Council_Mark_POS_RGB

15 June 2016

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 20 June 2016 at 7:00PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM - 19 June 2016 to 22 June 2016 inclusive.

Councillor Karen McKeown - 19 June 2016 to 22 June 2016 inclusive.

Councillor Tricia  Hitchen - 19 June 2016 to 22 June 2016 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 6 June 2016.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 20 June 2016

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2016 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2016 - December 2016

(Adopted by Council -  23 November 2015)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

19

(7.00pm)

 

29@

21

18v

23#

27*

25

22@

26^ü

(7.00pm)

24

28#+

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

15

14

 

9

20

11

8

 

10

14

12

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Acting Senior Governance Officer, Adam Beggs.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

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

ON MONDAY 6 JUNE 2016 AT 7:05PM

PRESENT

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

 

 

APOLOGIES

PRC20  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM that apologies be received for the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM and Councillor Prue Car MP.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 9 May 2016

PRC21  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 May 2016 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre s94 Plan Rescission                                            

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

PRC22  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre s94 Plan Rescission be received.

2.    Council resolve to rescind the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre s94 Plan.

3.    A Public Notice be placed in a local newspaper advising the community of Council’s resolution and advising of the date the rescission of the s94 Plan will take effect.

4.    If any further Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre s94 contributions are owing under current development consents, Council resolve to waive those contributions following applicants lodging a request to amend the conditions of consent under s96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

5.    In the event any further contributions accumulate under the subject s94 Plan, they be allocated to further embellishment of the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre.

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

For

Against

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Bernard Bratusa

 

Councillor Maurice Girotto

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

Councillor Tricia  Hitchen

 

Councillor Michelle Tormey

 

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

2        Corporations Operations Triennial Review                                                                   

PRC23  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Corporations Operations Triennial Review  be received

2.    The recommendations of The Professional Partner Group report, as outlined in Council’s report, be progressively implemented to improve the operation and management of the St Marys Town Centre Corporation and the Penrith CBD Corporation.

 

 There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:07PM.

    


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Status of Community Event Temporary Signs Policy                                                       1

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

2        Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management                                                                          9

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

3        Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014   

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

 

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

 

4        Wentworth Community Housing - Strategic Priorities                                                     23

 

5        Penrith Swimming Centre Waterplay Feature Update                                                    26

 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

6        Draft Policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land                       35

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Status of Community Event Temporary Signs Policy                                                       1

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                      20 June 2016

 

 

 

1

Status of Community Event Temporary Signs Policy   

 

Compiled by:               Julie Condon, Development Enquiry Coordinator

Authorised by:            Peter Wood, Development Services Manager  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

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

Service Activity

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

      

 

Executive Summary

Council regularly receives enquiries from community and not-for-profit organisations regarding the use of temporary signage for promotion of community events throughout the local government area.

 

At a Council briefing on 1 June 2015 a draft policy to provide temporary signage options for community events was presented to Council. The implementation of such a policy recognises the value of the contribution to the community of community and not-for-profit organisations within Penrith and provides support for their undertakings via a mechanism for the promotion of events and activities.

 

Council supported the draft policy and proposed action to identify suitable sites for infrastructure to accommodate banner signs to be implemented.

 

A number of options have now been identified with the most suitable sites recommended being in locations where there is existing Council signage. These sites are at the entry points to the city and suburbs or villages and where existing signage has been erected for the promotion of events or initiatives of Council.

Background

On 9 March 2015 a report was presented to Council’s Policy Review Committee outlining the legislative frame work regarding options for temporary signage to facilitate the promotion of events held by community and not for profit organisations within the Local Government Area. The recommendation that Council not encourage ad hoc placement of moveable signage on public land was endorsed along with the recommendation that development of a policy to provide opportunities to allow for community event signage be investigated.

 

On 1 June 2015, a draft policy for Community event temporary and moveable signage was presented to a Councillor briefing and the recommendation to proceed to investigate options for suitable locations for signage was endorsed.

 

Draft Policy

The Draft Community Event Temporary Signs Policy previously reported has been amended to remove the option for the use of Variable Message Signs (VMS) for temporary signage see Attachment No. 1. This amendment has been made as there is no safe way for these signs to be used unless they are part of an approved traffic management plan for an event. In any other circumstance VMS signs would be required to obtain development consent as they are illuminated signage which cannot be development exempt from the need to obtain consent. 

 

As such the Draft Policy and this report have a focus on facilitating community event signage through the use of permanent signage infrastructure or banner poles on Council owned or managed land.

 

The Policy proposes that banner signs up to 3.5m² can be erected on fixed poles or frames erected by the Council for that purpose and that the banners be produced to a professional standard.

 

Businesses wishing to undertake advertising on private land have options to do so as either:

 

·    Exempt development under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008, or

·    If the proposed sign does not meet the criteria for exempt development, as the subject of a development application.

 

Matters for consideration

There are a number of matters which require consideration in the selection of appropriate sites throughout the city to allow for the injection of the necessary infrastructure for erection of banner signs for the promotion of community events. These include;

 

·    Safety of road users and pedestrians

·    Traffic issues – may require concurrence of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

·    Potential conflicts of land use – eg advertising in a residential area

·    Visual impacts or visual clutter

·    Ownership of the land – must be Council owned or managed

·    Other signage strategies under way in the Local Government Area such as the Wayfinding Strategy and the renewal of entry to the City signs

·    Internal stakeholders – Council’s Landscape Design and Projects, Engineering Services, City Works and Corporate Communications teams

·    External stakeholders – Penrith City Centres Corporation, Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, community and not-for-profit organisations

·    Risk assessment of proposed sites – eg proximity to road, manner of attaching signs.

·    Level of exposure for the advertising

·    Availability component of the locations for community use – audit of existing usage patterns will be required

·    Ownership of the management of the sign booking system

·    Potential impacts of competing messages on signs

 

The result of including all of these considerations is that options for the selection of sites for frames or banner poles should be limited mainly to locations where signage already exists.

 

Identification of potential sites for signage

An assessment of potential locations for signage has been undertaken with the input of staff from Council’s Traffic, Landscape Projects, and Communications Departments.

 

The sites which have been identified as suitable include;

 

·    The six (6) sites where entry to the city signs are located. There is potential for banners to be hung off the framework at the base of the entry signs (subject to RMS approval)

 

·    The four (4) sites managed by Council’s Communications Team for Council run events. There is potential for these to be used when not occupied by Council promotional material, or for these frames to be modified to allow for community banners to be hung in the lower sections.

 

·    The sites where entry to suburb or village signs are located eg on Londonderry road at Londonderry.

