Council_Mark_POS_RGB

25 October 2021

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held remotely using audio visual links and audio streamed on the Council website on Monday 25 October 2021 at 7:00PM.

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

Yours faithfully

 

Warwick Winn

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting - 27 September 2021.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 

5.           ADDRESSING COUNCIL

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

 

9.           ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 11 October 2021.

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 11 October 2021.

 

10.         DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

11.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

12.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

13.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


ORDINARY MEETING

 

Monday 25 October 2021

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

WEBCASTING NOTICE

 

 

STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF PENRITH CITY’S ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CULTURAL HERITAGE

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

MAYORAL MINUTES

 

 

report and recommendations of committees

 

 

DELIVERY program reports


 

 

 

 

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

 

 

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are one and free;

We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;

Our home is girt by sea;

Our land abounds in nature’s gifts

Of beauty rich and rare;

In history’s page, let every stage

Advance Australia Fair.

 

In joyful strains then let us sing,

Advance Australia Fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

WEBCASTING NOTICE

 

Please note that tonight’s meeting other than the

confidential sessions are being recorded and will be

placed on Council’s website. All in attendance should

refrain from making defamatory statements. Council

takes all care when maintaining privacy, however

members of the public gallery and those addressing

Council should be aware that you may be recorded.

 


Statement of Recognition of

Penrith City’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage

 

 

Council values the unique status of Aboriginal people as the original owners and custodians of lands and waters, including the land and waters of Penrith City.

 

Council values the unique status of Torres Strait Islander people as the original owners and custodians of the Torres Strait Islands and surrounding waters.

 

We work together for a united Australia and City that respects this land of ours, that values the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage, and provides justice and equity for all.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

“Sovereign God, tonight as we gather together as a Council we affirm that you are the giver and sustainer of life.  We come together as representatives of our community to make decisions that will benefit this city and the people within it. 

 

We come not in a spirit of competition, not as adversaries, but as colleagues.  Help us to treat each other with respect, with dignity, with interest and with honesty.  Help us not just to hear the words we say, but also to hear each others hearts.  We seek to be wise in all that we say and do.

 

As we meet, our concern is for this city.  Grant us wisdom, courage and strength.

 

Lord, help us.  We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”

 

 

 

 

 


 


Oath of Office

 

I swear that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of Penrith and the Penrith City Council and that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgment.

 

 

Affirmation of Office

 

I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will undertake the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of Penrith and the Penrith City Council and that I will faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of my ability and judgment.

 

 

2016 General Election – taken/made at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 September 2016, Minute Number 272

 

2018 By-Election – taken/made by Councillor Brian Cartwright on 17 May 2018 and Councillor Robin Cook on 21 May 2018 before the Chief Governance Officer, Stephen Britten, an Australian Legal Practitioner

 

 

Local Government Act 1993, Section 233A

 


Council_Mark_POS_RGB2021 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2021 - December 2021

(Adopted by Council – 14 December 2020, amended 29 July 2021)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22@

22

26v

24#

28*

26

23@

  27^

25ü

22#+

 

Policy Review Committee

7.00pm

 

8

 

19

 

7

 

9

 

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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 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

-            Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

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

Should you wish to address Council, please contact Governance Coordinator, Adam Beggs on 4732 7597.

 


UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD REMOTELY USING AUDIO VISUAL LINKS AND AUDIO STREAMED ON THE COUNCIL WEBSITE ON MONDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 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, Adam Beggs.

PRESENT

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen, and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM (Arrived 7:40pm), Bernard Bratusa, Todd Carney, Brian Cartwright, Robin Cook, Marcus Cornish, Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies, Mark Davies, Aaron Duke, Ross Fowler OAM, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Meeting - 23 August 2021

184  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 23 August 2021 be confirmed, with RR5 to now read:

 

“RR 5         Run off from Group Home in Fourth Avenue, Llandilo 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memo reply advising whether Council has written to the EPA concerning run off from the Group Home in Fourth Avenue, Llandilo and, if so, also requested copies of any correspondence with the EPA regarding this matter”.

  

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Tricia Hitchen declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 10 - NSW Government COVID-19 Pandemic Support Funding, as she is on the Board of Directors for The Haven Women’s Refuge.

 

 

Councillor Mark Davies declared a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Less than Significant in Item 10 - NSW Government COVID-19 Pandemic Support Funding, as he is on the Board of WestCare.

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

1        Go the mighty Panthers!                                                                            

185  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown OAM seconded Councillor Tricia Hitchen that the Mayoral Minute on Go the mighty Panthers be received.

 

Procedural Motion

186  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM that Item 11 be addressed before Item 1.

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

11      Election of Deputy Mayor                                                                          

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Election of Deputy Mayor be received

2.     Council consider the Election of a Deputy Mayor.

3.     Council determine the method of election to be open voting for the Office of Deputy Mayor.

4.     In accordance with Section 231 (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, the term of Office of the Deputy Mayor be until 4 December 2021 or the date of the next election in the event of further postponements.

 

The Returning Officer, General Manager, Warwick Winn indicated that he had received two (2) nominations for the position of Deputy Mayor and asked whether there were any other nominations. No other nominations were forthcoming.

 

The Returning Officer stated that the following nominations were in order:

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

Councillor Marcus Cornish

 

The Returning Officer then asked for voting by way of a show of hands, with the following result:

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen – 12 votes

Councillor Marcus Cornish – 2 votes

 

The Returning Officer declared Councillor Tricia Hitchen duly elected as Deputy Mayor for the until 4 December 2021 or the date of the next election in the event of further postponements.

 

 

Notices of Motion

 

1        Councillors - Consecutive Terms                                                             

188  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marcus Cornish seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that Council write to the Office of Local Government, NSW Premier and Minister for Local Government recommending that councillors be limited to 3 consecutive terms per ward in a council that has wards and 4 consecutive terms for councils who do not have wards.

 

On being PUT to the Meeting, the MOTION was LOST.

 

 

Reports of Committees

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Access Committee Meeting held on 11 August 2021                                                                              

189  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 11 August, 2021 be adopted.

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Resilience Committee Meeting held on 18 August 2021                                                                              

190  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robin Cook seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Resilience Committee meeting held on 18 August, 2021 be adopted.

 

3        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 6 September 2021                                                          

191  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robin Cook seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 6 September, 2021 be adopted.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

1        Black Summer Bushfire Grant - application for Visitor Economy Program                                                                                                       

192  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Aaron Duke

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Black Summer Bushfire Grant - application for Visitor Economy Program be received

2.     That information regarding the grant proposal be shared with local MPs.

 

 

 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

2        Submission to the Draft Housing SEPP                                                   

193  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Submission to the Draft Housing SEPP be received.

2.     Council endorse the submission provided in Attachment 2 to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for their consideration.

 

3.     The final submission is forwarded to Local Government NSW for further advocacy.

 

4.     Council officers write to residents in Kingswood that are zoned R3 Medium Density to advise them of the changes to Boarding Houses and Co-living housing.

5.    Council request the three Local State Members to support Council’s submission to the Draft Housing SEPP, particularly in regard to clustering.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:40pm.

 

3        Submission to the proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 (Penrith Lakes SEPP) 

A MOTION was MOVED by Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Todd Carney

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Submission to the proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 (Penrith Lakes SEPP) be received

2.     Council endorse the submission provided in Attachment 1 to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for their consideration.

3.    Council does not support a private golf course.

 

194  An AMENDMENT was MOVED by Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Submission to the proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989 (Penrith Lakes SEPP) be received

2.     Council endorse the submission provided in Attachment 1 to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for their consideration.

 

Upon being PUT to the meeting, the AMENDMENT was CARRED and on becoming the MOTION was also CARRIED.

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

4        Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) 2021/22 Road Funding Grants                                                                                                           

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) 2021/22 Road Funding Grants be received

2.     The TfNSW 2021/22 Program Funding Block Grant of $1,191,000 be accepted.

3.     The common seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to all documents as required, and the General Manager (or his delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

4.     Council write to the State Government formally thanking them for the Road Funding Grants.

 

5        Transport for NSW  (TfNSW) Regional Road 2021/22 REPAIR Program (Rehabilitation) Funding Grants                                               

196  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Transport for NSW  (TfNSW) Regional Road 2021/22 REPAIR Program (Rehabilitation) Funding Grants     be received

2.     Council accept the grant of $300,000, offered under the 2021//22 Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Regional Road REPAIR Program, for the pavement reconstruction works on Jamison Road, South Penrith between Fragar Road and Penrose Crescent.

3.     The common seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to all documents as required, and the General Manager (or his delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

 

4.     Council write to the State Government formally thanking them for the REPAIR Program Grant Funding.

 


 

 

6        Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for Mamre Road Upgrade Stage 1 between the M4 Motorway, St Clair and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park                                                                                                

197  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for Mamre Road Upgrade Stage 1 between the M4 Motorway, St Clair and Erskine Park Road, Erskine Park  be received.

2.     Council’s Engineering Services Manager be authorised to finalise a submission, based on this report, to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) by 1 October 2021.

 

 

7        Australian Government Blackspot Program and NSW Safer Roads Program 2022/23 Nominations and Funding Acceptance for 2021/22 

198  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Australian Government Blackspot Program and NSW Safer Roads Program 2022/23 Nominations and Funding Acceptance for 2021/22 be received.

2.     Council note the six projects listed in Table 1 of this report for funding application to the Roads and Maritime Services under the Australian Government Blackspot Program and NSW Safer Roads Program 2022/23 to the value of $1,800,000.

3.     TfNSW be requested to investigate traffic safety on roads under its jurisdiction at locations indicated in Table 2 of this report.

4.     Council acknowledge acceptance of grant funding of $1,228,000 offered for the Blackspot and Safer Roads Projects shown in Table 3 for the 2021/22 financial year.

5.     Council write to relevant State and Federal Members thanking them for their continued support of Road Safety improvements.

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

8        Naming of Reserve - Thomas Smith Reserve, Penrith (Thornton)       

199  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bernard Bratusa seconded Councillor Aaron Duke

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Naming of Reserve - Thomas Smith Reserve, Penrith (Thornton) be received

2.     Council endorse the naming of the reserve at 86-94 Empire Circuit, Penrith (Thornton) - Lot 2035 DP1181618 as Thomas Smith Reserve and advice be provided to the Geographical Names Board in this regard to enable the official gazetting.

3.     Following gazettal, a sign denoting the reserve name be installed and an official naming ceremony be held.

4.    Council write to Laura Player and notify her of the outcome.

 

10      NSW Government COVID-19 Pandemic Support Funding                     

200  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Brian Cartwright

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on NSW Government COVID-19 Pandemic Support Funding be received.

2.     Council endorse the acceptance of the NSW Partnerships: Local Councils Program, including funding for Council COVID-19 response initiatives. 

3.     Council endorse the distribution of funding to the organisations listed in Appendix 1.

4.     Council writes to thank the NSW Office of Local Government and Multicultural NSW for the funds provided under the NSW Partnerships: Local Councils Program.

 

 

9        RFT 21/22-08 Demolition and Remediation Works for City Park          

201  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Tricia Hitchen seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RFT 21/22-08 Demolition and Remediation Works for City Park be received

2.     The tender from Budget Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd, for the amount of $1,236,953 (excluding GST) be accepted for RFT 21/22-08 Demolition and Remediation Works for City Park.

3.     The tender provisional rates from Budget Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd Pty Ltd, for the amount of $349,250, be accepted for RFT 21/22-08 Demolition and Remediation Works for City Park.

4.     The General Manager (or their delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that his name be recorded as having voted against the MOTION.

 

 

 


 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

12      Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2021                                 

202  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Greg Davies

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2021 be received

2.     Council nominate Councillors Karen McKeown OAM, Tricia Hitchen, Todd Carney, Robin Cook, Greg Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Brian Cartwright and Kath Presdee as its voting delegates for the LGNSW Board Elections and Annual Conference.

3.    Councillor John Thain be nominated as an alternate delegate/observer to attend the 2021 LGNSW Annual Conference.

4.     Council Motions as outlined in the report be endorsed and forwarded to LGNSW.

5.     A further report be brought back to Council with any identified additional motions (if required) and calling for delegates to be nominated for the Special Conference in early 2022.

 

13      Proposed Road Closure - Webb Street Werrington (North)                  

203  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Road Closure - Webb Street Werrington (North) 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 affixed to all documents as required, and the General Manager (or his delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

 

14      EOI20/21-02 - Kingswood and St Marys Commuter Car Parks             

204  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Brian Cartwright

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on EOI20/21-02 - Kingswood and St Marys Commuter Car Parks be received.

2.     The EOI’s from AW Edwards Pty Ltd, Stephen Edwards Constructions Pty Ltd, ADCO Group Pty Ltd, St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd and ARENCO (NSW) be accepted for inclusion on the shortlist of Proponents for the separate select tender process for the design and construction of the Kingswood Commuter Car Park and St Marys Commuter Car Park, and

3.     Separate closed tenders be called for each individual project (Kingswood and St Marys) drawn from the EOI 20/21-2 shortlist and the EOI be established for a 24 month period.

 

 

15      Sundry Debtor Write Off                                                                            

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

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sundry Debtor Write Off be received.

2.     The debts totalling $31,176.27 (excl GST) outlined above, be written off as irrecoverable.

 

16      2021-22 Financial Assistance Grant                                                         

206  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Brian Cartwright seconded Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2021-22 Financial Assistance Grant be received.

2.     The Budget be adjusted to reflect the revised Financial Assistance Grant as part of the September 2021 Quarterly Review.

 

17      Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021                                                                                            

207  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greg Davies seconded Councillor Robin Cook

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021 be received.

2.     The certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summary of Investments and Performance for the period 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical Investment Analysis as at 31 August 2021 be noted.

 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS AND URGENT BUSINESS

 

RR 1           Cranebrook Village Footpath     

Councillor John Thain requested a memorandum to all Councillors clarifying why the footpath upgrades at Cranebrook Village have not been continued past the townhouse complex.

 

 

RR 2           Condition of Flagpoles       

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested that Council arrange for the replacement of the Australian flag at the shops located on Sydney Street, St Marys and also the installation of an Aboriginal flag next to it.

 

RR 3           Outdoor Seating at Cafés  

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested a memorandum to all Councillors or Briefing outlining what Council can do to assist local café businesses with increasing outdoor seating.

 

RR 4           Robin Wiles Park, North St Marys       

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested that Council consider incorporating an off-leash dog park within Robin Wiles Park at North St Marys.

 

RR 5           Installation of Lights at St Clair Skate Park 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested a memorandum providing an update on the installation of lights at the skate park in St Clair. 

 

RR 6           Renaming of Reserve in Caddens       

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested a memorandum providing an update regarding the request to the Geographical Names Board to have a reserve in Caddens re-named as John Gandell Reserve, in honour of one of Penrith’s early settlers.  

 

RR 7           Exercise Equipment along Great River Walk        

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested a memorandum providing an update on the installation of exercise equipment along the Great River Walk.

 

RR 8           NRL Grand Final Live Site 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen requested that Council consider arranging an NRL Grand Final live site at Jamison Park or Panthers Stadium and seek support from the Penrith Panthers.

 

UB 1           Nepean Hockey Association       

Councillor Todd Carney requested that an amount of $2,500 be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works to the Nepean Hockey Association to cover the cost of facility upgrades.

208  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

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

 

209  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Todd Carney seconded Councillor Marcus Cornish that an amount of $2,500 be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works to the Nepean Hockey Association to cover the cost of facility upgrades.

 


 

 

RR 9           Zoning in Kingswood and St Marys    

Councillor Todd Carney requested a Councillor Briefing report outlining how the zoning in Kingswood and St Marys has been impacted by the clustering of boarding houses and what Council can do if the State Government doesn’t support the reduction of clustering in those areas.

 

RR 10         Waiving of Parking Fines   

Councillor Todd Carney requested that Council continue the waiving of parking fines until Christmas 2021.

 

RR 11         Employment at Council      

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested information regarding the recruitment process for candidates applying for Council jobs and if there are any cost benefits associated with outsourcing employment.

 

RR 12         Heritage Items at Proposed Penrith Lakes Film Studio

Councillor Marcus Cornish requested a memorandum to all Councillors containing a list and map of all of the heritage items at the proposed Penrith Lakes film studio precinct and within the entire Penrith Lakes scheme and how these will continue to be accessible to the public.

 

RR 13         Natural Walking Track in St Marys      

Councillor Robin Cook requested that Council consider establishing a park and natural walking track near the St Marys CBD.

 

RR 14         Library at St Marys    

Councillor Robin Cook requested that Council investigate the construction of a potential library in St Marys.

 

UB 2           Penrith Community Kitchen       

Councillor Kath Presdee requested that an amount of $3,000 be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works to Penrith Community Kitchen to assist them with providing support during COVID-19.

210  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

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

 

211  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Greg Davies that an amount of $3,000 be allocated in equal amounts from each Ward’s voted works to Penrith Community Kitchen to assist them with providing support during COVID-19.

 


 

 

RR 15         Erskine Park Cricket 

Councillor Kath Presdee requested that Council congratulate and acknowledge Erskine Park Cricket player, Hannah Darlington on her one day international debut for Australia.

 

RR 16         Penrith Panthers Acknowledgement  

Councillor Kath Presdee requested that Council congratulate and acknowledge the Penrith Panthers players who were nominated for the Dally M Team of the Year award.

 

RR 17         Cleaning of Rural Gutters at Berkshire Park

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memorandum providing an update on the cleaning and restoration of rural gutters, particularly at Second Road and Third Road, Berkshire Park.

 

RR 18         Compression Braking Signs       

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a memorandum to all Councillors advising why there are signs to limit compression braking at Dunheved Road, St Marys, but not at Victoria Street, Kingswood and other residential roads.

 

RR 19         Clearing of Drains on Llandilo Road   

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested that the drains along Llandilo Road be cleared.

 

RR 20         Condition of Llandilo Road

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report regarding the condition of Llandilo Road, including the crazing and costs of repairing it.

 

RR 21         Local Land Services Act 2013    

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report detailing why Council isn’t a party to the Local Land Services Act 2013, specifically in relation to bushfires and koala protection.

 

UB 3           Judd Street, Berkshire Park        

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM requested a report to Council covering the following in relation to Judd Street, Berkshire Park:

1.     If the resident had permission to import 200 truck-loads of fill.

2.     If the resident had permission to build half a metre of fill along the fence line to divert the natural flow of water at right angles.

3.     If the remedial works directed by Council compiled with the Civil Works Plan and it’s intended outcome and if these works are still intrinsically in place.

4.     If Council physically inspected the work before it was signed off.

 

212  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that the matter be brought forward and dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

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

 

213  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor John Thain that Councillors receive a report regarding the following in relation to Judd Street, Berkshire Park:

 

1.     If the resident had permission to import 200 truck-loads of fill.

2.     If the resident had permission to build half a metre of fill along the fence line to divert the natural flow of water at right angles.

3.     If the remedial works directed by Council compiled with the Civil Works Plan and it’s intended outcome and if these works are still intrinsically in place.

4.     If Council physically inspected the work before it was signed off.

 

 

RR 22         COVID-19 Road Mapping   

Councillor Greg Davies requested a report regarding Council’s rules and regulations for premises such as the Civic Centre and Ripples in relation to the COVID-19 State Government road mapping.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

214  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Brian Cartwright that the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters, the time being 9:07pm.

 

1        Presence of the Public

 

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

 

 

Outcome 6

 

2        Gipps St Capital Expenditure Review Report                                                                

 

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.

 

 

Outcome 7

 

3        Proposed Road Closure and Realignment - Gibbes Street, Jamisontown (Homemaker Centre)                                                                                                                                

 

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

 

 

The meeting resumed at 9:21pm and the Mayor reported that the Committee of the Whole met at 9:07pm on Monday, 27 September 2021, the following being 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, Mark Davies, Aaron Duke, 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        Gipps St Capital Expenditure Review Report                                                                

RECOMMENDED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Todd Carney

CW2 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Gipps St Capital Expenditure Review Report be received

2.     Council endorses the Capital Expenditure Report and that it be forwarded to the Office of Local Government

3.     Council approves the capital project cost to be funded as noted in the report

4.     Council approves ongoing operational costs to be budgeted accordingly at the completion of the project

5.     Council approves an application to be made under Round 2 of the Greater Cities and Regional Sports Facility Fund for the maximum $1m contribution towards this project.

 

3        Proposed Road Closure and Realignment - Gibbes Street, Jamisontown (Homemaker Centre)                                                                                                         

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

CW3 That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Proposed Road Closure and Realignment - Gibbes Street, Jamisontown (Homemaker Centre) be received

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

3.     The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to all documents as required, and the General Manager (or his delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary documents in relation to this matter

4.     The parcel of closed road, once registered and vested in Council, be classified as Operational Land.

 

 

5.     The portion of closed road be transferred to Calardu Penrith Pty Ltd for the sum of $350,000(excl GST), or if the transfer occurs more than 6 months from the date of this resolution, compensation to be determined at market value at the date of transfer, but to be no less than $350,000 (excl GST).

 

 

ADOPTION OF Committee of the Whole

 

215  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Greg Davies that the recommendations contained in the Committee of the Whole and shown as CW1, CW2 and CW3 be adopted.

 

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:22pm.

 



PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

 

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

 

Anyone can request permission to address a meeting, providing that the number of speakers is limited to three in support of any proposal and three against.

 

Any request about an issue or matter on the Agenda for the meeting can be lodged with the General Manager or Public Officer up until 12 noon on the day of the meeting.

 

Prior to the meeting the person who has requested permission to address the meeting will need to provide the Public Officer with a written statement of the points to be covered during the address in sufficient detail so as to inform the Councillors of the substance of the address and a written copy of any questions to be asked of the Council in order that responses to those questions can be provided in due course.

 

In addition, prior to addressing the meeting a person addressing Council or Committee will be informed that they do not enjoy any privilege and that permission to speak may be withdrawn should they make inappropriate comments.

 

It should be noted that persons who wish to address the Council are addressing a formal part of the Council Meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting should give consideration to their dress attire. Smart casual is a minimum that is thought to be appropriate when addressing such a forum.

 

It should be noted that speakers at meetings of the Council or Committee do not have absolute privilege (parliamentary privilege).  A speaker who makes any potentially offensive or defamatory remarks about any other person may render themselves open to legal action.

 

Prior to addressing the meeting the person will be required to sign the following statement:

 

“I (name) understand that the meeting I intend to address on (date) is a public meeting.  I also understand that should I say or present any material that is inappropriate, I may be subject to legal action.  I also acknowledge that I have been informed to obtain my own legal advice about the appropriateness of the material that I intend to present at the above mentioned meeting”.

 

Should a person fail to sign the above statement then permission to address either the Council or Committee will not be granted.

 

The Public Officer or Minute Clerk will speak to those people who have requested permission to address the meeting, prior to the meeting at 6.45pm.

 

It is up to the Council or Committee to decide if the request to address the meeting will be granted.

 

Where permission is to be granted the Council or Committee, at the appropriate time, will suspend only so much of the Standing Orders to allow the address to occur.

 

The Chairperson will then call the person up to the lectern or speaking area.

 

The person addressing the meeting needs to clearly indicate:

 

·       Their name;

 

·       Organisation or group they are representing (if applicable);

 

·       Details of the issue to be addressed and the item number of the report in the Business Paper;

 

·       Whether they are opposing or supporting the issue or matter (if applicable) and the action they would like the meeting to take;

 

·         The interest of the speaker (e.g. affected person, neighbour, applicant,    applicants spokesperson, interested citizen etc).

 

Each person then has five minutes to make their address.  Those addressing Council will be required to speak to the written statement they have submitted.  Permission to address Council is not to be taken as an opportunity to refute or otherwise the points made by previous speakers on the same issue. 

 

The Council or Committee can extend this time if they consider if appropriate, however, everyone needs to work on the basis that the address will be for five minutes only.

 

Councillors may have questions about the address so people are asked to remain at the lectern or in the speaking area until the Chairperson has thanked them.

 

When this occurs, they should then return to their seat.

 

Glenn McCarthy

Public Officer

02 4732 7649                                                         

   


Mayoral Minutes

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Congratulations to the Panthers                                                                                        1

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

Mayoral Minute

Congratulations to the Panthers

           

 

I’d like to offer my congratulations to the Penrith Panthers, the coaching staff headed up by Ivan Cleary, management and support staff on their 2021 Grand Final win earlier this month. What a fantastic victory for our team and our city!

 

The Panthers’ dedication to the game and to their supporters helped many people in Penrith through what have been some of our toughest times.

 

The win coincided with the 30th anniversary of the team’s historic 1991 victory – their very first premiership – and extends their grand final wins to three.

 

This month’s win was the icing on the cake for all long-time Panther’s supporters who were there from their first grand final victory. There was even the added delight of a post-match wedding proposal from one of the players to his girlfriend, it really was a night to remember.

 

Council was proud to show its support of the Panthers in the lead up to the final game by flying street banners, displaying our colours during the September Ordinary Meeting, through a series of support videos and the livery on our waste trucks.

 

Once again, congratulations to the Panthers. Council and our community are exceptionally proud of the team and thankful for the excitement they brought to our lives across the season and, of course, on an unforgettable grand final night.

 

Go the Penrith Panthers – 2021 NRL Premiers!!

 

 Text, letter

Description automatically generated

 

Councillor Karen McKeown OAM

Mayor

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on Congratulations to the Panthers be received.

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Notices of Motion

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Planning Proposal – 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains                                                 1

 

2        Road Re-sealing Budget                                                                                                    4

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

Notice of Motion

1          Planning Proposal – 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, Emu Plains

 

            

 

 

Councillor John Thain TO MOVE:

 

That Council resolve to charge the proponent for the site at 1-4 Old Bathurst Road, the minor fee in accordance with the Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

Supporting Comments from Cr Thain:

The proposal only effects 1 hectare of 23.44 hectares at the site, in addition to the proponent ceding 50m2 of land to Council without requiring an acquisition process.

 

Should this motion not be supported, and Council determine that the low complexity fee should be charged I will move a foreshadowed motion that, that fee be reduced by 50%.

 

Officer Response:

 

A detailed memo has previously been provided to Councillors on this matter which outlined much of the information provided below and was distributed on 13 August 2022 in response to a request made by Councillor Thain.

 

Site Location

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

 

Planning Proposal Fees

 

Under Council’s adopted fees and charges, Planning Proposals fall into the following four (4) categories as described below:

 

·    Minor - Planning Proposals where a correction/minor change to the Local Environmental Plan is sought which typically relates to matters such as mapping anomalies and boundary alignments. Fees and Charges figure: $32,226

 

·    Low Complexity - Planning Proposals that require basic specialist assessment such as Traffic, Flood etc. For example, Panthers Planning Proposal where a height re-distribution was required across the site. Fees and Charges figure: $74,042

 

·    High Complexity - Planning Proposals that require detailed specialist assessment such as Traffic and Transport, Bushfire Hazard, Noise Impact, Stormwater management, Flooding assessment, Flood evacuation assessment, Land/site contamination, Development / Economic Feasibility, Infrastructure and Utilities etc. For example, 39 Henry Street Planning Proposal and 57 Henry Street Planning Proposal. Fees and Charges figure: $127,172

 

·    New Release Area/Significant Development - Planning Proposals that require detailed specialist assessment and are significant in nature. For example, Glenmore Park Stage 3 and Orchard Hills North Planning Proposals. Fees and Charges figure: $257,135

 

The Old Bathurst Road proposal requires the assessment of an aboriginal archaeological study, traffic and transport assessment and flood modelling. Given previous community interest may also generate the need for detailed assessment of submissions.

 

Under the amended legislation, a Planning Proposal must be referred to a Local Planning Panel for Advice ahead of reporting to Council. The fee structure also reflects the cost of calling in a Local Planning Panel to seek this advice. In addition, at times additional external assessment is required for some Planning Proposals. The reduction in fees could have implications for the actual cost to carry out these processes and therefore burden the general revenue. Furthermore, certain council staff resources are funded through rezoning fees and any reduction could influence funding these resources.

 

Council’s planning proposal fees are benchmarked against other Council’s on a regular basis and are adopted by Council as part of the budget.

 

If a proposal has been previously considered for a site, it is not grounds for waiving part or all the fees. The reduction of fees for this proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future planning proposal lodgement.

 

Development Application and Land dedication background

 

The history of the land dedication goes back to before 1975 when the prior plan of subdivision was registered. This plan created four lots. Lot 1 for the zone substation on the corner of Old Bathurst Road and Russell Street and an adjoining triangular shaped slither being Lot 2 which was dedicated as road widening to align the intersection of Russell Street across Old Bathurst Road where the roundabout is. This infrastructure was associated with the release of the Emu Heights residential area.

