Agenda of Policy Review Committee Meeting

Council_Mark_POS_RGB 2016 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

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

(7.00pm)

29@

18v

23#

27*

22@

26^ü

(7.00pm)

24∞

28#+

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

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 20 JUNE 2016 AT 7:04PM

PRESENT

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM, and Councillors Bernard Bratusa, Prue Car MP, Marcus Cornish, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Jackie Greenow OAM, John Thain and Michelle Tormey.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Jim Aitken OAM for the period 19 June 2016 to 22 June 2016 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Karen McKeown for the period 19 June 2016 to 22 June 2016 inclusive.

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Tricia Hitchen for the period 19 June 2016 to 22 June 2016 inclusive.

APOLOGIES

PRC24 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that apologies be received for Councillor Maurice Girotto and Councillor Ben Goldfinch.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 6 June 2016

PRC25 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain PRC that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 6 June 2016 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

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

4 Wentworth Community Housing - Strategic Priorities

PRC 26 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

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

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Stephen McIntyre, and Chairman, Keith Bryant, be congratulated for their work on the Wentworth Community Housing program and thanked for their presentation.

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

1 Status of Community Event Temporary Signs Policy

PRC 27 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

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.

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

2 Regatta Park Draft Plan of Management

PRC28 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Mark Davies

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.

Councillor Prue Car MP arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:55pm.

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

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

PRC29 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Mark Davies seconded Councillor John Thain

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.

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

For	Against
Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Prue Car MP
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Mark Davies
Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Michelle Tormey

5 Penrith Swimming Centre Waterplay Feature Update

PRC30 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Greg Davies

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 extenuating 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.

Councillor Bernard Bratusa called for a DIVISION.

For	Against
Councillor John Thain	Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM	Councillor Michelle Tormey
Councillor Prue Car MP	Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Jackie Greenow OAM
Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Mark Davies
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

6 Draft Policy on Unsolicited Requests to Purchase Council Owned Land

PRC31 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Mark Davies

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.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 8:20pm.

Policy Review Committee Meeting 11 July 2016

Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Penrith City Park

Compiled by: Krishti Akhter, Planner

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet the needs of a growing population
Service Activity	Maintain a contemporary framework of land use and contribution policies, strategies and statutory plans

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

Executive Summary

The Planning Proposal for the Penrith City Park (the Planning Proposal) seeks to rezone the land bound by Station Street, Henry Street, Allen Place and Woodriff Street from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use. The proposed rezoning of this land will make residential uses permissible. The RE1 Public Recreation zone at the corner of Station Street and Henry Street will be retained.

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 2 May 2016 to 30 May 2016. Public authorities identified in the Gateway Determination were consulted concurrently. In response to the public exhibition, Council received a total of 17 submissions which included 13 community submissions and 4 public authority submissions.

This report identifies and addresses the main issues raised in the submissions and recommends changes to the Planning Proposal. This report also seeks Council’s endorsement for the Planning Proposal to proceed to the next stage of the Gateway Process by sending the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning with a request that he makes the necessary amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010.

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting of 7 December 2015, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal for the Penrith City Park (the Planning Proposal). The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the land bound by Station Street, Henry Street, Woodriff Street and the Allen Place Carpark from B3 Commercial to B4 Mixed Use. The current RE1 Public Recreation zone at the corner of Station Street and Henry Street would be retained, responding to the principles outlined in the City Park Review undertaken by Hames Sharley.

Gateway Determination

The Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) issued a Gateway Determination on 7 April 2016. Council was not delegated the Minister’s plan making powers, as Council owns a number of parcels within the City Park Precinct.

The Gateway Determination required Council to address the Planning Proposal’s consistency with Ministerial Direction 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Section 117 Directions) and undertake a Phase One Assessment report for the site in accordance with Clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55). These are briefly discussed below.

Reserving Land for Public Purposes

Section 117 Direction 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes requires planning proposals not to create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes. However, a planning proposal may be inconsistent with the direction if the inconsistent provisions of the planning proposal are of minor significance.

Prior to public exhibition, the Planning Proposal was amended to address this direction. The Allen Place car park, which is proposed to be rezoned from RE1 Public Recreation to B4 Mixed Use, is currently used as a service road and car park. The loss of car parking at Allen Place will be offset largely by the delivery of decked car parks in the City Centre, including the Union Road site as part of the recent Expressions of Interest (EOI) process.

