Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

ON MONDAY 21 MARCH 2016 AT 7:37PM

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 (arrived 7:46pm), Marcus Cornish, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies (arrived 7:42pm), Maurice Girotto, Ben Goldfinch, Tricia Hitchen, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM for the period 13 March 2016 to 25 March 2016 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Mark Davies for the period 21 March 2016 to 11 April 2016 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

58 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Maurice Girotto that apologies be accepted from Councillors Prue Car MP and Greg Davies for their late arrival at the meeting.

Councillor Greg Davies arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:42pm.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 29 February 2016

59 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 29 February 2016 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

60 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7:44pm.

Ms Annette Leonard

Item 1– Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal – Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park; and Item 16 - Further report on Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park

Ms Leonard, an affected person, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Ms Leonard outlined the impact that an earlier, similar 4 storey development has had on her property, including lack of privacy.

Councillor Prue Car MP arrived at the meeting, time being 7:46pm.

Ms Leonard then circulated photos illustrating that her property would be completely surrounded by multi storey development if this proposal was to proceed, and noted the likely decrease in the value of her property, as well as others in the vicinity, as a result.

61 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM that an extension of time be granted to enable the speaker to complete her address, the time being 7:50pm.

Ms Leonard went on to state that the latest amendments to the proposed development do not address the fundamental problem of the height and size of this development and the lack of car parking space. Ms Leonard concluded by requesting Council to reject the application in its current form.

Ms Carly Jardim

Ms Jardim, an affected resident and spokesperson for residents in the vicinity of the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms Jardim stated that the amended proposed development is still unsuitable for the location for reasons of scale and density as it is not in keeping with the existing scale of development in the area and will cause too many adverse impacts on the amenity of existing residents. Ms Jardim stated that the proposal was not in the interest of the local community and concluded by outlining the issues that could arise from the shortfall in carparking spaces.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

62 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 8:03pm.

Mayoral Minutes

1 Retirement of Executive Manager City Assets, David Burns

Councillors Ross Fowler OAM, John Thain, Maurice Girotto, Greg Davies, Jim Aitken OAM, Kevin Crameri OAM, Marcus Cornish and Bernard Bratusa spoke in support of the Mayoral Minute.

63 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Retirement of Executive Manager City Assets, David Burns be received.

Reports of Committees

1 Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 10 February 2016

64 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 10 February, 2016 be adopted.

2 Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership Meeting held on 2 March 2016

65 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Prue Car MP that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Penrith Community Safety Partnership meeting held on 2 March, 2016 be adopted.

3 Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 March 2016

66 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Maurice Girotto that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 March, 2016 be adopted.

4 Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 14 March 2016

67 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 14 March, 2016 be adopted.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Procedural Motion

68 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Item 16 - Further report on Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park Applicant: Hazzouri Property Trust; Owner: ~Hazouri Investments Pty Ltd be brought forward to be considered immediately following Item 1 - Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park Applicant: Hazzouri Property Trust; Owner: ~Hazouri Investments Pty Ltd.

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

1 Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park Applicant: Hazzouri Property Trust; Owner: ~Hazouri Investments Pty Ltd

69 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the information contained in the report on Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park be received.

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 Greg Davies
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Michelle Tormey
Councillor Maurice Girotto
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Karen McKeown

Note: The Council’s substantive resolution in relation to this matter is provided at Item 16 (Minute No. 70).

16 Further report on Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park Applicant: Hazzouri Property Trust; Owner: ~Hazouri Investments Pty Ltd

70 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Further report on Class 1 Land and Environment Court Appeal - Refused Development Application DA13/0311 for Residential Apartments & Townhouses at Lot 1311 DP 1161827, (No. 119) Glengarry Drive, Glenmore Park be received.

2. Council’s Lawyers be instructed to seek to finalise the matter by way of the hearing of an application for consent orders, thereby providing the opportunity for resident objectors to make submissions to the Court.

3. Those individuals who made a submission be advised of the consideration given to their concerns, and the outcome of Council’s position before the Land and Environment Court.

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 Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Greg Davies	Councillor Maurice Girotto
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Michelle Tormey
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Karen McKeown

2 Expansion of Complying Development Submission

Councillors Marcus Cornish and Bernard Bratusa left the meeting, the time being 8:50pm.

Councillor Marcus Cornish returned to the meeting, the time being 8:52pm.

Councillor Bernard Bratusa returned to the meeting, the time being 8:59pm.

Councillor Michelle Tormey left the meeting, the time being 9:01pm.

Councillor Michelle Tormey returned to the meeting, the time being 9:04pm.

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

That

1. The information contained in the report on Expansion of Complying Development Submission be received.

2. Council write to the Minister for Planning seeking clarification that the policy will not allow for townhouse developing in low density residential zones.

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

3 Western Sydney Infrastructure Program, Local Roads Package Round 2, Acceptance of Funding

72 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Western Sydney Infrastructure Program, Local Roads Package Round 2, Acceptance of Funding be received.

2. Council write to the General Manager, Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, RMS, to accept the funding offer for the projects as listed in the report.

3. Council write to the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government, Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Local Members expressing appreciation for their support and funding.

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

4 Queen St, Streetscape Improvement Project, Update

Councillor Ben Goldfinch left the meeting, the time being 9:11pm.

Councillor Ben Goldfinch returned to the meeting, the time being 9:14pm.

73 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Prue Car MP seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that the information contained in the report on Queen St, Streetscape Improvement Project, Update be received.

5 Application to Stronger Communities Program

74 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Application to Stronger Communities Program be received.

2. Council support Team Colyton in their submission for a showpiece garden.

3. Council provides matching funds of $5000 should the project submission be successful.

4. Council congratulate the staff involved in delivering the Stronger Communities Program.

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

6 Acceptance of Grant Funding Offer - NSW Floodplain Management Program 2015/16

Councillor Prue Car MP left the meeting, the time being 9:23pm.

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Acceptance of Grant Funding Offer - NSW Floodplain Management Program 2015/16 be received.

2. Council accept the grant funding offers from the NSW Government for the following studies:

a. Penrith CBD Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan - $100,000

b. St Marys (Byrnes Creek) Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan - $100,000.

3. Council write to the Minister for the Environment, Local Members and the Office of Environment and Heritage, expressing appreciation of their continued support and funding towards Council’s Floodplain Management programs.

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

7 Circus Policy relating to circuses operating with non-domesticated exotic circus animals within the Local Government Area

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM left the meeting, the time being 9:29pm.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 9:34pm.

Councillor Prue Car MP returned to the meeting, the time being 9:37pm.

76 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Michelle Tormey seconded Councillor John Thain

That

1. The information contained in the report on Circus Policy relating to circuses operating with non-domesticated exotic circus animals within the Local Government Area be received.

2. Council adopt the policy attached to this report relating to circuses operating on Council land.

3. Council write to the Minister for Primary Industries, and for Lands and Water, MLC Niall Blair advocating an amendment to current NSW Government standards to ban the use of non-domesticated animals in circuses.

An AMENDMENT was moved by Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the information contained in the report on Circus Policy relating to circuses operating with non-domesticated exotic circus animals within the Local Government Area be received.

The AMENDMENT was PUT.

The AMENDMENT was LOST.

Councillor Michelle Tormey called for a DIVISION.

For	Against
Councillor Marcus Cornish	Councillor Prue Car MP
Councillor Tricia Hitchen	Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Ben Goldfinch	Councillor John Thain
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM	Councillor Michelle Tormey
Councillor Maurice Girotto	Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM	Councillor Bernard Bratusa
	Councillor Karen McKeown

The MOTION was PUT.

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

Councillor Michelle Tormey called for a DIVISION.

For	Against
Councillor Bernard Bratusa	Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM	Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Michelle Tormey	Councillor Ben Goldfinch
Councillor John Thain	Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Greg Davies	Councillor Maurice Girotto
Councillor Prue Car MP	Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Karen McKeown

Councillor John Thain left the meeting, the time being 9:50pm.

8 2015-16 Borrowing Program

77 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2015-16 Borrowing Program be received.

2. Council borrow the $7,925,000.

3. The General Manager be given delegated authority to negotiate the loans in accordance with this resolution.

4. The Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to those documents that are necessary to finalise these borrowings.

5. The final terms and conditions of the borrowings be reported to Council upon completion of the contracts.

10 Council Property - Extinguishment of an Easement for Stormwater Drainage - 18-30 Vallance Street St Marys being Lot 66 DP 31909.

78 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - Extinguishment of an Easement for Stormwater Drainage - 18-30 Vallance Street St Marys being Lot 66 DP 31909. be received.

2. Council resolve to extinguish the existing drainage easement burdening 18-30 Vallance Street St Marys being Lot 66 DP 31909, pending the creation of the new easement.

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

11 Appointment of a new Property Development Advisory Panel member

79 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Appointment of a new Property Development Advisory Panel member be received.

2. The appointment of Angus Dawson to the Property Development Advisory Panel be endorsed.

3. A letter of thanks be sent to Sean O’Toole to acknowledge his contribution as inaugural Chair of the Property Development Advisory Panel.

13 Tender Reference 15/16-13 Provision of a Performance Management System

80 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Tender Reference 15/16-13 Provision of a Performance Management System be received.

2. PageUp People Pty Ltd be accepted as the preferred tenderer for our performance management system for a contract sum of $225,600 ex GST for a period of three years.

14 Transport for NSW - Penrith Station upgrade - Licence of Council Land

81 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Transport for NSW - Penrith Station upgrade - Licence of Council Land be received.

2. A Licence agreement be entered into with Transport for NSW for the use of Council owned land adjacent to Penrith Station, being Lot 3012 DP 1184498 until 30 July 2018, to allow for access to the land to undertake construction works for the upgrade of Penrith Station, for consideration of $1.

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

15 Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 February 2016 to 29 February 2016

82 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period 1 February 2016 to 29 February 2016 be received.

2. The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 February 2016 to 29 February 2016 be noted and accepted.

3. The graphical investment analysis as at 29 February 2016 be noted.

9 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government

Councillor Michelle Tormey left the meeting, the time being 9:51pm.

Councillor Michelle Tormey returned to the meeting, the time being 9:52pm.

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government be received.

2. Council nominate Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown as its voting delegate for the 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government.

3. Council nominate Councillor Tricia Hitchen and any other interested and available Councillors as observers at the 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government.

4. Leave of Absence be granted to all Councillors attending the 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from 19-22 June 2016.

5. A further report be prepared to the next Policy Review Committee or Ordinary Council meeting outlining draft motions to submit to the National General Assembly.

12 Regional Strategic Alliance between Penrith City Council and Blue Mountains City Council

Councillor John Thain returned to the meeting, the time being 9:53pm.

Councillor Tricia Hitchen left the meeting, the time being 9:56pm.

Councillor Tricia Hitchen returned to the meeting, the time being 9:58pm.

Councillor Prue Car MP left the meeting at 9:59pm and did not return.

84 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Regional Strategic Alliance between Penrith City Council and Blue Mountains City Council be received.

2. Council formally enter into a Regional Strategic Alliance with Blue Mountains City Council in accordance with the Draft Agreement subject to any minor changes required being made in consultation with the General Manager.

3. Council delegate to the Alliance Board (Committee) the functions required in accordance with the Draft Agreement

4. Council contribute $142,500 annually towards resourcing the Regional Strategic Alliance as outlined in the report.

5. Council nominate Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown and Deputy Mayor, Ross Fowler OAM to be appointed as the Council’s representatives on the Alliance Board until the next Council election.

6. Council nominate Councillor Greg Davies to be appointed as an alternate representative on the Alliance Board, should a Councillor delegate be unavailable.

7. Council congratulate all staff and members who have been involved in the establishment of the Regional Strategic Alliance with Blue Mountains City Council.

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS and URGENT BUSINESS

Councillor Greg Davies left the meeting, the time being 10:09pm.

UB 1 Commercial Matter

Councillor John Thain requested that a matter be referred to Committee of the Whole as it refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

UB 2 Request for Donation to Our Community Cares Inc

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that an amount of $485 be allocated from North Ward voted works to Our Community Cares Inc to cover the cost of hire of the Harold Corr Hall to hold a High Tea fundraising event on 21 May 2016.

85 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

86 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that an amount of $485 be allocated from North Ward voted works to Our Community Cares Inc to cover the cost of hire of the Harold Corr Hall to hold a High Tea fundraising event on 21 May 2016.

UB 3 Request for Leave of Absence

Councillor Michelle Tormey requested Leave of Absence from 8 April 2016 to 27 April 2016 inclusive.

87 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

88 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jim Aitken OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Michelle Tormey from 8 April 2016 to 27 April 2016 inclusive.

RR 1 Rules for 24 Hour Gyms

Councillor Maurice Girotto requested that his previous request submitted to Council’s Ordinary meeting of 23 March 2015 regarding Rules for 24 Hour Gyms be followed up, with Fitness Australia to be contacted for clarification of rules for the operation of 24 hour gyms.

RR 2 Black Spot Funding works carried out at Parker Street, Werrington

Councillor Maurice Girotto requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate the use of the area between the roadway and barrier as a pedestrian access at Parker Street, Werrington, with a view to providing signs or a separate pathway in this area to ensure safety of pedestrians currently walking along the side of the road.

UB 4 Filling of Land

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that this 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 in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

RR 3 Lawson and Henry Streets, Penrith

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate modifications to the left turn lane at Lawson and Henry Streets, Penrith where vehicles are required to wait for right turn vehicles.

Councillor Maurice Girotto left the meeting, the time being 10:15pm.

RR 4 Overgrown shrubs at Lawson Street and Edwards Place, Penrith

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that the overgrown shrubs at Lawson Street and Edwards Place, Penrith be trimmed.

RR 5 Road surface on The Northern Road, Llandilo

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply concerning the major failure in the road surface on The Northern Road, Llandilo at the south side of the intersection of Ninth Avenue, and heading north.

RR 6 Provision of Water to Properties in Llandilo

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that Council apply to the Federal Government to provide water connection to all properties in Llandilo.

RR 7 Wallacia School - Overgrown Shrubs

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that the overgrown shrubs at Wallacia School be trimmed.

Councillor Maurice Girotto returned to the meeting, the time being 10:17pm.

RR 8 Alignment of Seventh Avenue, Llandilo with Vincent Road, Cranebrook

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested the Local Traffic Committee to investigate aligning Seventh Avenue, Llandilo and Vincent Road, Cranebrook with a view to installing a roundabout at this location.

RR 9 Trimming of Trees on Naturestrip along Nepean Avenue, Penrith

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memo reply concerning the possibility of trimming the trees on the naturestrip along Nepean Avenue, Penrith.

RR 10 Parking of Truck in front of 34 Greenway Drive, South Penrith

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested that Council officers investigate the matter of a truck parked outside 34 Greenway Drive, South Penrith.

RR 11 Representations from Members of Penrith Dance Community

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM requested a memo reply concerning a matter arising between members of the Penrith dance community and the Penrith CBD Corporation regarding equal opportunity in participating in local community events.

UB 5 Request for Donation to Platform Youth Services

Councillor Bernard Bratusa requested that an amount of $2,500 be allocated equally from each Ward’s voted works to Platform Youth Services to match the fundraising conducted at the recent Penrith City Council Social Club Charity Golf Day held at Wallacia Golf Course.

89 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

90 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that an amount of $2,500 be allocated equally from each Ward’s voted works to Platform Youth Services to match the fundraising conducted at the recent Penrith City Council Social Club Charity Golf Day held at Wallacia Golf Course.

RR 12 Woodriff Street, Penrith - Access to K-Mart

Councillor Bernard Bratusa requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate north/south traffic travelling along Woodriff Street, Penrith turning right into K-mart, with the possibility of installing a median strip at this location to prevent right hand turns into K-mart.

RR 13 Possible Relocation Sites for Penrith Swimming Pool

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested a report to Council requesting the suitability of Jamison Park or land near the Whitewater Stadium as possible sites for the relocation of Penrith Swimming Pool, or any other sites considered suitable.

UB 6 Request for Leave of Absence

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown requested Leave of Absence from 11 April 2016 to 15 April 2016 inclusive.

91 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

92 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Leave of Absence be granted to Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown from 11 April 2016 to 15 April 2016 inclusive.

Committee of the Whole

93 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 10:24pm.

1 Presence of the Public

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

Outcome 2

2 North South Rail

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.

3 Queen Street Project

This matter has been referred to Committee of the Whole as it refers to commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed reveal a trade secret and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

4 Filling of Land

This matter 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 in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

The meeting resumed at 10:55pm and the General Manager reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 10:24pm on 21 March 2016, the following being present

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

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 North South Rail

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

CW2 That:

1. The information contained in the report on North South Rail be received.

2. Council endorse participation in the collaborative approach outlined in this report.

3. A further report be presented to Council when the technical information to support Council’s submission study has been finalised.

3 Queen Street Project

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies

CW3 That Council enhance its communication strategy for residents and businesses in relation to the Queen Street Project.

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

94 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW, CW2 and CW3 be adopted.

UB 7 Donation to Red Shield Appeal

Councillor Greg Davies requested that an amount of $1,500 ($500 per Ward) be allocated from voted works to the Red Shield Appeal for Penrith and that the donation be presented at the launch of the Appeal.

95 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor John Thain that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, ruled that the matter was urgent and should be dealt with at the meeting.

96 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor John Thain that an amount of $1,500 ($500 per Ward) be allocated from voted works to the Red Shield Appeal for Penrith and that the donation be presented at the launch of the Appeal.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10:58pm.

