Council_Mark_POS_RGB

2 December 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 7 December 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 Michelle Tormey - 30 October 2015 to 3 January 2016 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 23 November 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

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 30 November 2015.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 7 December 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

 

 

 

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)

 

 

7

 

23@

23

27v

25#

29*

27

24@

28

26

23#+

14

(7.00pm)

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

 

 

20

11

22

13

10

14

19

9

 

 

9

9

 

 

 

 

31

 

 

30

 

 

 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 23 NOVEMBER 2015 AT 7:32PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown 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

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

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Michelle Tormey for the period 30 October 2015 to 3 January 2016 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

342  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that apologies be received for Councillors Maurice Girotto and Ben Goldfinch.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 26 October 2015

343  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 26 October 2015 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 5 - Heritage Assistance fund 2015 – 2016 as he is listed as the Public Officer for the Llandilo Hall.  Councillor Crameri stated that he would leave the Chamber during consideration of this Item.

 

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown declared a Non- Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in COW Item 2 - Status on Litigation and Compliance Matters as her son was employed by a company which is one of the subjects of this report.

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest - Significant

in COW Item 2 - Status on Litigation and Compliance Matters as his wife is the Secretary of the Protect Penrith Action Group Inc.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2        Congratulations to Majorie and Graham Elphick, NSW Grandparents of the Year

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:39pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:41pm.

Councillors Jackie Greenow OAM, John Thain and Prue Car MP spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown then presented Mr and Mrs Elphick with a framed copy of the Mayoral Minute.

344  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Congratulations to Majorie and Graham Elphick, NSW Grandparents of the Year be received.

 

3        Penrith Progression recognised in Planning Institute's State Awards

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute and congratulated all those involved in the Penrith Progression.                                                        

345  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Penrith Progression recognised in Planning Institute's State Awards be received.

 

1        The passing of David Mead

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillor Greg Davies spoke in support of this Mayoral Minute

Her Worship the Mayor, Karen McKeown then asked the Councillors, staff and gallery to stand for one minute’s silence to acknowledge the passing of David Mead.

346  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on The passing of David Mead be received.

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 2 November 2015                                                                                                                  

347  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor John Thain that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 2 November, 2015 be adopted.

 

 


 

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 9 November 2015                                                                                                                  

348  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Tricia  Hitchen that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 9 November, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

2        Tender Submission for Out of School Hours Care Services in Schools                   

349  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Tender Submission for Out of School Hours Care Services in Schools be received

2.    Council endorse the Request for Tender for the provision of out of school hours services at Henry Fulton and Werrington Public Schools in 2016.

 

3.     Pending the outcome of the Request for Tender, Council enter into an Agreement with the NSW Department of Education for the provision of out of school hours services at Henry Fulton and Werrington Public Schools for three years with a two year option, both services to be managed by the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd.

 

4.    Council receive further information on the outcome of the NSW Department of Education Request for Tender process for the provision of out of school hours services at Henry Fulton and Werrington Public Schools. 

 

 

1        Event Proposal - Australian Ballet                                                                                  

350  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Event Proposal - Australian Ballet be received.

 

2.    Consideration of this matter be deferred pending submission of a further report to Council outlining any economic benefits to the Penrith area of hosting this event, as well as a business plan and any opportunities for joint partnership and sponsorship.

 

 


 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

3        Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Amendment to the Second Council Planning Agreement

351  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Glenmore Park Stage 2 - Amendment to the Second Council Planning Agreement be received.

2.    Council endorse the proposed amendments to the Second Council Planning Agreement (commonly referred to as the Council VPA) as outlined in this report and that a legal amending document to the Council VPA be prepared in accordance with these proposed changes and the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations.

3.    The legal amending document to the Council VPA be placed on public notification for a period of 28 days.

4.    Council authorise the General Manager to finalise and sign the legal amending document to the Council VPA with the other VPA parties following the conclusion of the public notification period.

 

5.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to the legal amending document to the Council VPA developed in accordance with resolutions 2, 3 and 4 above.

 

 

4        Fencing of the Wianamatta Regional Park                                                                     

352  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Car MP seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the information contained in the report on Fencing of the Wianamatta Regional Park be received.

 

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 5, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:11pm.

 

5        Heritage Assistance fund 2015 – 2016                                                                            

353  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia  Hitchen seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Heritage Assistance fund 2015 – 2016 be received

2.    The successful applicants for the 2015/2016 Heritage Assistance Fund be endorsed by Council and advised accordingly.

3.    The unsuccessful applicants for the 2015/2016 Heritage Assistance Fund outlined be advised accordingly.

4.     A report be submitted to Council on increasing the monetary value of the Heritage Assistance fund allocations.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:12pm.

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

6        St Marys Memorial Hall - Request to Name Meeting Rooms                                       

354  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on St Marys Memorial Hall - Request to Name Meeting Rooms be received.

2.    Meeting Room 1 in St Marys Memorial Hall be officially named as the ‘Brian King Room’ and Meeting Room 2 be officially named as the ‘Kevin Dwyer Room’.

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

7        Tender Reference RFT 15/16-06 Construction of Wetland 156 Treatment System at Cranebrook                                                                                                                        

355  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Tender Reference RFT 15/16-06 Construction of Wetland 156 Treatment System at Cranebrook be received.

2.    Civil Constructions Pty Ltd be awarded the contract for the Construction of Wetland 156 Treatment System at Cranebrook, for an amount of $771,654.00 excluding GST.

3.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all documentation if necessary.

 

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

 

8        Active Ageing and Community Participation Project - Re-Imagine Ageing              

356  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Active Ageing and Community Participation Project - Re-Imagine Ageing be received.

2.    Council endorse the submission of an expression of interest to the Liveable Communities Grants Program for funding of $100,000 for the Re-Imagine Ageing initiative.

 


 

 

9        The Youth Week 2016 Program                                                                                       

A MOTION was moved by Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on The Youth Week 2016 Program be received.

2.    Council endorse the four recommended projects and funding amounts to the total value of $6,150 as outlined in Table 1 of this report.

3.     The shortfall in each project be funded equally from each Ward’s voted works.

An AMENDMENT was moved by Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on The Youth Week 2016 Program be received.

2.    Council endorse the four recommended projects and funding amounts to the total value of $6,150 as outlined in Table 1 of this report.

The AMENDMENT was PUT.

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

Councillor Bernard Bratusa called for a DIVISION.

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car MP

Councillor Bernard Bratusa

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

                                                        

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

 

10      Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Alan Travers                                                                                                                      

357  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Bestowing the Civic Recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Alan Travers be received.

2.    Council bestow the civic recognition of Honoured Citizen of the City of Penrith upon Alan Travers, at a civic reception to be held at a mutually convenient time.

 


 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

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

358  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

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

2.    Council adopt the Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors.

3.    Council forward a copy of the Council’s adopted Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors to the Office Local Government.

 

16      Proposed Council Meeting Calendar for 2016                                                               

359  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Council Meeting Calendar for 2016 be received.

2.     The draft Meeting Calendar for 2016 be adopted.

 

17      Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates and Charges                                                                 

360  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates and Charges be received.

2.    Council endorses selling this land to recover unpaid rates if payment has not been received by 30 November 2015.

 

3.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all documentation if necessary.

 

18      Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 October to 31 October 2015 

361  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 October to 31 October 2015 be received.

 

2.    The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 October 2015 to 31 October 2015 be noted and accepted.

3.    The graphical investment analysis as at 31 October 2015 be noted.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:36pm.

 

11      Organisational Performance Report - September 2015                                               

362  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Organisational Performance Report - September 2015 be received.

2.    The Organisational Performance Report - September 2015 as at 30 September 2015, including the revised estimates outlined in this report and detailed in Attachment 1Organisational Performance Report – September 2015 be adopted.

 

12      Annual Report 2014-15                                                                                                     

363  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Annual Report 2014-15 be received

2.    The Annual Report 2014-15 be endorsed for submission to the NSW Office of Local Government by 30 November 2015.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:41pm.

 

13      Code of Conduct - Report on Complaints Statistics                                                    

364  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Code of Conduct - Report on Complaints Statistics  be received.

2.    A copy of the this report along with the complaints statistics provided in accordance with 12.1 of the Model Code Procedures be forwarded to the Office of Local Government.

Councillor Marcus Cornish called for a DIVISION.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For

Against

 

Councillor Prue Car MP

Councillor Marcus Cornish

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

                                                        

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

 

15      2015 Local Government NSW Annual Conference                                                       

365  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on 2015 Local Government NSW Annual Conference be received.

 

2.    An annual report to Council be prepared detailing the results of advocacy and progress of Conference motions after being considered by LGNSW.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS and URGENT BUSINESS

 

RR 1           Kendo School - Castlereagh Hall

Councillor John Thain requested a memo reply to all Councillors regarding providing assistance with advertising, including through the Mayoral Column, to the organisers of the Kendo School operating out of Castlereagh Hall.

 

RR 2           Resignation of Colin Wood

Councillor John Thain noted the recent resignation of Council’s Coordinator - Fire Safety and Certification, Colin Wood and, on behalf of his Councillor colleagues, wished Colin all the best for his future at Shoalhaven City Council.

 

RR 3           Beyond Blue Fundraising  

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM, on behalf of Councillor Maurice Girotto, requested a memo reply to all Councillors outlining any assistance Council could provide to Mary Vella for her fundraising activities for Beyond Blue.

 

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:55pm.

 

RR 4           Provision of Handrails around Viewing Platforms on Water Bodies       

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a report to Council canvassing all options  for preventative measures to eliminate the possibility of falls at viewing platforms on water bodies within the Penrith Local Government Area.

 

RR 5           Signage on Sporting Grounds    

Councillor Bernard Bratusa requested a memo to all Councillors identifying any directions issued by Penrith City Council to sporting organisations, in particular Penrith Golf Club, to have any advertising signage removed from the fence line of their grounds, and in the case of Penrith Golf Club, the fence line along The Northern Road.

 

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:58pm.

 

UB 1           Legal Matter - Code of Conduct Matter        

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that a Code of Conduct matter be referred to Committee of the Whole for discussion as it refers to information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law and discussion of the matter would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

Committee of the Whole

 

366  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 9:00pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

 

 

Outcome 5

 

Having previously declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant in COW Item 2 - Status on Litigation and Compliance Matters, Councillor Marcus Cornish left the meeting at 9:01pm and did not return.

 

2        Status on Litigation and Compliance Matters                                                               

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

Outcome 6

 

3        Pilot Project Evaluation - Shower Facilities for Homeless People                             

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 4

 

4        Civic Arts Precinct - Agreement with adjoining Owner                                               

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

Outcome 7

 

5        Disposal of Council owned land to adjoining owner                                                    

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

6        Legal Matter - Code of Conduct Matter

 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as it refers to information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law and discussion of the matter would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

The meeting resumed at 9:21pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 9:00pm on 23 November 2015, the following being present

 

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car MP, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Jackie Greenow OAM, Tricia Hitchen and John Thain

 

and the Committee of the Whole excluded the press and public from the meeting for the reasons set out in CW1 and that the Committee of the Whole submitted the following recommendations to Council.

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

 

2        Status on Litigation and Compliance Matters                                                               

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen

CW2 That the information contained in the report on Status on Litigation and Compliance Matters be received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3        Pilot Project Evaluation - Shower Facilities for Homeless People                             

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

CW3 That the information contained in the report on Pilot Project Evaluation - Shower Facilities for Homeless People be received.

 

 

4        Civic Arts Precinct - Agreement with adjoining Owner                                               

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

CW4 That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Civic Arts Precinct - Agreement with adjoining Owner be received.

2.    The General Manager be authorised to execute the letter of agreement between the owners of Westfield Penrith & Council.

 

5        Disposal of Council owned land to adjoining owner                                                    

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Mark Davies

CW5 That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Disposal of Council owned land to adjoining owner be received.

2.    Council enter into a Put and Call Option to sell the land as detailed within this report.

3.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on all necessary documentation.

 

6        Legal Matter - Code of Conduct Matter        

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen

CW6  That the information be received.

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

367  RESOLVED on the MOTION on Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4, CW5 and CW6 be adopted.

 

 Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting at 9:22pm and did not return.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:24pm.

 


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                                                

   


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        White Ribbon Day Twilight River Walk 2015                                                                     1

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

Mayoral Minute

White Ribbon Day Twilight River Walk 2015

Strategy: Improve our public spaces and places

           

 

I would like to congratulate and thank the community of Penrith for its support of Council’s 2015 White Ribbon Day Twilight River Walk on Wednesday 25 November.

 

This was Council’s third, and biggest ‘River Walk’ for White Ribbon Day – Australia’s campaign to stop violence against women and attended by more than 600 people.

 

Despite increased awareness, violence against women is still a serious problem in Australia.

One in three women over the age of 15 suffers abuse at some time in their lives and on average, over a 12 month period, one woman loses her life every week as a result of domestic violence.

 

Domestic violence is not only physical abuse, it can take many forms including intimidation, coercion or isolation, emotional, sexual and financial abuse. It’s also the major cause of homelessness for women and their children. One of the most devastating aspects of domestic violence is that many women keep it hidden – they tell no one and don’t seek help.

 

To stop domestic violence we need to promote equality and respect between men and women. I’m proud to say Council’s Penrith Community Safety Plan states Council will continue to work with our community to raise awareness about this important issue. Council provides ongoing support to the Nepean Domestic Violence Network which delivers projects and events throughout the year to raise awareness of domestic and family violence as well as reduce the levels of this violence across our city.

 

At this year’s event we recognised the efforts of our uniformed services, particularly local police and emergency services, who are often the first responders to domestic violence in our community. I would like to thank them for their ongoing efforts and for participating in our event. It was also great to see so many of our local community services, sporting clubs and local businesses at the event in uniform, colours or logos representing their organisations.  

 

I would like to acknowledge Penrith’s Local Area Commander, Superintendent Brett McFadden, and our White Ribbon Day Ambassador Greg Purdue for attending and adding their voices to this very worthwhile campaign. Thank you also to the Zonta club for their powerful display highlighting the devastating and tragic impacts of violence against women.

 

I would also like to commend the Community Safety Team for their coordination and promotion of this very successful event.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on White Ribbon Day Twilight River Walk 2015 be received.

  


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 30 November 2015                                                                                                                  1

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 30 November, 2015

 

 

 

PRESENT

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown,  Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Prue Car MP (arrived 7:11pm), Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish, Greg Davies (arrived 7:11pm), Mark Davies, Maurice Girotto, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow OAM, Tricia Hitchen and John Thain (arrived 7:11pm).

 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Michelle Tormey for the period 30 October 2015 to 3 January 2016 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

An apology was received for Councillor Bernard Bratusa.

 

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

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 November 2015 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 3 - Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report as his cousin’s photo has appeared on the cover of a recent publication produced by Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.

 

ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

Councillors John Thain, Prue Car MP and Greg Davies arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:11pm.

 

Mr Alex Karavas

 

Item 1 - Reclassification of Public Land in St Marys Town Centre

 

Mr Karavas, an affected resident, spoke in opposition to the recommendation, expressing his concerns over loss of park land and stating that more green spaces are needed in St Marys.  Mr Karavas also cited economic concerns due to the loss of public parking and increased retail floor space. 

 

An extension of time was granted to enable the speaker to complete his address, the time being 7:13pm.

 

Mr Karavas concluded by adding that there are community concerns regarding the potential closure of the Lifestart Centre.  He also stated that the focus should be on the community and a sustainable environment.

 

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Reclassification of Public Land in St Marys Town Centre

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

Councillor Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 7:43pm.

Councillor Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 7:44pm.                                

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Reclassification of Public Land in St Marys Town Centre be received.

2.    Council proceed with the proposed reclassification of the land identified in Attachment 2, excluding Kokoda Park and Lang Park.

3.    The General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary minor changes required to the Planning Proposal (provided separately to Councillors as a separate enclosure and available on Council’s website) before submitting it to the Minister for Planning.

4.    Council officers forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning with a request that he make the necessary amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.

5.      Any future commercial negotiations for the sale and development of the land identified in Attachment 2, excluding Kokoda Park and Lang Park, include a requirement that the current public car parking provision be replaced in full and that it be provided as free, untimed parking that is sited and designed to support retail and commercial premises in Queen Street.

6.    Should any sale of the land identified in Attachment 2 be agreed in the future, Council undertake an exercise to identify spending commitments and priorities for the proceeds of that sale.

7.    A report be presented to Council when future amendments are proposed to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014, that involve:

a.   desired configuration of public open space

b.   appropriate integration and connection of any expansion of the existing shopping centres with Queen Street, and

c.   implementation of actions from the Cooling the City Strategy in all new substantial development in the Town Centre.

An AMENDMENT was moved by Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Mark Davies

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Reclassification of Public Land in St Marys Town Centre be received.

2.    Council proceed with the proposed reclassification of the land identified in Attachment 2.

3.    The General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary minor changes required to the Planning Proposal (provided separately to Councillors as a separate enclosure and available on Council’s website) before submitting it to the Minister for Planning.

4.    Council officers forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning with a request that he make the necessary amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.

5.    Any reconfigured public open space resulting from a future sale and development of the land identified in Attachment 2 be named and designed to enhance the interpretation of current historic associations.

6.    Any future commercial negotiations for the sale and development of the land identified in Attachment 2 include a requirement that the current public car parking provision be replaced in full and that it be provided as free, untimed parking that is sited and designed to support retail and commercial premises in Queen Street.

7.    Should any sale of the land identified in Attachment 2 be agreed in the future, Council undertake an exercise to identify spending commitments and priorities for the proceeds of that sale.

8.    Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 be amended to secure the:

a.   desired configuration of public open space

b.   appropriate integration and connection of any expansion of the existing shopping centres with Queen Street, and

c.   implementation of actions from the Cooling the City Strategy in all new substantial development in the Town Centre.

The AMENDMENT was PUT.

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

For

Against

 

Councillor Mark Davies

Councillor Prue Car MP

Councillor John Thain  

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

Councillor Ben Goldfinch                         

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Maurice Girotto    

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

                            

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

The AMENDMENT was LOST.

The MOTION was PUT.

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 John Thain

Councillor Greg Davies

Councillor Mark Davies

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

Councillor Marcus Cornish

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

 

Councillor Maurice Girotto              

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

                                                        

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM  

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

 

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

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

2        Construction Specification for Civil Works                                                                   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Construction Specification for Civil Works be received.

2.    Council endorse the Engineering Construction Specification for Civil Works.

3.    The Engineering Construction Specification for Civil Works be applied to civil works associated with Development Applications lodged after Council’s endorsement of the document.

4.    The final specification be reviewed by Engineering Services and City Works periodically with only substantial amendments to be reported to Council.

5.    Council officers write to our partners within the industry that provided feedback and commentary, thanking them for their time and input.

 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

3        Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

Community & Cultural Development Manager, Erich Weller introduced the report and invited the CEO of Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd, Ms Hania Radvan to give a presentation.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:13pm.

Councillors Marcus Cornish and Jackie Greenow OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:15pm.

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:16pm.

Councillors Marcus Cornish and Jackie Greenow OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:16pm.

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:17pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:20pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:23pm.

Councillor Maurice Girotto left the meeting, the time being 8:25pm.

Councillor Prue Car MP left the meeting, the time being 8:29pm.

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:31pm.

Councillor Maurice Girotto and Prue Car MP returned to the meeting, the time being 8:36pm.

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 8:49pm.

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 8:53pm.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report be received.

2.    Council endorse the appointment of Mr Tony Lackey and Ms Cathy Jarman as Directors of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd as outlined in the report.

3.    Council agree to underwrite the operations of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd until the presentation of the 2016-2017 Annual Report.

 

 

4        Penrith Aquatic & Leisure Limited - Annual Report and Board of Directors

Deputy Mayor, Ross Fowler OAM introduced the report and invited General Manager of Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Ltd, Paul Sheen and Chairman – Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Ltd, Alan Brown to give a presentation.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 8:58pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:59pm.

Councillor Mark Davies left the meeting, the time being 9:00pm.

Councillor Mark Davies returned to the meeting, the time being 9:03pm.

Councillor Maurice Girotto left the meeting, the time being 9:08pm.

Councillor Maurice Girotto returned to the meeting, the time being 9:11pm.

         

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Penrith Aquatic & Leisure Limited - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2.    Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd until the presentation of the 2016-2017 Annual Report.

3.    Council note and support the appointment and re-appointment of the persons named in the report to the Board of Directors of Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Ltd.

4.     Council support the concept of the splash pad development facility and a report providing details on the concept be presented to the next Ordinary meeting of Council.

 

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

RR 1           Policy on Subdivision Lot Size in Residential Developments

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply to all Councillors and that Council urgently formulate a policy on subdivisions lot size in residential developments in the Penrith LGA, with particular regard to Jordan Springs Central Precinct.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:34pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 30 November, 2015 be adopted.

 

 

  


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

 Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Planning Proposal - Request to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys    

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

 

2        Defqon Music Event Duration                                                                                            5

 

3        Proposed Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement from Settlers Estate Pty Ltd for No.s 731 - 767 Great Western Highway, Werrington (French Street)   

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                  8

 

4        Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 Precinct C - Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                15

 

5        Planning Proposal for Penrith City Centre Park                                                                 

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

         

6        Western Sydney Airport - Submission on Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                                         27

 

7        Planning Proposal to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - Incentives Clause for Key Sites                                                                                                                             

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

         

8        Reclassification of Council owned land at 53 and 54 Union Road Penrith

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                58

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

9        Tender Reference RFT 15/16-07 Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo), Penrith                                                                                                                67

 

10      Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy                                                           71

 

11      Expressions of Interest Mobile Kiosk Temporary Lease                                                 77

 

 

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

 

12      Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit                                                                                    85

 


 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

13      The outcome of two Land and Environment Court appeals relating to two development approvals for Places of Public Worship                                                                           97

 

 

 


 

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

1        Planning Proposal - Request to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys  

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

 

2        Defqon Music Event Duration                                                                                            5

 

3        Proposed Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement from Settlers Estate Pty Ltd for No.s 731 - 767 Great Western Highway, Werrington (French Street)   

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                  8

 

4        Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 Precinct C - Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                15

 

5        Planning Proposal for Penrith City Centre Park                                                                 

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

         

6        Western Sydney Airport - Submission on Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                                         27

 

7        Planning Proposal to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - Incentives Clause for Key Sites                                                                                                                             

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

         

8        Reclassification of Council owned land at 53 and 54 Union Road Penrith

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                58

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

1

Planning Proposal - Request to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys   

 

Compiled by:               Krishti Akhter, Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

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

Service Activity

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

     

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

 

Executive Summary

Council has received a draft Planning Proposal requesting an amendment to Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys. The site is zoned IN1 General Industrial under Penrith LEP 2010 which prohibits service stations. It is proposed to permit a service station on the site by listing service station as an additional permitted use on the site in Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of Penrith LEP 2010 and the relevant additional permitted uses map.

 

This report presents a summary of the officer’s review of the draft Planning Proposal and seeks Council’s endorsement to forward the draft Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment and to seek a ‘Gateway Determination’ to commence the LEP amendment process. 

Background

On 10 September 2015, Council received a draft Planning Proposal requesting an amendment to Penrith Local Environmental (LEP) Plan 2010 to permit a service station as an additional permitted use on 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys. The site is zoned IN1 General Industrial under Penrith LEP 2010. Development for the purposes of a service station is a prohibited use on land zoned as IN1 General Industrial and is therefore prohibited on the subject site. 

 

The site comprises Lot 4, DP 701087, 61-63 Christie Street, St Marys and Lot 3 DP 701087, 69-73 Christie Street, St Marys and is situated within the Dunheved Industrial Area. The site has a combined area of 12,374m2 and a frontage of approximately 115m. The eastern boundary of the site will adjoin the future Dunheved Link Road and the site will subsequently form a corner property when the intersection of Christie Street and the Dunheved Link Road is complete. A location plan showing the relationship of the site to the future Dunheved Link Road intersection with Christie Street is provided in Attachment 1.

