

 

GB 6          Recent Roadworks in Penrith LGA - Commendation    

Steve Grady of Busways advised the Committee that consultation processes during recent roadworks around the Penrith LGA have been excellent, with contractors advising bus companies well in advance.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

 

GB 7          Russell Street, Emu Plains - Adverse Road Pavement Conditions Between the Great Western Highway and Forbes Street,                       Emu Plains        

Councillor Marcus Cornish advised the Committee that the road pavement on Russell Street, Emu Plains (between the Great Western Highway and Forbes Street, Emu Plains) contains surface failure and requires repair.

RECOMMENDED

That City Works be advised of the issue and arrangements be made for        repairs.

 

GB 8          M4 Motorway - Upgrade Works  

Councillor Marcus Cornish advised the Committee of representations he recently made to the Premier requesting the upgrade of the M4 to 5 lanes in each direction between Penrith and Parramatta. Councillor Marcus Cornish expressed disappointment in this Government’s approach to the supply of services to Western Sydney residents.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

GB 9          Road Fatality on The Northern Road, Mulgoa - Friday 4         September 2015

Senior Constable Mark Elliott from St Marys LAC advised the Committee of a fatality that occurred on The Northern Road, Mulgoa, just north of Park Road last Friday 4 September 2015. The matter is subject to investigation.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

 

GB 10        Maintenance Agreement for Footpaths and Roads within Jordan Springs    

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested clarification of the maintenance period of roads and footpaths within Jordan Springs. Councillor Marcus Cornish understood that the developer (Lend Lease) has an obligation to maintain these assets for the first 5 years. Council’s Engineering Services Manager, Mr Adam Wilkinson, advised the Committee that Jordan Springs is managed in the same manner as similar residential release areas; that is, Council owns the assets from the time of subdivision release, but the developer is responsible for any maintenance should such be required in the first 12 months only.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 September, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 14 September, 2015

 

 

 

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car MP, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Mark Davies, Maurice Girotto, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow OAM, Karen McKeown and John Thain.

 

UB 1           Leave of Absence      

Leave of Absence was previously requested by Councillor Tricia Hitchen for the period 14 September 2015 to 28 September 2015 inclusive.

 

RECOMMENDED  that the matter be brought forward and dealt with 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.

 

RECOMMENDED that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Tricia Hitchen from 14 September 2015 to 28 September 2015 inclusive.

 

 APOLOGIES

An apology was received for Councillor Michelle Tormey.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 31 August 2015

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 31 August 2015 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 7:06pm.

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession) as he is a resident of Mulgoa.

 

Councillor Mark Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession) as his wife is a Member of Parliament as the Member for Mulgoa and indicated that he will leave the room during the debate and consideration of this item.

 

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 3 - Penrith CBD Corporation Business Plan 2015-16 as he is the Auditor for Penrith CBD Corporation and indicated that he will vacate the Chair and that the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, would take the Chair during the debate and consideration of this item.

 


 

Councillor Karen McKeown declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession) as her husband owns a printing business and one of the persons addressing the meeting tonight, Dr Adrian Sheen, is a customer of her husband. Councillor McKeown indicated that during the Addressing the Meeting concerning this item and whilst the item is being debated and considered she will leave the room.


SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Standing Orders were suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:07pm.

 

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 7:07pm.

 

ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

Mr Tristan Kell

 

Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) – 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa

 

Mr Kell, Planning Consultant for the applicant, spoke in support of the report. He indicated that the proposal is compatible and suitable. Mr Kell indicated that the bio banking proposed by the proponents is an appropriate proposal.

 

Having declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession), Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 7:10pm.

 

Dr Adrian Sheen

 

Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) – 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa

 

Dr Sheen,  an affected neighbour, spoke against the report. He expressed his concerns for the proposed rezoning application. Dr Sheen indicated that the proposal will have effects on the conservation of the critically endangered shale transitional forest and there will also be effects on the fauna. He also highlighted the bush fire risks that may result as a consequence of the application being approved and discussed the various access issues during emergencies. He also alluded to the fact that the application is not in line with the Penrith LEP 2010. Dr Sheen concluded by passing around to Councillors an image showing access issues in the area.

 

Lisa Harrold

 

Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) – 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa

 

Ms Harrold, representing the Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group, spoke against the report. She expressed her concerns regarding the resulting obstruction of wildlife movement and the security and conservation of highly sensitive ecosystems should development be approved. Ms Harrold also raised bushfire impact issues regarding the development. She highlighted that the BioBanking process is flawed given that any BioBank agreement could be affected should BioBanking be repealed by the State Government in the future. She also mentioned that any residual lot should be rezoned to E1 so that it is protected from being sub-divided in the future. Ms Harrold concluded by saying that a “Pandora’s box” may be opened for future spot rezoning in other parts of Mulgoa and may set a precedent should the application be approved.

Peter Harvey

 

Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) – 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa

 

Mr Harvey, President of the Mulgoa Progress Association, spoke against the report. He indicated that there are environmental disposal issues associated with the application and that important natural habitats will be affected. Mr Harvey indicated that when Council makes a decision on this matter it needs to ensure that it does not create a precedent for future rezoning in the Mulgoa area.

 

RECOMMENDED that an extension of time be granted to enable the speaker to complete his address, the time being 7:25pm.

 

Mr Harvey concluded by saying that Council needs to carefully consider this application to ensure that the aesthetic features of the Mulgoa landscape is maintained.

 

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

Standing Orders were resumed, the time being 7:31pm.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession)                                            

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 1 – Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession), Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting the time being, 7:31pm.

Development and Environmental Health Manager, Paul Lemm introduced the report and gave a presentation.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:10pm.

 

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:12pm.

 

Councillors John Thain and Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:13pm.

 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Rezoning Application (RZ15/0001) - 88-89 Nepean Gorge Drive, Mulgoa (Owner) Angas Securities Limited (as Mortgagee in Possession) be received.

2.     The Planning Proposal provided as Attachment 4 be sponsored for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway Process.

3.     The Minister be requested to delegate his authority for Council to finalise and make the proposed amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.

4.     Consultation with New South Wales Government Agencies be undertaken in accordance with any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

5.     The Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition in accordance with any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

6.     A report be presented to Council on the submissions received during 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 Prue Car MP

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Maurice Girotto                       

Councillor John Thain

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

Councillor Bernard Bratusa   

Councillor Marcus Cornish

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

 

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less Than Significant in Item 3 - Penrith CBD Corporation Business Plan 2015-16, His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, vacated the Chair, and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies took the Chair for the debate and consideration of this item, the time being 8:30pm.

 

3        Penrith CBD Corporation Business Plan 2015-16

Place Manager, Jeni Pollard introduced the report and invited Gai Hawthorn, CEO – Penrith CBD Corporation to give a presentation.

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 8:30pm.

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:31pm.

Councillor Prue Car MP left the meeting, the time being 8:30pm and did not return to the meeting.

 

Councillors Marcus Cornish and Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:30pm.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:33pm.

 

Councillor Maurice Girotto left the meeting, the time being 8:37pm.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:37pm.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:39pm.

 

Councillors Maurice Girotto and Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:39pm.

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish returned to the meeting, the time being 8:42pm.

         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith CBD Corporation Business Plan 2015-16 be received.

2.     Council receive the Annual Operation Report 2014-15.

3.     Council endorse the Triennial Business Plan (Year 3) 2015-16 for the Penrith CBD Corporation.

 

 

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies then vacated the Chair and His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM took the Chair, the time being 8:42pm.

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

4        2014-15 Year in Review

Assistant General Manager, Craig Butler and Assistant General Manager/CFO, Barry Husking introduced the report and gave a presentation.

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:43pm.

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:44pm.

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 8:45pm.

Councillor Greg Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 8:49pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:52pm.

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:56pm.

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:59pm.

Councillor Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 9:05pm.

Councillor Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 9:07pm.                                

RECOMMENDED that the information contained in the report on 2014-15 Year in Review be received.

 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

2        City-wide Advocacy Program                                                                                          

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on City-wide Advocacy Program be received.

2.     Council endorse the Flagship Priorities identified in this report as the basis for major advocacy campaigning over the next two years.

3.     Council officers continue to advocate for the issues identified as “Business as Usual” on a regular basis, and as specific opportunities arise, through our current programs and Departmental portfolios.

 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

5        Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors                                                                                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be received.

2.     Council advertise for 28 days a public notice of its intention to adopt the amended Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors.

3.     A further report be presented to Council at the conclusion of the exhibition period.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:29pm.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 14 September, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

1        Tender Reference 14/15-26 Weekly Council News Page & Quarterly Community Newsletter                                                                                                                           1

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

2        Proposed Suburb Name for the Central Precinct, St Marys ADI Site                               7

 

3        Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - housekeeping amendment

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                16

 

4        Minor Amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 to correct the property description of land at Dunheved Circuit St Marys in Schedule 4

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                19

 

5        Development Application DA15/0506 Construction of a detached brick garage and concrete in-ground swimming pool  Lot 233 DP 270417 (No.) 15 Pennard Cres, Luddenham Applicant: Luke Kelly;  Owner: ~Luke & Christine Kelly

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                22

 

6        Development Application DA14/1550.01 Section 96 Application for Modifications to the Subdivision Layout (Village 6), Jordan Springs Lot 1125 DP1158660 Ninth Avenue, Jordan Springs Applicant: Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner: ~St Marys Land Limited

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                31

 

7        Development Application DA14/0622.02 Section 96 Modification to Approved Earthworks, Shed and Truck Parking Including Amendment of the Approved Shed Location, Shed Design, Operational Conditions of Consent and Lighting at Lot 122 DP709303 (No. 41-47) Jolly Street, Castlereagh Applicant: Ty Gosling;  Owner: ~Ty and Deanne Gosling

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                51

 

8        Development Application DA15/0800 for a Torrens Title Subdivision of 3 lots into 2 lots at Lots 75 and 76 Section G DP 1613 and Lot 6 DP 739547, No. 3 Horace Street Cranebrook   Applicant: Penrith City Council;  Owner: ~Penrith City Council

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                65

 

9        Greater Sydney Commission                                                                                           81

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

10      Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2015/16 Road Funding Grants                            86

 

11      Tender Reference RFT 15/16-03 Concrete Maintenance Works: Footpath and Kerb and Gutter                                                                                                                                88

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

12      Charity Clothing Bins                                                                                                        98

 

13      Tender Reference 15/16-05 Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue Glenmore Park                       103

 

14      Maintenance of Playgrounds and Parks                                                                        107

 

15      Tender Reference RFT 14/15-31 Provision of Gravedigging Services                        109

 

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

16      56th Annual Floodplain Management Australia Conference - Tuesday 17 to Friday 20 May 2016                                                                                                                                116

 

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

 

17      NSW Family and Community Services Targeted Earlier Intervention Programs - Sector Consultation Paper                                                                                                         122

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

18      Licence Agreement over Part 384-386 Mulgoa Road, Glenmore Park to Penrith City Council                                                                                                                            134

 

19      Audit Committee                                                                                                             139

 

20      2015-16 Financial Assistance Grant                                                                              144

 

21      Penrith Business Alliance                                                                                               147

 

22      Outcome of Land and Environment Court Appeal - Penrith Lakes Development Corporation v Penrith City Council                                                                                                     151

 

23      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 August 2015 to 31 August 2015 153

 

 

                                                                                     


Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Tender Reference 14/15-26 Weekly Council News Page & Quarterly Community Newsletter                                                                                                                           1

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

1

Tender Reference 14/15-26 Weekly Council News Page & Quarterly Community Newsletter   

 

Compiled by:               Laura Schuil, Supply Officer - Contracts

Carl Spears, Principal Communications Officer

Authorised by:            Barbara Magee, Manager - Corporate Communications, Marketing and Customer Service  

 

Outcome

We can work close to home

Strategy

Diversify the region's economy and attract investment, particularly targeting new and emerging employment sectors

Service Activity

Market the City through campaigns that build on its strengths and identity

      

 

Executive Summary

The tender RFT 14/15-26 for the provision of a weekly council news page and quarterly Community Newsletter was advertised in the Western Weekender on 17 April 2015 and Sydney Morning Herald on 21 April 2015. The tender closed on 13 May 2015.

 

The report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tender from the Western Weekender be accepted for the full scope of works outlined in the RFT 14/15-26.

 

Background

Council provides information to the community in a variety of ways including through a weekly page in a local newspaper and a quarterly community newsletter delivered with a local newspaper.

 

Some notices that seek community comment such as Development Applications and road closures are required by legislation to be advertised in a local newspaper.

 

For the past two years Western Weekender has held the contract for both the weekly council news page and quarterly Community Newsletter. This contract has now ended.

 

The evaluation for a new contract went to an Advertising Working Party (AWP) meeting on 8 September 2014 where it was recommended by the AWP to place Council’s weekly news page with the Western Weekender for a further two years and place Council’s quarterly Community Newsletter with the Penrith Gazette/St Marys Star for the next two years.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 27 October 2014, it was recognised that should one publication be successful in securing a contract for both the weekly news page and quarterly Newsletter for multiple years that the total value would exceed the threshold of initiation of a tender process. As this was a possibility, Council decided to undertake this tender process.

 

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Manager Corporate Communications, Marketing and Customer Service, Principal Communications Officer Carl Spears and Supply Officer-Contracts Laura Schuil. The evaluation criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

•        Business References

•        Demonstrated Ability

•        Works Method and Program

•        Financials

•        Employment Policies (Apprenticeships)

•        Quality Assurance Systems

•        Environmental Management Systems

•        Work Health & Safety

 

Initial Tender Review

Five tenders were received and the full listing of the tenders is detailed below in annualised price (ex GST).

                  

Company

Tendered Price         

Company Location

Directors

Readership

Comacom

Weekly News page

$520,000

 

Community Newsletter

$204,000

 

23 Finlow Street, Botanic Ridge, Victoria, 3977

Donna Groves

N/A

Miles Finlay

No price given

1/63 Old Barrenjoey Road, Avalon, NSW, 2107

 

Miles Finlay

N/A

Newscorp

(Penrith Press and Mt Druitt and St Marys Standard)

Weekly News page (placed in early general news)

 

$70,000 (1 page)

 

Community Newsletter

$44,000

 

2 Holt Street, Surry Hills, NSW  2010

Ian Philip   

Julian Clarke

Peter Tonagh

Jeremy Harris

Susan Panuccio

Penrith Press 58,000

 

Mt Druitt and St Marys Standard

51,000

Penrith City Gazette and St Marys Star

 

Weekly News Page (placed in early general news)

 

$60,000 (1 page)

$116,000 (2 pages)

$168,000

(3 pages)

 

Community Newsletter

$44,080 (Newsprint)

$52,000 (gloss)

 

Suite 8,308 High Street, Penrith, NSW, 2750

Wholly owned subsidiary of Fairfax Media and publicly listed

Penrith City Gazette

47,288 (distribution figure)

 

St Marys Star 35,547 (distribution figure)

Western Weekender

Weekly News Page (placed on page 9 in early general news)

 

$49,500 (1 page)

$92,500 (2 pages)

$132,500

(3 pages)

 

Community Newsletter

$19,960 (Newsprint)

2/42-44 Abel Street, Jamisontown, NSW, 2750

Charles Kaye

59,600 (distribution figure)

                            

Tenders submitted by Comacon and Miles Finlay did not demonstrate an ability to meet the parameters of the tender. The Committee were of the opinion that there was no advantage to give further consideration to these tenders.

 

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

Following an initial assessment, the tender from The Western Weekender was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to be providing the highest value for money compared to the next on the ranking list in terms of effectiveness and prices.

 

The recommended Company The Western Weekender was selected based on their;-

1)      Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria,

2)      Demonstrated ability to meet Council’s requirements; and

3)      Competitive price for the services offered.

 

During the evaluation of tenders the Advertising Working Party requested consideration of placing a half page advertisement instead of a full page advertisement.  This option was presented back to a Councillor Briefing and it was considered that there was no advantage in Council moving to a half page advertisement.

 

There was also a question raised throughout the tender process concerning public notices being placed on Council’s website and social media and this practice will now be implemented along with the placement of upcoming Ordinary and Policy Review Committee meetings each week.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on The Western Weekender. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review, no concerns were raised as to the ability of The Western Weekender to perform the works described. The tendered price of $69,460 including from the Western Weekender represents a significant saving for Council over current rates, and can be accommodated in the 2015-16 Operational Plan for corporate advertising and marketing.

 

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil and Governance Officer Adam Beggs met to consider the tender for the placement of Council’s weekly News Page and quarterly Community Newsletter. The TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report.

 

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that the Western Weekender has provided the most advantageous tender and it is recommended that the Company be awarded the contract for both the weekly Corporate News Page and quarterly Community Newsletter a contract sum of $69,460 ex GST per year.

 

The Contract will be for an initial period of two years with a one-year extension option by mutual agreement and subject to satisfactory performance.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 14/15-26 Weekly Council News Page & Quarterly Community Newsletter be received.

2.    The Western Weekender be awarded the contract for both the weekly Corporate News Page and quarterly Community Newsletter a contract sum of $69,460 ex GST per year.

3.    The Contract be for an initial period of two years with a one-year extension option by mutual agreement and subject to satisfactory performance.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

2        Proposed Suburb Name for the Central Precinct, St Marys ADI Site                               7

 

3        Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - housekeeping amendment

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                16

 

4        Minor Amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 to correct the property description of land at Dunheved Circuit St Marys in Schedule 4

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                19

 

5        Development Application DA15/0506 Construction of a detached brick garage and concrete in-ground swimming pool  Lot 233 DP 270417 (No.) 15 Pennard Cres, Luddenham Applicant: Luke Kelly;  Owner: ~Luke & Christine Kelly

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                22

 

6        Development Application DA14/1550.01 Section 96 Application for Modifications to the Subdivision Layout (Village 6), Jordan Springs Lot 1125 DP1158660 Ninth Avenue, Jordan Springs Applicant: Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner: ~St Marys Land Limited

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                31

 

7        Development Application DA14/0622.02 Section 96 Modification to Approved Earthworks, Shed and Truck Parking Including Amendment of the Approved Shed Location, Shed Design, Operational Conditions of Consent and Lighting at Lot 122 DP709303 (No. 41-47) Jolly Street, Castlereagh Applicant: Ty Gosling;  Owner: ~Ty and Deanne Gosling

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                51

 

8        Development Application DA15/0800 for a Torrens Title Subdivision of 3 lots into 2 lots at Lots 75 and 76 Section G DP 1613 and Lot 6 DP 739547, No. 3 Horace Street Cranebrook   Applicant: Penrith City Council;  Owner: ~Penrith City Council

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                65

 

9        Greater Sydney Commission                                                                                           81

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

2

Proposed Suburb Name for the Central Precinct, St Marys ADI Site   

 

Compiled by:               Gavin Cherry, Principal Planner North

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development and Environmental Health Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types

Service Activity

Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

      

 

Executive Summary

Lend Lease has submitted a proposal to Penrith City Council seeking to amend the suburb names and boundaries within of the former St Marys ADI (Australian Defence Industries) Site. The proposal seeks to extend the “Jordan Springs” suburb boundary to incorporate part of the regional park and to also change the suburb of the Central Precinct and part of the regional park as “Jordan Springs East”. This land is currently located in the suburb of Llandilo. Attachment 1 depicts the existing suburb boundaries.

 

The Central Precinct is a partially isolated precinct which is separated from the Western Precinct (Jordan Springs) by land zoned for Regional Parkland. There is one proposed access road that is intended to link Jordan Springs to the Central Precinct. The site is separated from Llandilo by Regional Parkland to the north and is separated from St Marys by Regional Parkland and Regional Open Space to the east. The Eastern Precinct (Ropes Crossing) is located further to the east within the Blacktown local government area.

 

The Geographical Names Board (GNB) is the statutory authority responsible for the creation or amendment of address localities. Prior to considering a proposal to create or amend an address locality, the GNB requires agreement from the applicable local Council.

 

The extension of Jordan Springs and adoption of Jordan Springs East is considered to provide sufficient differentiation to avoid confusion and potential delays with emergency service access given the Central Precinct is not directly adjoining the urban zoned land of Jordan Springs.

 

This report recommends that Council proceed to exhibit the proposal.

 

Background

The St Marys Release Area forms part of the former St Marys ADI (Australian Defence Industries) site, with the balance of the site contained in the Blacktown local government area. The site was previously used as a munitions factory by the Commonwealth Government. The majority of the site munitions manufacturing operations ceased by 1994.

 

The Central Precinct of the St Marys Release Area is 133.1 hectares in area and is irregular in shape. Surrounding the west, north and east of the site is Regional Parkland (Wianamatta Regional Park). Adjoining the site to the west is the future Regional Open Space which is proposed to be developed as part of the delivery of the Central Precinct. To the south of the site abuts Werrington County and Werrington Downs.

 

The estate is forecast to comprise a minimum of 1,300 dwellings and a resident population of approximately 4,000 persons. It is however noted that these projections will likely change if a proposed rezoning is pursued to delete the Employment zoned land from the Central Precinct.

 

The estate developer is Maryland Development Company which is a joint venture company comprising St Marys Land Ltd (the landowner) and Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd.

 

GNB Principles of Address Locality Naming, Boundaries and Placenames

When considering a request for suburb naming or boundary adjustments, it is important to address the GNB guidelines. The proposal has been considered having specific regard to the GNB guidelines in italics along with Council Officers comments, as outlined below:-

 

i)       Acceptable Locality Names

 

(a)   Short, easily pronounced names are preferred.

 

Both Jordan Springs and Jordan Springs East complies with the above consideration as they are relatively short and easily pronounced.

(b)   Names shall have the same spelling as any associated feature from which the name is derived.

 

The proposal is for an adjustment to the locality boundaries and new suburb name and the name contains consistent spelling with the existing naming of Jordan Springs.

(c)   The names of people who are still alive shall be avoided, because community attitudes and opinions can change over time, as per Principle 6.7.5 - Acceptable Road Names and Principle 6.7.6 - Commemorative Road Names.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration.

 

(d)   In remote areas the names of indigenous communities should be adopted as a locality name.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration as the land is not considered to be ‘remote’.