 

Other sites which may be suitable include locations around community centres or sporting facilities and include;

 

·    Outside the sports stadium in Herbert Street Cambridge Park

·    Near Jamison Park on York or Jamison Road

·    Mulgoa Village shopping centre (subject to RMS concurrence)

·    Adjacent to the tennis courts in Woodriff Gardens (subject to RMS concurrence and road upgrades)

·    At the western entrance to Glenmore Park

·    At the community centre on the corner of Pyramid and Lawson Street Emu Plains

·    In Chapman Gardens on the Great Western Highway at Kingswood (subject to RMS concurrence)

 

The locations which are most suitable are those with signage infrastructure already in place such as the entry to city, suburb, or communications signs. These locations cover all of the entry points to the city and many local suburb or village entry points. These options would be able to be established with the least delay and cost and would provide for the signage without introducing additional visual clutter into the landscape. Photographs showing indicative sites are included in Attachment No. 2. A Map showing existing and possible locations is included in Attachment No. 3.

 

Other options for community signage

There are a number of other mechanisms which may be considered for the provision of temporary signage for community events. These include;

 

·    Possible future project to renew and install new bus shelters in the city with provision for rotating signage on the ends of the shelters, a component of which could be reserved for community event promotion. A policy position will need to be brought before Council on this issue.

·    Review of current banner locations throughout the city.

·    The City Centre Corporation and Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce could be approached to consider allocating a component of approved banner signage for promotion of community events.

 

Conclusion

The locations identified as most suitable for community event advertising are those where Council signage infrastructure is already in place.

Finalisation of the draft policy and booking system will require further review of the availability of the existing signs for community use, approval of the expansion of the use of the signs by the RMS and assignment of responsibility within the organisation of the booking system and approval of signage as professional and appropriate. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Status of Community Event Temporary Signs Policy be received.

2.    The draft policy be reviewed and an implementation plan be developed which includes details on availability, professional standards for signage and process for booking.

3.    The details of the locations of the proposed signs be endorsed and an update on the implementation plan be provided through an all Councillor memorandum.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Draft community event temporary signs policy

4 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Potential sites for Banner Sign Poles

4 Pages

Attachments Included

3.  

Local Government Area Map

1 Page

Attachments Included

   


 

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

2        Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management                                                                          9

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                      20 June 2016

 

 

 

2

Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management   

 

Compiled by:               Victoria Patterson, Landscape Architect

Authorised by:            Michael Jackson, Design and Projects Manager  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Improve our public spaces and places

Service Activity

Provide designs and plans for Council's parks, buildings, roads and drains

      

 

Executive Summary

The Draft Plan of Management for Regatta Park, Emu Plains was endorsed for Public Exhibition at the Policy Review Council meeting on 15 February 2016. A formal exhibition period followed for 4 weeks between 4 March and 1 April 2016 with submissions accepted up to 15 April 2016. This report identifies and addresses the key matters raised in response to the Public Exhibition. Only minor changes have been made to the Final Draft Plan of Management document.

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the Final Draft Plan of Management for Regatta Park, Emu Plains.

 

Background

In 2013 consultants Clouston Associates in collaboration with People Place & Partnership prepared a master plan for “Our River” Nepean River, Penrith: https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/ourriverproject/.  Key interventions in the adopted Master Plan at Regatta Park are the realignment of River Road and the introduction of tourism related activity eg: Café/restaurant.

 

Preparation of the Draft Plan of Management (PoM) for Regatta Park was undertaken in parallel with the development of a Detailed Landscape Master Plan (DLMP) and Business Case Framework (BCF). The purpose of the DLMP is to provide Council with sufficient detail to enable the preparation of construction documentation and in turn enable the staged implementation of works. The BCF has been prepared to curate an offer to deliver on the commercial objectives for the precinct. It addresses the strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management issues and will ensure that planning and economics are integrated to result in realistic plans, objectives and controls.

 

The PoM for Regatta Park has been prepared addressing the issues and designs that have arisen from the DLMP and BCF and it provides the legislative framework to enable landscape and commercial improvements. Preparation of the PoM has involved a comprehensive program of engagement with Council, Government Agency stakeholders, landowners and several sign offs by the project team. Community engagement was a continuation of the consultation for the previous “Our River” Master Plan (2013), “Our River” Riparian Vegetation Management Plan (2015), and Plan of Management for Tench Reserve, River Road Reserve and Weir Reserve (2015).

 

The Final Draft PoM incorporates:

 

·    Information and recommendations from the other PoM’s in the precinct

·    The “Our River” Master Plan (Clouston Associates 2013)

·    Nepean River Riparian VMP (Eco Logical Australia 2015) and

·    Stakeholder feedback conducted in 2015 as part of the Regatta Park and Tench Reserve Detailed Landscape Master Plan (DLMP)

·    The DLMP for Regatta Park

 

A key objective of the PoM is to identify the scope and scale of permissible development on the site in accordance with the prescribed core objectives described in the Local Government Act. These core objectives reflect the optimum relationship of uses and facilities to the parks physical characteristics by the community. The PoM identifies corresponding performance targets in relation to these core objectives, developed specifically for Regatta Park. The Action Plan in the PoM identifies how Council proposes to achieve these objectives and performance targets. The Action Plan also identifies how Council proposes to assess its performance with respect to these. The PoM prioritises actions to address the following key issues:

 

·    Access and Circulation

·    Recreational and Commercial uses and facilities

·    Landscape character and visual amenity

·    Natural environment and cultural heritage

·    Management and governance

 

Public Exhibition Feedback and Recommendations

With support from the PCC communications team the draft document was advertised through multiple channels and the project material was made available in a number of ways. These included:

·    A display in the Penrith library

·    Online viewing of the documents

·    Advertising of the Public Exhibition period on Council’s Corporate News page

·    Personal emails and letters to landowners, stakeholders and local businesses

 

A total of 21 submissions were received to the exhibition of the Draft Regatta Park PoM. 10 submissions were received during the Public Exhibition period and a further 11 submissions were post-public exhibition and prior to presentation of this report. These were from a combination of local residents (15), government agency stakeholders/landowners (3), other stakeholders (2) and non-government land owners (1).

 

It should be noted that the majority of feedback received from local residents related to the DLMP image illustrated in the report rather than the objectives and performance targets of the PoM.

 

A summary of all the submissions received during the exhibition period is provided in Attachment 2. The key matters raised in submissions relate to:

 

1.   Realignment of River Road, traffic circulation and pedestrian safety

2.   Parkland amenity

3.   Community engagement/notification

4.   Riverbank / foreshore

5.   Commercial and development opportunities

 

1.   Realignment of River Road, traffic circulation and pedestrian safety

Feedback from local residents relating specifically to the realignment of River Road, traffic circulation and pedestrian safety included:

 

·    Increased traffic noise due to proximity of the realigned River Road to rear property boundaries;

·    Increased traffic speed and compromised pedestrian safety

·    Compromised sight lines from driveways

·    Detrimental impact on property values.