 

Description of Planning Proposal

The draft Planning Proposal seeks to permit the development of a service station with consent at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys by amending Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses of Penrith LEP 2010 and the relevant additional permitted uses map of the LEP. No amendments are proposed to the zoning of the land. The draft Planning Proposal is provided in Attachment 2.

 

One of the features of the proposed service station is that it will have provision for truck diesel pumps and canopy located on land adjacent to nominated B-Double routes and North and South Dunheved industrial precincts. The proposed service station is at a conceptual stage and would be planned and designed in detail in a future development application, should Council endorse the draft Planning Proposal that seeks to permit the use on the site.

 

Permitting the development of service station on the subject site through Schedule 1 of Penrith LEP 2010 is the preferred mechanism rather than changing the zone of the site. This mechanism will retain the IN1 General Industrial zone for the site and permit service station as an additional permitted use only on the subject site.

 

The alternative mechanism is to change the zone of the site. Service stations are currently permitted in the B2 Local Centre, B6 Enterprise Corridor, IN2 Light Industrial and SP3 Tourist zones. However, these zones are located away from the Dunheved Industrial Area. In addition, amending the zone of the site to either B2 Local Centre, B6 Enterprise Corridor, IN2 Light Industrial or SP3 Tourist would result in land use conflicts with the adjoining industrial land as these zones permit land uses that are incompatible with an industrial area.

 

Planning Proposal Justification

The justification and rationale presented in the Planning Proposal is generally supported. A service station within the existing industrial area will:

 

·        Provide support to industry and contribute to diversity in industrial land uses;

·        Serve the daily convenience needs of workers in the Dunheved Industrial Precinct by providing an ancillary service;

·        Contribute to revitalising the Dunheved Business Park;

·        Activate the future Dunheved Link Road intersection; and

·        Service the future traffic generated by the “Western Sydney Inland Container Terminal” proposed at St Marys.

 

The Planning Proposal was accompanied by a Preliminary Contamination Investigation Report, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report and a Traffic Report.

 

A review of the Preliminary Contamination Investigation Report and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report concludes that both Lot 3 and Lot 4 are suitable for a commercial use. A review of the Traffic and Parking Assessment found that the proposal to permit service station on the site would have minimal impact to the surrounding network. The traffic impact and the proposed access arrangements would also be assessed at the DA stage.

 

Relationship to Dunheved Link Road

The eastern boundary of the site will adjoin the proposed Dunheved Link Road. It is proposed that the road would link the existing Dunheved Industrial Area with the future employment precincts owned by Lend Lease. Council’s Property Department, who are currently managing the Voluntary Planning Agreement for the Dunheved Link Road, have confirmed that the proposed service station is consistent with the proposed Dunheved Link Road intersection design.

 

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 August 2015, resolved to endorse the principles of the proposed draft voluntary planning agreement between St Marys Land Limited (owned and controlled by Lend Lease) and Penrith Council for the Dunheved Link Road and to exhibit the draft voluntary planning agreement for a period of 28 days once it has been finalised by Council. Once this process is complete, the Link Road can be constructed.

 

Next Steps

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

5.       The Planning Proposal will be publicly exhibited for the period specified in the Gateway Determination.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Penrith LEP 2010 to permit the development of a service station at Lot 4, DP 701087, 61-63 Christie Street, St Marys and Lot 3 DP 701087, 69-73 Christie Street, St Marys by amending Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of Penrith LEP 2010.

 

The justification and rationale of the Planning Proposal is generally supported. A service station within the existing industrial area will provide support to industry, contribute to diversity in industrial land uses and serve the daily convenience needs of workers in the Dunheved Industrial Precinct and service the future traffic generated by the “Western Sydney Inland Container Terminal” proposed at St Marys. The site is also well placed as a future corner site with the proposed Dunheved Link Road and contribute to revitalising the Dunheved Business Park Revitalisation.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal - Request to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys be received.

2.    Council commence a Gateway process for the ultimate consideration of a Planning Proposal to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

4.    Council publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys for a period to be specified in the Gateway Determination, in accordance with the community consultation requirements under Section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the Gateway Determination. 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Location Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

2.  

Planning Proposal to Permit Service Station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys

37 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

2

Defqon Music Event Duration   

 

Compiled by:               Jane Hetherington, Environmental Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Lemm, Development and Environmental Health Manager 

Requested By:            Councillor John Thain

 

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

      

 

The Defqon.1 event has been held annually at the Sydney International Regatta Centre since 2009. The first event was approved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 7 September 2009. This approval (DA09/0711) was for a one off music event on the 19 September 2009 from 11am to 10pm, with a maximum of 15,000 attendees.

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 16 August 2010 granted approval for a ticketed one day music festival from 11am to 11pm, with a maximum of 25,000 attendees to be held annually for 5 years. That application allowed for minor changes to the layout to be altered without the need for a formal application to be lodged with Council. However, in subsequent years, a number of Section 96 applications were approved. One of these applications increased the maximum number of attendees to 30,000, although this capacity was not utilised during the consent period.

 

On 16 August 2011, Council Officers, under delegated authority, approved a new development application for a camping component associated with the music event. This involved camping for 500 patrons, operating between Friday and Saturday night. In 2012, a further approval was issued for an increase in the number camping patrons from 500 to 1,000 people.

 

Development Application 15/0477 was lodged with Council on 18 May 2015 for the Defqon music event and associated camping and entertainment for a five (5) year duration (2015-2019), with the first event being held from Friday 18 September to Sunday 20 September 2015 at the Sydney International Regatta Centre (SIRC). In this application the following was provided:

·    Aquatic Safety Plan

·    Camping Management Plan

·    Traffic Management Plan

·    Event Management Plan

·    Emergency Plan

·    Noise Impact Assessment and Management Plan

 

The proposed development was extensively notified and advertised in local papers between 1 June 2015 and 16 June 2015. This included residents within Penrith City Council and Blue Mountains City Council. Council received nineteen (19) submission in response to the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Local Police, State Emergency Service, NSW Fire Brigade and the Local Ambulance Command who all endorsed the event and the supporting management plans.

 

Councillors were originally notified of the application and its key components in a memorandum dated 5 June 2015 upon receipt of the Development Application. A report was also included in the Economic Opportunities Working Party paper on the 20 July advising of the consultation process and submissions received. A further memorandum was sent to Councillors on the 25 July 2015 answering questions raised during the Economic Opportunities Working Party meeting and indicated that the Development Application was intended to be approved under delegated authority. 

 

The Development Application was approved under delegated authority on 26 August 2015 which granted consent until 2019. The consent permits the running of a one day annual music event accompanied by a two day camping festival to be held in September for a period of five (5) years. While approval for the three day event has been granted for a 5 year period, certain aspects (i.e. camping on the northern bank) was temporarily approved for one (1) year. If the applicant seeks to continue camping for the event, then a Section 96 modification application is required to be lodged and approved by Council. 

 

As part of the conditions of consent, organisers are required to submit management reports and certification to Council for consideration and approval annually before the event. This documentation includes an Annual Noise Impact and Management Plan which restricts the time periods the stages are permitted to be operational. This aspect can also be reviewed annually, with scope to limit stage operation and location.

 

Council monitors any complaints received following the staging of an event, and these are considered in the planning of future events. In addition a complaints hotline is established and monitored by the event organisers, Q-Dance Australia which allows residents to contact with concerns of noise before, during and after the event. The event organisers endeavour to respond to noise complaints within one hour during the event and make adjustments to the sound systems accordingly.

 

A condition of consent requires an event acoustic report to be submitted to Council 90 days after an event. This is required to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant and details any exceedances, any complaints received by the operators of the event and the recommended action for future events. The report for the 2015 event, suggests that the large number of complaints are due to the atmospheric effects occurring at the time and in addressing these issues the following has been recommended:

 

-     Real time monitoring in Mount Review and Winmalee to further gauge noise levels and enable adjustments during the event; and

-     Adjustment to sound checking procedures (specifically subject of community concern); and

-     Further analyse stage locations and adjust to respond to issues raised.

 

Notwithstanding this, the attended noise monitoring at the complainants locations found that the noise levels complied with the noise limits at all times. It has been confirmed with the noise consultants that the boundary levels were generally consistent with previous years and that the larger number of complaints is due to the atmospheric conditions.

 

A meeting between Council Officers and the event organisers has been undertaken to review this year’s event and to discuss issues of concern. These matters will need to be addressed by the event organisers in an updated operational management plan in preparation for future events.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Defqon Music Event Duration be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

3

Proposed Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement from Settlers Estate Pty Ltd for No.s 731 - 767 Great Western Highway, Werrington (French Street)    

 

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 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

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s endorsement of a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between Council and Settlers Estate Pty Ltd in regard to the provision of infrastructure and monetary contributions for an approved subdivision in French Street, Werrington.

The site is subject to three (3) separate development approvals (as amended) however only two (2) of these approvals are proposed to progress to construction and subdivision release.

The approvals issued are as follows:-

·    DA11/0546 (as amended by way of subsequent Section 96 Modification Applications DA11/0546.01 and DA11/0546.02) which includes provision for 114 residential allotments within Stage 1, creation of residue allotments for development as Stage 2, earthworks and civil engineering works within Stage 3 (subdivision to be subject of a separate application) and identification of a future Stage 4 (land yet to be zoned for residential development).

 

·    DA14/0994 which includes re- subdivision of residue allotments (Stage 2 of DA11/0546) to create 30 residential allotments; and

 

·    DA12/1361 which includes the construction of 250 residential units within Stage 2 of DA11/0546 (this consent is proposed to be surrendered under the terms of the proposed VPA.)

The applicant previously provided a letter of offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) committing to the following in respect to the development:-

·    All roads provided as part of the current DA be provided as part of each stage;

·    All stormwater work required to satisfy the entire development of the site (Stages 1-5);

·    Bicycle paths and bus facilities required to service the site;

·    Dedication of land containing the drainage basins and conservation corridor to Council at no cost to Council; and

·    $3.6 million in developer contributions.

 

The developer’s offer was found to be consistent with Council’s current policy for S94 contributions for the Werrington Enterprise Living and Learning (WELL) Precinct and was endorsed by Council at its Ordinary Meeting dated 10 December 2012. 

 

The applicant has since re-staged the approved development and amended the proposed subdivision and proposed built form outcome across the site. This includes the proposed surrender of Development Consent No. 12/1361 (250 residential flat building units) and replacement with the works approved under DA14/0994 (being 30 conventional residential allotment). 

 

The surrender of DA12/1361 would in effect take 250 multi-unit housing dwellings out of the offer.  This aspect of the offer and the resulting development needed to be renegotiated.  It was agreed that the population projections planned for across the development would be the basis for the revised methodology.  As a result the density generated from the 250 residential units formerly within stage 2 is now proposed to be spread across the entire site through Torrens Title subdivision across Stages 1 - 4.  A comparative analysis of the previous population projections and proposed population projections across the entire development site (all stages) was undertaken as follows:-

 

·    Initial Site Density Projection: 1,141.7 persons (inclusive of Torrens Title subdivision and 250 residential units) which equates to $3,155.00 per person under the previous offer.

 

·    Revised Proposed Site Density Projection: 1,097.4 persons (inclusive of Torrens Title subdivision only) which equates to $3,277.79 per person under the current offer.

 

As a result the draft offer now reflects a monetary calculation based on nett population / occupancy rates across the various stages of the development being $3,277.79 per person which is a better outcome than calculations based on the previous population projection. This approach is considered to better respond to potential changes to density, built form and service demand as the rest of the site is developed.

 

The proposed offer also builds into the draft VPA flexibility to ensure that contributions are appropriately apportioned to the population demand generated on services and infrastructure at each stage of the construction and subdivision release for the entire site.  Where a higher population yield is proposed through future development applications within Stages 3 and 4, additional contributions are required to be paid to Council in accordance with the terms of the draft VPA.

The negotiated draft VPA delivers a certain outcome with respect to Council receiving a monetary contribution ($3.597 million) and works that are in excess of what Council can currently impose on the development application under the state government imposed cap of $30,000.00 per Torrens Title residential allotment.

 

Background

Development Application No. DA11/0546 was lodged with Council for subdivision of the site into 110 residential allotments, residue allotments for future staged development and associated road construction, drainage works, landscaping embellishment and riparian planting. The development application was reported to the NSW Joint Regional Planning Panel on 3 May 2013 and was approved subject to conditions of consent. This consent requires the payment of a monetary contributions of $29,306.00 per allotment or agreement to a VPA to be resolved prior to issue of any subdivision certificate.

 

A subsequent Modification Application to DA11/0546 (being DA11/0546.01) was lodged with Council which altered the subdivision layout. The application was approved under delegated authority on 17 February 2014 for amendment to subdivision boundaries and revisions to the allotment yield.

 

A further Section 96 Modification Application to DA11/0546 (being DA11/0546.02) was approved by Council under delegated authority on 27 May 2015 for further amendment to subdivision boundaries and further revisions to the allotment yield.

 

Development Application No. DA12/1361 was lodged with for the construction of residential flat building development containing 250 units within residue allotments in Stage 2 created by way of DA11/0546. The application was reported to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination on 27 June 2013 where the proposal was approved subject to conditions of consent. Condition No. 27 of this consent requires the developer to enter into a VPA in accordance with the terms agreed to by Council (by way of letter dated 27 February 2015). It is noted that this development has not proceeded and has been replaced by the following subsequent application.

 

Development Application DA No. 14/0994 was lodged with Council for re-subdivision of residue allotments created by way of DA11/0546.  This proposal effectively replaced the residential flat building development approved by the JRPP under DA12/1361 and included the provision of 30 residential lots and a residue allotment.

 

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The site is an irregular shaped parcel of land consisting of nine separate allotments with a combined land area of 22.04 hectares and is known as the former Werrington Signals Site. The location of the subject land is shown in Attachment A.

 

The site is bounded by the main western railway line to the north, the Great Western Highway to the south, French Street and existing residential development to the west and the University of Western Sydney (Werrington North campus) to the east.

 

The site is currently vacant and is largely clear of vegetation with the exception of scattered trees at the peripheries of the site.

 

 

Rational for Support of Proposed Offer

 

Development Contributions for this development and all residential proposals in the WELL Precinct are subject to the $30,000 per lot/dwelling cap imposed by the then Minister for Planning in September 2010. As previously reported to Council, the impact of the cap on the delivery of infrastructure in the entire WELL Precinct, if developed to its intended residential capacity, was forecast to result in a funding shortfall of $54.7 million.

 

To ensure essential infrastructure is delivered and there is no funding gap, Council, on 27 June 2011, in considering a Development Application within the Caddens sub-precinct, resolved that in dealing with future residential applications in the WELL Precinct:

 

a)   development contributions up to $30,000 will be applied, and directed to recreation, community, administration and selected road facilities in the WELL s94 Plan, and the revised District Open Space Plan and the current Cultural Facilities Plans;

 

b)   conditions imposed on the development consent will require proponents to provide all required drainage works, to be delivered in accordance with DCP 2006;

 

c)   conditions imposed on the development consent will require proponents to provide all roads which are 100% apportioned to the Caddens sub-precinct, to be delivered in accordance with DCP 2006.

 

The earlier offer agreed to by resolution of Council for this site included the following key aspects:-

 

·    All roads provided as part of the development application be provided as part of each stage;

·    All stormwater work required to satisfy the entire development of the site;

·    Bicycle paths and bus facilities required to service the site;

·    Dedication of land containing the drainage basins and conservation corridor to Council at no cost to Council; and

·    $3.6 Million developer contributions

The applicant previously advised that the $3.6 million contribution consists of:

 

·    $1.1 million for Stages 1-4.  (110 lots approved under DA11/0546)

·    $1.25 million for Stage 5.  (proposed 50 not yet subject of a development application)

·    $1.25 million for the proposed 250 apartments (approved by way of DA12/1361). 

The above calculations were derived from a monetary contribution generated for each allotment or unit created, which in summary included contributions against 160 Torrens Title residential allotments and 250 residential units. 

 

The approved residential flat buildings (DA12/1361) which provided for  250 residential units has however been replaced by a 30 lot Torrens Title residential subdivision and as such the previous offer is no longer applicable or appropriate, to ensure that sufficient contributions can be sought to supplement the resulting funding deficit created from the contribution cap.

 

The required contributions to deliver on the infrastructure and open space outlined within the Contributions Plan would equate to $46,613.00 per allotment (based on a density of 30 dwellings per nett hectare). This cannot be levied due to the contributions cap. If a planning agreement is not struck, the Council would then be liable to supplement a significant deficit to ensure the commitments outlined within the WELL Contribution Plan can be delivered. This is not reasonable of feasible and has resulted in the need to enter into discussions on a draft VPA.

 

For this reason, and to ensure that Council is not liable to supplement a significant monetary shortfall to deliver on the WELL Precinct Plan commitments, discussions commenced on a new VPA reflective of an occupancy rate which responds to the dwelling typologies and subdivision pattern proposed. This approach ensures that physical infrastructure is provided by way of conditions of consent and that open space can be provided for by way of monetary contributions proportionate to the population density generated from the development.

 

The occupancy rates reflected within the draft VPA are as follows:-

 

·    Subdivided allotment, dwelling house or dual occupancy: 3.1 persons per dwelling

·    Multi-unit housing or shop top housing: 2 persons per dwelling

·    Seniors living, secondary dwellings or student accommodation (1 x bed): 1.5 persons per dwelling

 

The majority of the subdivision as approved under DA11/0546 (as amended) and DA14/0994 is for Torrens Title residential allotments with allotment sizes which are incapable of dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing development potential. As such the proposed occupancy rates and associated contributions will generally be limited to 3.1 persons per dwelling / allotment.

In summary the previous offer required the payment of $3.6 million attributed to 160 allotments and 250 residential units. The current amended proposal includes payment of $3.597 million which is attributed to 354 allotments (no residential units) and is substantially the same monetary figure as that previously agreed to. The population projection across all stages of the sites planned development is also substantially similar as the previous population forecast was anticipated to be 1141.7 persons which is now estimated to be 1,097.4 persons under the proposed development scenarios within four stages.

 

The revised stages and payment breakdown is reflected within the table below:-

 

· Stage

· No. of Lots

· Contribution Per Person

· Monetary Contribution

· Stage 1

· (DA11/0546)

· 114

· (equates to 353.4 persons)

·

· $3,277.79

· $1,158,371.00

· Stage 2

· (DA14/0994)

· 30

· (equates to 93 persons)

·

· $3,277.79

· $304,834.00

· Stage 3

· (Not yet approved)

· 85

· (equates to 263.50 persons)

 

 

· $3,277.79

· $863,698.00

· Stage 4

· (Not yet approved)

·

· 125

· (equates to 387.50 persons)

·

· $3,277.79

· $1,270,144.00

· Total

·

·

· $3,597,047.00

 

 

The revised offer and calculation methodology responds to the reduction from 250 units to 30 allotments within Stage 2, captures density capacity within the future unapproved stages (without the need for revision of the VPA) and ensures that the contributions still ensure delivery of required infrastructure in accordance with the objectives and works outlined within the applicable contributions plan for the WELL Precinct. 

 

In addition the following additional terms are provided for within the draft VPA which provide Council with sufficient flexibility to ensure that increased densities generate additional monetary contributions proportionate to the resulting occupancy rates. The terms of the draft VPA also secure a suitable landscaping embellishment outcome within the riparian corridor  which is also subject of control activity permits through the NSW Office of Water:-

 

·    The developer must carry out landscaping works within the riparian corridor in accordance with the landscape plan included within Schedule 5 of the draft VPA which must be completed and addressed during the subdivision certificate process for Stage 3 of the development; and

 

·    Monetary contributions are to be paid prior to the release of the relevant subdivision certificates for Stage 1 – 3. The contributions for Stage 4 will be paid within 18 months of the stage 3 subdivision certificate release or prior to the release of the subdivision certificate for stage 4 (whichever occurs first); and

 

·    The monetary contributions that are payable in relation to any part / stage of the development are to be the amounts attributable to that part / stage of the development applying the rates set out in  this report)

 

The draft VPA has also been considered by Council’s Legal Services Departments and has been found to be suitable.

 

Conclusion

 

The negotiated draft VPA delivers a certain outcome with respect to Council receiving a monetary contribution and works that are in excess of what Council can currently impose on the development application under the state government imposed cap of $30,000.00 per Torrens Title residential allotment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Proposed Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement from Settlers Estate Pty Ltd for No.s 731 - 767 Great Western Highway, Werrington (French Street)  be received.

2.    The draft VPA be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations.

3.    Council authorise the General Manager to finalise and sign the draft VPA following the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

4.    The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to the VPA.

5.    A copy of the VPA be provided to the Minister.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Locality Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

2.  

Original Approved Staging Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

3.  

Revised Approved Staging Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

4.  

Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement

29 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

4

Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 Precinct C - Outcomes of Public Exhibition   

 

Compiled by:               Alison Butler, Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning 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

Plan for and facilitate delivery of release areas and urban renewal in the City

     

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

 

Executive Summary

Precinct C is located at the western edge of the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area, adjacent to the Mulgoa Nature Reserve. At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 March 2015, Council resolved to sponsor a Planning Proposal for Precinct C of Glenmore Park Stage 2, which seeks to amend the minimum lot sizes applying to Precinct C to allow for a more gradual transition of lot sizes from the urban areas of the release area to the rural and conservation lands to the west.

 

The Planning Proposal is supported by an amendment to Chapter E7 (Part B) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014. This chapter currently contains different controls for Precinct C to those applying to the remaining areas of Glenmore Park Stage 2, which provide more generous setback controls to respond to the larger lot sizes within this precinct. As a result of the proposed lot size amendments, new front setback controls must now be developed for the smaller lots proposed for the central eastern part of the precinct. The objective of the DCP amendment is to allow development controls which are aligned more closely with the proposed amendments to the LEP.

 

The Planning Proposal and draft Chapter E7 (Part B) were publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days from 28 September 2015 to 26 October 2015. This report provides a summary and review of the submissions received.

 

It is considered appropriate to progress the Planning Proposal to the next stage of the LEP amendment process. As such, this report seeks Council’s adoption of a final Planning Proposal and the draft Development Control Plan chapter.

Background

Precinct C is located at the western edge of the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area, adjacent to the Mulgoa Nature Reserve. Precinct C provides a transition between the urban areas of the release area and the rural and conservation land to the west. This was reflected in the larger minimum lot sizes and specific development controls prescribed in the original planning instruments applying to the Precinct.

 

However, as the adjoining precincts within Glenmore Park Stage 2 have developed over time in response to market demand for housing types and densities, there is a need to adjust the planning provisions for Precinct C to facilitate a more logical and ‘fine-grained’ transition from the existing urban precincts to the rural settings in the west.

 

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 March 2015, Council resolved to sponsor a Planning Proposal for Precinct C of Glenmore Park Stage 2, to amend the spread and arrangement of minimum lot sizes applying to Precinct C to allow for a more gradual transition.

 

A further report was presented to Council at its 10 August 2015 Policy Review Committee, outlining proposed amendments to Chapter E7 (Part B) of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014) which applies to Precinct C. The objective of the DCP amendment is to ensure that the development controls, being primarily front setback controls, relating to future development within the precinct are complementary to the amendments proposed within the LEP. Council resolved to publicly exhibit the draft DCP chapter alongside the Planning Proposal.

 

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the results of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and draft DCP chapter.