 

(e)   Names which are relevant to the local area are preferred, particularly if they relate to the history or geography of the area. The previous use of a name as an estate, subdivisional or promotional name does not give the name any priority to be accepted as a locality name. Names for new localities shall have a New South Wales emphasis and preferably have a direct association with the area.

 

The proposal as submitted seeks to adjust the locality boundary at Jordan Springs and to include the Central Precinct as Jordan Springs East. Lend Lease would like to retain the same name (Jordan Springs) as it is considered that Jordan Springs addresses the local history and geography and should apply to the Central Precinct as well as the Western Precinct.

While the site contains the same attributes in part as the Western Precinct, it is also acknowledged that the site is somewhat isolated from the Western Precinct with access through the Regional Parkland by a single road connection. Adoption of the same suburb name over both the western precinct and central precinct does not strictly comply with the GNB considerations and leads to a potential confusion for visitors to the precinct as well as emergency services. Council Officers agree that “Jordan Springs” and “Jordan Springs East” provides a differentiation between the two local areas. This proposal maintains a connection in name between the Western and Central Precincts but provides sufficient differentiation to avoid confusion.

 

It is also acknowledged  that the Central Precinct immediately adjoins residential development to the south in Werrington County, however there is no proposed vehicular access routes into the precinct from the south (other than a future bus and pedestrian connection). Extension of Werrington County to the north is not considered to be appropriate due to these access constraints. It is also considered that a further derivation of Werrington or Werrington County is inconsistent with the GNB guidelines.

 

(f)    Suffixes, prefixes and directional indicators names should not include qualifying terminology, a cardinal indicator or a similar suffix or prefix, e.g. Upper, New, North and South, etc. Where such use is unavoidable it should only be used as a suffix, e.g. Tamworth North, not North Tamworth.

 

The proposed suburb name “Jordan Springs East” complies with the above directional indicator requirements.

 

ii)      Boundary Definitions

(a)   Locality boundaries should be easy to identify and readily interpreted by the community. Locality boundaries shall be determined based on good planning principles and define areas with common community interests.

 

The Central Precinct is separated from the Western Precinct and the remainder of Llandilo by the Regional Parkland with limited access to the precinct from Werrington County. The requested amended naming is considered to reflect good planning principles by responding to the locational considerations and constrained access arrangements whilst still providing suitable differentiation for way finding.

(b)   Locality boundaries shall be of a reasonable size for practical purposes, such as including a shopping precinct or community school. Within urban areas an ideal size is around 500 ha, with a preferred minimum area of 100 ha.

 

The Central Precinct is approximately 133.1 hectares in area. It is considered reasonable to incorporate the precinct into Jordan Springs subject to a directional qualifier being “Jordan Springs East” as proposed.

 

(c)     Locality boundaries shall be contiguous and may not overlap another locality boundary.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration.

 

(d)     A locality cannot be an island within another locality. All localities should have boundaries that run alongside two or more other localities, the seashore or state boundary.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration.

 

(e)     Locality boundaries shall not extend beyond local government, state or territory boundaries.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration as the precinct does not extend into the Blacktown local government area.

 

iii)     Boundary Determination

 

(a)     Locality boundaries shall follow clear and easily distinguishable lines such as rivers, railways, major road centrelines.

 

The proposed suburb name will follow the boundaries of the Regional Parkland and planned perimeter road network within the Central Precinct.

(b)     Locality boundaries shall not bisect properties in common ownership and shall not bisect individual land parcels.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration.

 

(c)     Boundaries should be regularly reviewed, especially in areas subject to urban development. The review process should take into primary consideration impacts on community interests. Following this, consideration can be given to the likely impact on government and commercial interests.

 

The Central Precinct is zoned for urban development. It is recommended that the proposed suburb naming be placed on public exhibition to seek community feedback on the proposal. Following this consultation, a further report will be prepared and provided to Council for consideration.

 

iv)     Determination of Placenames

 

1.   A name suggested for any place that owes its origin to the peculiarity of the topographic feature designated such as shape, vegetation, animal life, etc may be accepted but, in doing so, care should be exercised in avoiding duplication of names already used for other features.

 

While the request does provide some duplication, it is considered to be more appropriate to differentiate between Jordan Springs and Jordan Springs East.

 

2.   Easily pronounced names should, as far as possible, be used.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration.

 

3.   Names of Aboriginal origin or with a historical background are preferred.

 

The name Jordan has historical ties with the broader St Marys ADI Site. The site (the Western Precinct in particular) was noted as Jordan Hill in 1887 by Henry Montague Faithful, a relative of William Faithful who received the original land grant from Lord Nelson in the early 1800s. The extension and directional qualifier is not considered to undermine this objective and still complies with this consideration.

 

4.   Names acknowledging the multicultural nature of our society are encouraged.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with this consideration.

 

5.   The changing of long established placenames is generally not preferred, except where necessary to avoid ambiguity or duplication.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with this consideration. The requested change of the locality from Llandilo to Jordan Springs and Jordan Springs East will result in a change to a long held locality name for this area, however given that there are no existing residents or public access and given the precinct is part of the former St Marys ADI Site with no direct access or connection to Llandilo (other than the Regional Parkland), the proposal is considered to satisfy this consideration.

 

6.   If considered appropriate, placenames may perpetuate the names of eminent persons, particularly those of early explorers, settlers and naturalists.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration.

 

7.   Names of persons should normally only be given posthumously but the GNB, at its discretion, may approve a feature name which honours a living person.

 

This consideration is not applicable for the proposal.

 

8.   The GNB may approve a first or given name as part of a geographical name only where it is necessary to appropriately honour the person referred to or where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity.

 

This consideration is not applicable for the proposal.

 

9.   Long and clumsily constructed names and names composed of two or more words should be avoided.

 

While the proposal provides for two and three words, this approach is not inconsistent with other suburbs and suburbs with directional qualifiers within Sydney.

 

10. The multiplication of names for different parts of the same topographical feature such as a stream or mountain range will be avoided whenever possible and the one name applied to a stream or mountain range throughout its entire length.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with this consideration.

 

11. The naming of forks, arms and branches of a river such as North Branch and South Branch is not favoured. Generally, it is preferable to assign independent names to river branches.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with this consideration.

 

12. The use of cardinal points of the compass as a prefix or suffix to an existing name is not favoured. However, well established names which carry such a prefix or suffix may be approved.

 

While directional qualifies are not favoured within the GNB guidelines for place names, such qualifiers are an accepted naming form within the GNB Principles of Address Locality Naming and Boundaries as outlined at the beginning of this report. It is therefore both reasonable and acceptable to support the name of “Jordan Springs East” in addition to the extension of “Jordan Springs”.

 

13. Where names have been changed or corrupted by long established local usage, it is not usually advisable to attempt to restore the original form; that spelling which is sanctioned by general usage should be adopted.

 

This consideration is not applicable for the proposal.

 

14. When a choice is offered between two or more names for the same place, locality or feature, all sanctioned by local usage, the GNB may adopt one of such names as is considered appropriate in accordance with the rules outlined above.

 

This consideration is not applicable for the proposal as the purpose of this report is to seek support for a suburb name which will then be referred to the GNB for their review and adoption.

 

15. The possessive form should be avoided whenever possible without destroying the sound of the name or changing its descriptive application, e.g. Howes Valley should be written without the apostrophe.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with this consideration.

 

16. The use of hyphens in connecting parts of names should, as far as possible be avoided.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with this consideration.

 

17. Names considered offensive or likely to give offence will not be approved.

 

The proposal complies with this consideration and is not offensive.

 

The Process

 

In the event that Council supports the proposed suburb naming, the proposal is intended to

be placed on public exhibition to enable community feedback to be provided. 

 

Following the end of the exhibition period, any submissions received will be reviewed and a

further report will be referred to Council for consideration. 

 

If Council then supports the proposal the matter is referred to the Geographical Names

Board for consideration and implementation.

 

A further report will then be provided to Council advising of the decision of the Geographical

Names Board.

 

Conclusion

The proponent’s proposal to extend the ‘Jordan Springs’ suburb boundary and to name the

Central Precinct as ‘Jordan Springs East’ is considered to be consistent with the

Geographical Names Board guidelines for determining address localities and is considered a

better outcome for future residents within the precinct with respect to access and way

finding.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council support the naming request and progress the amended proposal to public exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Proposed Suburb Name for the Central Precinct, St Marys ADI Site be received.

2.    The proposal be placed on public exhibition and notified to surrounding property owners for a period of 30 days.

3.    Following exhibition, a further report be provided to Council post exhibition which provides feedback on any submissions received and seeking endorsement of the requested suburb name change.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Existing Suburb Boundaries

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Proposed Suburb Names and Boundaries

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 1 - Existing Suburb Boundaries

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 2 - Proposed Suburb Names and Boundaries

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

3

Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - housekeeping amendment   

 

Compiled by:               Nicole Dukinfield, Senior Planner

Authorised by:            Abdul Cheema, Acting 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

A draft Planning Proposal has been prepared for Council’s consideration to submit to the NSW Minister for Planning to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010. The draft Planning Proposal proposes to rectify a number of minor errors with the LEP instrument and LEP maps that have occurred since the initial gazettal of the Penrith LEP in 2010. The proposed amendments have no policy implications as the items aim to rectify errors and anomalies only. The draft Planning Proposal is provided in Attachment 2.

 

As the proposed amendments are minor in nature, a draft Planning Proposal has been prepared combining these items for a single amendment to the Penrith LEP otherwise known as a ‘housekeeping’ amendment. This type of planning proposal is common for other Standard Instrument LEPs and Councils, and are generally processed more quickly than other more complex matters.

 

The majority of the proposed amendments within the draft Planning Proposal are understood to have occurred as a result of Council and the Department of Planning and Environment’s (DP&E) staged approach in preparing the Penrith LEP 2010, where two sets of mapping data were combined to generate the LEP map sheets, at separate times (Stage 1 was gazetted on 22 September 2010 and Stage 2 was gazetted on 28 January 2015). As the DP&E were responsible for preparing the LEP map sheets, this has resulted in the LEP map sheets containing minor errors and anomalies from inaccurate interpretation of Council’s mapping data and within the short time provided to deliver the Penrith LEP 2010.

 

Council’s resolution is sought to submit the draft Planning Proposal for a Gateway Determination. Resolving these errors and anomalies will deliver a more accurate planning instrument, and will reduce the potential for delays should development be proposed where these errors and anomalies currently exist.

 

The draft Planning Proposal is initiated by Council officers and is not the result of an application by a member of the public.

 

Background

Council previously undertook the major task of consolidating several LEPs into one comprehensive LEP, as part of a roll-out by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for all Local Government Areas (LGA) to have a consistent format for their planning instruments. The DP&E and Council agreed to deliver the Penrith LEP 2010 in two stages due to the complexity and magnitude of the task. Stage 1 was gazetted on 22 September 2010.

 

Stage 1 included the LGA’s rural and industrial lands as well as the St Marys town centre. A number of amendments to the Penrith LEP 2010 took place following the gazettal of Stage 1 and included:

 

Amendment 1: Housekeeping amendment gazetted 10 August 2012

Amendment 2: Panthers Penrith redevelopment gazetted 21 June 2013

Amendment 3: The Knoll, Caddens gazetted 23 May 2014

Amendment 4: Stage 2 gazetted 28 January 2015

Amendment 5: The Knoll, Caddens gazetted 4 September 2015

 

Stage 2 of the Penrith LEP 2010 dealt with residential and commercial areas within the LGA. The merging of the two separate sets of mapping data for Stage 1 and 2 of the Penrith LEP 2010 resulted in a number of errors and anomalies which are now evident in the current LEP maps.

 

Council officers have recently carried out a review of the LEP map sheets in addition to the written instrument to identify these errors and anomalies, with the intention to resolve these matters in one housekeeping amendment to the Penrith LEP 2010. A list of the proposed items within the draft Planning Proposal are provided in Attachment1.

 

The types of mapping errors proposed to be resolved by the draft Planning Proposal can be generally categorised as the following:

 

·    Minor alignment of zoning and other development standards to lot boundaries

·    Correction of labelling errors

·    Removal of duplicated lines/boundaries

·    ‘Filling in’ of insignificant portions of unzoned land

·    Rectifying zoning anomalies.

Other minor errors which have been found within the written instrument are considered to be oversights, a result of the complexity of the task in transitioning from several LEPs to one.

 

Since the gazettal of the Stage 2 LEP, officers have undertaken an exhaustive review of Penrith LEP 2010, however it would be an unreasonable expectation to trust all errors have been found in the preparation of this Planning Proposal particularly as many of the minor anomalies are not evident to the naked eye. In future, a general review will be carried out on an annual basis to identify and resolve any further errors or anomalies, although it is expected that this will be significantly less than for this housekeeping amendment.

 

Council now completes all LEP mapping with an in-house GIS Officer dedicated to the City Planning team. As Council can also be granted delegation to finalise an amendment to an LEP, this provides Council with greater technical expertise and involvement in finalising an LEP to ensure the content is more accurate. Delegation will be requested for Council to finalise the proposed LEP amendment and expedite the process.

 

Next steps

If Council resolves to submit the Planning Proposal to the NSW Minister for Planning, the DP&E, as a delegate of the Minister, will consider Council’s request to amend the Penrith LEP 2010 through the ‘Gateway’ process.

 

The Gateway process will determine the length of public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, the relevant stage agencies and stakeholders to be consulted, and list any other conditions to which Council must follow in order to amend the Penrith LEP 2010. Formal notification of this information will be issued to Council in the form of a Gateway Determination. Once Council receives a Gateway Determination, Council will be able to proceed to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal.

 

Once agency/stakeholder consultation and public exhibition has been completed, a further report will be presented detailing any submissions or issues that were raised for Council’s consideration. The steps from this point onwards will be further detailed in the post-exhibition Council report.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - housekeeping amendment be received.

2.    Council submit the attached Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith LEP 2010 to the NSW Minister for Planning for consideration under the Gateway process.

3.    Council request delegation for the General Manager to finalise the LEP amendment.

4.    Council carry out the requirements of the Gateway Determination to process the Planning Proposal, including public exhibition. 

5.    The General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary minor changes that have no policy implications to the Planning Proposal before submitting it to the Minister for Planning.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

List of items proposed

2 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Draft Planning Proposal - Housekeeping Amendment

104 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

4

Minor Amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 to correct the property description of land at Dunheved Circuit St Marys in Schedule 4   

 

Compiled by:               Abdul Cheema, Acting City Planning Manager

Authorised by:            Ruth Goldsmith, Executive Manager - City Planning and Community  

 

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

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) was made by the Minister on 22 September 2010. Part of a property description of certain land reclassified in Dunheved Circuit St Marys is incorrect, in the gazetted plan. However the photographs, maps and other descriptions used throughout the exhibition and public hearing process was correct.

 

Section 73A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 allows correction of matters that are of a minor nature. This report is seeking Council’s endorsement to amend Penrith LEP 2010 in accordance with section 73A to correct the error in the property description of the subject land.

Background

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) was made by the Minister on 22 September 2010. This LEP, among other things, reclassified certain land from community to operational. An error has been identified in the gazetted version of the property description of Lot 212 and Lot 213 in Dunheved Circuit, St Marys. The deposited plan number for these lots in the gazetted plan is listed as DP 31908 when it should have been listed as DP 31909. See attachment 1 for a copy of this section of Penrith LEP 2010.

Discussion

A document was prepared for the public exhibition / public hearing of Penrith LEP 2010 (the document). The document provided information about each of the parcels that required reclassification and the reasons for the proposed reclassification. The document made reference to Lot 212 and Lot 213 in two tables. The DP number was correct (31909) in one table and incorrect (31908) in the other table.

 

However all photographs and maps used throughout the document that referred to these lots were correct. All other details such as the site details, zoning and current uses, proposed use, the stated purpose for seeking reclassification and what Council’s plan was for the land in the next five years made reference to the correct lots and DP numbers. The document is included as Attachment 2.

 

Mullane Planning Consultants (the consultant) was engaged by Council to conduct a public hearing for the reclassification of these lots. The consultant used the incorrect description of these lots from the document prepared by Council for this purpose which ultimately was used to write the LEP 2010. A copy of this public hearing report is included as Attachment 3.

 

Section 73A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979) allows correction of matters that are of a minor nature. Council officers have discussed this option with the Department of Planning & Environment (the department). The department has indicated that this matter could be supported as a section 73A amendment.

 

This report is to seek Council’s endorsement to amend Penrith LEP 2010 in accordance with section 73A of the EP&A Act 1979 to correct the error in Schedule 4 Part 2, from Lots 212 and 213, DP 31908 to Lot Lots 212 and 213, DP 31909.

Next Steps

Should Council resolve to prepare the LEP amendment in accordance with section 73A, the following steps are required:

1.   Council officers will advise the Department of Planning of the proposed amendment.

2.   The Department will check the information submitted by Council and refer it to the LEP Review Panel for consideration. The Department’s target benchmark for considering section 73A proposals is 15 days.

3.   If the LEP Review Panel considers the proposed amendment appropriate for section 73A, the Legal Services Branch of the Department will prepare drafting instructions for the Parliamentary Counsel and request an opinion.

4.   When the Department receives the Parliamentary Counsel’s Opinion it will confirm with Council that it wishes to proceed with the amendment.

5.   The Department will then forward the Parliamentary Counsel’s Opinion, along with the report prepared by Council and endorsed by the Department, to the Minister.

6.   The Minister will decide whether to make the plan amendment.

7.   If the Minister decides to make the plan amendment, public notification will occur through the publication of the amending LEP in the Government Gazette.

Conclusion

This report is seeking Council’s endorsement to amend Penrith LEP 2010 in accordance with section 73A to correct a minor error in the description of land that was reclassified as operational. The error was administrative in nature. This change will not affect the community as all information (maps and aerial photographs) used during the preparation of Penrith LEP 2010 referred to the correct land.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Minor Amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 to correct the property description of land at Dunheved Circuit St Marys in Schedule 4 be received.

2.    Council resolve to prepare a LEP amendment to amend Penrith LEP 2010 in accordance with section 73A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 to correct the error in property description in Schedule 4 Part 2 from ‘Lots 212 and 213, DP 31908’ to ‘Lots 212 and 213, DP 31909’.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Penrith LEP 2010 - Schedule 4 Part 2

1 Page

Attachments Included

2.  

Document prepared for the public exhibition / public hearing of Penrith LEP 2010

8 Pages

Attachments Included

3.  

Mullane Planning - Report of Public Hearing Regarding Reclassification of Public Land

6 Pages

Attachments Included

4.  

Title Searches and DP's

33 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

5

Development Application DA15/0506 Construction of a detached brick garage and concrete in-ground swimming pool  Lot 233 DP 270417 (No.) 15 Pennard Cres, Luddenham  Applicant:  Luke Kelly;  Owner:  Luke & Christine Kelly   

 

Compiled by:               Damien  Saaghy, Environmental Health & Building Surveyor

Authorised by:            Colin Wood, Coordinator Fire Safety and Certification  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Facilitate quality development that encourages a range of housing types, employment, recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Service Activity

Advocate Council's position and respond to planning legislation, building certification and related policies of government

     

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the construction of a detached garage and in-ground concrete swimming pool at No. 15 Pennard Crescent, Luddenham. Additionally, the application seeks to vary an instrument applying to the site under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 to allow the swimming pool to be located partly outside the building envelope.

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

The proposed development achieves the objectives of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 by providing a design that is compatible with the surrounding area and minimises impacts on adjoining properties. The proposal has demonstrated that it is unlikely to have any significant impacts on achieving the outcomes intended by the planning and subdivision controls for the property.

It is recommended that the Section 88B instrument be varied and the application be approved.

Background

On 25 May 2015 an application on Lot 233 DP 270417, No. 15 Pennard Crescent, Luddenham was submitted to Council (DA15/0506). Part of the swimming pool is proposed to be located outside the designated building envelope.

Following a preliminary assessment, Council Officers requested further information on 29 June 2015 in relation to colours, bushfire and the encroachment of the swimming pool on the building envelope restriction.

Revised documentation was received on 7 August 2015 which addressed the colour schedule and bushfire issues previously raised. In addition the applicant requested to vary the restrictive covenant under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

Site and Surrounds

The site is situated on the eastern side of Pennard Crescent, Luddenham near the intersection of Twin Creeks Drive. The subject site has an area of 4986m2.

The surrounding area is characterised by rural residential development (see Locality Plan in Appendix No. 1).

 

The Proposed Development

The proposal is to construct a detached garage and in-ground swimming pool.

The development application was accompanied by:

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

·    Statement of Environmental Effects

·    BASIX Certificate

·    Bushfire hazard assessment report

 

Assessment relating to the Section 88B restriction

The proposed development is for the construction of a detached garage and in-ground concrete swimming pool. The swimming pool encroaches on the building envelope restriction. The restriction numbered 5 referred to in the Section 88B instrument applying to Deposited Plan No.270417 burdens Lot 233 and states:

“5.     (a) No buildings shall be erected or be permitted to be erected or be permitted to remain erected on the lot hereby burdened unless such buildings are located wholly within the building envelope (designated “BE” on the plan).

(b) A building is defined as any structure classified as a building under the terms of the Building Code of Australia”.

 

The purpose of the building envelope restriction is to provide separation between development in order to maintain the rural residential character of the locality.

 

The applicant seeks to vary the restrictive covenant under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The following reasons were provided in support of the request:

 

·    The location of the swimming pool was determined to maximise surveillance from the living areas of the existing dwelling which are located primarily at the southern end of the building

·    Only a small section of the swimming pool will encroach upon the building envelope

·    The swimming pool has been located to facilitate Fire & Rescue Services in the event of the fire as it is located near a fire trail

·    Other parts of the subdivision are offered concessions to encroach outside the building envelope restriction

The variation of the building envelope restriction will have minimal visual impact on the amenity or streetscape of the locality and will maintain character conducive to the subdivision. The development complies with the key development standards in the Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan and will not inhibit the attainment of the objects of these policies. The proposal to vary the restrictive covenant is therefore considered to be reasonable.

 

Planning Assessment

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

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

This Policy ensures the implementation of the BASIX scheme which encourages sustainable residential development. It requires certain kinds of residential development to be accompanied by a list of commitments to be carried out by applicants.