·    Increased visitation to Regatta Park a result of the upgrades creating increased traffic and parking demands

An independent review of the DLMP for Regatta Park carried out by GTA Consultants states that the new road layout provides a highly feasible solution for users accessing Regatta Park and for through traffic. Improved traffic conditions as a result of the new layout include:

 

·    The new intersection of Great Western Highway/River Road improves traffic conditions for access to and from York Street by providing a signalised option;

·    The new alignment of River Road is designed to slow down vehicles providing a safer and more amenable environment for park users;

·    A central parking area and a new overflow parking area provide flexible parking arrangements and good connections to all Regatta Park spaces;

·    All park areas are well connected by shared paths;

·    To keep noise and emissions disturbance to a minimum existing trees located between the properties boundaries and the road will be retained to act as a buffer.

In progressing the proposals for Regatta Park, the impact of the proposals on adjoining residences, traffic circulation and pedestrian safety will continue to be key considerations during the design process. Communication activities with local residents and stakeholders will continue throughout this process. There were no changes made to the Draft Regatta Park PoM as a result of the feedback received.

 

Feedback received from the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) in relation to the subject land included:

 

·    RMS has previously acquired a strip of land for road at the frontage of Lot 8 DP 228204

·    RMS has also previously vested a strip of land as road along the Great Western Highway frontage of Lot 1 DP 529749, Lot 5 DP 342116 and Lot 2 DP 342116

·    A strip of land along the frontage Great Western Highway of Lot 1 DP 342116 is affected by a Road Widening Order under Section 25 of the Roads Act, 1993 as published in Government Gazette 67 of 24-5-1968

·    There are proposals for easements within in the Regatta Park precinct (indicated on plans provided by RMS)

·    Any development of the park should ensure any new buildings or structures, together with any improvements integral to the future use of the site, are erected clear of the land acquired or reserved for road widening (unlimited in height or depth) and the identified easements.

Council will continue to liaise with the RMS during development of detail designs for Regatta Park. There were no changes made to the Draft Regatta Park PoM as a result of feedback received.

 

2.   Parkland Amenity

Feedback from local residents relating specifically to a perceived reduction in parkland amenity as a result of the proposals included:

 

·    The plan does not unify the park. It splits it into four areas with patrons being encouraged to cross roads and parking areas to traverse the park

·    The available playing space in the fields will be reduced

·    Paved areas should be located at the boundaries, not in the middle of park

·    The removal of existing mature trees to carry out the new works and the time it takes for new plantings to reach maturity will leave an uninviting, bare park and patrons will go elsewhere

·    The design is not in the interest of “locals”. Greenspace is for locals to use and share with visitors

Councils vision for this precinct is that, while the existing Regatta Park is an established park, its usage is currently heavily compromised by the busy road that divides it and which separates the flat, parkland areas from the sloping riverbanks. The vision is to maximise the potential of the space by diverting River Road around the bulk of the park land, and allowing the majority of park users to have safe and convenient access to both the river bank and the flat land better suited to picnicking and other recreational uses.

 

Whilst the submissions from local residents adjacent to the park raise valid concerns, and safety and amenity will continue to be key issues during the detailed design stage, the revised road alignment and proposed layout provides better park outcomes for the majority in Penrith LGA. 

 

In principle the layout for Regatta Park illustrated in the PoM does not differ from that adopted by Council in the “Our River” Master Plan (2013). There were no changes made to the Draft Regatta Park PoM as a result of the feedback received.

 

3.   Community Engagement and Notification

Feedback relating specifically to a perceived lack of community engagement and notification in relation to the DLMP proposals illustrated in the Draft Regatta Park PoM included:

 

·    Lack of notification regarding the concept of the realignment of River Road and upgrades to Regatta Park

·    Lack of consultation with owners of properties backing directly onto Regatta Park

·    It is as secret proposal that has not previously been disclosed by Council

The concept of the realignment of River Road was advertised during the Our River Master Plan (2013) and is a key part of the vision for Regatta Park. Methods employed by Council to engage with as many groups and individuals as possible at that time included: media releases, on-site intercept surveys, workshops, a community information stall at Sunday Siesta in Tench Reserve, permanent poster stands in the reserves, postcards and flyers hand-delivered to all local residents (including York Street), radio announcements, Facebook updates, website updates and a Public Exhibition period. A Summary Community Engagement report detailing the activities carried out and responses received can be found on the Our River page of Councils website: https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/OurRiverProject

 

The DLMP for Regatta Park was included in the Draft Regatta Park PoM to help inform future management actions for the park. Given the extensive community engagement undertaken for the Our River Master Plan, no formal engagement with the wider community was undertaken for the DLMP. However, the DLMP report recommends further community engagement in the design development and implementation phases, in particular with residents adjoining the site of the proposed River Road realignment.

 

In principle the layout for Regatta Park illustrated in the PoM does not differ from that adopted by Council in the Our River Master Plan (2013). There were no changes made to the Draft Regatta Park PoM as a result of the feedback received.

 

4.   River Bank / Foreshore

Feedback received from the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) / Fisheries regarding proposals for the Regatta Park foreshore included:

 

·    The foreshore walk may be susceptible to erosion during times of flood leading to further rock armour of the riverbank at this site. Reinforcement of the riverbank with native plantings is a preferred outcome.

·    Fisheries would not support any cutting in of the riverbank or reclamation of the river to construct a foreshore path. There is also concern that a boardwalk structure along the riverbank could result in greater erosive forces during times of flood.

·    The “Our River” Vegetation Management Plan indicates five treatment zones along Regatta Park. The treatment of only three of these zones has been described in the Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management.

·    The ability of an in river platform/ stage to withstand large floods should be considered.

·    Fisheries has some concern that the construction of a section of terraced river bank could result in downstream riverbank erosion during times of flood.

The Draft Regatta Park PoM has adopted the principles outlined in the Our River Riparian Vegetation Management Plan which was commended by the DPI (Fisheries) following its Public Exhibition in 2014. Council will continue to liaise with the DPI (Fisheries) to ensure maintenance of the ecological functions of the riparian zone whilst also providing social amenity and value.  Maintenance of riparian zone ecological function is important to improve the overall health of the Nepean River, which provides important key fish habitat in the Penrith LGA. There were no changes made to the Draft Regatta Park PoM as a result of the feedback received.