 

Development Control Plan

 

The existing DCP controls for Precinct C (referred to as the Mulgoa Creek Catchment) provide generous development controls in order to respond to the larger lot sizes within this precinct. While the existing controls will be maintained for the larger lots, as a result of the proposed lot size amendments, new front setback controls are required for the smaller lots within the precinct. This is to ensure that future landowners are provided with controls that allow reasonable development of their site, while still responding to the precinct’s special characteristics. In order to achieve this, it is recommended that the setback controls for smaller lots, in the eastern parts of the Precinct, are reduced slightly to complement the amended lot sizes.

 

The refinement to the transition of lot sizes across the Precinct has resulted in a modest increase in lot density and therefore housing yield. The Planning Proposal will cap the yield at a maximum of 344 dwellings, an increase of 94 additional dwellings over the 2007 planned yield. As such, in addition to the new setback requirements, some wording amendments are included in the DCP to cap the ultimate yield.

 

The draft Chapter E7 (Part B) was publicly exhibited alongside the Planning Proposal for a period of 28 days. It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment to draft DCP Chapter E7 Part B so that it takes effect on the publication of the amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. A copy of the revised DCP chapter is provided as an appendix to the Planning Proposal included at Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Gateway Determination

 

The Department of Planning and Environment issued a Gateway Determination on 27 July 2015 which requires that the Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

 

The Gateway Determination required that the Planning Proposal be sent to the relevant public authorities for comment prior to public exhibition. The Planning Proposal was sent to the relevant public authorities on the 14 August 2015, who were given 21 days to comment on the proposal.

 

 

 

 

Public Authority Consultation

 

A total of 5 submissions were received from public authorities and are summarised in the below table.

 

Public Authority

Comments

Water NSW (formerly Sydney Catchment Authority)

No objections raised.

Sydney Water

No objections raised.

 

Comments relate to future servicing of the site, which will be considered through future development applications.

Department of Education and Communities

No objections raised.

Roads and Maritime Services

No objections raised.

Rural Fire Services

No objections subject to the requirement for the future subdivision of the land to comply with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

 

Compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection  2006 is a requirement for any future development application relating to bushfire prone land.

 

 

Public Exhibition

 

The Planning Proposal and draft DCP were placed on public exhibition from Monday 28 September to Monday 26 October 2015. A range of tasks to support the public exhibition were carried out during this time including:

 

1.   Advertisements in relevant newspapers

2.   Notification letters were sent to adjoining property owners and occupiers in the area surrounding Precinct C.

3.   Information and fact sheets on how to make a submission were provided at the exhibition venues and on Council’s website.

4.   Availability of staff at Penrith Civic Centre to answer community enquiries.

 

Community Submissions

 

One community submission, objecting to the proposal, was received. The matters raised in this submission were primarily in relation to the character of Precinct C, environmental concerns, traffic impacts and the capacity of community facilities to meet the growing population of Glenmore Park. These matters are addressed below.

 

Residential Character

 

The submission expresses concern that reducing the minimum lot sizes would change the semi – rural streetscape character of Precinct C.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

 

The lots to which the reduced lot size and front setback control will apply are located on the inner eastern portion of Precinct C, directly adjacent to an existing urban release area and, when compared to other lots within the precinct, are not considered to offer any significant rural quality. Those lots with a direct interface to the rural and conservation lands will still maintain larger lot sizes, large front setbacks, larger lot frontages, and increased private open space requirements.

 

Streetscape character is determined by a number of factors, of which lot sizes are just one component. DCP 2014 still requires development within Precinct C to adopt semi-rural characteristics through road detailing, landscaping and fencing details. It is considered that the semi-rural character can still be achieved for the precinct with this detailing, even if a portion of the precinct includes smaller lot sizes.

 

Stormwater Drainage

 

The submission expresses concern that the increase in yield within Precinct C would alter the environmental drainage and catchment flow areas, having a detrimental impact on the neighbouring Nature Reserve.

 

Comment:

 

A Stormwater Management Plan is required to be prepared for Precinct C prior to any development occurring on site, and stormwater management infrastructure will be implemented as part of the civil works for the Precinct. The developer will work with Council’s engineers throughout the detailed design stages for Precinct C, and throughout the development application process.

 

Bushfire Evacuation

 

The submission expresses concern regarding how increased populations will be safely evacuated in the event of a bushfire.

 

Comment:

 

The Planning Proposal was referred to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) prior to being placed on public exhibition. No objection was raised to the proposal, subject to future dwellings being constructed in accordance with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection. Compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection will be considered through future development applications for the site, which will include minimum construction standards for dwellings as well as the implementation of asset protection zones.

 

Traffic

 

The submission expresses concern that the proposal will result in increased traffic conditions experienced at Bradley Street, and that the signalised intersection works at Bradley Street/Northern Road are yet to be undertaken, resulting in negative traffic impacts for the Glenmore Park Stage 2 release area.

 

Comment:

 

The outcome of the Planning Proposal is to implement the statutory mechanism for allowing an improved transition in lot sizes and a modest increase in lot density within Precinct C. To address the impact of any future development of Precinct C, a traffic impact assessment will be required with the future subdivision development application for Precinct C. The Planning Proposal was also referred to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) prior to public exhibition, who raised no objections.

 

The delivery of infrastructure and monetary contributions to support the development of the GP2 release area is addressed within the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) that exists between Council and the GP2 landowner developers, commonly referred to as the “Council VPA”. 

 

The Council VPA currently requires the delivery of signalised intersection works at Bradley Street/The Northern Road, and the upgrade of Bradley Street, prior to Council’s issuing of the Subdivision Certificate relating to the 1000th residential lot developed by GP2 landowners. Subdivision Certificates for 982 lots have currently been issued.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 23 November 2015, Council endorsed a proposed amendment to the Council VPA based on advice received from RMS. The amendment, which is currently being prepared, will require the commencement of works for interim traffic signals and associated civil works at the intersection of Bradley Street and The Northern Road prior to Council’s release of the Subdivision Certificate for the 1050th residential lot at Glenmore Park Stage 2. These interim works must be completed within 9 months, and during construction the works shall operate under a certified and approved Construction Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan. RMS has advised that these interim works will be replaced by the planned The Northern Road Stage 3 upgrade, scheduled to commence in 2019.

 

The revised VPA requirements for the timing of works and capacity enhancement at the Bradley Street / The Northern Road intersection will adequately cater for the proposed level of development in Precinct C under this LEP amendment.

 

Community Facilities

 

The submission expresses concern that the increase in residential population arising from the Planning Proposal will place additional pressure on car parking, open space and community facilities within GP2. 

 

Comment:

 

The Planning Proposal will allow for an additional 94 lots within Precinct C, a modest increase when determining the need for additional community facilities and open space.

 

With regard to pressure on car parking resulting from additional residents, Council applies standard car parking rates that are calculated based on the scale or floor space for the particular shopping centre, sportsground or other facility, not the size of the local population that might make use of them.

 

As mentioned previously in this report, the site is subject to a VPA between the Council and the landowners. The VPA requires monetary contributions for district open space and cultural facilities to meet the City-wide recreational and cultural needs of the additional residents. Additionally, the DCP requires a Concept Plan to be lodged and approved by Council prior to, or with the first subdivision development application for Precinct C. This Concept Plan must, amongst other things, address open space provision, providing an appropriate mechanism to identify how any additional local open space will be provided. For example, the Concept Plan may identify the expansion of existing or planned parks, embellishment of existing facilities or if additional park(s) are required.

 

Additional demand for open space and community facilities generated by the modest scale of the proposed increase in dwelling yield can be adequately catered for in the planned facilities.

 

Next Steps

 

The review of the Planning Proposal, including draft Chapter E7 (Part B) of DCP 2014, and the public submissions is complete. There appear to be no constraints to progressing the Planning Proposal to the next stage of the LEP amendment process, that is, the drafting and publication of the amendment to LEP 2010. Council has sought and received the Minister for Planning and Environment’s delegation of his plan making powers for this Planning Proposal. Council’s endorsement of the Planning Proposal will mean that we can work directly with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office on the publication of the required amendments to LEP 2010.

 

Council also needs to adopt the draft DCP chapter to ensure that it takes effect on the publication of the amendments to LEP 2010, ensuring that the proposed amendments and eventual development are delivered in a coordinated manner.

 

Should Council endorse the Planning Proposal for Precinct C of Glenmore Park Stage 2 tonight, the following steps will occur in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

1.   Council officers will continue to update the Planning Proposal and associated maps based on the policy direction endorsed by Council.

2.   Council officers will forward the Planning Proposal to Parliamentary Counsel, requesting that a draft instrument be prepared under section 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.   Council officers will liaise with Parliamentary Counsel in writing the instrument and undertake any mapping changes required.

4.   The content of the LEP will be finalised and an Opinion issued by Parliamentary Counsel that the Plan can be made.

5.   The Plan is made.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 Precinct C - Outcomes of Public Exhibition be received.

2.    Council endorse the Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 Precinct C, included at Attachment 1.

3.    The Council note that the Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan will continue to be refined and finalised prior to the publication of the necessary amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 under the Minister for Planning and Environment’s delegated local environmental plan making powers.

4.    Council adopt the amendment to draft Development Control Chapter E7 Part B – Glenmore Park Stage 2, included as an appendix to the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1, so that it takes effect on the publication of the amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Precinct C

127 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

5

Planning Proposal for Penrith City Centre Park    

 

Compiled by:               Alison Butler, Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

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

Service Activity

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

      

 

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

 

Executive Summary

On 2 November 2015, Council received a briefing on a Planning Proposal seeking to rezone land in the City Centre from B3 Commercial Core and RE1 Public Recreation to B4 Mixed Use. The purpose of this Planning Proposal is to rezone land to enable development of a City Park and expand the range of adjacent land uses to attract development within the vicinity of the City Park.

 

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

 

A copy of the draft Planning Proposal is provided as Attachment 1 to this report for the information of the Councillors.

Background

High quality urban spaces have a significant impact on the overall liveability of cities. They help local businesses thrive and attract people to live, visit and work in a location. As cities increasingly compete with one another to attract investment, the presence of good civic spaces and public parks becomes a vital economic lever to first attract and then retain new businesses.

 

The development of a City Park has been considered an important component in the transformation of the Penrith City Centre since 2006. It was recently identified, together with the Living Well Precinct, as the first priorities in the Penrith Progression Action Plan. When delivered, the City Park will represent a significant infrastructure investment by Council for the benefit of the Penrith community.

 

Worldwide, successful city parks integrate urban elements such as cafes, alfresco dining areas, galleries, art installations, programmed events and active recreation including water play. Each of these urban elements, do not, by themselves, activate the spaces – thriving open spaces are surrounded by activated adjacent uses that complement one another and the civic space to increase vibrancy.

 

The current B3 Commercial Core zone applying to most of the site does not support the range of activities required to attract viable development. To enable the types of land uses needed to stimulate economic activity around the City Park, a Planning Proposal to apply a B4 Mixed Use zone to the land surrounding the Park site must be prepared.

 

The Penrith City Park Review

Council received a report at the 1 June 2015 Councillor Briefing on the Penrith City Park Review undertaken by consultants Hames Sharley Pty Ltd. This review established the context for the development of a new city space that will enhance the public realm of the Penrith City Centre and foster redevelopment of private land within its precinct.

 

Through research, analysis and benchmarking, the consultants determined that the City Park in Penrith should be around 7,500m2. The study also confirmed that the City Park should address Station Street and Henry Street and receive adequate activation from adjacent and adjoining land uses. The importance of a mix of hard and soft surfacing was highlighted as a common feature of exemplar open spaces, offering the flexibility of shared spaces for community events while also incorporating leisure recreation in an attractively landscaped setting.

 

Further investigation and detailed design work for the City Park itself is currently being undertaken. To fully achieve the vision and development of a broader Central Park Village Precinct as described in the Penrith Progression Action Plan, the next step in the process is rezoning the land in and around the City Park site. The rezoning will accommodate mixed use development and introduce opportunities for housing density in the precinct.

 

A copy of the Penrith City Park Review is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Description of the Proposal

 

To ensure the right mix of uses are provided around the City Park, the Planning Proposal seeks to rezone part of the block bound by Station Street, Henry Street, Woodriff Street and the Allen Place Carpark to B4 Mixed Use. The current RE1 Public Recreation zone would be retained on the corner of Station and Henry Street, responding to the principles outlined in the City Park Review and include the land that has already been acquired by Council, as well as other parcels yet to be acquired.

 

It is important to note that rezoning the Allen Place Carpark from RE1 to B4 Mixed Use does not restrict the future potential to deliver a park on the site. Recreation areas, which includes parks, are a permissible land use in the B4 Mixed Use zone. Applying the B4 zone will allow greater flexibility through the design process, allowing opportunities for the final layout, particularly the configuration of the boundary, of the park and location of surrounding land uses to evolve.

 

The proposal seeks only to rezone part of the site to B4 Mixed Use in order to expand the permissible uses, specifically introducing residential land uses. It does not at this stage propose to remove any car parking currently provided within the Allen Place Carpark. Any future development proposal for the site would need to account for the current car parking through retention, or relocation and replacement.

 

This Planning Proposal reduces the extent of the City Centre’s commercial core zone by approximately 4%. The reduction in the extent of the B3 zone is considered appropriate, as retention of the existing zone would fetter the near term potential of the land so that it could not likely be developed concurrently with the Park. This would not be in the broader public interest, which achieves benefit from the Park and surrounding active uses.

 

Since the land use zonings were applied to the Penrith City Centre by the NSW Government’s Cities Taskforce, it has been recognised that the extent of the B3 Commercial Core zone is excessive for any future needs. This has had the effect of stifling legitimate land uses needed to revitalise the City, which are available in the B4 Mixed Use zone.

 

A copy of the draft Planning Proposal is provided at Attachment 1 to this report for the information of Councillors. Council officers will continue to work on the draft Planning Proposal prior to forwarding it to the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

The City Park EOI

 

Council is currently inviting Expressions of Interest for the development of two City Centre sites at Reserve Street and Union Road, which along with the City Park were identified as catalyst projects within the Penrith Progression Action Plan.

 

It is intended that a third Expression of Interest process for the concurrent delivery of the City Park and an adjoining mixed-use development will be pursued in the new-year. This scenario involves using Council’s land as a catalyst to achieve the planned outcomes for the Central Park Village.

 

An important step in facilitating the development of these sites is ensuring that development opportunities are not limited by current zones. This Planning Proposal will enable the EOI for the City Park to progress by ensuring that the correct zoning applies to the site, thereby providing the necessary flexibility in land uses needed to attract the right kind of investment within the City Park Precinct.

 

Council’s consideration of the City Park EOI process will be sought early next year.

 

Next Steps

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

5.   The Planning Proposal will be publicly exhibited.

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

7.   The Planning Proposal will be presented to Council for endorsement.

 

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

 

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

 

Community Consultation Strategy

 

Should the Department of Planning and Environment issue a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal, it will outline the community consultation requirements. An indication of the proposed community consultation strategy is outlined below:

 

·    Letters to individual land owners, residents and tenants advising of the exhibition and how to make a submission.

·    Advertising through local media to inform the community that the exhibition has started, how long it will run, how information can be obtained and how to make a submission.

·    Fact sheets available at exhibition points highlighting key features of the Planning Proposal, the closing date for the exhibition and how to make a submission.

·    Targeted consultation with relevant public authorities.

·    Staff available to answer enquiries.

 

A number of supporting documents will be exhibited with the Planning Proposal to assist in understanding the planning documents. The supporting documents will include:

 

·    A full list of the relevant State Government policies, plans and directions, which have been taken into account when developing the Planning Proposal.

·    Fact sheets, as described above.

·    Technical studies and supporting documentation.

 

It is expected that the Planning Proposal will be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days. Notwithstanding, the required exhibition timeframe will be confirmed within the Gateway Determination.

 

Conclusion

 

The objectives of the Planning Proposal are directly aligned with the strategic planning, economic analysis and detailed design work undertaken for the City Park to date. The proposed rezoning is a key step in realising the vision for this important precinct in the City Centre.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal for Penrith City Centre Park  be received.

2.    Council endorse the Planning Proposal for Penrith City Park being forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment to commence the LEP plan making process under s56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

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

4.    Council publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal for the Penrith City Park in accordance with the community consultation requirements under s57 of the EP&A Act, and in a form consistent with any revisions of the Planning Proposal directed by the Department of Planning & Environment as part of the s56 Gateway determination.

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

6.    A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition of the draft Planning Proposal advising of the outcomes of the consultation program and any recommendations relating to the adoption of the final Planning Proposal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Planning Proposal for Penrith City Park

198 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

6

Western Sydney Airport - Submission on Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement   

 

Compiled by:               Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character

Service Activity

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

      

 

Executive Summary

The Federal Government has released the draft Airport Plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Western Sydney Airport for public consultation, with submissions closing on 18 December 2015.  These documents have been prepared to seek approval for Stage 1 of the Airport, which is designed to cater for up to 10 million passengers annually and air freight for five years following the opening of the Airport in 2025.  The draft documents, however, also provide some high level assessment beyond 2030 – at 2050, when it would service about 37 million passengers annually and at 2063, when it would service around 82 million passengers annually.

 

Council has participated in an independent peer review of the draft Airport Plan and draft EIS overseen by WSROC / MACROC.  A key finding of the peer review is the inadequacies of the draft EIS particularly in the general or conceptual nature of the assessments undertaken, the significant gaps in information and the limited scope of the Stage1 assessment.  These inadequacies are apparent in a number of key areas including, but not limited to, defining the Airport’s role and relationship to Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA); airspace architecture; aircraft noise and the impact on Penrith communities; traffic and transport, including the lack of rail to the site; and potential impacts on the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area.

 

The assessment in the draft EIS relies on a ‘proof of concept’ design that provides only indicative flight paths and merge points that have been determined based solely on operational and aviation safety considerations, and not on minimising environmental impacts.  Given the conceptual nature of the flight paths and merge points, there is significant uncertainty in the predicted impacts, particularly in relation to noise.

 

For each key issue, detailed discussion is provided and one or more recommendations are proposed for Council’s consideration and inclusion in Council’s formal submission to the Federal Government.

 

The report recommends that Council call on the Federal Government not to approve the Stage 1 development of the Airport, at this time, given the inadequacies of the EIS.  It also recommends that these inadequacies be addressed in a revised draft EIS that is subject to a further round of community and stakeholder consultation.

 

It will be critical, however, that Council continue to work concurrently with the Federal Government to deliver an airport that integrates and connects to Western Sydney and operates with KSA as one system to deliver the significant economic, employment and infrastructure benefits to the region while also minimising any negative implications for our local community.

 

Introduction

On 19 October 2015, the Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development released the draft Airport Plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Western Sydney Airport (the Airport) for public consultation.  (Links to these documents were provided to Council in a memorandum dated 19 October 2015 on this matter).  The public consultation period is for 60 days, despite repeated calls from Council and other stakeholders to extend this period.  Submissions are required to be made by 18 December 2015.

 

The proposed Airport will be one of the largest and most complex infrastructure projects in Australia.  It provides a major opportunity for Penrith and Western Sydney.  However, its success will be measured by how well it integrates and connects to Western Sydney and minimises its impacts on our communities and environment.

 

In May of this year, Council resolved to accept the Federal Government’s decision to build the Airport at Badgerys Creek, recognising that the Airport offers great potential as a catalyst for increased infrastructure, jobs and investment in our City and the Western Sydney region.  This decision, however, is subject to a number of preconditions, including that the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 be amended to become the Sydney Airports Curfew Act and apply to both Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) and the future Airport at Badgerys Creek.  This is to ensure that any controls required to mitigate noise are given statutory reinforcement.

 

Council’s position on the Airport is also defined by a number of principles to maximise the benefits and minimise the impacts of the Airport.  These principles are:

·    The ability to influence the planning of the Airport and surrounding areas on behalf of our community;

·    Vital transport connections and supporting infrastructure - both rail and road - being in place before the opening of the airport;

·    Environmental and social impacts being addressed in the EIS and managed in any approvals to ensure the health and wellbeing of our community is maintained;

·    The noise impacts on our community being minimised, including amending the Sydney Airports Curfew Act;

·    The airport being the catalyst to create the number and type of jobs our community wants and to drive economic development in Western Sydney;

·    Centres for learning, education and research being established in Western Sydney to equip our community with the skills they need to aim high and succeed in jobs of the future; and

·    The Airport being an iconic site that delivers world’s best practice in access, employment and technology.

 

Subject to the outcomes of Council’s consideration of this matter, it is proposed that Council’s submission to the Federal Government on the draft Airport Plan and draft EIS be provided within the context of these principles.

 

Given the limited time frame for public consultation and where we are in this process, this report focuses on the key issues arising from the review of the draft Airport Plan and draft EIS.  The report includes potential recommendations for inclusion in Council’s submission.  Comments on other issues of importance to Penrith City are summarised in an attachment to this report, together with an outline of the likely recommendations on these issues.

 

Background

 

Council Resolutions on the Airport

 

Following the Federal Government’s announcement on 15 April 2014 that the Government owned land at Badgerys Creek will be the site of the Airport, Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 April 2014, resolved that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 25 May 2015, Council considered a further report on the Airport and resolved that:

 

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

2.      Council accept the Federal Government’s decision to build an airport on the Government owned land at Badgerys Creek subject to the precondition that the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 be amended to become the Sydney Airports Curfew Act and that it apply to both Sydney and the future Badgerys Creek Airports.

3.      Council proactively engage with both Federal and State Governments to ensure the airport and associated infrastructure is delivered in a timely and deliberative manner to bring maximum benefits and uplift to Penrith and Western Sydney.

4.      Council undertake the potential actions/advocacy identified in the report.

5.      Council write to the Hon Warren Truss MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Russell Matheson MP, Member for Macarthur, Ms Fiona Scott MP, Member for Lindsay and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advising of Council’s position on the proposed airport.

6.      Council work proactively with Liverpool City Council and the relevant State and Federal Government Departments on the advance planning for the Airport and unlocking the economic potential of the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area and the South West Growth Centre.

7.      Council participate in the proposal for councils to pool their resources and engage consultants in readiness for the release of the EIS, subject to an upper limit of $60,000, with the Federal Government to allow 90 days to respond to the EIS.

 

The potential actions/advocacy identified in this report were to:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Overview of Draft Airport Plan and Draft EIS

 

The draft Airport Plan outlines the concept design for the initial airport development (referred to as Stage 1), including indicative flight paths, projected aircraft noise contours and the land use plan for the Airport site.  While the draft Airport Plan also provides an overview of the potential long term development of the site, once ‘approved’ by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Airport Plan will only authorise the Stage 1 development.

 

The Stage 1 development is designed to cater for up to 10 million passengers annually and freight traffic for five years following the opening of the Airport around 2025 until 2030.  From the time operations commence, the Airport is proposed to be a full-service airport, catering for all types of domestic and international passenger and freight services, with a northeast – southwest (or 50/230 degree) runway alignment.  It is proposed to operate on a 24 hour basis.

 

The Stage 1 development will have a single runway, around 3.7km in length, positioned in the northern portion of the site, capable of handling the full range of aircraft, including the Airbus A380.  Stage 1 will include a range of aviation support facilities such as passenger terminals, cargo and maintenance areas, car parks (11,500 spaces) and navigational aids.  On opening, it is expected that the Airport would service around five million passengers a year (about the size of Gold Coast Airport today).  In the early years, around 80% of passenger demand is expected to be for domestic travel.  By 2030, the Airport is expected to grow to around 10 million passengers a year (about the size of Adelaide Airport today).  This is equivalent to about 63,000 air traffic movements annually, including freight movements.  While most freight will be transported in the hold of passenger planes, by 2030, about 11% of total air traffic movements will be by dedicated freight aircraft. 

 

While the Stage 1 development encompasses the entire 1780 ha site, the majority of construction activity for Stage 1, including bulk earthworks and aviation infrastructure works would be within a 1065 ha area predominantly located in the northern portion of the site. 