 

BASIX Certificate No. A218101 was submitted with the Development Application demonstrating compliance with set targets applicable for a swimming pool. A condition will be provided to ensure the commitments in the Certificate are maintained during the life of the proposed development.

 

The development proposes to connect to the existing 30,000L rainwater tank. This is considered reasonable as the tank provided far exceeds the minimum 6801L required to service both the existing dwelling and proposed swimming pool. A tap will be provided within 10 metres of the swimming pool.

 

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

 

The development has been assessed with regard to the general planning considerations and the specific planning policies and recommended strategies of SREP 20. The proposed development will have minimal impacts on the total catchment management of water quality and water quantity. The development proposes to connect to the existing 30,000L rainwater tank. The overflow from the tank and all other stormwater from the site are proposed to be discharged via a single outlet point to the existing system. Conditions of development consent are recommended to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures are provided during the construction of the development.

 

The proposal satisfies the considerations under SREP 20.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (PLEP 2010)

 

The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living under the provisions of PLEP 2010. The proposed development is ancillary to the dwelling house and is permissible with development consent. The proposal satisfies the objectives and provisions of PLEP 2010.

 

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

No draft environmental planning instruments apply to this site.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014)

Part D1 – “Rural Land Uses” is applicable to the current development application. The development has been assessed with regard to the general development considerations as follows:

Clause

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

1.1

Rural Character

The proposed detached garage and in-ground swimming pool are consistent with other like development within locality and will not inhibit the attainment of the objectives.

Complies

1.2.1

Siting & Orientation of Dwellings & Outbuildings

The proposed detached garage and in-ground swimming pool will not adversely impact upon privacy, solar access and overshadowing, retains and improves vegetated areas and landscaping and minimises site disturbance. The site is identified as being bushfire prone. This is discussed in Section 8 of this report.

Complies

1.2.2

Setbacks & Building Separations

The proposed detached garage and in-ground swimming pool provides a front setback of 32.19m where the minimum required is 15m and a side setback of 12.7m where the minimum required is 5m.

Complies

1.2.3

Site Coverage, Bulk & Massing

The proposed detached garage and in-ground swimming pool provides an overall ground floor footprint of 487m2 where the maximum required is 600m2.

Complies

1.2.4

Height, Scale & Design

The proposed detached garage and in-ground swimming pool is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounding area and will not be a prominent structure within the locality.

Complies

 

The proposal generally complies with the numerical development standards and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

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

Built and Natural Environment

The development is sympathetic to the streetscape and is consistent with the bulk, scale and design of other dwellings in the area. The development provides for appropriate separation between dwellings and does not detract from the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

The development satisfies sustainable development principles through its BASIX certificate commitments.

 

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

 

Social and Economic

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

 

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

The subject site is within an established rural residential area zoned for rural residential development.

The site is not known to be affected by any overland flows, landslip or heritage controls. The site is identified as being bushfire prone and this is discussed in Section 8 of this report.

In view of the assessment, the site attributes are conducive to the type of development proposed and its integration with the character of the surrounding area.

 

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

 

Community Consultation

In accordance with Appendix F4 of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 – Notification and Advertising, the proposed development was not required to be notified to neighbouring properties.

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

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

8.   Section 79BA - Bushfire Prone Land Assessment

The land has been identified as being bushfire prone. The site inspection and preliminary assessment revealed that the proposed detached garage is located within 10 metres of the existing dwelling and will need to be protected to comply with a construction level of BAL-19.

A condition will be provided for the development to comply with BAL-19 in accordance with ‘AS3959-2009 Building in bushfire prone areas’ and ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006’ including ‘Addendum: Appendix 3’.

Conclusion

Assessment of the application has demonstrated that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impacts. The proposed variation to the restrictive covenant to the building envelope would not compromise the safety, character or amenity of the locality and the development is recommended for approval.

                             

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Development Application DA15/0506 Construction of a detached brick garage and concrete in-ground swimming pool  Lot 233 DP 270417 (No.) 15 Pennard Cres, Luddenham be received.

2.    DA15/0506 for a detached brick garage with a tiled roof and in-ground swimming pool at Lot 233 DP 270417 (No.) 15 Pennard Cres, Luddenham be approved subject to the following conditions:

                             A001 – Approved plans

                             A008 – Works to BCA requirements

                             A019 – Occupation Certificate

                             A020 – Use of building

                             A041 – Construction in Bushfire Areas (BAL 19)

                             A046 – Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

                             D009 – Covering of waste storage area

                             D010 – Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

                             D014 – Plant & equipment noise

                            E001 – BCA compliance              

                             F006 – Water tank and nuisance

                             H001 – Stamped plans and erection of site notice

                             H030 – Roof finishes (rural property)

                             H038 – Connection of rainwater tank supply

                             H039 – Rainwater tank pumps

                             H041 – Hours of work

                             J002 – Fencing when water in pool

                             J004 – Pool fence (residential)

                             J007 – Boundary Fencing

                             J010 – Pool board/sign

                             J011 - NSW Swimming Pool Register

                             K016 – Stormwater

                             K026 – Stabilised access

                             K041 – Infrastructure Restoration Bond ($500.00)

K Special – All excavation/cut detailed on the approved plan, located within 2.0m of the allotment boundary, shall be retained with retaining walls wholly within the property boundary. Retaining walls shall preserve and protect adjoining buildings from damage and must not impact on any adjoining building, structure or property. Retaining walls shall be completed within 6 weeks of any Occupation Certificate being issued.

                             L008 – Tree Preservation Order

                             P002 – Fees associated with Council land

                             Q01F – Notice of Commencement and Appointment of PCA

                             Q05F – Occupation Certificate

3.    The restrictive covenant on the use of land numbered 5 referred to in the Section 88B Instrument of the Conveyancing Act 1919 applying to Lot 233 in DP 270417 (known as No. 15) Pennard Crescent, Luddenham be varied to allow the in-ground swimming pool to be located partially outside the area labelled (BE) on the abovementioned plan in accordance with the approved site plan.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Map - DA15/0506

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Site Plan - DA15/0506

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Elevations and Floor Plan - DA15/0506

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 1 - Locality Map - DA15/0506

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 2 - Site Plan - DA15/0506

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 3 - Elevations and Floor Plan - DA15/0506

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

6

Development Application DA14/1550.01 Section 96 Application for Modifications to the Subdivision Layout (Village 6), Jordan Springs Lot 1125 DP1158660 Ninth Avenue, Jordan Springs  Applicant:  Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd;  Owner:  St Marys Land Limited   

 

Compiled by:               Belinda Borg, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development and Environmental Health Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Facilitate development that encourages a range of housing types

Service Activity

Facilitate quality development that contributes to a growing regional City

     

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

 

Executive Summary

 

Development Application DA14/1550 was approved by Council on 25 May 2015 for subdivision and road construction described as Village 6. The approval was subject to deferral of land from the determination.

 

Council is now in receipt of an amended application for the subdivision of Lot 1125 DP 1158660 creating 203 residential lots, two (2) residue open space lots, four (4) fire access lots, one (1) sewer pump station lot and associated civil works in the Western Precinct of Jordan Springs.  The land is zoned ‘Urban’ under the provisions of the Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy No.30 – St Marys (SREP 30).  Subdivision is permitted with consent pursuant to Clause 45 of SREP 30.

 

The proposed amendments are as follows:-

 

·    Changes to the staging of the development;

 

·    Reduction from 215 residential allotments to 203 residential allotments;

 

·    Provision of an amended biodiversity link width from 60m to 100m;

 

·    Amendment to the proposed road network to provide a perimeter road to the south, perimeter road to the north (adjacent to Xavier College) and resulting lot reconfiguration to reflect the amended road pattern; and

 

·    Provision of a services allotment (easement for services 3.0m wide) located between Xavier College and Proposed Road 303. This allotment will contain existing services which are intended to be extinguished and the lot incorporated as dedicated public road when the site wide servicing is completed.

 

This amended application has been referred externally to NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) and NSW Office of Water. These authorities did not raise any objections to the proposal and have issued their General Terms of Approval. 

 

This amended application was advertised, exhibited and notified and exhibited from 6 July 2015 to 20 July 2015.  Council received ten (10) submissions. The key issues raised in these are outlined below:

 

(a)     The subdivision layout and road alignment within the subdivision will sever the Cumberland Conservation Corridor Road alignment within the subdivision severs wildlife corridor;

(b)     Inappropriate location of the proposal Riparian Corridor;

(c)     Impacts on local endangered wildlife; and

(d)     Notification of the Development Application to previous objectors of development within Jordan Springs.

 

In response to concerns raised by Council with the location of the proposed corridor, and the impacts of proposed asset protection zones within the corridor, the applicant amended the proposed plan of subdivision to relocate the corridor further east with the provision of 100m free of asset protection zone restrictions. This amendment is a more appropriate outcome than that original proposed.

 

This amended application is supported by a further biodiversity assessment report with supplementary ecological assessment dated 11 August 2015.   This additional report and supplementary statement states that the proposed widened 100m corridor width further supports an appropriate corridor acknowledging that the original proposed corridor is disrupted by roads, fencing between the corridor and private land to the north as well as future macrofauna fencing around the regional park.

 

The amended application has been assessed with respect to the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 (TSC Act), Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) and the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan.  Having regarding to the relevant statutory provisions, it is recommended that the application be approved, inclusive of the amended plan of subdivision which provides for the relocation of the proposed biodiversity corridor.

 

Background

 

The St Marys site was endorsed by the NSW Government for inclusion on the Urban Development Program in 1993. The St Marys Site has a total site area of approximately 1,545 hectares comprising six (6) precincts including the Western Precinct, Central Precinct, North and South Dunheved Precincts, Ropes Creek Precinct and Eastern Precinct. A Regional Park surrounds the Precincts, which has an area of approximately 900ha.

 

The Western Precinct has been subject to various approvals for subdivision, however the subdivision adjoining the proposed development is known as Stage 3C3 which was approved by Council on 26 August 2013 creating 210 residential lots (DA13/0619).

 

Development Application 14/1550 was considered at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 25 May 2015 where it was approved subject to conditions of consent and deferral of land from the determination. Subsequently, a rescission motion was made and the proposal was reconsidered at the Council Ordinary Meeting on 9 June 2015 where the motion to overturn the decision was lost.

 

The Development Application was therefore supported and approved subject to the deferral of lots located west of the riparian corridor. This was reflected within the stamped approved plans issued with the notice of determination.

 

A Locality Plan is outlined in Attachment 1.

 

A copy of the approved plan of subdivision is Attachment 2.

 

Proposed Development

 

The amended proposal seeks approval for the subdivision of Lot 1125 DP 1158660 creating 203 residential lots, two (2) residue open space lots, four (4) fire access lots, one (1) sewer pump station lot and associated civil works in the Western Precinct of Jordan Springs (refer to Attachment 3).  This stage of development is referred to as Village 6.

 

The development as originally lodged proposed 205 residential lots being:

 

o        Stage 6A: 68 residential lots; and

          o        Stage 6B: 137 residential lots

o        Biodiversity Corridor: 60m

 

In response to concerns raised by Council with respect to the location and nature of the biodiversity corridor, a revised plan of subdivision was submitted which makes a further amendment to propose 203 residential lots being:

 

o        Stage 6A: 68 residential lots;

          o        Stage 6B: 127 residential lots; and

o        Stage 6C: 8 residential lots    

o        Biodiversity Corridor: 100m

 

Requested Condition Amendments

 

The application is supported by a request to amend specific conditions of consent as follows:-

 

·    Amendment of Condition No. 1 to reflect the amended plans of subdivision and supporting  information submitted with this modification application;

 

·    Amendment of Condition No. 4 with respect to asset protection zones to reflect the amended plan of subdivision and the revised comments of the NSW Rural Fire Service ;

 

·    Amendment of Condition No. 9 to reflect revised general terms of approval issued by the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

·    Deletion of Condition No. 11 which required the amalgamation of former Proposed Lots 6000 – 6015 & 6152 as a residue allotment for further investigation.

 

·    Deletion of Condition No. 12 which required that:-

 

 ‘The development proposal is to comply with the subdivision layout identified on the drawing prepared by Lend Lease, number: D646, sheets 1­5, dated 13/03/2015, with the exception of all lots from the east boundary of Xavier College to the Northern Road, pending discussion between the applicant, Council and the College regarding the possibility of a buffer zone’.

 

 

 

Planning Assessment

 

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Section 96 and Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the following key issues have arisen:-

 

Threatened Species

 

The site is situated on land which contains threatened species communities.  The original application was accompanied by a Species Impact Statement (SIS) prepared by Cumberland Ecology dated October 2014.  The SIS was prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 (TSC Act) and the Director General’s Requirements.

 

The SIS noted that the site contains a combination of Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW), Shale Gravel Transition Forest and River Flat Eucalypt Forest with CPW being the dominant vegetation community.  However the landscape has been extensively altered since European settlement.  The proposal was to involve clearance of the following vegetation:

 

Type of Vegetation to be removed

Area in hectares

Mature Cumberland Plain Woodland:

6.47ha

Regenerating Cumberland Plain Woodland (mostly saplings and regrowth):

6.72ha

Low Diversity Derived native Grasslands:

6.94ha.

 

The SIS concluded that the extent of the habitat removal would have minimal impact on the Cumberland Plain Land Snail and threatened bats and birds as sizable numbers are currently centred in the Regional Park.  It is further stated that the removal would have minimal impact within the local context having considered the quality of the CPW occurring on the subject site, and area of CPW to be conserved within the Regional Park which is of much greater size and quality, being one of the largest areas of CPW remaining.

 

The proposed development includes the provision of a riparian corridor (Lot 6149) which is consistent with the Framework Plan within the Western Precinct Plan.

 

The Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan however states that the conservation of areas outside of the Priority Conservation Lands could complement and enhance the Priority Conservation Lands and that buffer areas, corridors and other links are needed to support these areas. This supports the need to consider biodiversity corridors separate from the priority conservation lands. This includes habitat loss and the resultant fragmentation of habitat and populations which can result in limited gene flow, reduced potential to adapt to environmental change and loss or severe modification of the interactions between species.

 

The Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan also states “A protected areas network can include both public and private land, provided that secure agreements are in place to achieve biodiversity conservation”. Pursuit of a secondary corridor in the western portion of the site is consistent with the Federal Governments funding announcement to preserve significant land with conservation value however the conservation benefits of such a corridor are dependent on width and location.

 

The previous plan of subdivision proposed a 60m wide corridor within land that has been substantially cleared of vegetation. The previously proposed width and location was not considered to be sufficient to achieve the desired connectivity intention due to the following:-

 

·        A wider corridor will allow for the impact of edge effects and for safe passage of less tolerant fauna; and

 

·        The proposed corridor in actuality will be narrower than 60m due to Asset Protection Zones (APZ) requirements of the proposed subdivision. The subdivision relies on 20m asset protection zones along the eastern and western boundaries of Lot 6000 which would provide little if any shrub or ground covers, and limited canopy. The resulting unimpeded connection would be 20m in width which is insufficient in achieving key biodiversity and conservation outcomes.

 

It was therefore recommended that proposed lots 6000 to 6015 on the previous plan of subdivision warranted further investigation regarding the appropriateness of a secondary biodiversity connection and was intended to be retained as a residue allotment. Council at its meeting of 25 May 2015 deferred this area as well as the majority of the subdivision west of the riparian corridor to enable this further investigation. The proposed modification application seeks to respond to the reasons for this deferral resolution.

 

The provision of a 60m biodiversity corridor as proposed with the modification application (as originally lodged) was found to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:-

 

·        Reliance on all of the cleared land for the corridor is unsatisfactory as this location appears to have had all topsoil and associated seed bank removed meaning that natural regeneration is extremely unlikely and all vegetation would need to be artificially reinstated.

 

·        The proposed width of the corridor (100m) would be narrower due to APZ requirements meaning that there will be little if any shrub or ground covers, and limited canopy in these APZ restricted areas.  Effectively a 100m corridor with APZ restrictions would be reduced to a 60m protected width.

 

·        Chapter 2, Section 5 of Penrith DCP 2014 - Development Near Biodiversity Corridors and Areas of Remnant Indigenous Vegetation requires “all new development adjacent to biodiversity corridors and areas of remnant indigenous vegetation must be located, designed and constructed to prevent or minimise, as far as possible, adverse impacts on vegetation and habitat.”

 

For these reasons the applicant was requested to amend the proposed plan of subdivision, to relocate the proposed biodiversity corridor further east (minimising reliance on cleared land) with nil asset protection zone restrictions to be imposed.

 

In response to the concerns raised during the assessment, the applicant submitted a further amended plan of subdivision which makes the following changes to the proposal:-

 

·        A 100m biodiversity corridor is now proposed which is unimpeded by asset protection zone restrictions;

 

·        The asset protection zones previously indicated within the corridor have been incorporated into the adjacent residential lots reducing the overall lot yield from 205 residential lots to 203 residential lots and widening these adjoining allotments from 12.5m to 27.5m (to accommodate the APZ restrictions); and

 

·        The biodiversity corridor has shifted further east to reduce the amount of cleared land dependant on revegetation which has then culminated in the provision of one (1) residential lot within the cleared area between the proposed relocated corridor and the approved subdivision (Stage 3C1).

 

The proposed corridor is now free of APZ restrictions enables revegetation to occur and facilitates the protection of existing vegetation which is the intention of the corridor. Revegetation requirements are outlined within the additional recommended condition of concern which requires the preparation and implementation of a vegetation management plan.

 

This amended plan of subdivision is considered to satisfy the key concerns raised above and sufficiently addresses the key considerations within the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

 

Section 91 – Integrated Development

 

Section 91 of the EP&A Act outlines the types of developments deemed to be defined as “Integrated Development”.  As the modified development requires concurrence from the NSW Rural Fire Service the following comments are provided:

 

(a)     NSW Rural Fires Services (RFS)

 

According to Section 91 of the EP&A Act, the amended proposed subdivision is an integrated development as it requires authorisation under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 in respect of bush fire safety for the subdivision of land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes, or development of land for special fire protection purposes. 

 

RFS issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority on 31 July 2015 raising no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The amended plan of subdivision was referred again to the NSW RFS and a further Bush Fire Safety Authority was issued on 11 September 2015. This new authority outlines the following specific requirements relating to the amended plan of subdivision and reconfigured allotments around the proposed biodiversity corridor:-

 

i)        A 10 metre wide inner protection area (IPA) shall be provided within Lot 6011 along its eastern boundary. In accordance with section 88B of the 'Conveyancing Act 1919' a restriction to the land use shall be placed on this lot requiring the provision of this IPA which shall be maintained as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

 

ii)       A 15 metre wide inner protection area (IPA) shall be provided in Lot 6013 along its western boundary. In accordance with section 88B of the 'Conveyancing Act 1919' a restriction to the land use shall be placed on these lots requiring the provision of this IPA which shall be maintained as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'

 

iii)      A 2.1 metre high non-combustible radiant heat shield shall be provided along the northern boundary of proposed lots 6011 to 6019.

 

Section 96(1A) - Modifications involving Minimal Environmental Impact

 

The development application has been assessed having regard to the key considerations within Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Pursuant to this section of the Act, a Council may modify a development consent provided the proposal is considered to be of minor environmental impact, the proposal is substantially the same development as previously proposed and the application has been notified in accordance with an applicable Council policy.

 

The proposal provides for a subdivision which is substantially similar to that previously proposed and is considered to be of minor environmental impact for the reasons outlined within the body of this report.

 

The application was also notified in accordance with Council’s adopted Development Control Plan with submissions received which are also addressed within the body of this report.

 

As a result the proposed modification application is satisfactory with respect to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

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

 

The following Environmental Planning Instruments are applicable to the assessment of the modified development application.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP Infrastructure)

 

SEPP Infrastructure provides direction for proposed development to be considered by relevant public authorities for those listed in the schedules and any representation required in respect to the proposed development.

 

According to Schedule 3 of the SEPP, the proposed subdivision creating more than 200 allotments is required to be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) as traffic generating development and hence Clause 104 of the SEPP applies.

 

RMS reviewed the proposal and raised no objection in respect to traffic and vehicular access as the amended proposal does alter this as the proposal provides for a reduction in yield from that previously proposed.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

The proposed modification maintains compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997

 

The proposed modification maintains compliance with State Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River. 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys (SREP 30)

SREP 30 provides a framework for the sustainable development and management of the entire St Marys site.  The key aspects of the SREP30 are outlined in the section below:

 

The subject development site is zoned Urban under the provisions Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 30 – St Marys (SREP 30). The proposal can be defined as roads, drains and parks are permitted in the zone pursuant to Clause 40(2) of the plan. The proposed subdivision is permissible only with consent in accordance with Clause 45.

 

The proposed amended subdivision and associated works has demonstrated the following aims of the SREP can be achieved:

 

·          facilitate urban development

·          promote desirable environmental, social and economic outcomes

·          provide recreation facilities that meet the local needs

·          integrate with surrounding areas.

 

The proposed amended subdivision and associated works, subject to the recommendations of the report, has demonstrated that the following zone objectives can be achieved:

 

·        facilitate works that are primarily used for residential purposes

·        minimise negative impacts on biodiversity and conservation within the adjoining Regional Park zone

·        to ensure that development adjacent to the Regional Park zone does not have a negative impact on biodiversity or conservation within that zone.

 

In accordance with Clause 20, this application has been assessed against the performance objectives and zone objectives of SREP 30, the Planning Agreement, Western Precinct Plan (WPP) and Development Control Strategy (DCS).  The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal is compliant with the performance objectives as outlined in Part 5 of the SREP as discussed in this report.

 

In accordance with Clause 44(2) of the SREP, the previous application was referred to NPWS for consideration of the proposed subdivision.

 

Correspondence was provided which included commentary in relation to the following:

 

·        The provision of bushfire tracks within Lots 6212 – 6221

·        The maintenance of fire access lots

·        Provision of new park entrance gates adjacent to Lot 6221

·        Recommendation of alternative street tree plantings to include Tristaniopsis laurina

·        Support for the provision of a Biodiversity corridor.

 

These requirements were addressed as conditions of consent and the proposal does not seek to amend these requirements. As such the application was not required to be re-referred to NPWS for further comment.