Preliminary Contamination Study:

Shop 3 of 134-138 Henry Street, Penrith is currently used as a dry cleaning business. “Dry cleaning establishments” are identified as a potentially contaminating activity in Table 1 of the Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines, which have been produced under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55). In turn, as part of the rezoning process, contamination investigations are required to be undertaken.

To satisfy the requirements of SEPP 55, Council engaged Geo-Logix to undertake a Preliminary Site Investigation to determine whether contaminating activities have occurred on the site, provide a preliminary assessment of site contamination and assess the need for further investigations. The Preliminary Site Investigation is currently being undertaken. Should the Preliminary Site Investigation report find that contaminating activities have occurred on the site, and that significant remediation is to be undertaken, a further report will be presented to Council to address the site contamination and make appropriate recommendations.

Public Exhibition

The Gateway Determination required community consultation for a minimum period of 28 days. It also required Council to consult with the following public authorities:

· Family and Community Services – Housing NSW

· Transport for NSW

· Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services

· NSW Police Force

· Department of Education and Communities

· Sydney Water, and

· Telstra.

Council consulted with the public authorities concurrently with the community consultation. The Planning Proposal was exhibited for 28 days, from 2 May 2016 until 28 May 2016. To support the public exhibition, a range of tasks were carried out during this time, including:

1. weekly advertisements in relevant newspapers

2. placement of the exhibition material on Council’s website, Civic Centre, St Marys Office and Council’s libraries at Penrith and St Marys

3. a Media Release and Frequently Asked Questions were available on Council’s website, and Council staff were available to answer community enquiries

4. notification letters were sent out to property owners and occupiers in the Penrith City Centre, and the relevant public authorities.

Submissions

A total of 17 community and public authority submissions were received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the submissions.

Issue	Number of Submissions
traffic and parking	7
inconsistency with Section 117 Directions	1
urban design comments	1
general comments	4
public authority	4

Table 1: Breakdown of submissions

This report provides a summary of, and a response to, the key issues raised in the submissions. A detailed consideration of each of these issues is provided in Attachment 1.

1. Traffic and Parking

Seven of the submissions raised concerns about the impact of the loss of car parking at Allen Place. Concerns are raised that the loss of car parking will negatively impact on their business, particularly if future car parks are not identified and built. The submissions argue that the Planning Proposal should address the loss of car parking spaces that are currently available in Allen Place. They also argue that infrastructure should be provided concurrently with high density residential developments.

Response

There is significant concern from residents and businesses about parking in the City Centre. Council’s Parking Strategy looks at short, medium and longer term actions to manage parking into the future. Critically, it is about balancing the needs of commuters who need long-day parking close to the station; workers who need parking close to the City Centre; and shoppers who need convenient access to businesses and services in the City Centre. As Penrith grows, the number of parking spaces will increase, and will be located in a number of multi-storey structures in Union Road, Soper Place and Judges Carpark.

Right now, the focus is on making the most of the existing spaces by increasing the turnover of short term spaces; encouraging long stay parking on the edge of the City Centre; introducing technology that can improve parking usage; and asking the state government to provide more commuter parking sooner.

In November 2015, Council sought an EOI for the Union Road precinct to facilitate mixed use development and public parking. This process aims to deliver an additional 1,000 public parking spaces in a multi-storey carpark to enable the relocation of existing car parking spaces in Allen Place and other development sites in the City Centre. The Union Road site is in walking distance of the City Park Precinct. Future mixed use development on the Union Road site will also deliver parking to meet its own requirements.

In relation to infrastructure provision, the City Park Precinct is located within walking distance to Penrith Station, High Street, Westfield and the future mixed use development. The development of this area will contribute to a more walkable City Centre. This helps to deliver the vision for this Precinct that has been identified through recent community engagement.

It is intended to pursue an EOI process shortly for the concurrent delivery of the City Park and an adjoining mixed use development. This scenario involves using Council’s land as a catalyst to achieve the planned outcomes for the Central Park Village. The EOI process will determine possible future uses for the site. The additional infrastructure required as a result of these uses will be delivered as a part of the development application process.

2. Inconsistency with Section 117 Directions

One submission argues that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport as it does not improve access to services and reduces the transport choices without providing suitable alternatives. The submission also argues that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Direction 6.2: Reserving Land for Public Purposes as the proposal to rezone the Allen Place Car Park contravenes the direction, and all existing car parking spaces must be included in the design for the site.