 

The draft EIS provides a detailed assessment of the environmental, social and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the Stage 1 development. 

 

Development beyond 2030 will involve progressively expanding the Airport, with a single runway until it approaches its operational capacity at about 37 million passengers a year, which is equivalent to about 185,000 air traffic movements annually.  (Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) currently services about 38 million passengers a year).  This operational capacity is forecast to occur around 2050, by which time, around 47% of passenger demand is expected to be for domestic travel and 53% for international travel.  A second runway is then proposed parallel to the first runway with a centre line separation distance of approximately 1.9km.  In the long term, the Airport is expected to accommodate around 82 million passengers a year, which is equivalent to 370,000 air traffic movements annually.  (London’s Heathrow Airport currently services about 73 million passengers a year and Beijing’s International Airport, about 86 million passengers a year).  This is forecast to occur around 2063.  Additional aviation support facilities will also need to be provided including additional passenger terminals, cargo and maintenance areas and car parks (70,000 spaces).

 

While the draft EIS provides a separate environmental assessment of the long term development of the site, it acknowledges that given the long time horizon to full development, more detailed assessment will be required to fully understand the impacts of the Airport at that time.

 

The draft EIS also recognises that there is currently no operator (or Airport Lessee Company (ALC)) nominated for the construction and operation of the Airport, and as such the Airport Plan is considered to be a transitional document until an operator is on board and a detailed master planning and project development process can commence.  Sydney Airports currently has a first right of refusal to be the operator of the Airport under an agreement reached as part of the privatisation of KSA.  This creates significant uncertainties for the draft EIS, which acknowledges that key aspects of both documents are indicative only.

 

Aircraft Operations and Flight Paths

 

Airservices Australia manages and controls the flight paths used by aircraft approaching and departing from major airports and has developed the indicative flight paths for Stage 1 of the proposed Airport on behalf of the DI&RD.  Only one set of flight paths is provided for the Stage 1 (2030) development, which features a ‘merge point’ (a point at which all aircraft approaching the Airport converge) over the Lower Blue Mountains around Blaxland.  Using this system, aircraft adopt ‘continuous descent approaches’ meaning the aircraft begins its approach from well beyond the merge point and continues at a constant rate of descent until landing.  This system is relatively new and considered to be good practice as it allows aircraft to minimise thrust, thereby reducing noise and fuel consumption.  Airservices Australia was required to develop a set of flight paths to allow KSA to operate independently of the proposed Airport at 2030 (although it is acknowledged that this would be impossible in the long term) and to ensure safety of operations.  They were not developed with consideration to potential noise or other environmental impacts.  The draft EIS uses these indicative flight paths to assess noise and other environmental impacts.

 

The approach and departure from the Airport will depend on the ‘operating mode’ determined by air traffic control personnel.  The operating mode used will be based on weather conditions, aircraft traffic, airspace management procedures and time of day.  The draft EIS considers three operating modes:

 

·    ‘05’ operating mode – aircraft land from the south-west and take off to the north-east;

·    ‘23’ operating mode – aircraft land from the north-east and take off to the south-west; and

·    ‘Head to Head’ operating mode – aircraft land from the south-west and take off to the south-west during night time periods when the number of aircraft movements are low.

 

The indicative flight paths for the Stage 1 (2030) development are shown below for both the ‘05’ and ‘23’ operating modes.

 

Stage 1 - Indicative Flight Paths for 05 Operating Mode

 

 


 

Stage 1 - Indicative Flight Paths for 23 Operating Mode

 

 

Exhibition

 

The DI&RD has responsibility for the exhibition of the draft Airport Plan and draft EIS.  It has held 14 drop-in community information sessions during October and November across Western Sydney; provided static displays and documentation at council libraries; and made exhibition material available including a summary of the draft EIS, fact sheets, post cards, community newsletters and responses to frequently asked questions.  The DI&RD has also provided a ‘noise modelling tool’ on its Western Sydney Airport website.  Given aircraft noise is a critical factor, Council officers have raised concerns regarding the ease in understanding the tool, requesting that it detail in a language that is readily understandable to members of the community what the full situation is for their suburb or property.  The DI&RD’s response has been to make the noise modelling tool easier to find on its website and to include additional information on the meaning of common aircraft noise measures - the N60 night, N70 day and ANEC (Australian Noise Exposure Concept) measures.  This information, however, does not fully describe noise that, whilst lower than 70 or 60 decibels, may still be intrusive with regular flight movements.

 

Regulatory Framework and EIS Guidelines

 

Development of the proposed Airport is subject to a Commonwealth environment and development approvals framework.  The key legislation is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Airports Act 1996 (Airports Act).  State legislation and relevant local environmental planning instruments may only be triggered if works associated with the Airport are proposed off the site of the Airport.

 

Under the Airports Act, the draft Airport Plan must be approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development prior to the commencement of development.  The consent of the Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act is a prerequisite of any approval under the Airports Act.  The Minister for the Environment, in deciding to approve the EIS, would issue conditions of consent to be imposed through the approval under the Airports Act.

 

This process is untested in Australia, as to date the Airports Act has only ever been used to manage assessments and approvals relating to the expansion of existing federally leased airports.  The Airports Act was amended earlier this year to specifically deal with the Western Sydney Airport, to accommodate the special circumstances of a ‘greenfield’ airport with no lease in place.

 

Future expansion and approval of the Airport beyond 2030 would be subject to further planning and assessment under the Airports Act.

 

On 29 January 2015, the DoE issued guidelines for the content of the draft EIS (EIS Guidelines).  The draft EIS is required to include the following:

 

·    Background information, including the need for the proposal, strategic context and alternatives considered.  In particular, the EIS Guidelines require assessment of “any feasible alternatives … including: (a) if relevant, the alternative of taking no action; (b) a comparative description of the impacts of each alternative and (c) sufficient detail to make clear why any alternative is preferred to another.  Short, medium and long-term advantages and disadvantages of the options should be discussed;

·    A description of the proposal;

·    Details of any public consultation activities undertaken in preparing the draft EIS … and their outcomes;

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

·    Potential impacts of noise and vibration from construction activities and machinery;

·    Potential impacts on air quality;

·    Potential fuel dumping impacts;

·    Potential impacts on water quality;

·    Assessment of local historic and Indigenous heritage values;

·    Potential impacts on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area;

·    Potential impacts on affected flora and fauna species and ecological communities; including assessment of the likely extent of native habitat removal and degradation;

·    Potential impacts on traffic;

·    Potential economic and social impacts;

·    Changes in recreational use and amenity of natural areas;

·    Changes in the qualities and characteristics of surrounding areas and associated impacts to local communities including land values and other economic impacts;

·    Lighting impacts;

·    Risk of bird or bat airstrike;

·    Other risks or hazards;

·    Assessment of cumulative impacts, where potential impacts are in addition to existing impacts of other activities (including known potential future expansions or developments by the proponent and other proponents in the region and vicinity)”;

·    Recommended measures to minimise and manage potential environmental impacts; and

·    Details of an offset package to compensate for significant residual impacts associated with the project.

 

A number of these requirements are discussed below, including whether the draft EIS adequately addresses the EIS Guidelines.

 

Independent Peer Review

 

Council was one of eleven Western Sydney councils to contribute to an independent peer review of the draft Airport Plan and draft EIS by specialist consultants appointed by WSROC / MACROC.  The key issues nominated for peer review and the specialists engaged are included in the overview report in Attachment 1.  The peer reviews were desktop assessments only with no fieldwork, given the limited time available.  There was no direct communication between the authors of the draft EIS and the specialist consultants to ensure independence.  Detailed review of modelling was not undertaken, as it was not made available, despite a request from WSROC to the DI&RD.  Further, no additional modelling was undertaken for the purpose of validating any of the results presented in the draft EIS.  Copies of the specialist peer reviews have been provided to Council as a separate Enclosure.

 

Following receipt of the draft peer review documents, a team of specialist Council officers commenced the process of reviewing that work, drawing out the key findings and issues of significance to Penrith and its communities as well as reviewing aspects of the draft EIS not otherwise covered by the peer review.

 

The key findings of the peer review relate to the overall adequacy of the draft EIS, airspace architecture (flight paths) and the layout of the Airport, the lack of explicit limits on key impacts and the uncertainty around the way the approvals process will operate.  Other key concerns are the adoption of the Stage 1 (2030) development as the primary assessment scenario for seeking approval for the Airport, the lack of detailed modelling to assess traffic and transport impacts and the uncertainty over the long term development of the Airport.

 

The outcomes of the peer review are further discussed below under each of the key issues. For each key issue, detailed discussion is provided and one or more recommendations are proposed for Council’s consideration and inclusion in Council’s formal submission to the Federal Government.

 


 

Key Issues

Issues relating to the entire EIS

 

There are a number of concerns raised in the peer review that are relevant to the entire draft EIS.

 

Overall adequacy of the draft EIS

 

The peer review states that “the draft EIS was prepared over a period of approximately 8 months from engagement of EIS consultants to provision of an initial draft for Commonwealth Department of (the) Environment review.  By way of comparison, the previous EIS for the project prepared in the late 1990s (took) well over two years.  We are aware that the period whereby the Department of (the) Environment reviews the adequacy of the draft EIS prior to approving it for public exhibition was similarly compressed.  From our review, it is apparent that this has resulted in a number of omissions and limitations”.

 

The specialists’ peer reviews indicate that there are omissions and limitations relating to the description of the proposal and the consideration of alternatives; airspace architecture and aviation planning; aircraft noise; ground noise; air quality; human health; impacts on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA); biodiversity; traffic and transport; economic and social impacts; planning and land use; cumulative impacts and mitigation measures.  These are discussed in more detail under each of those issues.  For example, the lack of consideration of alternative flight paths and merge points, and the limitations of assessing only the first five years of development of the Airport are further discussed below.  Given the extent of these omissions and limitations, it is clear that the draft EIS does not meet the requirements of the EIS Guidelines and brings into question its adequacy.

 

Proposed Recommendation:

1.   The draft EIS be substantially revised to address the omissions and limitations identified in the peer reviews.

 

Limitations of Stage 1 (2030) development

 

One of the limitations of the draft EIS that is particularly concerning is the adoption of the Stage 1 (2030) development as the primary assessment scenario for seeking approval for a major international airport.  The level of operational activity at 2030 is well below the theoretical maximum that the proposed single runway could accommodate at 2050.  At 2030, 10 million passengers or about 63,000 air traffic movements are forecast annually, compared with 37 million passengers or about 185,000 air traffic movements annually at 2050. 

 

Given the 2030 development scenario underpins the entire assessment for the Stage 1 development in the draft EIS, the likely impacts of the Airport will be significantly understated.

 

Proposed Recommendation:

2.   To assess the true environmental impacts of the proposed Airport, the draft EIS be based on the extent of development and operational activity at 2050, when the single runway reaches its capacity.

 

 

 

 

Airspace architecture

 

As previously indicated, only one set of flight paths and one merge point have been provided in the draft EIS for the Stage 1 (2030) development.  This clearly fails the requirement in the EIS Guidelines to assess feasible alternatives and make clear why an alternative is preferred to another.  Other than a statement that the indicative flight paths and merge point have been developed to allow KSA to operate independently of this Airport in 2030 and to ensure safety of operations, there is no discussion in the draft EIS on why the flight paths and merge point have been chosen.  This is confirmed by the peer review, which states that “we cannot comment on whether the flight paths nominated may in fact be the best outcome ... the key issue is lack of transparency around the nominated flight paths”.

 

More importantly, the flight paths and merge point presented are a ‘proof of concept’ and, as such, are indicative only.  The draft EIS makes it clear that they were determined based solely on operational and aviation safety considerations, and that minimising environmental impacts, particularly noise impacts, was not a consideration.  Given they underpin the assessment of many of the issues throughout the draft EIS, including aircraft noise and air quality, there is a high level of uncertainty in the likely environmental impacts.

 

The draft EIS notes that the flight paths and merge point would be “progressively refined during a detailed design process which would provide the opportunity to optimise safety, efficiency, noise and environmental impacts before operations begin at the proposed airport”.  The draft EIS, however, is not clear on this process, except to say that it “may require further environmental assessment processes to assist decision making and may be the subject of a future referral under the EPBC Act following detailed design”.  It is also not clear if a future referral under the EPBC Act would be required for a change in flight paths.  The Airports Act notes that this can be assessed under a major development plan, which would not need approval from the Minister for the Environment.  The Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development would only need to obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment.

 

The peer review also raises a concern that the flight paths and merge points take no account of other smaller airports in the Sydney Basin (Camden, Bankstown and Richmond) other than to note that these would be impacted in the long term.  In addition, the flight paths and merge point presented for the Stage 1 development do not coincide with those for the long term development.

 

The peer review also indicates that the draft EIS does not consider any scenarios beyond the normal/scheduled operation of the Airport such as queuing in the event of unscheduled interruption.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

3.   All feasible alternative flight paths and merge points be assessed to minimise environmental impacts and provide a more equitable distribution of noise impacts.

4.   All feasible alternative flight paths and merge points be assessed to take account of all airports within the Sydney Basin.  In this regard, consideration must be given to integrating and optimising the use of Sydney’s airspace as one system by Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport and the Western Sydney Airport.

5.   A Sydney Basin airspace management plan be developed at the outset, which outlines ‘airspace architecture’ in incremental stages – 5 years (2030), 10 years (2035) and 25 years (2050).

6.   A strategy be prepared for the timely relocation of the general aviation activities at Camden and Bankstown Airports, if they are exerting pressure on Sydney’s airspace load, and for the modification of the Richmond RAAF Base airspace.

 

Aviation planning

 

The following concerns are raised in the peer review in relation to aviation planning:

·    No vocation or aviation purpose is described for the Airport.  The peer review indicates that, in its early stages of development, it is expected that the Airport would be a predominantly domestic, low-cost carrier airport with a significant cargo operation.  The draft Airport Plan confirms this stating that, in the early years, around 80% of passenger demand is expected to be for domestic travel.  Premium international flights would therefore continue to use KSA as the primary airport in NSW and the one which provides proximity to the tourist and business centre of the Sydney CBD.  This vocational aspect is important in influencing how the Airport will operate, the peak periods of activity and the type of aircraft traffic that will use the Airport.

·    The forecast passenger loads per aircraft for the Airport, as presented in the draft EIS, appear to be high.  Passenger loads are forecast to be about 160 passengers in 2030 rising to 220 passengers in 2063.  However, current passenger loads through KSA average 126 passengers.  For Melbourne and Brisbane Airports, the current passenger loads average 143 and 110 passengers, respectively.  The peer review states that “these airports are mature, with well-defined markets and a reasonable share of international traffic.  It therefore seems optimistic … to expect higher average passenger loads per aircraft movement than these three airports in the 5 years after it opens”.  There is potential that the forecasts understate the number of aircraft movements required, which has subsequent impacts on dependent analysis such as noise modelling and planning for landside infrastructure.

·    Similarly, benchmarking indicates that passenger throughput per aircraft stand is potentially high for the Airport.  This would imply that the number of aircraft stands shown is less than one might typically expect.

·      It is unclear what benchmarks or planning decisions underlie the 1.9km runway separation.  The peer review notes that other airports in Australasia are proposing wider runway separation, typically between 2.0 and 2.5km.  Whilst the second runway in not part of the Stage 1 (2030) development, its future location does influence the layout of other aviation uses on the site.

·    No consideration has been given to alternative runway orientations – a key determinant of flight paths - in contrast to the 1997 draft EIS which examined a number of alignments.

·    There is no discussion on the Airport’s relationship to the ongoing operation of KSA.  The peer review, in particular, notes the potential long term growth forecast for the Airport (82 million passengers annually by 2063) is very high.

·    As previously indicated, there is no full and thorough assessment of the interaction of aircraft traffic in the Sydney Basin, which will require flight paths to be reviewed. The Stage 1 flight paths proposed in the draft EIS are not considered appropriate for the long term plan.

 

As the purpose and use of the Airport has not been clearly defined and the forecasts used in the draft EIS appear to be high, this suggests further significant uncertainty in the assessment of environmental impacts resulting from the Airport.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

7.   The purpose and use of the Airport be more clearly defined to understand how the Airport will operate, the peak periods of activity and the type of aircraft traffic that will use the Airport.  Clarity must also be provided on the Airport’s relationship to Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport.

8.   The forecasts for passenger loads per aircraft and passenger throughput per aircraft stand be justified as these forecasts potentially understate the number of aircraft movements and, in turn, likely noise impacts.

9.   The forecasts for total passenger numbers from 2030 through to 2063 be tested.   

10. Runway separation be justified.

Note:  Proposed recommendations 4, 5 and 6 are also relevant to this discussion.

 

Management and mitigation measures - limits on key impacts

 

The draft EIS provides a range of management and mitigation measures for the Stage 1 development of the Airport.  A general concern amongst all specialist reviews was that the mitigation measures are generic in nature, primarily due to the uncertainty of the impacts assessed. 

 

The peer review states that “in a number of areas, the EIS … does not set hard limits on environmental impacts.  In the case of aircraft noise this is a reflection of the nature in which aircraft noise is managed in Australia … However the same is also largely true of other aspects of the draft EIS – the mitigation measures are generally not prescriptive, and there is little in the way of hard limits on impacts.  This is no doubt in part due to the fact that the ALC has not yet been appointed, and that the Department of Infrastructure (and Regional Development) is seeking flexibility over management and mitigation.  However this creates uncertainty over the likely future impacts”.

 

The effectiveness of achieving compliance through the mitigation measures is also generally not quantified.  The type and magnitude of impacts pre and post mitigation is often not described.  No specific social management and mitigation measures have been adopted; instead references are made to measures in the supporting technical studies, where relevant.  A key management and mitigation approach for aircraft noise includes insulation of existing dwellings, however, there are no details on what this would entail.

 

Generally, the management and mitigation measures for the long term development are not known.  Management of the Airport beyond 2030 will be described in the Environment Strategy prepared by the ALC in accordance with Airports Acts.  The peer review states that “the Environment Strategy is not likely to require the same level of scrutiny or approval by (the) Minister for the Environment as … the works described under Stage 1”.  The peer review recommends that the draft EIS be based on the level of development and operational activity at 2050, when the single runway reaches full capacity (proposed recommendation 2), so longer term management and mitigation measures can be detailed.  This would provide greater certainty to the community and key stakeholders.

 

Proposed Recommendation:

11. Mitigation and management measures include limits on environmental impacts, including noise, to provide certainty to the community and stakeholders.

Note:  Proposed recommendation 2 is also relevant to this discussion. 

 

 

Uncertainties of the approvals process

 

As previously indicated, future development and expansion of the Airport beyond 2030 would be subject to further planning and assessment under the Airports Act, with the preparation of a master plan required within five years of the commencement of the Airport.  This would supersede the Airport Plan, which is described in the draft EIS as a transitional document.  The draft EIS, however, is not clear on:

·    What the potential triggers would be for further referrals and approvals under the EPBC Act;

·    What further assessment and approval would be required for development beyond 2030 once an ALC is appointed and more is known about the actual Airport layout and operations; and

·    What level of community and stakeholder engagement will be undertaken in the future.

 

Proposed Recommendation:

12. The draft EIS detail the subsequent assessment and approvals process once the Airport Lessee Company is appointed, including the level of community and stakeholder engagement that would be undertaken.

 

Specific Issues

 

Aircraft noise

 

The development of the Airport will result in significant noise impacts for Penrith City during both day and night if the proposal proceeds as presented in the draft EIS.  The draft EIS considers noise impacts over three stages – the Stage 1 development at 2030, single runway at capacity in 2050, and the use of two runways in 2063.  The indicative flight paths and merge point, the airport operating modes, projected air traffic volumes, and different aircraft types have been incorporated into the modelling for the draft EIS to establish the level of noise impact.  Of the three operating modes assessed, each has the potential to impact the residents of Penrith City in different ways:

·    For mode ‘05’, where aircraft arrive from the south-west and depart to the north-east, there will be greater impacts on residents to the north-east of the Airport.

·    For mode ‘23’, where aircraft arrive from the north-east and depart to the south-west, less people would be impacted within Penrith City, however, those areas affected are likely to experience higher numbers of aircraft noise events.

·    For mode ‘Head-to-head’, where all landings and take-off movements occur in opposing directions, to and from the south-west and only at night, noise events would be substantially reduced at night for Penrith City’s densely populated areas.

 

Tables 1 and 2 in Attachment 2 have been produced by Council officers based on the information in the noise modelling tool on the DI&RD’s website.  They provide an indication of the number of noise events experienced in those suburbs that are likely to be most affected.  These suburbs include Badgerys Creek, Kemps Creek, Mt Vernon, Luddenham village, Twin Creeks, Orchard Hills, Erskine Park, St Clair and St Marys.

 

Tables 3 and 4 in Attachment 2 provide an indication of the number of noise events experienced in other suburbs located to the east of the proposed merge point for Stage 1.  While these suburbs are expected to experience less than 5 noise events per day above 70 decibels, Claremont Meadows, Werrington and North St Marys are expected to experience higher numbers of noise events per night above 60 decibels, when the single runway reaches capacity in 2050.

 

The peer review for aircraft noise notes that the draft EIS does not convey a final design for flight paths, only a proof of concept.  It also notes that this conceptual design is based solely on operational and safety considerations, without any consideration of noise impacts.  This means that the level of noise impact experienced by different suburbs may change as the detailed design phases occur.  The peer review notes that the draft EIS “does not provide any indication of the manner or extent to which the final airspace design may vary”, and that “this represents a significant source of uncertainty”.  To clarify this uncertainty, the draft EIS needs to consider the changes to noise levels due to varied flight paths, for example, by providing noise levels for a number of flight paths or through a sensitivity analysis.

 

Significantly, because of the issues relating to airspace design, mitigation measures have only been outlined and are considered broad and non-specific.  No detailed assessment has been undertaken with mitigation measures in place, meaning that the residual impacts after these measures have been implemented has not been defined.

 

In relation to whether a curfew is required, the peer review states that “we sought to investigate the level of night time impacts that might provide a clear basis for the need or otherwise for a curfew.  Based on current information, there is not enough information to determine if a curfew is required (from the perspective of compliance with noise standards for sleep disturbance)”.  The peer review also notes that there are no details on whether existing dwellings would need noise insulation. 

 

As airspace planning continues, it is not clear to what extent decisions will be made with regard to noise impact over other safety, environmental, economic or social considerations.

 

The adoption of the point merge system for arrivals was chosen for a number of reasons, including potential noise benefits.  However, because this results in certain populations always being exposed to aircraft movements, the system has a number of implications for Penrith City.  At present the noise assessment is based on a merge point located over Blaxland, with aircraft travelling east over Penrith, through Kingswood, Werrington and St Marys, and down through Kemps Creek to arrive at the airport when the mode 23 operational strategy is in use.  (Tables 1 - 4 in Attachment 2 provide an indication of the number of noise events likely to be experienced in these suburbs).

 

Two other merge points for the Stage 1 development, however, have been shown in the technical report supporting the draft EIS.  Notwithstanding this, there is limited discussion of these alternative merge points or of the use of any alternative arrival system. 

 

The indicative merge point shown in the draft EIS for the Stage 1 development is substantially different to those for the long term development.  The merge points and associated arrival flight paths for the long term development for the most part appear to be outside the Penrith LGA.  Departure flight paths appear to be heading in similar directions to the Stage 1 development with the exception of the ‘05’ option which runs very close to the southern fringe of Glenmore Park, a concern for likely additional noise impacts on this residential area.

 

In addition to concerns regarding the use of the Stage 1 development as the primary assessment scenario, the uncertainty of the airspace design and the generic nature of the mitigation measures, the peer review found that the key noise impacts from the Airport are:

·    Community annoyance, and related impacts such as speech interference and changes to the way individuals use outdoor spaces;

·    Sleep disturbance associated with night-time operations, and related impacts such as the potential need for some residents to sleep with windows closed to achieve a suitable internal amenity; and

·    Degradation of the acoustic amenity of the GBMWHA.