 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) - Any Development Control Plan

 

St Marys Western Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy (WPP and DCS)

 

The proposed amended subdivision has demonstrated continued compliance with the WPP and DCS in relation to

 

·          urban structure and major land uses

·          subdivision layout

·          conservation of natural values

·          water cycle and soils

·          sustainability

·          infrastructure and services

·          street types.

 

Further consideration of relevant sections of the DCS has been undertaken below:-

 

 

Clause 4.3 Future Character Areas

 

The development proposal extends across three different character areas: the Urban Area/Neighbourhood Character Area, Ninth Avenue Interface and Bushland Edge. The layout of the subdivision and the varying range of lots are considered to be consistent with the character areas detailed within the Development Control Strategy.

 

The previous application included the provision of dual occupancy entitlements for the lots within the Ninth Avenue Interface. This was not supported as the lots in this location are required to reflect the rural / residential character interface of Llandilo. The amended plan of subdivision has deleted these references.

 

As a result the amended development proposal is in accordance with the character area vision outlined within the Development Control Strategy. 

 

Clause 4.5 Dwelling Density

 

The Western Precinct Plan and accompanying Development Control Strategy originally identified an indicative density target of approximately 130 dwellings within the Village 6 precinct. However Council at its meeting on 9 May 2011 adopted a revised Dwelling Yield Plan which replaces the density targets within the adopted Development Control Strategy.  The dwelling yield for Village 6 now ranges from 150 – 200 dwellings.  The proposed amended development encompasses the whole of Village 6, and reduces the lot yield from 215 residential lots to 203 residential lots. As outlined within the previous assessment report, this precinct was always intended to transition from the typical urban subdivision pattern of Jordan Springs to the larger rural residential allotments within Llandilo. Because of this it was intended that this village would have a lower density target than the remainder of the western precinct and as a result the proposed density is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Clause 4.7 Access and Movement

 

The Street Hierarchy Plan, Bus Route and Stops Plan and Pedestrian/Cycle Plan submitted with the previous application demonstrated compliance with the WPP and DCS and that the following principles can be achieved:

 

·          Provide a hierarchy of roads that connect to the external road network and the adjoining precincts for access, employment and recreation purposes

·          Balance the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, motorist and buses

·          Improves pedestrian connection to Xavier College to promote students walking/ cycling to and from school

·          Reduce car use and promote public transport patronage.

 

The retention of the proposed access arrangements, including the limitation of one access point to Ninth Avenue is consistent with the SEPP 30 Structure Plan and Development Control Strategy for vehicle access points.

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer reviewed the approved proposal including the Traffic Impact Assessment Report and Road Safety Audit Report prepared by GTA Consultants and raised no objections. Given the strategic intention to limit access arrangements to Ninth Avenue and manage traffic internally within the precinct, the approved access arrangements are not considered to warrant revision or amendment as part of this modification application. 

 

 

 

Clause 5B Built Form and Housing

 

The amended plan of subdivision and Building Envelope Plan have demonstrated compliance with the WPP and DCS in relation to:

 

·          The proposed subdivision, with lot size varying from 300m2 to 3847m2, is compliant with the minimum lot size for detached housing.

·          The proposal is compliant with the minimum criteria for lot width and depth as outlined in Table 4 of the Development Control Strategy.

·          Provision has also been made for easement for access and maintenance for narrow allotments.

 

The following table summarises the proposed subdivision in respect to dwelling yield and proportion for dwelling stock: -

 

 

 

Previous Village 6 Lot Yield

Previous Total Lot Yield

(Western Precinct)

Amended Village 6 Lot Yield

Amended Total Lot Yield

(Western Precinct)

Detached Housing

Lots 270m2 to 500m2

(Indicative % of Overall Dwelling Mix = 60-70%)

106

(49.3%)

1933

(81.29%)

 91

(44.83%)

1918

(81.06%)

Detached Housing

Lots 501m2 to 999m2

(Indicative % of Overall Dwelling Mix = 20%-25%)

82

(38.14%)

414

(17.41%)

85

(41.87%)

417

(17.625%)

Detached Housing Lots 1000 m2

(Indicative % of Overall Dwelling Mix = 1%- 2%)

27

(12.56%)

31

(1.30%)

27

(13.30%)

31

(1.31%)

Total Number of Lots

215

2378

203

2366

 

The targets identified above provide for a variety of housing choice to ensure that the net neighbourhood density prescribed in SREP 30 is achieved.  Although the number of lots between 501m2 to 999m2 has not met the 20%-25% indicative percentage, the overall lot yield has achieved 17.625% which is higher than the previously proposed calculation of 16.57%. The reduction in lots and increase in larger lot provision / percentage across the precinct is considered satisfactory as the proposal appropriately responds to housing demand within the immediate area and provides for a mix of lot sizes and built form outcomes within the precinct.

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP 2006)

 

The modified development proposal is in accordance with the relevant provisions of Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. Not all provisions of this DCP are applicable to the Western Precinct based on overriding provisions contained in the Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy. The relevant provisions have previously been considered in this report in discussions relating to the applicable environmental planning instruments.

 

The modified development proposal has been assessed against the following provisions of the DCP:

 

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

 

Context and Setting

 

The amended lot size and configuration of the proposed subdivision has demonstrated compliance with Table 4 Residential Development Controls of Part 5 of the Development Control Strategy and thereby the Framework Plan and Environmental Management Strategies of WPP in relation to:

 

(a)     subdivision layout principles

(b)     dwelling density

(c)     access and movement

(d)     conservation of natural values

(e)     bushfire measures

.

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

 

The site has been identified within the applicable environmental planning instruments (SREP) and supporting precinct plan and development control strategy as being suitable for urban development.

 

The site is considered to be capable of accommodating urban development without adverse impact on threatened species or ecological communities as addressed within the submitted Species Impact Statement and supplementary supporting information. 

 

The site provides connectivity to the remainder of Jordan Springs (to the west) and provides a transitioning lot size mix throughout the village from standard urban lots to larger rural residential lots in accordance with the requirements of the development control strategy. 

 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Any Planning Agreement

 

Council entered into the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement on 19 May 2009. The agreement contains provisions for local transport works, open space works and community services for the Western Precinct.

 

A 0.5ha local park will continue to be provided adjacent to the riparian corridor, as required by the Planning Agreement. The embellishment of the Riparian Corridor, including the provision of a pedestrian connection, will be the subject of a separate Development Application, as has been pursued for all other parks within the Western Precinct.

 

This proposal is consistent with these Agreements for the provisions for works, dedications and contributions regarding the regional parkland, regional open space, regional transport and road infrastructure and affordable housing.  An advisory condition has been maintained reinforcing Lend Lease’s obligations under this Development Agreement.

 

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

 

(a)        External Referrals

 

The following authorities were consulted as per the relevant legislation as follows: -

 

·        NSW Rural Fire Service –Rural Fires Act 1997

 

The revised architectural plans were referred to the Rural Fire Service. A revised Bush Fire Safety Authority issued on 11 September 2015, which replaces the previous correspondence dated 31 July 2015.

 

External referrals were not required to the Roads and Maritime Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Office of Water or Sydney Water due to the nature of the modified development.

 

(b)        Public Submissions

 

The application was advertised, placed on public exhibition and notified to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties from 6 July 2015 to 20 July 2015 in accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2014.

 

A total of ten (10) submissions were received. The key issues raised in these submissions and as follows:

 

·        The proposal results in clearing of critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland

·        Inadequate width of the proposed biodiversity corridor further eroded by land clearing that has occurred within this location

·        Inappropriate road locations which will destroy biodiversity wildlife corridors

·        The ecological assessment is flawed and relies on 2011 data which is irrelevant

·        Impacts on local endangered wildlife.

·        Housing is proposed to back onto the school will remove their views

·        The proposal will exacerbate existing traffic problems within the area

·        The amendment has not resolved previous concerns raised with respect to wildlife connectivity

·        Council officers have not consulted with community groups or ecologists since the matter was deferred from Council in May 2015

·        There has been no plan provided which shows how the cleared corridor will be revegetated

·        The bushfire assessment report does not address risk from the proposed wildlife corridor

·        The developer is not prepared to work with the community to address the biodiversity concerns raised

 

The proposed road design and access arrangements are strictly in accordance with the access requirements outlined within the Western Precinct Plan – Development Control Strategy.

 

The clearing of vegetation in the ‘urban’ zoned land within the precinct has been previously considered by Council and is in accordance with the Western Precinct Plan – Development Control Strategy and the extent of the ‘Urban’ zone as outlined within State Regional Environmental Planning Policy No. 30 – St Marys.  The SREP has specifically identified areas of protected vegetation through the ‘Regional Park’ zoning. The provision of a secondary biodiversity corridor is not a mandatory requirement within either the SREP or the DCS and is a commitment to providing some connectivity between the Regional Park and existing vegetation to the north.

 

The applicant has submitted supplementary statements in support of the original Species Impact Statement (lodged with the original development application). This includes a document titled ‘Response to Penrith City Council’s Request Regarding Biodiversity Assessment of Village 6, Jordan Springs’ dated 19 June 2015 and the supporting Supplementary Ecological Assessment.  This additional information has provided further site survey data (inspected on 14 April 2015) and associated reporting.  The level of detail submitted to date is considered to be sufficient to enable adequate assessment of the application.

 

The assessment of the application has considered edge effects and bushfire fire risk with respect to the biodiversity corridor noting that asset protection zones are required either side of the corridor in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection but are contained wholly within the applicable residential lots.

 

The concerns raised within the received submissions concerning the location and suitability of the proposed biodiversity corridor within Lot 6010 have been acknowledged and were put to the applicant to resolve. An amended plan of subdivision has been submitted  in response which reduces reliance on cleared land within the proposed corridor, relocates the corridor further east and ensures a 100m corridor is proposed which is unimpeded by APZ restrictions.

 

A perimeter road has now been proposed at the back of the school with views still achievable.

 

The key issues raised in the submissions have been addressed throughout this report. In view of the above, it is considered that the issues raised do not warrant refusal of this Development Application however the concerns raised with respect to the biodiversity corridor warrant relocation of the corridor as reflected within recommended amended conditions of consent.

 

In addition to the above, and in response to previous concerns raised by Xavier College, the Principal of Xavier College has been contacted by telephone on 7 September 2015 by Council officers with no objections being raised to the proposed amended development application.

 

(c)        Internal Referral

 

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

 

Referrals

Comments

Senior Development Engineer

No objection, subject to amended conditions of consent.

Senior Biodiversity Officer

No objection, subject to amended conditions of consent.

 

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

 

The proposal was advertised, exhibited and notified from 6 July 2015 to 20 July 2015 in accordance with Clause 89(3) of the EP&A Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

The site is suitable for the proposed amended development. Subdivision is permissible in the Urban zone under the provisions of SREP 30 – St Marys and it has been demonstrated that the proposals meet the aims and objectives of the environmental planning instruments which applies to the site. The proposed amended subdivision is considered to be site responsive and is in the spirit of the planning framework which has been envisioned for the Western Precinct.

 

The recommendations of the Council report to relocate and enlarge the proposed biodiversity corridor respond to the biodiversity concerns raised during the assessment of the application and the issues raised within the received submissions.

 

As a result Council may be satisfied that the development subject to conditions is consistent with the public interest.

 

Condition Amendments

 

As outlined at the beginning of this report, the applicant has requested amendment and deletion of various conditions of consent in response to the amended plan of subdivision proposed within this modification application. Condition amendments are addressed below:-

 

·        Condition No. 1 is recommended to be amended to reflect the amended plans submitted with this modification application;

 

·        Condition No. 4 is recommended to amended to reflect the updated asset protection zones and their relocation within private lots;

 

·        Condition No. 9 is recommended to be amended to reflect the updated general terms of approval of the NSW Rural Fire Service (now dated 11 September 2015). The amendment relates wholly to altering the correspondence date of the RFS general terms of approval from 28 November 2014 to 11 September 2015;

 

·        Condition No. 11 is recommended to be deleted as the amalgamation of lots 6000 – 6015 and 6152 is no longer necessary as a biodiversity corridor will be provided within Lot 6012;

 

·        Condition No. 12 is recommended to be deleted as the amended plan of subdivision provides for a separating road between residential lots and Xavier College thereby negating the need for the condition; and

 

·        The inclusion of a new condition requiring the preparation of Vegetation Management Plan for Lot 6012 to ensure the rehabilitation of land disturbed within the lot.

 

4.0     Conclusion

 

The proposed subdivision ensures compliance with the aims and objectives of the Western Precinct Plan and Development Control Strategy. The proposal provides a subdivision density which is generally consistent with the targets identified for the Village 6 site and provides vehicular connectivity to the west and north in accordance with the Framework Plan within the DCS.

 

The proposal continues to provide a centralised riparian corridor to meet the aims and objectives of the DCS and Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan. 

 

The application also includes provision for a secondary connection which is not a prescribed requirement within the Western Precinct Plan or Development Control Strategy. The assessment of the proposed location coupled with the Federal Government’s funding announcement (referred to as the Cumberland Conservation Corridor Commitment) to implement conservation initiatives within the Cumberland Conservation Corridor justifies the need for the corridor and the need for its relocation and recommended revised width. The amended plan of subdivision now submitted reduces reliance on cleared land within the proposed corridor, relocates the corridor further east and ensures a 100m corridor is proposed which is unimpeded by APZ restrictions. This is an improved outcome and is considered to be supportable.

 

In view of the above assessment, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions of consent.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Development Application DA14/1550.01 Section 96 Application for Modifications to the Subdivision Layout (Village 6), Jordan Springs Lot 1125 DP1158660 Ninth Avenue, Jordan Springs be received.

2.      Council form the opinion that the subject modified application does not have a ‘significant effect’ on threatened species, population or an ecological community as outlined within the body of this report.

3.      The information contained in the report on Development Application DA14/1550.01 Section 96 Application for Modifications to the Subdivision Layout (Village 6), Jordan Springs Lot 1125 DP1158660 Ninth Avenue, Jordan Springs be determined by granting a consent in accordance with Section 80(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 subject to the following amended conditions.

 

Standard Conditions

 

A001 – Amended to reflect the amended plans of subdivision and supporting documentation.

 

Special Conditions

 

Condition No. 4 be deleted and replaced as follows:-

                                               

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

a)      A 10 metre wide inner protection area (IPA) shall be provided within Lot 6011 along its eastern boundary. In accordance with section 88B of the 'Conveyancing Act 1919' a restriction to the land use shall be placed on this lot requiring the provision of this IPA which shall be maintained as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'

 

b)      A 15 metre wide inner protection area (IPA) shall be provided in Lot 6013       along its western boundary. In accordance with section 88B of the ‘Conveyancing Act 1919' a restriction to the land use shall be placed on these lots requiring the provision of this IPA which shall be maintained as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

 

Condition No. 9 be deleted and replaced as follows:-

 

a)      Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

b)      Public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

c)      Fire trails shall comply with section 4.1.3 (3) of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

d)      A 2.1 metre high non-combustible radiant heat shield shall be provided along the northern boundary of proposed lots 6011 to 6019.

e)      General Advice - This approval is for the subdivision of the land only. Any further development application for class 1,2 & 3 buildings as identified by the 'Building Code of Australia' must be subject to separate application  under section 79BA of the EP & A Act and address the  requirements of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 

          The development proposal is to comply with the subdivision layout identified on the drawing prepared by RPS Australia numbered D646-S6-002Pr.dwg Issue R, dated 9 September 2015.

 

Condition No. 11 be deleted.

 

Condition No. 12 be deleted.

 

Additional condition to be added.

 

Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, a detailed Vegetation Management Plan for the short and long term management of the Biodiversity Corridor is to be submitted to Penrith City Council for approval. If Council is not the certifying authority, a copy of Council’s approval for the Vegetation Management Plan is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority. The plan is to include the following:

 

a)      Is consistent with relevant environmental legislation and policies, including, but not limited to, the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 the Water Management Act 2002, the Rural Fires Act 1997 as well as the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and guidelines such as the Rural Fire Services Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and Recovering Bushland on the Cumberland Plain: Best practice guidelines for the management and restoration of bushland (DEC, 2005).

b)      A detailed plan that clearly outlines how vegetation should be protected and managed during construction of proposed future development and the ongoing future management of the vegetation and any identified threatened species over the next 3 years, as well as in the longer term. The focus is to be on best practice bush regeneration methods and habitat improvement.

c)      The VMP is to identify potential future impacts on the vegetation from the development and road, including access, weed encroachment, pest animals, stormwater etc, and is to outline how these impacts will be managed in the long term. 

d)      The VMP is to include specifications for the management and maintenance of the APZ areas on each side of the Biodiversity Corridor.

e)      Project tasks should be defined and described, including a schedule detailing the sequence and duration of works necessary for the implementation of the VMP.

f)       Costings for the implementation of all components and stages of the work including materials, labour, watering, maintenance, monitoring and reporting should be included.

g)      Processes for monitoring and review, including a method of performance evaluation should be identified. This should include replacing plant losses, addressing deficiencies, problems, climatic conditions and successful completion of works.


The Vegetation Management Plan is to be prepared by an Ecological Consultant or Bush Regenerator with theoretical and practical experience in bushland restoration and management on the Cumberland Plain. A Certificate IV in Conservation and Land Management is required as a minimum.

 

All activities on site are to be implemented and carried out in accordance with the plan. Council may request a review and if necessary updating of the plan to reflect current environmental standards and site conditions. Council must be satisfied with any changes prior to the amendment of the plan.

 

                   3.       Those who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Approved Plans of Subdivision

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Proposed Plan of Subdivision

1 Page

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 2 - Approved Plans of Subdivision

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 3 - Proposed Plan of Subdivision

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

7

Development Application DA14/0622.02 Section 96 Modification to Approved Earthworks, Shed and Truck Parking Including Amendment of the Approved Shed Location, Shed Design, Operational Conditions of Consent and Lighting at Lot 122 DP709303 (No. 41-47) Jolly Street, Castlereagh  Applicant:  Ty Gosling;  Owner:  Ty and Deanne Gosling   

 

Compiled by:               Donna Clarke, Consultant Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development and Environmental Health Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character

Service Activity

Facilitate quality development that contributes to a growing regional City

     

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of an application to modify approved Development Application No. 14/0622 for earthworks, construction of a shed and parking of two truck vehicles (rigid truck and semi-trailer) at the subject property.  The proposed use was approved as the “garaging of plant and trucks” and the proposed shed and earthworks remain as ancillary components of the dwelling. The proposal was permitted in Zone 1B (Rural B - Smallholdings) under the provisions of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 201 (Rural Lands) in force at that time.

DA 14/0622 was determined under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 201 (Rural Lands) (LEP 201) and Penrith Development Control Plan 2006. Following the determination of DA 14/0622, Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Amendment 4) and Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 came into force. 

The application granted consent for new works to complete the commenced excavation and driveway construction, and use of the proposed shed.  The approval also imposed conditions of consent with respect to the operation of the site, removal of unauthorised items from the site such as the site office and the relocation of the shed.

                          

The proposed modification was exhibited and notified to adjoining owners/occupiers for a period of 14 days from 1 July 2015 to 15 July 2015 in accordance with the Development Control Plan. In response, Council received four (4) submissions. The main issues raised in these submissions are outlined below:

 

·    Concern that the removal or relaxation of conditions will result in a de-facto commercial operation / truck depot / transport company, which is prohibited in the zone.

·    The approved shed location was in response to specific concerns regarding stormwater and overland flow and as such, relocation should not be supported.

·    No evidence has been provided that the relocation or enlargement of the shed would not result in adverse stormwater overland impacts.

·    The shed is larger than approved.

·    The trial period was in response to previous issues of non-compliant works and activities by the applicant.

·    Amendments to conditions of consent should not be supported as they alter the nature of the use, have amenity impacts and the development is not substantially the same as approved.

 

This proposed relocation and enlargement of the shed and amendments to conditions would

 

 

result in a development that is not considered to be substantially the same as approved and would be prohibited in the zone. Further, it has not been demonstrated that adequate drainage design measures are proposed to manage sheet flow.  There are also likely to be amenity and environmental impacts resulting from the increased hours for maintenance of the trucks, persons other than the occupants of the dwelling parking their vehicles on site and lighting. The removal of the trial period provides on-going consent for the use without the ability to address any environmental impacts which arise during the trial period. Therefore this application is recommended for refusal.

 

This Section 96 modification application is also the subject of a Class 1 Appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the deemed refusal of this application.

Background

The applicant lodged Development Application No. 13/1432 for the construction of a front fence including a featured entry and earthworks on 9 December 2013. This application was approved by Council on 25 August 2014, with amendments in red to the approved plan which noted that the approval excluded unauthorised fill.

 

Development Application 14/0622 was lodged with Council on 11 June 2014 and was approved by Council on 27 October 2014 subject to amended conditions of consent. The consent related to the legitimisation of earthworks, truck turning area, construction of a shed and the parking of truck / plant equipment within the shed.  The resolution of Council required the location of the approved shed to be amended in red on the stamped approved plans, to be located on the northern edge of the turning area, rather than the western side of the site.

 

On 10 October 2014, prior to the application being determined by Council, the applicant lodged an appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court against the deemed refusal of Development Application 14/0622.  The appeal specifically sought amendment to conditions of consent and amendment to the conditioned shed location. The appeal however was subsequently discontinued and the issued consent remains in force.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The site is located on the northern side of Jolly Street which is bounded by Sheredan Road to the west and Church Street to the east.  Refer to Locality Plan Attachment No. 1.  Developments in the area are primarily rural residential in nature. 

 

The site has a total area of approximately 2.3 hectares.  The site falls around 2 metres from the southwest to the northeast.  Existing improvements on the site include a dwelling house, a garage/shed and an in ground swimming pool. 

 

Council’s information has identified the site as Bush Fire Prone Land.  As the site contains remnants of Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland, Council has also identified the property as Cumberland Plain Priority Conservation Land.

 

The site is not flood affected or subject to overland flow. However, the unauthorised fill works that have occurred on the site to date that has changed the natural contours of the land and redirected sheet flow. Sheet flow naturally drains from south west to east across the site which has been altered by the activities undertaken by the current owner.