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 4 April, 2016

PRESENT

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown, Councillor Marcus Cornish, Councillor Tricia Hitchen, Mark Elliott – St Marys LAC, Matthew Shirvington – Penrith LAC, Steve Grady – Busways, Jessica Neale – representative on behalf of Tanya Davies MP, Wayne Mitchell (Chair) – Executive Manager Environment and City Development, Adam Wilkinson – Engineering Services Manager, David Drozd – Traffic Engineering Co-ordinator, Graham Green – Senior Traffic Engineer, Daniel Davidson - Senior Traffic Engineer, Ruth Byrnes – Senior Traffic Officer, Caitlin Bailey – Trainee Engineer, Bernie Meier – Signs and Line Marking Officer.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Mark Davies for the period 21 March 2016 to 11 April 2016 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

James Suprain – Roads and Maritime Services, Catherine Waerner - Road Safety Officer.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 March 2016

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 7 March 2016 were confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown and Matthew Shirvington of Penrith LAC arrived at the meeting, the time being 9:05 am.

1 Jordan Springs, Village 6A & 6B - Endorsement of Signage and Line Marking Plans

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Jordan Springs, Village 6A & 6B - Endorsement of Signage and Line Marking Plans be received

2. The signage and line marking plans prepared by J. Wyndham Prince for Jordan Springs, Village 6A & 6B (Plan No. 934310/CC50, Issue E, dated 16 February 2016, Plan No. 934310/CC51, Issue E, dated 16 February 2016, Plan No. 934310/CC52, Issue E, dated 16 February 2016, Plan No. 934310/CC53, Issue E, dated 16 February 2016) be endorsed for construction (as shown in Appendices 1, 2, 3 & 4).

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

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

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

2 Henry Lawson Avenue at Lockyer Avenue, Werrington County - Proposed Give Way Treatment and Double Barrier Line Marking

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Henry Lawson Avenue at Lockyer Avenue, Werrington County - Proposed Give Way Treatment and Double Barrier Line Marking be received

2. A ‘Give Way’ sign and holding lines, and 10m of double barrier line marking on approach to the intersection be installed at the eastern most intersection of Henry Lawson Avenue and Lockyer Avenue, Werrington County, as shown in Appendix 1.

3. The resident who reported the matter, and the residents adjacent to the intersection be informed.

3 Omeo Street, St Clair - Results of Resident Consultation on Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Omeo Street, St Clair - Results of Resident Consultation on Proposed 'No Parking' Restrictions be received.

2. Resident concerns be noted and part-time “No Parking (5pm Thurs – 5pm Fri)” be installed in the turning bay, at the southern end of Omeo Street, St Clair as shown on Appendix 1.

3. Affected residents be advised of Council’s resolution

4 Seventh Avenue, Llandilo - Proposed 'No Stopping' Zone

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Seventh Avenue, Llandilo - Proposed 'No Stopping' Zone be received

2. A 14 metre ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed from the existing Bus Zone to the east of the school driveway to a point 5 metres west of the driveway of Llandilo Public School on Seventh Avenue, as shown on Appendix 1.

3. Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM and the Principal of Llandilo Public School be informed.

5 Links Road, St Marys - Provision of Lane Lines and Pavement Arrow Marking

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Links Road, St Marys - Provision of Lane Lines and Pavement Arrow Marking be received

2. Lane line marking and pavement arrow markings be installed on Links Road between Dunheved Circuit and Forrester Road, St Marys, as shown on Appendix 1.

3. Parking be investigated along the full length of Links Road with a view to implementing parking restrictions on one side due to heavy truck movements with findings referred back to the Local Traffic Committee.

6 Mullins Road, Penrith - Proposed 'No Parking' Restriction and Double Barrier Centre Line Marking

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Mullins Road, Penrith - Proposed 'No Parking' Restriction and Double Barrier Centre Line Marking be received

2. Consultation be undertaken with the Heartland Holden Dealership regarding the proposed ‘No Parking 6am-9am Mon-Fri’ restrictions on Mullins Road, Penrith. In addition, requesting their consideration of operational/opening times in the morning peak.

3. Subject to no substantial objections being received, ‘No Parking 6am-9am Mon-Fri’ restrictions and double barrier line marking be installed, as shown in Appendices 1 & 2.

4. Mr Steve Grady of Busways, and businesses adjacent to the works, be advised of Council’s resolution.

5. A review of the ‘No Parking 6am-9am Mon-Fri’ be conducted after six months and if it proves to be ineffective, the matter to be referred back to the next available Local Traffic Committee to consider ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

7 Joseph Street, Kingswood - Changes to 'No Stopping' Signs

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Joseph Street, Kingswood - Changes to 'No Stopping' signs be received

2. The ‘No Stopping 8.00am – 9.30am 2.30pm – 4.00pm School Days’ zones at the midblock combined pedestrian and children’s crossing on Joseph Street be removed and replaced with permanent ‘No Stopping’ zone signs as shown on Appendix 1.

3. Adjoining residents and the Principal of St Joseph’s Primary School be informed.

4. A street lighting assessment be conducted in accordance with Council’s Public Domain Lighting Policy (August 2004) to ensure compliance with the relevant lighting category exists at the midblock pedestrian crossing on Joseph Street.

GENERAL BUSINESS

GB 1 Melville Road & Moore Street, St Clair - Endorsement of Design Plan AM184

Daniel Davidson presented the Committee with the Design Plan AM184 for two pedestrian refuge facilities and a Median Island Stop Treatment at the intersection of Melville Road, seeking endorsement for construction.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. Consultation be undertaken with affected residents, with any substantial objections to be referred back to Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

2. Subject to no substantial objections, Council’s Design Plan AM184 be finalised and endorsed for construction, with funding provided from 2015/16 Council Traffic Facilities Budgets.

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

GB 2 Reserve Street, Penrith – Endorsement of Design Plan AR165

Daniel Davidson presented the Committee with the Design Plan AR165 for a pedestrian refuge facility in Reserve Street, Penrith, seeking endorsement for construction.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1. Consultation be undertaken with affected property owners, with any substantial objections to be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

2. Subject to no substantial objections, Council’s Design Plan AR165 be finalised and endorsed for construction, with finding provided via 50/50 grant funding from Roads & Maritime Services’ 2015-2016 Active Transport Program.

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

4. Tactile Surface Markings are to be installed at the facility.

5. An additional ‘No Stopping’ sign be installed between the Nepean Village driveway and pedestrian refuge facility.

GB 3 Chameleon Drive, Erskine Park - Speeding Concerns

Councillor Tricia Hitchen advised the Committee of speeding concerns received from residents in Chameleon Drive, Erskine Park.

RECOMMENDED

That Traffic Engineers investigate speeding concerns along Chameleon Drive, Erskine Park and undertake traffic counts and appropriate investigations.

GB 4 Old Bathurst Road and Wedmore Road, Emu Heights – Safety Concerns Raised

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown advised the Committee of pedestrian safety concerns regarding pavement failure and a metal object protruding from the road at the signalised intersection of Old Bathurst Road and Wedmore Road, Emu Heights .

RECOMMENDED

That Traffic Engineers investigate the metal trip hazard protruding from the road at the intersection crossing of Old Bathurst Road and Wedmore Road, Emu Heights and advise the RMS accordingly.

GB 5 “Head of the River” Feedback

Steve Grady of Busways, conveyed thanks to the Committee for their assistance in the effective organisation of the “Head of the River” event at Sydney International Regatta Centre on the 12 March 2016 and informed the Committee that the event went well. This event coincided with the Penrith Festival and a local football game, and all traffic management ran smoothly.

RECOMMENDED

That Council note the information.

GB 6 Upgrade of ‘Bus Stop’ Signs in the Penrith LGA

Steve Grady of Busways advised the Committee that Blue Mountains Bus Company has been taken over by Comfort Delgro Cabcharge (CDC) and are upgrading ‘Bus Stop’ signs in the Penrith LGA

RECOMMENDED

That Council note the information.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 10:15am.

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 4 April, 2016 be adopted.

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

Development Application DA15/0636 for Demolition of Existing Structures & Construction of Six (6) Storey Residential Flat Building containing 39 Apartments & Basement Car Parking at Lots 103-104 DP 14333 (Nos 12-14) Fulton Street, Penrith Applicant: Morson Group Pty Ltd; Owner: Melissa Wise & Arioke Degei

Compiled by: Jonathon Wood, Consultant Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Anthony Price, Acting Development and Environmental Health Manager

Requested By: Councillor Mark Davies

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate quality development that encourages a range of housing types, employment, recreation and lifestyle opportunities
Service Activity	Delivery timely assessment, regulation and certification of development and building work in accordance with statutory requirements

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

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a development application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six (6) storey residential flat building containing 39 apartments and basement car parking at Lots 103-104 DP 14333, 12-14 Fulton Street, Penrith.

The development site is zoned R4 High Density Residential under the provisions of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. Residential flat buildings are permitted with consent in the R4 zone.

The development proposal was placed on public exhibition and a total of eight (8) submissions were received regarding the proposal. Concerns raised in the submissions related to traffic, parking, pedestrian safety, heritage impacts, setbacks to adjoining properties and impacts on local services. These matters are considered and addressed in this report.

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory. The proposed development is unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. The site is suitable for the proposed development and the proposal is in the public interest.

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to recommended conditions of consent.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the corner of Fulton Street and Fulton Lane, Penrith and is directly opposite the cemetery associated with St Stephens Church. The site is legally described as Lots 103-104 DP 14333. The site is known as 12-14 Fulton Street, Penrith. A locality plan is provided at Attachment No. 1.

The site has a frontage of 26.38m to Fulton Street and a frontage of 48.8m to Fulton Lane with a total site area of 1450m². The site currently contains two (2) single storey buildings including a dwelling house and a boarding house which contains 4 boarding rooms. The site also contains some existing vegetation including a small jacaranda, camphor laurel and two silky oaks.

The locality has a mixed character with development immediately adjacent to the site containing single storey buildings. The St Stephens Church cemetery is located to the west and the St Stephens Church is located to the north. Penrith Public School is located approximately 150m to the east of the site on Doonmore Street.

The existing character and context of the locality is expected to undergo a significant transition having regard to the recent gazettal of Amendment No. 4 to Penrith LEP 2010 which up-zoned the majority of the locality to R4 High Density Residential. This zone permits a maximum building height of 18m which is approximately six (6) storeys.

The Proposed Development

The proposed development includes the following aspects:

· Six (6) storey residential flat building containing 39 apartments including 2 x 1 bedroom units, 36 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom unit.

· Two (2) levels of basement car parking accessed from a two way driveway at the south-western corner of the site. The basement levels contain a total of 52 parking spaces including 42 resident parking spaces, 8 visitor parking spaces, 1 car wash bay and 1 service bay.

· Waste bins located within the basement will be wheeled to Fulton Lane for collection, noting that a 1.7m wide layback/loading bay is proposed to enable a waste truck to partly pull into this area to collect waste bins.

· Fulton Lane is to be altered to accommodate one way traffic movements (from north to south) due to the limited width of the laneway and to avoid traffic conflicts.

Copies of the architectural and landscape plans for the proposal are provided at Attachment No. 2.

Planning Assessment

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

1. Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions of Any Environmental Planning Instrument

Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010

Permissibility

The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposed development is defined as a “residential flat building” which is permissible with consent in the R4 zone. A zoning plan is provided at Attachment No. 3.

LEP and Zones Objectives

The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of both the LEP and the R4 zone, which are specified as:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

· To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

· To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

· To encourage the provision of affordable housing.

· To ensure that development reflects the desired future character and dwelling densities of the area.

This proposal’s consistency with the R4 zone objectives is based on the following:

· The proposal provides for a high density residential flat building development which provides a variety of unit types to meet the housing needs of the community.

· The proposal achieves a high level of residential amenity which is demonstrated through consistency with key planning controls and the provisions of the NSW Apartment Design Guide.

· The site is well located relative to existing infrastructure and services as well as public transport which encourages public transport patronage as well as walking and cycling.

· The proposal provides for an expansion of housing choice and provision of more affordable forms of housing in the locality as compared to existing residential dwellings.

· The proposal reflects the desired future character and dwelling densities of the area given the prevailing R4 zoning and the 18m height limit and consistency with planning controls applying to residential flat building development.

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 relates to building heights and states the following:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

(b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development and to public areas, including parks, streets and lanes,

(c) to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

(d) to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity.

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

The Height of Buildings Map identifies a maximum height of 18m as applying to the site. The proposal complies with the 18m height limit with the exception of the lift core overrun and part of the associated roof form which equates to 6% of the total area of the upper level of the building (i.e. 94% of the roof area of the building complies with the height limit). The height departure equates to 6.5% of the maximum height control.

Clause 4.6 - Variations to Development Standards

The applicant has prepared a Clause 4.6 variation request in relation to the maximum building height standard. Consideration of the relevant matters contained in Clause 4.6 is provided below.

Clause 4.6(2) of the LEP provides that development consent may be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard. However, Clause 4.6(3) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 (a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstance of the case, and  

(b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.  

In accordance with Clause 4.6(3), the applicant has requested that the height of buildings development standard be varied. The applicant has put forward the following key points in relation to demonstrating that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and on the basis on which there are sufficient environmental planning grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development (as per Four 2 Five Pty Ltd v. Ashfied Council) to justify contravening the development standard:

• The variation sought as part of this development application does not increase the bulk and scale of the proposal overall as the development is suitable in the context of the area and the resultant design and amenity outcomes.

• The proposal provides for deep soil zones that exceed the minimum requirements.

• The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone and the height of building clause as it contributes to the provisions of housing and for housing in locations in close proximity to services and facilities.

The environmental planning grounds put forward are concurred with, noting that the height departure also does not increase overshadowing or privacy impacts. It is considered that as per the Clause 4.6 variation request that compliance with the building height control is unreasonable and unnecessary and the written request satisfies Clause 4.6(3). The proposal is in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the height control and the objectives of the R4 zone.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to improve the design quality of apartment development. The SEPP contains nine design quality principles which form the basis for achieving good design and provide a guide for evaluating the merits of development proposals. The accompanying Apartment Design Guide (ADG) provides additional detail for applying the design quality principles contained in SEPP 65.

The proposal satisfies the requirements of SEPP 65 and meets the objectives of the ADG. A detailed assessment against the SEPP 65 and ADG provisions is provided at Attachment No. 4.

The development application has been accompanied by a design verification statement prepared by Peter Morson (registered architect) verifying that he has directed and designed the proposal and that the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of the SEPP have been achieved for the development and that it meets the objectives of Part 3 and Part 4 of the ADG.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury/Nepean River Catchment

SREP 20 aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context. Of most relevance to the proposal is the requirement to assess the development in terms of the impact of the development on water quality, particularly as that relates to the water cycle or on flora or fauna.

It is proposed to discharge stormwater from the development to the existing stormwater system in Fulton Lane. Subject to appropriate conditions relating to stormwater control and sediment and erosion control during construction, the proposal will be consistent with the SREP 20 requirements, particularly in relation to total catchment management and water quality.

Council’s Senior Water Management Officer has confirmed the proposal is consistent with Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy in terms of the WSUD measures proposed.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) aims to provide a framework for the assessment, management and remediation of contaminated land throughout the state. Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 prevents Council from consenting to a development unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

The site has been historically used for residential purposes and there is no evidence to suggest that the land has previously supported any activities which may have resulted in land contamination. This information is sufficient to conclude that a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation is not warranted. Accordingly the provisions of SEPP 55 have been satisfied.

2. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – The Provisions of Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

There are no draft environmental planning instruments applying to the site.

3. Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – The Provisions of Any Development Control Plan

Penrith Development Control Plan 2014

C3 - Water Management

The application has been accompanied by a Soil and Water Management Plan and associated stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design measures which will ensure appropriate stormwater management measures are implemented. Council’s Senior Water Management Officer has reviewed the proposal and found that the proposal is satisfactory and provides for appropriate Water Sensitive Urban Design measures.

C5 - Waste Management

A suitable waste management plan has been submitted with the application and the proposal incorporates the following waste management measures:

· Individual chute systems including a chute for garbage and a chute for recycling.

· Bulky storage area in the north-eastern corner of the site.

· Holding area on collection day at the ground floor level which is to be serviced by Council’s waste vehicles via an indented loading bay on Fulton Lane.

The preceding waste management measures are appropriate and have been supported by Council’s Waste Officer.

C10 - Transport, Access and Parking

The proposal requires the following levels of on-site car parking:

*Land Use Element*	*Rate*	*Required*	*Provided*
Resident	1/2 bed: 1 space 3 bed: 2 spaces	38 x 1 bed/2 bed = 38 1 x 3 bed = 2 Resident = 40	42
Visitor	1 per 5 units	39/5 = 7.8 (8)	8
*Total*		47.8 (48)	50

The proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements noting that an additional car wash bay and loading bay is proposed within the basement.

Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied with the proposed access, parking and traffic related aspects of the proposal subject to recommended conditions of consent.

D2.5 - Residential Flat Buildings

The proposal has been assessed against this section of the DCP and found to be satisfactory, with the key DCP requirements listed in the table below.