 

In terms of community annoyance, the draft EIS includes exposed population statistics which provide a useful indication of the potential scale of the community who may be affected by aircraft noise to varying degrees.  However, in isolation, this data does not provide an indication of the scale or significance of potential community reaction to aircraft noise levels as a result of annoyance.  The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in the draft EIS provides the most discussion of community annoyance, including references to research concerning the relationship between noise exposure and community annoyance.  The HRA, however, ultimately states that no quantitative assessment of annoyance was conducted.

 

While the assessment of the risk of community annoyance is complex, the scale of the Airport and the number of people potentially affected warrant further evaluation of this issue. The introduction of a new 24-hour international airport at a greenfield development site introduces a risk of widespread and prolonged community annoyance.  A quantitative analysis of this potential risk would be prudent to inform the EIS process and the extent to which operational noise mitigation should be prioritised relative to other non-safety related airspace management considerations.

 

The peer review makes the following concluding comments:

 

“Aircraft noise impacts are ultimately an unavoidable consequence of aircraft operations in urban environments.  The creation of a new international airport therefore requires a balance to be achieved between the protection of amenity for neighbouring sensitive land uses and the development of infrastructure to respond to the growing demands of a major city.  Determining whether this balance has been achieved is ultimately a matter for regulatory authorities.  While this peer review has identified a number of limitations to the present assessment, this is not intended to infer that the proposed development and development site are unsuitable.  Rather, in light of the residual uncertainties in the assessment, further information and assessments are considered necessary before stakeholders can reach an informed view on the potential scale and significance of aircraft overflight noise impacts associated with the proposed airport site.

Conducting these further assessments as part of the environmental impact assessment process represents an opportunity to:

·    Provide clarity to affected communities and stakeholders about the nature of the noise impacts;

·    Provide clarity to regulators about the form of noise controls which will be needed in the project approval to ensure that noise is appropriately managed; and

·    Reduce the potential for unforeseen impacts and the associated risk of reactionary noise management”.

 

Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)

When planning land uses in areas around airports, Australia uses the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) system.  Over an annual period, the cumulative aircraft noise is established and the suitability of sites for different land uses is shown through different planning contours.  For example, an aircraft noise exposure level of less than 20 ANEF is appropriate for residential dwellings, schools and hospitals; less than 25 ANEF for commercial activities; less than 30 ANEF for light industrial uses; with other industrial uses permitted in all ANEF zones.

 

Historically, Council has taken steps to ensure that impacts associated with any future airport were assessed when development applications have been submitted in areas impacted by the ANEF contours, as established by the 1985 EIS.  In addition, section 149 certificates for affected properties also contain information on the relevant ANEF contour.  (Section 149 certificates also include a statement advising on the Federal Government’s announcement in April 2014 confirming the Badgerys Creek location and the release of the draft EIS in October 2015).

 

Although the contours for the Stage 1 development have not been finalised, they appear to be generally consistent with the 1985 ANEF contours.  However, in 2050, they slightly increase in size under the ‘05’ mode (including a greater area of Twin Creeks), and increase in size again for 2063 (although they do not reach as far north into Penrith City). 

 

Given approval is being sought for the Airport, a revised set of ANEF contours should be produced, ideally based on the long term development scenario.  This would enable an assessment to be made of whether individual dwellings will need additional acoustic treatment, and inform noise abatement measures for new developments. 

 

The peer review notes that the draft EIS references the 2012 National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) as an instrumental tool for guiding future land planning around the proposed Airport site.  It raises a concern that this could potentially translate to the creation of land use planning controls which extend over significantly greater areas than either the current land use planning controls (based on the 1985 EIS) or the 2063 ANEC contours provided in the draft EIS. This issue, however, has not been discussed or assessed in the draft EIS.  Further information should be sought on the proposed use of the NASF and its implications for planning and land use at the various stages of Airport development.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

13. The Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 be amended to become the Sydney Airports Curfew Act and apply to both Sydney Airport and the future Western Sydney Airport

14. In the event of no curfew, during the curfew period for Sydney Airport, the merge point for arrivals be relocated to a place that will not impact on those communities affected during the daytime

15. All feasible alternative flight paths and merge points be assessed for the purpose of limiting the noise exposure for any single community / location

16. The draft EIS quantify the significance of impacts relating to community annoyance

17. Sensitivity testing be presented to demonstrate changes in noise impacts resulting from modification of flight paths through subsequent processes

 

Traffic, transport and access

 

The most significant concern in relation to traffic and transport is the failure of the draft EIS to discuss the option of rail in the assessment of the Stage 1 (2030) development.  The draft EIS indicates that a rail service is not required for Stage 1 “because the recently approved road network upgrades have been assessed as adequate to support anticipated airport demand for at least a decade after operations commence”.  However, the peer review has raised a concern that as the Airport is not subject to any NSW approvals, there are currently no mechanisms to ensure that the road upgrades proposed as part of the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan occur within the time frames required for the Airport.

 

Further, the peer review for the traffic and transport assessment has concluded that “further information would need to be provided to enable a firm opinion to be reached on whether the conclusions in the draft EIS are valid”.  Given this conclusion, it is considered that further justification must be provided on why the ‘no rail’ alternative was chosen for the Stage 1 development.  This justification should also be provided as part of a broader consideration of alternatives including options for rail at or within 5 years of the opening of the Airport in 2025.

 

Not implementing passenger rail transport at Stage 1 and relying totally on road transport will have considerable adverse traffic and broader environmental impacts.  The peer review on air quality has highlighted the provision of rail to the site, at the time of the Airport’s opening, as critical in mitigating air quality impacts.  It is also paramount that a modern airport (which the Federal Government claims “from the time operations commence … would be a full-service airport, catering for all types of domestic and international passenger and freight services”) is provided with rail connectivity to provide sustainable mass movement of airport patronage and reduce dependence on road transport.  The rail link from the Airport to the Main Western line must be delivered from day one of the Airport operating. 

 

The concern raised previously regarding the lack of mechanisms to ensure road upgrades are delivered within required time frames for the Airport is also relevant to the provision of rail to the site, particularly if it is not delivered from day one.  There needs to be appropriate mechanisms in place as early as possible to ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure to support the Airport.

 

The peer review indicates that the traffic and transport assessment for the Stage 1 (2030) development in the draft EIS is a high level, strategic assessment, which while necessary, does not capture traffic impacts at a detailed level.  The peer review raises a number of concerns with the Stage 1 assessment, including:

·    Because no detailed traffic intersection modelling has been undertaken, there is no information on intersection performance and land take requirements;

·    Freight traffic generation within the Airport precinct (outside of air cargo) has not been assessed;

·    Private vehicle traffic generation from land uses within the Airport precinct (outside of air passengers and direct airport employees) has not been assessed;

·    The impact on public transport operations (bus network) has not been assessed.

 

Given these concerns, the peer review concludes that further information would be needed to provide a firm opinion on whether the conclusions in the draft EIS are valid.

 

In addition to the above concerns, the draft EIS does not consider the proposed Outer Sydney Orbital in the traffic and transport assessment.

 

There are two alternative routes from the M4 to the Airport site; one via The Northern Road and M12 and the other via Mamre Road, Luddenham Road and Elizabeth Drive.  A comparison of the two routes indicates that the second route is shorter by about 6km.  This route would therefore likely attract more traffic from areas to the north of the Mamre Road / M4 interchange.  The draft EIS does not provide any details of road upgrades within the northern part of the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area (previously referred to as the Western Sydney Employment Area).  It is considered that Mamre and Luddenham Roads will require significant upgrades as a consequence of the Stage 1 development and will need to be widened to four lanes.

 

In relation to the long term development, the peer review indicates that traffic and transport impacts will be significant.  These include:

·    The access drive from the M12 to the Airport failing by 2050 - 13 years before the ultimate long term development in 2063;

·    Key road links in the wider road network being significantly congested.  The assessment acknowledges that this would also be the result of significant growth within the surrounding area and because road infrastructure commitments past 2041 are unknown;

·    Additional rail capacity beyond the South West Rail Link extension being required to accommodate trips from both the Airport and the surrounding development.

 

Given the above potential impacts, the peer review recommends that detailed transport network planning, including road and rail, be undertaken.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

18. A passenger rail line from the Airport to the Main Western line be in place before the opening of the Airport

19. Special arrangements or mechanisms be established, involving Federal, State and local governments to develop and deliver a decades long, funded program of infrastructure for the Airport, including the upgrades in the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan

20. Assessment include detailed traffic intersection modelling, traffic generated from all uses on the site, impacts on public transport operations and the Outer Sydney Orbital

21. Widening of Mamre and Luddenham Roads to four lanes in Stage 1

22. In collaboration with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment and Transport for NSW, DI&RD traffic and transport modelling be extended to include the impacts of, and infrastructure requirements to cater for, both identified stages and the ultimate level of development anticipated within the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area

 

Economy and jobs

 

The peer review of the economic and social impacts support the draft EIS’s summation that the main benefits of the Airport relate to the generation of jobs in Western Sydney and associated economic activity.  It states that “the importance of this contribution to Sydney represents an important policy shift since the preparation of the earlier EIS’s for a second airport on the site as Western Sydney has become a greater focus for economic growth and activity”.  In drawing this conclusion, however, the peer review maintains the need for a balanced assessment across positive and negative economic and social impacts, both at a local and regional level, and over the short and longer term.  As such, it is suggested that the claims made by the Federal Government about economic stimulus and job creation have not been explicitly tested in the draft EIS.

 

More specifically, for the Stage 1 assessment, the peer review found:

·    a strong focus on the economic benefits of the Airport as distinct from a balanced discussion of economic and social costs and benefits;

·    a strong focus on the regional and Australian economic benefits of the Airport as distinct from any likely local impacts;

·    no discussion of the economic concerns raised in the initial stakeholder engagement program for the Airport; and

·    no discussion of the economic implications of the transfer of economic activity from other areas in Sydney or ‘the rest of Australia’.  Whilst any such impact might be acceptable, the potential impact should be recognised and considered in the assessment.

 

Additional issues that have not been discussed in the economic impact assessment are:

·    the consideration of alternatives including a cost-benefit analysis of the Airport with a curfew or of not developing the Airport;

·    an assessment of the economic costs and benefits of not having a rail link from the opening of the Airport; and

·    the needs of the expected target markets; for example, airline operators, businesses, international and domestic passenger, etc.

 

For the long term development, the peer review raised concerns about:

·    the potential impacts on the longer term development potential of affected areas in Western Sydney; i.e. height and noise restrictions to increasing residential density;

·    how potential economic and social costs will be managed and mitigated with such rapid development of the site (growing by +120%) over a 13 year period from 2050 to 2063.  The mitigation measures over the longer term focuses heavily on planning mechanisms (i.e. zoning of land to exclude residential uses) together with local and State Government investment to address broader traffic, transport and infrastructure issues.  There is no discussion, however, of how this would be co-ordinated or resourced to address specific impacts from the Airport.  There is also no discussion on who would have the key accountability.  Therefore, there is a potential risk that some mitigation measures and impacts would be missed or forgotten over time.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

23. The draft EIS provide greater clarity on the expected economic uplift and job creation potential of the Airport, including likely future sectors that support and flow from the Airport

24. The draft EIS be revised to provide a more balanced discussion of the economic and social costs and benefits of the Airport, including their spatial spread

25. The draft EIS be revised to include a cost-benefit analysis of the Airport with a curfew

26. The draft EIS be revised to include discussion on the economic impacts of not having a rail link from the opening of the Airport and on the needs of the expected target markets

 

Planning and land use

 

As previously discussed, the peer review raises a concern that using the NASF as a tool to guide future land use planning around the Airport site could potentially translate to having planning controls over significantly greater areas than either the current controls (based on the 1985 EIS) or the 2063 ANEC contours.  This issue has not been discussed or assessed in the draft EIS.  Therefore, further information should be sought on the intended use of the NASF and its implications for planning and land use as the Airport develops.

 

More broadly, the peer review raises a concern about the potential for a lack of integrated planning between the Federal Government and State and local government.  This integration is critical to ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure so the Airport is connected and accessible.  It is also critical to ensure the Airport is embedded in Western Sydney to promote jobs, investment and infrastructure in the region.

 

In relation to the long term development of the Airport, the peer review notes that the draft EIS does not provide a comprehensive evaluation of impacts.  While this is considered reasonable, given there will be too many variables that are unknown at that stage (such as aircraft types, the conditions of the receiving environment and the pattern of urban development in Western Sydney), the peer review suggests that the draft EIS “could have been bolder in its assumptions about the long term development of Sydney.  The EIS is largely limited to identifying known development plans, such as the urban development associated with the growth centres and Western Sydney Employment Area.  More discussion on the long term strategic planning initiatives within the region and the impact these future land uses may have on the airport would be beneficial”.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

27. Clarity be sought on the proposed use of the NASF and implications of the Airport on the planning framework for the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area, including at various stages of development of the Airport – 5 years (2030), 10 years (2035), 25 years (2050) and full development (2063)

28. Any restrictive planning and land use controls imposed on the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area by the Airport to not hamper the economic potential of the Growth Area

29. Federal Government commitment be sought to work directly with the NSW Government and Penrith and Liverpool City Councils in the planning for the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area to identify structural, sectoral and land use planning frameworks for future development to support the Airport

 

Other issues

 

Although this report focuses on the key issues arising from the review of the draft Airport Plan and draft EIS, there are a range of other issues of importance to Penrith City that require a response and will be included in Council’s submission to the Federal Government.  These issues include ground noise; air quality; human health risks; groundwater, surface water and flooding; impacts on the GBMWHA; biodiversity; social impacts; and hazards and risks.  The key matters relating to each of these issues and proposed recommendations are outlined in Attachment 3.

 

Further Consultation

 

In responding to the draft EIS for the Airport, it is proposed to again highlight Council’s concern regarding the length and timing of the exhibition period and to express our disappointment at the Federal Government’s decision not to grant an extension.  It is also proposed to again raise concerns regarding the difficulty in understanding over 4,000 pages of documentation and the noise modelling tool to determine the likely impacts and benefits of the Airport given that the assessment in the draft EIS is based on conceptual flight paths and development only for the first five years of operation.

 

Proposed Recommendation 1 above seeks that the draft EIS be substantially revised to address the omissions and limitations identified in the peer reviews.  It is considered imperative that a rigorous and inclusive further round of community engagement be undertaken to secure more informed community input on the revised EIS.

 

The peer review has highlighted the uncertainties of the approvals process under the Airports Act, including what level of community and stakeholder engagement will be undertaken as part of that process.

 

Proposed Recommendations:

30. The concerns regarding the length and timing of the public exhibition be highlighted

31. Another round of community and stakeholder consultation be undertaken on a revised draft EIS

 

Next Steps

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

 

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

 

Conclusion

While the Federal Government’s draft Airport Plan and draft EIS have been prepared to seek approval for only the Stage 1 (2030) development of the Western Sydney Airport, a decision to proceed will have significant consequences, both positive and negative, for our City.

 

Council’s position to accept the Federal Government’s decision to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek recognises the great potential the airport offers as a catalyst for increased infrastructure, jobs and investment in our City and the Western Sydney region.  This position, however, is subject to a number of preconditions which seek to maximise the benefits and minimise the impacts of the airport.  Most significantly, the noise impacts on our community must be minimised, including by amending the Sydney Airports Curfew Act, and vital transport connections and supporting infrastructure must be in place before the opening of the airport, particularly rail.  It is also critical that all economic, social and environmental benefits and impacts are fully addressed in the EIS and proposed mitigation measures detailed and included in any approval to ensure the health and wellbeing of our community is maintained.

 

In this context, this report recommends that Council make a submission to the Federal Government urging it to not approve the Stage 1 development of the airport, at this time, given the significant inadequacies of the draft EIS and the high level of uncertainty around aircraft architecture and subsequent noise impacts.  It also recommends that these inadequacies be addressed in a revised draft EIS that is subject to a further round of community and stakeholder consultation.

 

It will be critical, however, that Council continue to work concurrently with the Federal Government to deliver an airport that integrates and connects to Western Sydney and operates with KSA as one system to deliver the significant economic, employment and infrastructure benefits to the region.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Western Sydney Airport - Submission on Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement be received.

2.    Council write to the Hon Greg Hunt MP, Minister for the Environment, urging the Federal Government not to approve the Stage 1 development of the Airport, as detailed in the draft Airport Plan, at this time, given the inadequacies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

3.    Council write to the Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, advising of Council’s request to the Minister for the Environment.

4.    Council maintain a positon of continuing to work with the Federal Government to deliver a second airport at Badgerys Creek, which is fully and effectively integrated with the community it is intended to serve (Western Sydney) and with the parallel airport with which it must work to be effective (Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport), so as to deliver significant benefits to the region in terms of transport provision, employment and economic development.

5.    Council’s submission call for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to address the inadequacies in the draft EIS to provide much greater certainty on the impacts and benefits of the Airport, particularly in relation to:

a.   its purpose or role, including its relationship to Sydney Airport;

b.   airspace architecture, including consideration of a range of options;

c.   aircraft noise, including consideration of a curfew and noise sharing arrangements;

d.   the provision of rail to the Airport from the outset of airport operations;

e.   road traffic, including detailed modelling;

f.    greater clarity on expected economic uplift and job creation; and

g.   clarity on the implications of the Airport on the planning framework for the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area.

6.    Council’s submission call for another round of community and stakeholder consultation on a revised draft EIS.

7.    Council’s submission, and any ongoing engagement with the Federal Government in relation to the Airport proposal, call for:

a.   The Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 to be amended to become the Sydney Airports Curfew Act and apply to both Sydney Airport and the future Western Sydney Airport;

b.   More equitable distribution of the impacts of aircraft movements.  This should include, but not be limited to:

i. consideration of alternative flight paths and particularly alternative locations for the merge point for arrivals;

ii. limits to noise exposure for any single community; i.e. noise sharing beyond the communities of Penrith, Blue Mountains and Blacktown;

iii.      integration and optimisation of the use of Sydney’s airspace as one system by Sydney Airport and the Western Sydney Airport; and

iv.     a strategy for the timely relocation of the general aviation activities at Camden and Bankstown Airports if they are exerting pressure on Sydney’s airspace load and modification of Richmond RAAF Base airspace;

c.   A passenger rail line from the Airport to the Main Western line to be in place before the opening of the Airport;

d.   Any restrictive planning and land use controls imposed on the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area by the Airport to not hamper the economic potential of the Growth Area;

e.   Special arrangements or mechanisms to be established, involving Federal, State and local governments to develop and deliver a decades long, funded program of infrastructure for the Airport; and

f.    Meaningful, transparent and continuing dialogue between all levels of government on the Airport.

8.    Council endorse the proposed recommendations contained in this report, the proposed recommendations contained in Attachment 3 to this report and any other additional issues identified by Councillors, as the basis for a final submission to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

9.    Council’s final submission be forwarded to the DI&RD by 18 December 2015 and a copy be forwarded to all Councillors.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Western Sydney Airport Draft EIS Independent Peer Review - Overview Report

69 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Noise Events Tables

2 Pages

Attachments Included

3.  

Other Issues For Council's Submission on the Western Sydney Airport Draft Airport Plan and Draft EIS

12 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

7

Planning Proposal to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - Incentives Clause for Key Sites   

 

Compiled by:               Nicole Dukinfield, Senior Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning 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

Plan for and facilitate delivery of release areas and urban renewal in the City

      

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

 

Executive Summary

A Planning Proposal has been prepared to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 to insert an incentives clause providing bonus floor space within the Penrith City Centre (Attachment 1). This responds to three (3) individual Planning Proposals that have been submitted to Council proposing increases to the current building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls for specific sites in the City Centre. 

 

The proposed incentives clause will apply to land identified as a Key Site within the Penrith LEP 2010.  It will enable development within the Key Sites to depart from the prescribed building height and FSR controls where a departure is justified, where the development exhibits design excellence and where an agreed public benefit is offered in return for the additional development potential. Based on the three submitted Planning Proposals alone, this will facilitate delivery of 4,000 residential apartments in the City Centre once gazetted and will avoid the need for multiple Planning Proposals and LEP amendments.

 

A series of studies, including an Urban Design Analysis, is being prepared to support the operation of the proposed incentives clause and to inform the setting of appropriate maximum FSRs for Key Sites in the City Centre.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Background

Council is in receipt of three Planning Proposals seeking to amend the planning controls for separate sites within the City Centre. The intention of each of the Planning Proposals is to increase building height and FSR controls that currently apply to the sites under LEP 2010. This will facilitate delivery of residential/mixed use development at a higher density than currently permitted. The three Planning Proposals are included in the enclosure provided separately for the assistance of Councillors.  The key features of each submitted Planning Proposal is provided below:

 

 

 

 

 

Site

Proposal

Current Controls

Proposed controls

164 Station Street, Penrith (also known as former Panasonic Site or ‘Parkview’ Site)

Residential development incorporating approximately 2,000 dwellings

Height: 20-24m

FSR: 2:1

Height: No height control

FSR: 2.5:1

41, 184 & 192 Lord Sheffield Circuit, Penrith (Thornton)

Mixed use development incorporating approximately 580 dwellings

Height: 32m

FSR: No FSR control

Height: Range from 130m-32m

FSR: 5:1

614-652 High Street & 87-91 Union Street, Penrith (Sinclair Hyundai site)

Mixed use development incorporating approximately 850 dwellings

Height: 24m

FSR: 3:1

Height: up to 82m

FSR: 6:1

 

 

Each of the submitted Planning Proposals provides detailed justification for the proposed amendments to the current building height and FSR controls which can be summarised as follows:

·   The location and ownership patterns of the sites provide the opportunity to create landmark developments at key gateways to the City Centre in each case

·   The proposed developments will enhance the housing mix and affordability in the Penrith LGA which has traditionally been dominated by single dwellings in greenfield settings

·   The injection of additional residential development in the City Centre is in keeping with Council’s strategies and statutory framework.  In so doing, it will increase the resident catchment required to support existing retail and commercial businesses in the City Centre and substantially raise the level of activity, vibrancy and passive surveillance

·   The proposals will further activate the City Centre by providing new ground floor retail/business uses, supporting Penrith’s vision for a night-time economy

·   The Planning Proposal will improve local amenity for residents and users of the City Centre by enhancing the public domain and landscape setting

·   The proposed developments will improve connectivity in the City Centre by delivering new pedestrian and vehicular links

·   The Planning Proposals will lead to the creation of short term jobs during construction and permanent long term jobs through the retail/business components and through local, population driven multiplier effects, and

·   The proposed buildings will exhibit design excellence, as required through the prescribed LEP processes, thereby providing a positive contribution to urban design outcomes in the City Centre.

 

The justifications provided in the submitted Planning Proposals are generally supported subject to the testing of the specific building heights and FSRs proposed.  For the past decade, Council has been encouraging and pursuing good quality mixed use development for the City Centre with limited success.  The buoyancy of the residential market in recent times, the maturing metropolitan and local market appetite for centre based living and the demonstrated bonefides of the three proponents suggests that these are genuine proposals that can bring significant benefits the City Centre.  With appropriate design, the proposed developments can provide economic stimulus to the City Centre and further catalyse investment interest.

 

In addition, the injection of significant residential and business activity will greatly assist in implementing the outcomes envisaged by the Penrith Progression and in achieving Penrith’s housing and jobs targets under the City Strategy and the metropolitan strategy (A Plan for Growing Sydney).

 

For the above reasons, it is recommended that Council resolve to commence the formal planning process to amend LEP 2010 generally in line with the key features of the submitted Planning Proposals described above subject to appropriate testing of the proposed building height and FSR controls being sought.

              

Proposed incentives clause

 

The three proposals now before us suggest the start of an exciting new era in the evolution of the City Centre.  However, it is important that we adopt a sophisticated and informed approach to amending the LEP provisions and applying new policy settings to ensure that we deliver positive, high quality outcomes for the subject sites and avoid exacerbating current barriers to development elsewhere in the City Centre.

 

Over the past 12 – 18 months, Council has received multiple briefings on matters related to the Penrith City Centre and Penrith Progression etc.  This has included discussion around the feasibility of new residential and mixed use development in the City Centre.  Since the completion of the State office block in Station Street, very little new, private retail/commercial and residential floorspace has been developed in the City Centre despite multiple development applications having been approved.

 

Whilst the market and other dynamics that determine the feasibility of centre based development are highly complex, it is clear from our own internal and external land economics examinations, and confirmed by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s (DP&E) Urban Feasibility Modelling, that development feasibility in the City Centre has been disadvantaged predominantly by the following factors:

·    In 2007, following Penrith’s classification as a Regional City, the NSW Government’s Cities Taskforce undertook an intensive exercise to prepare new a LEP, development control plan (DCP) and development contributions Plan (CIP) for the Penrith City Centre. This was intended to contemporise the planning framework for the City Centre and “open it up for business”.

·    Amongst other things, this exercise applied the new zoning regime under the standard LEP template for NSW (predominantly B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use zones) to provide a range of flexible uses to the City Centre, and substantially raised building height and FSR controls across the whole of the City Centre.

·    However, rather than acting as an attractor or catalyst for investment interest, this “blanket uplift” in height and FSR capability had the unintended effect of substantially raising the expectations of land owners in the City Centre about the value of their properties. Hence, the asking price for sites was set at an artificially and unrealistically high level. As a key baseline factor in determining the feasibility of development, in a local market that did not demonstrate the necessary rate of return and guarantee of uptake for urban apartments and retail/commercial floorspace to overcome the initial site costs, this presented an unacceptable level of investment risk.

·    The unrealistically high base price for sites was then reinforced in the minds of land owners through approvals for aspirational development proposals that subsequently did not materialise.

 

The learnings from this experience, combined with a review of contemporary approaches from other LGAs in Sydney, NSW and across Australia, and collaboration with the NSW Government Architect’s Office have shaped the recommended approach to introduce an incentives clause to the LEP to respond to the submitted Planning Proposals.  The construction and application of the incentives clause would also initially facilitate similar outcomes in other strategically important locations in the City Centre.

 

The recommended incentives clause operates as follows:

·    It will only initially apply to land currently identified as being within the Key Sites in the City Centre as mapped in the LEP.  The Station (Panasonic) and High Street (Sinclair Hyundai) sites are already included in Key Sites but it will be necessary to amend the LEP to include a new Key Site for the Lord Sheffield Circuit (Thornton) site

·    The existing building height and FSR provisions are retained

·    The incentives clause allows a managed departure from existing building height and FSR provisions subject to the proposed development satisfying the existing design excellence provisions of the LEP and that an agreed material public benefit is provided in consideration for the additional FSR yield above the planned levels.  Any material public benefit negotiated would also be in addition to development contributions that apply to the site to satisfy the demand for facilities and services up to the original level reflected in the existing building height and FSR provisions

·    For cases where a proposed development in a Key Site satisfies the design excellence and public benefit tests:

a new maximum FSR is individually set in the incentives clause for each Key Site (see discussion regarding Urban Design and Public Benefit Analysis below), and

no maximum building height would apply to the proposed development

 

Council will also pursue with the DP&E to embed a mechanism in the incentives clause that encourages proponents to commence works and avoid ‘selling-on’ the development consent to another purchaser. Options to be considered may include (but are not limited to) that where a development approved under the incentives clause is not substantially commenced within a set timeframe, both the development consent and access to the incentives clause will lapse; a timeframe for the cessation of the incentives clause; or granting Council the ability to issue shorter timeframe consents (for example 1 or 2 years). This discourages embedding expectations of higher land values for a site that is on-sold with a development consent in place that reflects the relief from building height limits and bonus floor space but with little or no commitment to the ultimate delivery of the development.

 

Any proposal that seeks to access the bonus floor space through the incentives clause will still be required to undergo the standard development assessment process and will need to demonstrate that there is no significant adverse impact on the amenity and/or development potential of adjoining sites.

 

As identified above, it is intended that the maximum FSR to be applied in the incentives clause for the sites that are subject to the three submitted Planning Proposals will reflect the FSRs nominated in those Planning Proposals subject to verification through the Urban Design Analysis.  For the remaining Key Sites, a general increase in FSR of 1.5:1 is proposed comprising two elements:

·    An increase of 1:1 to reflect current market trends and demand, and

·    An additional 0.5:1 to incentivise delivery of the required material public benefit.

 

An exception to this approach is Key Site 5 (Nepean Village) and Key Site 6 (164 Station Street) which are proposed to have an increase of 0.5:1. Key Site 5 (Nepean Village) is already developed and is unlikely to require further increase in height and FSR, therefore the proposed increase of 0.5:1 will reflect an additional capacity to provide a public benefit should redevelopment occur. Key Site 6 (164 Station Street) is supported by an Urban Design Analysis as provided in the submitted Planning Proposal. The Urban Design Analysis identifies that an increase in FSR of 0.5:1 is appropriate for the site.

 

It should be noted that the above FSR figures are indicative only and will also be tested through the Urban Design Analysis.

 

                              

The proposed incentives clause has the following benefits:

·    It does not increase existing building heights and FSR provisions across part or all of the City Centre and thus avoids further exacerbating development feasibility by significantly increasing owners’ expectations of land values

·    It provides significant incentives to increase the retail/commercial and residential yields critical to the growth, activation and revitalisation of the Penrith City Centre as envisaged under Council’s adopted strategies

·    It places fundamental emphasis on the achievement of excellence in design

·    It ensures that the community benefits, and is not disadvantaged, from accepting higher levels of growth

·    It provides a robust and safeguarded mechanism for considering higher yielding development without the need for repetitive and resource hungry individual LEP amendments.

 

It is not proposed to make any further amendments to the Key Sites map as part of this Planning Proposal, however a review will be carried out in 2016 as part of a separate Planning Proposal for the City Centre to determine if further Key Sites should be identified in the LEP.

 

Urban Design and Public Benefit Analysis

 

The existing building height and FSR controls that apply to the City Centre through LEP 2010 were underpinned by Urban Design Analysis prepared by the NSW Government Architects Office in June 2004.  That study resulted from a detailed structural urban design analysis that took into account a number of matters including (but not limited to) the physical layout of the City Centre, topography, activities and uses, subdivision patterns and established a desirable “sky scape” for the City Centre, its approaches and surrounding areas.

 

There is no doubt that settlement patterns, the form of urban development, market preferences, demographics and the way in which we interact with our places and environment are evolving quite rapidly in the Sydney metropolitan area.  These influences will also have implications for Penrith as we mature as a regional city.  Urban centres are experiencing increasing demand for affordable and diverse housing in and around activity centres and transport nodes.  This is being reflected in a greater social acceptance of higher buildings and apartment living.  This is something that Council has generally welcomed and encouraged in the right locations.

 

However, Council has always sought to ensure that Penrith remains a great place in which to live and interact and to visit.  This is a function of many things, but an important element that underpins the liveability of a place is the way in which the built form presents, looks and feels, and how it influences the quality of the environment at ground level.  In turn this is fundamentally determined by the size, shape, height, bulk and location of buildings and their arrangement in relation to each other.  So in embracing increased building height in the City Centre, it is important to ensure that this occurs in a way, and in the right locations, to contribute positively to Penrith’s liveability.

 

The submitted Planning Proposals have each provided justification for the additional building height and FSRs being sought, and this is generally supported.  However, as these proposals will result in a substantial departure from our current policy settings, have been developed in isolation of each other and as the incentives clause will apply to other Key Sites, Council has engaged consultants to prepare an Urban Design Analysis to test the three submitted Planning Proposals and to determine an appropriate level of bonus FSR for the remaining Key Sites. The Urban Design Analysis will inform a determination of the future ‘shape’ of the City Centre skyline and identify other constraints and opportunities relating to overshadowing, solar access and views.

 

Although it is not anticipated, any significant variation to the nominated FSRs recommended by the Urban Design Analysis will be reported to Council.

 

The Urban Design Analysis will form part of a series of studies that will support the operation of the incentives clause. Consultants are also preparing a Public Benefit Analysis to identify an appropriate mechanism and planning framework to measure and capture offers of a material public benefit. The consultants have also been engaged to prepare a Public Benefits Policy to assist Council officers in the determination of development applications where proponents wish to access the increased heights and floor space.  This will provide consistency and transparency for the development industry and the community where negotiations regarding the provision of a public benefit are required.

                                                           

The preparation of these three documents is considered best practice and important to the testing of such a contemporary planning mechanism.  The DP&E has also encouraged Council to pursue this approach.

 

Next steps

 

Should Council support an amendment to Penrith LEP 2010 to insert an incentive clause as an appropriate mechanism to facilitating the three submitted Planning Proposals for the Penrith City Centre, the following actions will take place:

·    The Planning Proposal will be finalised and submitted to the NSW Minister for Planning seeking a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

·    For the purpose of its submission to the Minister, the Planning Proposal will reflect the indicative maximum FSRs outlined in this report.  This will allow the DP&E to commence its review of the basis for the Planning Proposal and, most importantly, consider the appropriateness of the statutory construction of the proposed incentives clause in conjunction with Parliamentary Counsel.

·    The DP&E will be advised that the maximum FSRs to be included in the LEP amendment will be confirmed when the Urban Design Analysis is completed towards the end of January 2016.

·    The Gateway Determination will prescribe:

any amendments to the Planning Proposal that are required or other conditions that must be met prior to public exhibition

the relevant state agencies and stakeholders to be consulted and the timing of that consultation relative to public exhibition

the timing and duration of the public exhibition, and

the timeframe within which the LEP amendment is to be completed.

·    Following public exhibition a further report will be presented to Council detailing any issues that were raised in submissions for Council’s consideration.

 

An amendment to Chapter E11 City Centre of the Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 may be required to support the LEP amendment and/or reflect the outcomes of the Gateway process.  It is recommended that Council resolve to prepare an amendment to the DCP where necessary to ensure the DCP and LEP are consistent with each other.

 

Conclusion

 

The three submitted Planning Proposals signal an exciting evolution in the growth and development of the Penrith City Centre and are generally supported.  Given the difficulties experienced with development feasibility since our planning framework for the Penrith City Centre was established by the NSW Government’s Cities Taskforce it is important to apply a sophisticated and contemporary approach to manage the way in which higher buildings are facilitated in the City Centre.  The proposed incentives clause can provide such a mechanism.

 

As it avoids the need to process three individual Planning Proposals, the incentives clause has the potential to fast-track up to 4,000 residential dwellings through a single LEP amendment, as well as providing opportunities for development on the other Key Sites in the future, without the need for subsequent amendments to the LEP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - Incentives Clause for Key Sites be received.

2.    In accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, 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.    The General Manager be granted delegation to update and finalise the Planning Proposal, written instrument and associated maps before submitting it to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway Determination.

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

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

6.    Council amend Chapter E11 of the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 where required to reflect the outcomes of the Planning Proposal.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Planning Proposal to amend Penrith LEP 2010 - Incentives clause for Key Sites

28 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

8

Reclassification of Council owned land at 53 and 54 Union Road Penrith   

 

Compiled by:               Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character

Service Activity

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

This report seeks Council’s resolution to commence the statutory process to reclassify two parcels of Council owned land at 53 and 55 Union Road Penrith from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ land. 

 

Council is currently seeking expressions of interest (EOI) from suitable partners for the development of Council owned land at Union Road to advance the implementation of the Penrith Progression vison.  It is timely for Council to reclassify the land subject to this report to operational to allow greater flexibility should these lands be incorporated into the opportunity for a mixed use development. 

 

All other Council owned land in the Union Road parking facility is classified as ‘operational’, with the exception of the two subject parcels that are classified as ‘community’.  The purpose of changing the classification of the subject land is to correct this irregularity. This process will provide a consistent classification of lands in the Union Road precinct. 

 

The reclassification process requires the use of the Department of Planning and

Environment’s local environmental plan making and amending process, known as the

“Gateway Process”. The reclassification of the identified land requires the amendment of

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 via a Planning Proposal. The subject land is already appropriately zoned as zoned B4 Mixed Use under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Penrith LEP 2010). 

 

Background

 

Penrith City Council owns the land bounded by Station Street, Union Road, Worth Street and Union Lane within the Penrith City Centre. The land is zoned B4 Mixed Use under Penrith LEP 2010 and is used as an at-grade car park. All of the land in the Union Road parking facility is classified as ‘operational’, with the exception of two parcels that are classified as ‘community’.  The details of the two parcels classified as community land (the subject land) are identified in Table 1 below and their location is shown in Figure 1.

Council acquired the subject land in 1994 for the purpose of a public car park.  Funds for the purchase were made available from the Penrith CBD Section 94 Car Parking Fund.  Council records indicate that it was always Council’s intention to reclassify this land to operational to bring them in line with all other lands for public car parking in the City Centre.

 

Description

Address 

Property Description

Area

Classification

Zone

1.

Public car park

53 Union Road, PENRITH

Lot 16 Sec 2 DP976320

830m2

Community

B4 Mixed Use

2.

Public car park

55 Union Road, PENRITH

Lot 17 Sec 4 DP976320

795m2

Community

B4 Mixed Use

 

Table 1: Land in Union Road identified for Reclassification

        Figure 1: 53 and 55 Union Road Penrith

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council commence the statutory process to reclassify the subject land from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ land. This will allow the anomalous community classification to be corrected. Further, Council is currently seeking expressions of interest (EOI) from suitable partners for the development of the Union Road car park to advance the implementation of the Penrith Progression vison.  It is timely for Council to reclassify the subject land to operational to allow greater flexibility should these lands be considered suitable to be included in a future mixed use development.

 

Strategic Context

 

Penrith Progression established a vision for the City Centre and identified a number of Opportunity Precincts and associated sites. With the advice of Council’s Property Development Advisory Panel, and in partnership with the industry, Council is keen to explore opportunities to deliver innovative outcomes for our City. 

 

As a significant land owner in the Penrith City Centre, Council is committed, and has the capacity, to directly leverage positive change by strategically using the publicly owned land on Union Road to deliver transformative change and positive community outcomes. 

 

As part of the EOI process, Council is seeking innovative and creative projects to deliver on the vision for the Penrith City Centre and is therefore open to considering a range of project concepts and delivery models and commercial structures that may include Council retaining a commercial interest in the land. The reclassification of the land will enable Council to prepare its landholdings to respond to future development opportunities on this site.  

 

The Reclassification Process

Under the Local Government Act, public land can be classified as either ‘community’ or ‘operational’ land.

·      Community land is generally open to the public, for example parks, reserves or sportsgrounds.

·      Operational land is public land used for other purposes such as work depots, car parks or investment properties held by Council.

Community land cannot be sold and cannot be leased or licensed for more than 21 years. No such restrictions apply to operational land.  Importantly, operational land can continue to be used for community purposes.  The reclassification of public land does not commit Council to the sale or development of that land, nor does it alienate the land from Council’s ownership or prevent the current use of that land from continuing.

 

The reclassification process requires the amendment of Penrith LEP 2010 via a Planning Proposal. A Planning Proposal is a document that explains the intended effect of and provides justification for the proposed amendment.

 

The content of the Planning Proposal is guided by a framework of legislation and practice notes published by the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department).

 

In this instance, the Planning Proposal will need to:

 

-     Set out the reasons for the reclassification

-     Outline the consistency of the amendment with strategic planning documents;

-     Identify community benefits;

-     Explain how and why Council came to own the public land;

-     Outline any financial gain or loss and of the type of benefit that could arise from the reclassification of the public land.

-     Any other matter specified in the Department of Planning’s Practice Note PN 09-003.

 

Once the Planning Proposal has been prepared it will be progressed through the Department of Planning’s Gateway Process. This process includes requirements to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal for at least 28 days and hold an independently chaired public hearing at least 21 days after the close of the exhibition period.

 

Proposed Next Steps

 

The submission of the Planning Proposal to the Gateway Process early next year, will likely result in the issue of a Gateway Determination in the first quarter of 2016. The Determination will also set out requirements for Council’s consultation exercise and identify any refinements to the Planning Proposal.

 

A Gateway Determination will potentially allow the consultation with New South Wales

Government Agencies and the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal with an independently chaired public hearing to follow. Council will then be presented with the results of the public exhibition and the public hearing to inform its decision on whether or not to proceed with the Planning Proposal.

 

Conclusion

 

The reclassification of 53 and 55 Union Road, Penrith as ‘operational’ would ensure the land has been appropriately classified, facilitate the best development outcome for the Precinct and assist Council to achieve strategic objectives.

 

Given the time required to reclassify public land it would be prudent to commence the process as soon as possible to avoid lengthy delays for any emerging development opportunities that require the use of public land.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Reclassification of Council owned land at 53 and 54 Union Road Penrith be received.

2.    A Planning Proposal reclassifying the public land at 53 and 55 Union Road, Penrith from Community Land to Operational Land be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway Determination.

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.    An independently chaired public hearing be held at least 21 days after the close of the public exhibition period.

7.    A planning consultant be engaged to independently chair the public hearing.

8.    A report be presented to Council on the submissions received during the public exhibition and the results of the public hearing.   

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

9        Tender Reference RFT 15/16-07 Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo), Penrith                                                                                                                67

 

10      Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy                                                           71

 

11      Expressions of Interest Mobile Kiosk Temporary Lease                                                 77

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

9

Tender Reference RFT 15/16-07 Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo), Penrith   

 

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

Improve our public spaces and places

Service Activity

Manage the development of master plans and designs for Council's assets and public domain

      

 

Executive Summary

Penrith City Council sought Tenders from suitably experienced contractors to undertake works for the Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo) Penrith. The intent for the proposed upgrade is to enliven a key urban space with the aim of creating a space for socialising, eating, sitting, staying and for events.

 

The Tender (RFT 15/16-07) was advertised in the Western Weekender on Friday 23 October 2015 and Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 27 October 2015. The tender closed on Wednesday 18 November 2015.

 

This report advises Council of the outcome of the Tender process and recommends that the Tender from Glascott Landscape & Civil Pty Ltd be accepted for the scope of works outlined in the RFT 15/16-07 for the Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo) Penrith for a total amount of $1,174.536.41 excluding GST.

Background

The advertised tender (RFT 15/16-07) for the Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo) Penrith, sought tenders from suitability experienced Contractors to carry out works that the following scope:

 

·    Demolition of existing paths and structures between Westfield & the Joan

·    Earthworks to include excavation to install new paths and drainage

·    Minor drainage improvement works

·    Electrical conduit upgrade and lighting

·    Landscaping & providing trees to enhance the open space

·    Concrete works with water-blasted finished strips to improve appearance

·    Bins and bike racks & supporting foundations

 

The custom seating elements for the space are the subject of a separate tender and report.

 

In response to Council’s request for Tender, four (4) 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), Mladen Mejakic (Project Officer - Capital Works), Karin Schicht (Landscape Architectural Supervisor - Design and Projects) and was chaired by Michael Jackson (Design and Projects Manager). Peter Browne (Internal Auditor) provided probity advice and attended the tender evaluation meeting.

 

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

Glascott Landscape & Civil Pty Ltd

$1,174.536.41

Unit 4/15 Chaplin Drive  Lane Cove NSW 2070 Australia

Matthew Glascott

Regal Innovations Pty Ltd

$1,205,938.00

249 Annangrove Road  Annangrove NSW 2156 Australia

Robert Stanton

Builtform Constructions

Pty Ltd

$1,238,440.00

Unit 10, 3 Packard Avenue  Castle Hill New South Wales 2125 Australia

David Upton

Civil Works (NSW) Pty Ltd

$1,245,000.00

101 Edwin street North  Croydon NSW 2132 Australia

Laudy Gabriel

Marlena Gabriel

 

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, construction program & staging together with an assessment of competency in technical aspects of the Tender. Reference checks were also undertaken.

 

A Quantity Surveyor (QS) was engaged to undertake a detailed pre-tender estimate of the project and the lowest tender was within 11% of the QS estimate.  A variance of that scale is within expectations.


 

Evaluation of Preferred Tender

The Tender received from Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to provide the highest value for money compared to the next on the ranking list, in terms of both having the lowest Tender price and highest effectiveness rating.

 

Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd have demonstrated all of the critical technical experience, whilst achieving the highest effectiveness rating. They have demonstrated:

 

·    Compliance with the Tender evaluation criteria;

·    The ability to meet Council’s requirements; and,

·    A competitive price for the services offered.

 

Referee checks have been undertaken regarding completed works for other Councils and Private Organisations with uniformly positive feedback received.

 

Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd have provided a detailed construction methodology with construction being staged in two parts in order to minimise the disturbance to surrounding businesses and pedestrian movements.

 

Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd have accredited Quality & Environmental Management and Work Health & Safety Systems in place. They have demonstrated they possess the appropriate construction experience and expertise in undertaking similar projects of equal or greater complexity and or size. Their submitted Tender shows an understanding of the extent of scope, technical details, objectives and nature of the Project.

 

Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd have previously been engaged by Council when they successfully completed the  River Road Shared path Stage 7A project.

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee recommends that Glascott Landscape and Civil 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 Glascott Landscape and Civil 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 contract for the Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo) Penrith, for an amount of $1,174,536.41 excluding GST can be accommodated within the allocated budget for this project.

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 Acting Senior Governance Officer, Adam Beggs and Chief Governance Officer, Stephen Britten met to consider the tender for the Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo) Penrith. The TAG supports the process and the recommendations contained within the Report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Tender Reference RFT 15/16-07 Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo), Penrith be received.

2.    Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd be awarded the contract for the Proposed Upgrade of the Civic Arts Precinct (The Mondo) Penrith, for an amount of $1,174,536.41 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.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

10

Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy   

 

Compiled by:               Terry Agar, City Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Jeni Pollard, Place Manager  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Grow and revitalise our centres and neighbourhoods

Service Activity

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

      

 

Executive Summary

 

Penrith is a key regional centre offering a strategic role and community focus to a large catchment of residents, businesses, workers and visitors.  Penrith City is poised for growth, with the Penrith Progression heralding the city centre as a place for significant residential development over the coming decade.

 

With residential growth comes a demand for a more diverse economy with a spread of activities that extends into the evening so that residents can confidently walk around the city centre on their way to meet friends, grab a meal or go to an entertainment venue.

Urbis Pty Ltd was contracted by Council to describe and analyse the current Night Time Economy in the Penrith city centre and identify opportunities and strategies to enhance activity over time.

 

Urbis worked with Council and key stakeholders to assess the current situation of the NTE with the compilation of key demographic and economic data, together with on the ground audits of what activities and destinations are already flourishing in Penrith in the evening. The study has identified insights into how Penrith functions ‘after sunset’ and providing a base for us to explore further collaboration with our partners such as the Penrith CBD Corporation.

 

In managing this growth, Council will be called upon to balance and maintain safety and amenity for all residents. Thus the approach taken is one that recognises that we want to support existing businesses to stay open longer, developing an ‘afternoon’ economy whilst supporting a fledgling ‘evening’ economy.

 

Attached to this report is the documentation provided by Urbis, the Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy including recommended actions to improve the short, medium and long term performance of the city centre in the evening.

This report recommends that Council endorse the Night Time Economy Strategy as a proactive approach to supporting a safe and vibrant Penrith City Centre.

Introduction

 

The Penrith Progression identified the creation of an evening economy as an important element in the revitalisation of the Penrith city centre.  To improve the performance of the evening economy it was necessary to understand the existing characteristics of the general city centre economy and the level of activity in the evenings.  The Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy (Attachment 1) identified strengths in the existing economy and a range of areas where the growth and increased diversity could occur at night.

 

Urbis planning consultants were engaged to describe and analyse the current situation in Penrith, compare it with other successful places and recommend a strategy to grow it. Along with officers from Council, the consultants undertook a number of night time audits in the city centre to best understand and measure the current environment. This was followed up with focus groups of stakeholders and individual interviews with businesses. 

 

This report outlines the findings of the Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy (the Study).  It describes the existing evening economy and recommends a comprehensive range of actions as part of an overall strategy which builds on the existing strengths of the night time economy and grows other supporting complementary elements.

 

The Study encompasses 5 main components:

 

1.   Comparative analysis with other successful places

2.   Description of the social and economic characteristics of the place

3.   Night time surveys of people and business activities

4.   Community aspirations consultation

5.   Proposed actions for the future development of a night time economy

 

Main Findings

 

The night time audit of people and business activities confirms the Penrith city centre does indeed have a significant night time economy.  The focus of the night time activity is on dining with some drinking venues (hotels and the RSL) providing entertainment.  The most diverse business activity occurs on Thursday night in the early evening.  On Friday and Saturday nights most activity is related to food and beverage businesses in the earlier part of the evening.

 

The dining activity may be described as destination focussed in nature with people deciding where they are going to eat before they leave home in the evening.  The survey did not observe any people walking up and down High Street deciding where they would dine from the range of options.  People arrive by car and park in proximity to where they are dining and walk directly to their dining destination. 

 

Supporting this significant sector of the evening economy is seen as an initial step before attempting to diversify it with more entertainment and business activity.  In this regard, improvements to car park and street lighting, way finding and direct afterhours access through arcades to High Street are seen as important drivers to initially attract more people to the city centre at night.  The general presence of more people in the city at night will make people feel safer and encourage more related businesses to open later.

 

In general, the study found that the Penrith city centre has a range of strengths, including people that are job ready to work in hospitality, that could be better capitalised on over the longer term.  The diverse economic base included businesses that currently brought people into the centre in the evening such as gyms, chemists and doctor’s surgeries that could be retained for longer by food and beverage outlets. 

 

Civic and cultural assets such as The Joan, the Council Chambers, the library and the Nepean College Campus all brought people into the city centre during the evening and currently weren’t well supported by the food and beverage businesses.  Knowledge about the night time businesses, activities and entertainment offer is not well known by the general public and no specific marketing about the city at night has occurred.

 

Anticipated population growth in and around the city centre will continue to support the growth of the night time economy.  The recent and continuing population growth in Thornton and the commencement of residential development projects in and close to the city centre are evidence of the future potential for the growth of night time business and people activity.  A greater focus on the promotion and marketing of the Penrith city centre as a place of activity and interest for people will assist in making it a more desirable place to live and, in turn, encourage more residential development within it.

 

Night Time Economy Strategy

 

The Strategy consists of 9 key actions to foster the growth and diversification of the existing night time economy:

 

1.   Stakeholder collaboration

 

Integral to any intervention in the operation of the city centre is the co-operation of all parties who have an interest in the development of the night time economy.  The identification of opportunities and barriers to success is essential to improving outcomes.  Council will engage with the Penrith CBD Corporation, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, property owners, business owners, and members of the community to ensure the successful implementation of the actions within the Strategy.

 

2.   Public Domain Lighting Improvements

 

Light is a key ingredient for the activation of the city centre.  It assists way finding and affects perceptions of personal safety.  Lighting may also be used as a night time attractor of people when used decoratively to illuminate architectural features of buildings and sculpture, as well as being used as a medium for artist expression. 

 

Improved lighting of streets, footpaths and public spaces is part of the detailed design process for the implementation of Council’s Penrith Public Domain Masterplan.  Construction of new lighting in High and Riley Streets is programmed to commence in the latter half of 2016.  New lighting in the re-designed Triangle Park will also commence at this time.

 

Opportunities for decorative and artistic lighting will be pursued as part of all lighting designs and collaborations with stakeholders.

 

3.   Public Domain Safety and Amenity Improvements

 

Improved safety and amenity will be achieved through better passive and active surveillance.  This will occur through a range of actions such as CCTV upgrades, better design of new building facades, providing attractions and entertainment and working with businesses to create well-lit shopfront displays.  Together with an agreed approach to shutter installation, improved way finding and street and lighting design, a better perception of the amenity of the place will be portrayed over time.

 

4.   Public Domain Infrastructure Improvements

 

A physical environment that is orderly, vibrant and accessible to all, attracts more people to use it.  An upgrade of footpaths and public spaces with an improved aesthetic, and support for enhanced accessibility is important in establishing a positive identity of the city centre as a safe, attractive and welcoming place at night.

 

Improved lighting of streets, footpaths and public spaces is part of the detailed design process for the implementation of Council’s Penrith Public Domain Masterplan.  Construction of new infrastructure in High and Riley Streets is programmed to commence in the latter half of 2016. 

 

5.   Way-finding Improvements

 

Good indicator signage improves everyone’s ability to find their destinations.  This is very important at night as good directional signage improves people’s perception of safety and provides certainty that they will find the businesses and services that they seek.

 

A way-finding plan to improve accessibility to all parts of the city centre is currently underway.  Its implementation will be done over time with the initial stages installed as part of the upgrades of High and Riley Streets (under the Penrith Public Domain Masterplan works) due to commenced in the second half of 2016.

 

6.   Marketing and Promotions

 

Attracting more people to the city centre is essential to improving the level of people and business activity at night.  People need to know what businesses are open, the types of entertainment available and how to access them easily. Negative perceptions may be dispelled or challenged through well designed marketing and promotions campaigns.

 

A marketing strategy to create a night time brand identity within the local community and Western Sydney is recommended.  The multi-focussed strategy would be prepared and delivered in collaboration with the PCBDC and Council.

 

7.   Events and Entertainment Program

 

A diverse range of evening and night time events and entertainment will attract more people and business activity.  Presently, few events occur in the city centre at these times. A diverse range of events will attract a more diverse range of people and may be aimed at specific interest group at different times throughout the year.  Examples into the future may include night time food markets, outdoor concerts, art exhibitions, film screenings and product or campaign launches.

 

A collaboration between Council and the PCBDC is recommended to co-ordinate and support an annual night entertainment and events program that serve different constituents in the broader community. The PCBDC would lead tradition business/retail focussed events such as the Christmas Tree Lighting and Valentine’s Day whilst Council may lead other targeted events and activities as oppor.

 

8.   Arcade Trade Project

 

The Penrith City Centre is unique in Western Sydney in that it has a large numbers of privately owned arcades.  Eleven arcades existing along High Street connecting it with parking at the rear.  They contain a large number and diversity of business types, many of them are specialist destination businesses in their own right.  It is suggested that these arcade represent a real ‘point of difference’ in the experience of the Penrith city centre and should be capitalised on to support the night time economy.

 

To this end, it is proposed that Council with the Penrith CBD Corporation work with the arcade and business owners on a pilot project to keep the arcades open for public access later into the evenings.  This would assist destination dining in High Street, initially, and provide longer term opportunities to adjust the business mix and gain greater exposure.

 

9.   Civic Precinct Project

 

The precinct that includes the Civic Centre, Joan Sutherland Centre and the western end of the Penrith Plaza represents an opportunity for night time activation. Co-ordination of civic, arts and library events and entertainment with night business trade opportunities.

 

Implementation

 

The implementation of the Night Time Economy Strategy will take time and resources.  The actions within the Strategy will be implemented over the short, medium and long term.  Some of the actions already form part of existing projects to improve the public domain in the city centres. The Penrith Public Domain Masterplan works, Wayfinding Plan and the permanent Triangle Park works are examples that will be implemented over the next 2-3 years.  Other actions such the Arcade Trade Project and the agreed removal of roller shutters from the front of businesses may take considerably longer.

 

The Place Management Department will seek opportunities within Council and with external partners to find the necessary commitment and resources to implement the strategy over time.  In the future, the success of the Strategy will be assessed and review of its success and future direction will be made.

 

Conclusion

 

The Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy has been the first investigation into the structure and function of this significant component of the City’s economy and social life. The study found that Penrith already had a significant the night time economy and that it was focussed on food and beverage businesses.

 

The growth and diversification of the night time economy will be dependent on physical improvements to the public domain infrastructure, promotion and marketing of night time businesses, events and entertainment and ongoing residential and commercial development in and near the city centre. The recommended strategy to support this growth and diversification is a significant first step in a balanced approach with a range of multi-faceted interventions designed to improve people and business activity in the city centre at night,

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.      The information contained in the report on Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy be received.

2.      Council endorse the Night Time Economy Strategy as a proactive                     approach to supporting a safe and vibrant Penrith City Centre.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Penrith Night Time Economy Study and Strategy - Final Report

58 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

11

Expressions of Interest Mobile Kiosk Temporary Lease    

 

Compiled by:               Paul Green, Property Projects Officer

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

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Grow and revitalise our centres and neighbourhoods

Service Activity

Utilise Council's property portfolio to stimulate growth and development opportunities in the City

      

 

Executive Summary

This report seeks approval to conduct an Expression of Interest (EOI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the temporary provision of a mobile food truck/kiosk in the Regatta Park Area to enhance the appeal of Regatta Park and provide refreshment services to the many users of the Park.

 

Due to the isolated location, the potential flood effect on the Park, the environmental sensitivity of the site it is considered a Mobile food Unit to be the most appropriate type of facility to provide a kiosk service rather than a permanent structure at this time. It is proposed that the EOI be formulated on the basis of a 5 year ground lease.  A more permanent food offering may be permissible following completion of the Masterplan for the precinct.

 

It is proposed that Council will provide a Ground Licence for a powered (metered) site on which the Mobile Unit will be permitted to park, Subject to Development Consent. The successful applicant/operator will be required to provide and maintain the Mobile Unit, fittings and equipment, plus any temporary seating/tables required. The operator will also be responsible for all operations of the business including any statutory and licensing requirements.

Background

 

In late 2012 a local business operator approached Council with the idea of refurbishing the existing toilet block on the Site and using it as a kiosk/restaurant.

 

In March 2013 Council publically advertised that we had received an approach and invited others who may have an interest in the site to make a submission. No expressions of interest or objections were received.

 

Progressing this opportunity with the original applicant had been exhausted due to the commercial viability within Councils approved limitations and inherent site characteristics pertaining to flood levels. The original applicant still has an interest in providing a food offering in the precinct and has put forward his interest in operating a mobile van/kiosk that can be removed from site, either daily or as required.

 

 

Proposed EOI/RFP Process

 

1.   Publically advertise that Council has been approached by a local business about formulating a license to utilise the land for the purposes of a Mobile Food Unit, and invite others with an interest in the Site to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) within a period of 21 days.

2.   At the end of the EOI stage, respondents will be short listed by an Evaluation Panel based on criteria set for the EOI.  The criteria will focus on:

a.   The contribution a proposal could make towards Council’s economic, social and environmental objectives.

b.   The capability and capacity of the respondent to deliver the proposal.

3.   Council will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to shortlisted respondents (there may be one or more) requiring details of their proposal and commercial terms. The duration for this phase is expected to run for one to two months.

4.   The Evaluation Panel will assess proposals from a detailed selection criteria published for the RFP stage and prepare a report to Council recommending the preferred proposal and commercial terms.

The goals of this process:

·    Mitigate the risks associated with Council dealing with a sole party regarding the provision of a license on community land.

·    Achieve the best use of the land and revenue.

·    To reach a point in a fair and transparent manner where Council can exclusively deal with a local business over the Site.

 

A License Agreement may be granted in accordance with an express authorisation in the Plan of Management that Council has adopted in 1996 and such provisions of the Plan of Management as apply to the granting of the License Agreement.

 

A License Agreement is required that takes into account the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 relating to Leases, Licenses and other estates in respect of community land with a term of five (5) years or less.

 

Section 47A of the Act makes provisions in respect of community land being granted for terms that are less than or equal to five (5) years and if Council proposes to grant a License Agreement, the following must apply:

 

Council’s Community Land Plan of Management categorises the land as “Natural Areas” and it meets the provisions of a License Agreement arrangement over the Open Space land and all the provisions as outlined above were implemented.

 

Conclusion

Approval from Council is sought to conduct and EOI and RFP for provision of a mobile food kiosk/van in Regatta Park, Emu Plains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Expressions of Interest Mobile Kiosk Temporary Lease  be received.

2.    Approval to commence investigations and Expressions of Interest (EOI) Process for the provision of a temporary license under Section 47A of the Act be actioned in regards to a temporary license for a kiosk.

3.    A Request for Proposal be issued to short listed respondent/s following the EOI process.

4.    A further report be presented to Council following the EOI and RFP process.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


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

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

12      Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit                                                                                    85

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

12

Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit   

 

Compiled by:               Karen Harris, Senior Cultural Development Officer

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager 

Requested By:            Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Outcome

We are healthy and share strong community spirit

Strategy

Support cultural development, activating places and creativity

Service Activity

Implement projects and activities to enhance the cultural vitality of the City

      

 

Executive Summary

This report provides an overview and summary of the outcomes of the Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit organised by Council at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre on 1 September 2015.

 

In the lead up to the NSW elections in March 2015 the Premier the Hon Mike Baird announced an arts funding package for Western Sydney.  Major funding commitments were made to Parramatta including $10 million to develop a business case to relocate the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and $800,000 to attract a resident company for the Riverside Theatre (in partnership with Parramatta City Council).

 

Together with a number of other Councils and arts organisations across greater Western Sydney, Penrith was disappointed that only an additional $7.5 million distributed over four years has been allocated to support artists and organisations across the rest of the region.  This is less than $2 million per annum.

 

The Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit was initiated by the former Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM in response to this disappointing arts funding package which perpetuates a continuing inequity in the distribution of arts and culture infrastructure and program funding between Eastern and Western Sydney.

 

The key aim of the Summit was to provide the arts and cultural sector with an opportunity to identify their priorities for the growth of arts and culture in Penrith and the region and, given the inequities in arts funding between Eastern and Western Sydney, contribute to an agenda for further advocacy by Council and other stakeholders. The long term goal of the Summit is to contribute to a more vibrant and sustainable arts and cultural sector in Penrith City and Outer Western Sydney.

 

A copy of the Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit proceedings is provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report on the Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit be received and that Council endorse the seven priorities from the 2015 Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit and the actions listed under each priority.

Background

Before the NSW State elections, on 26 February 2015 the Premier, the Hon. Mike Baird MP, and the Deputy Premier, the Hon. Troy Grant MP and Minister for the Arts, launched the Deloitte Access Economics report “Building Western Sydney’s Cultural Arts Economy” as well as a new arts funding package for Western Sydney at the Riverside Theatre, Parramatta.  This report was the result of an important collaboration between the Sydney Business Chamber and the Regional River Cities of Parramatta, Penrith and Liverpool and clearly presents a case for greater investment in Western Sydney’s cultural arts economy.

 

Penrith Council, together with the Sydney Business Chamber, Parramatta and Liverpool Councils, each contributed $20,000 to commission Deloitte Access Economics to prepare an economic evaluation of the case for further investment by Federal and State governments in Western Sydney’s cultural economy.  The Deloitte report was distributed to all Councillors in April this year.

 

The Deloitte report provides extensive information on the inequitable distribution in Federal arts program funding and State arts, heritage and events funding between Eastern Sydney and Western Sydney.

 

This information includes:

 

·    Western Sydney represents one in 10 Australians yet attracts only 1% of Commonwealth arts program funding, and 5.5% of NSW Government cultural, arts, heritage and events funding.

·    Eastern Sydney has 10.7% of Australia’s population and receives 36% of Australia Council funding.

·    Western Sydney has 9.5% of Australia’s population and receives 1% of Australia Council funding.

·    Eastern Sydney has 33.4% of NSW’s population and receives 87.2% of NSW Government cultural, arts, events and heritage funding.

·    Western Sydney has 29.4% of NSW’s population and receives 5.5% of NSW cultural, arts, events and heritage funding.

·    Between 2011/12 and 2014/15 over $360 million was invested by the NSW Government on cultural infrastructure with only 6% of this invested in Western Sydney, with the majority of this 6% allocated to the Castle Hill facility of the Powerhouse Museum.

 

The Deloitte study also provides research and data on the important contribution that investment in the arts and culture makes to the national and Western Sydney regional economy.  For example:

 

·    In 2008/09 ABS estimated that Australia’s creative and cultural economy added $65 billion to Australia’s gross value or equivalent to 5.6% of Australian gross value add (GVA is the value of goods and services produced in a sector of the economy or industry) ranking as the eighth largest contributor to the country’s economy.

·    In 2011 Western Sydney households spent an aggregate of $232 million directly at museums, art galleries, and live theatre, music concerts and on cultural fees and charges and by 2021 this is expected to grow to $444 million.

 

The report also affirms that Western Sydney “is a microcosm of Australian culture, with the art created in the region reflecting the nation’s diversity, aspirations, individuality and uniqueness and that this art continues to break new ground, sets new standards, and rivals in excellence art created elsewhere in Australia and overseas”.

 

As a Regional City Centre there are enormous opportunities for Penrith to be a leader in the creative economy in Outer Western Sydney and the surrounding region.

 

Also at the launch of the Deloitte report the NSW Government announced a number of funding commitments to increase investment in cultural infrastructure and programs in Western Sydney.  The focus of these additional commitments was in Parramatta, including $10 million to develop a business case to relocate the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and $800,000 to attract a resident company to the Riverside Theatre (in partnership with Parramatta City Council).

 

Together with a number of other Councils and arts organisations across Greater Western Sydney, Penrith was disappointed that only an additional $7.5 million distributed over four years has been allocated to support artists and cultural organisations across the rest of the region.  This is less than $2 million per annum.

 

As a result, on the initiative of the former Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, Council commenced scoping and preparing for the Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit.  At the Council Policy Review Committee meeting of 27 April 2015 Council endorsed the holding of the Summit and also contributed $4,500 from Voted Works towards the costs of the Summit.  Council’s Community and Cultural Development Department contributed $4,000 from existing resources to the Summit as well.

 

The Summit also contributes to achieving the vision of Penrith as a Regional City Centre as outlined in the Penrith Progression – A Plan for Action.  Action 5b in the Plan for Action states:

 

“Advocate for cultural economy and infrastructure funding for Western Sydney’s Regional Cities”.

 

The agreed principal objectives of the Summit as outlined in the April report were to:

 

·    Provide artists, creative entrepreneurs, educators and cultural arts organisations and groups with the opportunity to express their priorities for the growth of arts and culture in the region.

 

·    Provide information to participants on the inequities in government funding of arts and cultural programs and infrastructure in the region.

 

·    Achieve a more equitable distribution of arts funding to Outer Western Sydney including Penrith City.

 

·    Contribute to an agenda of further action by Council and other stakeholders that contribute to a more vibrant arts and cultural sector in Penrith City and Outer Western Sydney.

 

The Summit

 

The Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit was held on 1 September 2015 at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre from 5.00pm to 8.00pm.  Reflecting Penrith City’s Regional City role a number of invitations were also forwarded to Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Councils and artist networks in these areas.  Over 100 artists, representatives from cultural organisations and groups and a small team from Arts NSW, the NSW Government’s cultural policy and funding agency, participated in the Summit.  Over 70% of participants were from the Penrith LGA, with just over 20% from the Blue Mountains and the remainder from the Hawkesbury and other locations. 

 

The facilitator for the Summit was Dr Paula Aboud, winner of the Australia Council for the Arts Ros Bower award for achievement in community and cultural development in 2013.

 

Key components of the Summit were:

 

·    A welcome speech by the former Mayor which also highlighted the inequities in arts and cultural funding between Eastern and Western Sydney.

·    A speech by the Assistant General Manager, Craig Butler, which highlighted how arts, culture and creative entrepreneurs can contribute to make dynamic and sustainable cities.

·    Twelve small workshop groups which enabled participants, with facilitators and scribes to share their responses to some key prompt questions.

 

It was the shared discussion in small groups that forms the bulk of the information in the Summit report provided as Attachment 1 to this Council report.

 

It was also emphasised at the Summit that the Summit report would be made available to all participants after Council has considered the report.  Participants at the Summit will also be given the opportunity to complete a proforma indicating either group (if they represent an organisation or group) or individual support of the priorities.  This will assist Council as well as Summit participants in achieving a stronger voice for our joint advocacy.

 

Summit Priorities

 

One of the main objectives of the Summit was to provide an opportunity for artists, educators, creatives, cultural organisations and groups to express their priorities for the growth of arts and culture in Penrith and the region.  This was achieved principally through the small group discussions at the Summit.

 

The following priorities are ranked in order of the number of times they were raised across the 12 groups.  In addition after each priority a status summary is given of what work is underway to achieve the priority.  A proposed follow-up action is then provided to ensure that a clear focus is in place for further direction and advocacy.

 

Priority 1

 

Advocate for equity in arts and cultural development funding at both State and Commonwealth levels.

 

Status

 

Equity in arts and culture funding was the number one priority that was discussed at the small groups at the Summit.  Council has also recognised this as a major priority. Some progress has been made in advancing this priority.

 

Arts NSW, the arts funding and policy body for the NSW Government, has commissioned SGS Economics and Planning to complete a major research project mapping the arts and cultural landscape of Western Sydney to inform strategies, investments and infrastructure development and decisions.  SGS Economic and Planning met with all Councils in Western Sydney during September and October 2015 to ensure they had comprehensive information from which to develop an Arts and Cultural Framework for Western Sydney.  In Penrith’s case SGS met with Council officers as well as the CEO and senior staff from the PP&VA Ltd.  Council officers understand SGS will present their draft report to Arts NSW early in 2016.

 

Secondly, in a continuation of the collaboration between the Regional City Councils of Penrith, Parramatta, Liverpool and Campbelltown and the Sydney Business Chamber, the Chamber has convened the Western Sydney Arts Taskforce (WSAT).  The WSAT has been established as an integrated group to represent the needs of the arts community across Western Sydney.  The four Councils involved are those that have contributed capital and recurrent funds towards arts and cultural infrastructure in their cities over many years.  The WSAT is chaired by Mr David Borger from the Sydney Business Chamber. 

 

The principal objective of the WSAT is to advocate to the NSW Government that approximately $200 million from the $600 million funding from the Rebuilding NSW initiative for arts infrastructure, be allocated to local government cultural infrastructure and programs in the Regional Cities of Penrith, Liverpool, Parramatta and Campbelltown.  The Mayors from the four Regional Cities, including the former Mayor Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, and David Borger had an initial meeting with the Hon Troy Grant MP, Deputy Premier and Minister for the Arts, on 12 August 2015 to make the case for the allocation of $200 million as per the WSAT agenda.  The Deputy Premier indicated that the funding of local government cultural infrastructure in the Regional Cities is the responsibility of the Councils. The WSAT is currently seeking a meeting with the NSW Premier, the Hon Mike Baird MP to further discuss this matter and gain a commitment that a substantial proportion of the Rebuilding NSW cultural infrastructure funds are allocated to Western Sydney.

 

Proposed Action

 

Continue to advocate for greater equity in the allocation of arts and cultural infrastructure and program funding between Eastern and Western Sydney, including through participation on the Western Sydney Arts Taskforce, and through advocacy to local State and Federal members.

 

Utilising the outcomes from the Summit, Council is in a strong position to lead a campaign for greater equity in the allocation of Federal and State arts and cultural infrastructure and program funding.

 

Priority 2

 

Establish and resource an accessible creative hub/incubator that supports artists to grow their practice and generate professional opportunities for emerging, mid-career and established artists.

