Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 26 April 2021

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY HELD REMOTELY USING AUDIO VISUAL LINKS, AUDIO STREAMED ON THE COUNCIL WEBSITE AND IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MONDAY 22 MARCH 2021 AT 7:05PM

NATIONAL ANTHEM

The meeting opened with the National Anthem.

WEBCASTING STATEMENT

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM read a statement advising that Council Meetings are recorded and webcast.

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM read a statement of recognition of Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage.

PRAYER

The Council Prayer was read by Governance Coordinator, Mr Adam Beggs.

PRESENT

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen, and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Todd Carney, Brian Cartwright, Robin Cook, Marcus Cornish, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies (arrived 7.54pm), Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

APOLOGIES

34 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that the apology from Councillor Aaron Duke be accepted.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Ordinary Meeting – 22 February 2021

35 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 22 February 2021 be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 2 – 39 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer as he is a Director of a company that owns land in the vicinity of the property the subject of this report. Councillor Fowler stated that he would vacate the meeting during consideration of this item.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 3 – 57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer as he is a Director of a company which is an owner of a property adjoining the property the subject of the planning proposal. Councillor Fowler OAM stated that he would vacate the meeting during consideration of this item.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

36 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robin Cook seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public to address the meeting, the time being 7.13pm.

Mr Robert Simpson

Item 3 - 57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer

A Council staff member read out Mr Robert Simpson’s application to address the Ordinary Meeting and outlined his reason for not supporting the motion as follows:

Mr Simpson expressed concerns regarding the floor space ratio of the proposed development and described the proposal as essentially a residential development with minimal commercial and retail space. Mr Simpson also viewed that the community infrastructure levy is far too low, and that disruption would occur to traffic flow in the area due to the proposed plan of the entry/exit.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

37 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robin Cook seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that Standing Orders be resumed, the time being 7.16pm.

Mayoral Minutes

1 Oxley Park Public School Green Flag Accreditation

38 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown OAM seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that the Mayoral Minute on Oxley Park Public School Green Flag Accreditation be received.

2 Flooding in Penrith

39 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the Mayoral Minute on Flooding in Penrith be received.

Notices of Motion

1 Recording of Voting

40 A MOTION was moved by Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1. Council amend its Code of Meeting Practice to include the non-mandatory clause 11.11 from the Model Code of Meeting Practice which reads:

All voting at council meetings, (including meetings that are closed to the public), must be recorded in the minutes of meetings with the names of councillors who voted for and against each motion or amendment, (including the use of the casting vote), being recorded.

2. Clauses 11.6 – 11.9 and clause 11.13 be omitted as they are no longer relevant with the inclusion of 11.11.

The MOTION was PUT.

The MOTION was LOST.

2 Raising of Warragamba Dam Wall

41 A MOTION was moved by Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Council endorse a formal position to support the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM requested that the MOTION be PUT.

The MOTION was PUT.

The MOTION was LOST.

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM then called for a DIVISION.

For	Against
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM	Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Marcus Cornish	Councillor Robin Cook
	Councillor Todd Carney
	Councillor John Thain
	Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
	Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
	Councillor Mark Davies
	Councillor Brian Cartwright
	Councillor Tricia Hitchen
	Councillor Bernard Bratusa
	Councillor Karen McKeown OAM

Reports of Committees

1 Reports and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 10 February 2021

42 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Robin Cook that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee meeting held on 10 February, 2021 be adopted.

2 Report and Recommendations of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 16 February 2021

43 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Brian Cartwright seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting held on 16 February, 2021 be adopted.

3 Report and Recommendations of the Resilience Committee Meeting held on 17 February 2021

44 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Robin Cook that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Resilience Committee meeting held on 17 February, 2021 be adopted.

4 Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 1 March 2021

45 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robin Cook seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 1 March, 2021 be adopted.

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

Outcome 2 – We plan for our future growth

1 Aerotropolis Precinct Plan Submission

Councillor Greg Davies arrived at the meeting, the time being 7.54pm.

46 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Aerotropolis Precinct Plan Submission be received

2. Council endorse the submission on the Aerotropolis Precinct Plan and associated documents provided as Attachment 1 to this report to be provided to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for their consideration.

3. The submission include a preferred zoning of the Luddenham Village Precinct to B3 (Business) zoning.

Having previously declared a Pecuniary Interest in Items 2 and 3, Councillor Ross Fowler OAM vacated the meeting, the time being 7.54pm.

2 39 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer

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

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 39 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer be received.

2. Council endorse the VPA offer presented in this report.

3. A Planning Agreement be prepared in accordance with the terms agreed in the VPA offer, then publicly notified, and then executed by Council’s General Manager and the proponent.

4. Upon execution of the Planning Agreement, the associated Planning Proposal be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to request the making of the Local Environmental Plan amendment.

5. An amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 to support the Planning Proposal is not required.

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

For	Against
Councillor Kath Presdee	Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Robin Cook	Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Todd Carney
Councillor John Thain
Councillor Ross Fowler OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Mark Davies
Councillor Brian Cartwright
Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Karen McKeown OAM

3 57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer

48 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Brian Cartwright that consideration of this matter be deferred until all information has been completed regarding this planning proposal, including referral to the Heritage Advisory Committee.

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

For	Against
Councillor Kath Presdee
Councillor Robin Cook
Councillor Greg Davies
Councillor Todd Carney

Councillor John Thain
Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM
Councillor Jim Aitken OAM
Councillor Mark Davies
Councillor Brian Cartwright
Councillor Tricia Hitchen
Councillor Bernard Bratusa
Councillor Marcus Cornish
Councillor Karen McKeown OAM

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

4 RFT20/21-23 Chapman Gardens Amenities

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 8:02pm.

49 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1. The information contained in the report on RFT20/21-23 Chapman Gardens Amenities be received

2. The tender from Coverit Building Group Pty Ltd, for the amount of $1,021,375.00 (excluding GST) be accepted for Chapman Gardens Amenities, Kingswood.

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

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

Councillor Bernard Bratusa declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 5 - Acceptance of Grant Funding Offers - NSW Floodplain Management Program 2020/21 as he is an employee of the Minister for Sport.

5 Acceptance of Grant Funding Offers - NSW Floodplain Management Program 2020/21

50 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Acceptance of Grant Funding Offers - NSW Floodplain Management Program 2020/21 be received.

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

a. Peach Tree and Lower Surveyors Creek Catchment Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan - $198,664;

b. Doonmore Street, Penrith retarding Basin – Detailed investigation and Detailed Design - $160,000; and

c. St Marys Flood Protection Levee Upgrade – Investigation and Detailed Design – $194,000.

3. Council write to Local Members and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, expressing appreciation of their continued support and funding towards Council’s Floodplain Management programs.

Outcome 6 - We are healthy and share strong community spirit

6 Reimagine Ageing Festival grant - Projects recommended for funding

51 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Todd Carney

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Reimagine Ageing Festival grant - Projects recommended for funding be received

2. The 7 projects listed in Table 1 be funded as part of the Reimagine Ageing Festival 2021.

7 Youth Week 2021 Program

52 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Todd Carney that the information contained in the report on Youth Week 2021 Program be received.

8 Greening the Great West Walk

53 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Todd Carney

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Greening the Great West Walk be received

2. Council accept the $245,995 (ex GST) grant funding from the NSW Department of Planning Industry and Environment’s Greening the Great West Walk project.

3. Letters of thanks be sent to the Minister for Planning, the Hon Rob Stokes MP, and the Local Member, the Hon Stuart Ayres MP.

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

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

9 2021 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly

54 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 2021 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly be received.

2. The 4 Motions outlined in this report be endorsed and adopted for submission to the National General Assembly.

10 Proposed Road Closure - Part Webb Street Werrington

55 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Proposed Road Closure - Part Webb Street Werrington be received

2. Part Webb Street, as identified within the report, be permanently closed in accordance with the Roads Act 1993.

3. The parcel of closed road, once registered and vested in Council, be classified as Operational Land in accordance with the Local Government Act.

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

11 Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 February 2021 to 28 February 2021

56 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 February 2021 to 28 February 2021 be received.

2. The certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summary of Investments and Performance for the Period 1 February 2021 to 28 February 2021 be noted and accepted.

3. The graphical Investment Analysis as at 28 February 2021 be noted.

12 Lot Consolidation – Soper Place – 5-17 Lawson Street, Penrith

57 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Lot Consolidation – Soper Place – 5-17 Lawson Street, Penrith be received

2. Council approve the consolidation of Lots 1 & 2 DP198253, Lot 1 DP198453, Lot 10 DP849474, Lot 1 DP859369, Lot 10 DP859371, Lot 1 DP995047 and Lots 1, 2 & 3 DP1159119.

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to any necessary documentation.

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

RR 1 Rural Land Rates

Councillor Bernard Bratusa requested that action be taken to find a solution to the method of calculating rural rates which currently results in high rates being paid by rural landowners when adequate services are not provided.

RR 2 Provision of Bus Stop at Kingswood Railway Station

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested that the Local Traffic Committee consider the provision of a bus stop on the southern side of Kingswood Railway Station as the lack of parking on the southern side means that public transport is the only way the majority of people can access the station.

RR 3 Wainwright Lane, Kingswood

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested that the Local Traffic Committee take urgent action to make Wainwright Lane, Kingswood a one-way street or one with no parking permitted.

RR 4 Provision of Hoist and Accessible Changerooms at Ripples

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested the installation of a hoist and addition of accessible changerooms at Ripples.

RR 5 Warragamba Dam Wall

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested a Councillor Briefing to consider the matter of the Warragamba Dam Wall once the Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and released and that urgent representations are made to DPIE to obtain all relevant information to allow an informed decision.

RR 6 Flagpoles on Council Buildings

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested a memo reply to all Councillors detailing how many buildings Council has with Australian flags on poles outside and how often the condition of these flags is checked, with a list of these buildings with flags to be provided in the memo.

RR 7 Indexing of Rates

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested information regarding the indexing or rebate for payment of Council rates by pensioners since 1993 and requested a Councillor Briefing on this matter.

RR 8 Eastbound Ramps - M4 Motorway

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested a memo reply advising whether the NSW Government has any plans to install east bound ramps on the M4 Motorway at Bennett Road to ease traffic congestion on Council roads around St Clair and Colyton.

RR 9 Penrith Core Transport Study

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM asked if it was possible to get a copy of the Penrith core centre transport management study and if it is confidential.

RR 10 Boom Gate - Eighth Avenue, South Creek

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM referred to his previous request for a boom gate on Eighth Avenue west of South Creek and requested an update on the current situation.

RR 11 Koala Reserve

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM referred to his previous request regarding the possibility of a koala reserve in former ADI site and requested a memo providing an update.

RR 12 Flood Evacuation Route from Windsor through Llandilo

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM advised that a tree fell on Second Avenue at the corner of Fifth Avenue and that this blocked the evacuation route for three hours and requested that consideration be given to what things can impact on this flood evacuation route.

RR 13 Memorial to Matthew Morris

Councillor John Thain requested that consideration be given to installing a plaque in one of Council’s children’s playgrounds to commemorate the contribution of Council staff member, the Late Matthew Morris.

RR 14 Audit of Flags in Community Centres

Councillor Mark Davies requested an audit of flags which are located in Council’s community centres.

RR 15 Residential Rates

Councillor Greg Davies requested a list of residential properties which currently incur rates of $10,000 or more.

RR 16 Pension Rates

Councillor Greg Davies requested a history of pensions and how they were brought in.

RR 17 Caddens Road

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested that the Local Traffic Committee investigate reopening Caddens Road, and if the State Member could be approached to fund safety measures to enable its reopening.

RR 18 Land Stewardship

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a Councillor Briefing on the land stewardship in NSW and the Boset map and the questionnaire.

Committee of the Whole

58 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Brian Cartwright seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 8:38pm.

1 Presence of the Public

CW1 RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Robin Cook that the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters:

Outcome 7

2 Acquisition for Carparking

This item has been referred to Committee of the Whole as the report refers to information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business and discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to the public interest.

3 Compulsory Acquisition by Sydney Metro - 36-38 Harris Street North St Marys

4 Creation and Modification of Drainage Easements over Council Land - 34 Braddon Street, Oxley Park

5 Creation of Drainage Easements over Council Land - 146-150 Derby Street Penrith (Spence Park)

Outcome 2

6 Fire Safety Update

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

The meeting resumed at 9:03pm and the Chairperson reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 8:38pm on 22 March 2021, the following being present

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen, and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Bernard Bratusa, Todd Carney, Brian Cartwright, Robin Cook, Marcus Cornish, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

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

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

2 Acquisition for Carparking

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

CW2 That this matter be deferred and presented to a Councillor Briefing following consultation with the owners of the adjoining site.

3 Compulsory Acquisition by Sydney Metro - 36-38 Harris Street North St Marys

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor John Thain

CW3 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Compulsory Acquisition by Sydney Metro - 36-38 Harris Street North St Marys be received

2. Council divest Lots 1 & 2 DP1127305 known as 36-38 Harris Street, North St Marys in accordance with the terms and conditions listed within the report.

3. The common seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be placed on any necessary documentation.

4 Creation and Modification of Drainage Easements over Council Land - 34 Braddon Street, Oxley Park

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Bernard Bratusa

CW4 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Creation and Modification of Drainage Easements over Council Land - 34 Braddon Street, Oxley Park be received

2. Council grant a drainage easement over Lot 118 DP 243599 to the benefit of Lot 2 DP 214825 and Lot C DP 432667 as per the terms and conditions listed within the report.

3. Council agree to modify the existing drainage easements over Lot 118 & 119 DP 243599 and Lot 21 DP 714873, to include Lot 2 DP 214825 and Lot C DP 432667 as a benefiting party.

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

5 Creation of Drainage Easements over Council Land - 146-150 Derby Street Penrith (Spence Park)

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

CW5 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Creation of Drainage Easements over Council Land - 146-150 Derby Street Penrith (Spence Park) be received

2. Council grant two new Drainage Easements over Lot 2 DP 505483 to benefit Lot 1 DP1230116 in accordance with the terms and conditions listed in this report.

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

6 Fire Safety Update

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

CW6 That:

1. The information contained in the report on Fire Safety Update be received.

2. Council issue a Fire Safety Order in accordance with the terms of the Notice of Intention to Serve an Order.

3. Council continue to monitor the property as part of its Fire Safety Audit Program and take any further action as necessary.

4. Fire and Rescue NSW be advised of Council’s decision.

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

59 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Brian Cartwright that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4, CW5 and CW6 be adopted.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:04pm.

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

Proposed Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy

Compiled by: Natalie Stanowski, Principal Planner

Authorised by: Natasha Borgia, City Planning Manager

Kylie Powell, Director - City Futures

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Protect the City’s natural areas, heritage and character
Service Activity	Undertake research and projects and participate in the Western Sydney Planning Partnership to respond to emerging issues and government initiatives

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present a draft submission to the proposed Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (Design and Place SEPP) that is currently being exhibited by the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE).

Good design is a critical consideration to the planning and development of the built environment. The proposed SEPP has the potential to have a positive impact on design outcomes across many development types.

The draft submission provides a number of key matters that should be further considered by DPIE during the development of a draft SEPP.

Background

The Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) have placed on exhibition an explanation of intended effects (EIE) to commence public consultation on a proposed new Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (Design and Place SEPP).

The exhibition commenced on 26 February 2021 and initially was to conclude on 31 March 2021. DPIE made the decision to extend the exhibition to 28 April 2021 to allow the preparation of fully considered submissions. DPIE has indicated that a further exhibition of the drafted provisions of the SEPP and supporting guide documents will be undertaken later this year.

Current Situation

The Design and Place SEPP will be a principle led SEPP and will be responsible for integrating good design and place considerations into planning policy. DPIE has indicated that the SEPP forms part of broader work to simplify and improve the planning system- by reducing its complexity. The provisions of SEPP 65- Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and SEPP Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) will be incorporated into the Design and Place SEPP.

Aims & Objectives of the SEPP

The SEPP aims to:

· Give effect to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act by:

o Facilitating ecological sustainable development

o Protecting the environment through the identification, integration and enhancement of green infrastructure

o Sustainable management of heritage items

o Promote good design and amenity

o Promote proper construction through consideration of whole of life costs to buildings

· Start with country as a foundation for place-based design and planning

· Respond to government priorities

o Premiers priorities for a better environment

o Net Zero Plan Stage 1

o Better Placed- integrated design policy for the built environment

· Deliver healthy and prosperous places through integrating good design processes into planning and development

· Deliver quality design, integrated outcomes and innovation

· Consistent principles, considerations and guidance for the design of the NSW built environment.

It is proposed to be structured in three parts- aims and principles, design and place processes and considerations. The table below details the structure.

Aims and Principles	Design and Place Processes	Considerations
Starting with Country	Design Processes and integration - Design Skills - Design evaluation - Design review for state projects - Design review for LGA’s - Design excellence	Matters for consideration
Premiers priorities Greening public space and greening our city	Place based approach - Engage with traditional custodians - Place and site analysis	Application requirements
Net Zero Plan		Supported guidance
Better Placed (objectives of good design)
Principles of the SEPP · Design Places of character & Beauty · Design inviting public spaces · Design productive & connected places · Design sustainable & greener places · Design resilient & diverse places

Application of the SEPP

The matters for consideration and application requirements will apply to three development scales:

· Precincts – Planning Proposals, Master Plans, large subdivisions, other plans applying to areas over 10Ha/1000 people.

· Significant development – State significant development, 4000m²+/500 people, state significant infrastructure, sites bounded by streets on all sides.

· All other development – individual development buildings and spaces.

DPIE has not determined whether the SEPP should apply to complying development.

Key Components of the SEPP

The EIE suggests that the SEPP will provide:

· Requirements for development to be designed by qualified design professionals, including architect, landscape architects and urban designers

· Strengthened connection between site analysis and design outcome

· A Design Review Guide (DRG) to guide design review panels

· Consistent applicant requirements and specifications

· 19 mandatory matters for consideration, including:

Cultural & built heritage	Resilience	Impacts on Vibrant Areas
Public Space	Fine Grain Movement	Activation
Connectivity	Density	Emissions & resource efficiency
Local Living	Housing Diversity	Tree Canopy
Street Design	Transport and Parking	Affordable Housing
Water Management	Attractive Form
Green Infrastructure	Impacts on Public Space

There are a few key features of the SEPP that represent a fundamental shift in previous design approaches and include:

· Focus on connecting with Country

· Principle led system- reaching an outcome from a reasoned and considered approach- a move away from entirely prescriptive controls. This is to encourage innovation & creative approaches

· More governance of design at precinct level- density targets, block lengths, street design criteria

Proposed Amendments to Existing SEPPS

The Design and Place SEPP is proposed to incorporate both SEPP 65- Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. In addition, a number of amendments are proposed to the provisions of these SEPPs:

SEPP 65

SEPP BASIX

- The Design and Place SEPP will replace some SEPP 65 processes

- Design quality principles in SEPP 65 will be replaced

- Reducing length of ADG

- Providing greater flexibility for open space, car parking rates

- Increase provisions for solar access, natural cross ventilation, private open space and storage

- Improve internal amenity, deep soil planting

- Additional design criteria for local character and context, building separation for residential towers, bicycle storage

- Increased flexibility in the assessment pathway for BASIX

- Aligning performance requirements with principles of the Design & Place SEPP

- Improving customer experience

- Staged increase in sustainability targets in line with NSW Governments Net Zero Plan

Relationship to other SEPPs

A number of SEPPs will interface with the Design and Place SEPP including:

· SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP)

· proposed Housing Diversity SEPP (to be finalised)

· SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (Education SEPP)

· SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP).

DPIE has indicated that these SEPPs will be revised in the next 1-3 years to align with the Design and Place SEPP

The EIE has also indicated that the proposed SEPP will supplement the following SEPPs that contain plan making/ master planning provisions:

· SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

· SEPP (Western Sydney Aerotropolis) 2020

· SEPP (Activation Precincts) 2020

· SEPP (State Significant Precincts) 2005

No information has been provided as to how the proposed SEPP will relate to these.

In relation to the Exempt and Complying Codes SEPP, DPIE has indicated that the requirements of the proposed Design & Place SEPP may need to be reviewed and the outcomes tested to ensure they can be achieved by the standard development types.

Impact on Councils planning controls and Processes

The SEPP will become the core element to the preparation, review and assessment of development applications, master plans, precinct planning and some planning proposals. A number of elements of the SEPP will also need to be considered in the preparation of Local Environmental Plans (LEP) and Development Controls Plans (DCP). While there is no immediate requirement for Councils to amend their Local Environmental Plan or Development Control Plan, Council will need to consider the provisions of the SEPP in the preparation of any future amendments to these planning instruments.

The EIE indicates that the SEPP will provide guidance in respect to design excellence provisions and Councils Design Review Panel, however the details are limited at this time and it is unclear if the SEPP will have any immediate impact on Councils LEP clause for design excellence or the way Councils design review panel is managed.

Understanding the impacts on Council’s planning controls and processes will be better understood once the draft SEPP and guides have been released for comment.

Councils submission

A draft submission to the proposed Design and Place SEPP is provided in Attachment 1. The submission provides a summary of key matters for consideration, plus detailed recommendations for section of the proposed SEPP. The key matters raised for consideration include:

· Quality Design Outcomes – The proposed SEPP brings the opportunity to deliver good design which is supported.

· Application of the SEPP – There is ambiguity around the coverage of the proposed SEPP, what it includes and how it might apply to complying development. There is also uncertainty about its relationship to other SEPPs and the consequences of any change.

· Complexity – The overall intent of the SEPP to provide concise, tangible and legislative directions does not appear to be achieved. The SEPP appears overcomplicated, considerable repetition and use of jargon. The multiple guides that Council will be more staff time to consider.

· Councils Strategic planning & standardisation – The SEPP will require precinct planning and planning proposals to demonstrate compliance with the SEPP. The SEPP will require changes to Councils LEP and DCP, which may expect a more standard approach to certain matters like density.

· Design Review Panel – There are indications that design review panels may be more standardised, which could result in a loss of local representation on the panel.

· Impact on local character – Concern that adequate provisions for local character assessment will not be legislated or prescriptive and ability for councils to enforce a position on this will be diluted

· Sustainability – Support for BASIX to be included in this SEPP, however there is little consideration about urban heat management targets. The SEPP appears to enable trade-off between thermal comfort and energy performance, which isn’t supported.

· Assessment times and capability – the increased requirements for experienced practitioners to design and verify design reports and plans, plus the complexity of the SEPP could increase requirements on council to staff. Further support will be needed from DPIE to ensure staff are equipped to implement the new SEPP.

Financial Implications

There may be potential financial implications for Council in relation to the proposed SEPP and any changes to the design review panel process, however the extent of any financial implications will not be fully known until the draft SEPP is released for comment later this year.

Risk Implications

There are no risk implications for Council associated with this report.

Conclusion

The proposed Design and Place SEPP represents the greatest shift in the consideration of good design and place in planning frameworks since the introduction of SEPP 65. The proposed SEPP seeks to bring together all place and design related controls into a single, principle-based document. The EIE of the proposed SEPP is on exhibition until 28 April 2021. The proposed SEPP presents the opportunity to provide improved design quality outcomes for future development, and the potential for a greater streamlined approach to design in planning, which is supported. There are a number of key matters that require further consideration by DPIE and these have been detailed in the draft submission for Councils consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Proposed Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy be received.

2. Council endorse the draft submission to the proposed Design and Place SEPP and that this submission is provided to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment for their consideration.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ⇩

Draft Submission to exhibition of proposed Design and Place SEPP

23 Pages

Attachments Included

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

Planning Proposal to reclassify land on Reynolds Road and The Driftway, Londonderry

Compiled by: Madison Foster, Planner

Authorised by: Natasha Borgia, City Planning Manager

Kylie Powell, Director - City Futures

Outcome	We plan for our future growth
Strategy	Facilitate development in the City that considers the current and future needs of our community
Service Activity	Plan for and facilitate development in the City

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

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the public exhibition and public hearing for the Planning Proposal relating to seven sites owned by Hawkesbury City Council (HCC) at The Driftway and Reynolds Road, Londonderry and seek Council’s endorsement to adopt the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 to reclassify land located on the corner of The Driftway and Reynolds Road in Londonderry from “Community” to “Operational” and restrict development on these sites for new, renovated or intensified residential accommodation, whilst there is a waste or resource management facility adjacent to these sites.

No other zones or planning controls are proposed to be amended. The Planning Proposal is aligned with local and regional plans and strategies.

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from Thursday 3 September 2020 to Thursday 1 October 2020. A public hearing was held on Wednesday 10 March 2021. Public authorities identified in the Gateway Determination were consulted concurrently. Council received a total of 7 community submissions during the consultation process (4 during public exhibition and 3 in the public hearing process). The key issues raised in submissions received are addressed in this report. These relate to matters regarding future development on the subject sites, environmental capabilities, rural landscape and impact on neighbouring properties.

This report recommends that Council endorse the Planning Proposal to proceed to the next stage of the reclassification process. The submission to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for finalisation will include a request to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to make the amendments to Penrith LEP 2010.

Background

At the Policy Review Committee meeting of 9 December 2019, Council resolved to endorse the Planning Proposal for the reclassification of seven sites owned by HCC in Londonderry, to be sent to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination. A map and details of each site is provided as Figure 1 below. The Planning Proposal is provided as a separate enclosure to this report.

Figure 1 – Aerial view of the Subject Sites

A Gateway determination was received from DPIE on 10 March 2020. The Gateway determination did not provide Council with delegation to determine this Planning Proposal. An extension to the Gateway has been requested.

The subject sites were purchased by HCC between 1997 and 2001 to form a 250m buffer between residential dwellings and HCC’s Waste Management Facility to comply with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) “Environmental Guidelines, Solid Waste Landfills, Second Edition”.

At the time of purchase, no action was taken by HCC to reclassify the subject sites as ‘Operational’ land’ under the Local Government Act 1993, and therefore by default they are classified as ‘Community’ land.

The subject sites have previously been leased out by HCC, with some of the sites leased as dwellings, however all leases have now ended and there are no known leases or agreements applying to the subject sites at this time.

Conditions under the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government Regulations 2005, prevent the sale and restrict leasing of ‘Community’ land. The conditions restrict the maximum lease term and require categorisation of the sites with concurrent uses and plans of management. These conditions have restricted HCC’s ability to lease the subject sites for agricultural and residential purposes in a manner which would allow the sites to be self-sustaining.

The Waste Facility has a projected lifespan under its current operational model of 15-20 years, beyond which it is likely to transition into a waste transfer facility and may not require a buffer.

Local Planning Panel

Under the requirements of Section 2.19 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this Planning Proposal was referred to the Local Planning Panel for advice on 22 May 2019. The panel were briefed on the Planning Proposal by Council officers.

The Local Planning Panel generally supported the Planning Proposal, provided that further information including property information, information on the impacts of the Waste Facility and alignment with local and regional plan was received from HCC. This information was

provided by HCC and has been incorporated into the Planning Proposal.

The LPP also requested that the Planning Proposal not facilitate operation of the Waste Facility closer to residential neighbours. In response to this consideration, the Planning Proposal now identifies that if any changes to the use of the subject sites are planned, additional approvals, development applications or a new or amended EPA License and

Landfill Environmental Management Plan may be required. These ensure that any future uses of the sites are appropriate to the local context and that plans consider existing and future planning and environmental controls.

Gateway Determination

The Gateway Determination required the Planning Proposal to be referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service prior to public exhibition. A response was received on 28 April 2020 indicating that no additional actions were required in order to comply with Ministerial Direction 4.4, Planning for Bushfire Protection.

A condition of the Gateway Determination required the Planning Proposal to be amended to include written consent from HCC for the proposed reclassification of the subject land. A response was received from HCC on 23 March 2020.

The Planning Proposal has been updated to reflect these responses. The response from NSW Rural Fire Service is provided as Appendix 12 to the Planning Proposal and written consent from HCC is provided as Appendix 10.

Public Exhibition and Public Hearing Submissions

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from Thursday 3 September 2020 to Thursday 1 October 2020. During the public exhibition, four submissions were received from the community objecting to the proposed amendment. The planning proposal was made publicly available on Council’s YourSay webpage and the NSW Planning Portal.

An independently chaired public hearing is required to be held under the Local Government Act 1993 for reclassification of land. The public hearing took place on Wednesday 10 March 2021 at Penrith Civic Centre. The Independent Chair provided a report on submissions received, provided as Attachment 1 of this report.

The issues raised in submissions are summarised in the following table:

Issue	Response
Reclassification and proposed LEP clause impact on neighbouring lots	The Gateway determination requires the planning proposal to include a proposed LEP clause that prohibits the use of the seven sites for new or intensified residential uses whilst the Waste Facility is in operation and the seven sites are required as a buffer. This clause ensures the subject sites continue to be used for the purpose for which HCC acquired them, which is to provide a buffer of 250m between the Waste Management Facility and surrounding residential dwellings. As per the Siting Restrictions in the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA) Solid Waste Landfill Guidelines. Development consent for residential uses will not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies, being the seven sites subject to this planning proposal. As such, the proposed clause and reclassification only applies to the seven subject sites owned by HCC and does not extend to other privately owned lots in this area. This will allow HCC to consider the future use of all sites to realise the objectives of the existing zones. There are many factors that influence property values and decisions to buy and sell property. While zoning and planning controls are one factor, there are other considerations such as the area’s demographics, its proximity to services and amenities, other sales in the area, current and predicted investment in the area, and whether property is affected by factors such as traffic noise. The assessment of property values is the responsibility of the NSW Government’s Valuer General. The reclassification of these sites and introducing a new clause is unlikely to influence property values.
Future acquisition of additional lots	The Planning Proposal facilitates the reclassification of the land and introduces a LEP clause to enable it to be used for the purpose it was acquired by HCC. The seven subject sites were acquired as a 250m buffer to residential dwellings as required under the NSW Environmental Protection Authority Environmental Guidelines, Solid Waste Landfills, Second Edition 2016. As such, acquisition of additional lots is not required for the operation of HCC Waste Facility and not proposed as part of this planning proposal.
Future use, rural landscape character and environmental capabilities	The Planning Proposal does not propose to rezone the rural zoned land, but rather reclassifies rural land that is not being utilised for agricultural or other rural related purposes. The planning proposal will not alter any other development controls in a manner such that there would be adverse impacts on critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities. Use of the subject sites, consistent with the zoning, will enable the desired rural vision and, improve the maintenance and amenity of the subject sites. Any future lease arrangements or changes to uses of the subject lands will address potential land use conflicts via the statutory planning process. Future development would be subject to existing controls and assessed through a separate approvals process, including a Development Application (DA) or/and EPA license or Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) amendment to existing approvals may also be required for any future proposed operational uses of the site to support the waste facility. This would ensure that any future use and development of the subject sites are compatible with existing zone objectives and is of an appropriate scale, sensitive to the rural character and environmental capabilities of the area.
Waste Facility	The current Hawkesbury City Waste Management Facility EPA License and LEMP, provided as Appendix 8 to the Planning Proposal, provide environmental management responses for the Waste Facility site. If any changes to the current use of the subject sites is planned, additional approvals, development applications or a new or amended EPA License and LEMP may be required. Whilst HCC is not currently considering disposing of the subject lands due to the nature of their acquisition, the reclassification to operational would allow HCC to generate an income from the sites and will continue to be used as a buffer to the Waste Facility. Any future use will be compatible with applicable planning controls and the 250m buffer. The current operation of the Waste Facility is carried out under an EPA licence and HCC’s LEMP.

Submissions raised concerns about the trading hours, work practices, environmental impacts, and location of HCC Waste Facility. These matters do not relate to the Planning Proposal and are outside of Penrith Council’s control. The issues raised have been forwarded to HCC for consideration.

No changes to the Planning Proposal are recommended in response to submissions received during the public exhibition and public hearing.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for Council associated with this report.

Risk Implications

There are no identified risk implications associated with this report.

Conclusion

Council officers have prepared a Planning Proposal which seeks to amend Penrith LEP 2010 to reclassify seven sites owned by Hawkesbury City Council from Community to Operational land. In addition to introducing an LEP clause that prohibits the use of the sites for new, renovated or intensified residential accommodation, while the Waste Facility is in operation and sites are required as a buffer.

The Planning Proposal was public exhibited, an independently chaired public hearing was conducted, and community submissions have been addressed. No changes to the planning proposal are recommended as a result of the submissions.

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal be adopted as exhibited and submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation. A request to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces will be included in the submission to make the amendments to Penrith LEP 2010.

Next Steps

If Council adopts the proposed recommendations below, the following next steps will be undertaken:

1. The Planning Proposal will be finalised.

2. Council officers will submit the Planning Proposal to the to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation in accordance with the plan making process. The submission will include a request to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to make the amendments to Penrith LEP 2010.

3. Submitters will be notified when the Planning Proposal is made.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal to reclassify land on Reynolds Road and The Driftway, Londonderry be received.

2. Council endorse the Planning Proposal that seeks to reclassify seven sites owned by Hawkesbury City Council on Reynolds Road and The Driftway, Londonderry which is provided as a separate enclosure to this report.

3. The General Manager be granted delegation to make minor and administrative changes to the Planning Proposal referred to in resolution 2 prior to Council’s submission of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

4. Council officers forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces with a request to make the local environmental amendments.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ⇩

Independent Public Hearing Report

16 Pages

Attachments Included

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

RFT2021-12 Dunheved Road Design Tender

Compiled by: Matthew Buckley, Major Projects Coordinator

Wasique Mohyuddin, Major Projects Coordinator

Authorised by: Michael Jackson, Design and Projects Manager

Brian Steffen, Director - City Services

Outcome	We can get around our City
Strategy	Provide a safe and efficient road and pathway network
Service Activity	Manage the delivery of Council’s major transport infrastructure projects

Executive Summary

RFT20/21-12 Dunheved Road Upgrade – Investigation, concept & detailed design and for construction documentation was advertised online through Apet360 on 04 February 2021. The tender closed on 15 March 2021.

The tender was advertised to engage design consultancy services to undertake site investigations, prepare concept and detail design and construction documentation. The detailed design is estimated to be completed by April 2022.

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender evaluation process and recommends that the tender received from Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd be accepted for the full scope of works outlined in RFT20/21-12 Dunheved Road Upgrade – Investigation, concept & detailed design and for construction documentation for the amount of $1,737,314.57 (excluding GST).

Background

The Australian Government has committed $127 Million for the upgrade of Dunheved Road through the Urban Congestion Fund.

Penrith City Council is seeking an appropriately qualified and experienced design consultancy team to undertake investigations, engineering survey, and detailed civil and utilities design for the upgrade of the Dunheved Road corridor. Dunheved Road is an unclassified regional road managed by Penrith City Council.

The design process is forecast to be over 12 months long to take into account numerous

variables such as:

• Any property adjustments (such as minor land acquisitions for road widening) will need to be completed prior to construction commencing. Potential part property acquisitions (if required) can take over 500 days from the day of the decision to proceed.

• Any rezoning (e.g. change from community land to a road dedication).

• Approval of all utility (Power, Water, Sewer, Gas, Telco) adjustment designs.

• Any other permits / approvals, such as: -

- Approvals from TfNSW for traffic signals or Works Authorisation Deeds (WADs)

with TfNSW.

- Any cultural / heritage items that may require identification, or relocation can

have a lengthy approval and permit processes.

- Road modifications within the TransGrid easement (High Voltage transmission

lines) can be a slow process and may require adjustment to designs to suit

constraints.

- A review of environmental factors (REF) must be approved prior to construction

commencing.

- Any remediation required of existing land (or approvals must be obtained to remediate within the project scope.

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Major Projects Coordinator Matthew Buckley, Delivery Program Manager Wasique Mohyuddin, Major Projects & Design Coordinator Ari Fernando and was chaired by Design and Projects Manager Michael Jackson. The Tender Evaluation Committee was supported by Procurement Business Partner Allyce Langton.

The tenders we received were assessed using the advertised evaluation criteria of:

· Work Health & Safety

· Works method and program

· Demonstrated ability

· Business references

· Financials

· Employment policies and details (direct labour and sub-contractors)

· Local Business Preference

· Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems

· Value for money

Initial Tender Review

A full listing of the tenders received is detailed below in price order (ex GST).

Company	Lump Sum Tendered Price	Company Location	Directors
Turnbull Engineering Pty Ltd	$1,027,890	Level 21, 56 Pitt Street Sydney	Chris Turnbull Mark Evans
Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd	$1,737,314	Level 9 203 Pacific Highway St Leonards	Peter Anthony Barker, Jamie Alonso, David Pitronaci, Shane Higgins, Cherie O'Riordan,
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd	$2,624,624	Level 8, 540 Wickham St Fortitude Valley QLD	Richard Barrett, Christopher Tatam
SMEC Australia Pty Ltd	$2,780,040	Level 5 20 Berry Street North Sydney	Kathleen Drew, James Phillis, Trevor Sullivan, Goran Simic, David Campbell, Robert Tilbury, David Collett, Peter Humphreys
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd	$3,026,161	Level 13, 201 Kent St Sydney	Wayne Nolan, Rob Hawketts, Farhan Mujib, Jay Ibrahim,

The tenderers were also required to submit provisional rate and construction phase service costs as detailed below (ex GST)

Company	Provisional Items Price	Construction Phase services	Total
Turnbull Engineering Pty Ltd	$ 279,260	$ 148,660	$ 427,920
Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd	$ 340,883	$ 231,184	$ 572,067
AECOM Australia PTY LTD	$ 230,000	$ 278,800	$ 508,800
SMEC Australia Pty Ltd	$ 561,680	$ 354,090	$ 915,770
Kellogg Brown & Root PTY LTD	$ 524,371	$ 247,585	$ 771,956

All five tenders were evaluated in detail against the weighted evaluation criteria to determine an effectiveness rating. Consideration was then given to the tenderer’s price schedules, exclusions and qualifications to determine the best value for money solution with competency in technical aspects of the tender.

The tender review panel then focussed on the tenders provided by Turnbull Engineering Pty Ltd and Cardno Pty Ltd and sought further clarification with both tenderers.

Cardno Pty Ltd has a higher effectiveness score compared to the first and third price ranked tenderers being Turnbull Engineering and AECOM Pty Ltd. The tender from Cardno Pty Ltd includes a more thorough investigation phase compared to Turnbull Engineering, which accounts for some of the variance in pricing. The tender review panel considered that the Cardno proposal more thoroughly addressed the tender deliverables and provided more detail and clarity regarding deliverables and provided the review panel with higher confidence to deliver those outcomes in comparison to both the lower and higher priced submissions.

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

The tender received from Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to be providing high value for money compared to the next on the ranking list.

The recommended company, Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd, was selected based on their:

1) Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria,

2) Demonstrated ability to meet Council’s requirements,

3) Competitive price for the services offered.

The Tender Evaluation Committee thoroughly reviewed the information provided pertaining to past experience of the proposed tenderer and conducted reference checks.

Clarifications were requested from Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd prior to finalising the committee’s recommendation. These clarifications are factored into the tender evaluation and do not represent a risk to project budget.

Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd has delivered numerous design projects of similar nature and value on behalf of Penrith City Council, Transport for NSW and other local councils. Council’s Project Management team is satisfied with their performance and reference checks have also returned with positive feedback.

Financial Implications

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on CARDNO (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Equifax Australasia Credit Ratings Pty Ltd. Financial Services have reviewed the financial information provided by the tenderer and have not identified any reason why the contract should not be awarded.

Recommendation for acceptance of the Dunheved Road Upgrade - Urban Congestion Fund from Transport for New South Wales was adopted at Ordinary Meeting 22 June 2020. The funding offer of $63.5m will provide for the initial Detailed Design phase proposed within this tender.

Tender Advisory Group Comments

The objective of the Tender Advisory Group (TAG) is to support the Council to achieve fair and equitable tender processes. The TAG, consisting of Glenn McCarthy - Governance Manager and Neil Farquharson – Financial Services Manager were briefed by the Design and Projects team about the background and the process followed.

The TAG considered the recommendations in relation to the tender RFT20/21-12 Dunheved Road Upgrade – Investigation, concept & detailed design and for construction documentation, it was noted that the recommended proposal is not the lowest cost, however the company has demonstrated their ability to meet Council’s requirements and their proposal was considered to be the most advantageous to Council. The TAG reviewed the evaluation process outlined within the report and is satisfied that the selection criteria have been correctly applied in making the recommendations.

Risk Implications

The Dunheved Project is funded by the Australian Government Urban Congestion Fund and therefore represents low financial risk for Council.

The project requires the upgrade of an existing road corridor and service utilities which have a risk of exposing unknown or underlying issues. Therefore, the tender scope has included detailed investigation of the existing site conditions to address and mitigate these unknown issues prior to any later construction phase.

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd provided the most advantageous tender and it is recommended that the Company be awarded the contract for a contract sum of $1,737,314 (excluding GST) and provisional items and construction phase services for an amount of $572,067 (excluding GST).

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on RFT20/21-12 12 Dunheved Road Upgrade – Investigation, concept & detailed design and for construction documentation be received

2. Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd be awarded the Contract subject to the execution of a formal agreement for the RFT20/21-12 Dunheved Road Upgrade – Investigation, concept & detailed design and for construction documentation for an amount of $1,737,314 excluding GST.

3. Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd to also be awarded for provisional items and construction phase services for an amount of $572,067 excluding GST.

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

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

RFT20/21-26 Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 Sports Field Lighting

Compiled by: Mitchell Sammut, Project Supervisor

Authorised by: Michael Jackson, Design and Projects Manager

Brian Steffen, Director - City Services

Outcome	We are healthy and share strong community spirit
Strategy	Provide opportunities for our community to be healthy and active
Service Activity	Deliver the Parks Asset Renewal Program

Executive Summary

A tender for the Sports Field lighting at Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball was advertised on 23 February 2021 on Apet360 and e-tendering websites and closed on Thursday 18 March 2021 at 11.00am.

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tender from Central West Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd, for the amount of $338,060.00 (excluding GST) be accepted for Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 Sports Field Lighting.

Background

Projects at both Dukes Oval and Monfarville Baseball Diamond 1 are being undertaken to upgrade the Sport Field lighting to meet current standards and better support the sporting clubs that use the facilities.

The project has required that designs be undertaken and a tender to construct these works be called requesting submissions from suitably experienced contractors. Dukes Oval, Emu Plains project will bring the Australian Rules Football Field up to the Australian standard of 100 Lux for match play and training using Musco LED sportsfield lighting system.

Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 project will retrofit Musco LED floodlight fittings to the existing poles on diamond 1. This will allow for the diamond to achieve the Australian standard of 250 Lux infield and 150 Lux outfield for match play and training lighting.

Using LED sporting field lighting will result in reduced power consumption at both the sites.

Dukes Oval is funded through the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment under the Crown Reserves Improvement Fund and through Council’s Internal Reserves Fund. Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 is funded through the Parks Assets Renewal Fund.

Tender Evaluation Panel

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of Project Supervisor Peter Foster, Project Supervisor Mitchell Sammut and was chaired by Design and Projects Manager Michael Jackson. Allyce Langton from Council’s Procurement team performed the role of tender administration and probity officer for this tender.

Tender Evaluation Criteria

Tenderers for the project were required to submit their tender using the Apet360 tendering software, which clearly defined the response required against each of the evaluation criteria.

The tenders we received were assessed using the advertised evaluation criteria of:

· Business references

· Demonstrated ability

· Works method and program

· Financials

· Employment policies and details (direct labour and sub-contractors)

· Local Business Preference

· Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems

· Work Health & Safety

· Value for money

Summary of Tenders Received

A total of four (4) tenders were received by the closing date of the advertised tender and are listed below in price order (ex GST).

Company	Tendered Price	Company Address	Owners/Directors
Central West Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd	$338,060.00	Unit 3/229 Russell St, Bathurst NSW, 2795	Craig White
Hix Group Pty Ltd	$374,950.00	Unit 1, 10 Production Place Penrith NSW 2750	Ian Hicks & Lea Hicks
ETE Services Pty Ltd	$385,900.00	3/181 High St Willoughby NSW 2068	Ian Notley
Metwest Engineering Pty Ltd	$521,000.00	18 Lee Holm Rd St Marys NSW 2760	Not provided

Short Listed Tenderers

Three tenders were initially shortlisted based on available budget and then assessed against the evaluation criteria, these are listed below.

· Central West Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd

· Hix Group Pty Ltd

· ETE Services Pty Ltd

The Metwest Engineering Pty Ltd tender was beyond the available budget so, was not consider further.

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

All three tenders were assessed against the evaluation criteria. On assessment the two tenders from Central West Electrical Contractors and Hix Group Pty Ltd presented the most advantageous offers to Council.

The panel agreed that the Central West Electrical Contractors submission was the best value for Council on the responses provided, clearly demonstrating their suitability to undertake the project. Central West Electrical Contractors provided a detailed methodology and project program and demonstrated, they understood the required works and construction sequence of the deliverables of the project. Central West Electrical Contractors have completed sporting field LED floodlight projects using the same Musco LED sportsfield lighting system for other Councils. The reference checks were very positive from these two councils when contacted.

These projects included:

· Bathurst Regional Council - Proctor Park Soccer fields - new substation, MSB and Musco Lighting towers to sportsfields power and field lighting upgrade, total project value $300,068

· Wollongong City Council - Wiseman Park - new Musco LED sportsfield lighting system including new site power, total project value $311,419

· Wollongong City Council - Figtree and Harry Graham Ovals - New Musco LED sportsfield lighting system including new site power, total project value $911,390

The recommended company, Central West Electrical Contractors was selected based on their:

1) Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria,

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

3) Competitive price for the services offered.

Financial Implications

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on Central West Electrical Pty Ltd. These checks were completed by Equifax Australasia Credit Ratings Pty Ltd. Financial Services have reviewed the financial information provided by the tenderer and have not identified any reason why the contract should not be awarded.

An allocation for the Monfarville Reserve floodlight works is Included in the 2020/21 Parks Asset Renewal Program.

Funding for the Dukes Oval floodlight upgrade Includes funds from Councils major projects reserve and Department of Planning, Industry & Environment's Crown Reserves Improvement Fund.

The maintenance and operational requirements of the upgraded facilities will be reflected in Council’s future asset maintenance budgets and asset renewal programs as per Council’s Budget Guidelines.

Tender Advisory Group Comments

The TAG considered the recommendations in relation to the tender RFT20/21-26 Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 Sports Field Lighting, it was noted that the recommended proposal is the lowest cost, and the company has demonstrated their ability to meet Council’s requirements and their proposal was considered to be the most advantageous to Council. The TAG reviewed the evaluation process outlined within the report and is satisfied that the selection criteria have been correctly applied in making the recommendations.

Risk Implications

The tender process outlined in this report includes controls regarding probity and ensuring value for Council, overseen by the Tender Advisory Group. The works will be undertaken in accordance with Work Health & Safety systems. These projects will replace the existing sporting field floodlights with public safety a key part of the construction methodology and project plan.

Conclusion

Three tenders were initially shortlisted based on available budget and then assessed against the evaluation criteria. Central West Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd provided the best price that also meet the tender evaluation criteria to undertake the project. It is recommended that the proposal and lump sum price from Central West Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd, for the amount of $338,060.00 (excluding GST) be accepted for Construction of RFT20/21-26 Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 Sports Field Lighting.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on RFT20/21-26 Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 Sports Field Lighting be received

2. The tender from Central West Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd, for the amount of $338,060.00 (excluding GST) be accepted for Dukes Oval & Monfarville Reserve Baseball Stage 1 Sports Field Lighting.

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

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

RFT2021-21 Provision of Banking Services

Compiled by: Sam Lwin, Accountant

Authorised by: Neil Farquharson, Financial Services Manager

Andrew Moore, Director - Corporate Services

Outcome	We have confidence in our Council
Strategy	Manage our money and our assets to be sustainable now and into the future
Service Activity	Provide accurate information to Council and the community on council’s financial activities

Executive Summary

The tender RFT 20/21-21 Provision of Banking Services was advertised on the Apet360 portal on 4 February 2021. The tender closed on Monday 1 March 2021.

This report advises the Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tender from Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) be accepted for Transactional Banking (partial scope of works outlined in the RFT 20/21-21 Provision of Banking Services) and National Australia Bank (NAB) be accepted for the provision of Purchase/Corporate Card services provided to Council. The period for both contracts is proposed for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2027, with possible extensions for another two plus two years.

Background

Council called for expressions of interest from suitable financial institutions for the provision of banking services for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2027 with possible extensions for another two plus two years. The tender was split into Provision of Transactional Banking and Purchase/Corporate Card services, which were able to be awarded separately. Currently, Council use CBA for Transactional Banking and Westpac Banking Corporation for Purchase/Corporate Cards, with the contracts expiring June 2021.

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of David McIllhatton – Business Systems Lead, Dana Reid – Team Leader – Rates, Ashley Zanier – Operational Finance Accountant and was chaired by Sam Lwin – Business Support Accountant. The Tender Evaluation Committee was supported by Procurement Business Partner Allyce Langton.

• Business References

• Demonstrated Ability

• Works Method and Program

• Financials

• Employment Policies (Apprenticeships)

• Quality Assurance Systems

• Environmental Management Systems

• Work Health & Safety

• Local Supplier Preference

Initial Tender Review

Transactional Banking

Two tenders were received, and the full listing of the tenders is detailed below in price order for Transactional Banking (ex GST). The approximate tender price is based on actual transaction volumes from the 2019-20 financial year.

Company

Tender Price

(ex GST)

Company Location

Directors

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)

$165,044.09 pa

(6 year estimate - $990,264.55)

201 Sussex Street Darling Park

Tower 1

Sydney NSW 2000

Catherine Livingstone

Matt Comyn

Shirish Apte

Genevieve Bell AO

Peter Harmer

Paul O’Malley

Simon Moutter

Mary Padbury

Anne Templeton-Jones

Rob Whitfield

National Australia Bank Limited (NAB)

$186,996.69

(6 year estimate - $1,121,980.14)

Level 18

255 George Street

Sydney NSW 2000

Philip Chronican

Ross McEwan CBE

David Armstrong

Kathryn Fagg

Peeyush Gupta AM

Anne Loveridge

Doug McKay ONZM

Simon McKeon AO

Ann Sherry AO

The total estimated cost of the recommended tenderer, over the 6 year contract term, for transactional banking is $990,264.55 from the CBA

Purchase and Corporate Cards

The costs relating to Purchase/Corporate Card were evaluated separately from Transactional Banking due to price variations between the two banks (this pricing was excluded from the above table. Below are details of the tender submissions received. The approximate tender price is based on current number of users. The pricing includes initial set up costs of expense management systems and ongoing monthly user costs.

Company

Tender Price (ex GST)

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)

$18,944.40 (first year)

$83,666.40 (6 year estimate)

National Australia Bank Limited (NAB)

$20,428.40 (first year)

$86,320.40 (6 year estimate)

The total estimated cost of the recommended tenderer, over the 6 year contract term, for Purchase/Corporate cards is $86,320.40 from the NAB. Although this is higher than the price tendered by CBA the Tender Evaluation Committee determined that the NAB solution provided greater functionality and therefore better value for money as discussed in the tender evaluation later in this report.

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

Transactional Banking

The expressions were assessed against a matrix, which included typical transaction types and volumes for Council from the previous financial year. These transactions can be broadly summarised into three categories, traditional banking services, electronic banking services and banking support services. The assessment initially focused upon the ongoing transactional-based cost of services as if Council had an already established relationship with each institution.

The one-off establishment costs would be included in the review if this initial assessment indicated a change of bankers might be advantageous. We also considered allowing for estimated costs of change over including resources required when changing to a new provider, staff training, cost of implementation.

Each of the institutions has a long association with Local Government and has several councils as clients. These banks have a dedicated Corporate banking team to provide specialised local government advice.

As indicated by the table above NAB’s annual cost is approximately $22,000 more than that of the CBA. The pricing provided by the CBA is competitive and based on overall value for money, is preferred over NAB.

Some areas of price difference include high volume transactions such as fees per transaction charges on direct credit payments including payroll and accounts payable. Another area is the Bpay payments particularly by Internet where large volumes of payments are received.

Following an initial assessment, the tender from the CBA was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to be providing the highest value for money although NAB did offer slightly higher quality responses to tender questions. NAB also had innovative solutions for everyday transactions such as allowing for EFT payments by customers and offering an intermediary service for accounts payable cheque payment runs.

These come at a higher cost, and the solutions do not actually meet Council’s requirement through its policy. For example, the allowance of EFT payments would require providing our bank account details to customers which is against Council policy, we are already working on an active Online Payments solution project which will allow customers/rate payers alternative and increased methods of payments. Cheque payment runs are also declining on a year-by-year basis as less suppliers require payments in cheque.

The CBA has provided Council’s banking services in the past and as a reference they have provided appropriate banking services to Council. The bank has been quick to respond to any problem encountered or any questions asked of them. The CBA have a very strong Local Government support structure and understanding of the requirements of Local Government generally.

In considering local supplier preferences of Council, both CBA and NAB have 3 branches in the Penrith area and with close branch access to Council for banking and deposit of cheques.

Therefore the CBA is the recommended tenderer for transactional banking based on:

1) Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria

2) Demonstrated ability to meet Council’s requirements

3) Competitive price for the services offered and

4) Good service provided in the past

Purchase and Corporate Cards

In comparing purchase and corporate cards for both banks, the following factors were considered:

1) Establishment costs

2) Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria

3) Ability to meet Council’s requirements including providing an expense management system (EMS) and

4) Competitive price for the services offered

The CBA’s annual cost per card user per month was higher than the price provided by NAB. However, NAB’s expense management system on an ongoing basis and one off implementation cost was higher. The tender price listed above includes the initial costs for implementation as well as ongoing monthly costs for both banks’ expense management system. They both complied with the requirements in the tender document, including providing a comprehensive EMS. The determining factor was on overall value for money in reference to the selection criteria. NAB has the value-added benefits of a similar EMS and also provided innovative additional solutions for Council.

The Flexipurchase EMS offered by NAB allows for an accrual option at year-end, audit trail and access for auditors of cards, along with mapping of general ledger codes from the EMS to Council’s accounting system. These extra functions were seen as advantageous and outweighed the marginally higher 6 year estimated cost, providing the best value for money to Council.

Financial Implications

The tender is proposed to be split between the CBA and NAB. An in-house assessment has been completed which supports this proposal and details the criteria on which this recommendation is based.

Funding for this proposal is available within existing budget allocations for costs associated with banking services.

Tender Advisory Group (TAG) Comment

The objective of the Tender Advisory Group (TAG) is to support the Council to achieve fair and equitable tender processes. The TAG, consisting of Glenn McCarthy - Governance Manager and Lana Axford – Supply Coordinator were briefed by the Financial Services team about the background and the process followed. The TAG was advised that Andrew Moore - Director Corporate Services, had been briefed separately.

The TAG considered the recommendations in relation to the tender RFT2021-21 Provision of Banking Services and noted that the recommended proposal for transactional banking was submitted by the current service provider. It was also noted that the recommended proposal for transactional banking was the lowest estimated cost based on actual volumes for 2019-2020 and the company has demonstrated its ability to meet Council’s requirements. The recommended proposal for purchase and corporate cards is not the lowest cost but is the most advantageous in view of the inclusion of the expense management system. The TAG reviewed the evaluation process outlined within the report and is satisfied that the selection criteria have been correctly applied in making the recommendations.

Risk Implications

The tender process outlined in this report includes control regarding probity and ensuring value for Council, overseen by the Tender Advisory Group.

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia has provided the most advantageous tender for transactional banking and it is recommended that Council renew its banking relationship with them for the partial scope of works, being Transactional Banking for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2027.

It is also recommended that the remaining scope of works of Purchase/Corporate cards be awarded to National Australia Bank due to the competitiveness of pricing and providing the most advantageous EMS to meet Council’s requirements, for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2027.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on RFT2021-21 Provision of Banking Services be received.

2. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia be reappointed to provide Transactional Banking services to Council for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2027 with the possibility by Council to extend for a further two (2) x two (2) year options.

3. National Australia Bank be appointed to provide Purchase/Corporate Card services to Council for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2027 with the possibility by Council to extend for a further two (2) x two (2) year options.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

Exhibition of Draft Delivery Program (2017-22) & Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan (including Draft 2021-22 Fees & Charges)

Compiled by: Neil Farquharson, Financial Services Manager

Geraldine Brown, Strategic Finance Coordinator

Craig Shepherd, Corporate Reporting Lead

Matthew Saunders, Rates Coordinator

Authorised by: Andrew Moore, Director - Corporate Services

Outcome	We have confidence in our Council
Strategy	Manage our money and our assets to be sustainable now and into the future
Service Activity	Support financial sustainability through financial planning and budget management

Executive Summary

The Draft 2017-22 Delivery Program, including the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges are being presented to Council tonight, seeking endorsement for the documents to be placed on public exhibition. Following the exhibition, details of all submissions received and how they have been responded to will be presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council scheduled for 28 June 2021.

This Operational Plan is the final instalment of a 5-year Delivery Program (2017-22) and contains specific actions for 2021-22 that aim to continue effective service delivery and progress actions for the identified priorities. At this stage a balanced budget position is reported in the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan. In developing the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan detailed briefing have been held with Councillors on 1 March 2021 to consider options for the 2021-22 Rating Structure, 15 March 2021 on the development of the 2021-22 Budget and further Rate Structure modelling, and 15 April 2021 on the development of the 2021-22 Budget and finalise Rate Structure modelling.

The preparation of the Draft 2021-22 Budget has also included a review of the impact of COVID-19 on Council’s financial position over the last year, and the development of a plan to repay the internal reserve established to track this impact. As mentioned at the 1^st Councillor Briefing in March, the Draft 2021-22 Budget includes the first of four annual repayments of $500,000 to this COVID-19 Impact Reserve. Councillors will also recall that as part of our grant submission to the NSW Public Spaces Legacy Program it is anticipated that $4m of grant funds (over the next 12-18 months) will be received by Council, replacing General Revenue funds for new public and open space projects. This in turn will release these General Revenue funds to be used to further reduce the deficit balance in the COVID-19 Impact Reserve currently at $6.6m. A further report will be provided to Council once the outcome of the NSW Public Spaces Legacy Program grant application has been notified.

It is proposed that the draft corporate planning documents be placed on public exhibition from Monday 3 May to Monday 31 May 2021 (inclusive). A report summarising the outcomes of the public exhibition and seeking Council’s adoption of the Draft Delivery Program (2017-22) including the 2021-22 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges, will be presented to Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 28 June 2021.

Adopted Corporate Planning Documents

The Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework for local government came into force in 2009 as an amendment to the Local Government Act 1993. Council has had a long-term Community Strategic Plan, a Community Engagement Strategy, a Resourcing Strategy, a Delivery Program and Operational Plans in place since then. Together these documents guide Council’s operations to deliver the services and facilities our community needs, and improve Penrith as a place to live, work and visit. All documents include indicators to measure our progress, which are reported on in 6 monthly progress reports, the Annual Report and the End of Term Report.

The Community Plan and Delivery Program were revised in 2017 to reflect the priorities of the new Council and respond to community feedback about the complexity of the plans. This year the intent of these documents remains unchanged, with minor updates to reflect changes to structure and responsibilities and progress in priority areas. The activities to be undertaken by Council to deliver on the Community Outcomes are consistent with previous years.

Council has included the annual Operational Plan as part of the Delivery Program since 2013-14. Each year new actions and new budget information is incorporated within the structure of the Delivery Program. Actions for 2020-21 highlight the specific activities or services that will be prioritised over the next 12 months, including the priority projects of the City Park, Soper Place multi deck carpark, Gipps Street and Regatta Park.

The Delivery Program 2017-22 provided as Attachment 1 also sets out Council’s financial intentions for five years (2017-22) as well as more detailed financial information for 2021-22, including:

· A Funding Summary for 2017-22;

· Detailed financial information by Function for 2021-22;

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

· The basis for Council’s Rates and Domestic Waste Charges for 2021-22;

· Reserve movements for 2021-22;

· A detailed list of Capital and Operating projects (by Service) and Program of Works, and

The Draft Fees and Charges 2021-22 component provides full details of Council proposed fees and charges and is provided as Attachment 2.

Budget Background

In 2015 Penrith was deemed ‘Fit for the Future’ by IPART providing an independent validation of the strategies in place and also the strategies proposed for the future. Council’s submission to IPART included the 2016-17 Special Rate Variation (SRV) and the continuation of AREAS.

The 2016-17 SRV incorporated 4 annual increases of 9.09% in 2016-17, 5.0% in 2017-18, 5.2% in 2018-19 and 5.4% in 2019 and included allocations for the following:

1. Asset management, renewal and backlog

2. Realignment of service costs

3. Increased investment to drive productivity initiatives

4. Major Projects and Regional City infrastructure

5. Building capacity to respond to emerging priorities

This 2016-17 SRV was one important element of a broader suite of Council strategies and actions developed over the past few years, including reform of our financial structures and commitment to the continuous pursuit of productivity. Savings from better ways of doing things, harnessing technology improvements, implementing new systems and reviewing service delivery will provide the capacity to continue to service our growing city. The development of the draft 2021-22 Budget will incorporate annual savings already identified in prior years and will continue to focus on identifying areas where further productivity savings can be achieved.

To clarify our direction the financial strategies implemented to improve our financial capacity have been summarised under the acronym “Sustain”.

These seven strategies will provide a framework to guide our approach, set outcomes, assist in decision making, and measure success in achieving ongoing financial sustainability.

In the current financial year strong financial management of Council’s Budget has been maintained throughout the first half of 2020-21 with a surplus currently predicted after allocations to reserves. The current 2020-21 Operational Plan will continue to be closely monitored for the remainder of the financial year, with Council’s commitment to strong budgetary control ensuring that we are in the best available position to establish a balanced budget for 2021-22.

At this stage the Draft 2021-22 Budget presents a balanced budget. In the event the Budget moves to a surplus position at the time of Public Exhibition, it is proposed to retain this amount in Council’s internal reserves for 2021-22 to provide for any significant movements that may arise in the current assumptions. Once the 2021-22 Budget and associated assumptions have been confirmed, any remaining reserve funds will provide Council with capacity to respond to additional priorities that have been identified or emerge in 2021-22, and to accelerate the repayment of the COVID-19 Impact Reserve.

Budget and Revenue Policy, Service Plans and Statutory Statements

The Budget, Revenue Policy and Commentary are contained in the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan. This section of the document includes information regarding Rating Income, Waste Management, Borrowings, Grants, Reserves, Employee Costs, Asset Replacement Programs, and Capital and Operating Projects.

The Draft 2021-22 Budget is summarised below:

Rates Income

Rating Increase - IPART Rate Peg

From 2011-12 onwards the responsibility for determining and announcing the rate peg has been transferred from the Minister for Local Government to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). Under this new regime IPART developed a Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) that formed the basis of the rate peg. IPART announced the 2021-22 Rate peg as 2% on 8 September 2020.

The 2% rate peg for 2021-22 was calculated by taking the increase in the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) to June 2020 of 1.8%, setting the productivity factor to 0.0%, and adding an adjustment of 0.2% for the costs of the 2021 local government elections.

It is proposed that Council adopt the 2% rate increase for 2021-22.

Council Rates for 2021-22

For 2021-22 Council is proposing a lower residential rate for our rural owners, subject to the legislative changes being passed by the NSW Government that will allow this to occur for 2021-22. The plans include a gradual reduction for residential properties in rural areas phased in over four years with an eventual discount of 30% by the fourth year. The discounted rural rate will be funded by other property owners who will pay an additional 2% annual levy on top of the annual rate peg increase (excluding property owners on the minimum rate who will only pay the rate peg increase), which is why the rural discount is required to be gradually phased in over time.

Details of these plans are included in the rates information below.

Ordinary Rates

Each year Council must determine a Rating Policy for the next financial year. The Local Government Act 1993 provides for a number of rating structures so that councils have the flexibility to develop a structure that best provides equity for their Local Government Area.

Council currently applies a rate structure in which rate assessments are based on property valuations (Ad Valorem) with a Minimum Amount. This means that rates are predominantly based on the land value of the property as determined by the NSW Valuer-General.

Council currently charges rates on three types of Land Categories:

a. Residential

b. Farmland

c. Business – with the following sub-categories

i. Penrith CBD

ii. St Mary’s Town Centre

The maximum rate revenue for the next financial year is calculated by:

a. Taking last year’s revenue and adding an inflation adjustment announced by IPART or an approved SRV amount;

b. Adding rates on new properties created by subdivision, and on new strata-titles; and

c. Adding income lost due to valuation objections.

The current differentiation between Rating Categories and Sub-categories is:

· the rate in the dollar for all Residential properties are the same, subject to a Minimum Amount*; (* this is subject to change if a rural Residential sub-category is brought in for 2021-22 should the foreshadowed legislative change be implemented by the NSW Government).

· the Farmland rate is 50% of the Residential rate;

· all Business Minimum Amounts the same; and

· two Business rating sub-categories for Penrith CBD and St Marys Town Centre which have different Ad Valorem rates to the Ordinary Business category.

Every three years Council receives updated valuations for all properties in the Local Government Area. The Valuer General provided the General Valuation of land for the LGA with a Base Date 1 July 2019 and these were first used for rates purposes from 1 July 2020. These land valuations will again be used for the assessment of rates in 2021-22.

Rate structures

NSW councils have three options with the way that rates are structured. Under each option, the total amount of rates collected by Council is the same, however the rates are shared differently among property owners. Under any of these options Council can use different rates for different rate categories and sub-categories to distribute the rates between all property owners. These are the rate structure options:

1. Ad Valorem (only) -Land value multiplied by a rate.

2. Ad Valorem with a Minimum Rate (Council’s current method) - Land value multiplied by a rate, but properties under a certain land value threshold subject to a minimum rate.

3. Base Rate plus Ad Valorem - Combination of a part Base (fixed) amount plus Part land value multiplied by a rate.

The Ad Valorem only method (Option 1) is not usually supported by Council as the removal of the minimum rates would result in greater increases for higher value properties and in particular rural property owners.

Under the existing rate structure (Option 2) all properties would increase in 2021-22 by the 2% rate peg.

Changing to a Base Rate scenario (Option 3) has always proved unfair for Penrith City Council’s mix of properties due to the severely adverse impact it would have on the majority of owners. The impacts of the Base Rate method showed the following adverse impacts for 2021-22 if this structure is used (when compared to continuing with the current method of Ad Valorem with a Minimum Rate):

• More than 30,000 property owners with rates increases greater than $200.

• 4,000 more pensioners with rates increases greater than $200.

• Average rates increase for pensioners of 10% (compared to 2% under current method).

• 60% of properties would pay greater than $100 rates increase (compared to only 10% under current method).

Due to these adverse impacts, particularly the impacts on pensioners, Council was unable to support a change to this rating structure.

Why hasn’t Council brought in a lower rural rate previously?

Over the years rural owners have made representations to Council about their high rates and lower service in rural areas from Council. Despite genuinely trying to find a fair way of reducing rates for rural owners, there has not been any viable or fairer options to change from the existing rates structure that has been in place for many decades.

Until now (before the foreshadowed legislative changes) the rating legislation only allowed for limited Residential sub-categorisations that would allow for different rates for residential properties in rural areas.

One of these options only allowed a specific Rural-Residential sub-category for properties that were between 2 and 40 hectares in size and had a dwelling on them. If Council was to adopt this sub-category previously, less than 50% of properties would have been eligible to receive a discount, and the other ineligible rural owners would suffer even higher rates increases to fund the discount for the eligible owners. This sub-category therefore could not be supported.

The only other Residential sub-category option was a sub-category based on “centres of population” which unfortunately for most councils in the Sydney Metropolitan areas including Penrith City Council do not exist due to the contiguous nature of Residential suburbs.

With the absence of being able to use sub-categorisation to provide lower rates for rural owners, the only other option was introducing a base rate structure. All previous modelling of a change to this structure has indicated an unfair impact on a majority of property owners, particularly the most vulnerable owners including approximately 40% of all pensioners if Council was to adopt this structure.

Council has therefore been making attempts to have the legislation changed to allow further options. Council has made representations on behalf of rural owners to the NSW Government for many years including providing feedback to the IPART Rating Inquiry, and making direct representations to Local Members of Parliament, Local Government Ministers and the NSW Premier.

Changes to rating legislation

The legislative changes proposed, resulted from a review of the rating legislation that has been ongoing since 2015 when the NSW Government directed IPART to review the rating legislation. IPART delivered their Final Report to the Government in December 2016. The Final Report was released by the NSW Government on 21 June 2019 and the draft changes to the legislation were released in December 2020. The Draft legislation was introduced to Parliament on 16 March 2021.

At the time this Draft Plan was being prepared, the legislation changes and the accompanying Regulations have not been enacted. The changes to legislation indicate that there will be further options available to Council to sub-categorise residential properties and provide a lower rate for rural properties, and Council plans to introduce this for 2021-22 subject to the legislation allowing this to be done and implemented fairly.

Why a lower rate for Residential owner in rural areas is proposed

The new legislation allows councils to modify their rate structure by using sub-categories to allow for differences between different areas in relation to access to or demand for, or the cost of providing services or infrastructure.

Currently residential property owners in rural areas contribute around 15% of rates income but only represent 6% of properties. Over the years the urban sprawl in the Sydney Metropolitan area has decreased the supply of acreages available and therefore pushed up land valuations in rural areas. As the land valuations in our rural areas have increased, so has the level of rates, despite there being no significant changes to the levels of service from Council. There are also some services provided to urban properties that are not provided in rural areas including street lighting, kerb and guttering and drainage. However, despite receiving no direct benefit the rural owners’ rates help fund the cost of maintenance of these services.

Whilst land rates are a type of property tax and aims to tax owners of higher valued land more than owners of lower valued land in line with “ability to pay” taxation principles, there are other taxation principles that are of similar importance such as a “benefit received” principle where beneficiaries of any services should help contribute a fair amount towards those services. Council believes that by readjusting the contribution of rates by rural owners the mix of revenue collected between different areas can better reflect a balance between these two competing taxation principles.

Lower rate planned for Residential properties in rural areas

For 2021-22 Council is planning for a lower residential rate for our rural owners, subject to the legislative changes being passed by the NSW Government that will allow this to occur for 2021-22. The plans include a gradual reduction for residential properties in rural areas phased in over four years with an eventual discount of 30% by the fourth year.

The total amount of rates that Councils can collect is a fixed amount each year adjusted by a rate peg. Where councils reduce a rate for a specific group of property owners, the reduction in rates revenue caused by this reduction needs to be countered by increases to other properties elsewhere in the council area, so that the council can collect the set fixed amount of rates and continue to provide the same levels of service expected by the community.

Council is proposing that the discounted rural rate be funded by all other property owners with the exception of all property owners on the minimum rate (such as Residential apartments and townhouses, and also low valued Business and Farmland properties). As it will impact these other owners, Council does not believe it is fair to impose a large and sudden increase on these other owners all at once, and therefore a discounted rate for rural properties needs to be introduced gradually over a period of time.

Council proposes that the other owners will pay an additional 2% annual levy on top of the annual rate peg increase each year for four years, with the funds raised from this annual levy proportioned over the rural properties. Whilst the additional 2% levy will be a fixed amount each year, the exact impact on the level of discount on rural properties each year is not ascertainable. This is because the number of urban properties that will contribute to the discount will increase over time, and the number of rural properties will decrease as well (as some properties near the airport are developed, and some lands are rezoned for planned urban expansion areas). With an increasing pool of funds each year to be shared over a diminishing number of rural properties each year, and along with the compounding impact of the annual 2% levy on other properties, the expected discount for Rural properties will be around 30% by the fourth year.

The plan will be reviewed each year to ensure that (1) the plan continues to be endorsed by the new Council following the September 2021 local government elections and (2) the plan is achieving the intended target of a 30% discount by the fourth year.

Rural properties

The properties that will be included in the “rural” area are not yet able to be properly determined as the legislation and regulations have not been released for Council to make a determination of the exact boundary between the rural and urban areas.

Impact on rates for 2021-22

The following impacts on rates are predicted for 2021-22 if the preferred option of a lower rural Residential rate is adopted:

Urban Residential properties:

· Due to legislation restricting the increase of minimum rates higher than the rate peg increase, properties on the minimum rate such as apartments and townhouses will not be subject to the additional 2% levy to fund the rural discount and will therefore only increase by the 2% rate peg. The Minimum rate will increase by $22.65.

· Other urban Residential properties outside the rural area boundary (yet to be decided) will pay a 4% increase (2% rate peg increase plus an additional 2% levy to fund the rural discount).

· The average increase for the urban properties in 2021-22 will be around $57 ($13.50 per instalment).

Rural Residential properties

• Rural properties on the minimum rate will continue to pay the minimum rate with a 2% rate peg increase of $22.65.

• Non-minimum rate properties will receive an approximate 4.7% decrease from rates payable in 2020-21.

• The Average decrease will be around $192.

• The suburb of Mount Vernon for example will decrease by around $197 and Llandilo properties will decrease by around $266.

Farmland properties

• Farmland properties on the minimum rate will continue to pay the minimum rate with a 2% rate peg increase of $22.65.

• Other Farmland properties will pay a 4% increase (2% rate peg increase plus an additional 2% levy to fund the rural discount).

• Farmland properties are currently receiving a 50% lower rate than residential properties and this discounted rate will continue to be set at this level.

• The average Farmland increase will be $347.

Business properties

• Business properties on the minimum rate will continue to pay the minimum rate with a 2% rate peg increase applied ($27.60 increase).

• Non-minimum Business properties will pay a 4% increase (2% rate peg increase plus an additional 2% levy to fund the rural discount).

• The average Business increase will be $315.

Business – Penrith CBD properties

• Business – Penrith CBD properties on the minimum rate will continue to pay the minimum rate with a 2% rate peg increase applied ($27.60 increase).

• Non-minimum Business – Penrith CBD properties will pay a 4% increase (2% rate peg increase plus an additional 2% levy to fund the rural discount).

• The average Business – Penrith CBD increase will be $313.

Business – St Marys Town Centre properties

• Business – St Marys Town Centre properties on the minimum rate will continue to pay the minimum rate with a 2% rate peg increase applied ($27.60 increase).

• Non-minimum Business – St Marys Town Centre properties will pay a 4% increase (2% rate peg increase plus an additional 2% levy to fund the rural discount).

• The average Business – St Marys Town Centre increase will be $165.

What will happen if the new legislation is not enacted or if Council’s plans for rural sub-categorisation are not supported by the new legislation

Should the new legislation not be enacted or if Council’s plans for rural sub-categorisation not be supported by the new legislation, Council will continue with the current rates structure in 2021-22 with a 2% increase applied over all properties without any change to rates for rural properties.

Rates Revenue for 2021-22

Council currently has 77,504 rateable properties contributing approximately 45% of Council’s total revenue. It is expected that both the Penrith CBD Corporation and the St Marys Town Centre Corporation will request a continuation of Business Sub-category rates to fund their respective activities. A total of $477,798 will be raised from Penrith CBD rates and

$363,659 will be raised from St Marys Town Centre rates.

Council provides eligible pensioners a pensioner subsidy. Council’s policy provides for a 50% rebate of rates and domestic waste charges to a maximum of $250. In addition, pensioners are given an additional rebate equivalent to the Stormwater Management Service Charge (applies to urban properties only).

The Draft 2021-22 Budget includes initial estimates for rates income with a net increase of $3.8m for Rates Income over the original estimate for 2020-21 included. This includes the 2% rate peg announced for 2021-22. Also factored into estimates is a prediction for growth of both Residential and Non-Residential rates.

PROPOSED 2021-22 RATES LEVY INCOME

Rate Category	Ad Valorem Rate in $	MINIMUM RATE		Total Anticipated Gross Revenue $’000s	Number of Properties
Rate Category	Ad Valorem Rate in $	2021-22 $	Increase $	Total Anticipated Gross Revenue $’000s	Number of Properties
Residential Residential – Rural (new sub-category proposed for 2021-22)	0.0033666 0.003085004	1,155.00 1,155.00	22.65 22.65	108,571	73,687
Farmland	0.00165095	1,155.00	22.65	3,044	329
Business	0.00544757	1,408.80	27.60	24,023	2,852
Business - Penrith CBD Rate	0.00763477	1,408.80	27.60	3,320	407
Business - St Marys Town Centre Rate	0.0819996	1,408.80	27.60	1,005	229
Total				$139,963*	77,504

*N.B. The revenues identified in this section represent the gross anticipated revenues from the Rates Levy on 1 July 2021 prior to the application of Pensioner Subsidies, Part year growth, Provision for Doubtful debts, and other subsidies and abandonments.

These rates presented are indicative only and are subject to change before the formal rates are adopted at the 28 June 2021 Ordinary Meeting, due to supplementary valuations, categorisation changes and valuation objections processed to 30 June 2021.

Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC)

In July 2012 Council replaced stormwater funding from an expiring Special Rate Variation, with a new annual charge for urban properties. The introduction of a Stormwater Management Service Charge (SMSC) ensures that programs are provided to deliver a wide range of stormwater management initiatives essential to the health of the catchment and responding to community expectations.

Whilst the maximum charge for urban businesses is capped by legislation at $25 plus an additional $25 for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres, Council’s levy for businesses is presently set below the maximum level at $22.80 plus an additional $22.80 for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres. When it was introduced, the SMSC contributed by business properties was capped to match the level of revenue paid by businesses for the stormwater components prior to the Special Rate Variation expiring.

The charge for urban residential properties is set at the maximum amount of $12.50 for residential strata properties and $25.00 for no-strata residential properties.

Rural properties and vacant properties are exempt from the SMSC. Pensioners are given a rebate equal to the SMSC, so are effectively exempt also.

The table below shows the anticipated number of properties to be subject to the annual SMSC, and an estimate of the revenue to be generated in 2021-22. Note that some part year SMSC charges are included for new services that come on throughout the year, and for this reason the calculation of the number of assessments by the annual charge does not equate exactly to the forecast revenue totals.

2021-22 Estimated Stormwater Management Service Charge Revenue

Stormwater Category	Annual Charge	No. of Properties	2021-22 Total Revenue
Urban Residential
Residential	$25.00	45,167	$1,124,975
Residential (Strata)	$12.50	12,617	$ 155,688
Residential (Pensioner)	$25.00*	8,375	-
Residential (Strata - Pensioner)	$12.50*	1,203	-
Urban Business
Business	$22.80 plus an additional $22.80 for each 350 square metres or part of 350 square metres by which the area of parcel of land exceeds 350 square metres	3,159	$ 958,851
Total Revenue			$2,239,514

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

Reserves

Details of Council’s Reserves are also included in the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan, these are amounts held for specific purposes. Council’s Reserves are divided into Internal Reserves (set up to apply to Council policy) and External Reserves (required by law). Some Reserves are set up to ensure that Council’s policies with regard to a particular outcome are safeguarded, while others provide funds for a particular expressed purpose, sometime in the future.

Voted Works

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

Section 7.11 (formerly s94) Program of Works

A central feature of the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan is the inclusion of the program of infrastructure works and community facilities, funded by Section 7.11 Contributions. A summary of the proposed Section 7.11 Program Capital Works expenditure for 2021-22 under each relevant Plan is provided below. They have been included in the Capital and Operating Projects section of the draft documents.

Fees and Charges

As part of the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan process, Council’s Fees and Charges have been reviewed with the proposed increases in the fees set generally in the vicinity of the estimated CPI increase. The Draft Fees and Charges section details a description of each item, the 2020-21 charge and the proposed 2021-22 fee or charge.

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

The 2021-22 Domestic Waste Management Charge is calculated for full cost recovery. All waste charges are set by Council to cover the cost of domestic waste collection services, clean up, waste processing/disposal, landfill, education, communications, illegal dumping, provision for future waste service planning, new technologies and associated services.

The Fees and Charges section of the Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan provides for different Domestic Waste Service combinations. A summary of the main services is summarised in the following table:

Domestic Waste Service – Main options	Rate per Week $	Annual Charge $	Percentage Increase (decrease) %	Anticipated Revenue $
Vacant Land	1.35	70.00	0		97,790
1 Waste Management Service Dom Waste – Sustainable Service Dom Waste – War on Waste Service Dom Waste – Large Service Dom Waste – Weekly Dom Waste – Large Weekly Dom Waste – Collect and Return	7.87 5.88 9.54 12.04 15.60 9.25	409.00 306.00 496.00 626.00 811.00 481.00	2.5 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.1		18,816,045 10,404 6,462,384 5,685,332 2,219,707 6,208,319
			Total*		39,792,214

* inclusive of income from additional bin options

Overall, the average increase in fees and charges included in the Draft 2021-22 Fees and

Charges is 4.13%. This category of income is estimated to be worth $90.4m, or 29% of Council’s total estimated revenue for 2021-22.

Entities

Council subsidy for all entity budgets is currently being reviewed. The overall impact of the Controlled Entities on the proposed budget is discussed below.

Included in the Draft 2021-22 Budget at this stage are the following subsidies:

· Penrith Performing and Visual Arts - total of $2.282m (2020-21 - $2.241m when excluding contingencies for COVID).

· Penrith Whitewater Stadium – Nil (No subsidy request has been received from PWS at this stage; 2020-21- Nil when excluding contingencies for COVID-19).

In addition, the Draft 2021-22 Budget currently includes:

· A contribution to the RID Squad of $84,000.

· A subsidy to the Children’s Services Co-operative of $90,000 assists with funding the cost of the Inclusion Development Fund (IDF) not met by government funding.

Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP)

As part of the Council’s Resourcing Strategy Council prepares a 10-year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) which is to be updated annually as part of the development of the Annual Budget. The aim of the LTFP is to ensure that Council identifies financial issues at an early stage and reviews their effect on future activities. The LTFP must be reviewed in detail as part of the four yearly review of the Community Strategic Plan. The LTFP process involves four main elements:

§ Planning Assumptions;

§ Revenue Forecasts;

§ Expenditure Forecasts; and

§ Sensitivity Analysis.

The LTFP provides a key tool for the development and monitoring of Council’s Financial Strategy. The Plan outlines Council’s capacity to manage assets and deliver services over the next ten years. Council has a responsibility to manage its resources and finances to ensure its long-term sustainability. Recent actions by Council, including the 2016-17 SRV, has positioned the LTFP to demonstrate that Council has the capacity to manage its finances and deliver the services and programs identified in the Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program.

Council’s LTFP is based on a set of assumptions which generally relate to those elements that are most likely to affect the overall outcome of the model. Future years’ forecasts are linked to the Operational Plan and provide a means of assessing the long-term financial implication of current year decisions. Assumptions made in the plan includes long term forecasts of:

§ Rating Revenue

§ Development Growth

§ Investment Return

§ Financial Assistance Grant

§ Employee costs

§ CPI or other agreed indexations

§ Capital works and services programs

§ Asset management programs

§ Anticipated Loan programs

§ Debt Servicing

§ Fees and Charges movements

§ Changes identified through ongoing improvement and review of services

Detailed modelling (5-10 years) is also undertaken for ICT, Major Projects, and Property Development which is then incorporated into Council’s LTFP.

It is important to keep in mind when projecting budgets over such a long period that estimates can alter significantly when assumptions are reviewed, particularly when the variances apply to larger items such as employee costs or rating income. However, the LTFP remains an important planning tool and is regularly updated with current data to ensure its usefulness in providing information for Council’s financial planning decisions.

Financial Implications

This report and attachment include information regarding the budget preparation process, and the resulting financial position for the Draft 2021-22 Budget to be presented tonight for Council’s approval. The Budget preparation process aims to deliver a balanced or surplus Budget that funds the service level needs of the community, with a balanced budget currently predicted. The Budget and its financial implications will be publicly exhibited for comment and put forward for final adoption on 28 June 2021. In the event the Draft Budget moves to a surplus position at the time of Exhibition it is proposed to reserve this amount for significant movements in the current assumptions during 2021-22.

Risk Implications

In developing the Annual Budget, Council is required to comply with two important pieces of legislation, i.e. the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

Section 405, Local Government Act 1993 details the following requirements for the Operational Plan:

· A Council must have a plan (its "Operational Plan") that is adopted before the beginning of each year and details the activities to be engaged in by the Council during the year as part of the Delivery Program covering that year.

· An Operational Plan must include a statement of the Council’s Revenue Policy for the year covered by the Operational Plan. The Statement of Revenue Policy must include the Statements and particulars required by the regulations.

· A Council must prepare a draft Operational Plan and give public notice of the draft indicating that submissions may be made to the Council at any time during the period (not less than 28 days) that the draft is to be on public exhibition. The Council must publicly exhibit the draft Operational Plan in accordance with the notice.

· During the period of public exhibition, the Council must have for inspection at its office (and at such other places as it may determine) a map that shows those parts of its area to which each category and sub-category of the ordinary rate and each special rate included in the draft Operational Plan applies.

· In deciding on the final Operational Plan to be adopted, a Council must consider any submissions that have been made concerning the draft plan.

· The Council must post a copy of its Operational Plan on the Council’s website within 28 days after the Plan is adopted.

As part of the Operational Plan, Clause 201 of the LG Regulation states that a statement of Council’s Revenue Policy be produced each year including:

· Estimated income and expenditure

· Ordinary rates and special rates

· Proposed fees and charges

· Council’s proposed pricing methodology

· Proposed borrowings.

The Long Term Financial Plan is reviewed and updated as part of the Annual Budget process to ensure that forward projections reflect the most current assumptions. Long term forecasting minimises financial risk by supporting financial sustainability, transparency, and accountability.

Next steps

Section 405(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to publicly exhibit, for not less than 28 days, its Draft Operational Plan. Subject to Council’s endorsement tonight, it is proposed to commence the Public Exhibition on Monday 3 May 2021, ending on Monday 31 May 2021.

The Draft Plans will be available for viewing at the Civic Centre, Penrith Library and St Marys office or downloading on Council’s online engagement portal – www.yoursaypenrith.com.au. An FAQ will be available to help people access content of most interest, including a QR code to link to the online engagement portal. Public submissions can be submitted by completing the online feedback submission forms, email or letters. Specific extracted copies of the 2021-22 Fees & Charges will be made available at Council operated Childcare Centres. All submissions received on the draft documents will be individually acknowledged. This will be followed by a response that reflects Council’s established policy or Council’s determination of the particular issue.

Council must consider the matters outlined in all submissions. Depending on the nature and complexity of each submission, Council may choose to amend the Draft Delivery Program or Operational Plan or consider a submission but defer changes until a subsequent period. A full report on public submissions will be provided to Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 28 June 2021.

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

Key Dates

Action or Requirement

3 – 31 May 2021

Public Exhibition of Draft 2017-22 Delivery Program (including the 2021-22 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges)

28 June 2021

Report to Ordinary Meeting:

· Adoption of 2017-22 Delivery Program (including the 2021-22 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges).

· Making of 2021-22 Rates and Charges

Conclusion

The Draft Delivery Program 2017-22, Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan and Fees & Charges have been developed to reflect the priorities and direction established through engagement with Councillors and our community. The Delivery Program reflects Council’s commitment to effective service delivery and fiscal responsibility whilst managing growth in step with the community’s outcomes for the City captured in the Community Plan.

It is proposed that the Draft Delivery Program (incorporating the Draft one-year Operational Plan for 2021-22 and Draft Fees and Charges 2021-22) be placed on public exhibition for community comment. It is recommended that Council endorse public exhibition of the draft corporate planning documents as outlined in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on Exhibition of Draft Delivery Program (2017-22) & Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan (including Draft 2021-22 Fees & Charges) be received.

2. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Draft Delivery Program 2017-22 (incorporating the Operational Plan for 2021-22 and Draft Fees and Charges 2020-21) be placed on Public Exhibition for 28 days commencing on Monday 3 May 2021 and closing on Monday 31 May 2021 (inclusive).

3. The Public Exhibition arrangements are implemented as detailed in this report, and submissions from the community are invited.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ⇩	Draft 2021-22 Operational Plan	134 Pages	Attachments Included
2. ⇩	Draft 2021-22 Fees and Charges	70 Pages	Attachments Included

Ordinary Meeting 26 April 2021

131 Henry St, Penrith - Next Steps

Compiled by: Amanda McMurtrie, Program Manager

Authorised by: Nathan Ritchie, Property Development Manager

Andrew Moore, Director - Corporate Services

Outcome	We have confidence in our Council
Strategy	Manage our money and our assets to be sustainable now and into the future
Service Activity	Reduce Councils reliance on rateable income, by delivering property projects to achieve financial returns or significant value to Council and the community

Executive Summary

This report provides a summary of the 131 Henry Street project, overviews next steps, and confirms the direction to progress to lodge a DA for assessment.

Council has been exploring opportunities to rejuvenate the former Council Chambers for many years and has considered several solutions. Through its land holdings, Council has the capability to lead the revitalisation of our CBD and position Penrith for the future. This project will achieve this by delivering design excellence, facilitating local jobs growth and creating an activated edge to the future City Park.

Background

131 Henry Street is on the corner of Henry and Station Streets Penrith and is home to the Former Council Chambers building. The 2,533m2 site is close to Penrith Station, Westfield and the future City Park, the site offers significant strategic value and redevelopment opportunity.

The former Council Chambers Building has played an important role in Penrith’s civic history and is currently utilised by local community tenants. Within the context of a key CBD location, the site is considered as underutilised due to its restrictive floor plates, no available parking on site and general state of repair. Enabling a high-quality and commercially viable development while preserving the heritage significance of the site is a key consideration of the project.

The importance of this site and its ability to represent a ‘catalytic development’ is a place-based response to changing demands that facilitates large-scale investment in concentrated, walkable urban area of Penrith CBD.

Due to the nature and complexity of the project, an external development manager was engaged to support project delivery. At the Ordinary Meeting 22 June 2020, Council endorsed the tender report to appoint Avenor for Development Management Services. The scope of Avenor’s tender extends to progressing a development application and assisting with the procurement of the head construction contract.

Since this time, the project has progressed through an NSW Architectural Design Competition process. A winning concept design was selected by an independent jury, and Woods Bagot have been selected as the successful architect. Woods Bagot's concept scheme was presented to Councillors on Monday 8th March 2021. The winning concept scheme was announced in a media release in late March 2021.

Current Situation

The development option currently being refined is the development of a high-quality A grade commercial office space, with complementary ground floor retail uses to provide optimal outcomes within the permitted use of the B3 Commercial Core zone.

The proposed design, featuring approximately 8,000 sqm of flexible commercial space, ground floor retail, on-site parking and a building façade that activates both street frontages, incorporates best practice principles of environmentally sustainable design and is targeting a minimum of 5 Star Green Star rating in line with Council’s ‘Cooling the City Strategy’.

The history of the site is proposed (subject to development approval being obtained) to be celebrated through a robust heritage interpretation strategy which includes the reuse of building elements and high-quality public domain features.

Next Steps

The next steps of the project including undertaking design development to refine the winning concept design. This process includes resolving technical design issues, value engineering and seeking further technical advice to a point where the project can be more accurately costed and further feasibility analysis undertaken.

· Now to June 2021 - Undertake design development and value engineering exercises to refine concept design

· Now to June 2021 - Receive further cost and feasibility advice on the refined concepts, prepare detailed business case (DBC) and capital expenditure (CAPEX) review

· June 2021 - Report to Council on Capital Expenditure Review

· July/August 2021 - Lodge Development application

Financial Implications

This report provides a summary of the 131 Henry Street project and proposed next steps which include refinement of the concept design, detailed business case, Capital Expenditure Review reported to Council, and DA lodgement.

A project budget is included in the 2020-21 Operational Plan and costs associated with the next steps detailed in this report can be accommodated within this project budget.

Risk Implications

The following risks are a summary of consideration and responses for progressing the current project. It is considered more of a risk not to progress with enabling planning certainty for this site though the lodgement of a DA.

Risk (Event)	Consequence / impact (description)	Risk Level	Risk Treatment – Mitigation Strategies (What else could be done)
Risk (Event)	Consequence / impact (description)	Risk Level
Environmental	Contamination testing reveals site contamination. Flooding or water table constrains	Medium	1. Is assumed there is contamination on site. Will undertake testing at Detailed design stage / Detail Business Case stage. 2. Undertake desktop flooding and engineering studies at DBC 3. Set aside an appropriate contingency.
Financial	Project Runs Over Budget Unable to justify capital expenditure or secure funding Unable to Secure Desirable Tenants	Medium	1. Engage External DM & Leasing Experts 2. Leverage broader marketing of Penrith and highlight this as an exemplar project 3. Undertake Capital Expenditure Review process and Detailed Business Case.
Service Delivery	Transition of tenants into other appropriate accommodation	Medium	1. Develop a communications strategy 2. Work with tenants to identify business needs and potential accommodation options (including market rentals or Council space if available)
Strategic	Development Application Not Supported	Medium	1. Submit Development Application well in advance. 2. Liaise with Internal Planning Department and follow up proposal.
Reputation	Poor performance and / or poor quality outcome resulting in poor Council Reputation	Low	1. Ensure effective Project Management throughout the project. 2. Undertake DBC and complete Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
Governance	Risk Assessment not updated, or risk treatment not followed up in a systematic way.	Medium	1. Review risks quarterly. 2. Continue to review and update Risk Register throughout Project Lifecycle.

Risk (Event)

Consequence / impact (description)

Risk Level

Risk Treatment – Mitigation Strategies (What else could be done)

Alternative Risk

Not progressing the Opportunity (ie Status Quo: the building to remain in current state)

Uncertain regarding key milestone timeframes lead to uncertainty for tenants

Continued cost / safety of Maintenance of existing building.

Timing of delivery of active building frontage to coincide with delivery City Park

Medium

Develop stakeholder engagement plan

Timely and efficient communications engagement to keep stakeholders adequately informed

Ensure project delivery timeframe is on track

Ensure project delivery timeframe is on track to ensure opportunity is not lost

Conclusion

This proposed commercial building is well-positioned in the heart of Penrith’s CBD, will offer future occupants the ease and convenience of retail, restaurants and major public transport links on their doorstep, while also being adjacent to the future City Park.

In June 2021 Councillors will have the opportunity to review the recommendations of a draft Capital Expenditure Review, which will include a detailed description of the proposal and the proposed funding and delivery model.

The project program is on track to deliver the next important milestone of lodging DA in July / August 2021.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The information contained in the report on 131 Henry St, Penrith - Next Steps be received

2. Council progress with the lodgement of:

a. The Capital Expenditure Review to Council for its consideration at the earliest opportunity, and

b. The Development Application to define planning certainty for the site.

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.

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 and end of term reports (including the Operational Plan quarterly reviews for December and June) are presented
^	Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor
ü	Meeting at which the 2020-2021 Annual Statements are presented
∞	Meeting at which any comments on the 2020-2021 Annual Statements are adopted
+	Meeting at which the Annual Report is presented

1. ⇩	Section 88B instrument	4 Pages	Appendix
2. ⇩	86 Reid St Easement Graphic Notation	1 Page	Appendix
3. ⇩	Deposited Plan Sheet	2 Pages	Appendix
4. ⇩	Plan of Easement; Lot 5 86 Reid Street	1 Page	Appendix

Outcome	We can work close to home
Strategy	Attract investment to grow the economy and increase the range of businesses operating in the region
Service Activity	Promote Penrith as a place to live and work in through events and marketing

1. ⇩	Draft ARIC Minutes - 24 March 2021	7 Pages	Attachments Included
2. ⇩	Revised Enterprise Risk Management Framework Policy	7 Pages	Attachments Included