 

5.   Commercial and Development Opportunities

Feedback from local residents regarding commercial and development proposals in the precinct included:

 

·    Concern that the proposals will over-commercialise the space

·    Commercial development should be adjacent to, not within the parkland

·    It is not desirable to promote Regatta Park as hosting significant events due to the proposed parking being insufficient

In a possible community event mode, the water’s edge platform and bank seating terraces are supported by the flat land behind which provides all the support facilities such as additional food stall, temporary toilets, overflow parking etc.

 

Council does not have a vision to provide a large commercial presence in the park. The plan shows a small café restaurant to support activation of the space. The BCF prepared in conjunction with the PoM states as a point of differentiation from Tench Reserve and in recognition of the scenic qualities and quieter recreation opportunities in Regatta Park, these facilities might also incorporate a kiosk to allow takeaway purchases for park users and picnickers. Many quality public parks flourish when a café restaurant is included to provide patrons with a convenient catering option, in addition to public BBQ’s and picnic facilities.

 

Feedback was received from the owner of the Thai restaurant site on the corner of York Street and the Great Western Highway (Lot 1/DP342116) advising of their intention to develop the site earmarked on the plans for the future road realignment with possible land swap. Feedback was supportive of the plan in general but objected to the inclusion of their property on the grounds of potential for re-development. The land owner was keen to discuss both Penrith City Council’s plans and their vision for the site and is supportive of an open dialogue to discuss the way forward. To date a meeting has been held between Council and the land owner to review the current status and the various formal processes involved in pursuing this proposal.

 

Council will continue to liaise with all relevant landowners regarding aspirations and moving the plan forward. There were no changes made to the Draft Regatta Park PoM as a result of feedback received.

 

Minor Changes

Minor changes to the Draft Regatta Park Plan of Management included correction of a road name and land owner address and minor amendments to the Management Actions tables following a further internal staff review.

 

Conclusion

The extensive engagement program which included a public exhibition period has generated a Final Draft Plan of Management for Regatta Park that is underpinned by land owner, stakeholder, Government Agency and community responses and internal Council officer technical input.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management be received.

2.    The Final Plan of Management for Regatta Park, Emu Plains be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Regatta Park Final Draft Plan of Management

61 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Regatta Park Plan of Management - Public Exhibition Feedback Summary

3 Pages

Attachments Included

   


Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

3        Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014  

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

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                      20 June 2016

 

 

 

3

Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014   

 

Compiled by:               Krishti Akhter, Planner

Authorised by:            Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager  

 

Outcome

We care for our environment

Strategy

Support our communities to live more sustainably and use resources wisely

Service Activity

Manage resource recovery and waste collection services

     

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

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 November 2015, Council resolved to amend Chapter C5 of Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 and to publicly exhibit the draft Development Control Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and associated regulations. The proposed amendments seek to broaden the objectives relating to waste management and introduce a number of new controls for medium and high density residential developments.

 

The proposed amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management were publicly exhibited from 15 February 2016 until 29 March 2016. This report provides a review of the submissions received.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the draft amendment to Penrith DCP 2014. 

 

Background

 

Waste management controls assist Council in ensuring that waste minimisation and management is planned and undertaken for new developments during the development, construction and operational stages.

 

Waste planning has been identified as an issue across Western Sydney. Members of the Western Sydney Regional Waste Group through WSROC are looking to provide a consistent approach to waste issues in medium and high density development across the region.

 

The current DCP controls do not adequately address waste issues being faced by the proponents of medium and high density developments. This has resulted in delays in the approval process. Amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management will ensure that waste issues are considered early in the Development Application (DA) process.

 

Proposed changes to Penrith DCP 2014 – Chapter C5 Waste Management

 

The proposed changes to Penrith DCP 2014 will broaden the objectives relating to waste management and introduce a number of new controls for medium and high density developments.

 

The proposed changes will ensure that new developments:

 

·    incorporate suitable provision for the storage and servicing of solid waste that is appropriate and adequate to the volume generated,

·    are able to store waste that does not result in adverse impacts (including the creation of nuisance for the occupants of the development or adjoining properties), and

·    can be serviced in a manner that minimises risk and can be safely collected without disrupting traffic.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The draft amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management were exhibited from 15 February 2016 to 29 March 2016. A range of tasks to support the public exhibition were carried out during the exhibition period, including:

 

1.   Notification advertisements in the Western Weekender.

2.   Exhibition material available on Council’s website and at Council’s Civic Centre, St Marys Office, Penrith Library and St Marys Library during the exhibition period.

3.   Availability of staff at Penrith Civic Centre to answer community queries.

 

Submissions

 

Three submissions were received during the exhibition period. The main issues raised in the submissions can be grouped under the following three categories:

 

1.   General Comments

2.   Waste Management Design Guidelines

3.   Implications and recommendations

 

A detailed review of each of the submissions is provided in Attachment 1 to this report. A summary of the key matters arising from the submissions are discussed below:

 

1.   General Comments

 

The submissions commented on the need for a revised structure for Chapter C5 Waste Management to improve clarity. The submissions recommended that the structure of Chapter C5 Waste Management should be amended so that the development specific controls appear before the general controls to improve clarity and assist proponents in preparing Development Applications. This change is supported, as it will assist Council staff in assessing applications and allow quicker reference to specific information relating to development types.

 

The submissions also argued that the proposed changes to waste controls will require revision to the DCP standards for multi dwelling housing, such as setbacks and landscaping requirements. Developers are not providing suitable landscape setbacks to ameliorate the presentation of large waste storage areas within the front setback. However, the implications of the proposed changes is outside the scope of this amendment and will need to be undertaken as a separate review of the Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith DCP 2014. In the interim, applicants can discuss alternative solutions at pre-lodgement meetings with Council.

 

2.   Waste Management Design Guidelines

 

Council’s Waste Services Section have prepared Waste Management Guidelines to provide flexibility and additional guidance on waste controls. The Waste Management Guidelines will supplement the provisions of the DCP on issues encountered during assessment of DAs. These documents do not form part of the DCP and are intended to supplement the DCP.

 

The submissions requested that the Waste Management Guidelines consider an appropriate design for “road and pull-bay designs” and truck movements. This is supported and the Waste Management Guidelines will be revised accordingly. 

 

3.   Implications and recommendations

 

A submission raised concern that the proposed changes (requirement for a communal waste area for multi dwelling housing) will reduce the amount of floor space that could be achieved on sites across Penrith. The submission argued that the minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirements in the LEP would need to be revised to avoid poor urban design outcomes. However, the implications of the proposed changes to the waste controls is outside the scope of this amendment and will need to be undertaken as a separate review of the Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith DCP 2014.