Response

The Planning Proposal complies with Direction 3.4 as it will see the City Park Precinct developed into a mixed use development. Onsite parking will be required to support any future development on the land. Any car parking that is on the site of the City Park will be provided onsite, or relocated in the vicinity, as discussed above. The land is also located in close walking distance of Penrith Station, local bus services and the City Centre’s retail opportunities, so car travel can be minimised.

3. Urban Design Comments

One submission commented on the urban design aspects of the Planning Proposal. The submission argues that there is too much emphasis on development and economics, and that more emphasis is required on the relevance and importance of public open space to the community. The submission also argues that the City Park site has a relatively low height limit of 4-6 storeys when compared to the heights proposed in the Incentives Clause Planning Proposal, suggesting that the City Park development should be included as a Key Site. It was also suggested that the commercial opportunities on the site (for example market hall, kiosk, cafes) could be emphasised to help activate the park.

Response

A mixed use development will stimulate economic activity around the City Park by delivering housing and a wide range of activating uses including retail and dining. This will contribute to an active park during the day and night.

The Key Sites within Penrith LEP 2010 were identified by the Regional Cities Taskforce in 2007 as sites that were strategically located with special attributes and warranted design excellence. It would not be appropriate to list the City Park site as a ‘Key Site’ or increase the building height (currently 20m) at this time as the impacts on sun access and overshadowing in the park and on High Street should be considered as part of any proposal. Opportunities for the City Park site to be used for commercial uses would be explored as part of the future EOI for the City Park and/or at the Development Application (DA) stage. At that time, a range of development possibilities can be explored and, if some adjustments to building heights are seen to contribute positively to the precinct without reducing amenity for the City Park, they can then be considered.

4. General Comments

A number of submissions raised general comments. These concerns included the underutilisation of both Memory Park and the Pop up Park in the City Centre, suggesting that they should be considered before determining whether a City Park is necessary. The submissions also suggested that the objectives for the City Park Precinct can be achieved through a master plan that includes infrastructure planning for the Precinct. The Park’s requirements, funding and its delivery can be addressed in the Section 94 process or by a developer agreement. The submissions also argue that the Hames Sharley review does not optimise the location of the Park and the whole site should be zoned as B4 rather than retaining the RE1 Public Recreation zone at the corner of Station Street and Henry Street. The City Park Precinct is an opportunity to capture the benefits and should not be constrained by height and scale limitations.

Response

The City Park will serve a different purpose to the Memory Park and Pop up Park. The City Park is in a central location, close to Penrith Station, High Street, Westfield and the existing commercial core. The park will also be surrounded by a mix of housing and specialist retail opportunities that the other parks do not provide.

The overall site grading, overland stormwater and flood management could also be addressed at the detailed design stage. Part funding for the City Park is included in the Penrith City Centre Civic Improvement Plan (CIP). The balance of funding for the City Park will be provided through a future EOI process or possibly as a public benefit through the application of incentives clause on the key sites.

The infrastructure needed for this site will be negotiated through a future VPA to be entered into between Council and the proponents of future development.

The B4 Mixed Use zone responds to the principles outlined in the Hames Sharley City Park Review by permitting mixed use development to occur around the City Park. This will deliver housing densities that will activate the Park. No changes to the current height limit (20m) are recommended as building heights will be considered as part of any future proposal.

5. Public Authorities

Submissions were received from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Endeavour Energy, Sydney Water and Transport for NSW (TfNSW). Their comments are summarised in Attachment 1, with one matter addressed below.

Both the Roads and Maritime Services and Transport for NSW requested that a Transport Study is undertaken to demonstrate the proposal integrates with existing and planned future walking, cycling and transport networks (i.e. buses and rail) and identify transport facilities and measures required to support future developments. The Study should consider the cumulative impacts of surrounding development proposals and be placed on public exhibition accordingly.

Response

Penrith is transitioning from an urbanised centre into a thriving Regional City, with a vision to make the City Centre an active and vibrant place, providing for inner city living and a 24 hour economy. It is recognised that Council’s current traffic model needs revision, to ensure an understanding of localised traffic conditions as well as impacts on the broader network.

It is considered more appropriate to update the Transport Study in line with the planned review of the existing controls for the whole of the City Centre. This broader review (to commence in 2016-2017) will analyse the City Centre’s current zones, heights, FSRs, accessibility, the need for additional key sites etc. and is likely to further amend the Penrith LEP 2010. It will allow a much more comprehensive understanding of the implications for traffic management and related infrastructure requirements.

This approach will allow the current Planning Proposal to proceed, development applications to be assessed on their merits (with traffic studies in response to site-specific development proposals), and avoid duplication of costs and funding for two separate studies by preparing one comprehensive analysis of broader changes to the City Centre. Council will also continue to advocate strongly for more reliable and frequent public transport and other infrastructure, to encourage modal shift away from car dependency towards more sustainable options.

The infrastructure identified by the traffic study will, in part and where appropriate, be negotiated through a future VPA to be entered into between Council and the proponents of future development.

Council will also continue to advocate strongly for more reliable and frequent public transport and other infrastructure, to encourage modal shift away from car dependency towards more sustainable options.

Peer Review

With the exception of two parcels of land yet to be acquired (46 and 48 Station Street), Council owns all the land subject to this Planning Proposal. To ensure that the assessment of the Planning Proposal is both accountable and transparent, it is recommended that an independent peer review of the assessment is carried out.

Conclusion

A review of submissions made in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal has been undertaken. The review concludes that the issues identified in the submissions, which primarily relate to traffic and parking, can be adequately managed through the planning and delivery of multi-storey car parks in the vicinity of the City Park and in identified locations in the City Centre. In addition, the future mixed use development will provide the required onsite parking. A detailed analysis of transport and traffic impacts will be undertaken during the comprehensive review of the City Centre.

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal is progressed to the next stage of the Gateway Process. As Council was not delegated the Minister’s plan making powers, the Planning Proposal must now be sent to the Minister for Planning for his consideration. The Planning Proposal is included in Attachment 2.

Should Council decide to endorse the amended Planning Proposal, it will be amended to include the results of the Preliminary Site Investigation undertaken by Geo-Logix, and a peer review will be undertaken. The Planning Proposal will then be sent to the Minister for Planning with a request that he makes the proposed amendments to LEP 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Penrith City Park be received.

2. Council endorse the Planning Proposal for the Penrith City Park, as attached (Attachment 2).

3. Council seek an independent peer review of the Penrith City Park Planning Proposal to ensure transparency and probity is maintained.

4. The General Manager be granted delegation to make necessary changes required to the Planning Proposal for the Penrith City Park prior to its submission to the Minister for Planning.

5. The Minister for Planning be requested to make the Plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

Discussion Paper - City Park

7 Pages

Attachments Included

Planning Proposal City Park

214 Pages

Attachments Included

Under Separate Cover (Website)

Policy Review Committee Meeting 11 July 2016

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

Compiled by: Nicole Dukinfield, Senior Planner

Authorised by: Paul Grimson, City Planning Manager

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate quality development that encourages a range of housing types, employment, recreation and lifestyle opportunities
Service Activity	Plan for and facilitate delivery of release areas and urban renewal in the City

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

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the public exhibition of a Planning Proposal to insert an incentives clause into the Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010, allowing a managed departure from current building heights and floor space controls on Key Sites in return for design excellence and a public benefit.

The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days from 9 May to 6 June 2016, and included consultation with public authorities. Five (5) public authority submissions were received and 15 community submissions received. It is recommended that no changes are made to the Planning Proposal and it is sent to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for finalisation.

In determining an appropriate rate for the public benefit contribution, Council engaged independent economic and feasibility consultants to prepare a Public Benefit Analysis. A draft Public Benefit Policy is also being prepared to guide the community, proponents and Council officers in the operation and implementation of the incentives clause and public benefit component. The draft Public Benefit Policy identifies a series of principles that must be used as the criteria in determining the appropriateness of an offer of a public benefit, and outlines preferred public benefit projects towards which any funds or works-in-kind should be put. The elected Council will determine whether to accept an offer of a public benefit and how funds will be spent.

To support the proposed changes to the Penrith LEP 2010, an amendment to the Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 is also recommended to reflect the proposed increases in yield available through the incentives clause and to establish principles for the redevelopment of these sites with regard to character, building heights and mass and connectivity.

Background

At the Councillor briefing of 2 November 2015, Councillors were advised on studies being undertaken in regard to the Planning Proposal to insert an incentives clause into the Penrith LEP 2010. The first stage of this study was to prepare an Urban Design Analysis that informs a determination of the future ‘shape’ of the City Centre skyline and identify other constraints and opportunities relating to overshadowing, solar access and views.

The second stage of this study involved analysing the development feasibility and current market trends within Penrith, in the form of a Public Benefit Analysis. The Public Benefit Analysis was also prepared to identify an appropriate mechanism and planning framework to measure and capture offers of a public benefit.

The third stage of the study involved preparing a draft Public Benefit Policy, which outlines how the offer of a public benefit will be assessed and implemented.

At its Ordinary Meeting of 7 December 2015, Council resolved to prepare and send a Planning Proposal to the DP&E requesting a Gateway Determination to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal seeks to insert an incentives clause into the Penrith LEP 2010, allowing a managed departure from building heights and floor space controls on Key Sites subject to the proposed development meeting certain criteria related to design excellence and the provision of a public benefit.

The Planning Proposal was forwarded to the DP&E on 17 December 2015. A Gateway Determination was issued on 14 April 2016, approving the Planning Proposal for public exhibition subject to a number of conditions. These conditions included the following:

· prepare a ‘Plain English’ version of the Planning Proposal for public exhibition;

· prepare an explanation of public benefit principles that would inform the development of a Public Benefits Policy;

· Carry out community consultation for a minimum period of 28 days; and

· Consult with public authorities on the Planning Proposal.

Public authority consultation and community consultation was carried out concurrently between 9 May to 6 June 2016. Further details regarding the submissions received and the key issues raised as a result of the public exhibition are in Attachment 2.

It is recommended that no changes are made to the Planning Proposal as a result of the public exhibition, and it is sent to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for finalisation (Planning Proposal Attachment 1).

1. Public authority consultation

The following public authorities were consulted in accordance with the Gateway Determination:

· Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development	· Housing NSW
· Transport for NSW	· Department of Health
· Sydney Trains	· NSW Police
· Roads and Maritime Services	· Sydney Water
· Office of Environment and Heritage	· Essential Energy
· Heritage Council of NSW	· Telstra
· Department of Education and Communities	· Adjoining LGAs.

Five submissions were received as part of the public authority consultation. A summary of these submissions is provided in Attachment 2.

One concern, raised by both the Roads and Maritime Services and Transport for NSW, was the need for a detailed traffic and transport study before the Planning Proposal is finalised.

2. Community consultation

The following tasks to support the public exhibition were carried out:

1. Advertisements placed every week in relevant newspapers;

2. Information and a fact sheet on how to make a submission provided at the exhibition venues and on Council’s website;

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

4. Materials placed at the Civic Centre, Penrith Library and the St Marys Library/Office in public view.

In addition to the above, approximately 5,000 letters advising of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal were sent to both landowners and occupiers within, or in the vicinity of, the City Centre.

A total of 15 public submissions were received from members of the community during the Public Exhibition period. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the matters raised by each submission and provides a response to each submission.

3. Internal consultation

Three (3) submissions were received by internal Council departments in regard to the Planning Proposal. City Planning will carry out further internal consultation in finalising the Public Benefit Policy and in amending the Penrith DCP 2014.

Public Benefit Analysis

A Public Benefit Analysis by consultants AEC Group investigated current best practice mechanisms for the capture of a public benefit, determined an appropriate contribution value of the bonus floor area on offer through the incentives clause, and outlined the impact of the proposed contribution rate on development feasibility.

The Public Benefit Analysis identified that incentive-based infrastructure mechanisms can be effective if conceived and implemented well, particularly for residential development due to the strength of the housing property market. They may also be effective where new infrastructure or community need is predictable, easily identified and quantified. It is intended to brief Councillors on the outcomes of the Public Benefit Analysis prior to seeking endorsement to exhibit the draft Public Benefit Policy.

Public Benefit Policy

A draft Public Benefit Policy is being prepared to assist the community, proponents and Council officers in the consideration, assessment, calculation and implementation of an offer of a public benefit. The draft Public Benefit Policy is guided by the recommendations from the Public Benefit Analysis, particularly with regard to the types of public benefits to be provided, outlines the public benefit contribution rate, and establishes review mechanisms of the Policy.

It will be recommended that the draft Public Benefit Policy is publicly exhibited to enable the community and proponents an opportunity to provide feedback on the Policy. This ensures that the Policy has been exhibited and any revisions made so that the Policy is in effect when the LEP amendment is made. It is intended to brief Councillors on the outcomes of the Public Benefit Analysis prior to seeking endorsement to exhibit the draft Public Benefit Policy.

Amendments to the Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014

The increase in heights and floor area proposed by the Planning Proposal will require the preparation of new DCP controls for the 11 Key Sites subject to the Planning Proposal. The amended DCP controls will be required to cover issues such as building height distribution, mass and siting, character and vision, and connectivity.

Conclusion

It is recommended that no changes are made to the Planning Proposal and it is sent to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for finalisation.

In line with Council’s policy regarding Council-owned land to ensure transparency and probity is maintained, a peer review will be undertaken on the Planning Proposal. When the peer review is complete, the Planning Proposal will be sent to the NSW Minister for Planning to make the amendment.

Whilst the DP&E are finalising the amendment, the draft Public Benefit Policy and an amendment to the Penrith DCP 2014 can be publicly exhibited. A report will be presented to Council outlining the results of these exhibitions.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

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

2. Council endorse the Planning Proposal as exhibited and provided in Attachment 1

3. Council seek an independent peer review of the Planning Proposal to ensure transparency and probity is maintained

4. The Minister for Planning be requested to make the Plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

5. Council officers prepare and publicly exhibit an amendment to the Penrith DCP 2014.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

Planning Proposal

475 Pages

Attachments Included

Under Separate Cover (Website)

Discussion Paper

13 Pages

Attachments Included

Policy Review Committee Meeting 11 July 2016

2016 NSW Community Building Partnership Grants

Compiled by: Brett Richardson, Acting Financial Services Manager

John Gordon, City Presentation Manager

Andrew Robinson, Facilities Manager

Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Chief Financial Officer

Brian Steffen, Executive Manager - City Assets

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

The 2016 Community Building Partnership Program has been announced by the NSW Government. The Program is designed to create more vibrant and inclusive communities by supporting projects that encourage community participation, inclusion and cohesion, and deliver positive social, environmental, inclusive or recreational outcomes.

Applications close Friday 22 July 2016, and successful projects must be completed by 31 March 2018.

Funds allocated for distribution in each State Electoral District, as a base allocation this year are again $200,000, with an additional $100,000 available for identified electorates.

Council Officers have reviewed current programs and have incorporated Councillor feedback and propose a number of projects which would be eligible for funding under this program.

Applications from Council must identify, as a minimum, sources of matching funding to the Community Building Partnership grants.

This report recommends that Council endorse the preparation of the applications for the projects listed as the first priority for each electorate in this report, and allocate the relevant sources of identified Council funding, pending the applications being successful.

Background

The 2016 Community Building Partnership Program is now open and the allocations under the program by Electoral District within the Penrith LGA are:

· Londonderry $300,000

· Mulgoa $200,000

· Penrith $200,000

Applications close 22 July 2016 with decisions expected to be announced in December 2016. Successful projects must be completed by March 2018.

The types of projects that are eligible to be funded are:

· Construction of new capital works

· Refurbishment, repairs and maintenance to existing capital facilities, or

· The purchase of capital equipment with a minimum individual asset value of $2,500 and a life expectancy of 5+ years that enables the delivery of new or enhanced community services.

All projects will be assessed against all other projects lodged within a State Electorate. All projects are assessed on merit against the following program criteria:

· Enhancement of facilities: The project develops a vibrant, sustainable and inclusive community through the enhancement or construction of community infrastructure that is pivotal to local community members.

· Community need: The project supports activities and services needed by local communities.

· Community participation: The project encourages participation in activities or services needed by a broad section of the community.

Proposals

Council Officers have reviewed current programs and incorporated the feedback from Councillors and propose a number of projects which would be eligible for funding under this program.

The short listed projects by Electorate, in order of the proposed priority ranking are as follows:

Londonderry

Priority	Location	Required Council Funds	Grant Requested	Total Project Cost	Details
1	Kingsway Irrigation	$38,000	$38,000	$76,000	The irrigation system at the Kingsway Playing Fields is 30 years old and requires renewal to meet current standards and reduce water usage. The total estimated project cost is $76,000. The grant requested would be for $38,000 with matching Council funding of $38,000 sourced from the Parks Asset Renewal Program.
2	Smith Park Playground, Castlereagh Road Castlereagh	$37,500	$37,500	$75,000	The playground at Smith Park has been listed for replacement at part of the Parks Asset Renewal Program in 2016-17. If successful, funding will provide an enhanced outcome for the community. The total estimated project cost is $75,000. The grant request would be for $37,500 with matching Council funding of $37,500 sourced from the Parks Asset Renewal program.
3	Kevin Dwyer Reserve, Colyton	$25,000	$25,000	$50,000	Installation of additional floodlights on Kevin Dwyer Reserve to provide enhanced training opportunities and comply with relevant Australian Standards. The total estimated project cost is $50,000. The grant requested would be for $25,000 with matching funding of $25,000 sourced from the Section 94 Local Open Space Plan.