 

Lot 4 was the balance of the subdivision being 20.55 Hectares (Ha), however Lot 3 was a smaller triangular shaped lot of 54.36m² forming the peak of the triangle to Lot 2. This Lot 3 has remained an anomaly as a privately owned parcel jutting out into the Russell Street road reserve until now. The 1975 plan included a restriction on title preventing any paling fencing in this location and for all intent and purposes the lot has formed part of the Russell Street verge by virtue of the fence line. 

 

DA No.20/0158 lodged in April 2020 sought a ‘two into two lot’ torrens title subdivision of the larger 20.55 Ha Lot 4 with a 2.8 Ha Lot 1 to the north, closer to the river and under a separate plan of subdivision, but in the same ownership. The subdivision effectively proposed to transfer the lot boundary south, creating a new 2 Ha lot with frontages to Old Bathurst Road and Russell Street, wrapping behind the substation and a second lot of over 21 Ha to the north.

 

Whilst the assessment of this subdivision questioned that lot creation was inconsistent with current zoning, the lot sizes met the minimums in both applicable zones and the assessment was clear that the lot boundaries did not indicate any support or otherwise for a ‘rezoning’ given the owner and previously and more recently indicated intentions for a planning proposal.

 

The assessment did identify however that the small triangular slither being Lot 3 on Russell Street had not been included in the application for subdivision and presented issues in terms of legal access to the proposed lot behind. A revised plan of subdivision was submitted incorporating Lot 3 but not addressing this issue nor showing an intention for this lot. The application was approved with a condition of consent requiring dedication of this land as part of the Russell Street Road reserve.

 

Considerations for the dedication relate to the proximity of boundaries to an existing bus stop, the kerb and gutter, services, nature strip and the existing fence alignment. The applicant subsequently incorporated the dedication for road widening into the plan of subdivision which has now been registered, dedicating Lot 3 into the Russell Street road reserve.

 

The reduction of fees in exchange for land dedication required from other processes would create an undesirable precedent for future planning proposal lodgement, as the land dedication and the planning proposal fees are two separate and unrelated issues.

 

The reductions of the fees is not supported due to the precedent and the costs the Council will incur.  The dedication of the land to properly align Russell Street is a separate issue that should not be joined with any fee reduction proposed by the Notice of Motion.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

Notice of Motion

2          Road Re-sealing Budget            

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM TO MOVE:

 

That Council consider increasing the road re-sealing budget at the next budget.

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM supporting comments:

If we are only able to do about 350 metres per year we will be in big problems very soon. For example Ninth Avenue is about 2 kilometres long and this would take about six years without any other roads

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


Questions on Notice

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        12 Judd Street, Berkshire Park                                                                                          1

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

Question On Notice

1          12 Judd Street, Berkshire Park            

 

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM ASKED:

 

 

Does the subject property at 12 Judd Street, Berkshire Park meet the exempt and complying criteria in the SEPP where it refers to:

 

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

(b)  be located at least 1m from each lot boundary, and

 

(i)  if the land is in a rural zone or an environmental zone—not be fill of more than 100 cubic metres on each lot?

  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Reports of Committees

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 11 October 2021                                                                                                                                    1

 

2        Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee Meeting held on 11 October 2021                                                                                                                                    6

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Local Traffic Committee MEETING

HELD ON 11 October, 2021

 

 

 

(Note: due to prevailing public health crisis, and related COVID-19 protocols, the Local Traffic Committee Business Paper and reports were referred to members and a formal meeting held via on-line Zoom platform).

PRESENT

Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM (Council Representative), Councillor Robin Cook (Representative for the Member for Londonderry), Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen (Representative for the Member for Penrith), Andrew Jackson - Director Development and Regulatory Services (Chair), Raymond Tran - Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

IN ATTENDANCE

Steve Grady - Busways, Adam Wilkinson - Engineering Services Manager, David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator, Graham Green - Senior Traffic Engineer, Kablan Mowad - Senior Traffic Engineer, Daniel Davidson, Senior Traffic Engineer, Anthony Baradhy - Traffic Engineering Officer, Lalaine Malaluan - Traffic Engineering Officer, Wendy Read - Road Safety Officer, Mia Ecob – Acting Engineering Services Secretary, Kylie Thornley - Traffic Administration Officer, Tiana Dickson - Business Administration Trainee, Carly McIllhatton - Engineering Administrative Officer Engineering Services, Paul Bottomley – CDC Bus NSW, David Monsiegneur – Ranger, Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM.

 

APOLOGIES

Kristy Johnson – Engineering Services Secretary, Sergeant Matthew Shirvington - Nepean Police Area Command (PAC), Senior Constable Stephen Page - Nepean Police Area Command (PAC), Councillor Marcus Cornish, Kiera Murphy - Senior Ranger.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 6 September 2021

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 6 September 2021 were confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Nil.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

1        Road Safety Program: Variable Message Signs (VMS Speed Trailer) locations between March and August 2021                                               

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Road Safety Program: Variable Message Signs (VMS Speed Trailer) locations between March and August 2021 be received.

2.     The March to August 2021 locations be noted.

 

 

2        Cullen Avenue, Jordan Springs - Proposed concrete median treatment as part of 'left in left out' (LILO) scheme

Raymond Tran - Transport for NSW (TfNSW) raised comments about the risk of students/pedestrians using the concrete median as a refuge to cross the street. Wendy Read - Road Safety Officer advised there is pedestrian fencing that was previously endorsed in the plans already submitted at the June 2021 Local Traffic Committee Meeting and was happy to have a conversation offline to ensure this meets the requirements.    

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Cullen Avenue, Jordan Springs - Proposed concrete median treatment as part of 'left in left out' (LILO) scheme be received.

2.     The concrete median island treatment as shown in Appendix 1 be listed to Council’s Major and Urgent Traffic Facilities Program for funding prioritisation.

 

3        Great Western Highway, Emu Plains - Proposed Stage 2 Shared User Path and Bike Path

Raymond Tran - Transport for NSW (TfNSW) raised minor comments and updates but is happy to discuss these further offline. David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator advised there is actually a buffer between the shared path and the kerb & gutter/road with less experienced users using the path and the more experienced users using the road. Council officers also looked at all the refuges and wherever the swept paths allowed for them we have provided the same.      

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Great Western Highway, Emu Plains - Proposed Stage 2 Shared User Path and Bike Path be received.

2.     Consultation be undertaken with affected properties regarding the proposed Stage 2 shared user path, bike path, signage, line marking and traffic restriction changes on The Great Western Highway, Emu Plains as shown in Appendix 1.

3.     Penrith City Council Officers continue to provide ongoing communication with Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC), Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains and to obtain necessary approvals as required.

4.     A further report will be submitted to LTC at its November 2021 Meeting, to submit the Signage and Line Marking Plan as well as any detailed design amendments following consultation with affected properties, Sydney Trains and Transport for NSW.

 


 

 

4        Castlereagh Street, Penrith - Provision of 'No Parking - Australia Post Vehicles Excepted' Zone

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Castlereagh Street, Penrith - Provision of 'No Parking - Australia Post Vehicles Excepted' Zone be received.

2.     A ‘No Parking – Australia Post Vehicles Excepted’ zone for the length of 10m be provided along Castlereagh Street, Penrith as shown in Appendix 1.

3.     Australia Post will be advised of Council’s decision.

 

5        Colless Street, Penrith - Proposed Line Marking and 'No Stopping' Signs

David Monsiegneur – Ranger queried if there were yellow lines between the two ‘No Stopping’ signs as there have been issues in the past of signs being graffitied or knocked over and then they can’t be enforced. Lalaine Malaluan - Traffic Engineering Officer advised it’s not in the proposed plan at this stage but that we would consider yellow lines. 

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Colless Street, Penrith - Proposed Line Marking and 'No Stopping' Signs be received.

2.     Consultation be undertaken with the affected properties regarding the proposed line marking and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on Colless Street, Penrith as illustrated in Appendix 1.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections being received, the proposed line marking and signage be installed on Colless Street, Penrith as shown in Appendix 1.

4.     Council’s Rangers and the customer that reported the matter be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

6        Peppermint Crescent, Kingswood - Endorsement of Design Plan AP113 for a Series of Traffic Calming Facilities                                        

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Peppermint Crescent, Kingswood - Endorsement of Design Plan AP113 for a Series of Traffic Calming Facilities be received.

2.     Consultation be undertaken with all affected residents.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections, design plan AP113 (dated September 2021) be endorsed for construction, with funding provided from National Blackspot & Safe Road program 2021/22.

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

 

7        Endeavour Avenue, St Clair - Endorsement of Design Plan AB189 for Construction of a series of Concrete Road Humps with associated Signs and Line marking

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen (Representative for the Member for Penrith) sought clarification between concrete speed humps and Watts Profile speed humps and if they are noisier than the Watts Profile speed humps. David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator advised the decision on which ones to use comes down to if the road is a bus route or not but there isn’t much of a difference between them in height and as such noise factors are similar.

Raymond Tran - Transport for NSW (TfNSW) raised minor comments and David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator is happy to have a conversation offline about them. David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator advised that the existing openings in the splitter islands whilst they aren’t standalone pedestrian refuges, have been maximised where possible as the swept paths preclude us from widening the islands out. Raymond Tran - Transport for NSW (TfNSW) queried a crossing at Botany Lane and David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator advised as the road services the rear of the shopping centre and is a slow and controlled speed road it acts more as a car park and there isn’t room to fit a pedestrian refuge here but happy to secure a continuous footpath treatment if there is funding in the future.   

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Endeavour Avenue, St Clair - Endorsement of Design Plan AB189 for Construction of a series of Concrete Road Humps with associated Signs and Line marking be received.

2.     Consultation be undertaken with affected residents and businesses.

3.     Subject to no substantial objections, design plan AB189 (dated September 2021) be endorsed for construction, with funding provided from the National Blackspot & Safe Road program 2021/22.

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

 

8        Intersection of Third Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Llandilo - Endorsement of Design Plan AT94 for Constructing Median Island Stop Treatment

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM raised concerns regarding the redirection of traffic to other roads. Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM also requested an update on when the speedhumps will be installed on Ninth Avenue as this will impact this location also. Graham Green - Senior Traffic Engineer advised the speedhumps are ready to go but isn’t sure of an exact date but it is anticipated before Christmas.

Raymond Tran - Transport for NSW (TfNSW) raised comments with regard to the unorthodox nature of the intersection and asked if the matter could be reconsidered and worked through at a future meeting.

David Drozd - Traffic Engineering Coordinator advised that based on our observations and the crash data we have the proposal to supplement existing restrictions with traffic islands is a necessary immediate step. Some motorists are presently not stopping for the existing signage and this plan takes into consideration the priorities of movement and reinforces the same with islands. There is an ultimate proposal which includes the removal of power poles on the corners and provide a roundabout but its currently unfunded so this is an immediate step until we are able to secure funding.

Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM (Council Representative) didn’t want the issue to be deferred, and for current safety reasons we may be seen as being negligent and works are required to address safety issues now.

Adam Wilkinson - Engineering Services Manager gave information about the context of this area at this location and is happy for us to work with TfNSW to come up with funding for the ultimate design of having a roundabout. He strongly recommends we don’t defer this due to  safety reasons - this will be an opportunity to  provide an immediate solution for now. 

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen (Representative for the Member for Penrith) did not want the issue to be deferred, due to current safety reasons.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Intersection of Third Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Llandilo - Endorsement of Design Plan AT94 for Constructing Median Island Stop Treatment be received.

2.     Design Plan AT94 (dated September 2021) be endorsed for construction, with funding provided from the Major and Urgent Traffic Facilities program 2021/22.

3.     Residents who raised this matter be notified of Council’s resolution.

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

 

GENERAL BUSINESS

 

GB 1           Signs and lines audit around Schools

Andrew Jackson - Director Development and Regulatory Services (Chair) advised Parking Rangers have been doing audits on the signs and lines around Schools in our LGA and then coordinating that information being fed through to Assets if there are any signs or lines missing or any damage.

RECOMMENDED

That the information be noted. 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:55am.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 11 October, 2021 be adopted.

 


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
 Policy Review Committee MEETING

HELD ON 11 October, 2021

 

 

 

WEBCASTING STATEMENT

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

PRESENT

Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor Karen McKeown OAM, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Tricia Hitchen (Arrived 7:07pm), 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 (Arrived 7:05pm). 

 

APOLOGIES

An apology from Councillor Aaron Duke was accepted.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 9 August 2021

The minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 9 August 2021 were confirmed.

 

Councillor John Thain arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:05pm.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 1 - Penrith CBD Corporation Annual Report and Audited Financial Statement 2020 – 2021, as he is the Auditor for the Penrith CBD Corporation.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM left the meeting, the time being 7:06pm.

 

Councillor Tricia Hitchen arrived at the meeting, the time being 7:07pm.

  

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

1        Penrith CBD Corporation Annual Report and Audited Financial Statement 2020 - 2021                                                                                  

RECOMMENDED

That:

1.   The information contained in the report on Penrith CBD Corporation Annual Report and Audited Financial Statement 2020 - 2021 be received.

2.   Council formally congratulate Gai Hawthorn for 10 years of service with the Penrith CBD Corporation.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM returned to the meeting, the time being 7:40pm

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:41pm.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Policy Review Committee meeting held on 11 October, 2021 be adopted.

  



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

1        Endorsement of the Green Grid Strategy                                                                          1

 

2        Endorsement of the Employment Lands Strategy                                                             8

 

3        Amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 - Urban Heat Controls

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                13

 

4        Amendment to Penrith City Wide 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for Non-Residential Development                                                                                                                    21

 

5        57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                25

 

6        Planning Proposal - Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                36

 

7        Luddenham Road Planning Proposal

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                44

 

8        Submission to Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021                                              55

 

9        Accelerated Infrastructure Fund Nomination - Aldington Road, Kemps Creek               62

 

 

 

Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

10      Sydney Metro Interface Agreement                                                                                 69

 

 

 

Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

11      Renewal of Service NSW Partnership Agreement - Easy to do Business                      75

 

12      RFT21/22-02 Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station                                   78

 

13      RFT21/22-06 Tree Planting Services                                                                              83

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

14      Pecuniary Interest Returns 2020 - 2021                                                                          95

 

15      2020-21 Draft Financial Statements                                                                                99

 

16      Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee                                                                      106

 

17      Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021                                                                                                                                         114

 

18      RFT 21/22 Police Cottage Construction Works                                                             122

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Outcome 1 - We can work close to home

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 2 - We plan for our future growth

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Endorsement of the Green Grid Strategy                                                                          1

 

2        Endorsement of the Employment Lands Strategy                                                             8

 

3        Amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 - Urban Heat Controls

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                13

 

4        Amendment to Penrith City Wide 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for Non-Residential Development                                                                                                                    21

 

5        57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                25

 

6        Planning Proposal - Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                36

 

7        Luddenham Road Planning Proposal

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.                                                                44

 

8        Submission to Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021                                              55

 

9        Accelerated Infrastructure Fund Nomination - Aldington Road, Kemps Creek               62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

1

Endorsement of the Green Grid Strategy   

 

Compiled by:               Paula Tomkins, Executive Planner

Renata Ferreira, City Design Lead

Authorised by:            Carlie Ryan, City Strategy 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

Support and influence tri-government strategic planning in the Western Parkland City by responding to the City Deal opportunities

 

Previous Items:           Public Exhibition of Draft Green Grid Strategy - Ordinary Meeting - 24 May 2021

                                      2018/19 Metropolitan Greenspace Program - Ordinary Meeting - 25 Nov 2019      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of a final Green Grid Strategy for the City.

The Green Grid Strategy is one of several strategies that underpin the Places of Penrith Strategic Framework and is identified as an immediate action in Council’s LSPS Planning Priority 18 ‘Connecting our blue and green grid’. The Green Grid Strategy provides a spatial framework and a series of projects and actions to guide the creation of a network of high-quality open spaces on public land in the next 10 - 20 years, connecting our growing community to green infrastructure. Once implemented, the green grid will help keep our City cool, encourage healthy lifestyles, support walking and cycling, provide better access to open spaces, enhance biodiversity and tree canopy cover and support ecological resilience.

Councillors have been briefed in relation to the development of the Green Grid Strategy on a number of occasions. On 18 December 2020, a memo was provided with an update on the development of the green grid in the context of Places of Penrith Strategy Framework. Councillors were also briefed on the progress of the Green Grid Strategy on 1 March 2021 and 19 April 2021. At the 24 May 2021 Ordinary Meeting, Council endorsed the public exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy.  Councillors were subsequently briefed on the 20 September 2021 on the outcomes of the public exhibition.

This report outlines the engagement activities conducted by Council between 8 June and 3 August 2021, summarises the outcomes of the public consultation, and outlines the changes made to the Green Grid Strategy in response to feedback received. Further information about the outcomes of the public consultation can be found in Attachment 1: Engagement Report, Attachment 2: Responses to submissions from Government Agencies and Organisations, Attachment 3: Responses to feedback from the Community and Attachment 4: Responses to site-specific submissions.

Feedback received through formal submissions, face-to-face engagement activities at Village Cafes, and surveys and ideas board uploaded on Council’s website was overwhelmingly positive. All comments and suggestions have been considered. A final Green Grid Strategy has been prepared and is enclosed separately for the information of Councillors.

It is recommended that Council endorse the final Green Grid Strategy.

Background

The Penrith Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) was adopted by Council in March 2020. The LSPS identified the strategic planning work necessary to build on the significant infrastructure investment in and around our City.

 

Since then, the landscape in our region has evolved due to further planning and development of the Aerotropolis and the announcement of station locations for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport. It is therefore timely to further develop our thinking in relation to the strategic vision for Penrith in order to maximise these opportunities, through the development of a strategic framework - Places of Penrith.

Places of Penrith delivers a suite of city-shaping strategies in line with the Planning Priorities outlined in the Western City District Plan and the LSPS. The Green Grid Strategy is one of these, along with the Employment Lands Strategy which was publicly exhibited at the same time. Other strategies currently being developed are the Local Housing Strategy, Rural Lands and Villages Strategy and a Corridors and Centres Strategy.

The Greater Sydney Region Plan outlines that the Sydney Green Grid sets the long-term vision for a network of high-quality green areas to connect communities to green infrastructure. The Government Architect NSW developed the Sydney Green Grid document to provide a spatial framework and project opportunities. The Sydney Green Grid promotes the creation of a network of high-quality open spaces to support recreation, biodiversity and waterway health whilst connecting strategic, district and local centres, public transport hubs and residential areas.

Council’s LSPS recognises the importance of the green grid for our City through the Planning Priority 18 ‘Connecting our blue and green grid’, which identifies the preparation of the Green Grid Strategy as an immediate action.

The Green Grid Strategy was supported by funding from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) through the 2018/19 Metropolitan Greenspace Program. Receipt of the funding was endorsed at the 25 November 2019 Ordinary Meeting.

Following receipt of funding, a draft Green Grid Strategy was prepared. The draft Green Grid Strategy describes the Government Architect’s Sydney Green Grid applicable to the Penrith LGA, identifies other existing local green infrastructure, maps the green network, selects short-term actions, priority projects and priority future connections, and provides actions for ongoing implementation of the short-term actions and priority projects in the next ten to twenty years. At the 24 May 2021 Ordinary Meeting, Council endorsed the public exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy.

Councillors have been briefed in relation to the development of the Green Grid Strategy on a number of occasions as set out below:

·    18 December 2020: Councillor memo providing an update on the development of the green grid in the context of Places of Penrith Strategy Framework as a work in progress

·    1 March 2021: Councillor briefing on the Places of Penrith booklet including the development of the green grid

·    19 April 2021: Councillor briefing on the draft Green Grid Strategy prepared for public exhibition

·    20 September 2021: Councillor briefing on the outcomes of the public exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy as part of a broader update on the Places of Penrith Strategy Framework.

 

Current Situation

Public exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy ran from 8 June to 3 August 2021. The following sections outline the engagement activities undertaken, feedback received, key issues raised in feedback and changes to the Green Grid Strategy as a result. Further details can be found in Attachment 1: Engagement Report, Attachment 2: Responses to submissions from Government Agencies and Organisations, Attachment 3: Responses to feedback from the Community and Attachment 4: Responses to site-specific submissions.

Engagement Activities

A series of face to face and online engagement activities were planned to seek community and stakeholder feedback. Council staff attended the Village Cafes at Kingswood and North St Marys in June 2021. However, tightening of restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic meant most of the face-to-face engagement activities were cancelled.  Online engagement activities rolled out as planned and the Green Grid Strategy was advertised through a number of mediums including a media release, Council newsletters such as Our Place and Sustainability eNews and Council’s social media channels.

The Green Grid Strategy had a dedicated webpage on Council’s Your Say platform that provided opportunities to download the draft Green Grid Strategy, complete a survey or upload ideas. The survey gave people the opportunity to provide feedback in relation to their local area, specifically green grid links they would like implemented or additional planting they would support.

Key stakeholders including government agencies, industry and community groups were notified directly of the exhibition and invited to make submissions.

Feedback Received

Feedback received through formal submissions, face-to-face engagement activities at Village Cafes, and surveys completed on Council’s website was overwhelmingly positive.

1.   Formal submissions

Council received 20 formal submissions to the draft Strategy, mostly from government agencies, large landowners, industry or community groups. Out of the 20 submissions, 80% were supportive of the Strategy while the remaining submissions commented on specific issues rather than the Strategy as a whole. Feedback can be summarised into six key topics as follows:

·    Implementation and funding – requests for the final Strategy to better articulate how the implementation of the strategy will be funded and for more specific actions to ensure ongoing implementation;

·    Methodology – requests to clarify how certain issues were considered in the Strategy such as ecology or safety, or further clarification on the selection of priority projects;

·    Aboriginal heritage and culture – request to further consider how Aboriginal cultural heritage and the local Aboriginal community could be included in the Strategy and its implementation;

·    Detailed design – requests to consider provision of specific facilities or amenities such as the provision of end of trip facilities, water or seating;

·    Policy and planning framework – suggestions to add consideration of additional State government documents to the policy and planning framework section of the Strategy; and

·    Site specific requests – suggestions of additional projects to be included or reconsideration of existing links or their priority.

In addition, there were offers to work together with Council on implementation of the Strategy, including from Sydney Water in relation to smart irrigation and their water recycling plant.

 

2.   Surveys

Council’s Your Say website received 547 surveys. More than 90% of respondents were in agreement, or strong agreement with the key messages of the draft Green Grid Strategy. Furthermore, those who responded to the list of priority projects in their precinct were overwhelmingly in support of the projects (84% or higher for all 12 precincts). Comments and suggestions include:

·   Desire for additional tree planting, either generally or in specific locations;

·   Request for improved or additional footpaths or cycleways, either generally or in a specific location. A common theme was the need for these paths to increase safety for pedestrians and/or cyclists;

·   Request for additional amenities such as rubbish bins, water stations, seating or fitness equipment along footpaths or cycleways or in areas of open space;

·   Request for better maintenance or improvement of open space or public domain; and

·   Questions about the priority projects identified for a precinct. This was particularly the case for Precinct 4 Central East which includes the suburbs of Cambridge Park, Cambridge Gardens, Werrington, Werrington Downs, Werrington County, Caddens, Claremont Meadows, Kingswood.

3.   Village Cafes and Ideas Board

The face-to-face engagement activities at the Village Cafes at Kingswood and North St Marys in June 2021 offered good opportunity for the community to familiarise themselves with the Strategy and ask questions to Council staff. Feedback received from people who attended the Village Cafes was in support of the Green Grid Strategy.

The Ideas Board on Council’s Your Say website gave people the opportunity to provide feedback on the green grid projects. Several ideas were uploaded to the Your Say website including ideas in Kingswood and Emu Plains. Investigation of the ideas showed that they were already included in the Strategy.

Response to feedback and amendments to the strategy

All the comments, suggestions and issues raised during the public exhibition have been considered and are addressed in Attachment 1: Engagement Report, Attachment 2: Responses to submissions from Government Agencies and Organisations, Attachment 3: Responses to feedback from the Community and Attachment 4: Responses to site-specific submissions.

As a result of the engagement activities, the following changes have been made to the Green Grid Strategy:

·    Addition of list of common terms and abbreviations used throughout the document

·    Amendments to the executive summary to clarify:

ecological benefits of the green grid,

the Strategy’s focus on public land, and

how the Green Grid Strategy links to other strategic work.

·    Reference to additional documents in the Policy and Planning Framework section including Council’s Resilient Penrith Action Plan and NSW Government policy documents on open space.

·    Addition of LEP heritage data and tree canopy data as underlying data for the green grid.

·    A range of minor changes to Section 6 Green Grid Matrix, Maps and Priority Projects as follows:

Further acknowledgement of the fact that the green grid provides ecological benefits;

Clarification that subsequent design stages of the projects identified in the Strategy need to further consider local site constraints;

Inclusion of existing tree canopy maps for urban precincts (Precincts 2-11);

Inclusion of several new projects including the walking catchments of two schools in Precinct 11;

Amendments to several existing projects such as clarification of names, reconsideration of scoring or minor changes to mapping; and

Amendment to background text for Precinct 12 to clarify the landscape significance of Mulgoa Valley.

·    Amendments to Section 7 Delivering Penrith’s Green Grid Strategy:

A change in terminology from ‘recommendations’ to ‘Priorities’ and ‘Outcomes’ with additional text included on how the Green Grid Strategy will be implemented using Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework;

Inclusion of actions with timeframes and how the actions link to existing Council endorsed documents;

Inclusion of additional State funding sources available to implement green grid projects;

Inclusion of text addressing the need to provide and advocate for end of trip facilities for cyclists;

Noting the benefit that traditional owners could provide in developing a list of successful tree species;

Provision of tree canopy percentages strategy including area of publicly owned land and canopy across each urban precinct. This data will serve as baseline data for monitoring of the Strategy’s implementation; and

Incorporation of a new section that outlines when the Green Grid Strategy will be reviewed in the future.

Minor housekeeping and editorial amendments have also been made throughout the document where necessary.

Financial Implications

The development of the Green Grid Strategy is being funded by the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Greenspace Program. The funding agreement allows the NSW Government to recoup the money they have paid if the Strategy is not finalised.

Should Council endorse the Green Grid Strategy, there will be financial implications associated with its implementation over time. Future works will be funded through a combination of Council’s future Operational and Delivery Programs and grant funding opportunities from a range of external sources. Existing grant programs that could be accessed for Green Grid actions include the Metropolitan Greenspace Program, Greening Our City and Streets as Shared Places for People.

Risk Implications

A funding agreement has been signed with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for funding to prepare the Green Grid Strategy. Should the draft Green Grid Strategy not be endorsed and finalised the funding agreement allows the NSW Government to recoup the money they have paid.

The Green Grid Strategy identifies our green grid and provides a robust Council wide framework for future implementation. This reduces risk by clearly prioritising future projects for the green grid and facilitating alignment across Council. 

Conclusion

The Green Grid Strategy is a key element of Places of Penrith Strategic Framework that identifies the network of green infrastructure in our City. Importantly, the Green Grid Strategy clearly identifies our intentions, allowing the delivery of the green grid on public land incrementally over time as the opportunity arises. Once implemented, the green grid will help keep our City cool, encourage healthy lifestyles, support walking and cycling, provide better access to open spaces, enhance biodiversity and tree canopy and support ecological resilience.

Public exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy was undertaken for eight weeks from 8 June to 3 August 2021. A number of engagement activities were carried out during this time with a range of feedback being received, with the vast majority in support of the Strategy. Since exhibition, Council staff collated the feedback from the community, government agencies and organisations, provided responses to key issues, and amended the Strategy accordingly, as outlined in this report and supporting reports enclosed as Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4.

A final Green Grid Strategy has been prepared and is separately enclosed for the information of Councillors. It is recommended that Council endorse the Strategy allowing it to be implemented across our City.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Endorsement of the Green Grid Strategy be received

2.     Council note the feedback received as part of the exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy provided in Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4

3.     Council endorse the amended Green Grid Strategy provided in the separate enclosure

4.     Delegation be granted to the General Manager to make minor changes to the Green Grid Strategy prior to publication on Council’s website, if required.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Engagement Report

12 Pages

Attachments Included

2.

Responses to submissions from Government Agencies and Organisations

10 Pages

Attachments Included

3.

Responses to feedback from the Community

5 Pages

Attachments Included

4.

Responses to Site-Specific Submissions

3 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

2

Endorsement of the Employment Lands Strategy   

 

Compiled by:               Anne Hurni, Coordinator - Research and Policy

Marianna Kucic, Urban Strategist

Authorised by:            Carlie Ryan, City Strategy 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

Support and influence tri-government strategic planning in the Western Parkland City by responding to the City Deal opportunities

      

 

Previous Items:           Public Exhibition of Draft Employment Lands Strategy- Ordinary Meeting - 24 May 2021

                                     

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the finalised Employment Lands Strategy (ELS). The main objective of the ELS is to ensure that Penrith has a sufficient supply of land in suitable locations to support local businesses, grow local employment opportunities, and promote continued economic growth over the next two decades.

The ELS forms a key element of the city-wide strategic framework, together with other strategies under development. The ELS builds on recent government plans and investments for our City and sets key directions and actions for retaining, managing and planning our employment lands in line with the vision set out in Penrith’s Local Strategic Planning Statement. Given the landscape is changing rapidly in our region, it is timely to further develop our thinking in relation to employment lands.

 

Councillors have been briefed on the progress of the draft ELS on a number of occasions during its development, including at a briefing on 21 September 2020 and via memorandum on the progress of the ELS on 3 December 2020 and on 18 December 2020. Councillors were presented with the key directions and emerging actions in the ELS for their consideration on 1 March 2021. Councillors were presented the draft ELS at a briefing on 19 April 2021. Council endorsed the draft ELS for public exhibition at the Ordinary Meeting

of 24 May 2021. The draft ELS was then publicly exhibited from 8 June to 3 August 2021.

 

Feedback received has now been considered and has resulted in a number of minor amendments to the ELS. Sections on population growth, market trends, freight demand and economic impacts of COVID-19 pandemic have been updated. A section explaining implementation and monitoring has been added.

The final ELS has been prepared for Council endorsement and is included as Attachment 1. It is recommended that Council endorse the finalised ELS.

Background

The Penrith Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) was adopted by Council in March 2020. The LSPS identified the strategic planning work necessary to build on the significant infrastructure investment in and around our City.

 

Since then, the landscape in our region has evolved due to further planning and development of the Aerotropolis and the announcement of station locations for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport. It is therefore timely to further develop our thinking in relation to the strategic vision for Penrith in order to maximise these opportunities, through the development of a strategic framework - Places of Penrith.

Places of Penrith delivers a suite of city-shaping strategies in line with the Planning Priorities outlined in the Western City District Plan and the LSPS. The Employment Lands Strategy is one of these strategies, along with the Green Grid Strategy which was publicly exhibited at the same time. Other strategies that are being developed are the Local Housing Strategy, Rural Lands and Villages Strategy, and a Corridors and Centres Strategy.

The Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) is guided by the principles established in the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the Western City District Plan that apply to employment land to ‘retain and manage’ existing employment land and ‘plan and manage’ for future employment land.

The ELS is an immediate action to support the planning priorities in the LSPS to “enhance and grow Penrith’s economic triangle” (Action 12.1). The ELS responds to the vision for Penrith in the LSPS as a connected, healthy, innovative and balanced city and aims to address our community’s priorities to grow and strengthen the local economy and local employment opportunities to support a growing population in an environmentally sustainable way.

The ELS has been developed to support land use planning and decision making for land zoned for industrial, commercial and other employment generating special purposes precincts such as health, education and tourism. The ELS is based on evidence gathered from land use studies and economic analysis undertaken by consultants, and an internal spatial analysis of existing industrial precincts.

Council endorsed the public exhibition of the draft Employment Lands Strategy at the 24 May 2021 Ordinary Meeting.

Current Situation

Engagement activities

Exhibition of the ELS occurred from 8 June to the 3 August 2021.This period coincided with the exhibition of the draft Green Grid Strategy and, as with the draft Green Grid Strategy, the exhibition was promoted via Council newsletters, media releases and social media, face to face engagement occurred at the Kingswood and North St Marys Village Cafes and a dedicated Your Say webpage with a survey and project information. Polls were also conducted on Facebook and key stakeholders were invited to make submissions.

Key stakeholders including government agencies, industry and community groups were notified directly of the exhibition and invited to make submissions. In addition, Council staff undertook direct engagement with key stakeholders. Direct engagement was undertaken with several local businesses in Penrith’s industrial precincts through a series of online interviews.

Community response

In response to the exhibition of the draft Strategy, Council received 172 responses to the Facebook polls, 94 completed Your Say online surveys. Survey respondents were mainly local residents.

There were 12 written submissions, mainly from developers and agencies, and 15 interviews with local businesses, mainly in the manufacturing, construction, freight and logistics sectors.

There was strong support expressed for the four directions outlined in the draft Strategy through all channels, with an average of 83% Facebook respondents and 96% Your Say respondents agreeing with the four strategic directions and positive feedback on these directions expressed in the written submissions and business interviews.

Key Themes

A summary of the submissions and feedback received is provided in the Community Engagement Report which is included as Attachment 2. The Engagement Report categorises the feedback into five themes:

·    Land supply and demand

A clear concern was expressed in written submissions about the limited availability of employment land. This concern was raised by property developers as well as by local businesses in interviews. It was noted that issues of low vacancy rates and land banking in existing precincts are creating difficulties for medium sized businesses to expand and stay within the local area. At least three medium sized businesses expressed interest in expanding their business locally and requiring larger lots in existing precincts.

Survey respondents also noted the importance of having employment lands in the local area for creating jobs closer to home and the need to provide for increased local employment opportunities in the local area.

·    Transport connectivity and managing freight demand

Feedback from local businesses indicated a strong preference for industrial land to be located in areas with good access to motorways. Increased demand of freight movements related to the intermodals and the Western Sydney Airport as well as the new industrial precincts was raised a critical issue in written submissions.

Survey respondents expressed a need for improved walking and safe cycling access in and around employment precincts and for more frequent and better-connected public transport (bus) services to employment precincts. Greater consideration and planning for future transport modes and electric vehicles was also raised in the survey responses as was careful planning to avoid traffic around employment areas.

·    Land-use flexibility

Greater flexibility in permitted uses within employment lands was supported in submissions by developers and recommended as being likely to attract new industries. Survey respondents noted that employment precincts should allow for new types of businesses. Strategic employment outcomes of jobs growth, job density and diversity were supported as the priority.

·    Improved amenity in and around employment precincts

Quality and access of roads, footpaths, cycleways in employment precincts to make existing employment areas more attractive was highly regarded by local business and survey respondents alike. Proximity to a variety of local services food, retail and business service outlets was also noted as important for local businesses and workers.

 

 

·    Sustainability and preserving green space

All of the businesses interviewed reported that they were implementing a variety of sustainability measures already. They considered the uptake of sustainable practices as an important part of their corporate social responsibility as well as a way of reducing costs of energy, water and/or waste.

Survey respondents noted that Council could encourage businesses to minimise waste by optimising use of supplies and recycling demolition materials correctly, promote energy efficient buildings and use of recycled water where possible. Respondents expressed a need for better landscaping and maintenance of streetscapes and more trees in employment precincts.

Preserving green and open space in employment lands and Penrith's scenic landscapes was also highly valued by local businesses and survey respondents.

Proposed Amendments

In response to the feedback received, proposed amendments include:

·    Minor updates on latest economic data and government reforms

·    Minor additions responding to submissions on the importance of freight movements

·    Minor additions responding to feedback on improved sustainability and amenity

·    Inserting an Implementation Plan that expands on how the ELS Actions will be implemented. Sections on monitoring and reviewing the ELS have also been included.

Minor housekeeping and formatting/editorial amendments have also been made throughout. Council’s responses to the submissions made is outlined in a table which is included as Attachment 3.

Financial Implications

Should the ELS be endorsed by Council, there will be minor financial implications associated with its implementation over time. Generally, these costs relate to staff resourcing, which are already factored into Council’s current Operational Plan.

Future works in line with the Employment Lands Strategy will be planned, prioritised and funded through Council’s future Operational Plan and Delivery Programs. Grant funding opportunities from external sources will also be investigated where possible.

Risk Implications

The ELS has been developed to align with the planning priorities in Council’s LSPS to “enhance and grow Penrith’s Economic Triangle” (Action 12.1) and respond to the Western City District Plan. The ELS also builds on Council’s Community Plan and Economic Development Strategy. Should the ELS not be endorsed and finalised, this may compromise Council’s ability to meet implicit commitments made to the community and the NSW Government.

The ELS provides a robust “roadmap” for employment lands and a Council-wide framework for implementation. This reduces risk by clearly prioritising future actions for employment lands and facilitating alignment across Council. 

Conclusion

The ELS will help ensure Penrith has a sufficient supply of employment land to strengthen and grow the local economy. Public exhibition of the draft ELS was carried out over eight weeks from 8 June to 3 August 2021. A variety of planned engagement activities were carried out during this time to engage with a broad cross section of the community and business, industry and government stakeholders.

Following the exhibition and engagement activities, the feedback received has been collated with responses and proposed amendments outlined in the supporting attachments. Council’s endorsement of the finalised ELS is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Endorsement of the Employment Lands Strategy be received.

2.     Council endorses the amended Employment Lands Strategy provided in Attachment 1.

3.     Council notes the feedback received during exhibition and in the Community Engagement Report for the draft Employment Lands Strategy provided in Attachment 2.

4.     Council notes the responses to the submissions in the table provided in Attachment 3.

5.     Delegation be granted to the General Manager to make minor changes to the Employment Lands Strategy and supporting documents prior to publication on Council’s website, if required.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

ELS Attachment 1 - Employment Lands Strategy 2021 Final

78 Pages

Attachments Included

2.

ELS Attachment 2 - Community Engagement Report

8 Pages

Attachments Included

3.

ELS Attachment 3 - ELS Response to Submissions

9 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

3

Amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 - Urban Heat Controls   

 

Compiled by:               Nicole Aiken, Senior Planner

Natalie Stanowski, Principal Planner

Breannan Dent, 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

Maintain a contemporary planning framework of land use and statutory plans

 

Previous Items:           Penrith Urban Heat Planning Controls Package - Councillor Briefing - 20 Sep 2021

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 seek Council’s endorsement of an amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014) introducing a new chapter with the aim of including development controls to mitigate the urban heat island effect as a result of development.

 

The draft DCP amendment forms part of a planning controls package to mitigate the impacts of urban heat. The package also includes the preparation of a Planning Proposal - Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect which is the subject of a separate report to this meeting. It is intended that the Urban Heat Development Controls will complement this work.

 

The draft Urban Heat development controls are consistent with Councils adopted Cooling the City Strategy and Local Strategic Planning Statement. The controls have been developed as part of an Urban Heat Planning package and are based on evidence collected from a number of sources throughout the development phase. The controls have also been tested with the development industry and have received support from the Penrith Local Planning Panel.

 

Councillors have been previously briefed on work to address urban heat as part of the broader comprehensive review of the Penrith DCP 2014 in November 2020 and March 2021. Councillors were then further briefed in September 2021 on the proposal to move this work ahead of the comprehensive review to form an amendment to DCP 2014.

 

This report recommends that the draft urban heat development controls be placed on public exhibition. Should Council endorse the public exhibition of the draft Urban Heat controls, it is intended to exhibit the amendment to DCP 2014 and the Planning Proposal at the same time for community and stakeholder feedback.

Background

As our City grows and becomes more urbanised, reducing and removing heat from the urban environment is critical to achieving an environment that has high amenity, provides opportunities for active, healthy and safe activities and is comfortable throughout summer.

 

A number of Councils adopted strategies identify the importance of working towards making our city cooler through urban heat mitigation with Councils planning controls. These include:

 

·    Cooling the City Strategy (adopted August 2015) - identifies strategies to cool our City and region in a way that improves liveability and prioritises protection from heat for our community.

·    Resilient Penrith Action Plan 2021-2030 - aims to build awareness and preparedness and enhance the capacity of Council and the community to adapt and be more resilient to risks, shocks and stresses, including urban heat. 

·    Penrith Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) (adopted March 2020) - Action 21.3 seeks to ‘Introduce objectives, planning and development controls to deliver a cooler city’ within the short-to-medium term.

 

In 2019-20, Council partnered with Western Sydney University to record localised summer air temperatures to gain a better understanding of local heat and hot spots in the Benchmarking Summer Heat Across Penrith report. The project confirmed that some areas within Penrith City are significantly cooler than others. These predominately included areas with water, such as the river, creeks, irrigated sporting fields and parks, and areas with ground and tree cover. The project also found that during the summer months, areas with large areas of open space and green infrastructure had lower mean night-time temperatures and were able to cool down quicker than areas with a higher cover of buildings and roads.

 

Council specific targeted building and design responses, like using light-coloured surfaces to promote reflectivity, increasing ventilation, protecting and increasing vegetation for shade, planning for water in the landscape, and using water sensitive urban design to harvest and reuse water for cooling, can significantly help to mitigate urban heat.

 

To achieve better building and design responses to urban heat, the proposed urban heat chapter will provide targeted controls that aim to reduce the contribution development has on urban heat in our City.

 

Relationship to Review of Penrith DCP 2014

 

The creation of a new Urban Heat development controls was initially proposed to be introduced within DCP 2022. In line with Council’s commitment to taking action to cool our City and building on the momentum of the successful 2020 Cooling the City Masterclass. It is now proposed to bring forward the work on urban heat as a standalone planning control package to continue to demonstrate Council’s commitment and leadership in this area.

The Proposal 

The draft Urban Heat development controls are proposed be inserted as a new chapter into the Penrith DCP 2014 and are part of a broader Urban Heat Planning Package that includes a proposed Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect Planning Proposal (as discussed in a separate report). These controls aim to support the proposed Planning Proposal and any future LEP amendment and provide specific requirements for new development within the City. 

 

The Chapter will comprise a mix of a revision of existing development controls that already work to address urban heat within different section of DCP 2014, and new controls that have been prepared in response to current research around urban heat and the built environment. These will all be consolidated into one chapter.

 

The Urban Heat development controls are supported by recommendations provided by JOC Consulting, who were engaged earlier this year to assist with the urban heat planning package. The work undertaken by JOC included a review of the current Penrith DCP to identify opportunities to address urban heat; a review of other relevant state and local plans; and a review of the Urban Heat Planning Toolkit developed by the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC). 

 

The intention of the Urban Heat DCP chapter is to set the foundation for new development to consider urban heat mitigation. The controls are designed to be flexible enough that proponents can adapt design responses to what is feasible on the site and appropriate for their budget. Many of the potential design responses also offer opportunities for long term cost benefits.

 

It is intended that further development specific controls will be added to the urban heat chapter as part of the future work associated with the comprehensive DCP 2022 review program. Future amendments are in the early stages of development and include canopy cover, landscaped area and deep soil area, and other sustainability matters specific to land use types. These matters are strongly related to other overarching site design controls and strategic actions and need to be considered holistically during the comprehensive review process, including the feasibility.

 

The controls were presented to the Penrith Local Planning Panel at it’s meeting on 22 September 2021 as part of the report to the panel on the Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect Planning Proposal (as discussed in a separate report). Overall, the panel was supportive of the controls being introduced as a broader Urban Heat Planning package and provided the following specific advice on the development controls:

 

f. In the DCP, clear quantitative measures will assist applicants and the consent authority.

 

The controls have since been reviewed and amended to improve consistency in line with this advice. These changes are reflected in the final draft version attached to this report in Attachment 1. 

The Controls

The draft Urban Heat planning controls seek to mitigate and manage urban heat, in response to Benchmarking Summer Heat findings, LSPS Action 21.3 and Cooling the City Strategy Actions:

·    P1 Investigate a regional approach to increasing green infrastructure with NSW State Government and WSROC

·    P5 Consider heat management opportunities in the planning for infrastructure to support new communities

·    R1 Include provisions which address roof colour and reflectivity

·    P17 Review, and if necessary refine, current development controls to encourage heat mitigation in new development

·    E10 Engage with the community about the design of landscapes in the future.

The controls will apply to new development located within the zones listed below, consistent with proposed Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect Planning Proposal:

·    All residential zones;

·    All business zones;

·    All industrial zones;

·    All special purpose zones;

·    All recreation zones;

·    RU5 Village zone; and

·    E4 Environmental Living zone

 

The Urban Heat chapter focuses on design responses found to have a significant effect on reducing the impacts of the Urban Heat Island Effect. The controls seek to deliver easy to achieve, targeted responses to secure key cooling outcomes with negligible increase to the cost of development. These responses include:

·    Cooling with Landscaping,

·    Cool Colours and Materials,

·    Cooling through Building Design, and

·    Optimising Mechanical Heating and Cooling.

 

A copy of the draft Urban Heat DCP chapter is provided as Attachment 1. A summary and explanation of the proposed Urban Heat Development Controls is provided in Attachment 2.

The new chapter includes some controls which reinforce or expand on existing controls in other parts of the DCP. By including these controls in the proposed new chapter, Council provides clear objectives and mechanisms for delivery of improved urban heat outcomes, reinforced by the proposed LEP controls. All of the proposed controls have been designed to be consistent with or provide further clarification on the established approaches delivered under DCP 2014’s existing controls.

 

While the new chapter delivers specific Cooling the City Strategy objectives, the proposed controls also demonstrate consistency with the overarching findings and objectives of the Strategy by identifying and acting on opportunities for improvement. As other cooling the City Strategy actions are achieved, future DCP Review processes will continue to deliver an integrated approach to respond to urban heat. 

Industry Engagement on the Draft Controls

To receive feedback on industry’s response to the proposed controls, Council commissioned JOC Consulting to undertake a survey of local developers who have lodged applications with Council to gain feedback on the proposed controls. JOC contacted 16 developers. Out of the total of 16 developers contacted, 8 opted to participate in the survey.

 

The survey questions focused on the controls most likely to require an extra level of consideration in the development process. The questions sought to confirm the feasibility and any likely increases to costs of controls for roof colour, tree canopy, irrigation, cool materials and cool refuges and to identify what developers are already doing to address urban heat. A copy of the focus questions used by JOC when speaking to the developers is provided as Attachment 3. A copy of the report on industry engagement is provided as Attachment 4.

 

Summary of feedback

 

Overall, the feedback received from the developers was positive. Developers were largely happy with Council taking the initiative to introduce controls to address urban heat in Penrith. Developers also noted that there is increased demand from consumers for development to be more sustainable and have taken the initiative to start including elements to address urban heat in their products and development designs. Some developers already implement design responses similar to those raised by this DCP.

 

Feedback on specific controls was mixed with a large amount of support being given to controls focused on tree canopy, cool materials and roof colours as these were seen to be achievable with no real impact on costs. Feedback also indicated that the preference was for the controls not to be so specific that they limit choice of product as often this is dictated by availability.

 

There was mixed feedback on controls for irrigation, with the lower density residential type developers raising concern that often these systems are removed by owners and strata later due to the expense of maintenance. However, it was noted that the cost to replace landscaping that does not thrive may be sufficient inducement to ensure irrigation systems are functioning and that these systems would balance out any establishment costs in the long term.

 

The least support was given to the controls for cool refuges, however, it was noted that many of the developers that were spoken to were not fully across the concept of these types of spaces. Overall, the contribution these spaces had towards reducing urban heat was not fully understood and developers were unsure if these spaces would contribute to increased costs. It was noted, that if implemented, these spaces would be better incorporated into the design of lobbies and communal areas as required by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). Feedback also noted that these spaces would work well in commercial and industrial development and were unlikely to be included in residential development design.

 

From this preliminary feedback it can be surmised that there is general support in the development industry for controls to address urban heat, with some developers already incorporating these elements into their products. This indicates that many of the design responses proposed have already been demonstrated as feasible and cost effective on a development-by-development basis.

 

The overall feedback on the proposed controls could be largely reflective of the current acceptance of roof colours, cool materials and tree canopy as contributing towards reducing urban heat, while irrigation and cool refuges are relatively new concepts and the contribution of these elements towards reducing urban heat are not yet widely known or accepted.

 

In response to this feedback, the controls have been drafted to ensure that they are clearly articulated and that the objectives are clearly related to the intent of the controls. Controls relating to irrigation and cool refuges have been retained in this draft to allow for a wider range of feedback during the public exhibition stage.

 

More work could also be done to raise awareness within the industry of the these relatively cost-free inclusions into development to reduce urban heat during the public exhibition of the controls.

 

Feasibility and Dwelling Costs

 

In preparing the proposed urban heat development controls, consideration was given to ensuring site planning, building, design and material requirements were both affordable and flexible, and could easily be adapted into the existing DCP. Controls were designed on the basis that all designs and budgets could easily comply.

 

Many of the proposed urban heat controls already exist within the DCP and represent no additional cost to dwellings. The controls have been brought into the new chapter to highlight their importance in reducing urban heat, providing a clear link for applying a future LEP provision for urban heat. These controls include landscape design, street tree provision and irrigation.

 

New controls, such as lighter roof colours, tree provision and cool refuges do not necessitate different or expensive materials, plans or designs. They allow for alternative outcomes, that can be easily adapted from existing materials and processes. These controls are not specific, providing flexibility and enabling cost friendly solutions.

 

Quantifying additional cost implications has been difficult to determine, however, any additional costs, if any, are considered negligible. This finding was confirmed through the industry engagement, where industry stakeholders perceived that the proposed controls had no real impact on costs.

 

It is also noted that upfront costs of mitigation measures for urban heat are offset through savings in energy, operational and maintenance costs. Taking into consideration the social and health costs associated with heat, the cost benefit of the provisions are positive.

 

Notwithstanding, as a part of industry and community engagement during the exhibition of the draft DCP, further advice will be sought on costs to confirm these initial findings.

Proposed Community Engagement

Community engagement for the draft Urban Heat Chapter will be consistent with Council ‘s endorsed Community Engagement Strategy and Community Participation Plan (CPP) 2020 and will deliver on Cooling the City Strategy Action E10 which commits to more engagement with the community about the design of landscapes into the future.

In alignment with the requirements of the CPP, the proposed DCP amendment will be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days and submissions received during the public exhibition will be reported to Council after the public exhibition has concluded.

 

It is intended that the proposed DCP amendments will be publicly exhibited alongside the Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect Planning Proposal, to ensure the community has clarity about how the new controls will be implemented. This means that exhibition and finalisation of the DCP is dependent on the Planning Proposal timeframes.

 

Under the CPP, council officers are also required to provide notification of the public exhibition. At a minimum, community notification will include notices published on Council’s website and in the Western Weekender newspaper. The draft DCP documents and supporting information will be published on Your Say Penrith page and copies will be provided in Council offices and the Penrith Library.

 

Further industry engagement will be undertaken during the public exhibition stage and will form part of a broader engagement strategy.

Next Steps

Should Council endorse the recommendations of this report, the following steps are:

1.   The draft plan will be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and the CPP for a minimum of 28 days.

2.   The draft controls will be made available for review on the Your Say Penrith page, at Councils Civic Centre and Penrith and St Marys libraries.

3.   A public notice will be placed in the local newspaper and on Council’s website providing details of the exhibition.

4.   Any comments received during public exhibition will be considered and amendments may be made to the final draft controls.

5.   This final draft and community submissions will then be reported back to Council for endorsement.

Financial Implications

There are no significant financial implications for Council associated with this report. While the proposed Urban Heat development controls will apply to Council developments, it will complement Council’s existing ‘cooling the city’ commitments, which include consideration of urban heat in the design of new community buildings and spaces, and tree planting initiatives.

 

Through our initial engagement with industry it is believed that the proposed controls will not have a negative impact on the feasibility of development.

Risk Implications

The draft Urban Heat development controls and the proposed Planning Proposal relating to Urban Heat are to be read in conjunction with and operate together. If the DCP is not supported, this may impact on the functioning and the future interpretation of the proposed LEP clause (proposed as part the Planning Proposal), as the controls have been designed to support this clause.

 

The proposed DCP controls may be impacted by DPIE’s decision to issue a Gateway Determination, including to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal, discussed in a separate report to this meeting, given the intention to exhibit them at the same time as the Planning Proposal.

 

The risk of not proceeding with the Development Controls is that the outcomes of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and Western City District Plan and the actions in Council’s strategic documents relating to urban heat will not be progressed.

Conclusion

This report seeks Council’s approval to proceed to public exhibition of the Draft Urban Heat Development Controls as an amendment to the Penrith Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014.

 

The controls form part of a broader Urban Heat Planning package and aim to support any future LEP amendment. Combined, these proposed amendments seek to achieve better outcomes for future development and ensure that our city is resilient, liveable and that our housing is sustainable and meets the current and future expectations of our community.

 

It is intended that future community and industry engagement will be undertaken during the public exhibition phase and that the outcome of this exhibition and the final version of the controls be reported back to Council prior to adoption.

 

It is recommended that Council endorse the draft DCP amendment for exhibition, with a future report on public submissions received provided to Council at a later date.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Amendment to Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 - Urban Heat Controls be received.

 

2.      The General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes to the draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 prior to exhibition.

3.      Amendments to draft Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 be publicly exhibited, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and associated Regulations and Councils Community Participation Plan.

4.      A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Draft Urban Heat Management Development Controls

16 Pages

Attachments Included

2.

Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Urban Heat Development Controls

3 Pages

Attachments Included

3.

List of Questions for Industry Engagement – Urban Heat Development Controls

3 Pages

Attachments Included

4.

Penrith Urban Heat DCP Engagement Report

11 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

4

Amendment to Penrith City Wide 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for Non-Residential Development   

 

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

Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet the changing needs of our City

Service Activity

Ensure services, facilitates and infrastructure meet the needs of a growing population through the contributions framework

 

Previous Items:           Draft Aerotropolis Development Contributions Plan - Ordinary Meeting - 26 Oct 2020

                                      Draft Mamre Road Development Contributions Plan - Ordinary Meeting - 26 Oct 2020      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the outcomes of the public exhibition of an amendment to Penrith Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for non-residential development (Citywide s7.12 Plan). The draft amendment was prepared to remove the Citywide s7.12 Plan from applying to the Aerotropolis Precinct and Mamre Precinct. The Citywide s7.12 plan does not reflect or collect the local infrastructure required of these precincts. There are other mechanisms to secure local infrastructure including precinct specific contributions plans that are prepared to accurately reflect the actual infrastructure needs of specific precincts.

The Citywide s7.12 Plan was publicly exhibited during November 2020, with submissions received through the exhibition of the Draft Mamre Precinct Development Contribution Plan. No amendments are proposed to the Citywide s7.12 Plan as a result of the submissions. It is recommended that Council adopt the Citywide s7.12 Plan amendment and undertake procedures for it to come into effect.

Background

Council at its Ordinary meeting of 23 March 2020 adopted the Penrith Citywide s7.12 Development Contributions Plan for non-residential development (Citywide s7.12 Plan). The Plan was developed as a result of Council’s Development Contributions Framework Review which identified that non-residential development within our established areas are not subject to a development contributions plan.

The Citywide s7.12 Plan applies to land across the entire Penrith Local Government Area, including land now forming the Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts. Land in these Precinct was rezoned by the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE) in 2020. Due to the change in development potential as a result of the rezoning of these Precincts, the extent and location of infrastructure to be delivered under the Citywide s7.12 Plan is entirely different from the infrastructure required to support the expected development for these precincts.

 

Applying the Citywide s7.12 Plan to the Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts, instead of site specific development Contributions Plans would leave Council with a shortfall in infrastructure funding specific to these precincts.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of 26 October 2021, Council considered reports on draft development contributions plans for the Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts. Through these reports Council endorsed for exhibition, a draft amendment to the Citywide 7.12 plan, to remove the plan from applying to the Mamre and Aerotropolis precincts. Councils’ resolution also provided delegation to the General Manager to finalise and amend the plan, in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulations. The delegation provided to the General Manager has not been exercised given the passing of time and the opportunity to report the matter.

 

Further information is required from DPIE in order to finalise both draft development contributions plans for Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts. Once this information is received the draft contributions plans will be reported to Council as soon as possible.

 

No changes to the application of the plan and charges

 

The draft amendment excludes the Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts from the application of the plan. No other changes are proposed to the Citywide 7.12 Plan and the contribution rate remains at 1%.

 

Supporting Regulations

 

Clause 270 and 271 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (The Regulations) apply to the Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts. These clauses seek to prevent the approval of development (both DAs and SSDs) unless a contributions plan has been approved for the land to which the application relates, or a Planning Agreement has been entered into for the delivery of infrastructure that may be the subject of a contributions plan.

 

These clauses will be applicable if the Citywide s7.12 Plan is removed from these precincts, until a specific contributions plan is approved for the land. The clauses enable the negotiation of planning agreements to realise the required infrastructure to service the precinct. The ability to negotiate a planning agreement in accordance with the draft contributions plans, will deliver substantially more contributions, than the application of the Citywide 7.12 Plan, which only applies a 1% rate and does not proposed to deliver any infrastructure within these Precincts.

 

It is considered that there is minimal risk in relying on the above clauses to seek the adequate provision of infrastructure in these precincts, as applications need to demonstrate the provision of infrastructure to meet the development demands. As Council has exhibited draft development contributions plans for both precincts, it has provided a strong basis for Council and applicants to commence discussions from. There is, however, far greater risk to Council in retaining the Citywide s7.12 plan for these precincts will result in a significant shortfall in contributions to be able to deliver the required local infrastructure for these precincts.

 

There is a risk that SSD applications currently lodged in the precincts can be approved by DPIE, and not deliver all the infrastructure necessary to support the Precincts. This issue has occurred as a result of rezoning happening ahead of the balance of the planning package being prepared. Removing the application of this plan from these precincts will limit any further reduction in available infrastructure contributions.

 

 Public Exhibition and Submissions

 

The draft Plan was publicly exhibited from 2 November 2020 to 30 November 2020. The public exhibition was undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (‘The Act’) requirements. The draft plan was made available for the public to view on Council’s Your Say page, accessed via Council’s website. The exhibition was advertised on Council’s social media pages and on Council web pages. The draft plan was also available on the Planning Portal. The draft plan was also advertised in the Western Weekender newspaper.

 

There were no submissions received specifically to the plan amendment, however a number of submissions from the exhibition of the draft Mamre Precinct Development Contributions Plan, requested that the Citywide 7.12 Plan be retained, or not amended, until the new contributions plan for the Mamre Precinct was adopted. 

 

Financial Implications

 

The amendment of the Citywide s7.12 Plan from applying to the Mamre Road and Aerotropolis Precincts will ensure that the correct funding or in-kind arrangements are made for the provision of suitable infrastructure to support these large greenfield developments.

 

If the Citywide s7.12 Plan is retained on this land, Council will not be able to collect the contributions required to deliver infrastructure identified by DPIE and Council. Alternative funding sources would need to be sought.

Risk Implications

The amendment of the Citywide s7.12 Plan from applying to the Mamre and Aerotropolis Precincts will reduce Councils’ risk of being unable to deliver suitable infrastructure, due to a funding shortfall.

It is appropriate that developers provide an appropriate contribution, that will deliver infrastructure identified by DPIE and Council.

Conclusion

An amendment to the Citywide s7.12 Plan was exhibited in November 2020, proposing to discontinue the application of the plan to land within the Mamre Road and Aerotropolis Precincts. These greenfield development precincts have specialised infrastructure needs, that cannot to be achieved through the Citywide s7.12 Plan. It is recommended that the amended plan is adopted. Council has the ability to seek to enter into planning agreements for future development in these Precincts, to ensure the required local infrastructure is delivered and until such time as site specific development contributions plans are finalised.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Amendment to Penrith City Wide 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for Non-Residential Development be received.

2.     Council adopt the draft amendment to Penrith Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan as outlined and attached to this report.

3.     The amended Plan be brought into effect in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.     Details of Council’s decision be provided to the authors of the submissions received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Draft Amendment to Penrith Citywide Section 7.12 Development Contributions Plan for Non-Residential Development

33 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

5

57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer   

 

Compiled by:               Madison Foster, Planner

Joel Carson, Senior 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

Facilitate appropriate land use outcomes for our city that are consistent with our Local Strategic Planning Statement

 

Previous Items:           57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer - Ordinary Meeting - 22 Mar 2021     

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

 

Proponent:                  Trio Property Group on behalf of By The Park Pty Ltd

Landowner:                 By The Park Pty Ltd

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of a public exhibition and agency consultation undertaken for a Planning Proposal which seeks to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) in relation to the land known as 57 Henry Street, Penrith. Council deferred this matter from the 22 March 2021 Ordinary Council meeting until all information was completed regarding the Planning proposal, including referral to the Heritage Advisory Committee.

 

A memo was provided to Councillors on 22 September 2021, providing an update regarding the Planning Proposal and Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) status for 57 Henry Street, Penrith. The memo included a summary of the heritage advice and advice from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) regarding the need to finalise this planning proposal.

 

The purpose of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the development of the subject site for a mixed-use development in two towers; one at 25 storeys, the other at 41 storeys, comprising approximately 451 residential units, commercial office space and retail space.

 

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 31 May to 30 June 2019. During the exhibition, Council received 42 public submissions. The key issues raised in submissions relate to matters regarding height, bulk and scale, infrastructure, traffic and parking, reduction in commercial capacity, heritage impact, amenity and flood evacuation.

 

After a period of negotiation with the proponents, a letter of offer was received from the proponent to enter into a VPA to deliver certain traffic infrastructure works. The finalisation of the required intersection works to facilitate and support the proposal is a complex issue, involving representatives of Transport for NSW (TfNSW), Council, DPIE and the proponent. To date this still requires resolution.

 

Given the request from DPIE to finalise this planning proposal, the report seeks Council’s resolution to finalise and endorse the Planning Proposal and the VPA offer. This would be subject to a recommendation suggested by DPIE that should Council endorse the planning proposal to be made it could defer the clause from coming into operation until the necessary infrastructure matters to be resolved.

Background

At its Policy Review Committee meeting of 14 May 2018, Council resolved that a Planning Proposal for 57 Henry Street, Penrith, be amended and then submitted to DPIE to request a Gateway determination. A Gateway determination was issued on 26 October 2018, enabling public exhibition and agency consultation for the Planning Proposal to occur, subject to certain Gateway conditions being first addressed.

 

The subject site is known as 57 Henry Street, Penrith consists of 7 lots. Under LEP 2010 the subject land is zoned B3 Commercial Core and is assigned with a maximum 4:1 FSR, and 12m & 32m maximum building heights. One of the 7 subject lots contains Local Heritage Item 177, being the Penrith Infants Department (1884 building), which fronts Henry Street.

 

The subject site is currently not identified as a Key Site under Clause 8.7 Community infrastructure on certain key sites of LEP 2010, which is a provision of LEP 2010 that allows for higher FSR controls in return for the provision of a community infrastructure contribution. No height control applies to the land if this LEP provision is employed.

 

A map of the subject land is provided below:

 

The Planning Proposal seeks the following changes to LEP 2010:

§ Nominate the land as a Key Site (12).

§ Amend Clause 8.7 (Community infrastructure on certain key sites), sub-clause (4), to allow a 6.5:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to be developed on the site if community infrastructure is provided in accordance with the requirements of the Clause and Council policy.

§ Allow for additional permitted uses (residential flat buildings, and shop top housing) to occur on the land, if the development includes a minimum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 for non-residential uses. This provision (for the additional uses) would have a 3 year sunset clause from the date of gazettal – i.e. a DA must be lodged within that 3 year period.

 

The purpose of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the development of the subject site for a mixed-use development in two towers; one at 25 storeys, the other at 41 storeys, comprising approximately 451 residential units, commercial office space and retail space.

 

A copy of the exhibited Planning Proposal has been provided to Councillors as a separate enclosure and is publicly available on Council’s website.

 

A report on this Planning Proposal was not required to be presented to the Local Planning Panel, as the Planning Proposal was endorsed by Council ahead of the new requirements to seek advice from the Panel from 1 June 2018.

 

Prior to the public exhibition, the proponent prepared additional information in response to the requirements of the Gateway determination. This involved the preparation of an overshadowing analysis for the local heritage item and proposed open space on the subject site, preparation of additional traffic analysis, and the updating of the Planning Proposal.

 

As advised to Councillors in the memo dated 22 September 2021, on 3 September 2021, Council received correspondence from the Deputy Secretary of DPIE

requesting that Council consider reporting this Planning Proposal to its October meeting, with a recommendation that it be finalised. DPIE also suggested that, should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal, it is recommended that the LEP could be made with a

deferred commencement date to enable resolution of the roadworks required for the proposal.

 

Public exhibition and agency consultation

 

The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 31 May to 30 June 2019. During the exhibition, Council received 42 public submissions. The main issues raised in these submissions were:

 

§ Traffic generation and car parking provision: Traffic generation, road congestion, suitability of the site location, parking demand, availability of public transport. Concern was raised that the existing traffic conditions in the locality are problematic in respect to the occurrence of traffic congestion, the shortage of parking and that the envisaged development would generate significant amounts of traffic that would exacerbate these issues.

§ Bulk and scale of the development, consistency with surrounding character, visual impacts, overshadowing: Suitability of the envisaged building height, bulk and scale in the context of the locality, impact on views, quality of design, impact on character and heritage in the locality. Concern was raised that the envisaged building height is excessive and not appropriate, as it is out of character with the locality, may cause overshadowing, and impact on view lines and scenic values.

§ Reduction in commercial capacity of the City Centre: The proposal results in a reduction of commercial capacity, which would be inconsistent with the delivery of commercial outcomes in Penrith (particularly in the CBD). This would be inconsistent with Council’s high level objectives.

§ Infrastructure capacity, and public transport capacity: Existing infrastructure in the surrounding area will not be sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. This would include water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications, etc.

§ Heritage impacts: The proposal will result in adverse heritage impacts to the public school building. The heritage context of the item will be lost, with the proposed towers detracting from this character by ‘dwarfing’ it.

§ The appropriateness of the community benefit: The ambiguity around the proposed ‘community use’ makes it difficult to determine whether the proposed development is appropriate or not.

§ Flooding and emergency evacuation: The proposal will contribute to the number of people in the flooding zone, diminishing capacity for emergency evacuations in the case of flood events.

§ Amenity impacts, including acoustic, reflectivity, vibrations, privacy etc.

 

A table containing details of the issues raised in submissions is provided in Attachment 1.

 

In response to concerns raised in submissions, Council officers have negotiated a reduced proposed FSR and negotiated a contribution from the proponent to undertake road improvements in the vicinity of the site.

 

It is noted that currently LEP 2010 Clause 8.7 Community Infrastructure removes the applicable building height control from a development site if the development proposal utilises the provisions of that clause. The building height envisaged by the proponent, therefore, cannot be restricted, however, Council can utilise the FSR control to restrict the size and intensification of development of the site. Therefore, the negotiated reduction in the proposed FSR responds to the issues raised in respect to bulk and scale, building height etc.

 

The negotiation of a contribution from the proponent to undertake road improvements in the vicinity of the site is a result of seeking some rectification in traffic impacts as raised in submissions.

 

In respect to concerns raised over amenity and envisaged development design, these issues can be addressed as part of a future Development Application process. The make-up of the community benefit would also be addressed as part of a future Development Application process. The community benefit offer would be secured by way of a Planning Agreement.

 

In respect to the agency submissions received, these raised no objections to the Planning Proposal, including submissions received from Endeavour Energy, Sydney Water, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, and Sydney Trains. This indicates that that site is appropriately serviced by supporting infrastructure and services.

 

The Transport for NSW (TfNSW) submission endorses the proponent’s supporting traffic modelling and analysis.

 

The NSW State Emergency Service (SES) has not made a submission on the Planning Proposal and as such it is considered that no issues are raised in respect to flooding and evacuation matters relating to the proposal. The subject site is located outside the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The SES has previously raised no objection to the nearby Planning Proposal at 39 Henry Street, Penrith, which is also on land outside the PMF. It is concluded that no outstanding matters relate to flooding and evacuation.

 

In respect to the reduction in commercial capacity of the City Centre, this Planning Proposal seeks to enable additional permitted uses of residential flat buildings and shop top housing on the site, but only for a set period of time following the making of the LEP amendment. The purpose of this ‘sunset clause’ is to enable the proposed development to proceed in response to current market demand, should it be pursued by the proponent within that set time period. Should the time period end and no development has been pursued, the additional land uses would cease to be permitted, and the site would return to its initial land use capabilities that existed before the LEP amendment. This would then allow Council to consider strategic planning around commercial capacity of the City Centre, its opportunities and constraints, and what policy direction to pursue moving forward.

 

Throughout 2019 and 2020 several processes were undertaken to address the matters raised in submissions, involving the proponent’s preparation of additional traffic and flooding analysis, the receipt of outstanding agency submissions, the determination of an appropriate FSR control to apply to the site, and the negotiation of terms for a VPA for the proponent to provide a traffic contribution.

 

Floor Space Ratio

In response to the submissions received, Council officers have negotiated a reduction to the FSR sought by the Planning Proposal. The 7 subject lots were proposed to contain a maximum 6.5:1 FSR control. However, the proponent has now agreed to apply the 6.5:1 FSR across 6 of the lot and apply a 0.5:1 FSR to the lot containing the heritage item. This approach would provide for the protection of the heritage item/curtilage, respond to community concerns, and enable a comparable total Gross Floor Area GFA) outcome across the site in comparison to allowing a 5.5:1 FSR across all 7 lots, which is the precedent set on the adjacent Key Site 8.

 

Please note that the base FSR of 4:1 remains the same and the additional FSR is only triggered if the application utilises Clause 8.7 of LEP 2010 in relation to the delivery of Community Infrastructure.

Sunset clause

As a result of the negotiation between Council officers and the proponent, Council officers have considered a request by the proponent and agreed to change the sunset clause applying to the proposal from 3 years to 5 years. The Planning Proposal sought that a 3 year sunset clause be applied to the allowance for additional permitted uses (residential flat buildings, and shop top housing) on the land, and the requirement for the development to include a minimum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 for non-residential uses to allow the market to stabilise post-COVID.

Noting that this sunset clause is in addition to the deferred commencement of the clause until such time the transport works are resolved.

DCP amendment

 

Council officers have formed the view that a DCP amendment relating to this specific site is not warranted, as the current planning controls provided in the Chapter E11, Part A (Penrith City Centre) of DCP 2014 provide sufficient guidance to the future development of the site. Council officers have therefore not prepared a proposed draft DCP amendment to support the Planning Proposal.

 

Deferred Matters – Heritage and Voluntary Planning Agreement

 

Council resolved to defer this matter from the 22 March 2021 Ordinary Council meeting until all information was completed regarding the planning proposal, including referral to the Heritage Advisory Committee. Councillors were provided with an update on the progress of this matter on 22 September 2021.

 

This matter was reported to the Heritage Advisory Committee and the outcomes are presented below. Council officers have worked closely with the proponent and key stakeholders to address the key concerns related to the VPA. These matters are complex and ongoing and are addressed below.

 

Heritage Advisor and Heritage Committee

 

A report on this matter was presented to the Heritage Committee on 13 April 2021. Council Officers considered the following matters raised by the Heritage Committee:

 

1.       Building heights of adjacent sites around Penrith.

 

2.       Height sets a precedence in the city centre and is too high.

 

3.       Impact of future development on railway and stability of close by bridge.

 

4.       Close proximity of proposed road to the heritage item.

 

The matters raised are addressed by:

 

·    A shadow analysis was prepared in 2019 by Dickson Rothschild in response to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s request, to demonstrate shadowing of the heritage item and open space. The current planning proposal provides the greatest number of hours of sunlight to the heritage item and the surrounding open space in the morning hours. It achieves 3 hours of solar access without having to rely on restrictions to where towers can be placed on neighbouring Key Site 8. An alternative planning proposal concept achieves sunlight to the heritage item from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. but the overall number of hours of solar access is reduced in comparison to the current planning proposal scheme from 3 hours to 2 hours.

·    The identification of the subject land as a Key Site is considered appropriate as it aligns with the height spine along the railway line.

·    Any future development would consider possible impacts on surrounding railway and road infrastructure through a separate development application. The nearby bridge is not heritage listed.

·    The appropriate design of road improvements at the site, to address potential heritage impacts. These works are to be captured by way of a VPA.

 

Council’s Heritage Advisor also reviewed the Planning Proposal and Letter of Offer on 15 April 2021. The below concerns were raised:

 

·    Traffic Lane at Corner Henry Street and Evan Street - The proposed change in the traffic lane at the corner of Henry Street and Evan Street has the new lane approx. 1 m away from the front south-east wall of the heritage item. Concerns were raised this is too close to the heritage item and Heritage Advisor requested a minimum of 1.8 meters distance.

·    Conservation Management Plan (CMP) - The site requires a detailed CMP (as per Heritage Office guidelines). This CMP needs to be prepared in two stages as per Burra Charter guidelines. The initial stage is undertaking heritage research and site investigation to establish the heritage significance of the building and site. This would also consider appropriate curtilages and vistas to and from the site. This first stage document is to be submitted to Council for review, including obtaining Heritage Committee input/ Community input and then only stage 2 of CMP to proceed. When stage 2 CMP is complete then a full A and B version of CMP is to be submitted to Council for review and approval.

 

Council officer responses to the matters raised by the heritage advisor are further discussed under the ‘Voluntary Planning Agreement’ section of this report.

 

Voluntary Planning Agreement

 

The proponent submitted an offer to enter into a VPA which seeks to deliver traffic improvements to support the Planning Proposal. The proposed improvements are informed by the proponent’s updated traffic analysis and are intended to address the impacts as a result of the development envisaged on the site under the proposed LEP amendments. A copy of the VPA offer is provided in Attachment 2. A copy of the latest proposed road design concepts is provided in Attachment 3.

 

Following Council’s consideration and deferral of this matter, representatives of Transport for NSW (TfNSW), Council, DPIE and the proponent have worked closely to prepare a suitable design for the road improvements that address key concerns raised in relation to heritage impact and traffic efficiency. This is a complex matter that has seen the preparation of several iterations of draft plans and significant consultation between stakeholders.

 

Over recent months the required roadworks which Council officers have been seeking to be delivered by the proponent include a left slip lane on Henry Street eastbound across the frontage of the site into Evan Street, and for the two eastbound through lanes on Henry Street across the site frontage to be shifted north because those two eastbound lanes need to align with the new location of two eastbound lanes. These lanes will run across the frontage to the 39 Henry Street site, as was recently agreed to by Council and the proponent for 39 Henry Street in a VPA.

 

The heritage item located on the 57 Henry Street site constrains design options for delivery of the road improvements. The proponent has submitted several iterations of designs to demonstrate how the road works can be accommodated appropriately, given heritage building setback considerations and the requirements around intersection design requirements at Henry and Evan Streets.

 

In a meeting between TfNSW and Council officers on 19 Aug 2021 to consider design options prepared by the developer, TfNSW acknowledged that road widening was necessary to be delivered on the site to support the Planning Proposal, and that at a minimum left turn slip lane was required. TfNSW are supportive of a design option that does not include a chevron to factor for a future eastbound right turn lane, as it appears there is not sufficient space within the road reserve to deliver this without requiring land from properties to the south of the intersection, which is unfeasible. TfNSW noted that the concepts did not meet several road standards, and there was concern over potential service relocations not being accounted for. TfNSW indicated that a full design process would need to be undertaken for TfNSW to be satisfied with the outcome. TfNSW advised that ultimately if the proponent can address these issues there would be no objection from TfNSW.

 

TfNSW will need to be involved as part of the detailed design process necessary to resolve this matter. A heritage assessment (including a CMP) will also need to be undertaken and supported by stakeholders. A detailed VPA covering all aspects will need to be prepared and agreed to by Council.

 

The latest revised designs were received from the proponent on 7 Sep 2021 and have undergone an initial review by Council and TfNSW officers. An amended heritage impact analysis was also submitted for review. Initial feedback on this latest information is provided below:

 

Traffic and Transport Review

 

Initial TfNSW feedback has raised concerns that the two design options which propose eastbound right turn lanes on Henry Street would result in poor lane discipline and require further investigation through lane alignment design and the application of a uniform lane width. TfNSW is of the view that the right turn lane would need to be delivered by another developer, given this will require land on the south side of the intersection. 

 

In this regard, it is considered that TfNSW’s preference is that the design option proposing no right turn lane on Henry Street is suitable, pending the preparation of detailed designs and a VPA reflecting these works. It is noted that TfNSW has only provided initial feedback, which is subject to change upon further consideration of this matter and preparation of detailed designs which respond to the issues and concerns identified.

 

Initial advice provided by Council’s traffic engineers on the new plans indicates that the options which include the right turn lane rely on properties to the south and are therefore not feasible, noting that TfNSW had also not supported this at previous meetings. The option without the right turn is preferred and requires further design to address issues.

 

Initial advice provided by Council’s development engineers indicates that the option without the right turn needs to be further developed to address development engineering concerns. The proposed verge widths are too narrow and do not provide sufficient room for services, pedestrian movements and other infrastructure. The options do not satisfactorily address the potential for relocation of services, such as the potential impact of relocated power poles on private property and the heritage item. Concern is also raised in respect to the use of the forecourt area of the heritage building as a public thoroughfare, which would need to be dedicated to Council as a public road. Any retaining walls to be built on boundaries will require easements for access.

 

Heritage Advisor Review

 

The following advice was provided by Council’s heritage advisor in relation to the revised traffic designs and heritage impact statement:

 

·    The proposed road designs provide a 1m setback from the heritage building to the realigned property boundary. This is not appropriate and a minimum 1.8m setback must be provided.

·    The proposed footpath width should be sufficiently wide to accommodate Council’s requirements. Consideration should be made to realigning or curving the slip lane to allow for greater width in the footpath, however, this would need to meet Council traffic design and safety standards.

·    The proposed footpath width should be sufficiently wide to accommodate Council’s requirements. Consideration should be made to realigning or curving the slip lane to allow for greater width in the footpath.

·    The new roadway/slip lane and footpath appear to require the removal of mature, deep rooted trees on the site. A landscape report must be prepared to support this proposal and address these impacts.

·    The submitted Heritage Impact Statement is considered unsuitable, as it does not adequately address how impacts on the heritage item will be mitigated, such as the removal of the front curtilage of the heritage item.

 

·    It was recommended that a CMP is prepared for this site as part of the Planning Proposal process. The document would then inform any future Development Application to be prepared for the site.

 

In respect to the above, a CMP and detailed design is required to be prepared and agreed to prior to the finalisation of the Planning Proposal process.

 

Finalising the Planning Proposal

 

The resolution of all matters in respect to the VPA will require further time to complete, in order to prepare detailed designs and an impact analysis, and the preparation of a draft VPA. Council, TfNSW and DPIE will need to be heavily involved in the consideration and endorsement of amended detailed designs, which may require some months to be agreed. A VPA would then be drafted and agreed, reported to Council, notified and executed, at which point the LEP amendment sought by the Planning Proposal would be supported by appropriate infrastructure.

 

In correspondence to Council dated 3 Sep 2021 and presented to Council in a memo dated 22 September 2021, DPIE acknowledged the requirement for additional time to resolve matters. The letter requested that Council consider reporting the Planning Proposal to its October meeting, with a recommendation that it be finalised. DPIE also suggested that, should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal, it is recommended that the LEP could be made with a deferred commencement date to enable resolution of the roadworks required for the proposal. 

 

To ensure that there is adequate infrastructure to support the proposed development, the planning proposal could include the following mechanisms:

 

·    A deferred commencement of 12 months or alternative agreed timeframe to allow for the necessary infrastructure to be designed, approved and secured before the new controls come into effect; and

·    A concurrence clause, where the Planning Secretary must be satisfied that there is adequate infrastructure to support the development before any development consent is issued under the new controls.

 

For a deferred commencement clause to be considered acceptable, it is recommended that a 12 month period is sought to resolve, report and finalise the VPA. If the VPA cannot be resolved within this timeframe, then DPIE will be notified, and the clause will be removed from the LEP.

 

Next steps

 

Should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal and to defer the commencement of an LEP clause to allow for necessary infrastructure matters to be resolved, the following processes are anticipated to occur: 

 

·    Officers of Council (heritage, engineering, planning), TfNSW and DPIE are to consider a revised proposed design for the road improvements submitted by the proponent. This process will include consideration by Council’s Heritage Committee and will involve the proponent to address issues identified in the review process if required.

·    Should the parties agree to a concept design, a detailed design would then be prepared and agreed to by the parties.

·    Upon agreement to the detailed design, a draft VPA will be prepared to reflect the VPA Letter of Offer and the detailed design agreed to by Council, TfNSW, DPIE and the proponent.

·    The draft VPA will be reported to Council to seek endorsement to publicly notify and then execute the draft document.

·    Should Council resolve to endorse the draft VPA, the document will be publicly notified for 28 days, and then be executed. Should any submissions be received during the notification in objection to the draft, the matter will be reported to Council prior to execution, seeking Council’s endorsement to execute.

·    Upon execution of the VPA by the parties and completed in the required timeframe, then DPIE is notified and the LEP clause takes effect.

 

It is noted that the Planning Proposal is unlikely to proceed should the above processes not be completed.

 

Alternatively, should Council resolve not to endorse the Planning Proposal, none of the above processes will occur, and instead Council will notify DPIE with a request that the Planning Proposal not proceed.

 

Financial implications

 

The proposed VPA offer encompasses the delivery of road improvements by the proponent as works in kind to support a future development application.

 

Council officers consider the VPA offer acceptable and the VPA offer has been considered by Council’s Local Infrastructure Contributions Working Group. In-principle support has been provided for the VPA offer by Council officers, subject to resolution of remaining outstanding matters.

 

Risk implications

 

The deferred commencement of the LEP clause subject to the transport works being resolved limits the risk to Council and ensures the appropriate infrastructure requirements are in place and agreed.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has publicly exhibited a Planning Proposal which seeks to amend LEP 2010 in relation to the land known as 57 Henry Street, Penrith. The Planning Proposal seeks to nominate the land as a Key Site, apply a maximum FSR control under the provisions of Clause 8.7 of LEP 2010 (Community infrastructure on certain key sites), and enable additional permitted uses, to facilitate the development of the subject site for a mixed-use development

 

During the public exhibition and agency consultation Council received several public and agency submissions. The issues raised in submissions have been addressed through a negotiated reduction to the proposed FSR control, and the receipt of a VPA offer from the proponent to provide a traffic contribution to support the Planning Proposal.

 

It is recommended that Council endorses the Planning Proposal and VPA offer, with a deferred commencement, subject to conditions as outlined in the recommendation.  

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 57 Henry Street, Penrith Planning Proposal and VPA offer be received.

2.     Council support the Planning Proposal and VPA offer presented in this report, and requests the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to gazette the LEP amendment sought by the Planning Proposal after a Planning Agreement reflecting the VPA offer has been executed.

3.     The Planning Proposal is submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, requesting the LEP clause includes:

a.   A deferred commencement of 12 months or alternative agreed timeframe to allow for the necessary infrastructure to be designed, approved and secured before the new controls come into effect; and

b.   A concurrence clause, where the Planning Secretary must be satisfied that there is adequate infrastructure to support the development before any development consent is issued under the new controls.

4.     The draft VPA be reported back to Council for its consideration.

5.     A VPA be prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and be notified and executed.

6.     The General Manager be granted delegation to update and finalise the Planning Proposal prior to Council’s submission of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for making of the amendment to the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The update to the Planning Proposal is to reflect the changes recommended in this report, include recommendation 3 and address any minor or typographical errors, and contemporise the document.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Issues raised in submissions

4 Pages

Attachments Included

2.

VPA Offer

7 Pages

Attachments Included

3.

Draft proposed concept plans for 57 Henry Street traffic works

3 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

6

Planning Proposal - Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect   

 

Compiled by:               Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Planner

Nicole Dukinfield, Principal 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

Facilitate appropriate land use outcomes for our city that are consistent with our Local Strategic Planning Statement

 

Previous Items:           Penrith Urban Heat Planning Controls Package - Councillor Briefing - 20 Sep 2021   

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 seek Council’s endorsement of a Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) to introduce a new local provision to ensure the mitigation of the urban heat island effect is a major consideration for development. Councillors were briefed on 20 September 2021 on the proposal to move this work ahead of the comprehensive LEP Review.

 

The Planning Proposal is part of a planning controls package that is being prepared to mitigate the impacts of urban heat.  The package also includes introducing a new Urban Heat chapter into the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014), which is the subject of a separate report to this meeting.

 

This report recommends that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces requesting a Gateway Determination, including to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal.

 

Should the Planning Proposal be endorsed by Council and a Gateway Determination issued, it is intended to exhibit the Planning Proposal and the development controls in the Urban Heat DCP chapter at the same time for community and stakeholder feedback.

Background

Our City is susceptible to urban heat impacts due to the region’s existing climate and topography, geographic position, large and growing residential population and rapid urban development.  As our City grows and becomes more urbanised, reducing and removing heat from the urban environment is critical to achieving an environment that has high amenity, provides opportunities for active, healthy and safe activities and is comfortable throughout summer.

 

Council’s Cooling the City Strategy identifies strategies to cool our City and region in a way that improves liveability and prioritises protection from heat for our community.  Among those strategies is the need for planning controls for new development to mitigate urban heat.

 

Council’s Resilient Penrith Action Plan 2021-2030 aims to build awareness and preparedness and enhance the capacity of Council and the community to adapt and be more resilient to risks, shocks and stresses, including urban heat.  The Action Plan also identifies a specific action to incorporate urban heat and cooling the city principles in the Penrith LEP. 

 

In 2019-20, Council partnered with Western Sydney University to record localised summer air temperatures to gain a better understanding of local heat and hot spots.  The Benchmarking Summer Heat Across Penrith project confirmed that some areas within the City are significantly cooler than others.  These predominately included areas with water, such as the river, creeks, irrigated sporting fields and parks, and areas with ground and tree cover.  The project also found that during the summer months, areas with large expanses of open space and green infrastructure had lower mean night time temperatures and were able to cool down quicker than areas with a higher cover of buildings and roads.

 

The urban heat island effect is essentially where urban areas become significantly warmer than surrounding areas because there is less green cover and more hard surfaces which absorb, store and radiate heat, and where rainwater runs off these surfaces, leaving little moisture on or in the ground and less opportunity for cooling to occur.

 

We know that specific targeted building and design responses, like using light-coloured surfaces to promote reflectivity, increasing ventilation, protecting and increasing vegetation for shade, planning for water in the landscape, and using water sensitive urban design to harvest and reuse water for cooling, can significantly help to mitigate the urban heat island effect.

 

To help achieve better building and design responses to urban heat, Council officers have prepared a Planning Proposal, which seeks to introduce a new local provision in the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010) to ensure that the mitigation of the urban heat island effect is a major consideration for development.  The Planning Proposal is part of an urban heat planning controls package that also includes introducing a new Urban Heat chapter into the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014), which is the subject of a separate report to this meeting.

 

Councillors were briefed on the intention to include urban heat considerations in LEP 2010 as part of the broader Phase 2 LEP review briefing provided in April 2021.  Councillors were further briefed in September 2021 on the urban heat planning controls package and the intention to bring forward a separate Planning Proposal to specifically address urban heat ahead of the Phase 2 review to provide a timely planning response.

The Planning Proposal

The preparation of a Planning Proposal is the first step in the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s (DPIE) Gateway Process for making and amending local environmental plans.

 

This Planning Proposal proposes to introduce a new provision in LEP 2010 to ensure that the mitigation of the urban heat island effect is a major consideration for development.  A copy of the Planning Proposal has been provided as Attachment 1 of this report.

 

The proposed objectives of the new provision are:

·    To ensure development incorporates effective planning and design measures to reduce the urban heat island effect in Penrith;

·    To ensure buildings and outdoor spaces are thermally comfortable, particularly during summer, for people living and working in Penrith; and

·    To promote green infrastructure and water in the landscape for their cooling benefits.

 

The provision is intended to apply to development on land in the following zones:

·    All residential zones;

·    All business zones;

·    All industrial zones;

·    All special purpose zones;

·    All recreation zones;

·    RU5 Village zone; and

·    E4 Environmental Living zone.

 

The provision is not intended to apply to the rural zones (except for RU5 Village), the environmental zones (except for E4 Environmental Living) or the waterways zones as these zones are not considered to contribute significantly to the urban heat island effect.

 

It is proposed that the new provision will require a consent authority to be satisfied that planning and design measures will be taken as part of a development to reduce the urban heat island effect.  This is a similar approach to the existing clause 7.5 Protection of Scenic Character and Landscape Values in the LEP. 

The intention of the new provision is to include broad outcomes-based measures, which will be supported by specific controls in the DCP.  This is a similar approach to the existing clause 7.4 Sustainable Development and clause 8.4 Design Excellence of the LEP.

The measures proposed to be included are:

·    Measures to retain and extend green infrastructure;

·    Measures to retain water in the landscape;

·    Passive design measures;

·    Use of building, paving and other materials to minimise heat impacts; and

·    Measures to reduce reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling systems to conserve energy and minimise heat sources.

 

The new LEP provision and supporting DCP controls are intended to complement existing energy efficiency and thermal performance outcomes for buildings under the NSW Government’s Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) provisions.  State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 will continue to prevail over LEP 2010.  The new provision seeks to ensure a broader consideration of matters relating to the urban heat island effect beyond a building’s sustainability.

 

The new LEP provision will not apply to development undertaken as complying development, however, certain complying development, such as new homes and renovations of $50,000 or more, will continue to require a BASIX certificate.

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’ and the Western City District Plan.  The Planning Proposal responds to Strategy 38.1 and Action 89, respectively, which seek to “Mitigate the urban heat island effect and reduce vulnerability to extreme heat”.

 

The Planning Proposal is also consistent with the Penrith Local Strategic Planning Statement, adopted by Council on 23 March 2020.  The Planning Proposal responds to Planning Priority 21: Cool our City and Action 21.3 which seeks to “Introduce objectives, planning and development controls to deliver a cooler city”.

 

Local Planning Panel Advice

In accordance with the requirements of Section 2.19 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act), the Planning Proposal was presented to Council’s Local Planning Panel on 22 September 2021 to obtain advice.  Advice provided by the Panel is to be taken into consideration in Council’s assessment and preparation of the Planning Proposal.

 

The Local Planning Panel advised the following:

 

1.   The Panel supports and commends the initiative, including providing suitable provisions in the Penrith LEP and DCP;

2.   The Planning Proposal is justified in terms of (its) strategic consistency …

3.   The Planning Proposal is supported and should be progressed through the next steps in the Gateway process for the following reasons …

It elevates a key priority of Council to the LEP as a planning consideration;

It takes a broad outcomes-based approach, supported by specific controls in the DCP, which can be more easily adapted in response to new research and thinking on urban heat and the built environment;

It enables the urban heat island effect to be considered ahead of further work necessary to establish clear and robust quantitative controls on urban heat for Penrith.

4.   The Panel makes the following comments:

The Panel supports the approach of providing more detail in the LEP provisions on how the objectives may be achieved.

The Panel was presented with two options on the level of detail that could be included in the new provision in relation to the proposed planning and design measures.  The Panel supported the following option, which contains additional details on key elements that may be considered when preparing and assessing development applications:

§ Measures to retain and extend green infrastructure, including vegetation that contributes to the local tree canopy;

§ Measures to retain water in the landscape, including permeable surfaces, rainwater harvesting, water reuse and water features;

§ Passive design measures, including siting, orientation, natural ventilation and external shading;

§ Use of building, paving and other materials to minimise heat impacts, including green or cool roofs and walls, light-coloured materials and permeable paving; and

§ Measures to reduce reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling systems to conserve energy and minimise heat sources.

The Planning Proposal has been amended to indicate the intention to include these more detailed measures in the new provision.

 

The term “green infrastructure”, if used, should be defined and also be reconsidered as it is potentially confusing if it is intended to apply to vegetation.

While the term “green infrastructure” includes all types of vegetation including native and exotic species, remnant and planted vegetation, trees, shrubs, grasses and groundcovers, it also includes elements such as green walls and roofs, rain gardens, wetlands and swales, turfed areas, as well as productive, ornamental and native gardens.  It therefore includes both natural systems and semi-natural systems. 

 

The Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) for the proposed Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) defines green infrastructure as “the network of green spaces, natural systems and semi-natural systems that support sustainable communities and includes waterways, bushland, tree canopy, green ground cover, parks and open spaces that are strategically planned, designed and managed to support a good quality of life in the urban environment”.  The EIE further describes green infrastructure as “networks of green spaces … that support human and ecological health and improve the connection of bushland and waterways to protect habitat and biodiversity … (with trees an essential part having) manifold human benefits including improving air quality, absorbing carbon and rainfall, cooling local environments, supplying shade and shelter, and providing attractive, seasonal variety that creates neighbourhoods where people want to live”.

 

In response to the Panel’s comment, the Planning Proposal has been amended to indicate the intention to include a definition for “green infrastructure” in the new provision consistent with the definition in the EIE for the proposed Design and Place SEPP and/or the definition adopted in the final SEPP, depending on its timing.

 

Consideration should be given to including an appropriate aim in Clause 1.2 of the LEP.

Clause 1.2 contains the aims of the LEP and includes an aim “to ensure that development incorporates the principles of sustainable development through the delivery of balanced social, economic and environmental outcomes, and that development is designed in a way that assists in reducing and adapting to the likely impacts of climate change”.  This aim is considered adequate as it not only captures urban heat, and more generally heatwaves and extreme heat, it also captures other potential climate change impacts such as the increased risks of drought, bushfire, storms and floods.

 

No amendments have been made to the Planning Proposal in response to this comment.

 

Consideration should be given to the application of the LEP clause to the E3 Environmental Management zone (as intensive urban development in this zone may occur).

LEP 2010 permits a limited range of development in the E3 Environmental Management zone such as animal boarding and training establishments, cellar door premises, cemeteries, community facilities, dual occupancies, dwelling houses, eco-tourist facilities, extensive agriculture, farm buildings, funeral homes, information and education facilities, rural supplies, some forms of tourist and visitor accommodation and veterinary hospitals.  While some of these uses are also permitted in the City’s urban areas, these uses are more consistent with those in the rural zones.

 

Given the aim of the new provision is to mitigate the urban heat island effect and to exclude development in most rural and environmental zones because these zones are not considered to contribute significantly to the urban heat island effect, it is not proposed to include the E3 zone.

 

No amendments have been made to the Planning Proposal in response to this comment.

 

The LEP clause should ensure planning and design measures are considered during the assessment of a development application so that the consent authority is satisfied as to the outcome before approval.  The term “will be taken” seems weak and a DA should demonstrate such measures have been taken.

The intention of the new provision is to ensure a development application demonstrates that planning and design measures have been incorporated into the proposed development (for example, in terms of its siting, building layout and passive design) and will be incorporated once developed (for example, in terms of landscaping and planting street trees or installing water features).  The intention of the provision is to also ensure that planning and design measures are properly considered in the preparation and assessment of the development application so the consent authority is satisfied as to the outcome before granting consent.

 

The Panel’s comment is valid.  The Planning Proposal has been amended to indicate the above intentions, noting that the provision will be subject to legal drafting.

 

In the DCP, clear quantitative measures will assist applicants and the consent authority. 

This comment is discussed in the separate report to this meeting on the Urban Heat DCP controls.

 

Council is encouraged to continue undertaking appropriate education measures to support this worthwhile initiative.

The Panel’s comment is noted.

 

A copy of the Local Planning Panel’s advice is included in Attachment 2 of this report.

Industry Engagement

To receive feedback on industry’s response, Council commissioned a consultant to undertake a survey of local developers who have lodged applications with Council to gain feedback. The consultant contacted 16 developers. Out of the total of 16 developers contacted, 8 opted to participate in the survey.

 

Overall, the feedback received from the developers was positive. Developers were largely happy with Council taking the initiative to introduce controls to address urban heat in Penrith. Developers also noted that there is increased demand from consumers for development to be more sustainable and have taken the initiative to start including elements to address urban heat in their products and development designs.

 

Next Steps

Should Council endorse the recommendations of this report, the following steps are:

 

1.   The Planning Proposal will be updated with any additional comments raised by Council at this meeting and forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces with a request to issue a Gateway Determination.  The submission will include a request to issue Council with Delegation for plan making authority.

2.   Council officers will liaise with the DPIE to negotiate any changes sought to the Planning Proposal by DPIE in the lead up to the Gateway Determination.

3.   DPIE will issue a Gateway Determination, authorising the LEP plan making process to proceed.  The Gateway Determination will, among other things, provide details of the public authorities that Council must consult and the requirements for undertaking the public exhibition.

4.   Council officers will make any necessary changes to the Planning Proposal prior to public exhibition in response to the conditions of the Gateway Determination and negotiations with stakeholders.

5.   Council officers will publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination, the Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

It is intended to exhibit the Planning Proposal and the proposed development controls in the Urban Heat chapter of the DCP at the same time for community and stakeholder feedback.

6.   Submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal will be reviewed and recommendations prepared for Council’s consideration.

7.   A further report will be presented to Council detailing the results of the exhibition and recommendations, including whether to endorse the Planning Proposal and make the LEP amendment.

Financial Implications

There are no significant financial implications for Council associated with this report.  While the proposed local provision will apply to Council developments, it will complement Council’s existing ‘cooling the city’ commitments, which include consideration of urban heat in the design of new community buildings and spaces, and tree planting initiatives.

Risk Implications

The DPIE’s decision to issue a Gateway Determination, including to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal, will affect the exhibition of the proposed DCP controls, discussed in a separate report to this meeting, given the intention to exhibit them at the same time as the Planning Proposal.

 

The risk of not proceeding with the Planning Proposal (and supporting DCP controls) is that the outcomes of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and Western City District Plan and the actions in Council’s strategic documents relating to urban heat will not be progressed.

Conclusion

To help achieve better building and design responses to urban heat, Council officers have prepared a Planning Proposal to amend the Penrith LEP 2010 to introduce a new local provision to ensure the mitigation of the urban heat island effect is a major consideration for development.  The Planning Proposal is part of an urban heat planning controls package, which also includes introducing a new Urban Heat chapter into the Penrith DCP 2014.

 

The Planning Proposal and DCP controls are in response to outcomes in the Cooling the City Strategy, Resilient Penrith Action Plan and Penrith Local Strategic Planning Statement. 

 

The Local Planning Panel supports the Planning Proposal progressing through the next steps of the Gateway Process and has provided advice, which is discussed in this report, resulting in some amendments to the Planning Proposal.

 

Should Council endorse the recommendations of this report, the Planning Proposal will be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces requesting a Gateway Determination, including to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Planning Proposal - Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect be received.

2.     Council endorse the Planning Proposal presented in this report which has been provided as Attachment 1 of this report and is publicly available on Council’s website.

3.     The General Manager be granted delegation to update and finalise the Planning Proposal referred to in resolution 2 prior to Council’s submission of the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.

4.     Council officers forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces with a request to issue a Gateway Determination.  The submission will include a request to issue Council with Delegation for plan making authority.

5.     The General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary changes to the Planning Proposal in the lead up to the Gateway Determination and prior to the public exhibition in response to the conditions of the Gateway Determination and negotiations with stakeholders.

6.     Council publicly exhibits the Planning Proposal for a period specified in the Gateway Determination and in accordance with the community consultation requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

7.     A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Planning Proposal - Urban Heat Island

35 Pages

Attachments Included

2.

Local Planning Panel Advice - Urban Heat Island Planning Proposal

2 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

7

Luddenham Road Planning Proposal   

 

Compiled by:               Glen Weekley, Executive 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

Facilitate appropriate land use outcomes for our city that are consistent with our Local Strategic Planning Statement

 

Previous Items:           Luddenham Road Planning Proposa l- Councillor Briefing - 06 Sep 2021    

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

 

Proponent: HB + B Property Pty Ltd (Board of  Directors- Kurt Beckhaus. David Beslich, Ben Beslich, Peter Hansen and Richard Hansen)

Major Landowner: Atilol Holdings (Sole Director- Lolita Younis)

Other landowners: 

·    Joseph & Josephine R Dimech

·    Edward F Morphett and Mary M Blackwell

·    Sahab & Stephen Nahlous

·    Michael & Sandra Cassa

·    Beryl L Middelbrook & Neville E Middlebrook

·    Emelie Nahlous

·    Croatia Culture Association Bosna St Marys

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to introduce a Planning Proposal that seeks to amend planning controls within Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 for 221 – 325, Luddenham Road, Orchard Hills (the site). The Planning Proposal was lodged by the proponent HB+B Property Pty Ltd.  

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 by rezoning the site from RU2 Rural Landscape under the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 to IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial and amend the Minimum Lot Size map to reduce the minimum lot size from 40 hectares to 1000m2.

A memo was sent on 7 October 2020 informing Councillors of the submission of the original planning proposal, a further memo was sent to Councillors on 5 February 2021 and Councillors were briefed on 6 September 2021 on the amended planning proposal. A memo was sent to Councillors on 17 September responding to the questions Councillors raised at the briefing.

The Local Planning Panel has provided advice on the Planning Proposal. The Panel generally supported the Planning Proposal in terms of site-specific merit and strategic consistency. The Panel have provided advice regarding relationship of the site to other industrial land, the desire for short term supply to be met, the need for smaller lot sizes, the need to manage potential land use conflicts, and servicing and contributions.

HB+B has been in discussions with all adjoining landowners regarding the purchase of their properties. During these discussions they have informed the landowners of the planning proposal and the proposal to rezone their properties. They will also be conducting on site meetings with these landowners commencing 11th October 2021.

Council officers have completed an assessment of the proposal and the justification and rationale for the proposed changes are supported. It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal (provided as Attachment 1) to commence the Gateway process. A Gateway Determination will allow the public exhibition and community and agency consultation to occur once any Gateway conditions are met.

Background

HB+B Property Pty Ltd lodged a Planning Proposal on 26 August 2020 that sought to rezone 221-227 & 289-317 Luddenham Road (see Attachment 2), Orchard Hill from RU2 Rural Landscape to IN1 General Industrial and apply a minimise lot size of 2500m2, to facilitate the development of the Alspec Industrial Business Park which is proposed to incorporate the following:

 

·    twenty-four (24) high-quality warehouse buildings across fourteen (14) lots, each accompanied with an ancillary office, associated parking and business identification signage for legibility and easy way-finding,

·    landscaped internal estate roads including two round-abouts, a cul-de-sac and entry roads for improved amenity, and

·    electrical easement, an environmental zone and basins.

 

As the site did not have complete frontage to Luddenham Road, and the initial proposal would surround existing rural residences and the Croation Club, the proponent was requested to undertake a broader precinct approach to the rezoning.

 

As the proponent was proposing to fund enabling infrastructure, confirmation from Sydney Water was also requested to ensure proposed water and wastewater infrastructure could access the Sydney Water network and not impact on the broader staging and delivery of the servicing for the Aerotropolis.

 

The proponent was also requested to revise the Planning Proposal to respond to the need for smaller industrial lots. The planning proposal minimum lot size of 2500m2 has been reduced to 1000m2 and a minimum lot density control proposed.

 

To respond to the Local Planning Panels concerns regarding the timing of development, the planning proposal now includes a sunset clause that will require development to commence within a set timeframe.

 

Sydney Water have confirmed that development will be able to access water and wastewater services and also confirmed that the proposal will not take capacity reserved for other development within the area, particularly the Aerotropolis and the Mamre Precinct in the Western Sydney Employment Area.

 

 

The Site

The subject site is located at 221 – 325, Luddenham Road, Orchard Hills. The site has a total area of 146.6ha and consists of 9 lots of rural residences and associated farms buildings, and the Bosna Croatian Club’s Luddenham Oval. A location plan is provided as Attachment 2

 

The site is located within the Orchard Hills Investigation Area approximately 4km south of the Mamre Road interchange with the M4 Motorway. The site is located directly north of the future Western Sydney freight line, east of the Sydney Metro West Rail line and proposed M9 Motorway (Outer Sydney Orbital Corridor), south of the Sydney Metro West Stabling Yard, approximately halfway between the new metro stations at Orchard Hills and Sydney Science Park and to the west of the Erskine Park and Mamre West industrial precincts.  

 

The surrounding locality is characterised by rural landscape with industrial land uses approximately 1.4km east and low-density residential uses 1.7km north east of the site. The ROC Waste Management Facility is located directly to the northeast of the site. The locality can be described as an area undergoing substantial transition from a rural landscape to an urbanised precinct. 

The Planning Proposal

The intended outcome of this Planning Proposal is to amend PLEP 2010 as follows:  

·      rezone the site from RU2 Rural Landscape to IN1 General Industrial (approx. 81ha) and IN2 Light Industrial (approx.18ha),  

·      amend the Minimum Lot Size Map to reduce the minimum lot size from 40 hectares to 1000m2, 

·      Introduce a Minimum Lot Density Control of:

·      50 lots for land zoned IN1, and

·      60 lots for land zoned IN2. 

·      Include a sunset clause sunset clause that will require development to commence within a set timeframe

·      maintain the current RU2 Rural Landscape that is applied to part of the western part of the site, and 

·      maintain the E2 Environmental Conservation zone that is applied to part of the north-western part of the site. 

 

The  current and proposed zones are provided in Attachment 3

 

The proposed amendment will facilitate redevelopment of the land to enable the development of industrial warehouses, initially across three stages, which will incorporate the following:  

·      twenty-four (24) high-quality warehouse buildings across fourteen (14) lots, each accompanied with an ancillary office, associated parking and business identification signage for legibility and easy way-finding,  

·      landscaped internal estate roads including a two round-abouts, a cul-de-sac and entry roads for improved amenity, and  

·      electrical easement and an environmental zone and basins 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Considerations

 

Local Strategic Planning Statement 

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), that was adopted by Council in March 2020, after a rigorous assurance program undertaken by the Greater Sydney Commission. 

 

The LSPS provides a line of sight with the Western City District Plan, and the Region Plan. These strategic plans define the Metropolitan Rural Area (MRA), and identify significant planning initiatives including the Western Sydney Aerotropolis, urban investigation areas and the Greater Penrith to Eastern Creek Growth Area (GPEC).  

 

The site is within the Penrith ‘Economic Triangle’, west of the north-south corridor between St Marys and Western Sydney Aerotropolis and located in the southern portion of Orchard Hills Urban Investigation Area.  

 

The Planning Proposal demonstrates consistency with the LSPS specifically: 

·      Planning Priority 1: Align development, growth and infrastructure  

·      Planning Priority 9: Support the North South Rail Link and emerging structure plan 

·      Planning Priority 11: Support the planning of the Western Sydney Aerotropolis 

·      Planning Priority 12: Enhance and grow Penrith’s economic triangle 

 

Draft Employment Lands Strategy (Also on the agenda at this meeting)

 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with Council’s Draft Employment Lands Strategy. The draft Employment Lands Strategy (ELS), that was exhibited in June 2021, is intended to help guide Council’s future planning. The development of this strategy is an immediate action (Action 12.1) identified in the Penrith Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) under Planning Priority 12 to ‘Enhance and grow Penrith’s economic triangle’. 

 

The ELS identifies the existing function of land within Penrith’s Economic Triangle and notes that land within the north-south corridor will form a new enterprise arc from St Marys to the Western Sydney Airport and Aerotropolis.  

 

The site is within the Penrith ‘Economic Triangle’, west of the north-south corridor between St Marys and Western Sydney Aerotropolis and located in the southern portion of Orchard Hills Urban Investigation Area. 

 

The Planning Proposal demonstrates consistency with the ELS specifically: 

·      Action 6 - Planning future employment land near access points on motorways.  

·      Action 13 - Planning a mix of lot sizes to allow local businesses to start-up and scale-up.  

·      Action 19 - Working with local servicing agencies to ensure a pipeline of serviced employment land is available for timely and balanced development

  

Provision of Enabling Infrastructure at no cost to Government 

 

The proposal includes the provision of enabling infrastructure upfront and at no cost to government. Further information will be required to determine the mechanism to deliver this and will be secured throughout the process and ahead of public exhibition. 

 

Providing this infrastructure will ensure that development will occur once rezoning has occurred and supports that the key justification that there is a critical undersupply of serviced industrial land. 

 

Sydney Water confirmed that development will be able to access water and wastewater services. Sydney Water has also confirmed that the proposal will not take capacity reserved for other development within the area.

 

Sydney Water is aware of the proposal and has included it within its strategic planning for this area.

 

As Luddenham Road is set to become a State Road, the proponent will need to enter into an agreement with Transport for NSW to fund the upgrade of the intersection of Luddenham Road and Paton Lane. Should a Gateway Determination be sought, the Planning Proposal would be referred to Transport for NSW as a condition of a Gateway Determination.

 

Should the need to upgrade the intersection occur prior to the transfer of Luddenham Road to State control, the proponent will need to enter into an agreement with Council to fund upgrade the intersection of Luddenham Road and Patons Lane.

 

Economic Considerations  

 

The Economic Benefits Report submitted with the planning proposal that based its analysis on DPIE’s Employment Lands Development Monitor data for the Western Sydney Catchment, estimated there is currently a total of 5,006ha of unconstrained net land supply available for industrial development in the Western Sydney catchment. Of this 5,006ha, approximately 405 ha are zoned and serviced (i.e. shovel-ready), approximately1159 ha are zoned but not yet serviced, and approximately 3,440 ha represent potential future industrial land supply.  

 

At the same time, diminishing industrial land supply in Greater Sydney, combined with unprecedented infrastructure investment in Western Sydney, is projected to drive demand for an average of 184 ha of industrial land per annum in the Western Sydney catchment between 2021 and 2061. 

 

Comparing the average annual take-up rate for the catchment of 184 ha per annum against the 5,006 ha of land supply indicates that the catchment has only: 

·      2.2 years of zoned undeveloped serviced land supply 

·      6.3 years of zoned undeveloped unserviced land supply, and 

·      18.7 years of unconstrained potential industrial land supply. 

 

These supply years are all below the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s (DPIE) stated supply standards of 5-7 years for zoned serviced land, 8-10 years for zoned unserviced land, and 20 years for potential future land supply as per the Employment Lands Development Monitor. This therefore indicates a need for additional industrial land in the Western Sydney catchment, particularly “shovel-ready”  

land that is zoned and serviced. 

 

Beyond meeting the pressing need for additional industrial land supply, the Planning Proposal will:  

·      Generate a total of 566 jobs over the four-year development phase, while contributing $283 million to Gross Value Added 

·      Support a total of 6,600 direct and indirect jobs once operational, and contributing a total of $492 million in Gross Value Added in each year of operation 

·      Providing shovel-ready industrial land for smaller operators who have not been able to compete with the institutional owners in the Mamre Road Precinct 

·      Increasing the diversity of industrial development by accommodating smaller sites and end users that complement the Mamre Road Precinct’s larger scale sites and end users 

·      Delivering highly accessible industrial land that will have access to future road, rail and aviation infrastructure. 

·      Complementing the existing industrial uses and activities in the WSEA, and 

·      Supporting the growth of the manufacturing sector in Western Sydney through the proposed long-term tenure of Alspec at the site. 

 

Transport and Traffic 

 

The site should benefit from the proposed investment and upgrade to transport infrastructure due to the development of Western Sydney International (Nancy Bird – Walton Airport) and the Western Sydney Aerotropolis. 

 

Luddenham Road will be upgraded from Mamre Road through to Elizabeth Drive into a 4-6 lane major arterial road and is also identified as a rapid bus corridor. Mamre Road is being upgraded to 4-6 lanes to address development within the Mamre Road Precinct.  

 

The site is located approximately halfway between new Metro Stations at Orchard Hills and Sydney Science Park, with the Metro proposing an initial 5-minute peak hour frequency. 

 

The service provided by Sydney Metro West and bus services on the rapid bus corridor should provide future workers with a viable public transport service that will provide an alternative travel option to car travel. 

 

Patons Lane is the key access point for vehicles accessing the site and the intersection with Luddenham Road will require upgrading to a signalised intersection to service traffic generated from the development. A secondary vehicular access point off Luddenham Road at the southern part of the site could be provide as left in left out arrangement, if required. The intersection of Patons Lane and the primary Site Access Road will need to be upgraded to a roundabout treatment to provide vehicular access into the site. 

 

Both intersections would be expected to accommodate future traffic growth in 2035 as assessed under an Ultimate State scenario. The intersection of Patons Lane and Luddenham Road is anticipated provide a satisfactorily level of service, which is a Level of Service (LOS) of C, as a signalised intersection. The intersection of Patons Lane and the primary Site Access Road is anticipated to also provide satisfactorily level of service (LOS of C) as a roundabout treatment. 

 

Visual Impact  

 

Luddenham Road is the only through road from which close views to the site are available and accessible. Public domain views are from moving viewing situations and for short periods of time.  

 

There are a limited number of private domain views that could be potentially affected by the proposed development, most notably the residences located on Luddenham Road. Based on a review of block model photomontages the proposed development does not dominate the view composition. 

  

The proposed development would create a continuation of the industrial and urban visual character that exists to the east. Further, the visual character of the landscape west and south of the site will change due to the construction of infrastructure including the Outer Sydney Orbital and rail lines.  

 

The changes to the visual character and context of the site are considered appropriate given its proximity to the Western Sydney Employment Area, Western Sydney Aerotropolis and future road and rail routes.  

 

Other Land use considerations 
 

Industrial Lot size and diversity 

 

There is a shortage of small to medium size industrial lots in the Penrith LGA. Smaller businesses are having difficulty find suitable premises to start-up and existing local businesses to scale-up.  

 

Whilst the planning proposal seeks to apply a minimum lot size of 1000m2 to promote the supply of smaller industrial lots, this lot size control does not prohibit larger lot sizes. 

  

To ensure that this planning proposal contributes to a greater supply of small to medium industrial lots, a Minimum Lot Density Control is included in the planning proposal to promote the supply of smaller industrial lots and limit the dominance of large industrial lots. 

 

A density control stipulates the minimum total number of lots that would need to be provided on the site. The Lot Density Control proposed, is: 

·      50 lots for land zoned IN1, and 

·      60 lots for land zoned IN2.  

 

The proposed rate for the IN1 zone allows for the provision of some larger lots as the concept masterplan for the Alspec Industrial Business Park requires at least one 9-hectare lot for the Alspec Manufacturing premises.  

 

The proposed rate for the IN2 zone results in an average lot size of approximately 2500m2 and would allow for larger lots with a 60-metre lot width to front Luddenham Road.

 

An indicative layout design prepared by the proponent to test the minimum lot density requirement consisted of 79 lots of between 1000m2 and 5000m2 and 32 lots greater than 5000m2.

 

Local Planning Panel Advice

 

Section 2.19 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) requires Councils to refer Planning Proposals to the Local Planning Panel for advice, prior to a decision being taken by Council to submit the proposal to DPE for Gateway assessment.

 

On 22 September 2021, the Planning Proposal was considered by the Penrith Local Planning Panel. Attached 4 to the report is the Local Planning Panel Advice. The Panel generally supports the Planning Proposal and recommended that further consideration be given to certain matters. These matters and their planning responses are provided below:

 

a.   The complementary role in relation to other industrial land should be made clearer in the Planning Proposal, in terms of supply and demand. 

 

Planning Response

 

The proponent has provided analysis that highlights that the proposed lot density control ensures this planning proposal complements other industrial land by providing a greater number of lots less than 5000m2 in size than compared to industrial development in surrounding the industrial precincts of the Western Sydney Employment area. The proposed lot density control will result in 70% of lots being less than 5000m2. In comparison, only 48% of lots in WSEA are less than 5000m2

 

 

b.   To give effect to the strategic desire of short-term supply to meet need, appropriate provisions be considered to ensure this outcome is achieved (e.g. requirements for servicing, potential sunset provision etc.). 

 

Planning Response

 

A sunset clause is now included in the planning proposal. A sunset clause supports the justification that the planning proposal will result in shovel ready development and will ensure land banking does not occur.

 

c.   Confirming the boundary of the OSO future corridor with TfNSW.

 

Planning Response

 

The planning proposal already takes into consideration the future OSO corridor. However, it is highly likely that a condition of the Gateway determination will be to refer the Planning Proposal to TfNSW for assessment. TfNSW can confirm the boundary of OSO during this assessment.

 

d.   The provisions, such as the allocation of IN2 and IN1 zoning of the land and minimum lot sizes, should favour smaller-scale local demand. 

 

 Planning Response

 

The minimum lots size and proposed minimum lot density control will ensure that future development provides smaller lots for smaller scale local demand. An indicative layout design prepared by the proponent to test the minimum lot density requirement consisted of 79 lots of between 1000m2 and 5000m2 and 32 lots greater than 5000m2. This highlighted the effectiveness of the minimum lot density control in promoting the supply of smaller industrial lots. The minimum lot size control also allows for additional smaller lots to be supplied should there be a higher level of market demand for smaller lots in the future than currently exists.

 

e.   Further consideration be given to IN2 zoning along the western side of Luddenham Road, as a land use buffer to the east, to better manage potential land use conflicts. 

 

Planning Response

 

We believe that potential land use conflicts can be better managed through a site specific DCP than applying the IN2 zone to the western side of Luddenham Road. A site specific DCP can contain provisions that locate the smaller lot sizes on Luddenham Road to create a land use buffer to manage potential land use conflicts. IN1 zone also provides a greater variety of permissible land uses to respond to market needs.

 

f.    Support for a site-specific DCP, and this include appropriate landscape and vegetation buffers around the site. 

 

 

 

 

Planning Response

 

If a gateway determination is issued, a site specific DCP will be prepared. Appropriate landscape and vegetation buffers will be included in the DCP.

 

g.   Servicing and contributions including suitable provisions related to road works, future potential corridors, all utility provision and staging.  

 

Planning Response

 

The proponent will fund key enabling infrastructure such as water and wastewater services at no cost to government. An appropriate mechanism, will be determined should a gateway determination be sought, to seek contributions for:

 

·    upgrade of Patons Lane and the provision of a roundabout at the primary site access and Patons Lane, and other road infrastructure, and 

·    Drainage and Stormwater Management Infrastructure

 

The proponent will also need to enter into an agreement with the State Government to fund intersection upgrades for Patons Lane and Luddenham Road intersection as Luddenham Road will become a State Road.

 

2.   In addition to the above, the Panel notes that the Planning Proposal for 211- 235 Luddenham Road, Orchard Hills is still subject to confirmation from Sydney Water that the proposal will not take away the capacity existing zoned land to be serviced.

 

Planning Response

 

Sydney water has confirmed that the proposal will not take capacity reserved for other development within the area.

 

Sydney Water has provided the advice that they have been aware of the proposal and included it within its strategic planning for this area.

 

Development Control Plan 

 

Should a gateway determination by sought by Council, a site-specific development control plan would need to be prepared to: 

·      address the interface with Luddenham Road and manage any potential land use conflict with land to the east

·      Manage landscape and vegetation buffers around the site

·      determine appropriate minimum lot widths and building setbacks 

·      determine minimum lots for Strata Subdivision  

·      define the road layout 

 

The development control plan will be required to be exhibited with the planning proposal. 

 

Developer Contributions 

 

Development contributions will need to be levied for the provision of key local infrastructure. As HB+B has been in discussions with all adjoining landowners regarding the purchase of their properties, an appropriate mechanism, either a Site-Specific Contributions Plan (If rezoning applies to multiple landowners) or Voluntary Planning Agreement (if the rezoning applies to a single landowner), will be determined should a gateway determination be sought, to seek contributions for: 

·      upgrade of Patons Lane and the provision of a roundabout at the primary site access and Patons Lane, and other road infrastructure, and  

·      Drainage and Stormwater Management Infrastructure 

·      the upgrade of the intersection of Luddenham Road and Patons Lane, should the need to upgrade the intersection occur prior to the transfer of Luddenham Road to State control.

 

Any contribution mechanism will be required to be exhibited with the planning proposal. 

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no financial implications for Council associated with this stage of the process.

Risk Implications

There are no risk implications for Council associated with this stage of the process.

Next Steps

Should Council sponsor the Planning Proposal, the Planning Proposal will be amended in accordance with the changes outlined in this report and then submitted to DPIE with a request to issue a Gateway Determination to allow the proposal to proceed to public exhibition and agency consultation. A further report detailing the outcomes of the public exhibition will be presented to Council after the exhibition period. Should no significant issues be raised during the public exhibition period that would warrant Council to change its sponsorship of the Planning Proposal, this report will also be seeking Council’s endorsement of final Planning Proposal.

As part of Council’s Gateway Determination, delegation will be sought to allow Council to make the LEP amendment.

Following receipt of the Gateway Determination, flooding and traffic technical studies will be finalised by the proponent. A site-specific DCP will also be prepared by the proponent in consultation with Council officers. Upon completion of the supporting information and DCP controls, the Planning Proposal would be publicly exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and other relevant legislation.

Conclusion

Council is in receipt of a Planning Proposal to amend LEP 2010. The Planning Proposal relates to the land known as 221-235 Luddenham Road, Luddenham. The purpose of the proposed changes is to facilitate development of the development of the Alspec Industrial Business Park.

It is recommended that Council endorses that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to DPE with a request to issue a Gateway Determination to allow the proposal to proceed to agency and public consultation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Luddenham Road Planning Proposal be received

2.     Council endorse the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 to this report, subject to any further changes resulting from Item 4 below.

 

3.     Council officers forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning with a request to issue a Gateway Determination. (The submission will include a request to issue Council with Delegation for plan making authority).

 

4.     The General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary changes to the Planning Proposal referred to in Item 2 above:

 

a.   prior to Council’s submission of the Planning Proposal to the Minster for Planning to request a Gateway Determination.

b.   as a result of negotiated changes sought by DPIE in the lead up to the issuing of the Gateway Determination.

c.   prior to public exhibition in response to the conditions of the Gateway Determination or negotiations with public authorities and other stakeholders.

 

5.     A Development Control Plan be prepared for the subject site, to be publicly exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

 

6.     Council publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal for a period to be specified in the Gateway Determination, and in accordance with the community consultation requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

7.     A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Luddenham Road Planning Proposal

87 Pages

Attachments Included

2.

Location Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

3.

Current and Proposed Zoning Plan

1 Page

Attachments Included

4.

Local Planning Panel Advice

12 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

8

Submission to Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021   

 

Compiled by:               Paula Tomkins, Executive Planner

Renata Ferreira, City Design Lead

Authorised by:            Carlie Ryan, City Strategy Manager

Kylie Powell, Director - City Futures  

 

Outcome

We plan for our future growth

Strategy

Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet the changing needs of our City

Service Activity

Advocate and influence on behalf of our community on our strategic vision for the City

 

Previous Items:           Draft submission to Fernhill Estate Future Use Options Paper - Ordinary Meeting - 23 Mar 2020

                                      Submission to draft Fernhill Estate Plan of Management 2030- Ordinary Meeting - 22 Feb 2021      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of a submission to the draft Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021 (The Bill)

The NSW Government purchased Fernhill Estate in 2018. In mid-2020, the NSW Government announced the creation of a new agency, Greater Sydney Parklands, that would bring together existing parklands trusts in Sydney (Centennial Park, Parramatta Park and Western Sydney Parklands) and incorporate the management of Callan Park and Fernhill Estate.

In May 2021, the NSW Government placed White Paper – Parklands for People, a proposed legislative framework for the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust on public exhibition. Council staff wrote to the NSW Government in response, taking key points from previous submissions that had been endorsed by Council on 23 March 2020 and 22 February 2021.

Following the release of the White Paper, on 1 October 2021 the NSW Government released The Bill for public exhibition, which closes on 29 October 2021. The Bill is an Exposure Bill, which enables review and comment on legislation before it is introduced into NSW Parliament. The purpose of The Bill is to:

·    Create a new legislated trust - the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust (GSPT) - which will be responsible for protecting and managing existing parklands, such as Fernhill Estate, while also acquiring new parklands in the future;

·    Create the legislative framework in which the GSPT must operate, setting out the objectives and functions of the proposed GSPT;

·    Maintain existing parklands and their associated trusts, which will continue to be operated and remain protected under their own legislation, unchanged except where noted in Schedule 5 of the Exposure Bill and also outlined in this report. This legislation includes Western Sydney Parklands Act 2006, which applies to Fernhill Estate, as well as Callan Park (Special Provisions) Act 2002, Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust Act 1983 and Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001.

The Bill proposes that the GSPT manages existing lands of the ‘associated trusts’ under existing legislation. In this instance, Fernhill Estate would be managed by GSPT under the Western Sydney Parklands Act 2006, including proposed amendments to the Act outlined in The Bill. Any new parks the GSPT may own in the future will be managed under the proposed legislative framework of The Bill.

Council staff have reviewed the Bill and associated information and have prepared a draft submission which is at Attachment 1. The submission supports several aspects of The Bill, including the establishment of the GSPT and Green-Blue Grid Committee, the preparation of a consultation and engagement framework and the ability of GSPT to acquire more parkland. The submission outlines the critical importance of ensuring existing controls in the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 managing and protecting the important scenic and cultural landscapes of the Mulgoa Valley are retained. The submission seeks clarification regarding the planning framework that will apply to Fernhill Estate and the consent authority for future development. Further, it requests that a Community Trustee Board be established for Fernhill Estate.

It is recommended that Council endorse the submission allowing it to be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for consideration.

Councillor updates on Greater Sydney Parklands and Fernhill Estate include:

·    23 March 2020 Ordinary Meeting: Council endorsed a submission in response to the Fernhill Estate Options Paper and draft Conservation Management Plan.

·    23 December 2020 Councillor Memorandum

·    19 February 2021 Councillor Memorandum

·    22 February 2021 Ordinary Meeting: Council endorsed a submission to the draft Plan of Management.

·    4 & 5 March 2021 Councillor Memorandums

·    20 September 2021 Councillor Briefing: The Greater Sydney Parklands Chief Executive briefed Councillors on the progress of work on the development of a draft Landscape Master Plan

·    14 October 2021 Councillor Memorandum.

Background

Since purchasing Fernhill Estate in 2018, the NSW Government has been considering the future management of the site. This has involved public exhibition at the end of 2019 of a Future Use Options Paper outlining potential future public uses of the estate, and a Conservation Management Plan. Council endorsed a submission to this exhibition on 23 March 2020.

At the same time the NSW Government has been proposing changes to the way it manages significant parklands across Greater Sydney. This has involved the creation of a new Greater Sydney Parklands agency in mid-2020 that brings together existing parklands trusts across Sydney and include the management of Fernhill Estate.

In December 2020, the newly established Greater Sydney Parklands agency placed the Draft Fernhill Estate Plan of Management 2030 on public exhibition. The draft Plan of Management considered the different precincts of the Estate, their significance, land use opportunities and management priorities at a high level. Council endorsed a submission to the Draft Plan of Management on 22 February 2021.

In May 2021, DPIE placed White Paper – Parklands for People, a proposed legislative framework for the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust on public exhibition. Council staff wrote to DPIE in response, reiterating key points from previous submissions that had been endorsed by Council on 23 March 2020 and 22 February 2021.

 

Current Situation

DPIE released the draft Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021 (The Bill) for public exhibition from 1 to 29 October 2021. The Bill outlines the proposed legislative framework for the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust (GSPT) and sets out the objectives and functions of the proposed GSPT to manage any new parks the GSPT may own in the future and existing parklands, including Fernhill Estate.

The new GSPT will identify future regional parks, manage these as parkland and protect them in perpetuity. The objects and functions of the GSPT will apply only to future lands vested to it. Existing parklands and their associated trusts will remain protected by their own legislation. The relevant legislation for Fernhill Estate is the Western Sydney Parklands Act 2006. Fernhill Estate was vested into the Western Sydney Parklands Trust in December 2020.

The Bill proposes several changes to the Western Sydney Parklands Act 2006 including:

·    The establishment of community trustee boards

·    The preparation of a consultation and engagement framework

·    Amended provisions for the preparation of plans of management to make them consistent across the parklands

·    Changes to the requirements for the trust board and board members to create consistency across each Trust

·    Allowing for legal enforcement of the park regulations.

Comments on The Bill

Council has long held a vision that Fernhill Estate’s unique offering be preserved and celebrated through appropriate activation that allows greater public access without jeopardising its iconic attributes and idyllic rural setting.

A review of The Bill and the accompanying Guide to the Bill has been undertaken and a draft submission prepared (refer to Attachment 1). The main comments covered in the submission are:

·    Support for the establishment of a Green-Blue Grid Committee to advocate for a long-term vision and outcome of quality parklands across Greater Sydney, particularly connectivity of green corridors and public access to open space. The purpose of this committee is consistent with Council’s Green Grid Strategy which is being considered for endorsement at the same 25 October Ordinary meeting of Council.

·    Support for the ability for the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust to expand its portfolio in order to implement the actions of our strategic work, such as the Green Grid Strategy.

·    Support for the preparation of a consultation and engagement framework in conjunction with the community. The framework will identify what issues GSPT will consult with the community on and how they will do this.

·    Support for the establishment of Community Trustee Boards that will provide local advice on park stewardship, use and activities; environmental, heritage and cultural issues; plans of management, new leases and sustainable funding options. However, we request that a specific Community Trustee Board be established for Fernhill Estate (rather than a group that covers a number of different parklands) and that a Council representative be appointed to the Board.

·    Acknowledgement of the vesting of Fernhill Estate in the Western Sydney Parklands Trust in December 2020 and a request that the legislative framework for Fernhill Estate be further considered so that the unique qualities of the Estate are not lost.

·    Seeking clarity on any intended changes to the planning framework applying to Fernhill Estate and the consent authority for future development. In particular, while the draft Bill does not specifically address changes to the existing planning framework, the submission outlines the critical importance of ensuring existing controls in the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 managing and protecting the important scenic and cultural landscapes of the Mulgoa Valley are retained.

Financial Implications

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

Risk Implications

If Council does not provide a submission to The Bill, the risk is that Council’s concerns and comments will not be fully understood and considered in finalising the draft Bill.

Conclusion

Following the purchase of Fernhill Estate in 2018 and the creation of the Greater Sydney Parklands agency in 2020, the NSW Government is now publicly exhibiting the draft legislation (draft Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021) that will govern the Greater Sydney Parklands Trust and its management of parklands.

Following a review of The Bill, a submission has been drafted for consideration that covers a number of matters including support for increased community consultation, request for clarity around future planning for Fernhill Estate and a request that the legislative framework reflect Fernhill Estate’s unique qualities and attributes.

It is recommended that Council endorse the submission at Attachment 1, allowing it to be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Submission to Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021 be received.

2.     Council endorse the Submission at Attachment 1 to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for its consideration.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Submission to the Draft Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021

2 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                           25 October 2021

Appendix 1 - Submission to the Draft Greater Sydney Parklands Trust Bill 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

9

Accelerated Infrastructure Fund Nomination - Aldington Road, Kemps Creek    

 

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

Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet the changing needs of our City

Service Activity

Ensure services, facilitates and infrastructure meet the needs of a growing population through the contributions framework

      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Councils’ endorsement of an application for funding from the Accelerated Infrastructure Fund, offered by the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE).

Round 2 of the Accelerated Infrastructure Fund (AIF) will provide $139 million to co-fund and accelerate the delivery of local infrastructure in council led development precincts in Western Sydney. The Mamre Precinct is the only area in the local government area that fits the funding criteria.

It is proposed to apply for funding to assist in the widening and reconstruction of Aldington Road, located in the Mamre Precinct. Unlocking this infrastructure will be important to ensure delivery of infrastructure is done in an orderly and cost effective manner to facilitate the delivery of much needed employment lands and jobs.

Background

The AIF was announced by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in April 2020 as part of the Planning System Acceleration Project, with the aims of fast-tracking processes to maintain jobs and the construction industry during COVID. Round 1 AIF funding was only available to The Hills Shire Council and Blacktown City Councils.

Round 2 of the Accelerated Infrastructure Fund (AIF) has been expanded to include other high growth Councils in Western Sydney, including Penrith, Hawkesbury, Camden, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Wollondilly Councils in additional to Blacktown and The Hills. This round will provide $139 million which is to be allocated according to the growth in council led greenfield areas and the amount of downstream development application that the projects will support. Projects must be able to begin construction within 2 years.

Applications for project nominations opened at the start of September 2021, with nominations to be submitted by 29 October 2021.

Current Situation

It is proposed to nominate a project within the Mamre Precinct of the Western Sydney Employment Area (WSEA) and the Western Sydney Aerotropolis. The Western Sydney Aerotropolis Plan (WSAP) identified the intended planning outcomes for the precinct as a warehousing and logistics precinct, as it is connected to the proposed Western Sydney Freight Line, affected by aircraft noise and is not suitable for noise sensitive land uses. In June 2020, land within the Mamre Precinct was rezoned and this resulted in approximately 850 hectares of industrial land which could provide about 5,200 construction jobs and 17,000 ongoing jobs when fully developed.

There is a large amount of developer interest in the Mamre Precinct. Currently there are 10 State Significant Development (SSD) applications lodged with DPIE for industrial and warehouse development in the precinct, accounting for 420 hectares of future development. This equates to 40% of zoned land in the precinct. Council staff have been actively engaging with developers and landowners regarding infrastructure delivery.

Aldington Road Project

The exhibited draft Mamre Precinct Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Mamre Precinct s7.11 Development Contributions Plan (s7.11 Plan) propose the widening and reconstruction of the existing Aldington and Abbotts Roads to serve a distributor road function within the Precinct. The existing road is constructed as a rural road, however it will need to be reconstructed and widened to accommodate future truck and freight movements within the Precinct. The road will remain a local road under the care and control of Council and provide a vital link to Mamre Road and the Southern Link Road.

There are currently 5 State Significant Development Applications (SSD) lodged with DPIE located on Aldington Road, with further applications expected. These future developments are reliant on the road being widened and of a standard that would enable significant truck movements. The existing road is not suitable for this type and level of traffic.

The construction and widening of Aldington Road will open up significant employment land uses, and this needs to be undertaken in a coordinated approach to ensure that it is done in an orderly and cost-effective manner. In order to achieve this, the road has to be delivered in one single stage, rather than piecemeal with each different landowner. Delivery of the road is considered urgent, due to the number of SSD’s currently lodged.

The road construction is a large undertaking. Aldington and Abbotts Roads combined are approximately 3.6km in length and while the road profile is currently being finalised, it is likely to accommodate 5 signalised intersections, at least 4 traveling lanes, tree lined median, shared path and verges to accommodate services and trees. Indicative costs of the road and land acquisition required are approximately $70m.

Grant Application

For a greater chance of success in receiving a grant, two applications are proposed for the widening and construction of Aldington Road:

Grant Application

Outcomes and Benefits

Funding for the complete land acquisition and construction of Aldington and Abbotts Roads (approx. $70m).

·    A single staged, coordinated approach of entire ultimate road.

·    Reduced land acquisition costs, before land prices rise further.

·    Limit increased construction costs that would impact a staged approach.

·    Potential reduction in contributions.

Funding for the land acquisition only on Aldington and Abbotts Roads (approx. $30m).

·    Reduced land acquisition costs, before land prices rise further.

·    Enable entire ultimate road to be constructed.

·    Enable arrangements with private landowners to potentially undertake construction of road.

To be eligible for the grant, projects must:

·    Enable, accelerate, or support development of new homes or employment land in rezoned council- coordinated greenfield precincts

·    The infrastructure cannot be delivered by one large developer or single landholder responsible for delivering local infrastructure as works-in-kind.

·    The project must begin construction within 2 years of the funds being allocated.

The delivery of Aldington Road will secure the development of over $476 million of employment related development currently under consideration, with further applications to come. Mamre Precinct infrastructure delivery will be coordinated by Council through the development contributions plan. Due to the fragmented land ownership and extent of the road and acquisition, it cannot be delivered by a single developer and requires Council to coordinate. DPIE has commissioned road designs for Aldington Road, therefore it is considered possible to commence construction within two years.

Projects will be assessed based on selection criteria, which is addressed below:

Criteria

Response

Number of new homes or hectares of employment land served by project.

The grant will unlock the development of an initial 178 hectares of employment land worth over $423m, with a further 250 hectares of land that could be developed.

Extent to which project unlocks, accelerates, or supports the development of existing approvals.

Securing a path for the construction of Aldington Road is a critical step for the approval of 5 SSD’s unlocking the precinct.

Level of project co-funding from alternative council revenue streams (e.g., local contributions plan revenue)

The securing of the funding is more favourable if Council can contribute to the cost of the infrastructure.  As the road has been identified in the contributions plan, it is intended to propose that we could contribute 50% of the cost from contributions to enable ability to reduce the overall cost of the contributions plan. It would be our preference to seek grant funding without an obligation to co-fund, however this may limit our opportunity to secure the funding.

Projects to begin construction as early as possible.

The design of the road has been prepared by DPIE. Land acquisition could commence as soon as Council becomes the acquisition authority.

 

Financial Implications

 

Obtaining grant funding for the widening and reconstruction of Aldington and Abbotts Roads would reduce Councils long term financial risk, as it would provide forward funding of the construction of the road in one complete stage.

 

Where grant funding is not available, Council would need to rely on the development contributions plan and individual developers to widen and construct the road. This would result in a disjointed approach, that would increase costs due to staging and long term land acquisition. This may result in a shortfall in funding within the contributions plan.

 

Any funding received would enable Council to reduce the overall cost of the contributions plan.

Risk Implications

There are no risk implications inherently in applying for the grant, however, there is an identified risk should Council not be successful in obtaining upfront funding for the widening and reconstruction of Aldington Road.

Council would be reliant upon funding this road through the development contributions plan, with the potential for developers to deliver the road as works in kind. This would not deliver the road upfront in one stage, which would have the impact of costing more as land not acquired early is likely to increase in value and cost more and staging road works can cost greater in the long run due to service relocation, redundant works and impacts to traffic to accommodate construction.

Conclusion

DPIE is offering funding to high growth Councils in Western Sydney to deliver critical infrastructure that will assist in the delivery of employment land and new dwellings. It is proposed to apply for funding to acquire and reconstruct Aldington and Abbotts Roads in the Mamre Road Precinct. The construction of this road will unlock over 173 hectares of employment land, currently under assessment by DPIE. The funding will enable a coordinated, single stage approach to constructing the road, which will have long term financial benefits to Council and developers of the precinct.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Accelerated Infrastructure Fund Nomination - Aldington Road, Kemps Creek be received.

2.     Council authorise the General Manager to submit two formal applications to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment for Accelerated Infrastructure Funding for Aldington Road in the Mamre Precinct, as detailed in this report.

3.     Council be notified of the result of the Accelerated Infrastructure Fund applications, when announced.

4.     Council authorise the General Manager to execute a Funding Agreement (Attachment 1 to this report) where Council has been approved for Accelerated Infrastructure Funding by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

AIF Round 2 Funding Agreement Template

25 Pages

Attachments Included

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 3 - We can get around the City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

10      Sydney Metro Interface Agreement                                                                                 69

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

10

Sydney Metro Interface Agreement   

 

Compiled by:               Carlie Ryan, City Strategy Manager

Matthew Pearce, Legal Counsel

Authorised by:            Kylie Powell, Director - City Futures

Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer  

 

Outcome

We can get around our city

Strategy

Improve passenger and freight transport connections in the region

Service Activity

Support the work of the Federal and State Government in delivering Stage 1 of the North South rail link in time for the opening of Western Sydney Airport

      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of an ‘Interface Agreement’ that has been prepared for Council to enter into with Sydney Metro. The intent of the Interface Agreement is to manage the interfaces and regulate the relationships between Sydney Metro and Council to enable works for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport (SMWSA) project. Entering into such agreements with the relevant Council has been standard practice of the NSW Government on projects of this scale and provides clarity for both parties.

A summary of the Interface Agreement was provided to Councillors at the briefing of 18 October 2021.

This report recommends that Council enter into the Interface Agreement with Sydney Metro. 

Background

Council has been a leading advocate for the North South Rail Link since 2015, with a long-term vision to connect Western Sydney from Schofields in the north to Macarthur in the south. As part of the Western Sydney City Deal, the Australian and NSW Governments committed to deliver the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport (SMWSA) (Stage 1 of the North South Rail Link) from St Marys to the Western Sydney Aerotropolis via Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport.

In June 2020, stations were announced at St Marys, Orchard Hills, Luddenham Road, the Western Sydney Airport Business Park, Western Sydney Airport Terminal and Western Sydney Aerotropolis. In October 2020, an Environmental Impact Statement was placed on exhibition and Council endorsed a submission in response at the 30 November 2020 Ordinary Meeting. On 25 July 2021, the NSW Government announced that planning approval was granted for the SMWSA project.

Current Situation

Regular memorandums have been sent to Councillors on the range of early works carried out by Sydney Metro. The coming months will see more early works being undertaken to prepare for the main construction works for the delivery of the project.

With planning approval granted for the project, it is expected that major work will be underway in coming months. An Interface Agreement (IA) has been prepared to manage the interfaces and regulate the relationships between Sydney Metro and Council (enclosed separately for the information of Councillors). Entering into such agreements with the relevant Council has been standard practice of the NSW Government on projects of this scale and provides clarity for both parties.

There has been extensive negotiation between Council’s lawyers and Sydney Metro regarding the terms of the Interface Agreement. This has resulted in an Interface Agreement that is acceptable. The Interface Agreement will provide certainty for both parties and will ensure that existing and future Council land is adequately protected during and after the construction period.

In summary, the IA:

·    streamlines processes for mutual co-operation, information sharing, confidentiality, community engagement, negotiations, approvals, issue of permits and resolution of issues.

·    provides for design certification, construction access, remediation of roads and haulage routes, defect warranties and provision for ongoing operations and maintenance until a land acquisition/dedication process is finalised.

·    facilitates negotiations regarding proposals for additional works, land acquisition/dedication and easements.  

Financial Implications

Should Council decide to endorse the Sydney Metro Interface Agreement, Council will become responsible for ongoing operational and maintenance costs for Handover Works which are to be dedicated back to Council on completion of construction.

While there is no current estimate of the ongoing costs to Council for the Handover Works, Council has the opportunity to comment on each stage of the design documentation and Sydney Metro is required to consider all comments provided by Council giving some input into the design process.

Risk Implications

Across the spatial extent and complexity of the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport project there are a variety of identified risks. These risks are considered manageable with the implementation of the Interface Agreement. To assist in this process, Council staff will monitor the overall progress of the project and compliance with the Agreement.

 

Subject to the terms of the Interface Agreement, Sydney Metro assumes the risks in procurement, contract management, design, construction and compliance with all required Statutory Approvals.

Conclusion

In order to facilitate the delivery of the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport project and to protect existing and future Council land, it is recommended that Council endorse to enter into the Interface Agreement with Sydney Metro.

Subject to Council’s endorsement tonight, the Interface Agreement will be signed and sent to Sydney Metro.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Sydney Metro Interface Agreement be received.

2.     Council enter into the Interface Agreement with Sydney Metro as outlined in the separate enclosure to this report.

3.     Delegation be provided to the General Manager to sign the Interface Agreement.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 4 - We have safe, vibrant places

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

11      Renewal of Service NSW Partnership Agreement - Easy to do Business                      75

 

12      RFT21/22-02 Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station                                   78

 

13      RFT21/22-06 Tree Planting Services                                                                              83

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

11

Renewal of Service NSW Partnership Agreement - Easy to do Business   

 

Compiled by:               Rebekah Elliott, Place and Activation Coordinator

Authorised by:            Jeni Pollard, Manager - City Resilience

Kylie Powell, Director - City Futures  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Help make our major centres and important community places safe and attractive

Service Activity

Support the revitalisation of Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre

      

 

Executive Summary

Council currently has an agreement in place with Service NSW to promote and provide access to NSW Government information and services to better assist business owners and to support the local economy. This agreement was endorsed by Council on 23 July 2018.

 

Since August 2018, Council has participated in the NSW Government “Easy to do Business” initiative, supporting new local business operators to navigate through the various government approvals, including Council. The initiative is geared to supporting operators of cafes, restaurants and bars which may typically be required to deal with a broad range of agencies as they move through the approval process. These businesses are all important in activating and renewing our city and town centres.

 

Following the initial 3 year agreement, Council has been approached to renew and execute a new agreement with Service NSW. As per the initial agreement, there is a legislative requirement within the Service NSW (One-stop Access to Government Services) Act 2013, which requires a Council resolution to empower a Service Partnership Agreement to execute the ‘Easy to do Business’ initiative in Penrith. A copy of the proposed Partnership Agreement with Service NSW can be found in Attachment 1.

 

This report recommends that Council re-enter into a service partnership with Service NSW until June 2024 to deliver the Easy to do Business initiative in Penrith.

Background

The Easy to do Business initiative focuses on coordinating and navigating through the various government approvals required by a new business owner. Service NSW provides a digital platform, as well as comprehensive information upfront, to a potential new business owner from each of the approval authorities, including the local Council. The aim of the initiative is to streamline the processes of opening a new café, restaurant or bar, which typically requires an owner to deal with 13 agencies, including Council, to complete 48 forms. A business concierge service, via a single phone number, is also provided to support customers through the process.

 

Service NSW has a legislative requirement within the Service NSW (One-stop Access to Government Services) Act 2013, which requires a Council resolution to empower a Service Partnership Agreement to execute the Easy to do Business initiative in Penrith. As part of the resolution, Council is required to delegate the relevant ‘customer service’ functions related to the administration of the Easy to do Business initiative to the Chief Executive Officer, Service NSW.

 

This means that the Services NSW concierge will be the first contact point for interested parties that access Penrith City Council forms through the Easy to do Business website.

 

Should anyone approach Council directly for advice, they would continue to be supported through our existing processes as appropriate, including referral to the Easy to do Business initiative.

 

Notable, some of the benefits of our existing service partnership have included:

·    Improved support to small businesses through a single source of information.

·    Reduced the duplication of forms. 

·    Supported the streamlining of processes through all levels of government associated with opening and growing a business.

·    Improved quality of information being provided to Council with applications.

·    Reduced the timeframe for business owners to establish a café, restaurant, or small bar.

 

Since entering the Partnership Agreement in July 2018, there has been 1,592 local businesses utilise the Easy to do Business initiative in Penrith. Approximately 600 of these have been service support for new business. More recently, businesses have been accessing the Service for NSW Government Covid grants and support. Whilst Services NSW have provided data regarding usage of the program, no evaluation information has been shared. Council staff have reported that for those applications coming through the Easy to do Business program, there is a higher level of completion of all the required information, reflecting the value of the concierge approach.

Current Situation

The intention of the Partnership Agreement is to build awareness of specialist advice services available, ensure Council staff can direct enquiries to these services, and provide applicants with the skills to be better informed and researched prior to lodging any applications.

 

The Legal Services team have confirmed that the Agreement is not legally binding, and that there are no changes to Council’s obligations under the new Partnership Agreement (Attachment 1). The obligations as outlined in the agreement will continue to be:

 

·    Work collaboratively and in good faith in a timely and effective manner, with open communication to achieve shared objectives.

·    Facilitate a partnership relationship that promotes and achieves continuous improvement and accountability.

·    Ensure that each of its Personnel complies with this agreement and all applicable laws and policies relating to the Services, including the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

·    Comply with the agreed timelines for meeting obligations to ensure efficient and effective delivery of Services.

·    Work together to identify and manage shared risks.

·    Work together to prioritise initiatives and enhancements, particularly where there are limitations on time and resources.

·    Work together to respond to the media, advise Ministers, and consult each other when developing communications that impact on Services.

 

 

The new Partnership Agreement includes further detail and clarity about the roles and responsibilities of all agencies in relation to the collection, storage and security of personal information.

 

Financial Implications

This program is at no cost to Penrith City Council to participate. Support material, training and advice is provided by Service NSW for Business at no cost. Implementation of the program should lead to reduced processing times and costs relating to applications to Council.

Risk Implications

There are no significant risks for Council associated with this report. All project risks will be managed by Council staff through risk management procedures. There are no changes to Council’s obligations under the Partnership Agreement.

Conclusion

This report recommends that Council continue to be a part of the Service NSW Easy to do Business Initiative. In order to continue the implementation, the General Manager will be required to be authorised before signing the agreement.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Renewal of Service NSW Partnership Agreement - Easy to do Business be received.

2.     Council delegates authority to the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Service NSW; and

3.     Any necessary documents be authorised for execution under the Common Seal of Council.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Service NSW Partnership Agreement

22 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

12

RFT21/22-02 Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station   

 

Compiled by:               Siva Sivakumar, Project Coordinator - Capital Works

Authorised by:            Michael Jackson, Design and Projects Manager

Brian Steffen, Director - City Services  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Make our public places safe and attractive

Service Activity

Implement the Building Asset Renewal Program

      

 

Executive Summary

Tender reference RFT21/22-02 for Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station was advertised on NSW Government tender website and listed in Apet360 Portal which is an online platform to manage the tender process, including receiving all tender submissions.

 

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tender from Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd be accepted for the scope of works outlined in the RFT 21/22-02 for Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station for a total amount of $1,399,818.46 (excluding GST).

 

Background

After a severe storm event in mid-2016 the building occupied by the Mulgoa Rural Fire Brigade became structurally compromised by the rapid overland flow of stormwater on the site. This stormwater flow travelled beneath the concrete slab of the building which garaged the firefighting appliances, causing some movement in the structure, cracking the brickwork and the concrete floor slab.

 

Given the extent of the damage to the building, the NSW Rural Fire Service identified Mulgoa Rural Fire Brigade as a priority for action in the Penrith LGA. Since then, Council investigated a number of potential locations for a rural fire brigade station within the Mulgoa village area.

 

After the initial investigations, and extensive consultation with the Mulgoa Progress Association and the Mulgoa community, the existing location was deemed to be the viable option to station the Mulgoa Rural Fire Brigade as it provides flood free access and sufficient flood free area on which to construct a Rural Fire Station without adversely impacting the balance of the critically endangered ecosystem adjacent to the building area.

 

The proposed redevelopment will reconfigure the existing outdated RFS facility to provide for a contemporary fit-out, improved circulation and access arrangements.  The proposed new building footprint substantially encroaches over part of the adjoining public road known as The Straight Road.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 14 December 2020, resolved to support the new traffic arrangements for the proposed station redevelopment and closure of part of The Straight Road, through endorsement of the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) meeting of 7 December 2020. This closure is integral in ensuring the Mulgoa RFS Station project remains on track to be delivered within the prescribed timeframe and in accordance with the proposed project design and budget.

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Council officers Siva Sivakumar - Project Coordinator, Wasique Mohyuddin – Delivery Program Manager, Laurence Cafarella – Security and Emergency Management Coordinator, and RFS officer Angelo Baldo – District Manager (Cumberland District). The committee was chaired by Michael Jackson - Design & Projects Manager.

 

Allyce Langton from Council’s Procurement team performed the role of tender administration and probity officer for this tender.

 

The evaluation criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

•        Business References

•        Demonstrated Ability

•        Project Appreciation

•        Works Method and Program

•        Financials

•        Employment Policies and details (Direct labour and Sub Contractors)

•        Support of Local Businesses within the Penrith LGA - Suppliers and Contractors

•        Quality Assurance Systems

•        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

Tendered Price

Company Location

Directors

Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd

$1,399,818.46

Unit 306,
2-8 Brookhollow Ave Norwest NSW 2153

Mitchell Rogers

Ben Kavo

Sassan Vodjdani Pty Ltd t/as Royal Contractors

$1,421,030.00

11 Hume Avenue
Castle Hill NSW 2154

Sassan Vodjdani

Westbury Constructions Pty Ltd

$1,484,076.00

Unit 6, 16 Rob Place, Vineyard NSW 2765

Darren Price, Shakeel Karim

Hurst Concepts Australia Pty Ltd

$1,561,340.00

4 Macmillan Street, Seaforth NSW 2092

David Hurst, Scott Hurst, Elizabeth Hurst

Structen Pty Ltd

$1,602,730.00

247 Pebbly Hill Road, Cattai NSW 2756

Lyndall Dordevic

Philip McNamara t/as Cranebrook Constructions

$1,677,362.00

97 Taylor Road
Cranebrook NSW 2749

Philip McNamara

O S Group Indigenous Pty Ltd

$1,828,096.00

Unit 9, 7-29 Bridge Road Stanmore NSW 2048

Cheree Toka

Samer El Ayoubi

Designex Group Pty Ltd

$1,857,595.00

40 Hayes Road

Seven Hills NSW 2147

Nazmeen Khan

Coverit Buildings Group Pty Ltd

$1,860,481.00

Unit 18,
37-47 Borec Road
Penrith NSW 2749

Shane Comans

Mono Constructions Pty Ltd

$2,063,080.00

Unit 9, 287 Victoria Road Rydalmere NSW 2116

Christopher Moujalli

VBuilt Constructions Pty Ltd

$2,168,756.58

Unit 6,
74-76 Burwood Road
Burwood NSW 2134

Vlad Kipic

Aurify Constructions Pty Ltd

$2.220,010.96

Unit 12, 6 Chaplin Drive
Lane Cove West NSW 2066

Robert Stapleton
Leo Sprague
Colin Baggott

Build 369 Pty Ltd

$2,303,664.00

100 Harris Street
Pyrmont NSW 2099

Zoran Sever

M W Civil Engineering & Constructions Pty Ltd

$2,457,613.02

Unit 1, Canley Vale Road
Canley Heights NSW 2166

Munir Toma

 

Tenders were evaluated using Apet360 software to provide a ranking for conformance with the evaluation criteria. 

 

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

The tenders submitted by Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd, Sassan Vodjdani Pty Ltd t/as Royal Contractors, Westbury Constructions Pty Ltd, Hurst Concepts Australia Pty Ltd and Structen Pty Ltd were within the available budget and were shortlisted for further evaluation.  All remaining tenders were not evaluated further.

 

Following the assessment of effectiveness, the tenders submitted by the following five firms scored strongly for conformance with the evaluation criteria.

 

•        Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd

•        Sassan Vodjdani Pty Ltd t/as Royal Contractors

•        Westbury Constructions Pty Ltd

•        Hurst Concepts Australia Pty Ltd

•        Structen Pty Ltd

 

Based on detailed analysis of pricing components clarifications were sought from Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd during the tender evaluation period and this company was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee to provide the highest value for money and it is the lowest price tenderer.

 

Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd demonstrated comprehensive Quality and Environmental Management Systems and have excellent relevant experience, including leading all trades in the completion of similar projects.

 

The recommended company Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd 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 along with demonstrating overall effectiveness in the delivery of works under contract.

 

Financial Implications

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd. These checks were recently completed by Equifax Australasia Credit Ratings Pty Ltd and have been reviewed by Financial Services. Based on this review, no concerns were raised as to the ability of Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd to perform the works described.

 

Funding for the construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station will be made available under the NSW Government Rural Fire Fighting Fund Infrastructure Projects allocation for financial periods 2021-22 and 2022-23.

 

At completion of the project all new infrastructure will be incorporated into the asset renewal program and provisions for ongoing maintenance will be made as per Council’s budget guidelines.

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 the Director City Services - Brian Steffen, Governance Manager - Glenn McCarthy, Financial Services Manager - Neil Farquharson and Lana Axford – Supply Coordinator, were briefed by the Design & Projects team about the background and the process followed. The TAG noted that the recommended tender submitted is not only the lowest tender price but the recommended company provided evidence of their ability to meet Council’s requirements through their compliance with the tender evaluation criteria.

 

The TAG considered the recommendations in relation to the tender for the Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station, 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 in the opinion that Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd provided the most advantageous tender and it is recommended that they be awarded the contract for a sum of $1,399,818.46 excluding GST.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RFT21/22-02 Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station be received.

2.     Rogers Construction Group Pty Ltd be awarded the contract subject to the execution of a formal agreement for Construction of Mulgoa Rural Fire Service Station, for an amount of $1,399,818.46 excluding GST.

3.     The General Manager (or their delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

 



ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

13

RFT21/22-06 Tree Planting Services   

 

Compiled by:               James Craig, Project Supervisor

Authorised by:            Michael Jackson, Design and Projects Manager

Brian Steffen, Director - City Services  

 

Outcome

We have safe, vibrant places

Strategy

Make our public places safe and attractive

Service Activity

Plan and deliver Council’s major capital projects for public spaces

      

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcome of the Tender RFT21/22-06 Tree Planting Services for a period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance.

Council is expecting to plant upwards of 5000 trees within the LGA in the next calendar year and to facilitate such works the services of a suitably qualified contractor was tendered. These services include the installation of new trees, establishment and maintenance on newly planted trees, as well as the replacement of any tree stock which does not survive within an agreed maintenance period.

The tender for Tree Planting Services was advertised on Council’s website, AEPT360 website and e-Tendering website on 25 August 2021. Tender closed on 15 September 2021.

Based on the detailed evaluation, independent risk analysis and best overall value, this report recommends that the contract for Tree Planting Services within the Penrith Local Government Area be awarded to Summit Open Space Services, for an initial period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance.

Background

Council currently delivers many projects requiring the planting of trees. These works range from landscaping associated with new public buildings, playground developments to large scale tree planting works.

Council is currently undertaking several large tree planting projects such as the Greening Our City program and the Penrith Shade Trees project in addition to many others where trees will be required. With the current tree planting contract ending in January 2022, it was deemed necessary to formalise a new contract for future projects. With the expectation of Council planting more than 5000 trees in the next calendar year, this new contract was to include maintenance servicing on each tree planted and the replacement of any tree in the event it does not survive. Additional components such as ground preparation, turf establishment and aboricultural assessment reports were included in the tendered scope to better assist the delivery of Council projects within the LGA.

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.

Respondents were required to detail past experience in projects of a similar nature reflecting a clear knowledge of the works in question and in line with the tendered specifications. Tenderers were also asked to provide a detailed methodology in response to three (3) scenarios and show a broad understanding of the specifications aligned to the scope. Company capacity to deliver along with necessary qualifications to undertake the works were key requirements of the tender. A detailed price schedule for multiple scope options relating to tree planting as well as maintenance requirements associated with these works was also to be completed. Tenderers were also required to provide details of a mapping and data capture system as part of ongoing asset data collection relating to these works.

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

·    Company Profile

·    Conformance, Acceptance and Declaration

·    Business References

·    Completion of Forms Tender Price submitted

·    Compliance Statement

·    Demonstrated Ability

·    Works Method and Program

·    Local Business Preference

·    Financials

·    Employment Policies

·    Quality Assurance Systems

·    Environmental Management Systems

·    Work Health and Safety

Tender Evaluation Committee

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Project Supervisors, James Craig and Mitchell Sammut, Landscape Architect, Elizabeth Roxburgh and Public Space Tree Assessment Officer, Derek Williams and was chaired by Design & Projects Manager, Michael Jackson.  Procurement Business Partner, Allyce Langton performed the role of tender administration and probity officer for this tender.

 

Summary of Tender 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). Respondents were required to complete a detailed pricing schedule and a total price was calculated using formulas based on expected trees to be planted annually in line with relevant project specifications.

 

 

Company

Expected Annual Price (ex GST)

Company Address

Owners/Directors

Muru Mittigar Limited

$316,258.50

111-113 Henry St Penrith NSW 2750

Roslyn Fogg, Cheryl Goh & Robertson Ewin

Asplundh Tree Expert Australia t/a Summit Open Space Services

$340,874.47

23 Sterling Rd, Minchinbury NSW 2770

Depot: Emu Plains

Greg Fitzgerald

 

Waratah Lawncare and Garden Management Pty Ltd t/a Waratah Group Services

$551,510.93

6 Cunningham Street Moorebank NSW 2170

Geoff Timpson

GJ’s Landscapes Pty Ltd

$618,089.50

13/43 College Street Gladesville NSW 2111

Glenn Roy Jurd

 

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

 

All four (4) tenders were assessed against the evaluation criteria.

 

In their responses, both Muru Mittigar and Waratah Group Services poorly addressed many key requirements and methodology scenarios for the works in question. Muru Mittigar, Waratah Group Services and GJ’s Landscapes did not provide appropriate detail in their responses regarding demonstrated ability and past experience relevant to the scope outlined. Muru Mittigar, Waratah Group Services and GJ’s Landscapes did not adequately demonstrate that they had sufficient staff numbers with the necessary qualifications to undertake the contract works as outlined in the tender requirements.

 

Of the four respondents, Summit Open Space Services showed superior past experience and detailed understanding of the methodology scenarios outlined in the tender. They addressed many key areas of the tender where other respondents did not. Summit Open Space Services also proved they have ample resources and the necessary qualified staff to deliver project works for the duration of the contract term. Following completion of the evaluation, several clarifications were sought and received by the evaluation committee. Upon clarifications being received, it was determined that due to the tendered price (expected annual costs) of $340,874.47, Summit Open Space Services provided best value for Council on the responses provided.

 

Summit Open Space Services currently have a three (3) year contract with Council for tree planting works, operating out of both their Minchinbury and Emu Plains offices and depots to coordinate project works. During this time, they have planted over 1200 trees for Council across many projects throughout the Local Government Area. This contract has been inclusive of maintenance and establishment of all trees planted as well as the replacement of any tree stock that did not survive.

 

The recommended company, Summit Open Space Services 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 Asplundh Tree Expert Australia t/a Summit Open Space Services. 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.

The services provided for in this tender will be provisioned for within existing operational and funded project budgets.

 

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 Brian Steffen - Director City Services, Glenn McCarthy - Governance Manager and Neil Farquharson – Financial Services Manager were briefed by the Design & Projects team about the background and the process followed.

The TAG considered the recommendations in relation to the tender RFT21/22-06 Tree Planting Services, noted the recommended company has demonstrated their ability to meet Council’s requirements and their proposal is 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.

The contract works will be delivered under the best practice standards and specifications developed by Council officers. Necessary quality assurance processes have been implemented to ensure all works are delivered in line with these standards and specifications.

All tree planting works are delivered in line with Council developed processes to minimise risk to the contractor staff and the environment. 

Conclusion

The four (4) tenders were assessed against the evaluation criteria. Summit Open Space Services scored greater than that of the other respondents and provided the second-best price based on expected annual costs. It is recommended that the tender from Summit Open Space Services for Tree Planting Services RFT21/22 – 06 be accepted, for an initial period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance and mutual agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RFT21/22-06 Tree Planting Services be received

2.     That the tender from Summit Open Space Services for Tree Planting Services be accepted, for an initial period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance and mutual agreement.

3.     The General Manager (or their delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 5 - We care about our environment

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

Outcome 6 - We are healthy and share strong community spirit

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


Outcome 7 - We have confidence in our Council

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

14      Pecuniary Interest Returns 2020 - 2021                                                                          95

 

15      2020-21 Draft Financial Statements                                                                                99

 

16      Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee                                                                      106

 

17      Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021                                                                                                                                         114

 

18      RFT 21/22 Police Cottage Construction Works                                                             122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

14

Pecuniary Interest Returns 2020 - 2021   

 

Compiled by:               Avanthi Fernando, Governance Officer

Adam Beggs, Governance Coordinator

Authorised by:            Glenn McCarthy, Governance Manager

Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer  

 

Outcome

We have confidence in our Council

Strategy

Be open and fair in our decisions and our dealings with people

Service Activity

Promote ethical behaviour through awareness and advice, and manage investigations of alleged corruption, maladministration or breaches of the Code of Conduct

      

 

Executive Summary

According to Clause 4.21 of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW 2020  “a Councillor or designated person must make and lodge with the General Manager a return in the form set out in Schedule 2 of the Code, disclosing the interests specified in Schedule 1 of the Code within three months after becoming a Councillor or designated person, and 30 June each year and the Councillor or designated person becoming aware of an interest they are required to disclose under Schedule 1 that has not been previously disclosed…”.

Designated persons include the General Manager, other senior staff, and staff holding a position identified by the Council as a position of a designated person because it involves the exercise of certain functions such as regulatory or contractual. As set out in Clause 4.21 first returns must be completed and lodged within three months of becoming a Councillor or designated person while annual returns must be completed and lodged within three months of 30 June each year.

Current Situation

Part 4 of the Model Code of Conduct regarding the registration and tabling of returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons is as follows:

Clause 4.24 - The General Manager must keep a register of returns required to be lodged with the General Manager under Clause 4.21, using the form set out in Schedule 2 of the Code.

Returns required to be lodged with the General Manager under Clause 4.21 must be tabled at a Meeting of the Council.

A register of all returns lodged by Councillors and designated persons, in accordance with Clause 4.21 of the Code of Conduct, is currently kept by Council as required by this part of the Code.

Returns lodged under clause 4.21 are to be made publicly available in accordance with the requirements of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. Accordingly, returns will be available on Council’s website subject to redaction, where permitted in accordance with public interest principles and applicable guidelines. Consultation is undertaken with designated persons before being published.

 

The following Clause 4.21 (b) returns have been lodged:

Councillor

Return Period

Date Lodged

Councillor Aaron Duke

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

27 September 2021

Councillor Bernard Bratusa

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

6 August 2021

Councillor Brian Cartwright

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

5 August 2021

Councillor Greg Davies

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

4 August 2021

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

4 August 2021

Councillor John Thain

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

30 August 2021

Councillor Karen McKeown OAM

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

2 August 2021

Councillor Kath Presdee

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

8 September 2021

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

24 August 2021

Councillor Marcus Cornish

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

26 September 2021

Councillor Mark Davies

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

21 September 2021

Councillor Robin Cook

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

8 September 2021

Councillor Todd Carney

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

21 August 2021

Councillor Tricia Hitchen

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

4 August 2021

 

Name

Position Title

Return Period

Date Lodged

Adam Wilkinson

Engineering Services Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Andrew Robinson

Community Facilities and Recreation Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

16 August 2021

Andrew Moore

Director – Corporate Services

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Brian Steffen

Director – City Services

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Carlie Ryan

City Strategy Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

David Parry

Customer Experience Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

5 August 2021

Glenn McCarthy

Governance Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

2 August 2021

Gowry Gowrythasan

Civil Works, Workshop and Fleet Operations Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

11 September 2021

Gregory McCarthy

Environmental Health & Compliance Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

2 August 2021

Jade Bradbury

Children’s Services Operations Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

16 September 2021

Jane Howard

ICT Operations Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Jennifer Pollard

City Resilience Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

20 September 2021

Johannes Meijer

City Assets Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

1 September 2021

John Gordon

City Presentation Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

28 September 2021

Joshua Fayle

People and Culture Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

10 August 2021

Kylie Powell

Director – City Futures

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

5 August 2021

Linda Ross

People and Children Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

1 September 2021

Matthew Bullivant

Legal Services Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Michael Jackson

Design & Projects Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

16 August 2021

Natasha Borgia

City Planning Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

20 August 2021

Nathan Ritchie

Property Development Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

16 September 2021

Neil Farquharson

Financial Services Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

1 September 2021

Peter Wood

Development Services Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

21 September 2021

Rebecca Hackney

Communications Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

21 September 2021

Robert Tweddle

Manager, Ripples

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

16 August 2021

Sandy Davies

Director - Community and People

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

24 August 2021

Sarah Dean

Library Services Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Stephen Britten

Chief Governance Officer

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

3 August 2021

Tracy Chalk

Waste & Resource Recovery Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

24 August 2021

Warwick Winn

General Manager

01 July 2020 – 30 June 2021

15 September 2021

The following Clause 4.21 (a) first returns have been lodged:

Name

Position Title

Start Date

Date Lodged

Andrew Farrell

Acting Communications Manager

2 August 2021

2 August 2021

Andrew Jackson

Director Development and Regulatory Services

2 August 2021

5 August 2021

Fiona Kulakovski

Acting City Economy and Marketing Manager

2 August 2021

3 August 2021

Lila Kennelly

Acting Manager City Resilience

2 August 2021

4 August 2021

Stacey Rossetto

Acting City Economy and Marketing Manager

2 August 2021

4 August 2021

 

Financial Implications

 

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

Risk Implications

Councillors and designated persons are prescribed to disclose pecuniary interests listed in Schedule 1 in accordance with Clause 4.21 of the Model Code. The disclosures of pecuniary interests are expected to uphold Councillors’ and designated persons’ honest and responsible conduct while executing their duties and to minimise possible breaches of pecuniary interest obligations set out in the Code. The management of Council’s pecuniary interest returns are one of a series of measures implemented to manage risks associated with decision making throughout the organisation.

Conclusion

The returns were completed and lodged prior to the due date for the receipt of the returns and are kept in a register held by the Governance Department.

Returns will be available on Council’s website subject to redaction, where permitted in accordance with public interest principles and applicable guidelines.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Pecuniary Interest Returns 2020 - 2021 be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

15

2020-21 Draft Financial Statements    

 

Compiled by:               Cheryl Freeburn, Operational Finance Coordinator

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 draft 2020-21 Financial Statements for Council have been completed and will be presented at this Ordinary Meeting by Council’s external auditor. The Financial Statements are prepared by Council staff, using the accrual method of accounting and comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the New South Wales Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

 

This report covers:

·    Addressing of the meeting by Council’s Auditor;

·    Legislative requirements;

·    Background to the Financial Policies;

·    Budget Performance; and

·    Summary of Financial Results.

Addressing of the Meeting by Council’s Auditor

Ms Karen Taylor, Director of Financial Audit Services for the Audit Office NSW, will be addressing the meeting. This is the fifth year that the Audit Office NSW has been Council’s auditor. Ms Taylor will outline the audit process and provide Council an opportunity to ask questions of the External Auditor.

Legislative Requirements

The Local Government Act requires the following steps:

1.   Council officers prepare the Financial Statements;

2.   Council issues a statement that the accounts are in order;

3.   Council refers the Financial Statements to its auditors for checking;

4.   The Auditor returns the Financial Statements with an audit opinion attached;

5.   The Financial Statements are placed on public display and the community may make submissions; and

6.   The Financial Statements are formally presented during a Council Ordinary Meeting.

 

Council officers have completed Step 1 by preparing the Statements and this report recommends completion of Steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 at tonight’s meeting. The auditors have received an advance copy of the Financial Statements and have now completed several weeks of their audit program. It is considered appropriate that Council issue the required statement for the 2020-21 accounts.

 

Current Situation

The Financial Statements have been prepared by Council officers, using the accrual method of accounting and comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the New South Wales Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. The Financial Statements are required to be audited by an independent auditor and lodged with the Office of Local Government (OLG) before 31 October each year.

 

Council’s auditors commenced their audit on the 30 August 2021, with Council officers continuing to assist with the audit process. A draft copy of the Financial Statements was presented to a meeting of Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) on 13 October 2021. At that meeting, it was resolved that:

 

“1.   The information contained in the report on the Financial Statements for year ended 30 June 2021 be received; and

2.   The Audit Committee refers the Draft 2020-21 Financial Statements to Council for signing.”

All Controlled Entity consolidations and final audit adjustments, including the actions from ARIC, have now been processed and are included in the Financial Statements. The Draft Financial Statements are attached to this report.

Summary of Financial Results

The following figures provide a summary of the key results for 2020-21. A final copy of the Annual Financial Statements can be provided, once they have been adopted by the Council. Council’s financial performance is aligned with its continued focus on long-term financial sustainability.

 

The following figures provide a summary of the key results for 2020-21 compared to prior year:

Item ($’000)

2020-21

2019-20

Revenue (including capital)

298,287

281,085

Operating Expenditure

273,497

251,582

Net Surplus

24,790

29,503

Operating results before capital

(17,874)

3,251

Capital Grants and Contributions

42,664

26,252

Depreciation

44,286

30,548

Total Assets

2,564,161

2,439,463

Total Equity at 30 June

2,443,619

2,326,401

Total Borrowings

25,788

34,208

Cash and Investments

156,975

162,719

Key Indicators/Benchmark

 

 

Operating Performance Ratio/ > 0%

(8.08%)

(0.32%)

Own Source Operating Revenue Ratio/ > 60%

74.34%

77.37%

Unrestricted Current Ratio/ > 1.5x

 2.49x

2.45x

Debt Service Cover Ratio/ > 2

2.62x

2.67x

Rates Outstanding Percentage/ < 5%

4.68%

4.12%

Cash Expense Cover Ratio/ > 3 mths

6.81

7.54

 

Council presented a favourable balanced Budget as at 30 June 2021 (including prudent transfers to contingency Reserves) despite COVID-19. Council’s Financial Position as at 30 June 2021 reflects the significant challenges faced during the year. Most Financial Performance Measures are in line with expectations and Council’s short-term Financial Position remains sound. Council’s annual depreciation expense has increased significantly and Council continues to plan for the long term, forecasting asset renewal and investment in capital assets and balances operational revenue and expenditure. After allowing for $42.7m of Capital Grants and Contributions, Council finished the year with a surplus from ordinary activities of $24.8m and deficit net operating result of $17.9m excluding Capital Grants and Contributions compared to last year’s surplus of $3.25m. The main reason for this variation relates to the increased depreciation expenditure of $13.7m resulting from the Roads and Drainage revaluations last financial year.

As the replacement cost of Council’s assets continue to increase and further assets are constructed, depreciation expenditure will continue to increase. Operating Results, which include depreciation expenses, are a challenge for all councils which are the custodians of billions of dollars worth of assets. Council continues to plan for the long term (including managing asset management costs), forecasting asset renewal and investment in capital assets and balancing operational revenue and expenditure, with a focus on delivering balanced and sustainable budgets.  

Council’s investment property portfolio increased by $5m in 2019-20 with only a $0.39m increase in 2020-21. Council’s overall revenue increased by $17.2m, generally driven by the $16.4m increase in capital revenues. Council’s interest and investment income has declined due to drops in the Official Cash Rates.

Detailed Key Indicators (calculations reported under Note G6 of General Purpose Financial Statements):

 

·    Operating Performance – measures Council’s achievement of containing Operating Expenditure within Operating Revenue. Capital Grants and Contributions, Fair Value adjustments, and reversal of Revaluation decrements are excluded. The benchmark is greater than 0%. In 2020-21, Council’s indicator was a deficit of 8.08% (deficit 0.32% in 2019-20) and did not achieve the Benchmark due largely to the significant increase in depreciation. Council still maintained a balanced operational budget during the financial year.

 

·    Own Source Operating Revenue – is the degree of reliance on external funding sources such as Operating Grants and Contributions which can be an unreliable form of income. The benchmark is greater than 60% - a higher percentage means Council receives more of its revenue from Rates, Fees and Charges, and is less reliant on Grants and Contributions. In 2020-21, Council’s indicator was 74.34% (77.37% in 2019-20) which is better than Benchmark.

 

·    Unrestricted Current Ratio - Unrestricted Current Assets exceed Current Liabilities by a ratio of 2.49:1 (2.45:1 in 2019-20). This is better than the Office of Local Government’s benchmark of 1.5:1. As previously discussed with the Audit Committee, this ratio is constrained each year by Council’s practice of forward funding s7.11 works in advance of Contributions by borrowings against Internal Reserves. For 30 June 2021, these borrowings amounted to $5.39m.

 

·    Debt Service Cover Ratio – measures the availability of Operating Cash to service our debt including Interest, Principal and Lease payments. The Benchmark for this indicator is greater than 2. For 2020-21, Council’s indicator was 2.62:1 (2.67:1 in 2019-20) which is better than Benchmark. Council’s revised Borrowing Strategy has been a contributing factor by reducing the annual Infrastructure Borrowing Program from $2.2m to $1.0m in 2017-18, and in 2018-19 was reduced to be nil, two years earlier than originally planned (2020-21). The Council’s outstanding loan liability has decreased by $8.42m to $25.78m ($34.2m in 2019-20). Council continues to use Borrowings to fund Infrastructure Programs and Projects, however Council’s level of debt is continually monitored to ensure it is sustainable without compromising service levels.

 

·    Rates OutstandingThe Rates Outstanding Ratio is an indicator that highlights the effectiveness of Council’s credit management practices. The ratio is 4.68% for the year ended 2020-21 versus 4.12% in 2019-20. Council continues to achieve a ratio better than the 5.0% benchmark, despite the challenges faced by the COVID-19 crisis and Councils compassionate response to make payment arrangements, waive certain commercial rent and not enter legal action for outstanding amounts.

 

·    Cash Expense Cover Ratio – indicates the number of months a council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without additional cash inflow. The Benchmark is greater than 3 months. Council’s indicator for 2020-21 was 6.81 months (7.54 months in 2019-20) which is better than Benchmark.

 

COVID-19

In order to track the actual impact of COVID-19 on Council’s operations and revenue, a separate COVID-19 Impact Reserve was established in 2019-20. This Reserve initially resulted in a deficit balance as we are only notionally funding from the Reserve against other internal Unrestricted Reserves with the intention that future surpluses will be directed towards repayment of this Reserve. The impact of COVID-19 was included in the original 2020-21 Budget with a predicted General Revenue impact of $3.8m. At the conclusion of each reporting period a review of Actual vs Budgeted impact is undertaken with any variance adjusted against the original source of funding for this Reserve and any surplus directed towards the repayment of this internal reserve. For the June 2021 Quarter the impact on Revenue was a decrease of $2.6m and $0.57m subsidy to Penrith Whitewater Stadium.

Ministerial media release dated 17 April 2020 allowed councils a one-month extension for 2019-20 (only) and an ongoing amendment to remove the requirement for council notices to be advertised in newspapers and instead allow the relevant notice to be published on the Council’s website.

Assets & Revaluations

Fair Value

Council moved to Fair Value reporting in the 2010-11 Financial Statements with the revaluation of Community Land. The OLG issued Circular (12-09) and confirmed the revaluation cycle of IPPE to a maximum 5-year cycle (unless Council assesses there has been material changes to the valuations beforehand). Summary of dates for valuations are listed in the table below:

 

Asset Class

Due

Investment Properties (annually)

30 June 2021

Community and Crown Land; Land Under Roads

30 June 2021

Buildings

30 June 2022

Operational Land

30 June 2023

Roads, Bridges, Footpaths, Drainage

30 June 2025

 

Community and Crown Land Revaluations

 

The revaluations for Community and Crown lands have been completed. The Fixed Asset Registers (FAR) were reconciled against the Property and Rating system and Council’s Mapping System. A number of discrepancies due to: property changes such as subdivisions, missing assets, changed address details, land classifications were worked through and corrected. There are currently 573 Community Land and 25 Crown Land parcels held in the FAR. An increase of $24m combined for these assets was booked for 2020-21.     

 

Land Under Roads Revaluation

 

During the current year Council Officers conducted a comprehensive revaluation for land under roads. As part of this revaluation the Council identified the original external valuation worksheet used to recognise the fair value of land under roads acquired before 1 July 2008 in 2010-11, contained roads that were not Council owned, duplicated roads and other errors. The area of Land Under Roads pre-1 July 2008 has been revised from an area of 30,627,500m2 to 17,412,413m2 with a decrease in value of $80,667,497. The errors identified above have been corrected by restating the balances at the beginning of the earliest period presented (1 July 2019) and taking the adjustment through to accumulated surplus and revaluation reserves at that date.

 

Investment Properties

 

Council initially booked its Investment Properties in the 2004-05 Financial Year. At that point Council’s Investment Property portfolio was valued at $9.0m. These properties are assessed and valued in line with market conditions, using a registered valuer each year. Any gains or losses are booked to the Income Statement.

 

For 2020-21, Council had paid $5m deposit for a new investment property, however as settlement is delayed this will not be classified as an investment property until settlement occurs and the land title is held by Council. The current properties were revalued by Curtis Valuers in accordance with AASB 140 Investment Property that resulted in a $0.39m increase to this asset class, with total Investment Properties currently standing at $40.2m.

Council’s Report on Infrastructure Assets

The estimated cost to bring the assets to a satisfactory standard is based on the overall reported value of these asset classes, and the proportion of these assets which are estimated to be below a satisfactory standard. 

 

It is not anticipated that there will be immediate failures of these asset classes, however further investigation is required to identify assets which are in poor condition, and to plan for the renewal of those assets which are nearing the end of their useful life.

 

There are several indicators that are shown in Special Schedule Report on Infrastructure:

 

·    Infrastructure Renewals Ratio – used to assess the rate at which infrastructure assets are being renewed against the rate at which they are depreciating. Council’s indicator in 2020-21 was 72.38% (91.06% in 2019-20). The Benchmark is greater than 100%. Achieving the 100% Benchmark is the long-term target for Council.

 

·    Infrastructure Backlog Ratio – shows what proportion the backlog is against the total value of Council’s infrastructure. Council’s indicator in 2020-21 was 1.68% (1.49% in 2019-20). The Benchmark is less than 2% and so Councils actual result is better than the benchmark.

 

·    Asset Maintenance Ratio – compares the actual versus required annual asset maintenance identified in Council’s asset management plans. A ratio of above 1.0 indicates that the Council is investing enough funds within the year to stop the infrastructure backlog from growing. Council’s indicator for 2020-21 was 81.53%, below the Benchmark and the prior year ratio (104.24% in 2019-20) and the ratio is one which requires ongoing focus from the Council.

 

Financial Implications

Detailed financial implications resulting from the adoption of the 2020-21 Draft Annual Financial Statements and Public Exhibition are included in this report and attachments.

Risk Implications

The Financial Statements are prepared by Council staff, using the accrual method of accounting and comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the New South Wales Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting. Internal controls are established and maintained to ensure that they are reliable, have recorded all material transactions, appropriate accounting policies have been applied, the risk of fraud and errors have been minimised.

Conclusion

The 2020-21 Draft Annual Financial Statements and external audit are nearing completion. Council’s Financial Position as at 30 June 2021 reflects the challenges faced by Council during the year. All significant Financial Performance Measures are in line with expectations and Council’s short-term Financial Position remains sound. Council’s annual depreciation expense has increased significantly following the 2019-20 revaluations and Council continues to plan for the long term, forecasting asset renewal and investment in capital assets and balances operational revenue and expenditure. After allowing for $42.7m of Capital Grants and Contributions, Council finished the year with a surplus from ordinary activities of $24.8m and deficit net operating result of $17.9m excluding Capital Grants and Contributions.

 

It is proposed the Public Exhibition period will commence on Friday 29 October 2021, with written submissions to be received within 7 days in accordance with Section 420 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on 2020-21 Draft Financial Statements be received.

2.     Pursuant to s413(2)(c) it is the Council's opinion that:

a.   The Financial Statements and schedules have been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations, the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting, the Local Government Australian Infrastructure Management Guidelines, and Australian Accounting Standards. The Statements comply with Australian Statements of Accounting Concepts.

b.   The Financial Statements present fairly the Council's financial position as at 30 June 2021 and the operating result for the year then ended.

c.   The statements are in accord with Council's accounting and other records.

3.     Pursuant to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and Section 215 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 it is the Council's opinion that:

a.   The accompanying Special Purpose Financial Report has been drawn up in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulations, the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting and the requirements of National Competition Policy. The Code requires the inclusion of various charges and subsidies which are not actually paid or payable.

b.   The Special Purpose Financial Report is a special purpose report and is not required to comply with Australian Accounting Standards. The above legislative requirements differ from Australian Accounting Standards and hence the report does not comply with Australian Accounting Standards.

c.   The Special Purpose Financial Statements present a modelled scenario for comparative purposes. They do not report an actual result.

4.     The Statements be forwarded to Council's Auditors.

5.     The Financial Statements be placed on public exhibition.

6.     A further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Draft 2020-21 Financial Statements

114 Pages

Attachments Included

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

16

Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee   

 

Compiled by:               Stuart Benzie, Risk, Compliance and Policy Officer

Authorised by:            Matthew Bullivant, Legal Services Manager

Stephen Britten, Chief Governance Officer  

 

Outcome

We have confidence in our Council

Strategy

Be open and fair in our decisions and our dealings with people

Service Activity

Promote ethical behaviour through awareness and advice, and manage investigations of alleged corruption, maladministration or breaches of the Code of Conduct

      

 

Executive Summary

The report provides information on the meeting of Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee held on 25 August 2021. The Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee meeting 25 August 2021 are attached to the report.

Background

The Local Government Act 1993 was amended in 2016 to require each Council to appoint an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (the ARIC). Council resolved to appoint an ARIC in advance and the legislated amendments took effect in August 2021.

The ARIC operates under a Charter, last adopted by Council resolution on 22 May 2017.

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the ARIC Charter, the ARIC must keep under review the following aspects of the Councils operations:

 

a)   compliance

b)   risk management

c)   fraud control

d)   financial management

e)   governance

f)    implementation of the strategic plan, delivery program and strategies

g)   service reviews

h)   collection of performance measurement data by the Council, and

i)    any other matters prescribed by the regulations.

 

The ARIC must also provide information to the Council for the purpose of improving the Council’s performance of its functions.

Current Situation

The ARIC met on 25 Aug 2021. This was the third meeting of the ARIC for the calendar year.

The draft Minutes of the prior meeting, as provided to Council on 26 July 2021, were adopted without alteration. A copy of the Minutes for the meeting of 25 August 2021 are attached to the report.

In keeping with the ARIC’s practice, the ARIC identified the following five key take-outs from the meeting:

 

 

1.   Noted updates on the external audit of financial statements and the management letter on the interim phase of the audit. The Audit Office raised in its interim management letter four IT-related recommendations (2 moderate and 2 low risk) and management has an action plan to address them before the next ARIC meeting. The recent decline in the operating performance ratio was clarified. The financial statements preparation remains on track in line with the project plan. There are no major issues to date and no contentious or unresolved financial matters.

 

2.   Received a half-yearly update on the outcome of a March 2021 internal audit report covering road and footpath maintenance and renewal. Council’s 1,200 km of roads and 680 km of footpaths valued at $1.3 billion are generally in good condition. Recommendations to strengthen Council’s internal processes are being addressed systematically, with more coordination achieved between the City Presentation and City Assets Departments that will be combined into a service level agreement. Enhanced processes and checklists have already been operationalised, as have more robust financial, performance and approval controls. Other recommendations are in progress and will continue to be monitored by the ARIC. 

 

3.   Noted that a financial services self-assessment of Council’s core procurement management arrangements against the Audit Office reporting outcomes through to 2020 found overall compliance in all legislative areas, with key performance indicators for contract performance partially compliant and to be enhanced. The core legislative requirements are currently in place, being improved upon, being implemented as part of the PMO, or to be implemented in the future as part of Council’s future procurement model (e.g. opportunities around cost realisation benefits and documenting justifications of decisions). 

 

4.   Noted that the internal audit and risk management functions continue to operate strongly under the effective leadership of the Risk and Audit Coordinator and astute administrative oversight of the Legal Services Manager. The outcomes of internal audits continue to be beneficial; recommendations are meaningful and largely adopted by management; the approved audit plan is advancing well; the function’s performance remains effective relative to the agreed key performance indicators; and, an annual assessment has confirmed that the function remains compliant with professional auditing standards. Independent reviews of Council’s risk management arrangements commissioned by CivicRisk Mutual (through InConsult) and American International Group (AIG) confirm that its maturity is consistent with the ARIC’s understanding (notably a ‘proficient’ level in terms of a continuous risk improvement program, and a fire risk quality score at the highest (best) end of the scale).

 

5.   Recognised that management continues to actively implement internal audit recommendations. During the life of the current ARIC (since 2017), the internal audit function has raised 510 recommendations (excluding 22 that were not accepted or cancelled as they were no longer relevant). Of these, 427 recommendations (84%) have been implemented. The 83 open recommendations are being tracked and the status is reported to the ARIC each quarter (including comments for any overdue recommendations which are currently progressing in line with revised target dates).

 

 

Financial Implications

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

Risk Implications

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

Conclusion

The Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee meeting 25 August 2021 are attached to the report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee be received.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Draft ARIC Minutes - 25 August 2021

5 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                           25 October 2021

Appendix 1 - Draft ARIC Minutes - 25 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

17

Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021   

 

Compiled by:               James Legarse, Operational Project Accountant

Authorised by:            Andrew Moore, Director - Corporate Services

Neil Farquharson, Financial Services Manager  

 

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

This report on the Summary of Investments & Banking for September 2021 is submitted for the purpose of financial accountability and to satisfy the investment reporting requirements of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (clause 212), the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) (Section 625) and the Council’s Investment Policy.

 

The report certifies that the Council investments comply with the forms of investment made by order of the Minister under section 625(2) of the Local Government Act 1993. The current Ministerial Order was issued under Council Circular 11-01 on 17 February 2011.

 

The report provides a summary of investments for the period 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021 and a reconciliation of invested funds as at 30 September 2021.

 

The investment returns versus the benchmark as a percentage for September 2021 are:

•        Council portfolio current yield (including FRNs)                                     0.52%

•        90-day Bank Bill Swap rate (Benchmark)                                                         0.01%

•        Enhanced 90-day Bank Bill Swap Rate (Benchmark - BBSW+20bps)            0.21%

•        Original Budget estimated return (2021/22 Financial Year)                             0.45%

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

Current Situation

Attached to this report is a Summary of Investments including Economic Commentary for September 2021, Historical Investment Performance analysis tables and charts, a reconciliation of Invested Funds for September 2021 and various Investment Summary and Investment Portfolio analysis tables and charts.

Financial Implications

Adopting the recommendations of this report confirms Council’s investment returns are performing better than the Benchmark, but slightly under the Original Budget estimated return. More detailed Financial Implications are contained in the attachment to this report.

 

 

Risk Implications

The Council’s investments have been placed in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, relevant regulations, and the Council’s adopted Investment Policy. The Council’s Investment Policy has objectives to preserve capital, ensure liquidity of funds to meet cash flow requirements and achieve an acceptable rate of return having reference to the Council’s risk tolerance.

Conclusion

This report confirms that the Council’s investments have been placed in accordance with relevant legislation/regulations, the Council’s Investment Policy and highlights the Council’s investment performance for September 2021. Additionally, the report assures the Council that Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled.

Certificate of Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify the following:

1.   All investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, relevant regulations, and Council’s Investment Policy.

2.   The Council’s Cash Book and Bank Statements have been reconciled as at 30 September 2021.

A close up of a deviceDescription automatically generated

Andrew Moore

Responsible Accounting Officer

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investment & Banking for the Period 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021 be received.

2.     The certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summary of Investments and Performance for the period 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical Investment Analysis as at 30 September 2021 be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.

Investment Report as at 30 September 2021

6 Pages

Appendix

  


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                                           25 October 2021

Appendix 1 - Investment Report as at 30 September 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Meeting                                                                                             25 October 2021

 

 

 

18

RFT 21/22 Police Cottage Construction Works   

 

Compiled by:               Rebecca Marshall, Senior Development 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 Council’s reliance on rateable income, by delivering property projects to achieve financial returns or significant value to Council and the community

 

Previous Items:           Acceptance of Grant funding - Greater Sydney Crown Land Open Space Activation Program and categorisation of Crown Reserves - Ordinary Meeting - 24 May 2021    

 

Executive Summary

Tender reference RFT21/22-01 Police Cottage Construction Works was advertised online through Apet360 on 24 August 2021. The tender closed on 6 October 2021.

This report advises Council of the outcome of the tender process and recommends that the tender from AMA Projects Pty Ltd, for the amount of $1,687,471 (excluding GST) be accepted for Police Cottage construction works.

Background

Working with our community, Council adopted the Our River Nepean River Masterplan in 2013 to ensure we make the most of one our City’s most prized assets. The Masterplan outlines a bold vision for the Regatta Park precinct which included cafes and restaurants to complement and enhance existing community uses and events, the nearby gallery and open spaces. With the Yandhai Nepean Crossing connecting Regatta Park and the river with the City Centre, there is an opportunity to make the Police Cottage a prized destination.  

 

Delivering a destinational dining offering at the Police Cottage builds on the Masterplan, the strategic planning objectives for the Penrith region and the vision for the Western City District. It will deliver on key strategic outcomes of the Penrith Community Plan, as well as serving as a catalyst for other surrounding developments in the River and Regatta Park precincts.  

 

The development of a dining precinct was first identified in the Our River’ Nepean River Masterplan in 2013 and continued in the Regatta Park and Tench Reserve Detailed Planning and Design document in 2016 and more recently in the McGregor Coxall Regatta Park Masterplan in 2019.   

 

The concept of a dining precinct and the heritage restoration and adaptive reuse of the Police Cottage into a food and beverage destination were further explored and supported in the Dining Precinct High Level Options Assessment 2019, the Dining Precinct High Level Business Case 2020 and the Police Cottage Detailed Business Case 2021. 

 

The NSW Government has provided $1.5 million (GST incl) towards the total project cost with the balance being funded by Council from the Property Development Reserve.

Tender Evaluation Process

The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of:

 

·    Nathan Ritchie – Property Development Manager (Chair).

·    Rebecca Marshall – Program Manager,

·    Tatum McKee - Project Officer,

·    Marcel Batrac – Consultant (NS Projects),

·    Scott O’Brien – Consultant (NS Projects)

 

The Tender Evaluation Committee was supported by Procurement Business Partner – Laura Stott and Probity Advisor - Bill Stanley.

 

The evaluation criteria advertised and used in assessing the tenders received included the following:

 

        Demonstrated Ability

        Works Method and Program

        Financials

        Employment Policies

        Local Supplier Preference

        Quality Assurance Systems

        Environmental Management Systems

        Work Health & Safety

        Value for money

Initial Tender Review

A total of eight (8) tenders were received by the closing date of the advertised tender and are listed below in price order (ex GST).

Company

Lump Sum Tender Price

Address

Directors

AMA Projects Pty Ltd

$1,687,471.00

Level 2,

205 Clarence St, Sydney NSW 2000

Alex Singer,

Matthew Ferrari,

Andrew Peereboom

 

Coverit Building Group Pty Ltd

$1,944,898.01

Site 18

37-47 Borec Road Penrith 2750

Shane Stanley Comans

Designex Group Pty Ltd

 

$1,993,071.00

40 Hayes Rd     Seven Hills NSW 2147

Director - Nazmeen Khan Project Director- Pedro Khan

Tower Projects Pty Ltd

 

$2,096,640.00

6A Wonderland Drive Eastern Creek

Ben Hitchon

A J Bristow & Sons Pty Limited

 

$2,297,144.67

A J Bristow and Sons Pty Ltd 8 Odette Road DURAL NSW 2158

Marcus Bristow Andrew Bristow

Toby Bristow

Gae Bristow

Dalski Pty Ltd

 

$2,558,160.82

16c 70 Alfred Street South Milsons Point NSW 2061

Greg Drazkiewicz

Martin Szkudlarek

Lloyd Group Pty Ltd

 

$2,614,325.00

14 Harvey Street Pyrmont NSW 2009

Director: Clinton Lloyd Director: Dustin Lloyd

Phillip McNamara t/a Cranebrook Constructions

Non complying

97 Taylor Road Cranebrook NSW 2749

Phil McNamara

 

The tender review panel assessed all tenders for effectiveness, including local supplier preference before considering price.

 

The tender submitted by Phillip McNamara t/a Cranebrook Constructions has been assessed as non-complying by panel members as they didn’t address key requirements within their submission.

 

Panel members then focussed on the tenders provided by AMA Projects Pty Ltd, Cover It Building Group Pty Ltd and Designex Group Pty Ltd as their submissions were considered as providing best value for money and their tender assumptions and exclusions were investigated in detail to assess the impacts on value.

 

Evaluation of the Preferred Tender

Following an initial assessment and after reviewing clarifications on tender assumptions AMA Projects Pty Ltd was considered the preferred tenderer.

 

During clarifications AMA have confirmed that they had misunderstood substructure remediation scope and thought this referred only to the stumps along the edge of the building that meets the verandah, as the notes on the structural drawing pointed to the stumps along this line. Due to COVID restrictions they did not attend the site meetings, so did not appreciate the full scope in this regard. 

 

The substructure remediation and jacking of the whole structure was excluded from the original pricing and they have advised that the costs for this would be an additional $56,150 excl. GST. Including this in their tender price has resulted in the original tendered price increasing from $1,631,321 to $1,687,471, however they remained the most advantageous tender.

 

The evaluation team have reviewed the balance of their responses to clarifications and no further issues were identified.

 

The recommended company, AMA Projects Pty Ltd was selected based on their:

 

1)      Compliance with the tender evaluation criteria,

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

3)      Lowest 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. AMA Projects Pty Ltd has delivered several projects of similar scale and nature for other Councils. They have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the project scope and Council Officers are satisfied with their clarifications.

 

Financial Implications

Included in the assessment of tenders was the commissioning of independent reference checks, financial analysis, and performance analysis on AMA Projects Pty Ltd.  These checks are being completed by Equifax Australasia Credit Ratings Pty Ltd. Financial Services have not yet received the financial analysis and the results will be advised by memo prior to the council meeting.

 

This report recommends that the tender from AMA Projects Pty Ltd, for the amount of $1,687,471 (excluding GST) be accepted for Police Cottage construction works and this is within the available project funds allocated for this portion of the works.

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 Andrew Moore – Director Corporate Services, Brian Steffen – Director City Services, Glenn McCarthy - Governance Manager, Lana Axford – Supply Coordinator Financial Services and Neil Farquharson – Financial Services Manager were briefed by the tender assessment team about the background and the process followed.

The TAG considered the recommendations in relation to the tender RFT22/22-01 The Police Cottage Construction Works noting that the recommended tender is providing the best value for money. 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 and the clarifications that were made.

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 principles and as per approved design and specifications.

Conclusion

The Tender Evaluation Committee is of the opinion that AMA Projects Pty Ltd provided the most advantageous tender and it is recommended that the Company be awarded the contract.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on RFT 21/22 Police Cottage Construction Works be received

2.     The tender from AMA Projects Pty Ltd, for the amount of $1,687,471.00 (excluding GST) be accepted for RFT 21/22 Police Cottage Construction Works

3.     The General Manager (or their delegate) be authorised to sign all necessary legal documents in relation to this matter.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  



Committee of the Whole

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Pecuniary Interests

 

Other Interests

 

Monday October 25 2021

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Presence of the Public                                                                                                       1

 

2        RFT 20/21-39 The Police Cottage Food and Beverage Operator                                     2

 

3        Agreement to Lease - 4 Punt Road Emu Plains                                                                2

 

4        Unsolicited Proposal - Lang and Kokoda Park St Marys                                                   2

 

5        Partial Road Closure of Northend Avenue, South Penrith                                                2

 

6        Penrith Stadium Lease                                                                                                       3

 

7        Licence of Temporary Carpark located at the corner of Rodgers and Somerset Street Kingswood                                                                                                                          3