*Requirement*	*Proposal*	*Complies*
Minimum Frontage: 20m	The proposal has a 26.38m frontage to Fulton Street and a 48.8m frontage to Fulton Lane.	Yes
Landscaped Area: 35%	Based on the broad DCP definition (which includes courtyards at ground floor) the proposal has a total landscaped area which exceeds 35%.	Yes
Front Setback: 5.5m Primary (Fulton Street) 3m- 5.5m (Fulton Lane)	The proposal has a 5.5m setback to the external walls of the building and balconies which encroach by up to 1m which complies with the DCP which enables balconies to have a front setback of 4.5m. The proposal has a 3m setback to the building which aligns with the minimum required. However the DCP only permits an encroachment for 5m of the building line and the proposal adopts the reduced setback along 35m of the Fulton Lane frontage at the lower levels that then steps back to 5.5m at the upper levels. The departure has been sought in order to maximise streetscape presentation and to respond to comments by Council’s Urban Design Review Panel which encouraged a minor departure to the control given the site context.	Yes Variation supported by Council’s Urban Design Review Panel.
Rear Setback: 6m	Minimum 6m-9m.	Yes
Solar Planning: 4 hours solar access to 70% of units	2 hours solar access will be provided to 79.5% of dwellings which complies with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) noting that the ADG prevails over Council’s DCP pursuant to Clause 6A of SEPP 65.	Apartment Design Guide prevails.
Private Open Space: 20m²at ground floor; 10m²on balcony	The proposal is designed to comply with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) noting that the ADG prevails over Council’s DCP pursuant to Clause 6A of SEPP 65.	Apartment Design Guide prevails.
10% Adaptable Dwellings = 4	Four adaptable dwellings provided.	Yes

4. Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Provisions of the Regulations

Subject to the imposition of conditions of consent, Council’s Building Surveyor has raised no objection to the proposed development regarding fire safety considerations as prescribed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

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

Urban Design

The proposal has undergone a number of design revisions to a point where the building presents a suitable urban design outcome on the site when having regard to the site context. The building adopts a defined middle, base and top and the streetscape interface has been improved relative to both street frontages with appropriate terracing and landscape plantings provided.

As addressed previously, the height departure is considered to have merit given that it is limited to the lift overrun and does not increase overshadowing to adjoining properties.

Overshadowing

The proposed development will generate overshadowing to the adjoining properties to the south and east given the building height and density of development. The proposal impacts on the adjoining properties to the east between 1pm and 3pm and the property to the south between 9am and 3pm. The property to the south is a doctor’s surgery and therefore the overshadowing falls largely on a storage building and car park.

Given the high density nature of the site and the high density zoning applying to the site to the south, it is considered that the proposal provides for sufficient solar access to the adjoining properties and the proposal satisfies the planning principle in Parsonage v. Ku‑ring‑gai [2004] NSWLEC 347 which outlined:

· The ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low densities, there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its open space will retain its existing sunlight. (However, even at low densities there are sites and buildings that are highly vulnerable to being overshadowed.) At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect and the claim to retain it is not as strong.

· The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

· Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

· In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

Therefore the expectation of maintaining solar access in a high density environment is substantially different to a lower density environment. Further, given the maximum permitted building heights and setbacks associated with the R4 zone, retention of solar access to existing dwellings is not achievable.

The final point of the planning principle is considered of key importance in this situation as the likely future built forms to the south are anticipated to accommodate residential flat buildings of up to 6 storeys with comparable setbacks and building forms.

Future developments to the east and south remain capable of achieving the required 70% of dwellings having 2 hours solar access at mid-winter given allotment orientation so long as care is taken in the design of the adjoining developments.

As the proposal complies with the setback controls and height controls, the level of overshadowing impact is reasonable particularly when considering that adjoining re‑developments could achieve the level of sunlight required under the Apartment Design Guide. After taking into account the impact of the proposal development, the extent of overshadowing is considered acceptable.

Stormwater Management

The proposal was accompanied by a detailed stormwater plan with associated on-site stormwater detention and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) elements. These aspects were reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and Waterways Officer and found to comply with Council’s requirements.

Accessibility

The proposal provides equitable access for people with disabilities so as to comply with the accessibility requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard 1428 and the primary objectives of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. There are a total of 4 accessible dwellings which complies with the DCP and the Access Report submitted with the application indicates compliance with the requirements of the BCA and AS 1428.

Access, Parking and Traffic

The proposal is expected to create a net traffic increase of 10 vehicle trips per hour and the submitted traffic report outlines that the additional traffic will “not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”’. In addition, the proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements contained within Council’s DCP.

Council’s Traffic Engineer and Development Engineer are satisfied with the proposed access, parking and traffic related aspects of the proposal. It is proposed that Fulton Lane be converted to one way movements (from north to south) and this is appropriate to mitigate traffic conflicts given the laneway is not of a sufficient width to enable two vehicles pass one another.

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposal represents a significant development within the locality and will generate substantial economic benefits to the locality and broader Penrith area. The proposal will also increase housing supply in proximity to the Penrith City Centre and local services. This aligns with Council’s vision for the area. The social and economic impacts of the proposal are therefore assessed as being satisfactory.

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

The site attributes are conducive to the proposed development. The proposal has addressed site constraints, most notably the interface with the laneway, waste collection and the relationship to adjoining properties including the cemetery.

The subject site is deemed suitable for the development for the following reasons:

· The use is permissible with consent and is consistent with the zone objectives.

· The use is compatible with surrounding development when considering the prevailing R4 zoning and 18m height limit applying in the immediate locality.

· Stormwater from the site is able to drain to Council’s satisfaction.

· The site is adequately serviced by transport, water and sewer infrastructure which has the capacity to cope with any increase in demand associated with the proposed development.

· The proposal aligns with the desired future character of the locality.

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

Community Consultation

In accordance with Penrith Development Control Plan 2014, the proposed development was advertised in the local newspaper and notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and occupiers from 13 July to 27 July 2015. Council received a total of eight (8) submissions regarding the proposal.

The issues of concern raised in the public submissions are summarised and addressed below.

Basement Setbacks & Potential Damage to Adjoining Properties

The development complies with the required building and basement setbacks. The developer will be responsible for ensuring the structural stability of the building and ensuring that anchoring or piers/piles used for the basement do not impact on adjoining properties and meet requirements under the National Construction Code and relevant Australian Standards. A dilapidation report will be required in relation to adjoining properties prior to construction commencing and a subsequent report on completion of the development will be required including the need for any rectification works if any damage has occurred.

Shadow Diagrams

The proposed development does partly overshadow adjoining properties however the extent of overshadowing is satisfactory for reasons discussed previously in this report. It is also noted that surrounding properties are likely to be re-developed for a comparable residential flat building form and the overshadowing would not compromise re-development for that purpose in terms of overshadowing. Therefore the overshadowing impact from the proposal is considered satisfactory.

Traffic Matters

The development proposal has been considered in terms of traffic and parking matters, with Fulton Lane to be changed to a one way street running north to south (i.e. vehicular movements running one way down the lane and connecting to Lethbridge Street). This has been assessed in terms of traffic impacts and found to be the most appropriate outcome. The turning movements into and out of the basement given the one way movements will comply with relevant Australian Standards.

The proposal will generate additional traffic given the density of the development proposed. The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer and found to have an acceptable level of traffic impact on the surrounding road network and therefore the extent of impact is considered acceptable.

There is potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in the street however the proposal will provide for a footpath in front of the development along its frontage to Fulton Street and Fulton Lane. Over time and through re-development of nearby properties, this footpath network will be continued which will improve movement for pedestrians.

The zoning of the immediate locality means that re-development will occur over time. As each development occurs, traffic impact will be considered on its merits and in the context of previously approved developments.

There is no intention to widen the road network however developers will be required to provide for footpaths in front of developments as well as pedestrian crossings/ramps if the development is deemed to require this to ensure pedestrian safety.

Car Parking and Unauthorised Parking on Nearby Properties

The on-site parking proposed by the development meets the requirements of Penrith DCP 2014 and the extent of on-site parking is satisfactory. Parking in front of vehicle entries and/or on the nearby church grounds would be either a breach of parking rules (parking across a driveway cross-over is not permitted) or trespass and should any unauthorised vehicles park on the church grounds or block driveways, property owners would be able to contact Council’s Rangers who would investigate the matter further.

It is considered unreasonable to require the developer to place boom gates and fencing on the church property located opposite the site to prevent vehicles entering the site.

The construction hours of the development will be required to comply EPA guidelines, being 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. Any breaches would be policed by Council’s Rangers and/or Compliance Officers.

Heritage Matters

The development proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor to consider the impacts on the heritage significance of the adjacent cemetery and St Stephens Church. This assessment has confirmed that there will be no significant impact on the heritage significance of the cemetery and St Stephens Church and that the development is acceptable from a heritage perspective.

Damage by construction vehicles to adjacent properties is a potential issue however a Traffic Construction Management Plan will be required in order to provide clarity on construction vehicle movements and consideration of damage to nearby properties.

Setbacks to Adjoining Properties

The development proposal provides for some minor encroachments into the building separation controls applying to the development. The external side (eastern) wall of the building complies with the 6m separation for the first 4 stories and 9m separation for the upper levels which is consistent with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). There are balcony encroachments at the north-eastern corner of the site which result in a non‑compliance with the ADG. Further, there are minor variations to the balcony separations at the fifth and sixth storeys however privacy screens will need to be provided to achieve appropriate privacy for adjoining properties. Therefore the minor building separation encroachments have been found to be satisfactory in terms of building separation and visual privacy.

Demand on Existing Power and Water Services

The development will require a padmount substation and will require certification from both Sydney Water and Endeavour Energy to confirm that there is sufficient capacity for power and water and where required the developer will need to provide system upgrades.

Drainage

The development will include new drainage lines to connect to the street network in Fulton Street and Fulton Lane which is considered to be satisfactory.

Noise Impacts

The development will be required to comply with EPA guidelines in relation to construction noise and hours of work. There will be a period of increased noise during construction however this is unavoidable.

Impacts on Continued Operation of Church Bells from St Stephens Church

The ringing of church bells and the like can continue unaffected by the current development proposal.

Access to Penrith Public School and Pedestrian Conflicts

It is intended that Fulton Lane will be modified to only allow one way movement from north to south, being from Fulton Street to Lethbridge Street. This will resolve traffic conflicts and potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. This will mean that vehicles travelling west down Fulton Street can then continue down the one way lane and connect to Lethbridge Street which is considered appropriate from a traffic perspective.

The development proposal meets the on-site parking requirements under Penrith DCP 2014 and will not unreasonably impact on the availability of on-street parking in Fulton Street.

Safety of School Students and Request to Upgrade Crossing to Penrith Public School in Doonmore Street

There is the potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in the street however the proposal will provide for a footpath in front of the development along its frontage to Fulton Street and Fulton Lane. Over time and through re-development of nearby allotments, this footpath network will be continued which will improve movement for pedestrians. There is no intention to widen the road network however developers will be required to provide for footpaths in front of developments as well as pedestrian crossings/ramps if the development is deemed to require this to ensure pedestrian safety.

The zoning of the immediate locality means that re-development will occur over time. As each development occurs the traffic impact will be considered on its merits and in the context of previously approved developments. Should an upgrade of the crossing in Doonmore Street be considered necessary as part of the assessment of development proposals in the area, then this will occur however the current proposal is not considered to require an upgrade of the pedestrian crossing in Doonmore Street.

Construction Phase Disruptions

There will be a temporary increase in the attendance of construction vehicles during the construction process. A Traffic Construction Management Plan will be required in order to provide clarity on construction vehicle movements and consideration of impacts on surrounding properties and school operations. This plan will be required to be submitted to Council for consideration and approval and an assessment of the management measures proposed will be carried out by Council staff. In terms of pedestrian safety during construction, site fencing and appropriate hoardings will be provided to ensure pedestrian safety.

Internal and External Referrals

The application was referred to the following stakeholders and their comments have formed part of the assessment:

*Referral Body*	*Comments Received*
Building Surveyor	Supported, subject to conditions.
Environmental Health - Waterways	Supported, subject to conditions.
Community Safety Officer	Supported, subject to conditions.
Waste Management officer	Supported, subject to conditions.
Traffic Engineer	Supported, subject to conditions.
Urban Design Review Panel	Supported.
Heritage Advisor	Supported.
Development Engineer	Supported, subject to conditions.

8. Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

The site is suitable for the proposed development and the proposed development is permissible with consent. The proposal meets the aims and objectives of the relevant environmental planning instruments applying to the development. The proposal is one of the first large scale re-developments in the locality and will provide for a significant boost to housing supply in an area earmarked for high density development. For these reasons, the proposal is in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

The following Section 94 contributions are applicable to the proposed development:

*Contributions Plan*	*Contribution*
Cultural Facilities	$12,877
Penrith City District Open Space Facilities	$133,835
Penrith City Local Open Space	$48,393
*Total Contributions*	*$195,105*

Conclusion

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration contained in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory. The site is suitable for the proposed development and the proposal is in the public interest. The proposal is therefore worthy of Council’s support.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Development Application DA15/0636 for Demolition of Existing Structures & Construction of Six (6) Storey Residential Flat Building containing 39 Apartments & Basement Car Parking at Lots 103-104 DP 14333 (Nos 12-14) Fulton Street, Penrith be received.

2. The variation to the maximum building height standard under Clause 4.6 of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 be supported.

3. Development Application DA15/0636 for Demolition of Existing Structures & Construction of Six (6) Storey Residential Flat Building containing 39 Apartments & Basement Car Parking at Lots 103-104 DP 14333 (Nos 12-14) Fulton Street, Penrith be approved subject to the following conditions of consent:

Standard Conditions

A001 - Approved plans

A008 - Works to BCA requirements

A014 - Lot consolidation

A019 - Occupation Certificate

A038 - Lighting system

A046 - Obtain Construction Certificate before commencement of works

B002 - AS for Demolition and disposal to approved landfill site

B003 - Asbestos

B004 - Dust

B005 - Mud/soil

B006 - Hours of work

D001 - Implement approved erosion and sediment control measures

D007 - Cut and fill limited to footprint

D009 - Covering of waste storage area

D010 - Appropriate disposal of excavated or other waste

E01A - BCA compliance

E009 - Annual fire safety statement

F006 - Rainwater tank and nuisance

G002 - Section 73 Certificate

G004 - Endeavour Energy clearance

G006 - NBN connection

H001 - Stamped plans and erection of site notice

H002 - During construction requirements

H025 - Garbage room requirements

H036 - Rainwater tank construction requirements

H037 - Safe supply of water from rainwater tank catchment area

H038 - Connection of rainwater tank supply

H039 - Rainwater tank pumps

H041 - Hours of work

H042 - Adaptable dwelling certification

K101 - Works at no cost to Council

K201 - Infrastructure bond

K202 - Roads Act works and structures

K203 - Roadworks requiring approval of civil drawings

K209 - Stormwater discharge

K210 - Stormwater management

K211 - Stormwater discharge for basement car parks

K223 - Access, car parking and manoeuvring

K224 - Construction traffic management plan

K225 - Performance bond

K302 - Traffic control plan

K405 - Turf to verge

K501 - Penrith City Council clearance for Roads Act works

K502 - Works as executed plans

K504 - Stormwater compliance

K505 - Restriction as to user and positive covenant (OSD and WSUD)

K515 - Maintenance bond

K601 - Stormwater management system operation and maintenance

L001 - Landscape approved plans

L002 - Landscape construction

L003 - Landscape report requirements

L005 - Planting of plant material

L006 - Landscape AS requirements

L007 - Tree protection measures

L008 - Tree preservation order

N001 - Section 94 contribution: Cultural Facilities ($12,877)

N002 - Section 94 contribution: District Open Space ($133,835)

N003 - Section 94 contribution: Local Open Space ($48,393)

Q01F - Notice of commencement and appointment of PCA

Q006 - Occupation Certificate

Special Conditions

3.1 Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted. The design verification statement shall verify that the Construction Certificate plans and specifications achieve or improve the design quality of the development for which development consent was granted, having regard to the design quality principles set out in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

3.2 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted. The design verification statement shall verify that the development achieves the design quality shown in the approved Construction Certificate plans and specifications, having regard to the design quality principles set out in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

3.3 All mechanical ventilation equipment, ducts, air conditioner services and the like shall be shown on the Construction Certificate documentation as being contained within the building.

3.4 All required boundary fencing and retaining walls shall be constructed at full cost to the applicant/developer. Timber retaining walls are not permitted.

3.5 A minimum of 4 dwellings shall be constructed as adaptable units to meet the requirements for persons with a disability. The Construction Certificate application shall be accompanied by certification from an accredited access consultant confirming that the adaptable dwellings are capable of being modified, when required by the occupant, to comply with the Australian Housing Standard (AS 4299- 2009).

3.6 User/sensor electronic security gates shall be installed at car park entrances/exists, garbage and storage areas, etc or alternative access control measures provided.

3.7 Graffiti resistant coatings shall be used to external surfaces including blank walls, fences and outdoor furniture throughout the development.

3.8 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, in order to facilitate waste collection a “Loading Zone” restriction is to be implemented in front of the indented loading bay on Fulton Lane as shown on the approved site plan. The “Loading Zone” restriction shall apply to at least 14.5m north of the driveway entry to allow for the parking and loading of waste collection vehicles.

This arrangement is to be approved by Council’s Local Traffic Committee prior to implementation and installed at no cost to Council.

3.9 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is to be prepared by a suitably qualified traffic consultant addressing the one way traffic flow in Fulton Lane (north to south). This plan is to be submitted to Council’s Local Traffic Committee and the RMS prior to implementation and installed at no cost to Council.

This information is to be submitted to Council's Local Traffic Committee for approval prior to implementation and installed at no cost to Council.

3.10 The following plan amendments shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans:

(a) The east facing bedroom windows to Unit 408 are to be provided with fixed screens to mitigate privacy impacts.

(b) The eastern balcony edges to Units 401, 402 and 501 are to be revised to provide for external screens with a minimum height of 1.8m to mitigate privacy impacts.

(c) The southern balcony edges to Units 403 and 404 are to be revised to provide for external screens with a minimum height of 1.8m to mitigate privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

3.11 Prior to works commencing on site and prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a dilapidation report is to be prepared that provides a photographic record of the condition of adjoining structures on adjoining properties and associated structures and a photographic record of the state of Council infrastructure, including the local road reserve and adjoining cemetery.

3.12 Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, a dilapidation report is to be prepared that provides a photographic record of the condition of adjoining structures on adjoining properties and associated structures and a photographic record of the state of Council infrastructure, including the local road reserve and adjoining cemetery.

Should damage be identified, rectification works are to be carried out at full cost to the developer and these rectification works are to be completed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

3.13 A public footpath is to be provided along both street frontages and the detailed design shall align with Penrith City Council specifications and be detailed in the Construction Certificate application and approved by Council via a Roads Act application.

3.14 The development is to accommodate 2 x 1,100 litre residual waste bins, 2 x 1,100 litre recycling bins and 2 x 1,100 litre service bins. Provision for these bins is to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans and bins are to be moved to the collection bay in Fulton Lane on collection day by the Building Manager and then returned to the basement after collection.

3.15 Prior to the issue an Occupation Certificate, the property owner or agent acting for the owner shall arrange for the commencement of a domestic waste service with Council. The service is to be arranged no earlier than two days prior to occupancy and no later than two days after occupancy of the development. All requirements of Council’s domestic collection service must be complied with at all times. Please telephone Council on (02) 4732 7615 for the commencement of waste services.

4. The individuals who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Locality Plan	1 Page	Attachments Included
2.	Architectural and Landscape Plans	5 Pages	Attachments Included
3.	Zoning Plan	1 Page	Attachments Included
4.	SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guide Assessment	9 Pages	Attachments Included

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

Reclassification of Public Land in St Marys Town Centre

Compiled by: Abdul Cheema, City Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and character
Service Activity	Maintain a contemporary framework of land use and contribution policies, strategies and statutory plans

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

Executive Summary

In the latter half of 2015, the Gateway process related to the proposed reclassification of certain land in the St Marys Town Centre was undertaken and the outcomes reported to Council. At its Ordinary Meeting of 7 December 2015, Council resolved to defer the reclassification process.

This report presents the results of the public exhibition and public hearing into the Planning Proposal for the reclassification of certain public land in St Marys Town Centre. It identifies and addresses the matters raised in the submissions made in response to the public exhibition, at the hearing, and in the report from the public hearing. These matters include:

· The potential loss of open space

· The potential loss of public car parking

· Economic impacts

· Heat island effects

· How the returns from the sale or development of the land would be used

· The potential loss of historic associations, and

· Probity of Council’s processes.

It is recommended that Council proceed with the reclassification subject to a number of qualifications that respond to the issues raised by the community and the independent chair of the public hearing.

For the assistance of Councillors, a separate enclosure is provided which contains a copy of community submissions (including the petition) received in response to the public exhibition, the report from the public hearing, and a copy of the Planning Proposal that was publicly exhibited.

Background

For many years the community and Council have recognised the potential of the St Marys Town Centre (the Town Centre) to become a more vibrant, vital and sustainable town centre. In 2006, after an extensive engagement exercise with the community about what it wanted for the Town Centre, Council adopted the St Marys Town Centre Strategy 2006 (the Strategy). The Strategy captures the community’s vision and sets actions to create attractive public places, encourage investment, generate jobs, and deliver new infrastructure and homes.

The community consultation identified that the Town Centre could become a more vibrant, attractive and social place if a mix and concentration of different uses and new and improved public spaces were provided.

The Strategy recognises the importance of the contribution that the existing shopping centres (Station Plaza and St Marys Village) make to the viability of the Town Centre both now and potentially into the future. It recommends that they be integrated with Queen Street, recognising that this requires the use of public land, specifically those areas between the existing shopping centres and Queen Street.

In 2007, Council commissioned the St Marys Town Centre Masterplan 2007 (the Masterplan) to show how this could be achieved. It identifies fundamental elements for revitalising the Town Centre, recommending:

· potential locations for a new town square and a new east-west connecting street

· residential development near the train station, and

· the integration of the existing satellite shopping centres with Queen Street.

Attachment 1 provides an extract of the Masterplan identifying these elements.

Since the adoption of the Strategy in 2006 and the development of the Masterplan in 2007, Council has pursued a range of initiatives that have either been completed or are currently underway including:

· zoning the entire Town Centre B4 Mixed Use to permit retail, office, business and residential development

· the Queen Street Streetscape Improvement Plan which will deliver new planting, furniture, lighting and CCTV before the end of 2016

· the Queen Street Special Places Program with recently completed community engagement on the new and improved public spaces the community would like in the Town Centre

· the establishment of a regional recreation facility known as the South Creek Sports Hub.

· the establishment of the St Marys Corner Community and Cultural Precinct as a shared space for cultural activities

· construction of a 2-storey office building in Queen Street

· delivery of a 500 space multi-storey commuter car park

· upgrading the facilities in existing parks

· the review, reconstitution and funding of the St Marys Town Centre Corporation.

The private sector has also recognised the potential for St Marys and we have seen a number of projects approved or proposed including:

· 54 residential apartments under construction in King Street

· 289 residential apartments approved at 12 Carson Lane (the old bowling club and greens)

· a number of mixed use developments providing shops, offices and residential apartments along Queen Street, and

· the development of concepts for Station Plaza and St Marys Village Shopping Centres.

The continued delivery of the outcomes identified in the Strategy is facilitated by refocusing the use of some of the public land in the Town Centre, particularly the land located adjacent to the shopping centres. This land, as identified in Attachment 2 (the Land), currently accommodates public open space (Kokoda and Lang Parks) and public car parking (in Station Street and West Lane). However, the Land is currently classified as Community Land, which limits the ability to sell, lease or develop it.

For Council and the community to proactively consider new opportunities to stimulate and grow the Town Centre in the manner envisaged by the adopted Strategy, reclassification of the Land to Operational Land is required. In light of this consideration, Council formally resolved to commence a process to reclassify the Land on 24 November 2014.

At its meeting of 30 November 2015, the Policy Review Committee considered a report that presented the outcomes of the public exhibition and public hearing into the proposed reclassification of land (26 parcels) in the St Marys Town Centre. Subsequently, at its Ordinary Meeting of 7 December 2015, Council resolved, in part, that:

“1. …

2. Reclassification be deferred until further engagement is undertaken with Mirvac and the community prior to a further report being presented to Council.”

The community has been engaged to date through the public exhibition and public hearing processes required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993. The nature of any further engagement with the community will be determined in response to the directions set by Council in this matter.

The Reclassification Process

The reclassification of public land requires the amendment of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010). The process to do this is the Department of Planning and Environment’s (the Department) Gateway Process. This process requires Council to prepare and publicly exhibit a Planning Proposal, a document that sets out the justification for, and explains the intended effect of, the recommended amendments to LEP 2010. It also requires that an independently chaired public hearing be undertaken in addition to the prescribed community consultation for LEP amendments.

In keeping with Council’s resolution, a Planning Proposal was prepared and submitted to the Department for the reclassification of the Land. On 10 June 2015, the Department issued a Gateway Determination which authorises public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, sets out the requirements for agency and public consultation, and the finalisation of the process.

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited between 24 August and 21 September 2015 (28 days). The exhibition of the Planning Proposal was supported by a number of documents, including a 2013 Retail Impact Assessment and Net Community Benefit Test and a 2015 Draft Concept Plan (the draft Concept Plan). The draft Concept Plan was prepared to explore approaches to integrating future retail and commercial development on the Land with Queen Street and delivering the new town square and new east-west connections as identified in the Masterplan. Illustrative plans from the draft Concept Plan are provided at Attachment 4.

A drop-in community information session was also held on the evening of 10 September 2015 and was attended by approximately 30 people.

Council received 32 submissions in response to the public exhibition. These consisted of 31 written submissions (17 of which were form letters) and a petition with around 600 signatures. One of the submissions supported the proposed reclassification, three stated conditional support, whilst the remainder (27) and the petition objected to the proposed reclassification raising the following matters:

· The potential loss of open space

· The potential loss of public car parking

· Economic impacts

· Heat island effects

· How the returns from the sale or development of the Land would be used

· The potential loss of historic associations, and

· Probity of Council’s processes.

A copy of each of the submissions, including the petition, is provided in the separate enclosure for the information of Councillors. The issues of the potential loss of open space and public car parking generated the most concern, accounting for 72% of the issues raised in submissions.

Council also received a submission from the NSW Department of Industry – Resources and Energy. This submission did not raise any issues with the Planning Proposal.

An independently chaired public hearing was held on 21 October 2015 and was attended by 35 people. Five (5) people addressed the hearing. The concerns raised were substantially the same as those raised in submissions to the public exhibition. A copy of the Public Hearing Report is provided in the separate enclosure for the information of Councillors. In addition to the community issues, the independent chair raised 8 other points for Council’s consideration.

Community Issues

1. Changes to Open Space

The submissions highlight the importance of maintaining sufficient open space for both current and future residents, particularly in the Town Centre where continued residential growth is anticipated.

The assessment of open space and recreational needs is complex. It needs to consider the specific needs of the current and future community, the amount (or quantum) of open space required, the location, availability, accessibility, type and quality of the open space. An assessment of open space needs must also recognise that people will travel to different facilities depending on their ability, needs or desired activities. For example, people may be prepared to travel further to open space facilities for regular organised sports than they might to simply relax or walk or allow children to play.

Similarly, open space provided within highly urbanised centres needs to be sized, designed and managed to satisfy a wider range of uses and user groups than do open space areas in less densely settled areas and suburbs. Open spaces in urban centres also play an important role in the way they relate to adjoining land uses. Properly designed, urban parks can activate centres, connect places of activity, assist in cooling and providing weather protection, and provide a setting for a wide range of community, cultural and recreational engagements.

The suburb of St Marys (including the Town Centre) is well serviced with approximately 107 hectares of green open space across all normal recreational categories including active district parks, local parks, pocket parks, natural areas and linear drainage reserves. 55 hectares of this is categorised as local open space and includes Kokoda and Lang Parks. In recent years, Council has invested in significant upgrades of local parks, Ripples Aquatic Centre and Coachmans Park. Council is also finalising designs for a multi-million dollar upgrade of the Kingsway and South Creek Park to provide a major recreation facility for regional, district and local organised sport as well as casual and passive recreation. A plan showing the location of the open space areas serving St Marys is provided at Attachment 3.

The population of the suburb of St Marys is currently estimated to be 12,697 and is forecast to grow to 17,833 (an increase of 5,136). The historical standard applied to general open space provision in New South Wales is 2.83 hectares per 1,000 people. This standard is generally significantly lower in highly urbanised settings and centres. For example, Penrith City Centre is planned to accommodate open space at a rate of 1.64 hectares per 1,000 people. The provision of local open space in St Marys (55 hectares) equates to 4.33 hectares of local open space per 1,000 people now and 3.08 hectares per 1,000 people in 2036.

23 hectares of local and pocket parks, including Astley Park, Bennett Park, Jack Jewry Reserve, Ross Place and Victoria Park are within a 10 minute walk of the Town Centre. A little further afield (10-15 minute walk) are the district spaces provided in the South Creek Corridor as well as the Ripples Aquatic Centre. The Town Centre itself contains 22,200m² of open space, with 20,800m² of green space provided by Lang and Kokoda Parks and 1,400m² of urban space in Coachmans Park. The 2013 Net Community Benefit Test established that Kokoda and Lang Parks are currently underutilised.

Should Kokoda and Lang Parks be reclassified and ultimately included in a redevelopment proposition, this is not intended to result in the loss of the total area of those parks for open space/recreation purposes. The draft Concept Plan was prepared to illustrate how future development on the Land could occur in a manner that:

· Integrates effectively with Queen Street

· Delivers an enhanced town square and east west connecting street in more practical locations than those anticipated by the Masterplan, and

· Replaces some of the current open space in a more useable configuration.

Attachment 4 presents two plans illustrating the draft Concept Plan approach and Attachment 5 compares the current open space in Lang and Kokoda Parks with a future open space configuration in more detail. The implementation of the draft Concept Plan would create a net useable open space of approximately 14,000m², limiting the loss of current open space in the Town Centre to approximately 8,000m² (36%). The amount of local open space within a 10 minute walk is reduced by 3.5%, whilst the amount of local open space in the suburb of St Marys is reduced by 1.45%.

The reconfigured open space would equate to 4.26 hectares of local open space per 1,000 people now and 3.03 hectares per 1,000 people in 2036. This represents a reduction in the current provision of 0.07 and 0.05 hectares per 1,000 people respectively. The comparison of this provision against contemporary benchmarks, both those adopted by Council or set by the Department, demonstrates a sufficient supply of local open space to service both current and future populations. The overall provision of open space in the suburb of St Marys is not adversely affected.

The potential outcome shown in the draft Concept Plan reconfigures the open space in the Town Centre to provide a connected, integrated and activated contemporary urban space – the type of space that the Town Centre is currently lacking. This space would:

· be multi-purpose with a much wider range of activities, uses and users than the current open space

· have active edges and encourage the redevelopment of existing degraded service areas to address the new space

· provide opportunities for green infrastructure, water features and artificial shading - helping to cool the Town Centre

· link retail locations encouraging the sharing or spill over of activity (and associated economic benefits) between Queen Street and any redevelopment of the St Marys Village Shopping Centre, and

· connect the Town Centre to the facilities in the South Creek Corridor including Ripples Aquatic Centre, BMX track, sports fields and an archery field.

In addition to public open spaces, new development facilitated by the reclassification may also provide additional spaces with new or enhanced recreational and cultural opportunities such as outdoor dining and cafés, a new library and/or community facilities and indoor recreational pursuits such as cinemas.

In response to the matters raised regarding the potential loss of open space, Parkland Planners (open space and recreation consultants) were engaged to independently validate the above assessment. The consultant confirmed that St Marys is well served with open space and that the open space in the Town Centre (particularly Kokoda and Lang Parks) are underutilised.

The consultant concluded by expressing the view that while it is not desirable to reduce open space in the Town Centre, the reconfiguration of current open space provides an opportunity to offset any loss through the provision of a new town park/square with facilities and settings that the community are more likely to use and which reflect contemporary urban public spaces. The report observed that quantity of open space is not always desirable over quality which encourages its use.

From this discussion, it is considered that:

· The current provision of open space servicing the Town Centre and within the suburb of St Marys substantially exceeds accepted standards both to serve the current and planned future populations to 2036

· The current configuration of Lang and Kokoda Parks is sub optimal for its urban centre setting and is underutilised

· The reclassification of Lang and Kokoda Parks and their reconfiguration as part of a future redevelopment of the Land will not result in a significant net loss of open space and will still exceed accepted standards of provision, and

· With good design, the reconfigured open space can provide a much more relevant, activated space that will satisfy local recreational and cultural needs, will create improved connections between activities and places in the Town Centre and will stimulate new economic and community uses on adjoining land to the benefit of St Marys.

Council also has the option to take some or all of the following additional measures to provide the community with comfort and certainty about future open space outcomes:

· the newly configured space would form an extended Kokoda Park (part of a connected urban space through to Queen Street)

· the newly configured urban park would maintain and improve the interpretation of historic associations

· the city wide development control plan can be amended to confirm requirements for the reconfigured open space and its core features to guide future development and future public domain improvements, and

· the newly configured open space can be considered for reclassification back to Community Land if required.

2. Changes to Car Parking

The concerns raised in the submissions relate to the potential loss of current public car parking spaces. The submissions highlight the importance of maintaining these spaces as they service the existing retail premises in Queen Street.

The land proposed to be reclassified provides approximately 250 public car parking spaces, with 140 marked spaces adjacent to the Station Plaza Shopping Centre and 110-120 spaces located between Carinya Avenue and West Lane.

Council has the ability, as the owner of the Land, to require any development to replace the current provision. This could be achieved on-site in new developments or elsewhere in the Town Centre. As part of any future development of the Land, Council can require that replacement public car parking be free, un-timed and located and designed in a way that continues to support Queen Street trading. For example, pedestrian access points can be orientated and located closer to Queen Street rather than be seen to service new development on the land.

In addition to the above requirements, if the land proposed to be reclassified is developed with new or expanded shopping centres, the volume of car parking that will be delivered for those developments will provide a significant boost to short stay car parking provision in the Town Centre. It is highly likely that all new car parking in new developments will be underground or covered in decked structures, well lit, secure (CCTV) and easily accessible (steps, ramps, escalators and lifts).

3. Economic Impacts

The submissions also refer to potential negative economic impacts on existing premises that might arise if the retail floor space in the Town Centre is increased.

A potential increase in competition from new or additional retail or commercial development is, understandably, a concern for existing traders. This will be a fundamental consideration for Council in the future should a development application be submitted for land uses which have a potential economic impact on the overall performance of the St Marys Town Centre’s traders and businesses.

However, in addressing this issue for the purpose of this proposed reclassification, it is important, for context, to note that:

· the reclassification proposal is not related to a rezoning of the Land to permit additional commercial or retail land uses. The land is already zoned B4 Mixed Use in LEP 2010 permitting a wide range of retail, commercial and residential development

· the reclassification proposal is not related to a specific development application or sale or disposition to any party for the purpose of retail or commercial development. Whilst Council has received approaches from the owners and operators of the existing shopping centres and is exploring those propositions, reclassification of the Land does not commit Council to any development or commercial outcome on the Land. Any such considerations would be subject to separate decision making processes and would be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and guidelines, and

· the impacts of competitive trade between parties is not a planning consideration other than in cases where it is assessed that the nature of competition constrains the extent and adequacy of services available to a community.

In developing the Strategy for St Marys, Council examined the role that the two major retail developments played – both as a magnet and as a competitor to other businesses.

The independent economic analyses carried out in 2004 (to inform the Strategy) and in 2013 (to understand the effects of expanding St Marys Village and Station Plaza shopping centres) found that the Town Centre, as a whole, is performing poorly and that the expansion of one or both of the shopping centres would improve the Town Centre’s overall economic performance. The Town Centre has lost and continues to lose trade to Penrith and Mt Druitt because of the range of shops and services these centres provide.

The 2013 economic analysis identified that the additional retail demand to support the current and future residents of St Marys is mainly for additional supermarket and discount department store floor space.

The 2013 economic analysis included impact testing based on current retail trends, that demonstrated that the expansion of one or both of the shopping centres could substantially stimulate the economic performance of the Town Centre and result in increased overall levels of trade and revenues, expand and contemporise the range of goods and services provided in the Town Centre and generate significant additional jobs for the local community.

It was also identified that there would be a range of impacts for some traders in Queen Street and other nearby retail centres in terms of initial reductions in trade and recovery periods. The extent of these impacts and duration of recovery periods will vary depending on the nature, timing and extent of expansions of Station Plaza and St Marys Shopping Village either separately or in combination.

As the second largest key centre in the Penrith local government area, St Marys and its surrounding suburbs are set for significant growth in terms of population, major economic stimuli and the provision of State and National level infrastructure. It is important that St Marys is appropriately positioned to respond to this growth and provides a contemporary centre that meets the demands of its current and future population and workforce for goods and services.

In this regard, it is important to manage the future growth in the Town Centre in a way that maximises the positive aspects and minimises any negative impacts to deliver a net community benefit. The 2013 economic analysis identified principles to assist in capturing trade that is currently lost from the Town Centre and to facilitate positive economic spill over effects for Queen Street from any future expansion of the existing shopping centres. These include the provision of an appropriate supply and location of parking, increased amenity, improved retail offering (modern supermarkets, a discount department store, fashion stores), indoor recreational and entertainment facilities, and the linking of the shopping centres to Queen Street.

Also, the economic analysis concluded that if the expanded shopping centres are integrated with Queen Street, then the potential for spill over shopping and other engagement into Queen Street could somewhat mitigate negative initial trade impacts. This would be more appropriate than a stand-alone expanded large retail centre. The integration of any expanded shopping centres can be secured with appropriate development controls that require high activity uses close to Queen Street, short connections and a seamless public domain. The specific design treatments of any future development on the Land to maximise positive spill over effects for Queen Street would also be a focus of negotiations with potential purchasers of the Land and at the development application stage.

One issue raised in submissions is that any additional retail floor space should be provided through “building up” in Queen Street and not on the Land. As identified in the 2013 economic analysis, the primary demand for additional retail floor space in St Marys is for modern supermarkets and discount department stores. These types of retail premises require a considerable site area to accommodate the built footprint in specific dimensions for effective operation (4,500-7,000m²) and the car parking to support them. The ability to consolidate multiple smaller property holdings in Queen Street to achieve viable landholdings for these purposes presents a considerable blockage and is unachievable in the Town Centre. The only undeveloped sites in the Town Centre with viable site areas that meet this requirement are those proposed to be reclassified.

In summary, the 2013 economic analysis identifies that, while the expansion of one or both of the existing shopping centres would have negative implications for some existing traders in Queen Street, expansion would result in a net community benefit in the economic performance of the centre by reinvigorating the poorly performing Town Centre, increasing the retail offering, attracting more visitors and, in turn, improving the retail vitality and viability of the Town Centre as a whole. Further, with a considered approach to the design of the expanded centres, the potential positive spill over effects can help to minimise the impacts on existing traders.

4. Cooling the Town Centre

The concerns raised in the submissions relate to the increase in the urban heat island effect in and around the Town Centre because of the loss of current green spaces or green infrastructure provided by Kokoda and Lang Parks. Apart from these parks, the remainder of the Land is occupied by car parking with little to no green infrastructure. This makes the Land and adjacent roads and developments, which also have little to no green infrastructure, significant heat sinks. This contributes to higher ambient temperatures in the Town Centre.

In August 2015, Council adopted the Cooling the City Strategy, a strategy that recognises the importance of taking action to cool the City and its urban areas, in conjunction with supporting the community to adapt to a changing climate. The Cooling the City Strategy identifies a range of solutions to help cool urban areas, including living and non-living solutions. Non-living solutions include reflective and light coloured surfaces on roads, walkways and roofs, whilst living solutions include:

· green infrastructure, such as street trees, rain gardens, green roofs and walls that provides shade and soften hard surfaces, and

· Water Sensitive Urban Design that reduces water usage and retains water in the landscape by mimicking natural systems.

The Cooling the City Strategy also recognises that in times of extreme heat these solutions might not be sufficient to reduce temperatures to a comfortable level, subsequently recognising the contribution that large commercial and recreational developments such as shopping centres, clubs and cinemas make by providing places of respite.

Any redevelopment of the Land provides opportunities to enhance the cooling of the Town Centre, including the provision of:

· new green infrastructure (new or improved planting or green roofs and walls) in new developments and public spaces

· light coloured, or reflective roofs on new buildings, as well as on roadways and other surfaces

· artificial water features and shade structures in public spaces

· shaded car parking in underground or decked structures, and

· places of respite from extreme conditions.

Council has the ability, as the owner of the Land and in its development controls, to require any development of the Land to include the above solutions.

5. Probity of Council’s processes

The matters raised relate to the probity of Council’s processes considering its role in both planning and property negotiations. The concerns also queried the adequacy of the exhibition material and whether it met relevant guidelines.

As with any significant proposals or dealings involving community land or other land in Council’s ownership, Council adheres strictly to relevant legislation and guidelines related to probity and transparency and introduces additional probity measures to facilitate external auditing and scrutiny where necessary or desirable.

In the current processes of progressing the reclassification of the Land in line with Council’s resolution/s and managing any discussions with potential purchasers of the Land, Council commissioned the preparation of an independent probity plan to guide and separate the processes of planning and property negotiations. The probity plan has been managed by Council’s Governance officers and audited by the independent author of the plan.

In relation to this matter the independent chairman in his Report on the Public Hearing saw “no evidence of probity concerns in regard to the steps taken to date” and “the fact that both of the enclosed shopping centre operators had expressed interest in expansion has not been hidden”. In addition to the oversight of the reclassification process through the probity plan and the public hearing, the State Government’s Gateway Process provides significant scrutiny of the planning process.

The Department of Planning outlines the material that must be publicly exhibited, either specifically in its Gateway Determination, or more generally, in the guidance and practice notes that it issues. The Planning Proposal placed on public exhibition was in the form approved for community consultation by the Gateway Determination. It clearly identified the Land, how, when and why it was acquired by Council, and how the reclassification implemented the adopted Strategy. The Planning Proposal was also supported by a set of documents including the Strategy, Masterplan, 2013 economic analysis and draft Concept Plan. The material placed on public exhibition is therefore considered to meet the requirements of the Department’s guidelines, including the specific information required for reclassification proposals.

In summary, the processes undertaken to date, and the documentation provided to support the reclassification of the Land, meets all requirements of the relevant legislation and guidelines. The additional steps undertaken to manage the process have been designed to ensure a high standard of probity and transparency.

6. How the returns from the sale or development of the land would be used

As with any public land reclassification process, the community is keenly interested in how the proceeds of any future land sale/transfer etc. will be used. This has been reflected in submissions to both the public exhibition and public hearing.

Council’s practice in relation to the proceeds from the sale of its land, has been to reinvest the funds generated into either “local” projects or “city shaping” projects. This same practice would be followed in this case. The proportion directed to either of the categories (in this case “local” being within St Marys and “city shaping” being throughout the city) would be a matter for Council’s determination if and when the sale of the land is being considered in the future.

The types of projects that could be considered for St Marys include, but are not limited to:

· New or improved community facilities to service the growing population, such as a library and community meeting rooms

· New or improved public spaces, including the embellishment and reinterpretation of historic associations

· Upgraded infrastructure such as roads, drainage, footpaths, cycle ways and car parks

· New strategic commercial developments to further stimulate the Town Centre economy, and

· Implementation of other actions in the Strategy such as way finding programs and commissioning of public art etc.

The consideration of future funding of projects would provide an opportunity to further engage with the community about how the funds could be used to benefit the Town Centre.

7. Historic associations

The submissions raise the issue of the potential loss of historic associations with or provided by Kokoda and Lang Parks.

A number of historic associations that have particular significance for St Marys and its community are provided by Kokoda and Lang Parks, including:

· Kokoda Park’s links to the Kokoda Campaign and the St Marys Munitions Factory

· the Robin Wiles Walkway dedicated to the memory of Robin Wiles, who grew up in St Mary’s and served the community as a Councillor of Penrith City Council and President of the St Marys Development Committee, and

· Alexander (Sandy) Lang who was a well-known and active member in the community.

It is recommended that these historic associations are given enhanced prominence through refreshed interpretation in any reconfigured public open space. The reconfiguration and subsequent embellishment of the open space also provides opportunities to interpret other important historical, cultural and community associations in the Town Centre. This can be secured through additional development controls and through any future negotiations with prospective purchasers and developers.

Summary of report from Public Hearing

The report from the public hearing (the Report) forms part of the collection of documents before Council to inform its consideration of progressing the reclassification proposal. The Report provides a summary of the views expressed at the hearing and within written submissions and provides conclusions as drawn by the independent chair mindful of the reclassification proposal and the submissions. These conclusions include eight points for Council’s consideration and are described as a set of “framing principles” to guide processes going forward. The following table sets out the eight points and a corresponding response.

No.	Consideration	Response
1	Can the underlying purpose of the reclassification be re-affirmed?	The reclassification of the Land will allow Council and the community to consider a number of opportunities, including new development, which deliver, in a balanced way, numerous actions from the adopted Strategy. The Land can be used to foster economic investment, generate jobs, facilitate new development, create friendly and attractive public places, contribute to a cultural and entertainment precinct, and improve parking and access in the Town Centre. Council will need to work with the community and private industry to identify and deliver specific outcomes that implement the Strategy as and when the Land is developed.
2	If enlivening the St Marys public domain is the priority, what conditional parameters would be needed for the expansion of enclosed shopping centres and how would apparent conflicting priorities be managed?	Amending the development controls to incorporate the recommendations of the 2013 economic analysis and the draft Concept Plan allows Council to: · identify and secure the land to be retained as open space · specify the form and design of new developments, and · where new development needs to be integrated with Queen Street, how it connects with Queen Street. These controls provide the next level of detail down from the Masterplan and draft Concept Plan and would form the ongoing framework for negotiations for any sale of the Land and directly influence development proposals.
3	If there were to be significant expansion to retail floor space in the enclosed shopping centres is it also time to consider the “crimping” of the existing supply? For example: this includes the idea of acknowledging the length of Queen Street and considering a different role and different uses for the naturally weakest retailing areas.	The 2013 economic analysis considered this aspect and concluded that Queen Street would evolve to accommodate new and changing opportunities along its length. This is already occurring with recent developer interest in residential development at the northern end of Queen Street close to the train station. The B4 Mixed Use zone applied to the Town Centre in 2010 is flexible, permitting a wide range of commercial, retail, business and residential uses. This already allows private industry to be creative and innovate in response to market changes. Council will continue to explore equitable measures that can encourage further evolution of the southern end of Queen Street and the station precinct into predominantly residential outcomes.
4	How would the ideas of better pedestrian connectivity and a town square be advanced?	Amending applicable development controls to incorporate the recommendations of the 2013 economic analysis and the draft Concept Plan allows Council to identify and secure the land to be retained as open space and how it should be configured. In addition, a commitment to invest a proportion of the return from the sale of the Land into the Town centre would provide the funds for, amongst other things, the embellishment of new and improved public domain. A commitment to reinvestment of funds in the Town Centre also provides opportunities for new or improved community facilities, upgraded infrastructure or the implementation of other actions from the Strategy.
5	The Strategy notes the importance of partnerships with both private sector (i.e. investors) and community sector in the transition process for St Marys. For example: what dialogue processes would be initiated to build these partnerships. Can innovative approaches be adopted which encourage openness to possibilities rather than position taking by those with fixed interests.	The amendment of development controls, identification of spending priorities for the return from the sale of the land, and future development applications provide significant opportunities to engage with the community on what it sees as important to the growth of the Town Centre. Collaborations between Council, other landowners, and private developers will need to achieve the outcomes of the Strategy and will be facilitated by reclassification of the Land.
6	How is the best way to provide increased clarity on the financial parameters involved in the potential future sale of the land?	Any decision to sell the Land would need to consider the form of the development proposed to ensure it implements the Strategy. Council has not been presented with, considered or endorsed a final development proposal for the Land. Such a proposal is essential to be able to calculate the value of the Land. This means that the potential financial return from the sale of the Land is unknown at this time. However, committing reinvestment of a proportion of the commercial return to the Town Centre and identifying spending priorities would provide some clarity and certainty around the future use of any financial return.
7	How is Council managing questions of probity and conflicts of interest?	Refer to the section of this report titled 5. Probity of Council’s processes. In relation to this matter the Report on the Public Hearing saw “no evidence of probity concerns in regard to the steps taken to date”.
8	How can the process both be welcoming of investment interest and also establish “stop points”, such that when the risk to the original purpose is too high, and loss of the open space seems a false step, then the process is set aside.	Establishing the suggested stop point(s) would not allow for the full implementation of the Strategy. The use of the land adjacent to the two shopping centres to integrate any future redevelopment with Queen Street is considered fundamental to achieving the outcomes in the Strategy. The potential reconfiguration of open space indicated in the draft Concept Plan is not considered to present a significant loss of open space. In addition, the reduction in the quantum of open space is considered to be offset directly (with the provision of contemporary urban public space) and indirectly (because of the use of any commercial return to embellish new and existing open spaces). The other benefits that could be derived from the redevelopment of the land also need to be considered, including fostering economic investment, generating jobs, facilitating new development, creating a cultural and entertainment precinct, and improving parking and access in the Town Centre.

Strategic Objectives

The process and decision to reclassify public land in the Town Centre is separate from the processes and decisions about any commercial transaction and development outcome. However, it is critical that both of these separate processes serve to achieve the outcomes identified in Council’s adopted Strategy and respond to important community issues.

This can best be achieved by establishing a set of strategic objectives that must be addressed by potential purchasers / developers of the Land as part of any negotiations for sale and delivered through subsequent development. These strategic objectives would be a fundamental element, irrespective of the method of sale or disposition of the Land (such as Expression of Interest, public tender, an unsolicited bid process, public / private partnership). Council can also consider amending Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 to consolidate the strategic objectives as a key consideration for future development applications.

Some of the proposed strategic objectives are location-specific, and others relate to any of the Land that is proposed for reclassification and potential future development. The proposed strategic objectives are:

· The provision of at least 14,000m2 of high quality, multi-use urban open space, including 8,400m2 of green space, directly linked with, and inclusive of, Coachman’s Park.

· The provision of a new east-west road from Charles Hackett Drive to Queen Street.

· The provision of generous and attractive pedestrian and retail links with Queen Street.

· The arrangement of future uses to maximise positive economic flow over effects to, and interaction with, Queen Street.

· The nature of uses selected to activate spaces near Queen Street should not resolve in negative impacts on Queen Street.

· No nett loss of public parking.

· Replacement parking is to be free, untimed and designed and oriented to support Queen Street.

· New public spaces are to properly interpret and celebrate historic associations.

· Any new development and public spaces are to implement actions from Council’s Cooling the City Strategy.

· Any new development and public spaces are to activate Station Street and East Lane.

Conclusion

The reclassification proposal does not include any proposal to sell or develop the Land. Such considerations are subject to separate processes and decisions. In addition, the reclassification does not commit Council to the sale or development of the Land, nor does it remove the Land from Council’s ownership or prevent the current use of the Land from continuing. This means that it is premature to focus on a settled outcome, its particular impacts and how these might be addressed.

Nevertheless, the purpose of the reclassification is to enable Council and the community to consider opportunities to grow the Town Centre in ways which implement the Strategy. This includes the reconfiguration and development of some of the public land in the Town Centre. In light of this, the correct response to address the issues at this time is to establish a set of strategic objectives that identify and respond to the community’s concerns to guide Council’s future decisions about the sale and development of the Land.

The recommendations to this report outline how to establish these ground rules and should provide the community with certainty around the reclassification proposal and any future decisions about the Land. It is therefore recommended that Council proceed with the reclassification subject to these qualifications that respond to the issues raised by the community and the independent chair of the public hearing.

RECOMMENDATION

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 commercial transaction for the Land identified in Attachment 2 include a requirement that any future development must demonstrate how it will deliver the strategic objectives identified in this report.

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. Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 be amended to secure implementation of the strategic directions identified in this report.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Extract of the 2007 Masterplan	1 Page	Attachments Included
2.	Land Proposed to be Reclassfied	1 Page	Attachments Included
3.	St Marys Open Space Network	1 Page	Attachments Included
4.	Extract of 2015 Draft Concept Plan	2 Pages	Attachments Included
5.	Comparison of Lang and Kokoda Parks with a Potential Reconfigured Open Space	1 Page	Attachments Included

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

Council Property - License to Lease Part of Union Road Car Park Penrith for a Mobile Food Unit

Compiled by: Alison Randall, Property Development Assistant

Angus Fulton, Property Development Manager

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

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

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to enter into a temporary licence agreement with Char Char Food Truck (CCFT) over the site at Part of Union Road Car Park Penrith as identified in the attached plan for a three month period.

The concept of the CCFT is focused on the activation and income it can provide to the City Centre.

CCFT is seeking a three month trial period, trading one day per week utilising Council owned land known as Part of Union Road Car Park Penrith. CCFT is aiming to operate on a Saturday evening between 5-10pm. This is the best day of the week and has previously been the most requested by landlords for activation purposes.

A site plan showing the setup has been attached requesting 6 car bays or approx. 15 meters of use on Council owned land at Union Road Car Park Penrith. The CCFT and also a refrigeration truck will be on site to support the primary truck.

Background

The applicants are the owners and operators of two fixed premise food and beverage outlets, which are both located beneath WIN Stadium Wollongong, with the Landlord being Venues NSW. This allows the applicants to easily operate in highly regulated and process driven environments.

CCFT first experimented with the concept of being mobile by attending and setting up a stall at Eat Street markets in Wollongong approximately 12 months ago. They have since been attending every Thursday and are considered to be one of the best performers as a direct result of a great product offering.

This has also resulted in being invited to festivals and events such as twilight markets and the Oktoberfest at the Domain.

CCFT has achieved significant growth over the past 3 three months, with a following exceeding 15,000 on facebook and major activation of sites across Sydney including, the Sutherland Shire (Taren point), The Hills (Baulkham Hills), The West (Canley Vale), Inner West (Concord) and all over Wollongong.

Anecdotally, the turnout is very successful at all current locations, and Penrith residents have asked CCFT to set up in a location in the vicinity.

CCFT intend on utilising 100% recycled food and beverage containers/packaging and organic food where available.

The cuisine is heavily focused on the off grill menu items and will include the cornerstones offerings offered by CCFT, which has a significant South African feeling. However, the portions will be appropriate for people to consume on the go or in the standing position. Items include:

- Famous ribs basted in our exclusive BULU sauce

- Rotating burger options (weekly)

- Chicken wing and chip combinations

- Assorted beverages – non alcoholic

CCFT is aiming to operate on a Saturday evening between 5-10pm. This is the best day of the week and seems to be the most requested for activation purposes.

There will be lighting and music. Lighting is LED and mounted to the top of the truck and low voltage. Music is non-amplified to reduce any impacts on neighbours and limited to patron area.

CCFT targets the ‘younger’ demographic of age between 18 – 40 years age range.

Waste disposal is managed by CCFT providing 3 bins that are emptied throughout the nights service and taken back to the headquarters base once completed; site clean-up arrangements include a minimum of 3 staff members patrolling a spot clean and check at the conclusion of the service session to collect any waste disposed of incorrectly and will be taken away.

Current sites includes and not limited to:

- (a) Multiple council locations across Wollongong Twilight and Eat Street markets

- (b) Norwest Marketown Car park (Baulkham Hills)

- (c) Star Car Wash – inner west and the shire (Taren Point)

- (d) Yamaha (Blacktown)

- (e) Zip North Parramatta

- (f) Timberbits Villawood

- (g) Splash n Shine (Campbelltown)

- (h) Festivals including Oktoberfest in the Domain Sydney

A designated host will be present during operating hours to ensure queues are maintained in an orderly manner, and to ensure patrons remain in a designated area.

References include:

- Colliers International (Norwest Market Town Commercial Management)

‘Char Char food truck have been a delight to deal with. They are very cooperative and have a tremendous community focus. Working in Shopping centres that is vital for us. The licence fees are paid promptly, all insurances are in order and they have a good eye for safety whenever they have setup at our centre. All areas are cleaned before their departure of an event.’

- Wollongong City Council Events 7 Functions Coordinator

The proposed charge to CCFT is $200 plus GST per visit, which is consistent with private property rates currently being paid to other landlords.

It is anticipated that the food truck could operate under a Development Application after the trial period concludes upon further Council resolution.

The Property Development Department will liaise with other relevant sections within Council to determine conditions of the licence agreement, prior to executing the lease.

Place Manager’s Comment:

Council’s Night Time Economy Strategy identifies the need to attract people into the Penrith City Centre after 5pm. The CCFT is a new type experiential food event that relies on social media for its customers. It has the potential to attract significant numbers of young people and families that are familiar with the use of social media for planning entertainment in their lives. The proposal for the business to operate on a trial basis is welcome as it adds to the diversity of what is on ‘offer’ to people and creates a sense of occasion around each event.

Anecdotal evidence from other locations where the CCFT operates is that the significant number of patrons that it attracts are beneficial to nearby businesses. It has been noted that ancillary businesses are prone to stay open and trade longer when they know that the CCFT has organised an event.

In my view, the operation of the CCFT trial should be supported and monitored for the change that it brings to the Penrith City Centre. A short trial period will inform the both the owner and Council of the likely success of a future longer term residency in Penrith which would be subject to Council approval.

Senior Environmental Planner’s Comment:

The land and surrounding area is within the Penrith City Centre and zoned B4 Mixed Use under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The proposed use would meet the criteria for exempt development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008. The specific provisions under the SEPP is provided below for your reference.

Subdivision 27A Mobile food and drink outlets

2.54A Specified development

The carrying out of the retail sale of food, drinks and related products on land from a mobile outlet such as a food truck, van, cart or other similar vehicle is development specified for this code.

2.54B Development standards

The standards specified for that development are that the development must:

(a) have the consent of the owner of the land on which the development is carried out or, if a council or public authority has the control and management of the land, the consent, in writing, of the council or public authority, and

(b) not restrict any vehicular or pedestrian access to or from the land or entry to any building on the land, and

(c) not obstruct the operation of, or access to, any utility services on the land or on adjacent land, and

(d) not be located within the canopy of, or result in damage to, any tree growing on the land or on adjacent land, and

(e) not result in any damage to public property on the land or on adjacent land, and

(f) if carried out on land within or immediately adjacent to a residential zone—only be carried out between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm on any day, and

(g) if located on a public place—have any approval required under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993, and

(h) if located on private land—be limited to 1 development on that land and not contravene any conditions of a development consent for any other use carried out on the land.

Note. A registrable vehicle within the meaning of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007, or a cart, bicycle cart or the like must operate in accordance with the Guidelines for mobile food vending vehicles (NSW/FA/F1055/1302) published by the NSW Food Authority in February 2013, and any requirements of the Food Act 2003.

Accordingly, it is recommended that a three month trial licence be approved by Council to CCFT as per the terms set out below:

Tenant: Char Char Food Truck

Premises: Part of Union Road Car Park Penrith (in the assigned area as set out on the attached map)

Use of Premises: Mobile Food Unit

Licence Term: Section 47A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Short Term Leases less than 5 years

Licence Commencement Date: 30 April 2016

Licence Termination Date: 31July 2016. The licence will be terminated by Council if an excessive number of complaints are being received.

Rental: $200.00 + GST per visit payable three months in advance

Total Rent: $3,080.00 including GST

Rent Review Dates: Applicant to re-apply to Council if intending to continue agreement and licence fee will be reviewed.

Area: Carp park area at Union Road Car Park Penrith as marked on map

Lessee Responsibility:

o Lessee is exempt from submitting a Development Application to Council for the three month period only.

o Trade within the agreed night (Saturday) between the hours of 5pm to 10pm only.

o Register with Council’s Environmental Health Department

o To comply with National Code for Food Vending Vehicles

o Any other health regulations pertaining to operation of a Mobile Food Vending Unit

o Trade within the designated area as marked on the plan

o Supply and offer agreed range, quality and standard of food

o Environmental compliance and method of waste disposal as agreed being: Waste disposal is managed by CCFT providing 3 bins that are emptied throughout the nights service and taken back to the headquarters base once completed; site clean-up arrangements include a minimum of 3 staff members patrolling a spot clean and check at the conclusion of the service session to collect any waste disposed of incorrectly and will be taken away.

o Lessee will not sub-let or assign without Council approval

o Not exceed more than the one CCFT and one refrigeration support unit on site at one given time as agreed.

o Not to operate on any other day without Council approval. Any additional day approved will result in additional fees being charged and will be required to be paid in advance.

o Maintain site to a reasonable standard

o Pay additional rubbish clean-up fee if site left untidy

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Council Property - License to Lease Part of Union Road Car Park Penrith for a Mobile Food Unit be received

2. Council grant a Licence Agreement to Char Char Food Truck in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

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

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Picture of Char Char Food Truck and images of food to be served	1 Page	Appendix
2.	Location plan Char Char Food Truck	1 Page	Appendix

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

Australian Disability Enterprises and Disability Service Reform

Compiled by: Robyn Brookes, Disability Services 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	Encourage social connections and promote inclusion in our community
Service Activity	Develop effective responses to the social impacts of growth, redevelopment and change

Executive Summary

There have been a number of changes to Commonwealth and State disability services legislation and programs over recent years. One of the major drivers of change is the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

While many of these changes will improve the lives of people with disability, their families and their carers they also pose challenges for disability service organisations including Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs).

This report provides an overview of the changes relevant to Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs), their impact on ADEs, and on people with disability employed by ADEs.

The report recommends the information contained in the report on Australian Disability Enterprises and Disability Service Reform be received.

Background

Australian Disability Enterprises are not for profit organisations with a charitable status providing employment for people with significant disability. Support workers are available to give the employees any assistance they need with their tasks in the workplace.

Federal Government funding is provided to ADEs for each person employed. The amount of funding depends on how much support the employee needs to do their job. ADEs receive approximately $260 million from the Commonwealth each year to provide this support to employees.

There are about 600 ADEs around Australia employing more than 20,000 people with disability. It is estimated that between 80% and 90% of employees with a disability in ADEs also receive the disability pension. Most employees in ADEs work a set number of hours that does not jeopardise their pension. Employees earn an hourly wage based on capacity and productivity and this is assessed using a measurement tool.

It is estimated that up to 400 people with disability resident in Penrith are employed by ADEs. Many of these people are employed by two ADEs based in Penrith City – that is Thorndale and Richmond/PRA. Some people with disability who are residents of Penrith City also work for AFFORD and other ADEs in adjoining LGAs.

The role of ADEs in providing employment for people with significant disability is complemented by the role of Disability Employment Services. These services are also principally not-for-profit charities or community organisations and help employers find motivated employees that have a disability and assist in developing their careers. These services find work for their clients in the general community with the same working conditions as people who do not have a disability. The services are funded by the Federal Department of Social Services for the outcomes they achieve. Generally their clients have mild to moderate disabilities. Examples of these agencies include Nova Employment, Mission Australia Employment and WISE Employment.

This report is focused on ADEs, the changing policy context and some of the implications of these changes.

Current Situation

Developments in disability policy and legislation during recent years are expected to have a significant impact including on ADEs. Consultation with key managers in local ADEs indicate that both the NDIS and likely changes to the wage assessment tool are expected to affect ADEs. An outline of these developments and their implications for ADEs is provided in the next sections.

National Disability Insurance Scheme

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has been described as a once in a generation reform that will improve the lives of people with disability in Australia. People with disability will be able to decide their own best interests, and have choice and control over their lives and the supports they receive. In many cases either carers or family will also be involved in this process.

Through the NDIS, people with disability will be able to access the reasonable and necessary supports they need, to live the life they want and achieve their goals and aspirations. The NDIS replaces the existing fragmented and rationed state service delivery system with an approach based on an entitlement to support for people with disability that meet the eligibility criteria.

When the NDIS is fully operational an estimated 140,000 people in NSW will be able to access government funded support – this will be an increase of approximately 50,000 compared to the current numbers of people with disability receiving a support service/s.

The impact on ADEs is expected in 2018/2019 when ADE employees with a disability become eligible for assessment for a NDIS package. It is possible some employees will utilise their packages to undertake different training and employment options, or other activities, to that available in ADEs.

Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT)

Many ADEs use a wage tool for supported employees, called the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT). There are other registered wage assessment tools used in ADEs including Greenacres. In this report the discussion will focus on the BSWAT as this is a representative assessment tool. BSWAT combines an assessment of productive output with a competency assessment which measures the employee's skills, qualifications and job knowledge. Some people with disability, peak bodies and some advocacy groups (for example People with Disability Australia) oppose the use of BSWAT. ADEs, its peak organisation National Disability Services (NDS) and some ADE clients and their carers are concerned about the implications of any change. The rationale for the different views are summarised below.

People With Disability (PWD) Australia lead a campaign to stop the use of the BSWAT. Key points they make include:

· The use of the BSWAT tool currently requires an exemption from the Federal Disability Discrimination Act as the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has ruled it discriminatory

· Workers in ADEs are excluded from the industrial protection that prohibit employers from practices that may exploit their workforce (PWDA submission to AHRC on Department of Social Services BSWAT Exemption, October 2013)

· PWD Australia prefer the use of the Supported Wage System (SWS) as a wage assessment tool (PWDA submission to AHRC on the Department of Social Services BSWAT Exemption October 2013).

PWD Australia recommends that the Commonwealth provide temporary support to ADEs for the reassessment of ADE employees by independent Supported Wage System Assessors.

ADEs and National Disability Services are concerned at the implications of changes to the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool. Key points they make include:

· A new wage assessment tool may impact on the sustainability of ADEs and the employment opportunities for people with disability.

· If the numbers of people with disability employed by ADEs was significantly reduced then these individuals would have very little social connection and sense of making a contribution, placing additional responsibility on families and carers.

· Wage reform may well jeopardise jobs.

· If ADEs are required to adopt the tool preferred by the Australian Human Rights Commission the wage costs of disability enterprises would increase by more than 50 per cent.

Legal Issues

There are a number of legal issues that also need to be considered when reviewing the arguments put forward by People with Disability Australia (and other disability advocates) and National Disability Services (and ADEs).

Federal Court

On 21 December 2012 the Federal Court handed down its decision regarding Mr. Michael Nojin and Mr. Gordon Prior who both worked in an Australian Disability Enterprise. Their wages had been determined using BSWAT and they claimed this tool was discriminatory due to the differentiation of outcomes between people with an intellectual disability and those without.

The Court decided that the BSWAT was a mechanism that unfairly discounted the wages of people with an intellectual disability and was designed to produce poor wage outcomes for these workers. This ruling was supported by the High Court in May 2013.

Australian Human Rights Commission

In September 2013, the Department of Social Services (DSS) lodged an exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for ADEs from sections 15 and 24 of the DDA and for the Commonwealth from section 29 of the DDA.

On 29 April 2014, the AHRC granted an exemption to allow the payment of wages to ADE employees, based on assessments already conducted with the BSWAT, for a period of 12 months, subject to certain conditions.

In April 2015 the Department of Social Services applied for a further 12-month exemption from the DDA. The AHRC then provided an interim exemption from the DDA for four months, until 29 August 2015. On 25 June 2015 the Department wrote to the AHRC seeking to amend its further exemption to align with Fair Work Commission consent orders to vary the Supported Employment Services Award 2010 (the Award). The variation to the Award allows for a further transitional period for ADEs using the BSWAT until 29 February 2016 on application by ADEs to the Fair Work Commission.

Fair Work Commission

In December 2013 the United Voice and Health Services Union made application to the Fair Work Commission to vary the Supported Employment Services Award 2010 in relation to setting of wages for employees in supported employment. The Full Bench referred the application for mediation in June 2014. The parties represented include the unions, ACTU, NDS Australian Business Ltd, disability advocacy representatives, ADEs and parent and carer representatives.

Conciliation continued during 2014 and 2015 with an agreement reached in October 2015 between the parties on the following shared objectives.

a) A fair, equitable and non-discriminatory wage outcome to contribute to a living income for employees in supported employment;

b) Continued opportunity for employment in supported employment settings to build and maintain the self-esteem and sense of purpose of employees;

c) Sustainable employment opportunities in viable ADEs; and

d) To provide security and confidence to employees, parents and carers for the future.

e) The parties are developing options, including modelling, to endeavour to meet these objectives

The conciliation between all the parties continues (Fair Work Commission statement, October 2015).

Disability Employment Framework Taskforce

In April 2015 Minister Fifield established a taskforce within the Department of Social Services to develop a new Disability Employment Framework. A six month consultation process commenced on May 2015. An Invitation to participate was sent to a variety of disability organisations, peak disability and employment bodies, ADEs and other Disability Employment Services

The consultations indicated that opinions are divided with some indicating that ADEs need to change their employment practice, while others felt strongly that it is a genuine employment option and provides valuable social interaction.

Future Funding

In the 2015/16 Federal budget an additional $173 million was provided to ADEs to pay for the development and implementation of a new wage assessment tool and to cover 70% of lost wages for those people with disability employed by ADEs. In the same budget another $17 million was allocated for business development to facilitate the introduction of a new Supported Wage System to improve the viability of ADEs www.aed.org.au/news-updates/

Conclusion

This report provides an overview of the complex challenges facing ADEs and their employees, families and carers. The changes in policies, legislation and the court actions involve a number of parties with different views on the employment of people with significant disability. The agreement reached by all parties in October 2015 in the Fair Work Commission on shared objectives provide some indication of a possible resolution. Council will be informed of further information on this matter as it becomes available.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Australian Disability Enterprises and Disability Service Reform be received.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

Exhibition of the Revised Delivery Program 2013-17 (incorporating the 2016-17 Draft Operational Plan and Fees and Charges)

Compiled by: Geraldine Brown, Budget Accountant

Allegra Zakis, Corporate Planning Coordinator

Samantha Sutherland, Corporate Planning Officer

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

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

Executive Summary

Workshops were held with Councillors in March and April to discuss the development of the 2016-17 Operational Plan. This Operational Plan will be the final instalment of the 2013-17 Delivery Program and continues the focus on efficient service delivery and progress of our priorities.

The draft revised 2013-17 Delivery Program, including the draft 2016-17 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges are being presented to Council tonight seeking endorsement for the documents to be placed on public exhibition.

Penrith City Council has long been faced with the challenge of establishing and maintaining long term financial sustainability as we grow into our Regional City role, cater for the increased populations within both the LGA and the regional catchment that we service and deal with the increasing demands and expectations of our Community. The efforts of past years has established a solid base for Council to maintain current services and services levels but highlighted the challenges that continued growth would present. The need for productivity improvements to be achieved and alternate service delivery models to be investigated and implemented has been considered vital for Council to maintain its long term financial sustainability into the future.

The last five years has seen an increasing focus on the overall financial sustainability of local government in NSW. The NSW Government’s Fit for the Future requirements in response to the Independent Review Panel recommendations has also reinforced this requirement. In response to these challenges, and in advance of Fit for the Future obligations, the Financial Capacity Review has been undertaken and resulted in the development of a number of strategies and initiatives. Proposed funding was to be provided by a combination of cost saving efficiencies, productivity improvements, and an application, which has now been submitted to IPART, for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) above the peg in each of the four years commencing 2016-17 and the renewal of the AREAS SRV (due to expire in June 2016).

The preparation of the base Draft 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget has been undertaken with a focus on maintaining service delivery levels to the community and moving forward on the identified priorities of the 2013-17 Delivery Program. The Draft 2016-17 Operational Plan has been prepared for Exhibition with the SRV application included (IPART determination due to be announced on 17 May), and those projects and initiatives that are supported by this SRV separately identified. At this stage a balanced budget position is presented in the Draft 2016-17 Operational Plan.

It is proposed that the draft corporate planning documents will be placed on public exhibition from Wednesday 27 April to Wednesday 25 May inclusive. A report summarising the outcomes of the public exhibition and seeking Council’s adoption of the Draft 2016-17 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges will be presented to Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 27 June 2016.

Adopted Corporate Planning Documents

The Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework for local government was introduced in 2009 as an amendment to the Local Government Act 1993. The IP&R framework consists of a hierarchy of documents including a long-term Community Strategic Plan, a Community Engagement Strategy, a Resourcing Strategy, a Delivery Program and Operational Plans for each year of an elected council term. The Community Plan identifies the community’s long term aspirations for the City and strategies to achieve the outcomes the community are seeking. The Delivery Program is Council’s 4 year work program and includes the annual Operational Plan.

Council’s adopted 2013-17 Delivery Program included the 2013-14 Operational Plan, as part of the document. Accordingly, subsequent Operational Plans only require adjustments to changed service activities or actions proposed for the new period in conjunction with the relevant budgetary information. Service activities describe the principal activities that each of Council’s services deliver each year and generally account for more than 20% of a service’s resources delivered over the 4 years of the Delivery Program. Actions are included if they are a resourced critical project or task that will be completed in a 1-2 year timeframe. Actions form part of the annual Operational Plan.

The structure of the document has remained the same to maintain continuity through the documents over time. There is only one change proposed to the Delivery Program – deleted of a service activity which is duplicated elsewhere in the document. Other changes to the document relate to the Operational Plan, and are insertion of the proposed 2016-17 actions and updated financial information.

The revised Delivery Program 2013-17 also sets out Council’s financial intentions for four years (2013-17) as well as more detailed financial information for 2016-17, including:

· a funding summary for 2013-17

· detailed financial information by service for 2016-17

· graphs showing where the money will come from and where it will be spent

· the basis for Council’s rates and domestic waste charges for 2016-17

· long term funding projections (and assumptions)

· reserve movements for 2016-17

· a detailed list of capital and operating projects (by service) and program of works

· special initiative programs.

The draft Fees and Charges 2016-17 component provides full details of the Council fees and charges proposed for 2016-17. The draft Fees and Charges has been enclosed as a separate document.

Budget Background

Over 20 years ago the need to undertake a strong commitment to investment in our assets was identified and resulted in the development of detailed asset renewal programs. To support this investment, and as a result of challenges encountered during budget developments between 2008 and 2011, Council sought and received approval from IPART for a SRV in 2011-12. This SRV provided the capacity for Council to meet the communities’ expectation and continue Council’s commitment to maintaining and renewing our assets, with Asset Renewal Programs established for all major asset classes. The SRV included funding to implement a program to renew and improve our two CBDs to prepare them for major redevelopment that would transform our Regional City, and secured funding to maintain our services at their historical levels.

The 2011-12 SRV established a solid base for Council to maintain current services and services levels, but also highlighted the challenges that continued growth would present. The need for productivity improvements to be achieved and alternate service delivery models to be investigated and implemented was considered vital for Council to maintain its long term financial sustainability into the future.

Since the 2011-12 SRV, our commitment to productivity has delivered a range of productivity savings and reduced costs across many of Council’s operations has built annual recurring savings of $4.9m into the base budget from 2015-16. However, growth in the City has also seen an increase in our responsibilities and associated expenses so other initiatives directed at increasing capacity were implemented including:

Ø Refocusing our Debt Strategy to remove recurrent general infrastructure borrowings,

Ø Addressing the challenges of s94 contribution changes that will require General revenue to repay loans for works forward funded for the Cultural Facilities Plan,

Ø Implementing an enhanced Property Development Strategy to grow an alternate income stream,

Ø The establishment of the Public Open Space Reinvestment Project (formerly Surplus Lands),

Ø Undertaking an independently developed and audited Services Review to examine current and alternate service delivery models to drive efficient delivery of our current services into the future without compromising quality,

Ø Reviewing our current Customer Service model and reshaping it to more effectively respond to our customers and realigning the channels in which we do that to ensure that we provide an efficient and quality experience for our customers,

Ø Major restructuring and investment in our ICT infrastructure and strategy to enable us to drive productivity in service delivery,

Ø Continued Productivity reviews as we now include $4.9m of savings and $1.3m of enhanced capacity to each year’s budget.

The last five years have seen an increasing focus on the overall financial sustainability of local government in NSW. The NSW Government’s Fit for the Future requirements in response to the Independent Review Panel recommendations has also reinforced this requirement. In response to these challenges, and in advance of Fit for the Future obligations, the Financial Capacity Review was undertaken and resulted in the development of a number of strategies and initiatives. The Review focused on our present sustainable position and also considered future aspirations that are outside our current capacity, together with structural budget changes that will better secure our long term financial future. Funding for these strategies and initiatives will be provided by a combination of cost saving efficiencies, productivity improvements, and the submitted Special Rate Variation (SRV) which includes the renewal of the AREAS SRV (due to expire in June 2016).

IPART’s confirmation late last year that Penrith City Council is Fit for the Future has provided an independent validation of Council’s current and future strategies. That assessment considered Council’s future strategies which included a suite of initiatives being implemented to reform our finances. It also included the submitted SRV to fund additional commitment to our Building Assets, investment in our ICT infrastructure, building capacity for Major Projects, facilitate City Shaping infrastructure projects, and to realign a number of our service costs including the funding of subsidised rents and the re-establishment of the Car Parking Reserve.

At the Ordinary Meeting of 8 February Council endorsed an application for a SRV from 2016-17, including the renewal of AREAS SRV, and an increase to the minimum rate. This application has now been submitted to IPART for a SRV of 9.09% in 2016-17 (including the renewal of AREAS), in conjunction with an increase in the minimum rate in 2016-17 of 16% followed by 5.0% in 2017-18, 5.2% in 2018-19 and 5.4% in 2019-20.

In the current financial year strong financial management of Council’s budget has been maintained throughout the first half of 2015-16 with a small surplus currently predicted and allocations of $1.2m to date to the Major Projects, Productivity Initiatives, and Corporate Procedures and Systems reserves. This strategy provides capacity to support investment in our City, undertake projects that will provide productivity gains, and continue improvements to outdated technology. The current 2015-16 Operational Plan will continue to be closely monitored for the remainder of the financial year, with Council’s commitment to strong budgetary control ensuring that we are in the best available position to establish a balanced budget for 2016-17.

At this stage the Draft 2016-17 budget has a balanced budget. It is noted that a number of assumptions remain unresolved and that fine tuning will continue to occur during the exhibition period. In the event that the budget is still in a surplus position at the time of exhibition it is proposed to retain this amount in Council’s internal reserves to provide for any significant movements that may arise in the current assumptions. Areas that may be affected include the Financial Assistance Grant (currently estimated to decrease by 4.5% on actual 2015-16 grant), and Emergency Services Levies. Once the 2016-17 budget and associated assumptions have been confirmed, any remaining reserved funds will provide Council with capacity to respond to additional priorities that have been identified or emerge.

Budget and Revenue Policy, Service Plans and Statutory Statements

The Budget, Revenue Policy and Commentary are contained in the draft 2016-17 Operational Plan. This section of the document includes information regarding employee costs, rating income, waste management, borrowings, grants, reserves, asset replacement programs, and capital and operating projects.

The Draft 2016-17 Budget is summarised below:

*BUDGET- FUNDING SUMMARY*	*2015-16* *Original* *$’000*	*2016-17* *Draft* *$’000*
*Expenditure*
Capital Works	54,888	41,521
Other Funded Expenses	181,927	189,653
Total Expenditure	$236,815	$231,174
*Income*
Rates	97,147	102,731
Fees and Charges	65,634	70,978
Grants and Contributions	49,965	50,870
Other Income / Reserves	24,069	6,595
Total Income	$236,815	$231,174
Net Budget Position – Surplus/(Deficit)	0	0

Rates

1. Rating increase - IPART announcement

From 2011-12 onwards the responsibility for determining and announcing the rate peg has been transferred from the Minister for Local Government to IPART. Under this regime IPART developed a Local Government Cost Index (LGCI). This index, less a productivity coefficient, now forms the annual rate peg announced in December each year for the following financial year. Council may decide how this total is shared between business, residential, and farmland sectors and may also reduce the total rate revenue. IPART has announced a rate peg of 1.8% for 2016-17.

2. Ordinary Rates

Each year Council must determine a rating policy for the next financial year. The Local Government Act 1993 provides for a number of rating structures that ensure Councils have the flexibility to develop a structure that best provides equity for their Local Government Area. Council’s current structure is an ad valorem rate with a minimum amount.

· Within this rate structure rate assessments are based on property valuations (ad valorem) with a minimum amount. An ad valorem rate with a minimum amount uses a set minimum amount payable for properties within each category. A rate in the dollar is applied to each property’s land value. This means that rates are based on the land value of the property as determined by the NSW Valuer-General. Every three years Council receives updated valuations for all properties in the Local Government Area with the most recent valuation taking effect for rating purposes on 1 July 2016. In situations where the levy would be lower than the set minimum, the minimum rate takes effect.

· From 2011-12 onwards the responsibility for determining and announcing the rate peg has been transferred from the Minister for Local Government to IPART. Under this regime IPART developed a Local Government Cost Index (LGCI). This index, less a productivity coefficient, now forms the annual rate peg announced in December each year for the following financial year. Council may decide how this total is shared between business, residential, and farmland sectors and may also reduce the total rate revenue. IPART has recently announced a rate peg of 1.8% for 2016-17.

Council charges rates on three types of land categories:

a. Residential

b. Farmland

c. Business – with the following sub-categories

i. Penrith CBD

ii. St Mary’s Town Centre

The maximum rate revenue is calculated by taking last year’s revenue, adding rates on new properties created by subdivision, and on new strata-titles, and adding an adjustment approved by IPART.

The Council’s Rating Policy has been considered in some detail during the development of the proposed Special Rate Variation (SRV) with reports on a Rating Structure Review presented to the Finance Working Party (FWP) and Councillor Briefings. Councillors considered the rating structure options available, along with the impact of the SRV, and endorsed the continuation of the existing ad valorem with a minimum rating structure. In doing so it has also been proposed that to enhance affordability, address the changing shape of development in the City, and growth in apartment and other strata living, and to lessen the impact of the SRV on Rural Ratepayers in particular, that an application to increase the residential minimum by 16%, including the renewal of AREAS (covering approximately 35% of residential properties) form part of the SRV application. This proposal was endorsed at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 8 February 2016 and it is on that basis that the Draft 2016-17 Budget has been developed. Formal adoption of the Rating Structure for 2016-17 is required tonight as part of Council’s approval to place the 2016-17 Operational Plan on Public Exhibition.

Council currently has 70,404 rateable properties contributing approximately 43% of Council’s total revenue. It is expected that both the Penrith CBD Corporation and the St Marys Town Centre Corporation will request a continuation of business sub-category rates to fund their respective activities. A total of $392,149 will be raised from Penrith CBD and $298,470 from St Marys Town Centre for this purpose in 2016-17.

The Draft 2016-17 budget includes a net increase of $5.6m for rates income over the original estimate for 2015-16. This increase incorporates the proposed 2016-17 SRV (4.8%) and replacement of AREAs (4.29%). If the application to IPART for a new SRV and the renewal of AREAS is not successful, rates income would be reduced by $1.4m from the original estimate for 2015-16 impacted by the removal of AREAS (4.29%) from the base. Factored into estimates is a prediction for growth of both residential and non-residential rates.

Rate Category	Ad Valorem Rate in $	MINIMUM RATE		Total Anticipated Gross Revenue $’000s	Number of Properties
Rate Category	Ad Valorem Rate in $	2016-17 $	Increase $	Total Anticipated Gross Revenue $’000s	Number of Properties
Residential	0.00370463	959.50	95.30	79,691	66,679
Farmland	0.001852315	959.50	95.30	1,370	400
Business	0.0066059	1,156.35	50.55	18,924	2,680
Business - Penrith CBD Rate	0.0074972	1,156.35	50.55	3,105	412
Business - St Marys Town Centre Rate	0.0101565	1,156.35	50.55	890	233
Total				$103,980*	70,404

* The revenues identified in this section represent the gross anticipated revenues prior to the application of Pensioner Subsidies, Provision for Doubtful debts and abandonments.

3. Pensioner Subsidy

Council’s policy is to give eligible pensioners a pensioner subsidy. Council’s policy provides for a 50% rebate of rates and domestic waste charges to a maximum of $250. In addition pensioners are exempt from the Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC), discussed below.

Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC)

· In 2012-13 Council introduced a Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC) to fund stormwater improvement programs. The SMSC replaced components of Council’s Enhanced Environmental Program (EEP) which provided funding for the delivery of a number of significant environmental enhancement programs to improve our local environment through infrastructure and stormwater improvement. This charge only applies to urban residential and business properties. The introduction of an SMSC ensures that programs are provided to deliver a wide range of stormwater management initiatives essential to the health of the catchment and responding to community expectations.

· The table below shows the number of properties subject to the proposed annual SMSC, and an estimate of the revenue generated.

2016-17 Estimated Stormwater Management Service Charge Revenue

Stormwater Category	Annual Charge	No. of Properties	2016-17 Total Revenue
Urban Residential
Residential	$25.00	41,993	$1,049,825
Residential (Strata)	$12.50	7920	$99,000
Residential (Pensioner)	$25.00*	8,352	$208,800*
Residential (Strata - Pensioner)	$12.50*	1,127	$13,838*
Less Pensioner Exemptions			-$222,638*
Urban Business
Business	$22.80 plus an additional $22.80 for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres	2,956	$740,967
Total Revenue			$1,889,792

*Council’s Policy has provided a 100% rebate for eligible pensioners.

Reserves

Details of Council’s reserves are also included in the draft 2016-17 Operational Plan. These are amounts held for specific purposes. The reserves are divided into internal reserves (set up to apply Council policy) and external reserves (required by law). Some reserves are set up to ensure that Council’s policies with regard to a particular outcome are safeguarded, while others provide funds for a particular expressed purpose sometime in the future.

Voted Works

Also included in the reserves is an allocation to ‘Voted Works’. Council policy is that an amount of $53,000 is allocated to each of the three Wards each year. These funds are normally applied to particular purposes of an urgent nature, in one or more of the Wards, by resolution of Council. Voted Works also provides an opportunity to allow some discretionary funding for items that arise unexpectedly during the year, and when all other funding in the annual program has been allocated. It is Council policy that any unexpended amounts in Voted Works are revoted to the following year.

Section 94 Program of Works

A central feature of the draft 2016-17 Operational Plan is the inclusion of program of infrastructure works and community facilities, funded by Section 94 contributions in 2016-17. A summary of the proposed Section 94 program capital works expenditure for 2016-17 under each relevant Plan is provided below. They have been included in the Capital and Operating Projects section of the draft documents.

2016-17 DRAFT S94 PROJECTS
PLAN / PROJECT			BUDGET ($)
*Penrith City Local Open Space S94*
	William St / Twickenham Av playground and path, Cambridge Park		72,500
	Roper Rd Fields Lighting & Signage, Colyton		63,000
	Leonay Oval Shade & Seating, Leonay		35,000
	Mulgoa Park Picnic Shed, Bollards & Landscaping, Mulgoa		151,000
	Ridge Park Pathway, Oxley Park		35,000
	Parker St Reserve Seating, Penrith		12,000
	Barnett St Playground & Park Furniture, South Penrith		70,500
	Smith Park Shelter Furniture & Landscaping, Castlereagh		42,000
	Pamela Parade Playground Furniture & Landscaping, Leonay		20,000
		Total Penrith City Local Open Space S94	501,000

*Erskine Business Park S94*
	Erskine Business Park Improvements		44,000

		Total Erskine Business Park S94	44,000
*Waterside Green Open Space S94*
	Cranebrook Reserve Construction of Amenities Block Stage 1		213,201
		Total Waterside Green Open Space S94	213,201
		TOTAL DRAFT S94 PROJECTS	758,201

Fees and Charges

As part of the draft 2016-17 Operational Plan process, fees and charges have been reviewed with the proposed increases in the fees set directly by Council being generally in the vicinity of the estimated CPI increase. The Draft Fees & Charges details a description of each item, the 2015-16 charge and the proposed 2016-17 charge.

Children’s Services fees have been incorporated into the fees and charges document at the amounts recommended by the Board of the Penrith Children’s Services Cooperative. The fees and charges for the Controlled Entities fees are set and published by those organisations. Fees set by regulation are included at the current rates, but are subject to change when the regulations change.

The sustainable 3 bin service (urban) is proposed to increase by $25 pa to $384 and the standard 2 bin service (non-urban and multi-unit properties) is proposed to increase by $38 pa to $416. This is based on full cost recovery and allows for increases in CPI, the waste levy and variation in collection contract costs facilitating service improvements. The ‘Fees and Charges’ section of the draft 2016-17 Operational Plan details the different Domestic Waste Service combinations. The most commonly used services and their charges for 2016-17 are summarised below:

Domestic Waste Service	Rate per Week $	Annual Charge $	Percentage Increase (decrease) %	Anticipated Revenue $
Vacant Land	1.12	58.00	14	161,298
1 Waste Management Service Dom Waste – Standard Service Dom Waste – Reduced Organics Dom Waste – Large Service Dom Waste – Weekly Dom Waste – Weekly Reduced Organics Dom Waste – Weekly Large Dom Waste – 2 Bin Service Dom Waste – 2 Bin Service – Reduced Garbage Dom Waste - Collect and Return	7.38 6.79 8.77 10.56 9.96 13.73 8.00 7.35 8.67	384.00 353.00 456.00 549.00 518.00 714.00 416.00 382.00 451.00	7 7 7 10 10 10 10 10 13	13,619,664 954,459 2,647,572 3,844,920 204,624 475,956 3,756,392 324,860 3,054,123
			Total	29,043,868

Overall the average increase in fees and charges included in the draft 2016-17 Fees and

Charges is 6.6% (or 8.0% if changes to two fees relating to PCC as a Private Certifying Authority are included). This category of income is estimated to be worth $71.0m, or 31% of Council’s total estimated revenue for 2016-17.

Detailed Program Information

Further details relating to Council’s proposed Special Rate Variations, contributions to Controlled Entities, Reserve balances and proposed movements, and Capital and Operating Projects are provided in the revised Delivery Program (incorporating the draft one-year Operational Plan for 2016-17).

Capacity Review and Productivity Initiatives

The recent Financial Capacity Review has facilitated an unprecedented opportunity for Management and the Finance Working Party to develop and recommend a range of strategies and initiatives to structurally reform our budget and position ourselves for continued long term financial sustainability as a Regional City.

Already a range of productivity savings and reduced costs across many of Council’s operations has built annual recurring savings of $4.9m into the base budget from 2015-16.

Productivity Improvements (2011-16)

Productivity Initiative	Service Efficiencies	Cumulative Efficiencies	Annual Savings	Cumulative Savings
*Service Change / New delivery model*
Domestic Waste Management			$2,700,000	$9,900,000
Workers' Compensation Insurance			$700,000	$2,700,000
*Service Efficiencies*
Light Vehicle Fleet Management			$122,500	$490,000
Group purchasing and tenders	$550,000	$3,300,000
Improved mower technologies	$350,000	$350,000
Relief Staff in CS			$130,000	$650,000
Printer technologies			$131,000	$131,000
Rural intersection mowing			$40,000	$200,000
Various Service delivery efficiencies			$296,803	$1,259,347
Funding Adjustment (CS, PBA and Cemeteries)			$177,054	$713,449
*Service Reductions*
2011-12 Special Rate Variation adjustments			$182,841	$733,679
Disengagement from Immunisation			$1,000	$4,000
	$900,000	$3,650,000	$4,481,198	$16,781,475
*2015-16 Initiatives*
Cemeteries - Increased fees to achieve cost recovery			$143,577
Waste Disposal (Street Sweepers)			$170,000
Skills & Knowledge and Skill shortage			$41,000
Restorations Officer/Income			$49,747
Mobility for building trades staff	$150,000
ICT Network speeds
Toilet cleaning contract	$307,000
	$457,000		$404,324
Total	$1,357,000	$3,650,000	$4,885,522	$16,781,475

However growth in the city has also seen an increase in our responsibilities and associated expenses so other initiatives directed at increasing capacity continue to be implemented.

Last year Penrith was deemed Fit for the Future by IPART, providing an independent validation of Council’s current and future strategies. This is a clear endorsement of the Financial Capacity Review. Our submission to IPART also included a proposed four year Special Rate Variation (SRV) to commence in 2016-17, including the continuation of Asset Renewal Established Areas Strategy (AREAS) SRV.

Within the proposed 2016-17 SRV new savings resulting from the current Service Review and continuous improvement have been targeted by this strategy, which has also recognised the need for increased investment in ICT to drive productivity initiatives.

The proposed SRV recommends the following additional funding allocations/ (savings) in 2016-17 of:

Recommended Strategy	Impact (‘000)	From	Comment
Operational Budget savings – 0.5%	($1,000)	2016-17	0.25% in 2015-16
Increased base investment in ICT	$200	2016-17	Ongoing
Once off ICT investment	$1,500	2016-17	Over 2 years

The SRV has not been considered in isolation but rather as one of a number of strategies that will work together to deliver the desired changes to our financial environment and meet the aspirations of our Community. Although the SRV will be used to fund asset renewal and maintenance, address backlog, realign existing services, improve service levels and facilitate major projects it is not the only funding source. Initiatives will also be funded through productivity savings, growth in own source revenue and rationalisation of assets.

The financial strategies developed over the past two years relies not just on the proposed SRV, but also on reform within the organisation’s processes, systems, procedures, culture and structure. Reform in these area has already commenced and will continue over the next 2-3 years. The General Manager has challenged the organisation to match the funds from the proposed SRV with savings from better ways of doing things, harnessing technology improvements, implementing new systems and reviewing service delivery. These savings will provide the capacity to continue to service our growing city ensuring the SRV funds are directed towards the city shaping and future-proofing priorities.

Next steps

Section 405(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to publicly exhibit, for not less than 28 days, its draft Operational Plan. Subject to Council’s endorsement tonight, it is proposed to commence the public exhibition on Wednesday 27 April 2016, ending on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

Exhibition copies of the proposed amendments to the Delivery Program 2013-17 and draft 2016-17 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges will be available at the Civic Centre, Queen St Centre and Council’s libraries, along with relevant supporting corporate documents. The draft Plans will also be available for viewing or downloading on Council’s online engagement portal – www.yoursaypenrith.com.au. Public submissions will be able to be submitted by completing the online feedback submission forms, email or letters. Specific extracted copies of the 2016-17 Fees & Charges will be made available at Council operated Childcare Centres. All submissions received on the draft documents will be individually acknowledged. This will be followed by a response that reflects Council’s established policy or Council’s determination of the particular issue.

Council must consider the matters outlined in all submissions. Depending on the nature and complexity of each submission, Council may choose to amend the draft Operational Plan, or consider a submission but defer changes until a subsequent period. A full report on public submissions will be provided to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 27 June 2016.

Following consideration of the information presented at tonight’s meeting, the key dates and next steps are:

Public exhibition 27 April – 25 May 2016	Public exhibition of the revised Delivery Program (incorporating the draft one-year Operational Plan for 2016-17 and draft Fees and Charges).
Ordinary Meeting 27 June 2016	Report summarising the outcomes of the public exhibition, and seeking Council’s adoption of the Delivery Program (incorporating the one-year Operational Plan for 2016-17 and Fees and Charges).

Conclusion

The proposed amendments to the Community Plan, Delivery Program 2013-17, draft 2016-17 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges have been developed to reflect the priorities and direction established in the IPR corporate documents. The Delivery Program reflects Council’s commitment to effective service delivery and fiscal responsibility whilst managing the growth in step with the community’s outcomes for the City captured in the Community Plan.

The 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget reflect the focus on efficient service delivery, planned management of growth and a desire to continue progress on the priorities of more local jobs and making sure that we have the services and infrastructure that we need.

It is proposed to place the amendment to the revised Delivery Program (incorporating the draft one-year Operational Plan for 2016-17 and draft Fees and Charges 2016-17) on public exhibition for community comment. It is recommended that Council endorse public exhibition of the draft corporate planning documents, as outlined in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Exhibition of the Revised Delivery Program 2013-17 (incorporating the 2016-17 Draft Operational Plan and Fees and Charges) be received.

2. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council endorse for public exhibition of the revised Delivery Program 2013-17 (incorporating the draft Operational Plan for 2016-17 and draft Fees and Charges 2016-17), including any amendments made at tonight’s meeting.

3. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the revised Delivery Program 2013-17 (incorporating the Operational Plan for 2016-17 and draft Fees and Charges 2016-17) be placed on public exhibition for 28 days commencing on Wednesday 27 April 2016 and closing on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

4. The public exhibition arrangements are implemented as detailed in this report, and submissions from the community are invited.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.	Draft 2016-17 Fees & Charges	93 Pages	Attachments Included
2.	Draft 2016-17 Operational Plan	128 Pages	Attachments Included

Ordinary Meeting 18 April 2016

Attachment 4 - SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guide Assessment

SEPP 65 & Apartment Design Guide Assessment

SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles

*Principle*	*Requirement*	*Comment*
1. Context & Neighbourhood Character	Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined.	The building responds to the desired future character of the locality given the prevailing R4 zoning and 18m height limit applying to the locality. The proposal also aligns with the key DCP controls applying to the site in terms of setbacks, landscaping, and building height with the exception of a small portion of the lift core overrun. This demonstrates a suitable response to the site’s context in terms of desired future character.
2. Building Form & Scale	Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.	The development achieves an appropriate bulk, height and scale relative to the desired future character of the locality. The proposal aligns with the setback controls for the precinct and provides for an appropriate interface with the adjacent cemetery.
3. Density	Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.	High density residential development on the site is desirable given its location near to transport nodes and service facilities identified as key considerations in the height controls within Penrith LEP 2010. The proposed density is responsive to the desired and anticipated future character of the locality and the proposal is generally consistent with setback, separation and building height controls.
4.Sustainability	Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.	Energy and water reduction measures for the proposed development have been detailed in the submitted BASIX Certificate. The proposal has satisfactorily incorporated the commitments nominated in the BASIX Certificate for the development application stage of the proposal. Further, the proposal achieves required WSUD measures. The design of the development embodies sustainability measures given the design maximises natural light and ventilation to the apartments.
5. Landscape	Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.	The application has been accompanied by a landscape plan which provides for the high quality embellishment of the site by suitable ground covers, shrubs and trees which, at maturity, will complement the height, scale, design and function of the proposed development. The proposed development provides green spaces which will allow passive recreation and provide a calming environment for residents.
6. Amenity	Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident wellbeing.	The development provides good amenity for residents both in terms of apartment configuration and in terms of facilities for community living. Ground floor common area courtyards, rooftop common areas and landscaped private spaces provide a variety of positive experience environments for residents. Adequate provision has been made for storage areas, common open space and building servicing areas.
7. Safety	Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain.	Subject to several recommended conditions, the proposed development is considered to be of a safe and satisfactory design which promotes crime prevention in its existing environment. The internal courtyard is the main access route to the dwellings and is overlooked by many of the dwellings giving heightened natural surveillance. Parking is secured via a roller door at the base of the parking ramp in the basement with direct lift access to the building. The development clearly articulates the public and private domain. Legible foyer areas, clear sight lines and good lighting provide public and communal areas with good natural surveillance promoting safety for residents and visitors.
8. Housing Diversity & Social Interaction	Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.	A range of dwellings styles are proposed to accommodate various needs with a diversity in apartment sizes as well as a mix of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units.
9. Aesthetics	Good design achieves a built form that has suitable proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure.	The design of the proposed building provides an appropriate address to the public domain. The proposed external elevations provide elements of depth and articulation and the proposed colour scheme for the building complements surrounding development.

Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Requirements

ADG Element

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

3A Site Analysis required

Appendix 1 of the ADG

Site analysis provided.

Yes

3B Orientation

Where an adjoining building does not currently receive 2 hours of sunlight in midwinter, solar access should not be further reduced by > 20%

4 hours of solar access should be retained to solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

See discussion in report regarding overshadowing.

Adjoining properties do not contain solar collectors.

See discussion in report.

Yes

3C Public Domain Interface

The maximum height of street frontage walls is 1m

Substations, pump rooms, garbage storage rooms and other service rooms should be located in the basement car park or out of view

<1m

The waste rooms are incorporated into the building and are out of view. The substation provided at the front of the site will be visible but given the scale of the development the impact is limited and the location is required by Endeavour Energy.

Yes

3D Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site

50% of the principal COS should receive 2

hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm

Minimum dimension of 3m

371m² (26%) provided.

Provided given rooftop.

Minimum dimension of 3m.

Yes

3E Deep Soil Zones

A deep soil zone equivalent to 7% of the site area must be provided

If the site is between 650m² to 1500m² then the DSZ must have minimum dimensions of 3m

If over 1500m² then min. dimensions of 6m

132m² provided which equates to 9.1%.

Yes

3F Visual Privacy

Building Separation

Up to 4 storeys (up to 12m)

5-8 Storeys (up to 25m)

12m between habitable rooms (6m)

18m between habitable rooms (9m)

6m-6.6m

9m to external wall

6m to balcony edges

Yes, with the exception of a minor part of the balcony at the north-eastern corner which is marginally less (5.5m) however it contains a privacy screen to alleviate privacy issues which is appropriate.

Yes (external wall).

Variation - balcony edges.

The balcony edges at the upper levels encroach the 9m buffer however

conditions requiring privacy screens are recommended to address privacy concerns and this is considered acceptable.

3J Car Parking

Car parking for sites within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop can provide parking at the rate of:

<20 units

1 space for each unit

An additional 0,2 space for each 2br unit

An additional 0.5 space per 3br unit

0.2 space for visitor parking

>20 units

Metropolitan Regional (CBD) Centres:

0.4 spaces per 1 bedroom unit

0.7 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

1.20 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

1 space per 7 units (visitor parking)

Metropolitan Sub-Regional Centres:

0.6 spaces per 1 bedroom unit

0.9 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

1.40 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

1 space per 5 units (visitor parking)

The proposal complies with parking requirements under Penrith DCP 2014.

Complies with Penrith DCP 2014.

4A Solar Access

70% of units to receive 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm mid-winter

A maximum of 15% of apartments receive no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm mid-winter

79.5% of apartments achieve 2 hours.

2.5% receive no sunlight.

Yes

4B Natural Ventilation

60% of units are cross ventilated in a building up to 9 storeys

Overall width of a cross over or cross through apartment is <18m

Unobstructed window openings should be equal to at least 5% of the floor area served

61.5% units achieve natural ventilation which aligns with the intent of the ADG.

<18m

Complies

Yes

4C Ceiling Height

2.7m for habitable and 2.4m for non-habitable

2.7m provided.

Yes

4D Unit Sizes

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

+ 5m² for each unit with more than 1 bathroom.

Bedroom sizes

Master

Other

Living rooms/dining areas have a minimum width of:

3.6m

Cross-over/cross-through

Habitable room depths

Open plan layouts which include a living room, dining room and kitchen

50m²

70m²

90m²

10m²

9m²

Studio/1 bdm

2bdm/3bdm

4m wide

Limited to 2.5m x ceiling height

(6.75m with 2.7m ceiling heights)

8m to a window

>50m²

>70m²

>90m²

Where second bathrooms are provided for units an additional 5m² of floor space is provided.

Small number of units <10m² but acceptable given layouts functional.

9m² or >

>3.6m

>4m

N/A as open plan layouts provided.

<8m to a window to habitable areas. There are some corridors and bathrooms that are beyond the 8m to a small number of units.

Yes

Minor variation to some units.

Yes

N/A

Yes, to habitable areas. Minor departure to some corridor and bathrooms spaces which is reasonable given all habitable areas are within 8m.

4E Private Open Space

Balcony Sizes

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

Ground level/ podium apartments

8m² & 2m depth

10m²& 2m depth

12m²& 2.4m depth

15m²& 3m depth

> 8m² & 2m

>10m²& 2m

>12m²& 2.4m

>15m²& 3m.

Yes

Minor departure to units facing laneway due to indented bin bay however good amenity retained

to private open space.

4F Common Circulation and Spaces

Common Circulation

Units per plate

Corridors >12m

8 -12 units per plate

Are articulated

Maximum 8 per plate.

Articulated and light source provided to all corridors.

Yes

4G Storage

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

Min. 50% of required storage is within the apartment

6m³

8m³

10m³

6m³

8m³

10m³

Yes

4O Landscape Design

Site Area >1500m²

1 large tree or 2 medium trees per 80m² of DSZ

14 trees which is greater than the required 4 trees.

Yes

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 2015-2016 Annual Statements are presented
∞	Meeting at which any comments on the 2015-2016 Annual Statements are presented
+	Meeting at which the Annual Report is presented

Company	Tendered Price	Company Location	Directors
Josa Constructions Pty Ltd	$3,342,400	1 Leland Street, Penrith , NSW, 2750	George Apokis
Statewide Civil Pty Ltd	$4,129,267	605/5 Celebration Dr, Norwest, NSW, 2153	Michael Dominello
Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd	$4,633,554	39 Five Islands Road, Port Kembla, NSW, 2505	Denis Cleary Brett Cleary Robert Elvy Denise Ovens
Civil Constructions Pty Ltd	$5,155,557	6 Mary Parade , Rydalmere, NSW, 2116	Chris Judges
JK Williams Contracting Pty Ltd	$5,319,944	44 Jack Williams Dr, Penrith NSW 2750	Leigh Hartog

Outcome	We can work close to home
Strategy	Provide access to education and training to improve residents ability to take advantage of current and future employment opportunities
Service Activity	Deliver high quality children's services

1.	Summary of Investments	6 Pages	Appendix
2.	Agency Collection Methods	1 Page	Appendix