Mulgoa

Priority	Location	Required Council Funds	Grant Requested	Total Project Cost	Details
1	Peppertree Reserve Floodlights	$50,000	$50,000	$100,000	The floodlights no longer meet the required standards. This project will deliver an improved level of lighting that will support competition and training activities. The total estimated project cost is $100,000. The grant requested would be for $50,000 with matching Council funding of $50,000 sourced from the Parks Asset Renewal Program.

Penrith

Priority	Location	Required Council Funds	Grant Requested	Total Project Cost	Details
1	U3A Bathrooms	$35,000	$35,000	$70,000	U3A share of $35,000 for the refurbishment of male and female toilets at their premises in the old School of Arts Building, Castlereagh St Penrith. Council will contribute $35,000 from the Asset Reserve to make up the difference – total cost $70,000. During the SRV community consultation, a commitment was given to complete this project in 2016-17.
2	Chapman Gardens Playground	$100,000	$37,500	$137,500	The playground at Chapman Gardens has been listed for replacement at part of the Parks Asset Renewal Program in 2016-17. If successful, funding will provide an enhanced outcome for the community. This site has been selected as part of the Mayoral Playground Challenge. The total estimated project cost is $137,500. The grant request would be for $37,500 with matching Council funding of $100,000 sourced from the Parks Asset Renewal and Neighbourhood renewal program.
3	Lions Park Playground, Park St Emu Plains	$37,500	$37,500	$75,000	The playground at Lions Park has been listed for replacement at part of the Parks Asset Renewal Program in 2016-17. If successful, funding will provide an enhanced outcome for the community. The total estimated project cost is $75,000. The grant request would be for $37,500 with matching Council funding of $37,500 sourced from the Parks Asset Renewal program.
4	Parker Street Floodlights	$50,000	$50,000	$100,000	The floodlights at the Parker Street athletics track no longer meet the required standards. This project will deliver an improved level of lighting that will support competition and training activities. The total estimated project cost is $100,000. The grant requested would be for $50,000 with matching Council funding of $50,000 sourced from the Parks Asset Renewal Program.

Council should also be made aware that a number of applications may be lodged from community organisations. At the time of compiling this report, a number of sport clubs and organisations have indicating that they are considering submitting applications for a range of projects.

Where possible, assistance has been provided to ensure that clubs and organisations have followed an appropriate process in facility design and that the proposed projects meet Council’s objectives and support Council’s funding programs, and that as accurate an opinion of probable cost estimate possible is being used if a quotation has not been received. Clubs and organisations have been informed that, should grant applications for the project be successful, there are no identified Council resources currently available should the project either not be awarded for the full amount of the grant applied for, or if the final scope of work exceeds the budget available. In terms of other resource implications for Council, as is the usual practice, Council Officers will also be required to arrange and coordinate the works that are the subject of the project, on behalf of the successful applicants. Councillors have received under separate cover details of all know applications that are being proposed by clubs and organisations at this time.

Conclusion

This report proposes that Council endorse the first ranked project in each electorate and that they be submitted as applications into the Community Building Partnerships Program and that the identified source of matching funds be allocated pending any successful application, in accordance with the Program guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2016 NSW Community Building Partnership Grants be received

2. Council endorse the submission of applications for the projects below as identified as the priority for each electorate, and further detailed in this report, to the 2016 Community Building Partnership Program. Council endorse the source of matching funds, pending the applications being successful.

Electorate	Project	Grant Requested	Council Matching Funds	Source of Council Funds
Londonderry	Kingsway Irrigation	$38,000	$38,000	Parks Asset Renewal Program
Mulgoa	Peppertree Reserve Floodlights	$50,000	$50,000	Parks Asset Renewal Program
Penrith	U3A Bathrooms	$35,000	$35,000	Asset Reserve (SRV)

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.