 

The submission also recommended that there is a need for a traffic audit or an analysis of streets in R4 High Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use zones to determine suitable road widths to accommodate waste collection. However, it should be noted that a traffic report is also required to accompany a DA for residential flat buildings that will need to ensure the site complies for use by heavy rigid vehicles.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed amendments to the waste management controls in Penrith DCP 2014 will ensure that new medium and high density residential developments have waste systems that integrate with Council’s waste collection fleet. They will also ensure the design of waste facilities for new residential developments are considered in the preliminary stages.

 

The review of the submissions received in response to the exhibition of the draft amendment to Penrith DCP 2014 has provided an opportunity for the community, including landowners and developers, to provide feedback. This feedback has been used to further improve the structure and use of Chapter C5 Waste Management.

 

Attachment 1 to this report provides a detailed review of the submissions and sets out the proposed changes to Chapter C5 Waste Management that are considered to respond to the submissions. The revised Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith DCP 2014 is included in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 be received.

2.    Council adopt the amended Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (Attachment 2), amended in accordance with the recommendations included in Attachment 1.

3.    The General Manager be delegated authority to make any necessary minor changes required to Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith DCP 2014 in accordance with Council’s adopted policy position before notification in the newspaper.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Consideration of Submissions and Recommendations

10 Pages

Attachments Included

2.  

Revised Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith DCP 2014

20 Pages

Attachments Included

   


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

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        Wentworth Community Housing - Strategic Priorities                                                     23

 

5        Penrith Swimming Centre Waterplay Feature Update                                                    26

 

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                      20 June 2016

 

 

 

4

Wentworth Community Housing - Strategic Priorities   

 

Compiled by:               Melissa McSeveny, Social Planning Coordinator

Authorised by:            Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager 

Requested By:            Councillor John Thain

 

Outcome

We are healthy and share strong community spirit

Strategy

Provide opportunities for our community to be healthy and active

Service Activity

Resource and implement social programs that contribute to community wellbeing

 

Presenters:                  Stephen McIntyre, CEO - Wentworth Community Housing - Strategic Priorities      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report and the presentation this evening by Stephen McIntyre, CEO of Wentworth Community Housing, is to provide Council with an overview of Wentworth Community Housing’s operations as well as a summary of its strategic priorities.

 

Wentworth Community Housing (WCH) Ltd is a not-for-profit community housing association that provides social and affordable housing for rental to eligible households who are on very low to moderate incomes.

 

Wentworth Community Housing is a Tier 1 registered community housing association.  There are three tiers in the National Regulatory System for Community Housing and further details on Tier 1 providers is given in the Background to this report.

 

In its 2015 Annual Report WCH indicates it manages over 2,100 properties across the Penrith, Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Blacktown LGAs.  Just over 600 of these properties are in the Penrith LGA.  WCH manages the majority of these properties under contract to FACS – Housing. In the financial year ending 30 June 2015 operating revenues were $30.5 million with expenses of $25.8 million. To ensure planned maintenance and property development liabilities can be met WCH has reserves of $18 million as at 30 June 2015.

 

In mid 2015 WCH won the tender for the Penrith Affordable Housing Project.  This tender process was managed by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) – Housing on Council’s behalf.  Council allocated $1.13 million of affordable housing contributions from voluntary planning agreements with new release area developers to the Penrith Affordable Housing Project. The signing of the funding agreement between Council and FACS – Housing and the allocation of $1.13 million to FACS was endorsed by Council at the Policy Review Committee meeting of 31 August 2015.

 

The report recommends the information on Wentworth Community Housing – Strategic Priorities be received.

 

Background

Wentworth Community Housing (WCH) Ltd is a not-for-profit community housing association that provides social and affordable housing for rental to eligible households who are on very low to moderate incomes.

 

WCH is a Tier 1 registered community housing association under the National Regulatory System for Community Housing.  This regulatory system is now consistent across all jurisdictions in Australia and was established by the NSW Parliament passing the Community Housing Providers (Adoption of National Law Act 2012 (NSW) which commenced on 1 January 2014.

 

Tier 1 community housing associations meet the highest level of performance requirements and regulatory engagement reflecting the fact that Tier 1 providers operate on a large scale, including project development activities, and that any serious non-compliance has the potential to impact on large numbers of tenants and assets.

 

In its 2015 Annual Report WCH indicates it manages over 2,100 properties across the Penrith, Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Blacktown LGAs.  Just over 600 of these properties are in the Penrith LGA.  WCH manages the majority of these properties under contract to FACS – Housing. In addition WCH, through development projects, own a number of properties.

 

In the financial year ending 30 June 2015 operating revenues were $30.5 million with expenses of $25.8 million. To ensure planned maintenance and property development liabilities can be met WCH has reserves of $18 million as at 30 June 2015.

 

WCH also manage 60 social housing dwellings on behalf of FACS - Housing in Cranebrook.

 

The Penrith Affordable Housing Project, initiated by Council in collaboration with the NSW Department of Family and Community Services – Housing (NSW FACS), is currently being delivered by Wentworth Community Housing at 11-15 Phillip Street, St Marys.  The development is of 49 units with 15 units of social housing and 34 units of affordable housing.  There are 18 one bedroom and 31 two bedroom units.  The total cost of the development is over $15 million with WCH contributing approximately 60% of the funding.

 

Council achieved significant leverage through its allocation of $1.13 million. NSW FACS – Housing and the Federal Government through the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) also contributed significant funds to the project.

 

The CEO of WCH will give an update on the Penrith Affordable Housing Project as part of his presentation to the Policy Review Committee meeting.

 

Services for Homeless People

 

WCH is also a major provider of support services and accommodation to homeless people and people at risk of homelessness in private tenancy.  Initiatives include:

 

·    Tenancy support through engagement with real estate agents

·    Housing and support for single adults and couples with no children, including assertive outreach.

 

Penrith City Council and WCH also worked closely on the delivery of the Homelessness Summit in September 2014.  Hosted by Penrith City Council with support from Wentworth, the Summit drew over 100 representatives from local community organisations, volunteer groups, specialist homelessness services, charitable organisations, church groups, government agencies and the corporate sector to identify the major issues around homelessness in Penrith.  The Summit was instrumental in encouraging collaboration between organisations in addressing the challenges related to homelessness and the resulting Homelessness Summit Action Plan has ensured that measurable outcomes are being reached.

 

Council officers have called on WCH’s assertive outreach program staff on a number of occasions to find accommodation for people who are homeless and have “camped” in public areas in the City.  On most occasions WCH has been able to identify suitable accommodation as well as facilitate further referrals to other support services.

 

Strategic Priorities

 

Wentworth’s overarching goal is to provide their clients with solutions that make them independent of the organisation’s services.  Their strategic priorities include:

 

·    building stronger communities

·    preventing homelessness

·    creating sustainable housing services

·    increasing the number of houses owned and managed by the organisation; and

·    having the organisational capacity to develop innovative services.