 

Status

 

Penrith City lacks a creative hub or incubator that provides a variety of spaces that can accommodate a range of arts practice that can be allocated for short term residencies for established as well as emerging artists.  To establish a successful creative hub requires capital funding as well as recurrent funding to manage programming and the effective use of space.  An existing building, preferably in the City Centre, could be refurbished for this purpose.

 

A broader and similar action to Priority 2 is included in the Penrith Progression Action Plan which states: “Support the investigation of new cultural arts venues in Penrith”.  Council launched this Action Plan in February 2015.  This priority is to a large extent dependent on success in achieving Priority 1, that is greater equity in cultural infrastructure and program funding from the Federal and NSW Governments.

 

 

 

Proposed Action

 

Further scope this priority with the PP&VA Ltd and the steps required to achieve this outcome.  Further information will be provided to Council once progress has been made. This priority will also be part of Council’s advocacy for additional funding for cultural infrastructure and programs.

 

Priority 3

 

Establish and resource accessible artists-run pop-ups across the region, nurturing a culture of art in everyday local spaces.

 

Status

 

Council officers have had limited success in gaining access at no or little cost to shopfront spaces in the Penrith City Centre or St Marys Town Centre.  Council officers have also liaised with Penrith CBD Corporation and the St Marys Town Centre Corporation on this opportunity.  For Council it has been easier to access public spaces, both internal and external for pop-up activities and exhibitions.  These spaces have included venues at St Marys Corner, the Penrith City Library, the Joan, the Penrith Civic Centre foyer, Coachman’s Park, the Pop-Up Park at the end of High Street and Memory Park.  The Westfields Plaza has also been used for one-off activities.  Some Neighbourhood Renewal Magnetic Places projects have also utilised public spaces across the City to support Place Making and contribute to community pride.  Council’s Re-Imagine Ageing Project has also held a number of pop-up activities in public spaces.

 

Artists in outer Western Sydney generally do not have the capacity to sustain artist-run spaces in shopfront locations.  This approach has had more success in Katoomba and other villages in the Blue Mountains.

 

Proposed Action

 

Continue to use public spaces for pop-up exhibitions and activities, as well as further explore opportunities with the Penrith CBD Corporation and the St Marys Town Centre Corporation for shopfront pop-up exhibitions and activities.

 

Priority 4

 

Promote arts and culture to diverse communities by expanding and resourcing community cultural engagement programs and initiatives to maximise participation and access, fostering social inclusion and strengthening communities.

 

Status

 

Council already undertakes a range of initiatives that achieve this outcome.

 

These include Council’s Neighbourhood Renewal Program and Magnetic Places funding, creative engagement initiatives at St Marys Corner including Queen Street Riches and Textures, the No Boundaries digital projection project involving over 80 people of all abilities, the Mondo Community Safety and Youth Engagement project, the Re-Imagine Ageing project and a number of smaller projects.  A number of community organisations across the City also run a range of creative programs and initiatives that support social inclusion and strengthen communities. 

 

Council also holds a number of events each year that also am to deliver these outcomes.  This includes NAIDOC Week, Youth Week, Seniors Week, Harmony Day Refugee Week, International Women’s Day and International Day of People with Disability.

 

The PP&VA Ltd also deliver a range of projects, exhibitions and performances that engage with the community and contribute to the City’s creative vitality. Council received an update on many of these projects and initiatives as part of the PP&VA Ltd presentation on their annual report to the Policy Review Committee meeting on 30 November 2015.

 

Proposed Action

 

Continue to develop, support and promote community cultural engagement programs and initiatives to maximise participation and access, fostering social inclusion and strengthening communities.

 

Priority 5

 

Establish customised professional development and mentoring programs for emerging, mid-career and established artists in the region to develop their practice, and enhance access to employment opportunities.

 

Status

 

Council and the PP&VA Ltd have developed a number of initiatives that involve professional development and mentoring.

 

Council’s St Marys Corner Queen Street Riches and Textures program partners each year with the TAFE Nepean Art and Design Centre at Kingswood and engages an established artist to mentor up to six diploma students on a theme connected to Queen Street and the St Marys community more broadly.

 

Council also provides subsidies to a number of performance and music groups in the City who mentor young and emerging actors, musicians and singers.

 

The PP&VA through the Penrith Conservatorium of Music provide a number of music scholarships each year to promising musicians and singers. The Q Theatre also has a Mentorship Artists Program that brings together eight diverse young artists to collaborate and workshop creative ideas and themes.  A related initiative is Q LAB, an annual residency program which support the professional development of emerging artists involved in theatre.

 

The TAFE Nepean Arts and Design Centre also regularly host professional artists as guest speakers each week during TAFE terms.  These talks and workshops enable both TAFE design and arts students and other artists in the region to share ideas, common concerns and collaborate.

 

Establishing the creative hub/incubator in Priority 2 will also significantly add to the opportunities for professional development and mentoring.

 

Proposed Action

 

Continue to support and promote the available professional development and mentoring opportunities for emerging and other artists across the region.

 

 

 

Priority 6

 

Develop digital multimedia capacities and hub/incubators to engage wider audiences and reach, enhancing global opportunities for the region’s artists, designers and creatives.

 

Status

 

Penrith City currently lacks this type of facility that is flexible and provides opportunities for short residencies, collaboration and the generation of creative projects – all part of the growing knowledge economy.

 

This type of facility could be effectively integrated into Priority 2 – Establish and resource a creative hub/incubator.

 

Proposed Action

 

Work together with the PP&VA Ltd to further scope this priority and the steps required to achieve this outcome.  Further information will be provided to Council once further progress has been made. This priority will also be part of Council’s advocacy for additional funding for cultural infrastructure and programs including a capacity for multi-media performance, and visual arts.

 

Priority 7

 

Develop a strategic partnership between the region’s local councils based on a cooperative model with the capacity to create a position that coordinates a regional action plan; undertakes evidence-based research to develop cultural mapping; shares resources; and grows cultural capital and infrastructure across the region.

 

Status

 

This priority focuses on a regional (Outer Western Sydney) approach to collaboration, cultural mapping of assets and needs, and action to grow cultural capital and infrastructure across the region.

 

There are already informal connections between cultural development staff in Penrith, Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury Councils.  The new and more formal Strategic Alliance between the three Councils will also assist this collaboration. 

 

The NSW Government in its NSW Arts and Cultural Policy Framework – Create in NSW has identified Western Sydney as a priority region and one relevant key action is that Arts NSW undertake a major research project mapping the arts and cultural landscape of Western Sydney to inform strategies, investments and infrastructure development decisions.  Arts NSW has commissioned SGS Economics and Planning to complete this research project.  Council officers and staff of the PP&VA have met with the consultants to ensure they understand the cultural profile of the City, its assets and what is required to grow cultural capital and the creative economy in Penrith City.  SGS has also met with other Western Sydney Councils including Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains as part of this study. Individual artists and community cultural organisations have also been provided the opportunity to contribute their ideas to the study.

 

Thus for Penrith, Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains Councils to undertake a cultural mapping exercise would duplicate this larger government led process and would not be the best use of limited Council resources.

 

Councils, artists and cultural organisations and groups in Western Sydney have high expectations that the final Western Sydney arts strategy will be responsive to the priorities of the Regional Cities and more broadly to the region as well as allocate significant funding to support the growth of the arts and the cultural economy.

 

Proposed Action

 

Together with partners monitor the development of the Western Sydney arts strategy and continue to advocate for adequate resourcing of the recommendations in the strategy.

 

Summary

 

The Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit was a success with over 100 artists and representatives from cultural organisations and groups participating in the evening’s proceedings.  The small workshop groups generated vigorous discussion and the common priorities that emerged are summarised in this report.  For each of the seven priorities from the Summit a status update is provided together with a further proposed action.  These seven actions are as follows:

 

1.   Continue to advocate for greater equity in the allocation of arts and cultural infrastructure and program funding between Eastern and Western Sydney, including through participation on the Western Sydney Arts Taskforce, and through advocacy to local State and Federal members.

Utilising the outcomes from the Summit, Council is in a strong position to lead a campaign for greater equity in the allocation of Federal and State arts and cultural infrastructure and program funding.

2.   Further scope this priority with the PP&VA Ltd and the steps required to achieve this outcome.  Further information will be provided to Council once progress has been made. This priority will also be part of Council’s advocacy for additional funding for cultural infrastructure and programs.

3.   Continue to use public spaces for pop-up exhibitions and activities, as well as further explore opportunities with the Penrith CBD Corporation and the St Marys Town Centre Corporation for shopfront pop-up exhibitions and activities.

4.   Continue to develop, support and promote community cultural engagement programs and initiatives to maximise participation and access, fostering social inclusion and strengthening communities.

5.   Continue to support and promote the available professional development and mentoring opportunities for emerging and other artists across the region.

6.   Work together with the PP&VA Ltd to further scope this priority and the steps required to achieve this outcome.  Further information will be provided to Council once further progress has been made. This priority will also be part of Council’s advocacy for additional funding for cultural infrastructure and programs including a capacity for multi-media performance, and visual arts.

7.   Together with partners monitor the development of the Western Sydney arts strategy and continue to advocate for adequate resourcing of the recommendations in the strategy.

 

These actions will be the focus of continuing advocacy and work by Council officers to achieve greater equity in the allocation of arts and cultural infrastructure and program funding for Penrith City and outer Western Sydney.  This includes advocacy to the NSW Government to ensure that the Western Sydney arts strategy is adequately resourced. Together with the PP&VA, Council will scope a creative hub/incubator for the Penrith City Centre so that when a Western Sydney arts strategy is released, Council is well-positioned to take advantage of any funding opportunities.

 

Council will continue to participate in the Western Sydney Arts Taskforce to achieve these outcomes.  Council will also make representations to local Federal and State Members to achieve greater equity in the allocation of arts and cultural infrastructure funding.

 

Council, the PP&VA and in some cases community partners already undertake initiatives and projects that respond to a number of the other priorities. This work will continue to ensure these priorities are achieved.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit be received.

2.    Council endorse the seven priorities from the 2015 Mayoral Arts and Culture Summit and the actions listed under each priority.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Mayoral Arts and Cultural Summit - September 2015

16 Pages

Attachments Included

   


Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

Item                                                                                                                                                Page

 

13      The outcome of two Land and Environment Court appeals relating to two development approvals for Places of Public Worship                                                                           97

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

 

 

 

13

The outcome of two Land and Environment Court appeals relating to two development approvals for Places of Public Worship   

 

Compiled by:               Matthew Bullivant, Senior Legal Officer

Authorised by:            Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer  

 

Outcome

We have confidence in our Council

Strategy

Demonstrate transparency and ethical behaviour

Service Activity

Provide Council with legal administration, conveyancing and advice services

      

 

Executive Summary

This report advises of the outcome of two recent decisions of the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court relating to challenges to two decisions of Council to grant consent to development for the purposes of Places of Public Worship on sites located at Kemps Creek.

 

The appeals challenging Council’s decisions were brought by the Protect Penrith Action Group Inc (the applicant). The parties with the benefit of the development consents were Imam Ali Ltd (Imam) and Muhammadi Welfare Association Incorporated (Muhammadi).

 

In relation to the proceedings relating to the consent held by Imam, the Chief Judge endorsed a set of orders that were agreed to by the parties. Those orders mean that:

 

1.   The proceedings were discontinued;

2.   The Protect Penrith Action Group Inc is barred from re-commencing any proceedings against Council and/or Imam arising out of the same set of facts;

3.   The Protect Penrith Action Group Inc has agreed and the Court has ordered that they pay Council’s and Imam’s costs as agreed or assessed by a costs assessor.

 

The costs payable to Imam are up to a maximum of $40,000.

 

In relation to the proceedings relating to the consent held by Muhammadi, the Chief Judge dismissed the applicant’s appeal and ordered that the applicant pay Council’s costs. The Chief Judge also ordered the applicant to pay Muhammadi’s costs up to a maximum of $25,000.

 

The two decisions of the Court upholds Council’s decisions to approve the development applications at the Ordinary meetings held on 27 October 2014 and 24 November 2014.

Background

At its meeting held on 27 October 2014, the Council granted consent to Imam to carry out a development for the purposes of a Place of Public Worship (DA13/1467) located at 81-89 Clifton Avenue, Kemps Creek.

 

At a subsequent meeting of Council held on 24 November 2014, Council granted consent to Muhammadi, also for the purposes of a Place of Public Worship (DA13/1271) located at 1247-153 Mamre Road, Kemps Creek.

 

On 23 February 2015 Council was served with a Summons on behalf of the applicant which sought to challenge the validity of the development consents granted by Council in relation to the above properties.

 

In both sets of Land and Environment Court proceedings, the applicant sought orders from the Court that the consents be declared invalid and that Imam and Muhammadi be restrained from commencing development pursuant to the respective consents. The applicant also sought an order that Council pay the applicant’s costs.

 

In its Summons, the applicant indicated that it was relying on 8 grounds of appeal. In the proceedings involving Imam, the applicant discontinued the proceedings on the morning of the hearing, meaning that it did not pursue any of the grounds of appeal. In the proceedings involving Muhammadi, the applicant relied on only one of the 8 grounds of appeal, being that:

In granting consent, the Council failed to consider adequately or at all the evaluation criteria of s. 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by failing to satisfy the requirements of the LEP.

 

There were a considerable number of Court appearances in both matters from the time the proceedings commenced. The following provides an overview of those appearances:

 

  20 March 2015

The matter was listed before the Court. The Court advised the applicant’s legal representative that the parties who had the benefit of the consent should be joined as parties to the proceedings and adjourned the matter until 17 April 2015 to allow the applicant time to serve the proceedings on the parties with the benefit of the consents.

  17 April 2015

The Court imposed Orders for the exchange of information and for the filing of evidence. The applicant did not comply with the timetable, and therefore the matter was listed before the Court again on 8 May 2015.

  8 May 2015

The Court was advised of the applicant’s failure to file evidence. The Court amended the timetable for the filing of evidence. The Court directed that the matter come back before the Court on 12 June 2015.

 

  12 June 2015

The Court was advised again that the applicant had not complied with the timetable for filing evidence. The Court further amended the timetable. The Court directed that the matter come back before the Court on 14 August 2015.

 

  14 August 2015

 

The matter was listed before Justice Pain. She indicated that this was the fifth occasion that the matter had been mentioned.

The Judge made the following Orders:

1.     The applicant is to file and serve all lay evidence upon which it relies no later than 5:00pm on 21 August 2015, otherwise it will lose the opportunity to put on any evidence unless the Court grants further permission;

2.     The applicant is to advise the respondents by 25 August whether it intends on seeking leave from the Court to rely on any expert evidence, and whether it wants to request that the Court make a Protective Costs Order (which it may seek in order to limit the Applicant’s exposure to pay the respondents’ costs if it is unsuccessful);

3.     The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the directions hearing on 14 August 2015. 

4.     Matters are listed again for directions on 28 August 2015. The Court will list the matters for hearing on this occasion.

  28 August 2015

The applicant’s lawyer sought an adjournment on its motion to seek to rely on expert evidence. The Court granted the adjournment on the basis that the applicant pays the respondents’ legal costs of the day. The applicant reached agreement with Imam and Muhammadi on the value of the legal costs that the applicant would pay those parties if the Court upheld the consents.

 16 September 2015

 

The applicant again sought an adjournment of its motion to rely on expert evidence (in the form of a social impact expert). The Court granted the adjournment on the basis that the applicant pays the respondents’ legal costs of the day.

  8 October 2015

The applicant’s motion to rely on expert evidence on social impact was dismissed by the Court. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay the Council’s costs.

 

Hearing of the Matters

 

The matter relating to Imam was listed for hearing on 24 and 25 November 2015, whilst the matter relating to Muhammadi was listed for hearing on 30 November and 1 December 2015.

 

The Chief Justice (Preston CJ) was appointed to hear both matters.

 

Imam outcome

 

When the matter commenced, the Barrister representing the Protect Penrith Action Group Inc advised the Court that he had instructions to discontinue the proceedings.

 

The Chief Judge endorsed a set of orders that were agreed to by the parties. Those orders mean that:

 

1.   The proceedings were discontinued;

2.   The Protect Penrith Action Group Inc is barred from re-commencing any proceedings against Council and/or Imam arising out of the same set of facts;

3.   Protect Penrith Action Group Inc has agreed and the Court has ordered that they pay Council’s and Imam’s costs as agreed or assessed by a costs assessor.

 

The costs payable to Imam are up to a maximum of $40,000.

 

It is not known as to the reasons why the applicant decided on this course of action when the proceedings had advanced all the way to the hearing.

 

 

Muhammadi outcome

 

As indicated earlier in this report, in the proceedings involving Muhammadi, the applicant relied on only one ground of appeal, being that:

 

The Council failed to consider adequately or at all the evaluation criteria of s. 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by failing to satisfy the requirements of the LEP.

 

The Barrister for the applicant submitted that Penrith Local Environmental Plan 201 (LEP 201) prohibits development for the purposes of a church because the subject site is located within a set of noise contours affected by the proposed Badgery’s Creek Airport. If the Court did not agree with that submission, the applicant’s Barrister made an alternative submission in that the Council failed to properly consider clause 7.9 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (PLEP 2010).

 

Clause 7.9 of PLEP 2010 essentially requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the proposed development complies with the relevant Australian Standards for noise levels from aircraft noise. The applicant’s Barrister also argued that a special condition should have been imposed on the consent requiring compliance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

The Barrister representing Council argued that LEP 201 does not apply; and that when the development application was determined it was in fact clause 6.14 (and not clause 7.9) of LEP 2010 that applied to the land. Clause 7.9 is the clause now in force and replaced clause 6.14 when Stage 2 of LEP was gazetted on 28 February 2015.

 

Further, Council’s Barrister referred to 2 specific conditions of the development consent relating to noise, one of which requires the developer to comply with the relevant Australian Standard for aircraft noise. Council’s Barrister also referred the Court to the section of the Council assessment report which addressed clause 6.14 of LEP 2010.

 

The Chief Judge ordered that the applicant’s appeal be dismissed and that they be ordered to pay Council’s costs. The Chief Justice held that there was no evidence to support the argument that Council failed to properly consider clause 6.14 of Penrith LEP 2010. The Chief Judge referred to the relevant conditions of the consent that address aircraft noise, and the relevant sections of the assessment report considered by Council in relation to aircraft noise.

 

In relation to costs, the applicant’s Barrister argued that Council should not be awarded costs on the basis that the Council’s website was misleading in that it informed readers that LEP 201 applied. The Chief Judge disagreed and held that the Council’s website was not misleading and upon careful reading of the Council’s website it showed that LEP 201 was in force and applied only to matters that are identified as ‘Deferred Matters’ from Penrith LEP 2010. The Chief Judge then ordered that the applicant pay the Council’s costs.

 

Further, the Chief Judge also ordered that the applicant pay Muhammadi’s costs up to a maximum of $40,000.

 

Legal Costs

 

At the date of this report, Council expended $62,375 on legal costs in both matters. This amount excludes the costs incurred in the preparation for the hearing days and the appearance of Council’s lawyers at the hearings. It is expected that the Council’s costs will be in the vicinity of $90,000 once these items are factored into the costs.

 

The Council has received payment in respect of costs orders whereby the applicant was required to pay to the extent of $6,900.

 

The Chief Judge ordered that the applicant pays Council’s substantive costs in relation to both matters.

 

Conclusion

 

The two decisions of the Court upholds Council’s decisions to approve the development applications at the Ordinary meetings held on 27 October 2014 and 24 November 2014.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on The outcome of two Land and Environment Court appeals relating to two development approvals for Places of Public Worship be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday December 7 2015

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                       1

 

2        Commercial Matter - Leasing of Shop 3/564 High Street, Penrith from Marjen Superannuation Pty Ltd as Public Washroom Facilities                                    2

 

3        Commercial Matter - Creation of Easements to Drain Water over Council Land Lot 2004 DP840346 to Benefit Lot 100 DP807995, Lot 3 DP512670 and Lot 2001 DP840346 at 90, 96 and 98 Adelaide Street, Oxley Park                                                                                   2

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                           7 December 2015

A Leading City

 

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

Everyone is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council and those of its Committees of which all members are Councillors, except as provided by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

A Council, or a Committee of the Council of which all the members are Councillors, may close to the public so much of its meeting as comprises:

 

(a)          the discussion of any of the matters listed below; or

(b)          the receipt or discussion of any of the information so listed.

The matters and information are the following:

 

(a)          personnel matters concerning particular individuals;

(b)          the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers;

(c)          information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

(d)          commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

·         prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or

 

·         confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or

 

·         reveal a trade secret.

 

(e)          information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of the law;

(f)           matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property;

(g)        advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

The grounds on which part of a meeting is closed must be stated in the decision to close that part of the meeting and must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

The grounds must specify the following:

(a)          the relevant provision of section 10A(2);

(b)          the matter that is to be discussed during the closed part of the meeting;

(c)          the reasons why the part of the meeting is being closed, including (if the matter concerned is a matter other than a personnel matter concerning particular individuals, the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer or a trade secret) an explanation of the way in which discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

Members of the public may make representations at a Council or Committee Meeting as to whether a part of a meeting should be closed to the public

The process which should be followed is:

 

·         a motion, based on the recommendation below, is moved and seconded

·         the Chairperson then asks if any member/s of the public would like to make representations as to whether a part of the meeting is closed to the public

·         if a member/s of the public wish to make representations, the Chairperson invites them to speak before the Committee makes its decision on whether to close the part of the meeting or not to the public.

·         if no member/s of the public wish to make representations the Chairperson can then put the motion to close the meeting to the public.

The first action is for a motion to be moved and seconded based on the recommendation below.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

 

Outcome 7

 

2        Commercial Matter - Leasing of Shop 3/564 High Street, Penrith from Marjen Superannuation Pty Ltd as Public Washroom Facilities 

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

3        Commercial Matter - Creation of Easements to Drain Water over Council Land Lot 2004 DP840346 to Benefit Lot 100 DP807995, Lot 3 DP512670 and Lot 2001 DP840346 at 90, 96 and 98 Adelaide Street, Oxley Park

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

 

 

PCC_Line


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 7 December 2015

Report Title:            Planning Proposal - Request to permit a service station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys

Attachments:           Location Plan

                                Planning Proposal to Permit Service Station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 2 - Planning Proposal to Permit Service Station at 61-73 Christie Street, St Marys

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 7 December 2015

Report Title:            Proposed Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement from Settlers Estate Pty Ltd for No.s 731 - 767 Great Western Highway, Werrington (French Street)

Attachments:           Locality Plan

                                Original Approved Staging Plan

                                Revised Approved Staging Plan

                                Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 2 - Original Approved Staging Plan

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 3 - Revised Approved Staging Plan

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 4 - Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 7 December 2015

Report Title:            Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Stage 2 Precinct C - Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Attachments:           Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Precinct C



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 1 - Planning Proposal for Glenmore Park Precinct C

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 7 December 2015

Report Title:            Planning Proposal for Penrith City Centre Park

Attachments:           Planning Proposal for Penrith City Park



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 1 - Planning Proposal for Penrith City Park

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 7 December 2015

Report Title:            Western Sydney Airport - Submission on Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Attachments:           Western Sydney Airport Draft EIS Independent Peer Review - Overview Report

                                Noise Events Tables

                                Other Issues For Council's Submission on the Western Sydney Airport Draft Airport Plan and Draft EIS



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 1 - Western Sydney Airport Draft EIS Independent Peer Review - Overview Report

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 2 - Noise Events Tables

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                         7 December 2015

Attachment 3 - Other Issues For Council's Submission on the Western Sydney Airport Draft Airport Plan and Draft EIS

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 7 December 2015

Report Title:            Planning Proposal to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 - Incentives Clause for Key Sites

Attachments:           Planning Proposal to amend Penrith LEP 2010 - Incentives clause for Key Sites



Ordinary Meeting                     &nb