 

The Proposed Development

 

A Modification to approved Development Application No. 14/0622 under Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment At, 1979 was lodged. The proposed amendments include:-

 

·    Relocation of the approved shed location to the western side of the turning area, enlargement by 2m in width and 48m² in total, and addition of roller doors on the western and southern facades of the shed;

·    Amendment to Condition No. 1 to reflect the amended plan (including relocated shed and enlargement of the shed floor area);

·    Amendment to Condition No. 11 to remove the restriction on the use of the shed for a 12 month period;

·    Amendment to Condition No. 13 to allow increased truck movements on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays;

·    Amendment to Condition No. 14 to allow servicing of personal vehicles;

·    Amendment to Condition No. 15 to allow occasional parking of vehicles by employees when the truck on site is required to be moved;

·    Amendment to Condition No. 17 to allow minor truck maintenance to occur on Saturday afternoons and Sundays and Public Holidays;

·    Amendment to Condition No. 19 to allow occasional parking of the trucks outside of the shed; and

·    Amendment to Condition No. 21 to allow the lighting on the site which is proposed to be directed away from adjoining dwellings.

 

Planning Assessment

 

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 96 and Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) (EP&A Act), and having regard to those matters; the following issues have been identified for further consideration.

 

1.       Section 96 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

 

Section 96 (1A) of the Act states:

 

"96(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact

 

A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a)  it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

   

(b)  it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

(c)  it has notified the application in accordance with:

 

                   (i)  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

 

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

(d)  it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be."

 

When considering an application to modify the application, the consent authority is required to look at the proposed modifications and their associated impact only. The legislation discusses that the expected impacts of the modification are to be reviewed, as well as other planning considerations such as environmental impacts and whether or not the application is substantially the same.

 

The proposed modification is not considered to be of minimal environmental impact given the following:

 

·    potential impact upon the sheet flow from the relocation of the shed and drainage design measures to manage such flow,

·    the amenity impacts resulting from increased hours for servicing of the trucks,

·    persons other than the occupants of the dwelling parking their vehicles on site and lighting.

The removal of the trial period provides on-going consent for the use without the ability to address any environmental impacts which arise during the trial period and as such concern is raised with its requested deletion.

 

The modified development is not substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted as some proposed amendments change the nature and permissibility of the storage of trucks on the site ancillary to the dwelling and renders the use prohibited within the zone. Further, the enlargement and relocation of the shed alters the suitability and compatibility of the shed with respect to the constraints of the site and amenity of adjoining dwellings and therefore is no longer considered to be substantially the same development.

 

The submissions received during the notification period raise similar concerns to Council’s issues relating to environmental impacts and permissibility as a result of the proposed amendments.

 

The amended proposal now includes the following key amendments: 

 

·    Amendment to Plans – Shed to be relocated. The approved shed location is intended to be altered to the western side of the turning area (as was originally proposed), with enlargement by 2m in width and 48m² in total, and addition of roller doors on the western and southern facades of the shed.

 

Comment:

 

Relocation of shed is dependent on resolution of sheet flow issues and provision of drainage design measures to manage such flow. The modification application was not accompanied by a drainage design plan on how the reported sheet flow concerns will be managed. This is critical to consideration being given to the relocation of the approved shed and was the reason that the shed was relocated by resolution of Council within the previous determination. The applicant has requested a larger shed to accommodate trucks and personal items. The shed is already substantially larger than provided for by the DCP and the need for a further increase is not warranted and is considered to result in adverse visual, environmental and amenity impacts;

 

·    Condition No. 1 to reflect the amended plan (including relocated shed and enlargement of the shed floor area)

Comment:

 

This is an administrative condition which reflects the plans and supporting documents approved within a consent. Amendment to this condition would only occur if approval was granted to the modification;

 

·    Condition No. 11 to remove the restriction on the use of the shed for a 12 month period

 

The condition states:

 

A trial consent period of twelve (12) months is granted for the storage and basic maintenance of two (2) pieces of plant or truck vehicles operated only by the occupier or occupiers of the property  this consent lapses upon expiry of 12 months from the date of consent.  This consent is effective from the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the shed.  Prior to expiry of the date of the trial consent period, the applicant may submit a new Application for any continuance of the use.

 

Comment:

 

The intent of the 12 month trial period is to address any issues that arise from the garaging of trucks on the rural property. It is desirable to maintain the trial period given the history of unauthorised use on the site and to accurately gauge the impacts of the development. Deletion is not supported;

 

·    Condition No. 13 to allow increased truck movements on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays

 

The condition states:

 

Truck movements are restricted to four (4) vehicle trips per day and restricted to between 6:00am and 8:00pm Monday to Fridays. No trucks movements are permitted on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.

 

Comment:

 

Given the nature of the area being rural-residential and that the garaging of trucks is ancillary to the dwelling and not a business or industrial zone, it is unreasonable to expect that truck movements could occur 7 days a week from an amenity viewpoint. An amendment to the condition to allow restricted Saturday movements could be considered;

 

·    Condition No. 14 to allow servicing of personal vehicles

 

The condition states:

 

The property must not be used as a truck/transport depot and/or vehicle repair workshop or vehicle repair station for:

 

i)        the parking or servicing of motor vehicles used in connection with a business, industry or freight transport undertaking garaging or storage or maintenance or servicing of any other trucks; or

 

ii)         repair of vehicles other than the two (2) pieces of plant or trucks approved herein.

 

Comment:


Servicing of personal vehicles is considered to be ancillary to the dwelling. The condition could be modified by addition of words regarding servicing personal vehicles as there is no intent to limit servicing of personal vehicles of the occupants of the dwelling, only the trucks being garaged; however the application as a whole is not supported

 

·    Condition No. 15 to allow occasional parking of vehicles by employees when the truck on site is required to be moved

 

The condition states:

 

Storage of additional trucks or employee’s vehicles must occur at a site which is subject to development consent for such use. Employees of the business are not to leave their vehicles on site and drive one of the two trucks stored on site, unless they are a permanent occupier of the property.

 

Comment:

 

The application requests occasional vehicles to be parked when the occupant of the dwelling is sick and a person who does not reside on the site drives a truck, adding the words “when the owner is incapacitated and unable to drive the truck”. The proposed changes alter the permissibility of the use as storage of the trucks is only permitted by the owner and occupier of the house and amendment cannot be supported as the use would be prohibited within the zone;

 

·    Condition No. 17 to allow minor truck maintenance to occur on Saturday afternoons and Sundays and Public Holidays

 

The condition states:

 

All minor truck maintenance work is to be undertaken only by the owner of the property and must be undertaken inside the shed on the site. Minor truck maintenance work is to be restricted to between 6:00am and 8:00pm Monday to Fridays, 9:00am and 1:00pm Saturdays. No minor truck maintenance work is permitted on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

Comment:

 

Given the nature of the area being rural-residential and that the garaging of trucks is ancillary to the dwelling and not a business or industrial zone, it is unreasonable to expect that servicing of the trucks being garaged on site could occur 7 days a week from an amenity viewpoint. An amendment to the condition to allow restricted Saturday afternoon maintenance could be considered;

 

·    Condition No. 19 to allow occasional parking of the trucks outside of the shed

 

The condition states:

 

The two trucks must be stored inside the shed at all times and no loading or unloading of goods to or from the trucks is permitted on the site.

 

Comment:

 

Given the nature of the area being rural-residential and that the garaging of trucks is ancillary to the dwelling and not a business or industrial zone, it is unreasonable to expect that trucks being housed on site would be stored outside of the shed from an amenity viewpoint. An amendment to the condition to allow occasional storage outside of the shed (e.g. returning home between jobs or for lunch break and with a limit on frequency and time), could be considered with specific occasions detailed in the amended wording; and

 

·    Condition No. 21 to allow the lighting on the site which is proposed to be directed away from adjoining dwellings

 

The condition states:

 

Exterior flood lighting is not permitted and any erected lighting structures are to be removed from the site prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Comment:

 

Amendments to the wording of the condition could be considered to allow lighting directed away from the adjoining dwellings, subject to details of the lighting location, intensity and direction being provided and reviewed and considered satisfactory.

 

Given that the amended proposal is not substantially the same as approved, results in environmental impacts and is prohibited as a result of certain requested amendments, refusal of the modification application is recommended.

 

 

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

 

The proposed modification application has been assessed against the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies, Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plan as follows:-

 

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

Compliance with SREP 20 is controlled by way of conditions of consent. However, in considering the proposed amendments, sufficient detail has not been forthcoming regarding the sheet flow issues as a result of the location of the shed and fill activities which have occurred on the site.

 

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Amendment 4)

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Amendment 4) applies to the land and the site is zoned E4 – Environmental Living. Schedule 2 – Exempt Development of the LEP outlines relevant criteria for the ability to park up to two trucks or pieces or plant on a site as exempt development if the parking area provides a connection to sealed driveways, is screened from adjoining properties, there is no adverse impact on drainage and flow paths and no removal of trees or vegetation is pursued without consent.  One of the criteria is also that the development must not include the construction of a shed or earthworks to create the parking area. 

 

Schedule 2 states:

 

          Truck parking areas (in Zones RU1, RU2, RU4, E3 and E4)

 

          (1)  Must be for a maximum of 2 trucks per property.

 

          (2)  May also be for associated plant transported by the trucks.

 

(3)  Must be for trucks and associated plant owned or operated by the occupier of the property.

 

(4)  Must not include the construction of a shed or earthworks to create the parking area.

 

          (5)  Must be at least 5m from each property boundary.

 

(6)  Maximum area for parking and manoeuvring (excluding driveway)—200m2 (to facilitate parking and manoeuvring in accordance with AS 2890.2—2002, Parking facilities—Off-street commercial vehicle facilities).

 

          (7)  Must connect to vehicular entrance via a sealed driveway.

 

          (8)  Must be screened from view from adjoining properties.

 

(9)  Must not interfere with the functioning of existing drainage fixtures or flow paths or be located to obstruct, prevent use of or reduce the effective operation of any existing facilities, services or development on the site (such as on-site effluent disposal).

 

(10)  Must not require the removal of any tree or native vegetation, unless that removal is undertaken in accordance with a permit or development consent.

 

The proposed amendment has not demonstrated that there will be no adverse drainage impacts and was not accompanied by a drainage design plan on how the reported sheet flow concerns will be managed.

 

To ensure the development is consistent with the objectives of E4 zone in relation to protecting the rural character and residential amenity of the residential neighbourhood, it is considered appropriate that the conditions of consent remain to control the intensification and impacts of the use.

 Development Control Plan

At the time of determination, the site was zoned 1(b) (Rural ‘B’ zone - Smallholdings) under the provisions of LEP 201 and hence Penrith Development Control Plan 2006 (DCP) was applicable to the proposal.  Since the gazettal of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Amendment 4), Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 applies.

 

 

 

 

Penrith Development Control Plan 2014

 

When considering a non-agricultural use, DCP 2014 requires protection of the rural character and amenity, and avoidance of unnecessary conflicts between inconsistent land uses.

 

The relocation of the shed provides uncertainty regarding adequate drainage, as this location provides a shallow depression with existing sheet flow drainage.

 

DCP 2014 allows limited parking of trucks and associated plant owned and operated by the owner or occupier of a property where interference on the amenity of the neighbourhood through limited vehicle movements and associated impacts such as noise and light is limited. It is concluded that the proposed amendments to conditions and relocation and enlargement of the shed create additional interference with the amenity of the property to the west and therefore is unsuitable.

 

Attachment 6 also outlines assessment against the previous Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan which have now been superseded or repealed.  This assessment demonstrates that the proposed amendments are not suitable having regard to the previous zone objectives and permissibility within the Local Environmental Plan as well as the applicable development standards and objectives within the preceding Development Control Plan which applied at the time of the original application.

 

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

 

The likely impacts of the proposed modified development upon the surrounding area are discussed as follows:

 

Context and Setting

 

Developments in the area are predominantly rural-residential in nature. It was considered that the shed, the associated truck turning area and driveway would have minimal impact on the rural setting of the locality provided the conditions of consent were imposed and complied with.  This modification application alters the suitability of the site by increasing the shed size and altering its location whilst having no regard to the drainage implications of the amendments. Further, removal of the trial period and relaxation of the conditions of consent alter the nature of the use and its appropriateness for the site.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

 

Prior to Council granting consent to DA 14/0622, the original proposal was amended to reduce the size of the shed, as well as other changes such as increase in setbacks and landscaping. The proposed amended location and increase in size is considered to be at odds with the site design which was considered acceptable by Council. While it is still considered more appropriate that the shed be located where proposed to negate the need for further vegetation removal this location is dependent on resolution of the sheet flow drainage concerns raised.

 

Further, a restriction on lighting is requested to be lifted, however no details have been provided on the location or intensity of lighting to determine if residential amenity of adjoining properties is affected.

 

 

 

 

Noise and Vibration

 

The development consent included restrictions on operational hours, the number of trucks or plant being stored on site, the employees only to be permanent residents of the site and restrictions on the vehicle movement times and servicing. These are considered necessary to reduce impacts on residential amenity and as such the proposed amendments are not supported.

 

Natural Hazards

 

There is a lack of detail regarding sheet flows and no drainage plan has been submitted with the amended application to demonstrate that drainage is adequate with respect to the enlarged and relocated shed.  

 

Socio-economic impacts

 

To minimise any adverse impact in the locality, the approval included a condition for a 12-month consent be granted to the use of the shed for storage of the rigid truck and semi-trailer. The applicant can apply to modify and/or delete the time-limited condition after 12 months subject to strict compliance with the development consent. This proposed amendment is seeking removal of this condition prior to the full impacts of the proposal being determined during the trial period and is not supported.

 

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

 

The site is not considered suitable for the proposed amendments to conditions, relocation and expansion of the shed proposal.

 

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

 

In accordance with the Act and Regulations, consideration has been given to any necessary referrals and any submissions made.

 

Community Consultation

 

The proposed Development was exhibited and notified to adjoining owners/occupiers for a period of 14 days from 1 July 2015 to 15 July 2015 in accordance with the Respondent’s notification policy. In response, Council received four submissions. The issues raised in the submissions and a response are summarised below:

 

Issues

Comments

Concern that the removal or relaxation of conditions will result in a de-facto commercial operation / truck depot / transport company which is prohibited in the zone.

Permissibility of the use is altered if some of the conditions are amended, rendering the use prohibited. As a result this application is recommended for refusal.

Approved shed location was in response to specific concerns regarding stormwater and overland flow, relocation not supported.

A drainage design plan on how the reported sheet flow concerns will be managed has not been submitted with the amended application. As a result this application is recommended for refusal.

Shed is larger than approved and exceeds Council’s controls.

The shed has been increased in size, with the approved shed already exceeding Council’s numerical standards. The increase is not considered warranted or appropriate.

No evidence that the relocation or enlargement of the shed would not result in adverse stormwater overland impacts. Drainage impacts should be contained on site.

A drainage design plan on how the reported sheet flow concerns will be managed has not been submitted with the amended application.  As a result this application is recommended for refusal.

Trial period was in response to previous issues of non-compliance by the applicant.

Removal of the trial period is not supported as the full impacts of the use would not be experienced and ceased or rectified.

Condition 13 – restriction on truck movements was required to protect amenity and maintain rural-residential character and reinforce the small scale nature of the operation.

An increase to 7 days is not supported.

Condition 14 – restriction on servicing relates to trucks and therefore does not need to be amended.

Servicing of private vehicles is acceptable and is not restricted by current conditions.

Condition 15 – amendment to restriction on storage of trucks and employee vehicles seeks to modify the essence of the application and would be in direct conflict of the description of the development.

Amendment of Condition 15 would alter permissibility of the use and be prohibited.  As a result this application is recommended for refusal.

Condition 17 – amendment to allow maintenance of trucks on weekends alters the nature of the development and impacts on amenity.

An increase to 7 days is not supported.

Condition 19 – the condition for trucks to be stored inside the shed at all times is required to control the scale and operation of the use to ensure rural-residential character of the locality is maintained.

Limited, infrequent storage outside of the shed (e.g. lunch break) could be supported subject to additional wording to the condition which controls frequency and time period however the concerns raised with the overall proposal warrants refusal of the application.

Condition 21 – condition is imposed to protect amenity and prevent unnecessary light sill. No details were provided of the location or direction of lighting and spill. Should be sensor lighting.

No details were provided of the lighting location, intensity or direction to determine if acceptable.

Concern regarding trucks at all times of day and night.

Truck movements are restricted by way of a condition of consent. The proposed modification to increase movement times is not supported.

Intensification of use and potential as trucking distribution centre is of concern and will impact in terms of noise, damage the roads, impact on land values and is contrary to rural-residential zoning.

An intensification of the use is not supported and a trial period was approved to allow for tight control of the use and issues to be ceased or rectified.

No further earthworks should occur and unauthorised fill removed.

Unauthorised earthworks were legitimised by the original consent.

Concern over policing of truck numbers.

Truck numbers are restricted by conditions of consent.

 

Conclusion

 

In assessing this application against Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the relevant environmental planning policies, it is considered that the modified proposal does not satisfy the aims, objectives and provisions of these policies.

 

The above assessment concluded that the proposal cannot be supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed modification is not considered to be of minimal environmental impact given the impact upon the sheet flow from the relocation of the shed and drainage design measures to manage such flow and the amenity impacts resulting from increased hours for servicing of the trucks, persons other than the occupants of the dwelling parking their vehicles on site and lighting. The removal of the trial period provides on-going consent for the use without the ability to address any environmental impacts which arise during the trial period.

 

·    The modified development is not substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted as some proposed amendments change the nature and permissibility of the storage of trucks on the site ancillary to the dwelling and renders the use prohibited within the zone. Further, the enlargement and relocation of the shed alters the suitability and compatibility of the shed with respect to the constraints of the site and amenity of adjoining dwellings and therefore is no longer considered to be substantially the same development.

 

·    In view of the complaints received by Council in relation to the number of trucks parked on the premises, it is considered that strict compliance with the definition for garaging of plant and trucks under LEP 2014 and LEP 201 is essential in terms of permissibility and the property will not be used as a truck depot. Therefore it is considered vitally important for the consent for use of the shed for storage of two trucks be time limited to twelve (12) months to monitor compliance with this definition and review the impacts of the development on the surrounding area.

 

·    The proposed amendment has not demonstrated that there will be no adverse drainage impacts and was not accompanied by a drainage design plan on how the reported sheet flow concerns will be managed. Further, the relocation of the shed closer to the western boundary requires the removal of vegetation and increases the visual dominance from adjoining properties.

 

·    The shed is considered ample in size to accommodate the two trucks and other personal items. The visual and amenity impacts are considered to be compromised by the increase in size and location of the shed and are now unsuitable.

 

·    No details have been provided on the location or intensity of lighting to determine if residential amenity of adjoining properties is affected.

 

Therefore, the modified application is not considered worthy of support, and is recommended for refusal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.  The information contained in the report on Development Application DA14/0622.02 Section 96 Modification to Approved Earthworks, Shed and Truck Parking Including Amendment of the Approved Shed Location, Shed Design, Operational Conditions of Consent and Lighting at Lot 122 DP709303 (No. 41-47) Jolly Street, Castlereagh be received.

 

2.   Development Application DA14/0622.02 Section 96 Modification to Approved Earthworks, Shed and Truck Parking Including Amendment of the Approved Shed Location, Shed Design, Operational Conditions of Consent and Lighting at Lot 122 DP709303 (No. 41-47) Jolly Street, Castlereagh be refused for the following reasons:-

 

i)          The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed modification is not considered to be of minimal environmental impact given the likely impact upon drainage sheet flow resulting from the relocation of the shed and fill activities and insufficient information submitted to address how drainage design measures can be implemented to manage such flows.

 

ii)         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A)(a)and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed amendments result in an adverse impact to the amenity of adjoining properties resulting from increased hours for servicing of the trucks, persons other than the occupants of the dwelling parking and their vehicles on site.

 

iii)         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the removal of the trial period provides on-going consent for the use without the ability to address any environmental impacts which arise during the trial period.

 

iv)        The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A) (b) and (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the modified development is not substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted as some proposed amendments change the nature and permissibility of the storage of trucks on the site ancillary to the dwelling and renders the use prohibited within the zone.

 

v)         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A) (b) and (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979  as the proposed enlargement and relocation of the shed alters the suitability and compatibility of the shed with respect to the constraints of the site and amenity of adjoining dwellings.

 

vi)        The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A) (d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as in view of the complaints received by Council in relation to the number of trucks parked on the premises, it is considered that strict compliance with the definition for garaging of plant and trucks under LEP 2014 and LEP 201 is essential in terms of permissibility and the property will not be used as a truck depot and consent for use of the shed for storage of two trucks be time limited to twelve (12) months to monitor compliance with this definition and review the impacts of the development on the surrounding area.

 

vii)       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 96(1A)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed modification is not considered to be of minimal environmental impact as it has not been demonstrated that there will be no adverse impacts upon  residential amenity of adjoining properties with no details being provided on the location or intensity of lighting.

 

viii)       The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the modification intensifies the use and alters the permissibility of the use of the premises to store trucks as ancillary to the dwelling and is not permissible in the zone and is contrary to the objectives of the zone.

 

ix)        The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the approved shed is considered ample in size to accommodate the two trucks and other personal items. The visual and amenity impacts are considered to be compromised by the increase in size and location of the shed and are now unsuitable.

 

x)         The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed modified development would undermine the rural residential context of the area and is not suitable for the site.

 

xi)        The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 79C(1)(c) and (d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the modified proposal would have an adverse impact upon the existing area, having regard to the submissions made, and will cause significant impact to the amenity of the residential area and is therefore not be in the public interest.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

2.  

Approved Site Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

3.  

Proposed Amended Site Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

4.  

Proposed Amended Floor Plan and Elevations

1 Page

Attachments Included

5.  

Plan of Proposed Overland Flow Path

1 Page

Attachments Included

6.  