 

For WCH strong partnerships and collaboration with all levels of Government and Council and regional support service providers are vital in developing solutions that deliver measurable outcomes, are viable and bring positive outcomes for clients and communities.

 

Stephen McIntyre, CEO of WCH, will include an overview of their strategic priorities as part of his presentation.

 

Summary

 

Wentworth Community Housing and Penrith City Council have partnered on a number of initiatives. The 2014 Homelessness Summit and the Penrith Affordable Housing Project are examples of Council and WCH working together to be resourceful and innovative in addressing the issues of homelessness and affordable housing in Penrith. 

 

Wentworth’s strategic goals and priorities rely on effective collaboration with partners to deliver outcomes for their clients and the broader community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Wentworth Community Housing - Strategic Priorities be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                      20 June 2016

 

 

 

5

Penrith Swimming Centre Waterplay Feature Update   

 

Compiled by:               Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Authorised by:            Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer  

 

Outcome

We are healthy and share strong community spirit

Strategy

Provide opportunities for our community to be healthy and active

Service Activity

Provide and maintain sport and recreation facilities that meet community needs

      

 

Executive Summary

Council at its 14 December 2015 Ordinary Meeting considered a report that outlined the proposal to install a Waterplay feature at Penrith Swimming Centre including the operational benefits to the facility and a potential funding solution that included an internal loan to Penrith Aquatic and Leisure (PAL) and a contribution from Council. 

 

Following endorsement of the funding solution at the Council meeting PAL, in consultation with Council Officers developed a project plan and commenced project specifications followed by a request for quotation process.  This quotation process was conducted by PAL with the assistance of an aquatics facility industry leading specialist, Paul Stevenson.

 

The quotation process has identified additional complementary works that will be required in the short term that could be completed more cost effectively if completed as part of this project, with some of these works being included in Council’s Building Asset Renewal Program. The additional works include the further upgrade of the plant room to address identified legislative changes, implementation of a number of sustainability initiatives, additional concourse concreting around the learn to swim pool, upgrading the chemical bund area and access for deliveries and contemporising the landscaping of the surrounding areas. In addition, movement in foreign exchanges rates have also resulted in increases in the cost of the equipment being manufactured in the United States. Consequently, additional funding has been requested by the PAL and this report proposed how this could be achieved.

 

In addition, and flowing from the additional funding request a review of the procurement process by Council’s Governance staff has been undertaken and has identified a number of procedural issues. The report recommends that extenuating circumstances be considered which would allow the Council to exempt this process from the tender requirements in order to deliver the project before the opening of Penrith swimming pool after winter. This as stated would require that Council use the extenuating circumstance provisions of the Local Government Act (LG Act) to do so.  

Background

Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Ltd (PAL) presented its annual report for the operation of Ripples St Marys and Ripples Penrith Swim Centre to Council’s Policy Review meeting held on 30 November 2015. One of Council’s resolutions from the meeting, in response to the presentation, was that:

 

Council support the concept of the splash pad facility at Penrith Pool and a report be prepared providing details on the concept be to the next Ordinary meeting of Council.’

 

A report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 14 December 2015 outlined that facility master plans have been developed for both Ripples St Marys and Ripples Penrith which include water play facilities. It also outlined that, as part of the master planning process, concept designs had determined indicative costs for water play facilities and, that associated business models had been completed.  The cost of installing a water play facility at Ripples Penrith was estimated as $1m including a contingency amount of $150,000. Council subsequently resolved that:

 

-     A loan of $600,000 over a period of 10 years be provided to Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Ltd.

-     An amount of $250,000 be allocated from the Asset Reserve to Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Ltd for the purpose of installing a water play facility at Ripples Penrith.

-     An amount of $150,000 be allocated from the Building Asset Renewal Program for the purpose of providing a contingency sum with any unexpended funds to be returned to Council.

 

Following this meeting Council Officers met with PAL to plan a way forward for the delivery of the waterplay facility.  It was determined that the detailed design and specification was facilitated by PAL and that the quotation process could also be completed by PAL.  The provisions of the LG Act do allow for this to occur, however section 55A of the Local Government Act requires the Council to comply with the tender provisions within it, with any of its entities. It is acknowledged that the provisions within the Act are challenging as they require Council to comply with a process when they may not have such control over an entity.  The Legal and Governance Department are exploring the consequences of this section.

 

Current Situation

PAL contracted an industry specialist, Paul Stevenson, to provide independent technical support to develop the specifications and quotation documentation for the provision of a waterplay facility, and associated and required infrastructure. Mr Stevenson has worked with Council extensively in the past to assist with work at Council’s two aquatic centres. He is also known to have worked with government to develop new standards for pools and splash pad type facilities. This infrastructure included; further upgrades of the plant room to address identified legislative changes, implementation of a number of sustainability initiatives, additional concourse concreting around the learn to swim pool, upgrading the chemical bund area and access for deliveries and contemporising the landscaping of the surrounding areas. These elements of the project where not originally budgeted for as part of the original $1 million project however it was determined by PAL that an opportunity to bring forward planned short term maintenance and renewal projects, which were included in future Building Asset Renewal (BAR) Programs, would achieve longer term efficiencies and enhanced value for money than compared to undertaking the works separately. Undertaking these works at the same time as the water play installation also ensures that there is no disruption to future service delivery and operations.

 

In addition to the complementary works, the timing of the project has also coincided with movement in the Australian Dollar, compared to the US Dollar, and it is acknowledged that a significant amount of the Waterplay feature is imported from the US, leading to an increase in the cost to deliver the project over original estimates.

 

It has also been highlighted in earlier reports that installation of a water play facility will remove a significant asset maintenance cost with the existing toddler pools and their associated plant and equipment, which the water play feature will replace, in need of renewal.

 

 

Estimated Project costs

As detailed earlier in this report the original budget approved by Council for the installation of the water play facility was $1m, inclusive of a $150,000 contingency provision. The sources of funding for the project is detailed below;

 

Project component

Budget allocated

Funding Source

Installation of waterplay feature and associated works (including plant renewal)

$600,000

Internal loan to PAL

$250,000

Asset Reserve

Project Contingency

$150,000

BAR Program

 

$1,000,000

 

 

During the detailed specification and quotation assessment (addressed separately in this report) an opportunity to include additional complementary works that would be delivered by the Building Asset Renewal (BAR) program was identified by PAL.  It was recognised by PAL that a longer term cost benefit could be achieved if these additional works were to be included in the process.  Consequently, a request for additional funding has been received by Council from PAL.  The request proposed that additional works could be funded by future BAR program commitments that would be required to be forward funded from the contingency and an increase to the internal loan with the total project cost now estimated to be $1.3m on the basis of the proposed quotation response.  Details of the proposed revised sources of funding is provided;

 

Project component

Budget allocated

Funding Source

Installation of waterplay feature and associated works (including plant renewal)

$600,000

Internal loan to PAL

$250,000

Asset Reserve

Additional works:

Including concourse concreting, upgrading the chemical bund area, plant renewal and access for deliveries.

$150,000

BAR Program

$150,000

Further internal loan to PAL

$150,000

Further allocation from Asset Reserve

 

$1,300,000

 

 

Council Officers have assessed the proposal and have agreed that a longer term efficiency can be achieved through bundling the additional works and currently capacity exists to accommodate the additional allocations of $150,000 from the Asset Reserve, a further $150,000 by way of an internal loan to PAL (repaid over 10 years) and committing the $150,000 BAR program contribution had had previously been allocated to project contingencies.

 

Quotation process

 

As mentioned earlier in this report the Quotation process has been conducted by PAL in consultation with Council Officers and that PAL have, in good faith followed the process that they believed was in accordance with their obligations and the advice of Council Officers.

 

Following the appointment of Paul Stevenson, a recognised industry expert, the project specification was developed by Mr Stevenson in consultation with PAL and Council Officers. Given Mr Stevenson’s experience in the area he recommended to the evaluation committee that the following six (6) companies were the industry leaders in the delivery of the required works.

 

Company

Trisley's Hydraulic Services

Wright Pools NSW Pty Ltd

Commercial Pools

Aquatic Projects Pty Ltd

Swimplex Aquatics 

White Water Attractions

 

An assessment of the capabilities and product proposals was undertaken and it was determined that 4 of the 6 companies would be shortlisted and requested to submit detailed proposals through a formal process. The two companies excluded, confirmed that they could not supply stainless steel frames specified in the brief. PAL established a review group which included PAL Board representatives, the General Manager of PAL, Paul Stevenson and nominated Council Officers. This assessment has selected the preferred supplier and advised them of the outcome.

 

Following the request for additional funds to extend the project a review has been completed of theprocess, similar to the TAG assessment of tenders run by Council.  It is important to note that section 55A of the LG Act obliges Council to follow the same tender processes as Council must when an entity, the Council controls or participates in, procures goods and services.  The review has identified that the process was not publicly advertised and that one of the responses was accepted late. The acceptance of the late response has not affected the outcome as that submission was not recommended to the PAL Board for acceptance.  The non-advertising of the project has potentially denied an opportunity for a firm not identified to compete in the process.

 

Council’s Chief Governance Officer has spent some time reviewing the process.  Regard has been had to a number of lists from other Council’s with companies who specialise in these water play features. The 4 companies shortlisted feature on a number of these lists and the consultant engaged by PAL has confirmed these are the 4 main companies in New South Wales. The pricing from the 4 companies who ultimately put forward their pricing was as follows:

 

Company

Price

Trisley's Hydraulic Services

$1,210,000

Wright Pools NSW Pty Ltd

$1,286,347

Commercial Pools

$1,351,000

Aquatic Projects Pty Ltd

$1,517,351

 

Two companies were shortlisted and interviewed by the review group.  In the process of reviewing the quotations it was identified that lighting and replacement tiling was required in the nearby 50 metre pool.  Trisleys have agreed to also undertake this work at an additional cost of $35,000. 

 

PAL selected Trisley’s to undertake the project for a contract price of $1.21m. It is intended that the work will be completed to enable the Centre to become operational again in September.

 

Chief Governance Officer’s comment

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993 the Council may if it gives reasons exempt the process from the tender requirements where extenuating circumstances exist.  In this case, the argument is being put forward to cease the current process would deny the community the improved water feature until the pool reopened in winter 2017.

 

Although the above process would not meet the strict tender requirements it is open to the Council to exempt the process from the tender requirements if it accepts that the circumstances and the reasons leading to the circumstances are extenuating.

 

It is also understood that PAL have issued a letter to Trisley’s (the lowest priced quote) which may have already bound the PAL to the contract.

 

One concern that has been explored relates to the four short-listed companies agreeing with the consultant that should they be successful then they would engage the consultant (Paul Stevenson) to assist with the designs of the plant room. It is understood that this occurred after the short-listed proponents were established.

 

It can be argued that the process followed has not been in keeping with a robust tender process, however regard should be had to the circumstances, namely the need to undertake the works while the pool is in its close down period. If the works are not undertaken during this time the likely outcome would be to delay the project till summer 2017. In addition the delay would also impact on the income projection at Penrith Pool.

 

Council should also have regard to the effect of the letter that has already been issued to Trisleys in respect of the proposed work.

 

The matter has been discussed at Council’s Audit Committee and with the Office of Local Government (OLG). The Audit Committee believed this to be a procedural matter, and that measures should be taken to ensure that proper processes are undertaken should Council or its entities face similar circumstances in the future. The OLG acknowledged that this section of the Act and its implications on Council are difficult to interpret and while Council is maintaining an ongoing dialogue with the OLG about this, essentially their advice is that Council should seek its own legal advice in respect of specific matters. 

 

Conclusion

 

The quotation process for the installation of waterplay and associated works has been completed.  Additional funding has been requested by PAL to extend the scope of work and addressing increased costs resulting from exchange rate movements.  Potential funding sources have been identified for Council to consider.  The quotation process followed by PAL, in consultation with Council Officers did not strictly comply with the tender provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. Council’s Chief Governance Officer has confirmed that it is open to the Council to use the extenuating circumstances provisions of the LG Act to exempt the process from the tender requirements should it be satisfied that the circumstances as outlined in this report are extenuating. Those extenuating circumstances relate to the inability to deliver the project during the winter close down of the pool, in addition to Council having regard to the fact that the PAL may have already committed the company to the contract.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Penrith Swimming Centre Waterplay Feature Update be received

2.    Council exempt the process from the Tender provision for extenuation circumstances because the works would be delayed for up to 12 months, due to the works needing to be undertaken during the Penrith Pool close down period.

3.    The obligations of the entities for future procurement processes be clearly communicated to staff of Council and the entities.

4.    The additional funding of $300,000 be allocated by way of a further $150,000 loan repaid over a period of 10 years by the Penrith Aquatic and Leisure Limited and a further $150,000 allocation from the Asset Reserve.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

6        Draft Policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land                       35

 

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                      20 June 2016

 

 

 

6

Draft Policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land   

 

Compiled by:               Stuart Benzie, Administration Officer - Policy & Communication

Authorised by:            Andrew Moore, Financial Services Manager

Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer  

 

Outcome

We have confidence in our Council

Strategy

Demonstrate transparency and ethical behaviour

Service Activity

Ensure that the organisation promotes ethical behaviour, risk management, transparent decision making and meets contemporary governance standards

      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Councillors on changes that have been made to the attached draft policy on Unsolicited Proposals to Purchase Council Owned Land (the draft policy) and to seek Council’s endorsement of the draft policy.