Superseded LEP and DCP Assessment

4 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

8

Development Application DA15/0800 for a Torrens Title Subdivision of 3 lots into 2 lots at Lots 75 and 76 Section G DP 1613 and Lot 6 DP 739547, No. 3 Horace Street Cranebrook   Applicant:  Penrith City Council;  Owner:  Penrith City Council   

 

Compiled by:               Belinda Borg, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development and Environmental Health Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Facilitate quality development that encourages a range of housing types, employment, recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Service Activity

Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

     

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

 

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application seeking approval for a Torrens Title Subdivision of 3 lots into 2 lots at No. 3 Horace Street Cranebrook.

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The subdivision of land is permissible with Council consent.

In accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2010, the proposed development has been notified to a total of 21 property owners and residents with the exhibition period being from 24 July 2015 to 07 August 2015. No submissions were received in relation to this application.

An assessment under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) has been undertaken and the application adequately addresses the relevant provisions of the Act. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

As the owner of the land is Penrith City Council, an independent review of the proposed development has been undertaken which supports the assessment and recommendation for approval.

 

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is known as Lot 75 Section G DP 1613, Lot 76 Section G DP 1613, Lot 6 DP 739547, No. 3 Horace Street, Cranebrook. Horace Street is an unformed road located on the southern side of Stingray Street. 

Lot 75 & 76 are located on the western side of Moth Close with each having a land area of 468m². Lot 6 is located on the southern side of Stingray Street with a land area of 329m² in size.

The subject land is relatively flat with a slight slope from the rear boundary of Lot 75 and 76. Lot 75 and 76 have two small trees that are present on the site; they do not hold any significance. Lot 6 DP 739547 has two trees which have been assessed to have some significance.

The surrounding area is characterised by well-established low density residential development that has access to public transport, services, schools and public open space. Cranebrook Shopping Village and Cranebrook High School are located south-east of the site.

 

Background

Council records indicate that Lots 75 and 76 Section G DP 1613 were linked to the original 1885 paper subdivision of Cranebrook, that was not developed. In 1978 the land was rezoned from non-urban to residential however the existing lots did not have building rights and had to be developed in accordance with the new zoning and DCP for the area at the time.

 

In 1989, Council purchased Lot 6 DP 739547 from the State Bank as Mortgagee in possession, to facilitate the future closure of Horace Street and potential subdivision of Lots 75, 76 and Lot 6.

 

Since 1989, negotiations with the owner of Lot 75 and 76 to either purchase Lots 75 and 76 or undertake a land exchange have continued as Lot 6, 75 and 76 each have limited capability of being developed by themselves. Whilst a land exchange was negotiated, the acquisition of Lots 75 and 76 was considered a better option and these lots were purchased in 2000, resulting in all three lots being owned by Council.

 

The Proposed Development

The development application seeks to create a two lots subdivision from three existing lots as follows:

-        Creation of Lot 2 that has a site area of 596.8m² with dimensions of 14.945m x 39.935m

-        Creation of Lot 3 that has a site area of 674.3m² with dimensions of 18.29m x 36.87m.

Additionally, included in the proposal is the widening of the Road Reserve within Moth Close adjoining the frontage of proposed Lot 3 measuring 18.29m x 0.3m.

Planning Assessment

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

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55- Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

The aim of this policy is to ensure that the land on which a development is proposed is not contaminated. Council is obliged, as a part of the development assessment process, to investigate previous land uses and determine whether potential contamination has taken place on the site.

Historically the subject site has been vacant land and therefore the land use does not give rise to any potential for contamination issues. Accordingly, Council is satisfied that the provisions of this SEPP have been satisfied and no remediation of land would be required under SEPP 55 as the site is not contaminated.

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

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

The general aims and objectives of the plan are directed towards improving the health of the river and protecting the lands within the river valley, including scenic quality. The implementation of erosion and sediment control measures during the installation of stormwater drainage lines and associated gross pollutant traps will ensure the proposed development will have minimal impact.  A number of recommended condition will ensure protection of existing water quality and quantity (see D002, D005, D009, D026 D Special Mud and K201).

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

The subject site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposed Torrens Title Subdivision is permissible in the zone and is consistent with the zone objectives outlined below outlined below:

Clause 4.1 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 requires minimum lot size of 550m² for the subject land.

 

The table below demonstrates the proposed subdivision layout is consistent with the numerical requirements prescribed in Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010, Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot sizes with the exception of lot width for proposed Lot 2.

Proposed Lot

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Lot 2

550m²

596.8m²

Yes

 

Minimum Lot width: 15m

Dimensions of 14.945m x 39.935m

No

Lot 3

Minimum 550m2

674.3m²

Yes

 

Minimum Lot width: 15m

Dimensions of 18.29m x 36.87m

Yes


Proposed Lot 2 has a site area of 596.8m² with dimensions of 14.945m x 39.935m. The proposed lot area exceeds Council requirements of 550m² however the lot width is 14.945m which is 0.36% under the required 15m.

A variation under Clause 4.6 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 was provided by the applicant requesting support for the proposed subdivision, detailing that the variation is a minor variation to the required width of 15m, flexibility in this instance should be provided as the standard in unreasonable and unnecessary.

The lot width of proposed Lot 2 has been established by the existing subdivision pattern, rather than the amalgamation and subdivision of the land. The variation of 0.36% in this case is considered to be negligible considering that the development improves the subdivision layout of the existing lots through the amalgamation of land. Additionally the dimensions of the sites enable the accommodation of a single dwelling within proposed Lot 2 and dual occupancy within proposed Lot 3 with appropriate side boundary setbacks, despite the non-compliant frontage width of 14.945m.

The variation to the minimum allotment width is supported due to the existing lot width, the subdivision pattern of the surrounding land and the minor nature of the variation.

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

Penrith Development Control Plan 2014

The proposed subdivision application satisfies the relevant sections of Penrith DCP 2014, in particular Section C11 Subdivision, which is outlined as follows:

 

·        C11.3.2 Site Frontage: The frontage of the proposed lots is sufficient to permit vehicular and pedestrian access. The allotment frontage is sufficient to accommodate a contemporary dwelling on each allotment (See discussion above about proposed lot widths).

 

·        C11.3.3 Allotment Dimensions:  The allotments are greater than 550m2 and provide for sufficient space to accommodate a residential dwelling whilst maintaining appropriate setbacks and landscaped area.

 

·        C11.3.6 Landscaping and Site Design: The subject site is relatively flat with a slight slope from Moth Close to the frontage of proposed Lot 2. Both sites have minimal landscaping and are clear of significant vegetation. Proposed Lot 2 has two small trees that are present on the site; they do not hold any significance. Proposed Lot 3 has two trees assessed by a consulting arborist to have some significance which are not proposed to be removed as part of this application.

 

·        C11.3.7 Services: The proposed lots will be serviced by existing infrastructure. Water, electricity and telecommunications might be subject to extensions or upgrades to service future development. The proposal will involve delivery of essential services as required by recommended Standard Condition G001.

 

·        C11.3.8. Drainage: A drainage easement (1.5m) and associated stormwater pipe and pit is proposed within Lot 2 to benefit Lot 3 for the disposal of stormwater.

 

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

This section is not applicable for the subject application.

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


Natural or Built Environment

Two significant trees have been identified within proposed Lot 2, while two smaller trees have been identified within proposed Lot 3 which have not been assessed as being significant.

An arborist report has been provided with the proposal and supports the retention of the existing trees within proposed Lot 2. Future dwelling construction on proposed Lot 2 will be required to demonstrate protection of these trees where possible by way of dwelling footprint and driveway location. The proposal does not propose to remove any trees from the site to support the subdivision of the land.

Traffic Generation and Parking

 

The land is suitably sized to provide on-site parking which will be considered at the time a development application is lodged for dwellings on the lots. The traffic generated from the additional residential dwellings will be insignificant and compatible with the capacity of the existing road network.

 

The widening of the road will have minimal impact on the proposed development and will require no earthworks.

 

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed development will have no significant social impact and is unlikely to threaten the desired future character of the area.

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

The proposed subdivision of the site has been designed in a manner consistent with the established lot pattern and character of the locality and ensures that the existing residential amenity is maintained.  The scale and separate frontages of the site has made it conducive for the “L-shape” to be separated into two developable lots.

 

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

Referrals

The applications were referred to the following stakeholders and their comments have formed part of the assessment of each applicable application:

Referral Body

Comments Received

Building Surveyor

No Objections.

Development Engineer

No Objections subject to conditions.

Community Consultation

In accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2010, the proposed development has been notified to a total of 21 property owners and residents with the exhibition period from the 24 July 2015 to 07 August 2015. No submissions were received in relation to this application.

 

Section 94 Contributions

 

The proposed development involves reducing the number of lots from three (3) to two (2), therefore the payment of Section 94 contributions is not applicable.

 

Conclusion

 

In assessing this application against the relevant environmental planning policies, the proposal satisfies the aims, objectives and provisions of these policies, with a variation under Clause 4.6 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 supported in regard to the minimum lot width control.

 

The proposal is responsive to the surrounding subdivision pattern and provides two lots that will support the construction of residential development appropriate for the R2 Low Density Zone.

 

Furthermore the site is suitable for the proposed development, the proposal is in the public interest, and there is unlikely to be negative impacts arising from the proposed development.

Therefore, the application is worthy of support, subject to recommended conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Development Application DA15/0800 for a Torrens Title Subdivision of 3 lots into 2 lots at Lots 75 and 76 Section G DP 1613 and Lot 6 DP 739547, No. 3 Horace Street Cranebrook  be received.

2.      The proposed variation to minimum allotment width, pursued under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 be supported.

3.      Development Application DA15/0800 for a Torrens Title Subdivision of 3 lots into 2 lots at Lots 75 and 76 Section G DP 1613 and Lot 6 DP 739547, No. 3 Horace Street Cranebrook be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A001 – Approved Plans

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following stamped approved plans, the application form and any supporting information issued by Penrith City Council, except as may be amended in red on the attached plans and by the following conditions.

Drawing Title

Plan Number

Issue

Prepared by

Date

Plan of Proposed Subdivision

19739P

-

Vince Morgan

1 July 2015

Levels and Contours Plan

19739T

-

Vince Morgan

1 July 2015

Interallotment Drainage Engineering Plan

110182/CC001

A

J. Wyndham Prince

7 July 2015

 

D002 – Spraygrass

All land that has been disturbed by earthworks is to be spray grassed or similarly treated to establish a grass cover.

D005 – No filling without prior approval

No fill material is to be imported to the site without the prior approval of Penrith City Council in accordance with Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 (Hawkesbury- Nepean River) (No.2-1997). No recycling of material for use as fill material shall be carried out on the site without the prior approval of Council.

D009 – Covering of waste storage area

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

D026 – Liquid waste

Only clean and unpolluted water is to be discharged into Penrith City Council's stormwater drainage system. Liquid wastes suitable for discharge to the mains sewer are to be discharged in accordance with Sydney Water requirements.

If mains sewer is not available or if Sydney Water will not allow disposal to the sewer then a licensed waste contractor is to remove the liquid waste from the premises to an appropriate waste facility.

The waste contractor and waste facility are to hold the relevant licenses issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority.

D  Special - Mud

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

D Special - Dust Suppression

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

G001 – Installation of services and service clearances (subdivision)

All services (water, sewer, electricity, telephone and gas) are to be installed within the proposed public roads before final inspection of the engineering works.

Prior to the release of the linen plan, the following service authority clearances shall be obtained:

·        a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 shall be obtained from Sydney Water. This is required prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate and

·        a letter from Integral Energy stating that satisfactory arrangements have been made for electricity supply to all proposed allotments in the subdivision, including any necessary easements; and

·        a letter from an approved telecommunications service provider that satisfactory arrangements have been made for underground telephone services to all proposed allotments in the subdivision, including any necessary easements.

These clearances are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

H001 – Stamped Plans and erection of site notice

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

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

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

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

·           that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited,

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

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

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

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

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


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

H006 – Submission of and implement waste management plan

A completed waste management plan shall be submitted to Penrith City Council for consideration and approval. Council must approve the plan before a Construction Certificate can be issued for the approved development.

The waste management plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Waste Planning Development Control Plan (2004), and shall address all waste materials likely to result from the proposed development, with details of the estimated waste volumes, onsite storage and management, proposed re-use of materials, designated waste contractors, recycling outlet and / or landfill site.

The approved waste management plan must be implemented on-site and adhered to throughout all stages of the development including demolition, with supporting documentation / receipts retained in order to verify the recycling and disposal of materials in accordance with the approved plan.

H041 – Hours of work

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

·           Mondays to Fridays, 7am to 6pm

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

·           No work is permitted on Sundays and Public Holidays.

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

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

K101 – Works at no cost to Council

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

K 201 - Sediment & Erosion Control CC approval

Any Construction Certificate issued by the Principal Certifying Authority or  certifying Authority shall incorporate plans and details for erosion and sediment control in accordance with the Department of Housing’s “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” 2004.

K202 – Roads Act Minor roadworks

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

a)      Provision of a vehicular crossing/s.

b)      Provision of private drainage connections to Council’s road drainage system.

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

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

K205 - Construction Certificate for Subdivision Works

Subdivision works shall be provided generally in accordance with the concept plan/s lodged for development approval, prepared by J. Wyndham Prince, reference number 110182/CC001, revision A, dated 7 July 2015.

Any Construction Certificate/s issued by the Certifying Authority shall include but not be limited to the following subdivision works.

a)      Roads and drainage

b)      Stormwater drainage

c)      Interallotment drainage.

Engineering plans, supporting calculations and relevant certification for the subdivision works shall be prepared by suitably qualified people and must accompany the application for a Construction Certificate.

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate the Certifying Authority shall ensure that the subdivision works have been designed in accordance with Penrith City Council’s Design Guidelines and Construction Specification for Civil Works.

K501A – Completion of subdivision works

Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall ensure that all subdivision works required by this consent have been satisfactorily completed or that suitable arrangements have been made with Penrith City Council for any outstanding works.

K514 – Subdivision compliance documentation

Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the following compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of the following documentation shall be provided to Council where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority:

a)     Work as Executed (WAE) drawings of all civil works. The WAE drawings shall be marked in red on copies of the stamped Construction Certificate drawings signed, certified and dated by a registered surveyor or the design engineer. The Work as Executed drawings shall be prepared in accordance with Council’s Engineering Construction Specification for Civil Works.

b)     CCTV footage in DVD format to Council’s requirements and a report in “SEWRAT” format for all drainage within future public roads and public land. Any damage that is identified is to be rectified in consultation with Penrith City Council.

c)     Surveyor’s Certificate certifying that all pipes and services are located wholly within the property or within appropriate easements and that no services encroach boundaries.

·           Compaction reports for road pavement construction

·           Compaction reports for bulk earthworks and lot regrading.

·           Soil classification for all residential lots

·           Statement of Compliance

M001 – Prior to subdivision work

Work on the subdivision is not to commence until:

·           a Construction Certificate has been issued,

·           a Principal Certifying Authority has been appointed for the project, and

·           any other matters prescribed in the development consent for the subdivision and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation have been complied with.

Penrith City Council is to be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of engineering works or clearing associated with the subdivision.

M008 – Linen Plan

Submission of the original Linen Plan and ten (10) copies.

All drainage easements, rights of way, restrictions and covenants are to be included on the linen plan.

All dedications of roads/drainage are to be undertaken at no cost to Penrith City Council.

The following information is to be shown on one (1) copy of the plan.

·           The location of all buildings and/or other permanent improvements shall comply with any statutory boundary clearances or setbacks as defined by the Building Code of Australia and Council’s resolutions.

·           All existing services are wholly contained within the lot served and/or covered by an appropriate easement.

Q01F – Notice of Commencement & Appointment of PCA

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

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

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

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

 

Information to accompany the Notice of Commencement

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

Q008 – Subdivision Certificate

A Subdivision Certificate is to be obtained prior to the release of the linen plan of subdivision. The Subdivision Certificate will not be issued if any of the conditions in this consent are outstanding.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan - DA15/0800

1 Page

Appendix

2.  

Letter from Landmark Planning - DA15/0800

1 Page

Appendix

3.  

Subdivision Plan - DA15/0800

3 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 1 - Locality Plan - DA15/0800

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 2 - Letter from Landmark Planning - DA15/0800

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 3 - Subdivision Plan - DA15/0800

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

9

Greater Sydney Commission   

 

Compiled by:               Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Planner

Authorised by:            Ruth Goldsmith, Executive Manager - City Planning and Community  

 

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

      

 

Executive Summary

On 9 September 2015, the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Rob Stokes MP, announced the new structure and role of the Greater Sydney Commission.  The Commission will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the NSW Government’s A Plan for Growing Sydney and providing independent advice to Government to deliver planning and infrastructure priorities.

 

This report outlines the proposed structure and role of the Commission, including the role of the District Commissioners for the six districts (previously called subregions) within Greater Sydney.  With recruitment for the Chief Executive Officer and Commissioners currently taking place, the Department of Planning and Environment has invited Council to nominate a representative to participate on the selection panel for the District Commissioner for the West District (which includes the local government areas of Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury).  This nomination is required by 9 October 2015.

Background

In December 2014, the NSW Government released its Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney - “A Plan for Growing Sydney” (the Metropolitan Plan).  The Metropolitan Plan indicates that Sydney’s population is expected to grow by 1.6 million people by 2031 to 5.8 million people.  To provide for this population growth, the Metropolitan Plan forecasts a need for 664,000 new dwellings and 689,000 jobs in Sydney by 2031.  For Western Sydney, the Metropolitan Plan forecasts that its population will grow by 900,000 people by 2031 to 2.9 million people.

 

At the time of the release of the Metropolitan Plan, the NSW Government indicated that the Greater Sydney Commission (the Commission) would be established to drive the delivery of the Metropolitan Plan.  In January 2015, Councillor Greg Davies and Assistant General Manager, Craig Butler attended a round table discussion on the Commission with the then Minister for Planning, the Hon. Pru Goward, MP.  The purpose of this discussion was to seek local government’s views on how the Commission can best work in partnership with councils to deliver the Metropolitan Plan and, in particular, the subregional plans, which are now referred to as district plans.  In February 2015, the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) briefed officers of Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Councils on the Metropolitan Plan, the district planning process and the Commission.  At that time, the DP&E advised that the Commission would include local government representation.  The DP&E also advised that the Commission would be supported by six Local Government Advisory Committees (LGACs), one for each district.  In April 2015, Council officers provided input to WSROC’s submission to the DP&E on the role and structure of the proposed Commission.

Current Situation

On 9 September 2015, the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Rob Stokes MP, announced the new structure and role of the Commission. The Commission will have 13 appointees, including:

·      an independent Chair, who will report to the Minister for Planning;

·      an independent Environment Commissioner, Economic Commissioner and Social Commissioner;

·      six District Commissioners, representing the six districts; and

·      the Secretaries of the DP&E, Transport for NSW and NSW Treasury.

 

The Commission is proposed to be supported by (at least) four committees - a Finance and Governance Committee, an Infrastructure Delivery Committee, a Strategic Planning Committee and the Sydney Planning Panel.  The Sydney Planning Panel will take on the functions of the existing Sydney East and Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs).

 

The Commission will also be supported by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and a small number of staff.

 

The Commission’s role will be to:

·      finalise district plans for each of Sydney’s six districts;

·      conduct regular reviews of councils’ Local Environmental Plans;

·      conduct all decision-making and plan-making on rezoning proposals;

·      take on the current assessment and plan-making functions of the Sydney Joint Regional Planning Panels;

·      monitor and report to Government on the implementation of actions in A Plan for Growing Sydney; and

·      require councils to give effect to regional plans and district plans when amending their local plans.

 

Legislation to establish the Commission will be introduced to Parliament shortly, with the Commission expected to be formally established later this year.

 

On 22 September 2015, the General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Executive Manager City Planning and Community attended a briefing on the Commission.  While further details are still to emerge, some information was provided on the role of the District Commissioners.  The District Commissioners will have advisory and decision making functions as part of the Commission and the committees that support the work of the Commission.  They will be appointed for a period of up to four years and for a maximum period of eight years.  They will be employed on a part time basis.  Currently serving elected Councillors and property developers will not be eligible for the role of the District Commissioners.

 

Recruitment for the CEO and the Commissioners is currently taking place.  In this regard, the Secretary of the DP&E has written to the Mayor inviting Council to nominate a representative to participate on the selection panel for the District Commissioner for the West District (which includes the local government areas of Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury).  This nomination is required by 9 October 2015.

 

Given Council’s Regional Strategic Alliance with Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Councils, it is considered that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or an existing Council representative on the Regional Strategic Alliance could be potential nominees for the selection panel for the West District Commissioner.

 

Early discussions with Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Councils have also highlighted the need to develop a framework to assist the appointed District Commissioner to actively engage with councils on planning and infrastructure priorities and other Commission matters.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Greater Sydney Commission be received.

2.    Council nominate a representative to participate on the selection panel for the West District Commissioner.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

10      Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2015/16 Road Funding Grants                            86

 

11      Tender Reference RFT 15/16-03 Concrete Maintenance Works: Footpath and Kerb and Gutter                                                                                                                                88

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

10

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2015/16 Road Funding Grants   

 

Compiled by:               Patrick Robles, Management Accountant

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, City Works Manager  

 

Outcome

We can get around the City

Strategy

Provide a safe, efficient road network supported by parking

Service Activity

Construct, manage and maintain Council's roads, drains, bridges and paths

      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2015/16 Road Funding Grants. RMS provides various Road Funding Grants to councils each year, to assist with maintenance of regional roads, road safety and traffic related issues.

 

The report recommends that Council accepts the grants offered.

Background

RMS provides various Road Funding Grants to councils each year, to assist with maintenance of regional roads, road safety and traffic related issues.

 

Advice has been received from RMS of the following grants for 2015/16:

 

Regional Road (block grants)

 

The Regional Road Block Grant is made up of the following components:

-     Road component: Allocated to maintenance work on Regional Roads. The allocation for 2015/16 has been indexed by RMS at 2.0% above the 2014/15 allocation amount;

-     Supplementary Road Component: This is available for road works, as determined by Council, on regional roads. In 2015/16 this component is allocated to the Rural Roads Widening Program for the resurfacing of Castlereagh Road, Castlereagh (Brooks Lane to 400m north) and was included in the adopted 2015/16 Operational Plan. This allocation is not indexed and is the same as the amount allocated in previous years;

-     Traffic Facilities Component: For the installation and maintenance of regulatory signs and lines on local and regional roads. The allocation for 2015/16 has been indexed by RMS at 2.0% above the 2014/15 allocation amount.

 

 

RMS advises that the following 2015/16 Program Funding is available to Council:

 

Regional Roads

2015/16

Basis of grant

Block Grant- Road Component

$499,000

100%

Block Grant – Supplementary Road Component

$156,000

100%

Block Grant – Traffic Facilities Component

$453,000

100%

Total allocation to Penrith City Council:

$1,108,000

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) 2015/16 Road Funding Grants be received.

2.    The RMS 2015/16 Program Funding Block Grant of $1,108,000 be accepted.

3.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to the “Agreement for Block Grant Assistance to Council for Regional Roads 2015/16”.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

11

Tender Reference RFT 15/16-03 Concrete Maintenance Works: Footpath and Kerb and Gutter   

 

Compiled by:               Brendan McLister, Project Engineer

Laura Schuil, Supply Officer - Contracts

Authorised by:            Hans Meijer, City Works Manager  

 

Outcome

We can get around the City

Strategy

Improve the City's footpaths and shared pathway network

Service Activity

Construct, manage and maintain Council's roads, drains, bridges and paths

      

 

Executive Summary

A tender for concrete maintenance works for footpath and kerb and gutter as well as new kerb and gutter, on an ‘as required’ basis, within the Penrith Local Government Area was advertised on 10 and 14 July 2015, and closed on 12 August 2015.

 

Independent referee checks indicated that the short-listed companies had positive performance and customer satisfaction ratings.

 

The report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process, and recommends that the following tenders be accepted for a period of three (3) years with an option to extend for a further two (2) by one (1) year periods, by mutual agreement and subject to satisfactory performance.

 

The report recommends that the tender from Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd be accepted as the preferred contractor; Mack Civil Pty Ltd be accepted as the secondary contractor; Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd be accepted as the third ranked contractor, and Devcon Civil Pty Ltd be accepted as the fourth ranked contractor.

 

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd to be accepted as the preferred contractor for the supply of kerb moulding machine and labour for the specialised item of machine moulded kerb.

Background

The tender was advertised on the e-tendering website and in the Western Weekender on 10 July 2015 and the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 July 2015, for the reconstruction of concrete paths and kerb & gutter, and construction of new kerb & gutter services within the Penrith Local Government Area. The Contract will be for an initial period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods. The tender closed on 12 August 2015.

 

The current schedule of rates contract arrangement for Concrete Works: footpath and kerb and gutter will expire on 25 October 2015, with no further extension.

 

It was proposed in the tender documents that the highest ranked supplier (preferred contractor) would be given first preference to carry out the works. The second ranked contractor would only be engaged in the event that the preferred contractor becomes unavailable, or does not have the capacity to perform the work in the required time frame. Consequently this then applies to the third contractor and so on.

 

All prospective tenderers were invited to attend a non-compulsory pre tender briefing on 22 July 2015. The briefing included a review of the documents and provided an opportunity for prospective tenderers to seek any necessary clarification of the specified requirements.

 

Tenderers were required to submit their tender either by using the APET 360 online portal or a hard copy on a standard pro forma sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.

 

Tenderers were required to complete a price schedule setting out the unit rate for each of the various construction and reconstruction items. Penrith City Council’s standard drawings were provided for the relevant items.

Tender Evaluation Panel

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of Hans Meijer (City Works Manager), Gary Lawson (Traffic and Special Events Coordinator), Brendan McLister (Acting Senior Project Engineer), Matthew Nicholson (Senior Works Coordinator) and Laura Schuil (Supply Officer). The Panel was chaired by Hans Meijer.

 

Tender Evaluation Criteria

The selection criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenderers were as follows:

 

General Criteria

·    Company Information

·    Conformance, Acceptance and Declaration

·    Business References

·    Completion of Forms

·    Compliance Statement

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Financial

·    Environmental Management

·    Quality Assurance Systems

·    Work Health and Safety

 

 

Summary of Tenders Received

A total of 12 submissions were received from the following respondents (listed in alphabetical order):

 

Tenderer's Name

Location of the Business

Names of Business Owners and/or Names of the Board of Directors

Awada Civil Engineering

Unit 4, 59-69 Halstead Street  South Hurstville NSW 2221

Fouad Awada

Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd

19 Cronin St, Penrith

NSW 2750

 

Giuseppe Rocchio (Director)

Heidi Rocchio (Secretary)

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

PO Box 6905 
Blacktown NSW 2148

Jack DeVries & Reina DeVries

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

1 Unwin 
Rosehill NSW 2142

Mr David Andrew Cattell

Mr Kevin John Fletcher

Mr Andrew Arthur William Titter

Mr Peter John Tompkins

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd

Unit 2, 35 Jack Williams Drive, Penrith, NSW 2750

Robert Raams

Evolution Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd

51 Heathcote Rd

Moorebank

NSW   2170

 

John Moore,

Kevin Chin,

Steven Thomas (CEO) and

Malcolm Keefe.

Grants Concreting Pty Ltd

47 Elizabeth Street

North Richmond

NSW   2747

 

Grant Smith – Owner Director

Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd

204 Forest Way, Belrose

NSW  2084

 

Richard Johnston - Sole Director/Share Holder

Mack Civil Pty Ltd

209 Chuter Avenue 
Sans Souci NSW 2219

Karim Mahmoud - Director

Mansour Paving (AUST) PTY LTD

Unit 15, 13-15 Wollongong Road  Arncliffe NSW 2205

Mohammad Mansour - Director

South West Kerbing

51 Lancaster Street, Ingleburn

NSW   2564

Peter Anthony Houghton

Peter John Houghton

TSV Maintenance

3/28 Selems Parade

Revesby

NSW 2212

Director - Steve Vasilevski

Table 1: Tenders Received

 

Non-Conforming Tenders

Awada Civil Engineering chose to withdraw their tender submission after the closing of the tender and prior to the assessment by the panel.  Awada Civil Engineering stated that the withdrawal decision was due to some confusion and errors made while tendering. Their submission was therefore not evaluated.

 

Apart from the above mentioned tender, all other submissions were conforming and were therefore considered for further evaluation.

 

Cost Evaluation

The tender documents provided prospective tenderers with indicative annual quantities for various concrete construction and reconstruction works. Tenderers were asked to submit a unit rate for each of the specified items in the tender documents.

 

Tenderers were given the option of submitting a price only for machine moulding kerb and labour as it is a specialised area of kerb construction. Due to this, the prices for machine moulded kerb were considered separately to the rest of the tender. South West Kerbing only submitted prices for machine moulded kerb and labour item.

 

The unit rates submitted by each of the tenderers were annualised based on the usage figures specified in the tender. The table below shows the annualised cost for each tenderer from lowest to highest, excluding the item of machine moulded kerb.

 

Tenderer's Name

Annualised Cost (excl.GST)

Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd

$916,734

Mack Civil Pty Ltd

$999,670

Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd

$1,123,415

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

$1,153,261

Mansour Paving

$1,456,976

TSV Maintenance

$1,468,760

Grants Concreting Pty Ltd

$1,545,350

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd

$1,910,794

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

$2,956,839

Evolution Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd

$5,143,633

Table 2: Tender Cost Evaluation Concrete Construction and Reconstruction

 

Tenderer's Name

Annualised Cost (excl.GST)

Machine Moulded Kerb

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd

$22,750

South West Kerbing

$33,400

Grants Concreting Pty Ltd

$35,500

Mansour Paving

$46,410

Evolution Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd

$141,000

Table 3: Tender Cost Evaluation for Kerb Moulding Machine and Labour

 

 

Criteria Evaluation – Short Listed Tenderers

 

The following tenderers were short listed for the second stage evaluation process:

 

Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd

Mack Civil Pty Ltd

Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd – supply of the Kerb Moulding Machine and Labour

 

The second stage evaluation process involved assessing each of the above companies against the evaluation criteria within the tender. Each company demonstrated their capability, environmental requirements, quality and work health & safety in performing the specified works.

 

All of the companies listed above were then short listed for the final stage evaluation process which included financial and referee checks.

 

 

 

Financial and Reference Checks

 

Third Party financial and performance assessment checks were conducted by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd for Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd, Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd and Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd (machine moulded kerb only). A financial and performance assessment check was not deemed necessary for Mack Civil Pty Ltd as this was previously completed for the recent tender of New Footpaths. Likewise a check for Devcon Civil Pty Ltd was not required as they have held similar contracts with Penrith City Council recently.

 

Independent referee checks indicated that the short-listed companies had positive performance and customer satisfaction ratings.

 

Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd have held a similar sized contract with Penrith City Council more than 4 years, as well as with several other companies.

 

Mack Civil Pty Ltd currently have a contract with Penrith City Council for the construction of new footpaths.

 

Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd has more than 15 years industry experience as well as previous experience in undertaking similar sized contracts.

 

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd have held similar sized contracts with Penrith City Council for the construction of new footpaths and concrete maintenance works.

 

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd has more than 15 years industry experience and previously worked for Penrith City Council to provide machine moulded kerb and labour.

 

Conclusion

Due to an expected increase in the number of assets from developments which Council will soon be maintaining, it is anticipated that the amount of maintenance required will therefore increase. In addition to this, an increase in the restoration of Council assets is also expected, particularly from works carried out by service authorities. The required short response times for these maintenance and restoration works are often demanding on the contractor as work loads can fluctuate greatly.  Taking this into consideration, a panel of four ranked contractors will be recommended to handle this anticipated work load. A separate contractor is recommended for machine moulded kerb, as it is a specialised item.

 

Based on both the price and effectiveness assessed against the tender evaluation criteria, the Tender Evaluation Panel are of the opinion that the following panel of four contractors should be appointed, and a separate contractor appointed for the supply of machine moulded kerb. 

 

Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd has provided a very competitive rate. They have provided a satisfactory level of service under the previous contract. Therefore it is recommended that Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd be ranked as the preferred contractor.

 

Mack Civil Pty Ltd demonstrated that they have the capacity to deliver the service and offered a competitive rate. It is recommended that Mack Civil Pty Ltd be selected as the secondary contractor.

 

Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd demonstrated that they have the capacity to deliver the service and offered a reasonably competitive rate. It is recommended that Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd be selected as the third ranked contractor.

 

Devcon Civil Pty Ltd demonstrated that they have the capacity to deliver the service and offered a reasonably competitive rate. They have provided a satisfactory level of service under the previous contract. It is recommended that Devcon Civil Pty Ltd be selected as the fourth ranked contractor.

 

Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd demonstrated that they have the capacity to deliver the service and offered a very competitive rate for machine moulded kerb. In the past, Penrith City Council has engaged Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd by obtaining quotations to undertake similar services and they have provided a satisfactory level of service. It is recommended that Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd be selected as the preferred contractor for machine moulded kerb.

 

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on Del Rocchio Concreting, Mack Civil, Kelbon Project Services, and Enwon (Australia). These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review, no concerns were raised as to the ability of any of these companies to perform the works described. Funding for this work is included in the 2015-16 Operating Plan for asset maintenance.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Chief Governance Officer, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider a tender for concrete maintenance works for footpath and kerb and gutter as well as new kerb and gutter, on an ‘as required’ basis. The TAG supports the recommendations made by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Tender Reference RFT 15/16-03 Concrete Maintenance Works: Footpath and Kerb and Gutter be received.

2.    Del Rocchio Concreting Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor for the Concrete Maintenance Works: Footpath and Kerb and Gutter for a period of three (3) years with an option to extend for a further two (2) by one (1) year periods, by mutual agreement and subject to satisfactory performance, allowing for rise and fall provisions.

3.    Mack Civil Pty Ltd be appointed as the secondary contractor, to be engaged when the preferred contractor is unavailable to provide the service.

 

4.    Kelbon Project Services Pty Ltd be appointed as the third ranked contractor, to be engaged when the secondary contractor is unavailable to provide the service.

 

5.    Devcon Civil Pty Ltd be appointed as the fourth ranked contractor, to be engaged when the third ranked contractor is unavailable to provide the service.

     

6.    Enwon (Australia) Pty Ltd be appointed as the preferred contractor for machine moulded kerb only.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

12      Charity Clothing Bins                                                                                                        98

 

13      Tender Reference 15/16-05 Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue Glenmore Park                       103

 

14      Maintenance of Playgrounds and Parks                                                                        107

 

15      Tender Reference RFT 14/15-31 Provision of Gravedigging Services                        109

 

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

12

Charity Clothing Bins   

 

Compiled by:               Murray Halls, Public Domain Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Improve our public spaces and places

Service Activity

Improve levels of public safety and amenity across the City through quality public space maintenance

      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the outcome of the public exhibition of the draft Charity Clothing Bins policy.

 

At the Policy Review Committee meeting of 13 July 2015 the draft Charity Clothing Bins policy was presented, seeking Council’s endorsement for public exhibition.  This meeting resolved to place the draft policy on public exhibition.  The public exhibition was from 24 July 2015 to 21 August 2015.  There were three public submissions received during the exhibition period.  This report will outline the key points from the public submissions received and highlight changes made to the draft policy following the review of these submissions.

 

The report recommends the information contained in the report on the draft Charity Clothing Bins policy be received and that Council adopt the Charity Clothing Bin policy provided as Appendix 1 to this report.  The copy provided shows the subsequent changes made to the policy following the public exhibition period.

Background

 

Prior to 1996, there were no Council conditions imposed on the placement of charity clothing bins (bins) on Council owned or managed land.  As a result there was a proliferation of bins from charitable and non-charitable organisations.  Some conditions were developed (1998) and formed the basis for a Council “position”, however these conditions were never developed into a policy of Council.

 

In previous discussions regarding the placement of bins, Council has expressed a view that the preferred way forward was to allow various charities access to bin placement locations.  In the absence of a formal policy, this has been the approach taken.  Locations have been identified in accessible places that are low profile in terms of amenity with less potential for resident concern or complaint.  This arrangement has until recently been working well with a number of bins placed across the City.

 

More recently Council has received representations from a range of organisations wanting approval to place bins across the city.  Over the past 12 months a number of bins have also been placed on Council property without permission.  This has required Council officers to contact bin owners regarding the need for Council approval, including the payment of Council’s fees and charges.

 

As a consequence of the above, it was decided that no additional bins would be considered/approved until a policy document was considered by Council.

 

It is acknowledged that bins provide a valuable service to the community, raising charitable funds and providing residents with a convenient disposal point for unwanted clothing.  They encourage recycling and divert unwanted items from the general waste stream and landfill.

 

The intent of the draft policy is to ensure that the placement of bins across the city are in accessible and safe locations and achieves an equitable distribution amongst registered charities &/or NACRO member organisations.  It is also intended that all bins will be required to have appropriate management practices that minimise impact on public space amenity.

 

The draft Charity Clothing Bins policy was presented to Council at the Policy Review Committee meeting on 13 July 2015 seeking Council’s endorsement for public exhibition.  Council at this meeting resolved to place this draft policy on public exhibition.

 

The draft policy was exhibited during the period 24 July 2015 to 21 August 2015.

 

This report summarises the submissions received and recommends minor amendments to the draft policy as a result of the review of the submissions.

 

Public Exhibition Submissions

 

The opportunity to make submissions on the Policy was promoted through the Mayoral column and Council’s website.  The draft policy was also provided to The Smith Family, The Aboriginal Advancement Society for Children, and Thorndale Foundation Ltd given these organisations currently have bins placed on Council sites across the city.

 

Three public submissions were received.  The first was from The Smith Family. The submission firstly thanked Council for developing a policy in relation to bins and for acknowledging the value of them not only to the charity organisations but to the local community, and included a number of statements and raised some questions:

 

The Smith Family

 

Question 1

 

What measure will Council use to verify an organisation is a registered charity or member of the National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations (NACRO)? There are organisations that can fulfil one or both of the requirements here but are not directly responsible for the ownership or servicing of clothing bins that bear their name.

 

This question has been given consideration and to support those charities that wish to engage a second party to operate and manage clothing bins on their behalf, the following clause has been included under 4.1.1 Approvals:

 

“Only organisations recognised as being a registered charity &/or member of the National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations (NACRO) can seek approval from Council to:

 

1.   Own and operate bins  at appropriate sites as identified within 4.3 of this policy or

2.   Endorse the ownership and operation of bins by commercial operators, which can demonstrate they provide either a financial &/or employment benefit back to the charitable organisation.

 

Under either arrangement, the name and the contact details of the charitable organisation confirming they are either a member of NACRO &/or a charitable organisation must be clearly identified on each approved bin.”

 

For clarity the following has been removed from the policy introduction:

 

Only organisations recognised as being a registered charity and/or a member of the National Association Charitable Recycling Organisations (NACRO) will be approved by Council to place bins at appropriate sites as identified within 4.3 of this policy.

 

Question 2

 

Would Council consider extending the approval period after one year to allow for some level of certainty for bin owners?  Some Councils have in place three year terms for bin approvals.

 

All approvals are subject to the payment of Council’s adopted annual fee and charge for the placement of bins on Council owned land.  One year approvals allow for any annual fee adjustments to be taken into account as part of the approval process.

 

Question 3

 

Could you please explain how Council plans to determine who the dominant bin owner would be in a car park if each owner is allowed a maximum of two bins and there is a maximum limit of three bins per car park in total?

 

The policy does not require the identification of a dominant bin owner at each site.  While the number of bins permitted on each site will be limited to a maximum of two by any single bin owner, the total number of bins permitted will be determined on a site specific basis.  As a general rule, a maximum of three bins in any one car park will be permitted.

 

Where there is a combination of different bin owners at a location, Council’s expectation is that all bin owners are responsible for meeting requirements of keeping the area around the bins clean and tidy and free of dumped items.

 

Question 4

 

The requirement under the policy of bin owners continuing to be responsible for the cleanliness of the site up to three (3) months following the removal of a bin, subject to the site remaining vacant of other bins, is open to abuse from a number of sources.  While we understand the need to maintain public amenity, three months is a long time and could be shortened.

 

Previous experience has shown where bins have been removed from a specific location that dumping of items continues to occur at that location for a number of months.  The three month timeframe is not considered unreasonable and is consistent with other Council Clothing Bin policies.

 

Thorndale Foundation Limited.

 

Thorndale Foundation Ltd also provided a submission.  They commended Council on the development of a clear set of guidelines regarding the placement and management of the bin sites in a consistent and equitable fashion across the city.  They hoped that Council would continue to assist in the enforcement of fines for people found to be dumping illegally when they can be identified.

 

 

 

 

State-wide Services Australia

 

State-wide Services Australia did not comment directly on the draft policy but made a submission for the placement of 25 bins on behalf of MS Australia. This submission will be further assessed, subject to the adoption of the draft policy by Council, and MS Australia as the registered charitable organisation &/or member of NACRO completing the applicable application forms.

 

Equitable distribution of bins

 

Additional wording has been provided in the Approvals section (4.1.1) of the draft policy to confirm Council’s commitment to achieving an equitable distribution of bins across the city for registered charities &/or NACRO member organisations and that a level of Council discretion will therefore apply, at times, within the approval process for this to be achieved.

 

Bin ownership

 

As discussed earlier in this report a charity and or member of NACRO can endorse a commercial operator to own and operate bins on the charities behalf.  Changes have been made to the wording in the draft policy relating to the Activity Approval (Section 4.1 Application Process) as required in Section 68 of the Local Government Act to reflect that such activity approvals are issued to the charity organisation and not the commercial operator.

 

With regards to Public Liability Insurance the registered charity &/or member of NACRO are required to provide evidence of their current $10 million Public Liability Insurance.

 

Permissible organisations

 

Changes have been made to the wording in the Approvals section (4.1.1) of the draft policy to confirm that only organisations recognised as being a registered charity &/or member of NACRO can seek approval from Council for the placement of bins.  This allows for the Permissible Organisations (4.4) section of the draft policy to be deleted.      

 

Conclusion

 

As a result of the submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft policy, minor amendments are proposed to the draft policy including clarification of charities as the owner/operator or endorsing second parties on their behalf; Council’s commitment to achieving an equitable distribution of bin locations across the city for registered charities and/or NACRO member organisations and that a level of council discretion will apply, at times, within the approval process for this to be achieved.

 

It is recommended that the amended draft policy on Charity Clothing Bins attached to this report be adopted.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Charity Clothing Bins be received.

2.    Council adopts the Charity Clothing Bins policy provided as Appendix 1 to this report

3.    Council write to the organisations mentioned in the report, thanking them for their submissions and advising them of the adoption of the Charity Clothing Bin policy.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Charity Clothing Bins Policy (as amended)

9 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

13

Tender Reference 15/16-05 Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue Glenmore Park   

 

Compiled by:               Mladen Mejakic, Project Officer - Capital Works

Ari Fernando, Major Projects & Design Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Michael Jackson, Design and Projects Manager  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Provide a safe, efficient road network supported by parking

Service Activity

Manage the delivery of Council's major infrastructure projects

      

 

Executive Summary

As part of a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA), developers have constructed the southern playing fields for the Glenmore Park Stage 2 development which are now available for public use. The second stage of the works is for Council to design and construct the northern playing fields and central amenities block. This is to be delivered in accordance with the VPA and to match the available contribution collected from the relevant parties to the VPA.

 

Council engaged design consultants to prepare the design plans of northern playing field including field lighting & irrigation and Council officers will project manage the delivery. The amenities block is being designed in-house by Council officers for a separate public tender shortly.  The tender (RFT 15/16-05) for the Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue, Glenmore Park was advertised in the Western Weekender on Friday 7 August 2015 and Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 11 August 2015. The tender closed on Wednesday 2 September 2015.

 

This report advises Council of the outcome of the Tender process and recommends that the Tender from Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd be accepted for the scope of works outlined in the RFT 15/16-05 for the Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue Glenmore Park for a total amount of $1,295,882.43 (excluding GST).

 

Background

The advertised tender (RFT 15/16-05) for the Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue, Glenmore Park, sought tenders from suitability experienced Civil Contractors to carry out the following works:

 

·    Sportsfield construction including lighting, irrigation & drainage works and,

·    Carpark construction including lighting, landscaping & associated works.

 

In response to the Council’s request for tender, 13 complying tenders were received electronically via APET 360.


 

 

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Laura Schuil (Supply Officer - Contracts), Ari Fernando (Major Projects and Design Coordinator), Rosemarie Canales (Architectural Supervisor - Design and Projects), Mladen Mejakic (Project Officer – Capital Works) and was chaired by Michael Jackson (Design and Projects Manager). Peter Browne (Internal Auditor) provided probity advice and attended the tender evaluation meeting.  Technical advice was provided by John Gordon (Parks Manager).

 

The evaluation criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

·    Business References;

·    Demonstrated Ability;

·    Works Method and Program;

·    Financials;

·    Employment Policies;

·    Quality Assurance Systems;

·    Environmental Management Systems; and

·    Work, Health & Safety.

Tenders Review

The tenders received are listed below in apparent price order before any assessment of their compliance and capabilities. All prices are exclusive of GST.

 

Company

Tendered Price

Company Location

Directors

Josa Constructions Pty Ltd

$1,100,000.00

Unit 1/37 York Rd, South Penrith NSW 2750

Thelma Apokis

Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd

$1, 295,882.43

16 Distribution Pl, Seven Hills NSW 2147

Tim Buckle

JK Williams Contracting Pty Ltd

$1,353,601.85

44 Jack Williams Dr, Penrith NSW 2750

Leigh Hartog

Ford Civil Contracting Pty Ltd

$1,386,667.20

9 Hattersley St, Arncliffe NSW 2205

Stuart Ford & Susan Ford

Glascott Landscape & Civil Pty Ltd

$1,436,220.15

4/15-17 Chaplin Drive, Lane Cove NSW 2066

Matthew Glascott & Matthew Bourke

Hi Quality Group Pty Ltd

$1,466,217.82

Crn Elizabeth Dr & Mamre Rd, Kemps Creek NSW 2178

Patrick Hallinan

Hargraves Pty Ltd

$1,529,806.40

5/802 Pacific Hwy, Gordon NSW 2081

Ben Hargraves

Design Landscapes Pty Ltd

$1,552,213.00

586 Willoughby Rd, Willoughby NSW 2068

Michael Platt

Regal Innovations Pty Ltd

$1,609,758.99

249 Annangrove Rd, Annangrove NSW 2156

Robert Stanton

North Shore Paving Co. Pty Ltd

$1,618,460.40

16 Moore Av, Lindfield West NSW 2070

Ivan K. Tarjan & Ivan S.G. Tarjan

Structus Pty Ltd

$2,139,984.00

01/6A Glen St, Milsons Point NSW 2061

Dennis O’Regan

Alpal Builders Pty Ltd

$2,227,150.75

PO Box 710, Springwood NSW 2780

David Crum

M & M Prpic Pty Ltd

$2,549,826.00

42 Box Rd, Casula NSW 2170

Miles Prpic, Mariana Prpic & Anita Serrano

 

Lump Sum Tender prices received for all works included:

 

·    Sportsfield construction including lighting, irrigation & drainage;

·    Carpark construction, including lighting; and,

·    Landscaping & other works.

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee determined that Tenders over $1.5 million were in excess of the budget and offered no advantage in further detailed assessment when there were six tenders below that price. These submissions were not considered for further assessment.

 

Each Tender was evaluated against the criteria above to determine an initial ranking. Consideration was then given to the Tenderer’s price schedules to determine the best value for money solution with competency in technical aspects of the Tender.

 

Reference checks were also undertaken for both lowest tenderers Josa Constructions Pty Ltd & Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd.

 

Josa Constructions Pty Ltd offered the lowest apparent tender price however scored a lower effectiveness rating primarily due to their lack of relevant experience in earthworks, landscaping, car parks and similar works. The submitted works methodology was a sample document regarding the installation of a 750 mm diameter sewer rising mains and there was no methodology document supplied for the Glenmore Park Stage 2 project. Josa Constructions Pty Ltd demonstrated extensive experience in water and sewer main construction and/or rehabilitation works (for Sydney Water & others) which is a specialised area of work and they did not demonstrate wider construction experience in playing fields or related works. There were no details of sub-contractors with relevant experience nominated for the project. Nominated persons for the project also did not have any horticultural qualifications and/or experience in similar works except for a smaller scale project for the installation of a synthetic turf multi court installed over two existing bowling greens for a private party. That project appeared to have been undertaken primarily through specialist sub-contractors such as the synthetic turf installer.

 

Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd offered the next best tender price and confirmed a project program for completion of the project before the 2016 winter sport season. This company demonstrated all of the critical technical experience, whilst achieving the highest effectiveness rating. They have demonstrated that similar or large scale projects of construction of playing fields including field lighting and irrigation have been successfully constructed for Gosford City Council, Mulpha Norwest (Glenmore Park Stage 1), Warringah Council and a number of other clients. Reference checks indicated that the clients were satisfied with their quality of work, time of delivery and with nominated people with relevant experience.

 

In view of the lack of project specific documentation submitted by Josa Constructions Pty Ltd, it is difficult to assess the risk involved in engaging a lower priced contractor as against a well-referenced contractor with experience in projects of a similar nature and scale for other Councils and also projects within the Penrith LGA. Josa Constructions Pty Ltd were unable to demonstrate their expertise or experience in works of this nature and the scale of this project precludes us from recommending the level of risk required given the project’s prominence and the deadlines for completion to ensure community use of this facility in the upcoming winter season.

 

Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd have completed the construction of southern fields for the developer and Council officers had no concern with their quality of construction or expertise and experience in this area. The Tender Evaluation Committee recommends Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd be awarded the Tender.

Financial Services Manager’s Comments

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review, no concerns were raised as to the ability of Landscape Solutions to perform the works described. The tendered price of $1,295,882 will be funded from the Glenmore Park Stage 2 Active Open Space VPA.

Probity Advisor Comment

Peter Browne (Internal Auditor) assisted the Tender Evaluation Committee with the tender evaluation process and concurred that the tender evaluation process requirements identified in the Council’s Tendering Guidelines have been satisfied.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group consisting of the Chief Governance Officer, Stephen Britten and the Acting Senior Governance Officer, Adam Beggs met to consider a tender for the Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue, Glenmore Park. The TAG did request further information on the experience of Josa Construction and after additional information was provided is satisfied that an appropriate assessment process has been followed and supports the recommendations made by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on RFT 15/16-05 for the Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue Glenmore Park, be received.

2.    Landscape Solutions Pty Ltd be awarded the contract for the Construction of Sportsfield & Associated Infrastructure for Glenmore Park Sportsfield Stage 2, Parkway Avenue Glenmore Park, for an amount of $1,295,882.43 excluding GST.

3.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all documentation if necessary.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  

 

 

 

14

Maintenance of Playgrounds and Parks   

 

Compiled by:               John Gordon, Parks Manager

Authorised by:            John Gordon, Parks Manager 

Requested By:            Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Improve our public spaces and places

Service Activity

Manage and maintain the City's sports grounds, parks and open space

      

 

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Meeting of August 24 Councillor Cornish requested a report on how often parks in the Penrith Local Government area are checked for safety, especially equipment where children may be hurt and if there a regular maintenance program.

 

Council maintains 402 parks of various sizes and scale across the City. Located within these parks are 142 playgrounds available for community use. This number includes nine playgrounds that have yet to be handed over to Council from developers. Council has a regular inspection and maintenance program for all parks playgrounds to ensure facilities are safe, operational and comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

 

Background

 

Penrith City Council has 402 classified parks in various locations across the City. These parks are maintained in accordance with adopted service standards which typically see parks maintained every 1 to 4 weeks, depending on the park type, level of use and seasonal conditions.

 

Within these parks Council has 142 playground facilities of varying age and condition. As part of the ongoing Parks Asset Renewal Program playgrounds have been regularly updated to ensure that play facilities are contemporary and meet community expectations.

 

Park and Playground Maintenance

 

Council’s Parks staff undertake regular inspections of all parks and playgrounds across the City in conjunction with normal maintenance activities associated with the reserve. This process includes staff undertaking a generic site risk assessment on each site and a specific inspection of any playground located within a park. In practice, this results in all parks and playgrounds being inspected at least every 4 weeks, with highly utilised play facilities such as those located at Jamison Park, Ched Towns Reserve and Tench Reserve being inspected more frequently. Any identified issues are recorded, prioritised and actioned, with safety issues acted upon immediately.

 

Playground inspections reports review the condition of the play equipment, softfall and surrounds (seating / trees). Any identified safety or maintenance issues are referred to carpenters within the Parks Department for repair. These staff have undergone the required training in the identification and repair of equipment, including rubberised softfall.

 

If a safety issue has been identified the playground, or the unsafe piece of equipment, is isolated to prevent access until the equipment has been made safe and is again operational. In the recent vandalism of the new playground at Jamison Park, the vandalised equipment and shade structure was isolated enabling the remainder of the area to be safely used by children.   

 

In addition to regular playground inspections undertaken by staff, Council engages the services of an independent playground auditor to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all playgrounds across the City every 2 years. This report is used to review and prioritise the playground asset renewal program and respond to any emerging or identified maintenance issues.

 

Over the past 3 years as part of the Parks Asset Renewal Program a total of 22 playgrounds have been replaced at various locations across the City, reinforcing Council’s commitment to ensuring parks assets are contemporary and meet community expectations. In the current financial year a further 6 playgrounds are scheduled to be replaced.

 

The key identified elements that are considered in the replacement of any existing Council playground asset include –

 

·    Rubberised softfall with concrete /paver edging

·    Play equipment with a focus on inclusive play, catering where possible to a range of age groups

·    Seating for parents / carers

·    Shade – tree planting or locating playgrounds under natural shade. Shade structures are generally for regional or district facilities, although efforts are being made to expand the installation of shade structures as funding permits

·    Fencing – required to minimise risk and support inclusive play

·    Landscaping – to improve the overall aesthetics and play experience.

 

Typically, the cost of these works is $75,000 and reflects the ’standard’ playground replaced under the asset renewal program.

 

All customer requests in relation to playground maintenance are recorded in Council’s Works and Assets system. In the past 12 months 41 service requests have been received in relation to playground maintenance. Typically these requests relate to vandalism or the need to replace mulch softfall. In relation to liability claims and play equipment, no claims for compensation have been made in the last 12 months. The most recent claim was made in March 2013 and did not involve financial compensation.

 

Conclusion

 

Council currently has in place a proactive asset inspection program designed to ensure that park and playground facilities are safe and meet community expectations. This process, coupled with works being undertaken as part of the Parks Asset Renewal are delivering quality park and playground facilities for the community to enjoy.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Maintenance of Playgrounds and Parks be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

15

Tender Reference RFT 14/15-31 Provision of Gravedigging Services   

 

Compiled by:               Lynda Lowe, Cemeteries Supervisor

Authorised by:            Yvonne Perkins, Public Domain Amenity and Safety Manager  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Improve our public spaces and places

Service Activity

Manage and maintain cemeteries under the care and control of Council using adopted Plans of Management

      

 

Executive Summary

A new tender for the provision of Grave Digging services for a three (3) year period, with an option to extend for a further two (2) one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance was advertised on 19 June 2015 and closed on 15 July 2015.

 

The report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the Tender from L J Follington Constructions Pty Ltd be accepted for Grave Digging Services within the Penrith Local Government Area for a period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance and mutual agreement and allowing for rise and fall provisions.

Background

Tenders were advertised in the Western Weekender, AEPT360 website and e-Tendering website on 19 June 2015, also in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 July 2015, for the provision of Grave Digging services for a period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance and mutual agreement and allowing for rise and fall provisions. The Tender closed on 15 July 2015.

 

It was proposed in the tender documents that Council would select one (1) company to perform the services specified.  The services comprised the provision of grave digging services for Council cemeteries located at Kingswood, St Marys and Emu Plains.  Funeral Directors contact Council staff regarding the need for a burial to occur and Council staff then coordinates the provision of the grave digging service.

 

Tenders were required to submit their tender on a standard pro forma-sheet, which clearly identified the required response against each of the evaluation criteria.

 

Tenderers were also required to complete a price schedule setting out the unit rates for a range of grave digging services e.g. single depth grave site; double depth grave site; grave sites with or without monuments; reopening of grave sites; grave sites in lawn and monumental sections.

 

Tender Evaluation Committee

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of the Public Domain Amenity & Safety Manager, Yvonne Perkins, the Cemeteries Supervisor; Lynda Lowe, the Supply Officer - Contracts, Laura Schuil, and Governance Officer, Adam Beggs. The Committee was Chaired by Yvonne Perkins.

 

Tender Evaluation Criteria

 

The evaluation criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

 

·    Business References

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Financials

·    Employment Policies

·    Quality Assurance Systems

·    Environmental Management Systems; and,

·    Work, Health & Safety.

 

 

Summary of Tenders received

 

A total of three (3) submissions were received from the following respondents (listed in alphabetical order) in response to the advertised tender:

 

 

Tenderers Name

Location of the Business

Names of Business Owners and/or Names of the Board of Directors

CivilCorp Excavation

 

2/1340 Pittwater Rd

Narrabeen NSW 2101

Australia

Sole Director - Andrew Doyle

Fishbone Investments Pty Ltd trading as Personal Services Australia (PSA)

 

39 Bancroft Street

Oakhurst NSW 2179

Australia

Sole Director - Kirsty Neale

L J Follington Constructions Pty Ltd

907 East Kurrajong Rd

East Kurrajong NSW

2758 Australia

Larry and Robyn Follington are Directors and owners of LJ Follington Constructions P/L

 

 

As mentioned above, the tenderers were requested to complete a unit price schedule for a number of pre-determined burial types.

 

The unit rates submitted by each of the tenderers were annualised based on the actual quantities for each burial type in the 2014/2015 financial year. The table below shows the annualised cost for each tenderer from lowest to highest.

 

Year

Tenderers Name

Annualised Cost (excl.GST)

2014/15

Fishbone Investments Pty Ltd trading as Personal Services Australia (PSA)

$189,850

 

L J Follington Construction Pty Ltd

$214,380

 

CivilCorp Excavations

$498,912

 

 

 

 

Evaluation of tenders

 

The tender received from CivilCorp Excavation was substantially higher than the two (2) other tenders received and the Tender Evaluation Committee determined that there was no advantage to Council in further considering this higher priced tender.

 

Shortlisted Tenderers

 

Fishbone Investments Pty Ltd trading as Personal Services Australia (PSA) 

 

In its tender submission Personal Services Australia (PSA) advised that it is a company that specialises in support services for the Funeral Industry, namely Funeral Directors.  Its core business is the provision of burial services and they have been providing this service for nine (9) years. PSA has conducted burials in Council, churchyard and private cemeteries. PSA’s burial experience includes lawn, beam, monumental and crypt interments. PSA states that it is accredited to undertake burial services in the following LGA cemeteries, Penrith, Blacktown, Fairfield, Camden, Wollondilly, Wingecarribee, The Hills, Hawkesbury, Wyong, Gosford and Lake Macquarie.

 

L J Follington Constructions Pty Ltd

 

L J Follington Constructions Pty Ltd (LJFC) in its tender submission stated that it is a small family business which is registered as a Proprietary Company.  The company has been in the grave digging and funeral servicing industry for 15 years. Prior to 2007, the company provided grave digging services in the Hawkesbury, Blacktown, The Hills Shire and private church cemeteries in these areas.  LJFC has been Penrith City Council’s grave digging contractor since 2007.  Their services now encompass Hawkesbury, Blacktown, The Hills, Penrith, Hornsby, Camden and Wollondilly Councils. In its submission LJFC states that it continues to service an increase in private cemeteries and carry out work at Castlebrook and Pinegrove cemeteries where they state they are called upon to dig limited access, wet and extremely difficult graves.

 

The tenders received from Fishbone Investments Pty Ltd and L J Follington Constructions Pty Ltd were further evaluated, including independent financial analysis and referee checks conducted by Corporate Scorecard.

 

The results of these evaluations are reported in a separate Committee of the Whole report in tonight’s Business Paper.

Financial Services Manager’s Comment

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on LJ Follington Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review, no concerns were raised as to the ability of LJ Follington Pty Ltd to perform the works described. The estimated cost of these services can be accommodated in the 2015-16 Operational Plan.

 

Conclusion

Based on the detailed evaluation and independent risk analysis, the tender that represents the best overall value to Council was received from L J Follington Constructions Pty Ltd.  The company has been Council’s grave digging contractor for the last eight (8) years and have provided an excellent level of service, and they are recommended for appointment for the provision of Grave Digging Services for a three (3) year period, with an option to extend for a further two (2) one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The Tender Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of the Chief Governance Officer, Stephen Britten and the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil met to consider the tender for Grave Digging Services. The TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report subject to the information provided in the separate Committee of the Whole report in tonight’s Business Paper.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Tender Reference RFT 14/15-31 Provision of Gravedigging Services be received.

2.    The tender from L J Follington Pty Ltd be accepted for the provision of   Grave Digging Services for a three (3) year period, with an option to extend        for a further two (2) one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory            performance and mutual agreement and allowing for rise and fall.

3.    The common seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all documentation if required.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

16      56th Annual Floodplain Management Australia Conference - Tuesday 17 to Friday 20 May 2016                                                                                                                                116

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

16

56th Annual Floodplain Management Australia Conference - Tuesday 17 to Friday 20 May 2016   

 

Compiled by:               Kristy Enman, Engineering Services Secretary

Authorised by:            Adam Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager  

 

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

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the 56th Annual Floodplain Management Australia (FMA) Conference, to be held in Nowra from Tuesday 17 May to Friday 20 May 2016, and to authorise the attendance of Council’s delegates. The report recommends that Council nominate delegates to attend the 2016 FMA Conference.

 

Background

The Floodplain Management Australia objectives are:

·     Support the primary objective of the State Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy, namely to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on individual owners and occupiers and to reduce private and public losses from flooding

·     Press for optimum financial assistance by State and Federal Governments to Flood Mitigation Authorities to implement the Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy

·     Provide a forum for exchange of information and ideas related to flood mitigation

·     Foster good relationships and effective liaison between the Association and Government departments.

 

To support these objectives, the FMA holds a conference annually.

 

Current Situation

The 56th Annual Floodplain Management Australia (FMA) Conference, is to be held in Nowra from Tuesday 17 May to Friday 20 May 2016.

 

The theme of this conference is “Rock’n’Role – Innovation and Role in Flood Risk Management”.

 

There are pre-conference workshops planned to precede the Conference. These workshops will be held on Tuesday 17 May 2016 and further details, including travel and accommodation will be provided at a later date.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is required to nominate delegates to represent Penrith City Council at the 2016 Floodplain Management Australia Conference and Workshops to be held in Nowra from Tuesday 17 May 2016 to Friday 20 May 2016.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on 56th Annual Floodplain Management Australia Conference - Tuesday 17 to Friday 20 May 2016 be received.

2.    Council nominate delegates to the 2016 Floodplain Management Australia Conference and Workshops to be held in Nowra from Tuesday 17 May to Friday 20 May 2016 and grant of leave absence as appropriate.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

2016 Floodplain Management Australia Conference Brochure

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                      28 September 2015

Appendix 1 - 2016 Floodplain Management Australia Conference Brochure

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


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

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

17      NSW Family and Community Services Targeted Earlier Intervention Programs - Sector Consultation Paper                                                                                                         122

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                        28 September 2015

 

 

 

17

NSW Family and Community Services Targeted Earlier Intervention Programs - Sector Consultation Paper   

 

Compiled by:               Vesna Kapetanovic, Community Projects Officer 

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager  

 

Outcome

We are healthy and share strong community spirit

Strategy

Provide opportunities for our community to be healthy and active

Service Activity

Resource and implement social programs that contribute to community wellbeing

      

 

Executive Summary

The NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) are undertaking a reform of their Targeted Earlier Intervention Programs (TEIP). These programs provide early intervention and support to vulnerable children, young people, families and communities. FACS has called for community service providers, local government and other stakeholders to respond to the recently released sector consultation paper that outlines the goals and direction of the reform, particularly focusing on design and implementation of the current early intervention programs.

Targeted Earlier Intervention Programs (TEIP) incorporate a number of funding streams. These include Families NSW, Aboriginal Child Youth and Family Strategy, Triple P, Child Youth and Family Support, Youth Hope, Getting it Together, Community Builders, Staying Home Leaving Violence, and Integrated Domestic and Family Violence Services.

 

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Service coordinates and implements a range of community development and community capacity building strategies in the City for which Council receives approximately $130,000 per annum from the TEIP Community Builders funding stream.

 

From an organisational perspective, Council also provides a number of other services to the community that contribute to community wellbeing.  These include but are not limited to Neighbourhood Renewal, Community Safety, Children’s Services, Neighbourhood Facilities, Community Safety, Recreation and Parks.

 

This report provides an overview of the main points that are proposed to be incorporated into Council’s submission to the sector consultation paper. The submission will highlight Council’s broad contribution to improving community wellbeing in addition to providing input on the five key areas outlined in the consultation paper. These five key areas are service system design; service delivery; program improvement; program support; and reform processes.

 

The closing date for submissions to the consultation paper is 16 October 2015.

 

The report recommends that the information in the NSW Family and Community Services (FACS) Targeted Earlier Invention Programs – Sector Consultation Paper report be received and that Council endorse the submission to FACS as outlined in this report.

 

Background

The NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) provides funding for various targeted earlier intervention and support services to assist vulnerable children, young people, families and communities. Effective prevention and early intervention services are important in maintaining and increasing health and wellbeing. Improving the wellbeing of children, young people and families requires flexible and responsive service systems that are equipped to deliver preventive interventions and support, and respond effectively and early to emerging issues and challenges.

 

FACS is currently undertaking reform of a number of their funded programs, including the Targeted Earlier Intervention Programs (TEIP). The aim of the TEIP reform is about improving service design and implementation of these programs so that services are more targeted to individual client and community needs and contribute to social inclusion and wellbeing.

 

The reform will cover the following existing programs:

 

·        Families NSW (annual funding $26.5m)

·        Aboriginal Child Youth and Family Strategy (annual funding $4.3m)

·        Triple P (annual funding $0.48m)

·        Child Youth and Family Support (annual funding $54.2m)

·        Youth Hope (annual funding $10.2m)

·    &nb