 

Councillors were provided with information on the draft policy at a Councillor Briefing on 2 December 2015, where Councillors indicated support for progressing the draft policy.

 

The draft policy was subsequently reported to Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting of 15 February 2016. At that meeting Councillors requested the draft policy be amended to ensure that Councillors are engaged earlier in the unsolicited request process. It was also indicated that Councillors would prefer to be advised of all unsolicited requests received, regardless of the results of the preliminary assessment process.

 

The requested amendments have been made to the attached draft policy. The opportunity was also taken to make some minor grammatical changes and to improve the assessment and reporting processes within the draft policy. Apart from the more minor changes, the key changes of interest to Councillors are highlighted in the attached draft policy. Due to the special nature of this policy, it is proposed that the policy will be kept under regular review.

 

The report recommends that Council adopt the attached draft policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land.

Background

Council regularly reviews its public land holdings to identify land that may be surplus to its requirements. When surplus land is identified for sale or long term lease, Council’s usual approach is to offer the land for sale or lease through competitive open market processes. This ensures that Council achieves value for money and provides equal opportunities for purchasers and lessees.

 

There are occasions however where Council is approached by individuals, businesses or other government organisations with a request to purchase or obtain a long term lease of Council owned land, even though Council may not have offered the land for sale or lease on the open market. This type of approach is considered to be an unsolicited request.

 

Unsolicited requests generally involve a suggestion that Council sell or lease land to the proponent by exclusive negotiation and for a specific purpose. For the purposes of the attached draft policy, this suggestion by the proponent is considered to be the unsolicited request’s associated proposal (the associated proposal).

 

At present, Council does not have a formal process for managing unsolicited requests. This means that Council deals with them on a case by case basis, which could amount to an inconsistent approach.

 

An earlier version of the attached draft policy was provided to Council’s Independent Property Development Advisory Panel (the IPDAP) on 7 October 2015. The IPDAP was supportive of the draft policy and provided additional feedback that was taken into account in developing the policy. It is acknowledged that a formal policy will be important given the Council’s direction to increase property development activities to facilitate an alternative revenue stream to support Council’s long term financial stability.

 

Councillors were provided with information on the draft policy at a Councillor Briefing on 2 December 2015 and indicated support for progressing the policy. The draft policy was subsequently reported to Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting of 15 February 2016. At that meeting Councillors requested the draft policy be amended to ensure that Councillors are engaged earlier in the unsolicited request process. It was also indicated that Councillors would prefer to be made aware of all unsolicited requests received, regardless of the results of the preliminary assessment process.

 

Current situation

 

The requested amendments have been made to the attached draft policy. The opportunity was also taken to make some minor grammatical changes and to improve the assessment and reporting processes within the draft policy. Apart from the more minor changes, the key changes of interest to Councillors are highlighted in the attached draft policy.

 

The changes make clear that Councillors will be advised and consulted on unsolicited requests before officers seek to engage in advanced negotiations with proponents. The changes also provide that Councillors will have the opportunity to request further information and/or a reassessment of any unsolicited proposal received, regardless of the outcomes of the preliminary assessment process.

 

The key changes in the attached draft policy can be found in the following sections:

 

·    Section 6 Responsibilities, Accountabilities and Timeframes: changes provide improved Councillor consultation and a clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities.

 

·    Section 8.2 Submission and Preliminary Assessment: changes make clear that the preliminary assessment process includes information from Council’s City Economy and Planning staff, as well as the Property Development Manager and the CFO.

 

·    Section 8.4 Notification and Consultation with Councillors: changes provide improved Councillor consultation.

 

·    Section 8.5 Negotiation and Binding Agreement: changes make clear that officers may enter into more advanced discussions with the proponent after Councillors have indicated “in principle” support.

 

·    Section 9 Assessment Criteria: changes identify responsibilities in the assessment process.

 

Regardless of the above amendments, the attached draft policy maintains that Council’s usual approach for disposing of land is through open market processes. The draft policy however does allow Council to deal directly with proponents for the sale or long term lease of land where there are significant community benefits for doing so. Due to the special nature of this policy, it is proposed that the policy will be kept under regular review.

 

Conclusion

 

The attached draft policy takes into account the requested changes from Council’s Policy Review Committee Meeting of 15 February 2016. The amendments ensure that Councillors are engaged earlier in the unsolicited request process, at a time when the preliminary assessment processes have been carried out. The amendments also ensure that Councillors are advised of all unsolicited requests received, regardless of the results of the preliminary assessment process. 

 

The attached draft policy provides a fair, consistent and transparent framework for managing unsolicited requests to purchase or obtain a long term lease of Council owned land. Under the attached draft policy Council will maintain its usual approach for disposing of land, which is through open market processes. The draft policy however does allow Council to deal directly with proponents for the sale or long term lease of land where there are significant community benefits for doing so. Due to the special nature of this policy, it is proposed that the policy will be kept under regular review.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the attached draft policy for dealing with unsolicited proposals.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.    The information contained in the report on Draft Policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land be received.

2.    The attached draft policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Draft Policy on Unsolicited Proposals to Purchase Council Owned Land

15 Pages

Attachments Included

   



 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 20 June 2016

Report Title:            Status of Community Event Temporary Signs Policy

Attachments:           Draft community event temporary signs policy

                                Potential sites for Banner Sign Poles

                                Local Government Area Map



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 1 - Draft community event temporary signs policy

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 2 - Potential sites for Banner Sign Poles

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 3 - Local Government Area Map

 

PDF Creator



 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 20 June 2016

Report Title:            Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management

Attachments:           Regatta Park Final Draft Plan of Management

                                Regatta Park Plan of Management - Public Exhibition Feedback Summary



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 1 - Regatta Park Final Draft Plan of Management

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 2 - Regatta Park Plan of Management - Public Exhibition Feedback Summary

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 20 June 2016

Report Title:            Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Amendments to Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith Development Control Plan 2014

Attachments:           Consideration of Submissions and Recommendations

                                Revised Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith DCP 2014



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 1 - Consideration of Submissions and Recommendations

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 2 - Revised Chapter C5 Waste Management of Penrith DCP 2014

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

ATTACHMENTS  

 

 

Date of Meeting:     Monday 20 June 2016

Report Title:            Draft Policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land

Attachments:           Draft Policy on Unsolicited Proposals to Purchase Council Owned Land



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                   20 June 2016

Attachment 1 - Draft Policy on Unsolicited Proposals to Purchase Council Owned Land

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator