PENRITH CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS PAPER

PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

BUSINESS PAPER

"Transport Minister Carl Scully joins Penrith City Mayor David Bradburyand local volunteers for the launch of the Action Stations project at

Kingswood Railway Station."

�

Ordinary Meeting

2 April 2001

Penrith City Council ____________________________________________________________

A COUNCIL COMMITTED TO PROVIDING THE HIGHEST QUALITY SERVICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS

Enquiries regarding this Business Paper should be directed to thePublic Officer, Peter Huxley on (02) 4732 7649

26 March 2001Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and Regulations thereunder, noticeis hereby given that an ORDINARY MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the CouncilChambers, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 2 April 2001 at 7.00pm.

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

Yours faithfully,

Alan TraversGeneral Manager

B U S I N E S S1. APOLOGIES

2. LEAVE OF ABSENCELeave of Absence has been granted to:Councillor Bateman 28 March 2001Councillor Fowler 30 March – 12th April 2001

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESOrdinary Meeting 19 March 2001

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTPecuniary InterestOther Interest

5. ADDRESSING THE MEETING

6. MAYORAL MINUTE

7. NOTICE OF MOTION

8. ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATONS OF COMMITTEESLibrary Services Review Working Party 19 March 2001

9. MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

10. SUPPLEMENTARY AND LATE REPORTS(to be dealt with in the master program to which the item relates)

11. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

12. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

ORDINARY MEETING

MONDAY 2 APRIL 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SEATING ARRANGEMENTS

MEETING CALENDAR

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES

MASTER PROGRAM REPORTS

PRAYER

“Almighty God, we acknowledge that you are sovereign overthe nations of the World and in the lives of individuals. Ourdestiny is in your hands. Help us who are gathered here in thisCouncil Meeting to seek your way and the welfare of the peoplewe represent.

Guide us, we pray in our deliberations, in our differing opinions,to listen to each other with respect and interest. Help us to befair in our judgements, wise in our actions, endeavouring tokeep a spirit of harmony and peace, so that our city may prosperand our people live in contentment. In the name of Jesus Christour Lord. Amen.”

PENRITH CITY COUNCILMEETING CALENDAR

1 July 2000 - 30th June 2001MEETING CALENDAR

MINUTE NO 1316

TIME APR MAY JUN

7.00 pm 2 7 4Ordinary Meetings

23 #21 18

Extraordinary Meeting

Policy Review Committee 7.00 pm 9 14 25

Council has two Ordinary Meetings per month where practicable. Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.Policy Review Meetings are held monthly.Members of the public are invited to observe at meetings of the Council. Should you wish to address Council, please contactThe Public Officer, Peter Huxley on 47327649.# Meetings at which the Management Plan quarterly review is tabled and discussed.

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECOTHER COUNCIL ACTIVITIES

Works Inspection 27 22Economic Development & Employment 8Strategic Planning Review Workshop (To Be Determined)Management Planning Special Workshop 11Local Traffic Committee Meetings 2 7 4 2 6 3 8 5 3WSROC Board Meeting 19 21WSROC EMC Meeting 17Local Government Week 23-30

POLICY FORUMSNational General Assembly - (Canberra) (ALGA) 25-28Local Government Association Conference - (Wollongong) (LGA) 27-31

Australian Local Government Women's Association Conference

Flood Plain Management Conference 8-11State Assembly of Local Government (Sydney) 16-17

WORKSHOP CALENDAR 2001

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECPROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT FORUMS AND CONFERENCES

Local Government Managers Australia (National Congress) Brisbane 13-16Local Government Managers Australia (NSW Conference) (Sydney) 9-10Local Government Managers Australia (Forum - 1 day only) (Sydney) 28Urban Development Institute of Australia - (UDIA) NSW Conference (Terrigal) 14-15Royal Australian Planning Institute - (RAPI) National Conference (Adelaide)Australian Institute of Environmental Health (NSW) Annual ConferenceAustralian Institute of Environmental Health (National) Annual Conference (Perth) 14-19Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (NSW) Annual Conference 16-17

WORKSHOP CALENDAR 2001

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PENRITH ON

MONDAY 19 MARCH 2001 AT 7.00PM

___________________________________________________________________________This is Page No 1 of the Unconfirmed Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Penrith CityCouncil held in the Council Chambers, Penrith on Monday 19 March 2001

PRAYER

The meeting opened with the National Anthem and the Prayer read by the Reverend NeilCheckley.

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor D Bradbury, Councillors J Aitken, D Bailey, J Bateman,G Davies, G Evans, R Fowler, J Greenow, C O’Neill, C O'Toole, K Paluzzano, S Simat, andJ Thain

APOLOGIES

No apologies were received.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence was previously granted to Councillor Sheehy for the period 19th – 24th

March.

104 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor Bailey thatleave of absence be granted for Councillor Bateman for the period 28th March – 3rd April2001, Councillor Khan for the period 19th March –24th March 2001, Councillor Fowler forthe period 30th March – 12th April 2001 and Councillor Sheehy for the period of 12th April –23rd May 2001.


Ordinary Meeting – 5 March 2001

105 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bateman seconded Councillor Paluzannothat the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of 5 March 2001 be confirmed with the followingadmendments:

page 6 item 7 Penrith VRA Rescue Squad – Application for Funding

to read:Councillor J Bateman declared an interest in Item 7 as he is a Partner in a firmof solicitors that has acted for the applicant and did not vote or speak on thematter.

Ordinary Meeting


Page 9 items QWN8, QWN9 and QWN11

Councillor Fowler advised that he had a number of discussions with theGeneral Manager and the Mayor and that he and Councillor Sheehy withdrewthe requests QWN 9 and QWN11 of Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 5th March.He advised some information was provided the other was subject to thePrivacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were received.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

106 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Fowler seconded Councillor Bailey thatStanding Orders be suspended to allow Mrs Maria Vukmirica, Mr. Tony Cinque and Mr.Dave Roberts to address the meeting, the time being 7.15PM.

Mrs Vukmirica addressed Council on Development Application 01/0331 Transitional GroupHomes Assessment Accommodation Centre Lot 17 DP 209399-85 Luddenham Road,Luddenham.

Mrs Vukmirica referred to correspondence circulated to Councillors. She raised issues thatwere of concern to residents of the area regarding the proposed development application. Shestated the concerns related to the process being undertaken by Council officers and theappropriateness of the facility to the area.

Mrs Vukmirica addressed increased traffic flow, sign posting, sewerage and wateravailability to service the proposed facility and social issues. She also raised concernsregarding the type of accommodation being provided.

107 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Aitken seconded Councillor Simat thatan extension of time be granted.

Mrs Vukmirica advised Council of her family being approached by an agent acting on behalfof Councillor Khan and requested information on his involvement in this matter.

Councillor Bateman requested Mrs Vukmirica clarify her statement with regards toCouncillor Khan as he was absent from the meeting.

Mrs Vukmirica advised that Councillor Khan owns the property next door and the agentadvised her that he was acting on behalf of Councillor Khan and needed to defuse thesituation. She stated that she was offered $430 per week

Mr Tony Cinque, General Manager of Sargents Pty Ltd addressed Council in relation to item2 – Section 96 Application Modification to A Condition of Consent No. 385/87 Lot 83 DP2054 (No. 83) Roper Road, Colyton.

Ordinary Meeting


He advised Council that the company had undertaken extensive consultation with residentsand had been proactive in addressing concerns raised. He said the company employs 103staff with 55% from the Penrith Local Government Area and the remainder from the GreaterWestern Area.

Councillor Davies congratulated Sargents Pty Ltd on their consultation process andcompromise by the company. He said that this served as a model for other developers.

Mr David Roberts addressed Council on item 14 ADI Site St Marys – Proposed Release Area4130/2. He raised concern about the whole site being looked at and said Council should haveapproached the National Trust of Australia who could provide this information.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

108 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor O’Neill seconded Councillor Thain thatStanding Orders be resumed the time being 7.35PM.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Local Traffic Committee Meeting – 5 March 2001

109 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor Bailey thatthe recommendations LTC17 to LTC38 contained in the Minutes and Report of the LocalTraffic Committee Meeting of 5 March 2001 be adopted.

Disability Access Committee Meeting – 6 March 2001

110 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greenow seconded Councillor Simat thatthe recommendations DAC1 to DAC4 contained in the Minutes and Report of the DisabilityAccess Committee Meeting of 6 March 2001 be adopted.

Policy Review Committee Meeting – 12 March 2001

111 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Fowler seconded Councillor Davies thatthe recommendations PR62 to PR70 contained in the Minutes and Report of the PolicyReview Committee Meeting of 12 March 2001 be adopted.

THE CITY IN ITS REGION

1 WSROC Update 19/1

112 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bateman seconded Councillor Bailey

That

1. the information in the WSROC Update report be received.

2. Council endorse the WSROC work program and support it where possible throughCouncil’s management plan and programs.

Ordinary Meeting


3. Council’s delegates move a motion on behalf of Penrith City Council at the next WSROCmeeting asking WSROC to be diligent in condemning the Federal Opposition’s stanceregarding Badgerys Creek Airport in the same way as they have for the FederalGovernment.

14 ADI Site St Marys – Proposed Release Area 4130/2

113 A MOTION WAS MOVED BY Councillor Davies seconded Councillor O’NeillThat:

1. Council express its disappointment to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning athis decision to gazette the REP and to announce the proposed release area without dueconsideration being given to many of the issues raised in Council’s submission on theDraft REP, EPS and Outline Development Agreement.

2. Council request the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that:

a) in the event the Minister decides to declare the Western Precinct first releasearea, that he defer from it the 139.6 hectares of significant bushlands included onthe Register of the National Estate sitting outside the proposed Regional Park;

b) before the Minister decides to declare the first release area, the issues raised inCouncil’s previous submissions as outlined in this report be resolved; and allparties be in a position to sign off on the Development Agreement.

An AMENDMENT was foreshadowed by Councillor Fowler

That:

1. Council express its disappointment to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning athis decision to gazette the REP and to announce the proposed release area without dueconsideration being given to many of the issues raised in Council’s submission on theDraft REP, EPS and Outline Development Agreement.

2. Council request the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that:

c) in the event the Minister decides to declare the Western Precinct first releasearea, that he defer from it the 139.6 hectares of significant bushlands included onthe Register of the National Estate sitting outside the proposed Regional Park;

d) before the Minister decides to declare the first release area, the issues raised inCouncil’s previous submissions as outlined in this report be resolved; and allparties be in a position to sign off on the Development Agreement.

3. Council remind the Minister for Planning, Dr Refshauge of the public promises madeby his predecessor on behalf of the State Government in relation to the undertakingshe gave about the development.

Ordinary Meeting


4. Council write to the Minister for Health the Hon. Craig Knowles, bringing him up todate on the status of the promises made by him not being honoured by the currentMinister.

5. Council write to the Hon Faye LoPo` the State Member for Penrith requesting aresponse within 28 days on what action she intends to take in view of the mattersraised in Council’s report.

6. As a matter of urgency Council write to the Hon Jackie Kelly Federal Member forLindsay outlining the urgency to meet with the Federal Minister for the Environmentand the Federal Minister for Finance about the matters outlined in the report.

Councillor Davies and Councillor O’Neill accepted the amendment as part of the originalmotion.

15 Growth Management in Penrith - Major Urban Release AreaProjects 4105/17

114 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor O’Toole seconded CouncillorPaluzzanuo that the report on Growth Management in Penrith – Major Urban Release AreaProjects be received.

THE CITY IN ITS ENVIRONMENT

2 Section 96 Application: Modification to a Condition ofConsent No. 385/87, Lot 83 DP 2054 (No. 83) Roper Road,Colyton, Applicant: Sargents Pty Ltd D69350/37818DA4

115 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor Fowler thatthe request to modify consent notice 385/87 under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning& Assessment Act 1979 be supported subject to the following:

A. The current wording in Condition 19 be deleted and replaced by:

a) The approved hours of operations are between 5.00 am to midnight, Monday to Friday.b) The number of employees shall be restricted to 60 (excluding office staff) from 6pm to

midnight, Monday to Friday.c) The number of employees shall be restricted to 4 only from 12 midnight to 3.00 am,

Monday to Friday.d) The number of employees shall be restricted to 25 employees only from 3.00 am to 5.00

am, Monday to Friday.e) Saturday operations during annual peak periods shall be limited to a maximum of 12

Saturdays between March and September 2001. The operating hours for the 12 Saturdayoperations will be limited to between 7.00am and 6.00pm. Staffing for Saturdayoperations will be as follows;

Ordinary Meeting


• 4 staff at 5.00am

• 1 person at 6.00am

• 2 staff at 6.30 am

• 40-50 staff between 7.00am and 6.00pm.

All staff that arrive before 7.00pm shall park adjacent the existing factory. All other staffcan use the existing car park.

f) A maximum of 10 maintenance persons shall be on site from 7.00am to 5.00pm onweekends. External maintenance shall not commence before 9.00am.

g) The wholesaling of damaged, underweight and seconds produce is to be limited between7.00 am to 12 noon on the 1st Saturday of the each month except January. This activityshall take place in the central location of the frontage of the site.

h) Access to the premises outside normal hours on weekdays and weekends is restricted tooffice staff only.

i) There are to be only 4 employees on Sundays.j) The deliveries and dispatch activities are to be restricted to between 7.00 am to 5.30 pm

weekdays.

Items (a) through (h) as outlined above are limited to a period of 12 months from the date ofthe determination of the Section 96 application. The applicant will need to apply to Councilthe completion of the 12 month period to have the limitation lifted or extended for anotherterm.

B. Additional conditions be imposed as follows:

28. All works recommended in the Acoustic Report prepared by Koikas Acoustics PtyLtd dated 17th August 2000 shall be carried out within 3 months from the date of issueof the modification consent. An acoustic report indicating compliance with thiscondition is to be provided to Council prior to the commencement of the extendedhours of operation.

29. An acoustic report prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant shall besubmitted to Council every three months for the first year to demonstrate that noiselevels at the nearest residence comply with the EPA noise criteria as indicated in thereport.

30. There are to be no external speakers, ringers or pagers installed on the exterior of anybuildings.

31. The starting and ending of midnight shifts shall be staggered by at least 30 minutesdaily.

32. Submission to Council of a plan (prepared in consultation with the relevant residents)indicating the areas where new fences will be replaced or upgraded. The fencing shallbe provided within three months of the date of the modification consent.

Ordinary Meeting


33. Odours and other air discharges from the cooking process are to be reviewed by anappropriately qualified and experienced specialist and any recommendationsimplemented within three months of issue of the modification consent.

34. The applicant shall arrange quarterly meetings with the concerned residents andCouncil to discuss on going operation of the factory for the first year of its extendedoperation.

35. Exterior lighting shall be located so as to avoid any nuisance to neighbouringresidential properties.

3 Proposed Amendment to Development Consent Notice No.413/89 (Section 94 road maintenance contributions for arterialroads) Lots 17-23 DP 2566 Clifton Avenue, Kemps Creek. Kariand Ghossayn Pty Ltd Owner/Applicant. D16350/09065 DA1

116 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor FowlerThat:-

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979, Development Consent Notice No. 413/89 relating to thecontinued extraction and rehabilitation of a quarry being operated by Kari andGhossayn Pty Ltd at Clifton Avenue Kemps Creek be amended in thefollowing manner:

(a) Conditions 29 and 30 be deleted.

2. The monies held by Council for the maintenance of the State arterial roads betransferred to the Roads and Traffic Authority subsequent to Council beingfurnished with details of the maintenance projects for the nominated roads towhich the funds will be allocated.

4 Development Application for Filling of Site on Lot 45 DP975322 (No. 17) First Road, Berkshire Park, Applicant: G.M.Lenton (Surveyors) Pty Ltd, Owner: S & P Haber DA00/5053

117 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor Fowler thatthe Development Application 00/5053 for proposed land filling on Lot 45 DP975322 (No.1-7) First Road, Berkshire Park be determined by granting a “deferred commencement” consentunder Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as amended.Upon strict compliance with the conditions appearing in Schedule 1, and on the issue ofconfirmation in writing from Council, the consent shall commence to operate as adevelopment consent, inclusive of all conditions appearing in Schedule 2 pursuant to Section80 of the Act.

Schedule 1

Ordinary Meeting


1. A further contamination report shall be prepared and submitted to Council for approval.The contamination report shall validate that the existing fill material poses nounacceptable risk to human health or the environment, and is suitable for its intendedpurpose and land use. All validation works are to be carried out in accordance withPenrith Contaminated Land Development Control Plan, the ANZECC and NH&MRCGuidelines and applicable NSW Environment Protection Authority Guidelines.

2. The contamination report referred to condition No.1 of Schedule 1, shall be submitted toCouncil within 3 months from the date of this consent.

Schedule 2

1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the stamped-approved plans issued by Penrith City Council, the application form and any supportinginformation received with the application, except as may be amended in red on theattached plans and by the following conditions.

2. Soil and sediment erosion controls are to be provided in accordance with Penrith CityCouncil’s Erosion and Sediment Control Development Control Plan 1996, prior to andduring the construction of the development. A detailed plan of the proposed measuresshall be provided to Council for consideration and approval prior to the commencementof any works on site. A Compliance Certificate shall be submitted to the PrincipalCertifying Authority, or Council, certifying that the erosion and sediment controlmeasures have been installed in accordance with the approved erosion and sedimentcontrol plan for the development. The Compliance Certificate shall be submitted aminimum 5 days prior to the commencement of site works. The approved sedimenterosion control measures are to be maintained until grass cover is established over thefilled area.

3. No fill material is to be imported to the site without the prior approval of Penrith CityCouncil in accordance with Penrith Council Contaminated Land Development ControlPlan. All fill material to be imported shall be validated by an appropriately qualifiedperson as posing no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, and as beingsuitable for its intended purpose and land use. All validation works are to be carried outin accordance with Penrith Contaminated Land Development Control Plan, the ANZECCand NH&MRC Guidelines and applicable NSW Environment Protection AuthorityGuidelines. A copy of the certification shall be submitted to Penrith City Council.

4. All land that has been disturbed by earthworks is to be spraygrassed or similarly treated toestablish a grass cover.

5. A Compliance Certificate shall be issued for conditions 1 to 4 (inclusive) within six (6)weeks of completion of all works.

(a) That an Order be issued to the owner of the property in the terms set out in the Noticeof Intention to Serve an Order issued to the owner on 12 September 2000 if thecontamination report referred to in Condition No.1 of Schedule 1 of this deferredcommencement consent is not submitted to Council within the time frame specified inCondition No.2 of Schedule 1.

Ordinary Meeting


16 Urban Development Study Tour 4105/3

118 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Thain seconded Councillor EvansThat:

1. the information contained in the Environmental Planning Manager’s report on theUrban Development Study Tour be received.

2. Council send a delegation made up of Councillor Fowler, Councillor Bateman andCouncillor Davies to the USA to view contemporary examples of best practiceurban development.

THE CITY AS A SOCIAL PLACE

5 Electronic Library Conference 1202/10

119 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor O’Toole seconded Councillor PaluzzanoThat

1. the information contained in the report Electronic Library Conference be noted.

2. Council congratulate the staff on the success of the Electronic Library Conference.

6 Community Development and Support Expenditure Scheme 1117/30 Pt2

120 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor Thain

That:

1. Council receive the information in the Community Development and SupportExpenditure Scheme report.

2. A progress report on the CDSE Scheme be submitted to Council at the end ofJuly.

3. Council thank the Hon Faye LoPo ̀ State Member of Community Services,former Mayor Councillor John Bateman, Carol Joyce, Council’s CommunityDevelopment Manager and Tony Lackey representing Penrith Panthers fortheir support in the initiation and development of the CommunityDevelopment and Support Expenditure Scheme

7 Report on Skateboarding Activities - South Penrith 1030/4

Ordinary Meeting


121 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor O’Toole seconded Councillor BatemanThat:

1. Council receive the report on Skateboarding Activities - South Penrith.

2. Council write to the neighbours and thank them for their tolerance andgenerosity in allowing the skate boarding to occur in the school holidays.

3. That the project evaluation bid for a set of mobile ramps by given highpriority.

4. That the project evaluation bid for a regional skate board facility be given highpriority.

8 Glenmore Park Community Initiatives Grants Scheme 4122/7 Pt3

122 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Paluzzano seconded CouncillorO’TooleThat:

1. Council endorse the recommended allocations of $16,294 to be made tocommunity groups from the 2000/2001 Glenmore Park Community InitiativesGrants Scheme;

2. Council set aside $8,000 from the 2000/2001 CIGS funding program for theearly establishment of the Eastern Hamlets facility;

3. letters be sent to all applicants informing them of Council’s decision withregards to their application.

THE CITY AS AN ECONOMY

9 Festival to the Max ##

123 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Paluzzano seconded Councillor SimatThat:

1. The information in the report on Festival to the Max be received.

2. Penrith Council support the initiative of the PCCA in organising Festival to the Max.

3. Organisers of Festival to the Max be provided with assistance as outlined in the report.

Ordinary Meeting


17 Penrith Valley Incubator/National Business IncubatorConference 1133/1

124 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Paluzzano seconded Councillor Simat

That

1. The Penrith Valley IT Incubator Report be received; and

2. Council approves the attendance of the Economic Development Officer at theNational Business Incubator Conference to be held in San Jose, California, USAbetween 18th and 23rd May 2001.

THE CITY SUPPORTED BY INFRASTRUCTURE

10 City Operations Directorate Report to mid March 2001 153/2

125 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Paluzzano seconded Councillor O’TooleThat:

1. the City Operations Directorate Report to mid March 2001 be received.2. Council officers be thanked for their contribution to Clean up Australia Day and

Keep Australia Beautiful Action Stations pilot program.

COUNCIL’S OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

12 Summary of Investments & Banking February 2001 6021/4

126 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor EvansThat:

1. the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer, Statement of GeneralFund Bank Balances as at 28 February 2001 and the Summary of Investmentsfor the period 1 February 2001 to 28 February 2001 be noted and accepted;

2. the graphical investment analysis as at 28 February 2001 be noted.

13 Local Government Aboriginal Employment and CareerDevelopment Program Funding Agreement 2001 1105/4 Pt 4

127 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor EvansThat:

Ordinary Meeting


1. That the information contained in the report concerning the Local Government AboriginalEmployment and Career Development Program Funding Agreement 2001bereceived/noted.

2. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Penrith be affixed to all necessarydocumentation.

11 2001 LGMA National Congress 932/19 Pt2

128 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Bateman seconded Councillor Thain thatthe information contained in the 2001 LGMA National Congress Report, be received and thatCouncillor Greenow and Councillor Aitken attend the 2001 LGMA National Congress on 13– 16 May 2001.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QWN1 Councillor Thain requested pothole repairs to be undertaken to Poplar StreetNorth St Mary P0/05

QWN2 Councillor Thain requested Council investigate line marking at the RailwayStation end of Forrester Road, St Marys.

F0/05 Pt 3

QWN3 Councillor Thain requested Council investigate whether support can beoffered to the St Marys Girl Guides by way of donation for garbage bin collection.

6016/4 Pt 32

QWN4 Councillor O’Neill requested a memo outlining estimated costs for footpavingalong the west side of Street Laycock, Cranebrook between Fireball Avenue and TornadoCrescent and across the grassed area at the end of the detention basin between TornadoCrescent and the pedestrian crossing on Boundary Road. 9008/8 Pt5

QWN5 Councillor O’Neill requested a memo outlining costs to place a bus shelter onLaycock Street between Fireball Avenue and Tornado Crescent at the current bus stop.

9001/3Pt11

QWN6 Councillor O’Neill requested a memo advising of the possibility of placing apedestrian crossing near the roundabout at Boundary Road, Laycock Street and TornadoCrescent. 9001/3 Pt11

QWN7 Councillor Fowler sought clarification relating to a general property enquiry.He directed questions to the Mayor on the circumstances surrounding the enquiry.

The Mayor advised Councillor Fowler that the circumstances surrounding the enquiry wereoutlined in correspondence forwarded to him by the General Manager.

Councillor Fowler sought further clarification on the matter.

Ordinary Meeting


The Mayor advised a verbal request was made for access to information

He made a generic enquiry with the relevant Director and was advised the information waspublicly available.

The person seeking the information was advised to provide a written request.

The written request was obtained.

The Mayor was then advised that the information was not available under the Privacy andPersonal Information Protection Act 1998.

The Applicant was advised of this.

The Mayor advised that the matter was handled in a proper manner and asked CouncillorFowler if there was any allegation to the contrary and that he state the allegation.

Councillor Fowler requested information from the General Manager and Director- CityPlanning on details outlined in the General Manager’s correspondence.

The General Manager and Director responded in the terms outlined in the correspondence.

A Point of Order was raised by Councillor Davies.

Councillor Davies requested the status of the matter being dealt with. He stated the matterwas raised and answered.

Councillor Aitken requested that the matter be lodged with the Independent CommissionAgainst Corruption so that they could investigate who the citizen was who lodged therequest.

The Mayor ruled that he had answered the questions and advised Councillor Aitken that hecould lodge any matter before the Independent Commission Against Corruption but forCouncil to do so there had to be an allegation.

The Mayor raised concern about the ‘cloud of innuendo’ and requested from CouncillorAitken and Councillor Fowler whether they had an allegation to put before Council.

Councillor Fowler asked the Director City Planning for details about the general propertyenquiry.

The Director City Planning provided a detailed response.

Councillor Fowler enquired about the reasons for the general property enquiry.

The Mayor stated that he had made the enquiry and when told that the information was notpublicly available arranged for the enquirer to be informed.

Councillor Aitken requested Council put a formal request to the Independent CommissionAgainst Corruption.

Ordinary Meeting


The Mayor requested from Councillor Aitken what allegation was to be put to theIndependent Commission Against Corruption.

Councillor Fowler sought further clarification from the General Manager about theinformation provided by the Mayor and Director-City Planning as it was not in accordancewith the General Manager’s written advice.

The General Manager responded in the words of his written advice that the same provisionswould apply irrespective of who the enquirer was.

The Mayor asked Councillor Fowler to identify any discrepancy.

Councillor Fowler read out parts of the correspondence.

The Mayor read out a further portion of the correspondence stating that the sections read byCouncillor Fowler needed to be read in context and that he never sought access toinformation that was not publicly available.

Councillor Fowler then read out a further portion of the correspondence.

Councillor Davies sought further clarification about the relationship between this matter andQWN9 of Council’s Ordinary meeting of 5th March, referred to earlier in the meeting.

Councillor Fowler advised that the matters were not the same and that this was about theGeneral Manager’s correspondence.

Councillor Aitken did not provide an allegation but requested the Independent CommissionAgainst Corruption look at the correspondence surrounding this request for personal andprivate information.

Councillor Fowler requested information on the process of receipting Councilcorrespondence.

The General Manager advised of the process.

QWN8 Councillor Aitken requested a report on bus services to Glenmore Park. Thereport to include the history and planning issues relating to routes and bus stops in theoriginal plans, any requests to changes to those plans and a map outlining the routes.

9001/8Pt3


Councillor Davies requested clarification if reports could be sought through questionswithout notice or whether a resolution was required by Council. 21/5 Pt 5

The General Manager advised as a matter of practice Council had been accepting requests forreports through Questions Without Notice for several years and that if the report would beonerous then it would be reported back to Council for resolution. He also advised that anyvoting of expenditure would require the Mayor to rule as a matter of urgency and a motion tobe voted upon by Council.

Ordinary Meeting


QWN9 Councillor Davies requested that a report be presented to the Policy ReviewCommittee to determine meeting procedure.

QWN10 Councillor Aitken requested a memo outlining issues associated with aCouncil officer removing real estate signs. 4129/5 Pt 4

QWN11 Councillor Aitken requested a memo outlining where the mayoral vehicle wasgaraged between 22nd December 2001 and 21st January 2001. He also requested informationon fuel used and whether there were any parking or traffic infringements issued during thisperiod. 10/17 Pt2


Councillor Davies sought clarification on why these items were being raised by CouncillorAitken when Councillor Fowler indicated earlier in this meeting that he withdrew his requestbecause the information being sought could not be provided under the Privacy and PersonalInformation Protection Act 1998.

The Mayor sought clarification by Councillor Aitken regarding the matter.

Councillor Aitken stated he sought the information on behalf of a constituent.

QWN12 Councillor Aitken requested a report on the condition of Councils drains andgutters regarding maintenance of grass, dirt and gravel build up. 9006/7

QWN13 Councillor Aitken requested an audit be undertaken on the condition offootpaths including issues associated with exposed Water Board pipes, and overgrown shrubsand over hanging branches. 9011/5 Pt2

QWN14 Councillor Aitken requested a report on when the meeting is to occur with allestate agents and Council to develop a workable sign policy. He also requested a memooutlining the number of complaints from the public regarding signs on footpaths and whetherthere were any formal complaints about Jim Aitken & Partners signs. 4129/5 Pt4

QWN15 Councillor Aitken requested a report on the function held at Council on 15th

March 2001 and the associated literature. The report to include Council’s policy on the usingof its premises by outside organisations and who authorised the literature distributed. He alsorequested Council write to the Local Members asking them to stop this publication and adviseon how it was funded. 959/17

QWN16 Councillor Simat requested a memo on information on the South Creek Valleyproposal.

QWN17 Councillor Bailey requested a report on the issues outlined in the petitionregarding a Neighbourhood Centre in Chapman Gardens. The report to include how manytelephone calls were undertaken and to whom. 1350/14

QWN18 Councillor Bailey requested the Director respond to the issues outlined in thecorrespondence regarding Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre and the correspondenceforwarded to each Councillor from a resident which was provided under Freedom ofInformation. 1350/14

Ordinary Meeting


QWN19 Councillor Bailey requested a memo outlining any telephone surveysundertaken in regards to the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre. He also requested details ofcosts in the delivery of brochures. 1350/14

QWN20 Councillor Bailey requested and urgent memo on DA 01/0643 at 11 BarlowStreet, Penrith. DA01/0643

QWN21 Councillor Bailey requested the grass be mowed around the NamatjiraNeighbourhood Centre as a matter of urgency due to vermin infestation. 1352/1 Pt3

QWN22 Councillor Bateman requested a memo on the status of the Millennium YouthServices development application and modifications to the application. He requested thelegal advice be forthcoming within a week. DA01/0331

The Building Approvals and Environmental Protection Manager advised that legal advicewas expected in the next few days and that a report was to be presented to Council on 2nd

April 2001.

QWN23 Council Bateman requested information on correspondence received from theNepean District Tennis Association regarding the Master Plan for Woodriff Gardens andwhether it was included as a Project Evaluation bid. 2037/2

The Building Construction & Maintenance Manger advised that it was not put in as a ProjectEvaluation bid.

QWN24 Councillor Bateman requested a memo on correspondence from the FederalMember of Parliament the Hon J Kelly regarding road funding that was forwarded to theresident at 37 Brown Street Penrith. BR/08

QWN25 Councillor Bateman requested a memo outlining a list of Sporting Hertiagememorabilia displayed during the exhibition held in the Library during 2000 and where theitems are currently held. 4125/1 Pt2

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

129 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Greenow seconded Councillor O’Toolethat the meeting adjourn to the Committee of the Whole to deal with the following matters,the time being 9.12PM.

1 Presence of the Public

CW1 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Davies seconded Councillor Greenowthat the press and public be excluded from Committee of the Whole to deal with thefollowing matters

The City in Its Environment

2 73 Kingshill Road, Mulgoa DA00950173

Ordinary Meeting


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

The meeting resumed at 9.24PM and the General Manager reported that the Committee of theWhole met at 9.12PM on Monday 19th March 2001, the following being present

His Worship the Mayor Councillor D Bradbury, Councillors J Aitken, D Bailey,J Bateman, G Davies, G Evans, R Fowler, J Greenow, C O’Neill, C O'Toole,K Paluzzano, S Simat, and J Thain

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

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

2 73 Kingshill Road, Mulgoa DA00950173

CW2 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor, Davies seconded Councillor AitkenThat:

1. the offer made by Mr & Mrs Pesl be accepted as recommended by the report.2. Congratulations be extended to all those involved in negotiating a settlement.3. A report be provided on council procedures regarding Committee of the Whole.

ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

130 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor, Bateman. seconded Councillor O’Neillthat the recommendation contained in the Committee of the Whole shown as CW2 beadopted.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being..........................

ConfirmedChairperson

PENRITH CITY COUNCIL

Procedure for Addressing Meetings

Anyone can request permission to address a meeting, providing that the number ofspeakers 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 withthe General Manager or Public Officer up until the time of the meting, that is 7.00pm.

The Public Officer of Minute Clerk will speak to those people who have requestedpermission to address the meeting, prior to the meeting at 6.50pm, to advise them of theprocedure to be followed.

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

Where permission is to be granted the Council or Committee, at the appropriate time,will suspend 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);

• The issue or matter to be addressed;

• Whether they are opposing or supporting the issue or matter (if applicable) andthe action they would like the meeting to take.

Each person then has five minutes to make their address. The Council or Committee canextend this time if they consider if appropriate, however, everyone needs to work on thebasis that the address will be for five minutes only.

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

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

Peter HuxleyPublic Officer02 4732 7637 July 2000

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001Mayoral Minute

Mayoral Minute

MAYORAL MINUTE

Western Sydney Industry Awards

On Friday 23rd March I attended the third Western Sydney Industry Awards PresentationDinner, which was held at Stadium Australia. The Deputy Mayor Cr Greg Davies along withCr Jim Aitken, Cr Jackie Greenow and Cr Karyn Paluzzano, Steve Willingale from theEconomic Development and Employment Committee, Council’s General Manager, LocalEconomic Development Program Manager and Tourism Supervisor accompanied me. PenrithCity Council had again sponsored the Western Sydney Industry Awards as a Silver Sponsor.

Penrith Valley had three companies as Finalists on the night that achieved the followingawards:

• Nepean Belle Paddlewheeler was a finalist in two sections of the TourismCategory ;

v Winner - Tourism Restaurants; and

v Winner - Most outstanding contribution to Western Sydney Tourism by asmall business.

• Rondo Building Services Pty Ltd in the Advanced Manufacturing Category

v Highly Commended - most innovative application of manufacturingmanagement techniques

• Windmill Nursery a Finalist in two sections of the Agribusiness Category

v Winner – Product Marketing and Promotion; and

v Winner – Most outstanding contribution by a small or medium size business

This year there were 81 Western Sydney companies competing as finalists for theseprestigious awards. The continued success of Penrith companies underlines the quality andinnovative excellence of Penrith business. The City continues to justify its claims to being a“Smart City”.

I offer my congratulations to the staff and management of the Nepean Belle, Rondo BuildingServices Pty Ltd and Windmill Nursery on their achievements in the 2001 Western SydneyAwards. These achievements will be recognised in a civic event to be held in their honour ata later date.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Mayoral Minute on the Western Sydney Industry Awards for 2001 be received.

4

2001 WESTERN SYDNEY INDUSTRY AWARDS

OFFICE OF WESTERN SYDNEYWestmeadSt Vincents Building,University of Western SydneyHawkesbury Road, PO Box 207,WESTMEAD NSW 2145Tel: 9687 8499 Fax: 9687 8522

MacarthurLevel 1, 1 Bolger StreetPO Box 219,MACARTHUR SQUARE 2560Tel: 4625 3611 Fax: 4625 3142

Sydney CBDLevel 22, Governor Macquarie Tower1 Farrer PlaceSYDNEY NSW 2000Tel: 9228 3805 Fax: 9228 3879

email: [email protected] www.westernsydney.nsw.gov.auThe Office of Western Sydney forms part of the NSW Department of Information Technology and Management

222000000111WWWeeesssttteeerrrnnn SSSyyydddnnneeeyyy IIInnnddduuussstttrrryyy AAAwwwaaarrrdddsss

WWWiiinnnnnneeerrrsss’’’ PPPrrrooofffiiillleeesss

PENRITH

Two Penrith Businesses won four Awards, with one HighlyCommended Business

[This includes the One Award given in the Tourism Awards Dinner earlier thismonth. A new Tourism Award is being given to Nepean Belle Paddlewheeler]






EXCELLENCE IN TOURISMsponsored by

Winner, Tourism Category: Tourism RestaurantsWinner, Tourism Category: Most outstanding contribution to

Western Sydney Tourism by a small business

Nepean Belle Paddlewheeler

The Nepean Belle Paddlewheeler operates as a floating restaurant and river cruiseservice along the Nepean River and the Nepean Gorge in the Blue MountainsNational Park.

The Nepean Belle Paddlewheeler and its new sister ship the Penrith Platypusprovide a range of services including devonshire tea, luncheon and dinner cruises,weddings, functions, corporate, jazz, cultural and theme (eg Yulefest) cruises.The Nepean Belle accommodates up to 150 passengers at a time and operates allyear round.

Launched in 1982, the Nepean Belle has since welcomed aboard thousands ofpassengers. Most originate from within Western Sydney however the businessalso caters to significant numbers of regional, interstate and international visitors.Customer target groups include tourists, family parties, functions and corporategroups.

The Nepean Belle currently employs 11 full time and 12 casual staff, drawnentirely from Western Sydney.

Nepean Belle PaddlewheelerLot 3 Factory Road, Regentville NSW 2751Tel (02) 4733 1274 Fax: (02) 4733 3822Email: [email protected]: www.nepeanbelle.com.au ,LGA: Penrith

Media Contact: Helen Wakeling, Owner /Manager






AGRIBUSINESS

Sponsored by

Bartercard Limited

Winner, Agribusiness Category: Product marketing and promotionWinner, Agribusiness Category: Most outstanding Agribusiness contribution by

a small ormedium size business

Windmill Nursery

Operating for over 30 years, Windmill Nursery is one of the largest wholesaleseedling growers in Australia. Situated at the foot of the Blue Mountains, thenursery produces a wide variety of bedding plants, bloomers, flowering pots,gerbera, cyclamens, polyanthus etc., sold directly to customers throughout thestate.

The dutch-style nursery is fitted with rolling benches, ensuring that all productsare off the ground. Its 48 local staff are heavily involved in the local communitythrough the Chamber of Commerce and Penrith City Council.

In an expanding market, Windmill Nursery’s clients already include Kmart,Bunnings Warehouse, Big W, Hardwarehouse stores, and most nursery retailersthroughout NSW. Over the next six months the company will expand into otherstates and further diversify its product range.

Windmill Nursery128 Terrybrook Road, Llandilo NSW 2747Tel: (02) 4777 4368 Fax: (02) 4777 4577Email: [email protected]: Penrith

Media Contact: Carmen Wilkat, Sales and Marketing






ADVANCED M ANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

Sponsored by

Wonderland Business Park

Highly Commended: Most innovative application of manufacturingmanagement technologies

Rondo Building Services Pty Ltd

Rondo Building Services Pty Ltd is the leading supplier of light gauge steelrollformed sections for the commercial building market.

The company pioneered the design and manufacture of steel stud drywallsystems, suspended ceiling systems, building board and rendered finishingsections. Rondo Building Service’s systems are backed by strong technicalsupport and provide innovative solutions for architects and engineers.

Over the past three years, the company has experienced a 23% sales growth with90% of its products sold in the Australian marketplace. The company’s systemsalso feature in international projects including Hong Kong Airport and AucklandKey West Apartments.

The head office and manufacturing plant at St Marys employs 130 staff andcontractors while its distribution channels ensure coverage throughout Australiaand New Zealand. The company has quality assurance accreditation to ISO 9002.

Rondo Building Services Pty Ltd.3-33 Glossop Street, St Marys NSW 2760Tel: (02) 9912 7300 Fax: (02) 9912 7313Email: [email protected]: www.rondo.com.auLGA: Penrith

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE PENRITH CITY LIBRARY SERVICE REVIEW WORKING PARTY OF

PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE,

PENRITH ON MONDAY 19 MARCH 2001 AT 5.15 PM

This is Page No 1 of the Report and Recommendation of the Penrith City LibraryService Review Working Party of Penrith City Council held on Monday 19 March 2001

PRESENT

Councillors J Greenow (Chairperson), R Fowler.

IN ATTENDANCE

General Manager, Director – City Services, City Librarian, Collection Services Librarian,Reader Services Librarian.

APOLOGIES

LIB1 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Fowler seconded Councillor Greenowthat apologies be received and accepted from Councillors Bradbury, Davies and Thain.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Councillor Sheehy granted leave of absence 19th – 24th March 2001.Councillor Khan granted leave of absence 19th – 24th March 2001.


Penrith City Library Service Review Working Party – 3rd December 1998

LIB 2 RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Fowler seconded Councillor Greenowthat the minutes of the Penrith City Library Service Review Working Party of 3rd December1998, be confirmed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest.


1 Penrith City Library Service Review - Background Summary 1202/52

RECOMMENDATION

LIB3 That the information regarding Background Summary be received.

2 Penrith City Library Service Review – Current Trends inLibrary Services 1202/52

RECOMMENDATION

LIB4 That the information concerning Current Trends in Library Services be received.

Report and Recommendation of the Penrith City Library Service Review Working Party ofPenrith City Council held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, Penrith on Monday 19March 2001


3 Penrith City Library Service Review – The Future of LibraryServices 1202/52

RECOMMENDATION

LIB5 That the information concerning the Future of Library Services be received.

4 Penrith City Library Service Review – Customer Usage 1202/52

RECOMMENDATION

LIB6 That the information on Customer Usage be received.

5 Penrith City Library Service Review – Book CollectionDevelopment Program 1202/52

RECOMMENDATION

LIB7 That the information concerning Book Collection Development Program be received.

6 Penrith City Library Service Review – Critical Issues for theFuture of the Penrith City Library Service 1202/52

Councillor Paluzzano arrived at 5.35 pm.

RECOMMENDATION

LIB8 That:

1. the principle of a Penrith City Networked Library Model, as outlined in thisreport, be accepted.;

2. a 12 month pilot project of Electronic Service Points in North Ward beintroduced;

3. at the conclusion of the 12 month pilot an evaluation be provided to Council;

4. the potential for the Networked Library Model to provide other Councilservices be referred to the Customer Services Working Party.

The presentation of this report to the Working Party was seen to conclude the Penrith CityLibrary Service Review.

The Chairperson extended appreciation of the contribution and efforts of Councillors andstaff involved over the period of the Review.

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being6.15 pm.

Report and Recommendation of the Penrith City Library Service Review Working Party ofPenrith City Council held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, Penrith on Monday 19March 2001


Confirmed ___________________________Chairperson


Item Page


1 Change Of Sponsoring Organisation For Dragon Boat Festival 7-8 April2987-2 1


2 Rezoning To Allow The Establishment Of A Golf Course On ThePanthers Site, Mulgoa Road, Penrith, Applicant: Colston Budd Hunt &Kafes Pty Ltd, Owner: Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd And Penrith CityCouncil RZ01/0002 3


3 Operation Of Penrith Swimming Centre 2981/1 Pt2 11

4 Proposal From Panthers BMX Club 6016/1 Pt 27 13

5 Proposed Skate Park Facility 2086/1 16

6 Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre 1350/10 Pt3 18


7 Penrith City Small Business Awards 2001 1128/15 27


8 Tender No 28-00/01 - Supply And Delivery Of One (1) Backhoe/FrontEnd Loader 38/32 29

9 Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (Pamp) – Footpath ImprovementProgramme (9011/54) 32

COUNCIL'S OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

10 2001 Geac/Lgma Forum 932/4 Pt9 41

11 General Property Insurance 6011/77 42

12 Changes To Local Government Act 754/3 Part 11 43

13 Proposed Kiosk - Tench Reserve, Penrith 3032/16 45

ORDINARY MEETING

2 APRIL 2001


Item Page


1 Change Of Sponsoring Organisation For Dragon Boat Festival 7-8 April2987-2 1

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City in Its Region

Marketing Penrith's Regional Significance Page 1

The City in Its Region

1 Change of sponsoring organisation for Dragon Boat Festival 7-8 April 2987-2

Compiled by: Paul Page, Tourism Supervisor

Authorised by: Geoff Shuttleworth, Economic Development and MarketingManager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 6): Penrith is recognised widely as aninnovative vibrant and attractive City with an identify distinguishing it from other parts ofSydney.00/01 Critical Action: Secure and promote major events and celebrations.Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 6): The City’s international standardsporting facilities are widely used by elite sports people.00/01 Critical Action: Identify ways to promote existing facilities and work with relevantorganisations to host hallmark events in Penrith Valley.

At the meeting of 5 March Council resolved to provide $7,000 in support of the Dragon BoatFestival to be held on 7 and 8 April 2001.

The report noted that the Chinese Youth League was the sponsor of the event and theresolution authorised payment to the Chinese Youth League. The organising committee wasa committee of the Chinese Youth League. The Chinese Youth League has since withdrawnits involvement in the festival and the original organising committee is now separatelyincorporated as the Dragon Festival Inc.

We have met with the organisers of the event and have been assured that this change will nothave any impact on the organisation of the festival. This report seeks authority to provide thefunds to the new organisation rather than the Chinese Youth League.

RECOMMENDATION

That the sum of $7,000, voted at the meeting of 5 March 2001 to be paid to the ChineseYouth League, now be paid to “The Dragon Festival Inc.” to assist in the staging of theDragon Boat Festival to be held on 7 and 8 April 2001 at the International Regatta Centre.

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City in Its Region

Marketing Penrith's Regional Significance Page 2

ORDINARY MEETING

2 APRIL 2001


Item Page


2 Rezoning To Allow The Establishment Of A Golf Course On ThePanthers Site, Mulgoa Road, Penrith, Applicant: Colston Budd Hunt &Kafes Pty Ltd, Owner: Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd And Penrith CityCouncil RZ01/0002 3

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City in Its Environment

Urban Environment Page 3


2 Rezoning to Allow the Establishment of a Golf Course on thePanthers Site, Mulgoa Road, Penrith, Applicant : ColstonBudd Hunt & Kafes Pty Ltd, Owner: Penrith Rugby LeagueClub Ltd and Penrith City Council RZ01/0002

Compiled by: Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by: Craig Butler, Building Approvals and Environment ProtectionManager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 20): Development enhances the City's livingand working environments.00/01 Critical Action: Implement policy and regulatory responses to achieve qualityurban outcomes (e.g. 3D modelling).

Introduction

Council has received a rezoning application on behalf of Panthers which seeks:

• to expand the range of uses permissible on part of their site (Lot 11 DP 710086) to enabledevelopment of a golf course on the western part of the Panthers site;

• to enable flood mitigation and drainage works to be undertaken on the Panthers site andCouncil’s land (Lot 12 DP 710086) with Council consent; and

• to permit earthworks to be undertaken on Panthers and Council’s land in association withany other permissible land use.

This report summarises the rezoning request and the required statutory actions andrecommends that Council proceed with the exhibition of a draft Local Environmental Plan.

Plan Making Procedures

Presently all rezoning applications are reported to Council at the beginning of the process todetermine if Council wishes to proceed with the rezoning and to seek its concurrence as to therelevant issues. Following the exhibition process, the draft Local Environmental Plan will bereported to Council for final determination.

Background

The Panthers site is covered by several planning instruments, the principal instruments beingInterim Development Orders (IDOs) No. 28 and 93 and Penrith Local Environmental Plans(LEPs) No. 43 and 160. Several minor land use specific planning instruments also apply tothe site.

The Panthers site was originally zoned Non-Urban under the Penrith Planning Scheme. In1971 the Mulgoa Road frontage of the site was rezoned under IDO 28 to enable mediumdensity residential development. The rear of the site remained Non Urban, and this wasreaffirmed by IDO 93.



In 1982 LEP 43 was gazetted to facilitate the relocation of Penrith Rugby League Club fromStation Street to the current site. The medium density residential status of the remainder ofthe site fronting Mulgoa Road was reaffirmed. The drainage characteristics of the site wererecognised and a portion of land (Lot 12 DP 710086) towards the rear of the site, running in anorth/south direction, was zoned Special Uses (Drainage) and acquired by Council. Thenorth-western corner of the site (Lot 11 DP 710086), immediately to the rear of the LadburyAvenue properties, was rezoned residential.

In 1987 LEP 160 was gazetted to expand the range of permissible land uses on the site toinclude tourist, recreation (e.g. golf courses) and entertainment activities. LEP 160 coversthe whole site, including the land owned by Council, with the exception of the residentiallyzoned land (Lot 11 DP 710086) to the rear of existing housing in Ladbury Avenue.

As part of the original Panthers Club development off Mulgoa Road, certain drainagediversions occurred which streamlined the drainage flowpaths on the site. This resulted inflowpaths being confined to the rear of the site (Lot 12). This Lot was then transferred toCouncil.

Conditions were imposed on the Club’s Development Application to require them to providegrassed waterways and low flow lines on these flowpaths/creeks.

These works were carried out except for that part of Peachtree Creek on Lot 12 and inparticular to the hatched section on the attached plan. This work was not carried out due tothe presence of services which could not be relocated. The condition remains outstanding,being deferred by Council.

Panthers seek Council’s support to rezone Lot 11 DP 710086 to enable its use as part of aproposed golf course. As explained later in this report the golf course proposal will alsoinclude part of Council’s land (Lot 12) and address the above-described drainage needsacross that site.

The Proposal

Panthers are proposing to develop a golf course on land bounded by Cables Water Ski Lakesin the south, the Carpenter site in the north, Peachtree Lake in the east and residentialproperties to the west in Ladbury Avenue. The site comprises part Lots 11, 12 & 13 DP710086 and part Lot 101 DP 774759. The site, with the exception of Lot 12, is owned byPanthers. Lot 12 is owned by Council, and if ultimately the golf course was developed thenthat would require an appropriate commercial arrangement between Council and Panthers. Aplan of the proposed golf course site is attached to this report.

The applicant argues that much of this land is flood liable and of limited practical utility,other than for open space and recreational type activities. The applicant indicates a golfcourse has the following relevant attributes:

• A golf course poses no difficulty for the flooding of the land, nor would it be damaged byit;

• A golf course is wholly consistent with the multi-faceted club related activities on thePanthers site;

• It would make good use of land which is currently under-utilised;• It would have less impact on the residents of Ladbury Avenue than any form of

residential development;• Present Panthers operations and the golf course would enjoy mutual benefit from their

association;• The golf course would be accompanied by significant new landscaping which would

beautify the landscape and improve residential amenity ;



• The golf course would not conflict with necessary drainage works running north souththrough the site.

The application also seeks to clarify the statutory provisions affecting the ability to undertakedrainage and earthworks on the site. At the present time these provisions prohibit Councilfrom consenting to Panthers undertaking independent drainage and earthworks to mitigateexisting drainage and flooding problems on and beyond the site.

This is an outcome not contemplated nor desired at the time of preparing the provisions. Theapplicant seeks to redress this by modifying the respective planning instruments to permit:

• Flood mitigation and drainage works to be undertaken on the land with the consent ofCouncil; and

• Earthworks to be undertaken on the land in association with other permissible land useand subject to the consent of Council.

The Issues

Merits of a Land Use based LEP amendment

LEP 160 is the primary land use planning instrument affecting the Panthers site. Under thatinstrument, golf courses are permissible with Council’s consent. However, that part of thesite adjacent to the rear (east) of existing housing in Ladbury Avenue (Lot 11) is not includedin LEP 160 and is zoned residential. A golf course is a prohibited use of that land. Pantherscontend that the addition of a golf course as a permissible use of that land would be relativelystraightforward in terms of statutory procedure. That is accepted.

The Panthers site is covered by several local planning instruments. Council has beenencouraging Panthers to undertake a comprehensive review of the use and future direction ofthe site, with a view to consolidating the numerous planning instruments into onecontemporary local environmental plan.

The investigation, evaluation and analysis processes required to review and consolidate thecurrent plethora of planning instruments applying to the site, however, is a lengthy process.Amending the planning instruments to enable the establishment of a golf course or drainageand flood mitigation works is, by comparison, a relatively simple statutory procedure.

Panthers have agreed to initiate a comprehensive review of statutory controls in parallel withbut separate to this matter.

Development Issues

Should Council rezone the land as requested the development of the site for a golf coursewould be subject to a separate development application that would need to be approved byCouncil.

Issues such as design, drainage, water quality, traffic, parking and maintenance of residentialamenity would need to be addressed in the development application. In particular thedevelopment application would need to indicate how the golf course would relate to PeachTree Creek in terms of promoting water quality and habitat retention. Any works in theimmediate vicinity of the creek would require the approval of the Department of Land &Water Conservation. Any development would need to be complementary to the area andrespond to its flood plain setting. However, it is noted that the use of the land for what isprimarily open space purposes, is not likely to result in impacts on adjoining residences thatcould not be addressed in the design of the development.



Property Development Manager’s Comment

Back in 1997 the Club made approaches to Council on a proposal to purchase or lease 7.29haof Lot 12 for the purpose of a proposed 18 hole golf course. After considering reports fromCouncil’s Property and Design Managers, Council agreed that the use of the land, whichrequires significant drainage works with high maintenance costs, for a golf course would bean appropriate use of the land. Council subsequently resolved in December 1997 to agree tolease the land subject to a series of conditions. It seems that it was not apparent at the time ofthe decision that the golf course proposal would require rezoning of Lot 11. The proposedlease has been executed. If ultimately the rezoning proceeds then the terms of that lease mayneed to be refreshed to reflect Council’s contemporary leasing conditions.

The lease and the rezoning process are separate matters. However, it is intended that furtheractioning of the lease be deferred until the rezoning application is determined.

Procedures relating to Council land

Council is both an owner of part of the land required for the golf course and the regulatoryauthority responsible for determining the matter. In accordance with Council’s normalpractice in these matters, an independent consultant will be engaged to review the draft LocalEnvironmental Plan, any submissions received as a result of public exhibition and theBuilding Approvals & Environment Protection Manager’s subsequent report to Council.

Because Council has an interest in part of the land to be developed for the golf course, it isalso recommended that Council follow the ‘Best Practice Guideline’, prepared by theDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning, for using delegated powers to prepare LEP’sinvolving land that is owned by Council. Those guidelines set out requirements andprocedures with respect to notification, exhibition and monitoring of the draft Plan.

Conclusion

The establishment of a golf course is currently permissible on the Panthers site with theexception of a residentially zoned strip of land adjacent to the rear of houses in LadburyAvenue. The proposed rezoning seeks to amend the necessary planning instruments to allowthis strip of land to be incorporated in a proposed golf course.

The primary land use planning instrument applying to the Panthers site enables the majorityof the site to be used for a variety of tourist and recreational activities, including a golfcourse. The inclusion of the subject land in a golf course proposal would be consistent withother uses of the Panthers site. It is feasible such a proposal may be carried out in a mannerthat would not unreasonably impact on Peachtree Creek and housing in Ladbury Avenue.

The secondary and ancillary purpose of the application is to clarify the statutory provisionsaffecting the ability to undertake drainage and earthworks on the site. These are necessaryconstruction activities associated with most development on the Panthers site. It is importantthat this matter is addressed at the earliest opportunity.

Given the minor and specific nature of the proposed amendments to existing planninginstruments, the preparation of a local environmental study is not considered necessary.However, as Council owns land within the proposed golf course, the rezoning process shouldfollow the recommendations outlined in the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning’s‘Best Practice Guideline’.



RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Pursuant to ss54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Councilprepare a draft Local Environmental Plan to include a golf course, drainage works, floodmitigation works and earth works undertaken in association with another approved use aspermissible land uses on the subject land;

2. Council inform the Director of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning of thedecision to prepare the draft Local Environmental Plan and that the preparation of a localenvironmental study is not considered necessary due to the minor and specific nature ofthe proposal;

3. Pursuant to ss62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Councilundertake consultation with the relevant Government Agencies;

4. Pursuant to ss66 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposeddraft Local Environmental Plan be exhibited in accordance with the Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning’s ‘Best Practice Guideline’ and the outcome of the public exhibitionbe reported back to Council for consideration;

5. An independent planning consultant be engaged to review the draft Local EnvironmentalPlan, any submissions received as a result of the public exhibition and any subsequentreports to Council;

6. The applicant be advised of Council’s decision and that it does not infer approval of thedraft Local Environmental Plan by Council or the resultant Development Application.

2

ORDINARY MEETING

2 APRIL 2001


Item Page


3 Operation Of Penr ith Swimming Centre 2981/1 Pt2 11

4 Proposal From Panthers BMX Club 6016/1 Pt 27 13

5 Proposed Skate Park Facility 2086/1 16

6 Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre 1350/10 Pt3 18

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City as a Social Place

Recreational and Cultural Equity Page 11

The City as a Social Place

3 Operation of Penrith Swimming Centre 2981/1 Pt2

Compiled by: Erik Henricksen, Acting Recreation & Cultural ServicesManager

Authorised by: Ray Moore, Director ~ City Operations

Requested by: Councillor Dion Bailey

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 61): Community recreation facilities andservices in new and established areas meet contemporary needs.00/01 Critical Action: Provide in partnership with others an agreed plan for delivery ofrecreation facilities and services based on available resources.

Councillor Bailey has requested a report on the operation of Penrith Swimming Centre whichincludes comparison pricing with Ripples – St Marys Leisure Centre.

Background

Both the Penrith and St Marys Memorial Pools were built in the early 1960’s. They remainedas typical outdoor cold water 6 monthly operations under a traditional local governmentmanagement model which tolerated a significant subsidy in the delivery of a qualitycommunity service for some 30 years.

This traditional style was seriously challenged in Penrith City in the early 1990’s. Functionswithin the swimming pool services which had been leased to commercial operators sincetheir inception were taken under in-house management and, in short, accountability for theentire operations became Councils responsibility. These functions included such activities aslearn to swim, coaching and kiosk operations.

In 1995 the redevelopment of the St Marys Pool site was completed and Ripples~St MarysLeisure Centre (Ripples) was officially opened. The management model selected was “armslength” similar to the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre and Penrith WhitewaterStadium. This state of the art, multi purpose indoor facility has proved to be a great successnow accommodating some 800,000 visitors per year and does not require any Councilfinancial operational support.

Penrith Swimming Centre has progressed by way of a different approach. Whereas asignificant capital investment went into the development of Ripples, Penrith SwimmingCentre undertook a continuous improvements program funded by way of available dollars asa direct result of improved performance. In 1998 $500,000 was allocated for heating of theexisting water space. This allocation was funded through an internal loan which is beingrepaid from the Swimming Centre’s operational budget.

The Present Status

Council controls two aquatic facilities. One, Ripples at arms length and totally self sufficient.The other, Penrith Swimming Centre, under Council management and although not selfsufficient, a far more viable and presentable facility than was the case 10 years ago. Bothfacilities are recognised throughout the industry as excellent examples of their respectiveoperations.Pricing



Ripples offers a far greater range of services than does Penrith, however prices common toboth are very similar. For example

Ripples Penrith Swimming CentrePool Entry $ $Adult 3.30 3.30Child 2.75 3.30Under 5 years Free FreeSchool groups 2.75 2.2020 visits $55.00 ($2.75 per entry) 55.00 ($2.75 per entry)35 visits N/A 66.00 ($1.88 per entry)Family visit 10.45 14.30Family 6 month 352.00 319.00Family 12 month 528.00 484.00Learn to Swim 77.00 (10 lessons) 77.00 (10 lessons)Coaching Different squads at each facility include different disciplines,

however across the range of coaching services on offer theprice does not vary much between each facility.

Future Strategy

A Major Project Funding Model has been prepared for the Penrith facility. Identified in thismodel are a number of urgent issues to be considered in the immediate future. Also forconsideration in the first stage of the project is a study/design component which woulddetermine the future strategies for the provision of aquatic based recreation facilities inPenrith City.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information concerning the operation of Penrith Swimming Centre be received.




4 Proposal from Panthers BMX Club 6016/1 Pt 27

Compiled by: Raphael Collins, Parks Construction & Maintenance Manager

Authorised by: Ray Moore, Director City Operations


Introduction

Council has received a letter from the Panthers BMX Club advising that they would like toestablish their new BMX track on a site adjacent to Blair Oval in St Marys. The Club hasbeen asked to relocate from their existing site at Panthers and the proposed site is theirpreferred location.

The BMX Club has been looking for a suitable site for the last couple of years. In fact, theClub lodged a Development Application about 18 months ago to develop Wilson Park inLlandilo however this application was withdrawn due to community concerns.

The Club has been using the Panthers Leagues Club as a home venue for a number of yearsand prior to that, the Club used an area near Hickey's Lane. The Club now has 150 activeriders and competes once every fortnight throughout the year. If the Club were successful indeveloping a track at this location, they would be interested in utilising the adjoiningamenities building at CARES.

Proposal

The proposed site is part of Lot 2 DP 851152 and is located just south of the western rail lineand west of Blair Oval Athletics Facility (see attached plan). The Property DevelopmentManager has indicated that the site is classified as “Operational” under the Land ManagementProcess of the Local Government Act. This classification of land has no special restrictionsother than those that may apply to any piece of land.

The land is being occupied by other community organisations, which include the NepeanAthletics Club, CARES, St Marys Tennis Association and Nepean District SoccerAssociation. The use of the land is compatible with the other groups and a lease is notconsidered necessary.

The site is occasionally used by the Nepean Athletic Club for spillover carparking, especiallyon major district meetings. There is adequate area for carparking within the South Creekprecinct to accommodate large Athletics or BMX events. This site has been one of many thathas undergone careful consideration by the Club and Council officers and meets the Club'scriteria. There is a need to revisit the traffic flow patterns within the precinct to ensure easyaccess to and from events. The BMX meetings will generally not be conducted whilstathletic events are being staged.



Development Application Issues

Two meetings have been held with the BA & EP Department’s pre-lodgement developmentassessment panel and representatives of the BMX Club to discuss the nature of the proposal.The panel indicated that several matters would require additional information to accompanythe Development Application, including carparking arrangements, fencing, vehicular accessand use of amenities.

It is intended that the Development Application be jointly submitted by Council and theBMX Club. Council will provide assistance with the preparation of plans and technicalinformation that will be required with the application. A surveyor has already been engagedto prepare a survey plan of the site and it is now necessary to prepare a detailed design.

To advance the application, funds will need to be made available to cover the costs of theapplication fees, design and investigation. It is estimated that $6,000 will be required tocover these costs and it is suggested that as this is a regional facility, $2,000 be madeavailable from each ward’s Voted Works allocation for the project.

A Project Evaluation bid has been submitted for consideration as Council’s contribution forthe project.

It is also important that issues relating to public liability are dealt with and preliminarydiscussions with Council’s Risk Management Co-ordinator have already occurred.

An agreement will be prepared with the BMX Club for the use of this facility. Thisagreement will be similar to the conditions of hire for all sporting field allocations.

Summary

The proposal by the Panthers BMX Club to establish a BMX track adjoining Blair Ovalwould appear to be an appropriate use of the land and would provide a compatible user groupfor shared use of the CARES facility owned by Council and presently unused. The club willbe without a ‘home’ facility within a month and the club is negotiating for an alternativevenue with either with the Hawkesbury or Blue Mountains Clubs.

RECOMMENDATION

That:1. the information concerning the Panthers BMX Club be received

2. Council give approval in principal for the Panthers BMX Club to lodge aDevelopment Application for the establishment of a BMX track on the landidentified in the report near Blair Oval subject to the Development Applicationmeeting Council requirements.

3. Consideration be given to cover the costs for the design and investigation asoutlined in this report.

1




5 Proposed Skate Park Facility 2086/1

Compiled by: Raphael Collins, Parks Construction & Maintenance ManagerHeather Dobson, Landscape ArchitectJeni Pollard, Youth Development Officer

Authorised by: Ray Moore, Director City Operations


Introduction

Provision has been made in the current management plan for the investigation and design of aregional skate park facility. The purpose of this report is to bring Council up-to-date with theplanning and strategy for the facility.

Determining the Location

A panel of Council Officers including Jeni Pollard – Youth Development Officer, HeatherDobson – Landscape Architect and Raphael Collins, Parks Construction & MaintenanceManager have been examining a number of possible sites within the City for the skate park.In addition to this, discussions with interested parties have been occurring to better define theneed for such a facility. The consultations to date have mainly been informal but there arestrong indications from the youth in the area that a skate park is needed.

Recently Council provided hired equipment at the South Penrith Youth Facility over theChristmas period for skateboard users. This was done following meetings with the youngskaters and identification of the need for such a facility.

Some of the criteria used to select the site were:

• Distance from residents• Nearness to shops• Shade• Toilets• Proximity to public transport

After an extensive investigation by the panel, the site that appears to best fit with theestablished criteria is Jamison Park (see plan). Jamison Park is zoned 6A public reserveunder the urban lands LEP. A skate park would be a use that is permissible with Council’sconsent hence a Development Application would be required. The site benefits from beingrelatively exposed, providing for passive supervision, while at the same time it is somewhatremoved from neighbouring and potentially affected neighbours. Notwithstanding andconsistent with Council’s practice, consultation with neighbours will commence duringdevelopment of the plans for the proposal.



A list of all the sites investigated over the last six months is attached to this report. As anadded note, representatives of the St Marys Police have looked at Jamison Park and believe itis an appropriate location compared to other sites.

Future Strategy

If Jamison Park is considered as the preferred location, it is proposed that an experienceddesigner in skate parks be engaged who will consult with skating enthusiasts to assist in thepreparation of a design.

It is essential the facility be challenging to a broad range of age groups and skill levels. Theskate park must also take into account public risk issues which will involve Council’s RiskManagement Officer during the design process.

There is $10,000 allocated in this year’s budget to advance this proposal to the DevelopmentStage. A project evaluation bid (totalling $120,000) has been prepared for construction of thefacility to occur in the 2001/2002 Management Plan should the project proceed. Issues suchas risk management and maintenance will be addressed during this design stage.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council endorse the Jamison Park site as the preferred location for a skatepark

2. Consultation occur with the owners or occupants of neighbouring andpotentially affected properties during development of the plans for theproposal.


Social Justice Page 18


6 Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre 1350/10 Pt3

Compiled by: Judy Cobb, Community Resource Development Officer

Authorised by: Carol Joyce, Community Development Manager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 48): Social Services and facilities areestablished and operating to meet community needs.00/01 Critical Action: Provide well-managed and optimally-used Council-ownedfacilities, to support local communities.

Purpose

The main purpose of this report is to present the results of further investigations into thesuitability of potential sites for a neighbourhood centre in Kingswood.

Council resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of 5th February 2001 that a report be preparedaddressing the following:

i) Confirming that a community facility is to be built in Kingswoodii) Confirming the concept of what is to be builtiii) Confirm residents of Kingswood are entitled to a proper facility and that it is

not to be built in stagesiv) Revisit the site for the buildingv) Funding for the project be outlined with a view to construction starting in the

next financial year.vi) Consultation is to be undertaken with the residents of Kingswood in the

process.

This report presents to Council the results of research undertaken in March 2001 as aconsequence of this resolution and seeks Council’s endorsement for further evaluation of ashort list of potential sites.

Background

In May 1995 Council identified Kingswood as a priority area for the location of aneighbourhood centre. The need for this facility was identified through social planningresearch undertaken by Council and by community demand.

During the budget planning process for the 99/2000 Management Plan, Council resolved toallocate $400,000 for the staged development of this new, purpose built facility. Furtherfunds were later allocated to the project in the 2000/01 budget planning process. The currenttotal budget allocation for the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre project is now $554,147.

Site investigations were carried out in mid 1999 and early 2000 to identify the most suitablesite for the neighbourhood centre. After a Works Committee Inspection (held on 25th

February 2000) Council resolved that the most appropriate site for the KingswoodNeighbourhood Centre was in Second Ave, Chapman Gardens.

Concerns raised by residents, in particular those living immediately adjacent to the proposedsite, have been documented and reported throughout the site identification process. Though a



Community Design Reference Group has been established, a development application for thisproject has not been submitted.

The issues identified in Council’s resolution of 5th February 2001 are dealt with below:

A Community Facility for Kingswood

Council’s Social Planner, during the second half of 1994 and early 1995, completed apreliminary assessment of the need for community facilities in the established areas of thePenrith LGA.

This research identified the need for appropriate community facilities in Kingswood Park, St.Marys, and Kingswood area. Subsequently, Council built a new facility in Kingswood Parkin 1996 and established the St. Marys Community Centre in 1999.

The need for an appropriate community facility in Kingswood was reconfirmed by researchconducted in March 2001. During this period two separate consultation processes wereundertaken. These processes included:

• a random telephone survey of local residents regarding local needs• a survey of service providers (who provide local community based programs and

activities) regarding their meeting room requirements

The methodology and results of these surveys are detailed in Attachment #1. It should benoted that neither of these surveys sought views on a location for the centre.

The random telephone survey, in particular, clearly indicated that there is a need for a localfacility in Kingswood which could be the venue for a range of community activities andwhich could be available, as a secondary purpose, to hire out for private functions involvingup to 80 people.

Confirming the Concept

A comprehensive assessment of the Kingswood area was undertaken in 1998 to determine thetype of community facility that would best meet the needs of local residents. This researchincluded public consultations, surveys, identification of existing facilities in Kingswood, andan analysis of social and demographic characteristics obtained from the 1996 Census andother data sources.

This research clearly indicated the need for a neighbourhood centre in Kingswood rather thana community hall. (Attachment #3 distinguishes the difference between a neighbourhoodcentre and community hall). This research was also reaffirmed by the random telephonesurvey and the survey of service providers and community organisations undertaken in March2001.

In particular, the random telephone survey clearly indicated that over 80% of the respondentswould or would “perhaps” attend community programs/activities similar to those provided inother neighbourhood centres in the Penrith LGA.

The survey of service providers and community organisations also reaffirmed the need for avenue that had the following design features:

• A facility with at least two meeting rooms (50% of the respondents required the secondroom for child minding purposes).

• One room with the capacity to accommodate approximately 60 people.• A range of storage options to meet individual needs.



A facility similar in size and design to those in Kingswood Park or Claremont Meadowswould meet the identified needs of Kingswood residents. Attachment # 2 highlights theusage patterns of both these centres and clearly indicates the range of programs/activitiesprovided from the facilities and their capacity to meet local community need.

Site Assessments

In March 2001 Council Officers reassessed all potential sites in the Kingswood area whichhave the capacity to accommodate a 300 sqm facility, fenced outdoor area, parking andlandscaping. The land take required for such a facility would be approximately 2,500sqm.This is the requirement for a neighbourhood centre similar to those in Kingswood Park,Claremont Meadows etc.

The catchment area for the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre is defined as being broadlybounded by the rail line to the north, Parker St. to the west, Bringelly Rd/Caddens Rd to thesouth, UWS and O’Connell St. to the east.

Given that the population density is greater in the northern section, and that the area istruncated by the Great Western Highway, the centre of the catchment area was identified asbeing located around the intersection of Bringelly Rd and the Great Western Highway.

Twenty five sites were identified in this catchment area. ( See Attachment #4). One site wasimmediately ruled out due to insufficient size. (Site # 21 - Second Ave and Anthony St).This left 24 sites for consideration.

Site Criteria

Prior to undertaking any site investigations, the assessment criteria were established. Thecriteria included:

1. Site Characteristics (Land take, orientation, topography, urban design issues)2. Location of Site (Proximity to other services, proximity to hub of Kingswood,

proximity to residential properties, zoning)3. Drainage (Assessment of underground pipe systems, overland flow paths, and deep

water basins)4. Landscaping (type, number and significance of trees on site)5. Pedestrian Access (Proximity to bus stops, frequency of bus services, proximity to

paved footpaths, access to pram ramps - disability access)6. Traffic (Vehicle access to/from site, impact on traffic flow, traffic movement,

visibility to site)7. Parking (Capacity to accommodate adequate parking on site, capacity to

accommodate overflow parking, disability access from parking area to facility, impactof parking on neighbouring properties)

8. Community Safety (Surveillance issues, reports of crime in area, evidence of anti-social behaviour, environmental awareness, visibility and safety of area andconflicting uses/activities)

Methodology

Officers from five different sections of Council individually assessed all of the 24 sites.Their assessments included a site inspection and comments on each site according to thecriteria relevant to their expertise. The Officers also gave each site a score based upon theirprofessional opinion regarding the criteria they assessed.



Preliminary Analysis of the Assessments

A preliminary analysis of the scores allotted to each site enabled a degree of culling to occurearly in the examination process. Sixteen (16) of the twenty-four (24) sites were identified ashaving major constraints which would impact greatly any proposed development. Theseconstraints included drainage issues, traffic/ access issues, distance from catchment area andexisting facilities on site. Some sites were identified as having a number of constraints.

The 16 sites eliminated from investigation are categorised below according to theirconstraints and are also listed in Attachment #5.

Sites 1,1a,4,5,5a,6,7,9,10,11,12,& 15 (Drainage Issues)

Severe drainage issues were identified in 12 of the 16 sites. The drainage issues were sosevere that Council Officers could not recommend any of these sites for further investigation.Most sites were totally covered by water during heavy rains. All of these sites received adrainage rating of “1” during the assessment process.

Sites 22 & 23 (Traffic/Access Issues)

Two sites were identified as having severe traffic issues. These sites included Cnr BringellyRd and Parker St (Site 22) and Parker St. and Oag Cres. (Site 23). Access to and from bothsites is extremely restricted with left in/left out access only. Endeavouring to manage accessissues would involve discussions with the Roads and Traffic Authority. There are alternativeaccess routes to both sites, but these could not be considered do to the narrowness of thestreets and possible impact on neighbouring residents. Both of these sites received a trafficrating of “1” during the assessment process.

Sites 8,9,10,22, & 23 (Distance)

Five sites were identified during the assessment process as being located more than 1kilometre from the most densely populated parts of the catchment area. These sites include:Peppermint Reserve (Site 8), Casuarina Circuit (Site 9), Manning St (Site 10), Bringelly Rdand Parker St. (Site 22) and Parker St. and Oag St. (Site 23). Sites 9 and 10 also have severedrainage issues and Sites 22 and 23 have been identified with severe traffic issues.

Site 19 (Existing Facilities)

Site #19 (Second Ave, opposite Manning St. intersection) already has a facility (amenitiesblock) located on the site. This facility and the area surrounding it is extensively used bysporting groups who use the playing fields on Chapman Gardens (in particular the GreaterWestern Baseball Assoc). This facility would need to be removed and either re-located orincorporated into the design of the neighbourhood centre. Council Officers could notrecommend this site due to the cost implications associated with removing and possiblyreplacing the amenities block.

Potential Sites for the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre

Eight sites were identified as still being possible locations for the Kingswood NeighbourhoodCentre. These are indicated on the following map and are:

Chapman Gardens (North)

Site # 13 Chapman Gardens, Santley St (unsealed carpark)Site # 14 Chapman Gardens (next to driveway of Kingswood Sports Club)



Chapman Gardens (Second Avenue)

Site # 18 Second Ave, Chapman Garden (unsealed carpark)Site # 20 Second Ave, Chapman Gardens (east of paved carpark)

Kingswood Park (Crown Land)

Site # 16 Kingswood Park, north sideSite # 17 Kingswood Park, south side

Other

Site # 2 Cnr Orth St and Bringelly RoadSite # 3 Stafford St (between Parker St and Somerset St.)



Constraints of Possible Sites

All of the possible eight sites were identified as having some constraints but were still felt tobe worthy of further consideration. In particular, community consultation will need to occurregarding the suitability of the sites and possible impact of the development on neighbouringproperties.

The identified constraints for the eight sites include:

Resident Opposition (Site 17, 18 and 20)

Of the eight possible sites for the centre, two sites are located on Second Ave in ChapmanGardens and one site is located a few hundred metres away on Second Ave in KingswoodPark. Council is well aware of the strong resident opposition to building the neighbourhoodcentre on Second Ave in Chapman Gardens. It is possible that Council would meet withsimilar opposition if they were to propose building the centre a short distance away onSecond Ave in Kingswood Park.

Land Ownership (Site 16 and 17)

Two of the possible sites are located on Kingswood Park. Kingswood Park is crown landowned by the State Government. This land has been reserved for “public recreation” underwhich community uses (such as a facility) is not permitted. Council could seek permissionfrom Dept of Land and Water Conservation to have the reservation changed to allow forcommunity purposes. However, the cost and time involved in this process is unknown. Alsothere is no guarantee that at the end of the process that Council will be successful in theirendeavour.

Drainage Issues (Sites 2, 13 and 14)

Two of the eight sites have been identified as having drainage constraints that will need to befurther investigated. They included:

• Cnr. Orth St. and Bringelly Rd (Site #2)• Santley St (near drive of Kingswood Sports Club) (Site #14)

These sites are not totally covered by water during heavy rains (as with the other drainageaffected sites discussed earlier in this report). They will however both require landfill beforeany development can occur.

A further site (Santley St. – Site #13) was also identified as having some drainage issues thatcould impact on any development. Though this site has no direct drainage related issues (e.g.underground pipes), it is located to the southeast of an overland flow path. In heavy rains,this site has been known to flood.

Location (Sites #3,13, and 14)

The Stafford St site (Site #3) is situated in a quiet street and is totally surrounded byresidential properties. The site is located further from the centre of the catchment area thanthe other potential sites. Pedestrian access to the site is a concern even though the site isserviced by a bus route. The size and location of trees are also an issue on this site.



The two sites on Santley Cres (Sites #13 and 14) are located immediately adjacent to a“licensed premises”. This raises many issues for Council. In particular, one could questionthe appropriateness of many neighbourhood centre type activities (e.g. playgroups, afterschool programs, school holiday programs, and some youth programs) being held next to alicensed premise.

Community Safety Issues (Site 13 and 14)

Both sites #13 and 14 have been identified as having a number of community safety issues.In particular both sites were scored low with regards to surveillance, reported crime “hotspots”, screening vegetation, and possible entrapment opportunities. Community safetyconcerns were also noted with regard to the close proximity to the Kingswood Sports Club.There could also be issues regarding impact on residential properties if a private functionwere to be at both the club and neighbourhood centre at the same time.

Plans of Management

All of the potential sites are classified as “community land” and zoned for recreation/openspace. Development can not occur on any site unless a Plan of Management is adopted inaccordance with the Local Government Amendment (Community Land Management) Act1998. This process would be subject to public exhibition and comment. New Plans ofManagement are presently being prepared for Council by a consultant.

Once Council has selected a site for the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre the categorisationfor the site (within the Plan of Management) will need to be changed. This process willrequire another period of public exhibition and comment.

Funding the Project

The current total budget allocation for the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre project is$554,147.

Budget Estimates

Council has engaged consultants (Woollan Parkinson and Partners Pty Limited) to prepare abudget estimate for the Kingswood Park Community Centre based on prices current. Thisestimate has now been prepared. No allowance is made for escalation past this date. Tobuild the Kingswood Park Neighbourhood Centre today, it would cost Council approximately$697,813. This estimate does not include design, administration or contingency fees. (Acopy of the budget estimate summary is included in Attachment #6.)

The total cost inclusive of design and administration fees (13%) and an allowance forcontingencies (5%) could be as high as $750,000 depending on the particular site selected.

This budget estimate may be used as a guide to estimate the cost of building a similar facilityin Kingswood. However, Kingswood Park Community Centre is located on a very difficultsite and the cost of siteworks for this project was very high. It is unlikely that the cost ofsiteworks for a similar development in Kingswood would be as high on any of the eight sitesidentified for further investigation. The factors that are likely to vary costs include:

• Topography• Subsoil conditions• Location of Services• Location of existing structures or facilities on site• Location of existing trees on site



Council has recently prepared a Section 94 Contributions Plan for the KingswoodNeighbourhood Centre project. This plan was exhibited from 13th February, 2001 to 16th

March, 2001. The draft plan applies to all residential developments within the catchmentarea of the neighbourhood centre and aims to raise up to $106,340 or approximately 19% ofthe existing budget for the proposed centre ($554,147).

Council will need to provide further funds for the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre in the2001/2002 budget planning process. This will be further determined in the development ofthe Management Plan.

Summary

A number of different social planning exercises have recently re-affirmed the need for aneighbourhood centre in Kingswood. A facility similar in size and design to Kingswood ParkCommunity Centre would suitably meet the identified needs in Kingswood. The land takerequired for this facility would be at least 2500 sqm.

Twenty-four sites were identified in Kingswood that could accommodate a facility of thissize. All of these sites were assessed in March 2001. Not one site was found to be withoutany constraints.

Sixteen sites were found to have severe constraints. The remaining possible 8 sites for theneighbourhood centre require further investigation. This investigation would involvecontinued consultation with the residents of Kingswood and in particular those livingadjacent to the proposed sites. Council’s endorsement of this is requested.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council receive the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre report.

2. Further investigations be conducted of the eight possible sites identified forthe Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre.

3. A further report regarding the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre be preparedfor Council.

ORDINARY MEETING

2 APRIL 2001


Item Page


7 Penrith City Small Business Awards 2001 1128/15 27

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City as an Economy

Business Development Page 27

The City as an Economy

7 Penrith City Small Business Awards 2001 1128/15

Compiled by: Peter Coyte, Local Economic Development Program Manager

Authorised by: Bruce Mc Donald, Director ~ City Strategy

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 92): The average number of employees perbusiness has increased to 5.0.00/01 Critical Action: Work in partnership with business and business associations toprovide appropriate business development awareness opportunities.

Background

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of an opportunity to support the Penrith SmallBusiness Awards 2001 presented by Cumberland Newspaper Group through Penrith Press.

Penrith Press is seeking sponsorship from Council to support this Award.

Current Situation

The Small Business Awards, which have been running for at least eight years, present anopportunity for businesses to highlight their name to their customers and community. TheAwards acknowledge and reward the community’s finest businesses; unite communities,bringing local businesses together; and help to raise the standards of local business.

Extensive media coverage for the Awards, the businesses involved and the sponsors isachieved through Cumberland Newspaper Group’s suburban newspapers in editorial andadvertising features.

The Awards program covers a period of three months, between the Launch on Tuesday 8th

May and the Winners’ Feature on Tuesday 24th July. The Presentation Night will be onWednesday 18th July.

The program is run through the submission of voting coupons, which appear in the paper, toenable readers to nominate their favourite businesses. The Awards are coordinated byPrecedent Productions, to provide an arms-length approach from the Cumberland NewspaperGroup.

Cumberland Newspaper Group invites sponsorship at three levels:

♦ Major Sponsor $8,000♦ Minor Sponsor $6,000♦ Co-Sponsor $2,000

Small business is a vital part of the Penrith City economy and it is appropriate for Council tobe seen to support a program, which provides a higher profile for small business andencourages improved standards within this business sector.

A substantial portion of Council’s Economic Development sponsorship budget is allocated tothe Western Sydney Industry Awards.

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City as an Economy

Business Development Page 28

Funds currently available would permit Council’s involvement and support of the PenrithSmall Business Awards at the Co-Sponsor level.

The benefits to Council as a sponsor at this level include:

♦ One dedicated editorial;♦ Council logo on the coupon, finalist certificate, invitation, presentation program and stage

signage;♦ Council literature included in finalist kits;♦ Council representative to present an award;♦ Two complimentary tickets to each presentation.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The report on the Penrith Small Business Awards 2001 be received.

2. Council sponsor the 2001 Penrith Small Business Awards at Co-Sponsor level.

ORDINARY MEETING

2 APRIL 2001


Item Page


8 Tender No 28-00/01 - Supply And Delivery Of One (1) Backhoe/FrontEnd Loader 38/32 29

9 Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (Pamp) – Footpath ImprovementProgramme (9011/54) 32

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001The City Supported by Infrastructure

Asset Management Page 29

The City Supported by Infrastructure

8 Tender No 28-00/01 - Supply and Delivery of One (1)Backhoe/Front End Loader 38/32

Compiled by: Lindsay Clarke, Works Maintenance Engineer

Authorised by: David Burns, Works Construction & Maintenance Manager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 86): A register of all significant assets, theircondition and standards determined and a plan for their maintenance is operating.00/01 Critical Action: Prepare and implement a prioritised asset management plan.

Background

Council currently operates a fleet of seven (7) backhoes. These machines are utilised inWorks Maintenance, Works Construction and Parks for a wide variety of tasks.

Of the seven backhoes, six are Case Model 580 (5) and 590 (1) and one is a MasseyFerguson.

One of the Case Backhoes, a 1992 Model 580 is due for replacement.

Tender

Tenders were called in November, 2000, closing 12 December 2000, for the supply anddelivery of a Backhoe/Front End Loader Combination, Four Wheel Drive, Engine Power 60-70 kW and an Extended Dipper.

Tenders were received from six companies as follows:

Company Make/Model Power(kW)

DigDepth

(m)

Price $

Hitachi ConstructionMachinery (Aust) Pty Ltd

John Deer 315 SE 66 5.44 126,6151

Construction EquipmentAustralia Pty Ltd

JCB 3C X 4PS 67.5 5.46 109,720

FSR Equipment Pty Ltd • New HollandNH95

• New HollandNH85

• New HollandLB75

69.962.5

74

5.805.725.50

97,76193,57692,936

Case Equipment Sales Case 580 SLE 68 5.57 99,545Gough & Gilmour • Caterpillar 428C

• Caterpillar 438C6066

5.855.92

124,600131,400

N S Komatsu • KomatsuWB97R-2

• KomatsuWB93R-2

7373

5.655.65

105,000102,500



All tenders were assessed against the criteria in the specification listed below:

• Conformance to specification• Purchase Price• Performance and Reliability• Comfort and ergonomics of operation• Availability of spare parts and service exchange components• Availability of skilled serve organisation• Likely repair costs• Likely resale price and depreciation• Costs of operation• Safety of operation• Operator comments• Safety features and lack of hazards• Accessibility to service points

Three tenders did not comply with the specification. The New Holland LB75 and theKomatsu Models were outside the specification based on engine power.

The Backhoes selected for further evaluation by Council operators and WorkshopSuperintendent were the John Deere 315 SE, JCB 3CX 4 PS, New Holland NH85 and NH95,Case 580 SLE and Caterpillar 428C. FSR Equipment Pty Ltd chose not to have the NewHolland NH85 further evaluated on the basis that the company felt it would not compare wellto other backhoes on trial. The John Deere, although selected for further evaluation was notavailable due to a pending model change. There was no advantage to Council in consideringthe higher priced alternative offered by Gough and Gilmour.

Operator Assessment

The four backhoes available for further evaluation were assessed by Council operators at theChristie Street Recycling Depot.

JCB3CX4-PS: This backhoe performed well with good visibility from the cabin. The cabinspace was suitable for taller operators and the control layout was also good. It has a twinpump hydraulic system giving higher service intervals. One operator considered it lackedpushing power and the Workshop Superintendent was concerned with the loader safety propand the engine covers being hard to install.

New Holland NH95: All operators commented on the power of this backhoe, however anumber of negative aspects arose, particularly with the ergonomics of operation. Talleroperators felt that the cabin was cramped. All operators felt that the seat positioning for thevarious operations was a concern. The crowd control for the loader bucket required twistingand was not popular with the operators. The Workshop Superintendent considered the enginecovers flimsy and difficult to install and the battery was difficult to access.

Case 580 SLE: This backhoe was preferred by all operators due to its all round performance.The only negative aspect to arise from the trial was the small tool box. The workshopSuperintendent considers the Case 580 SLE a proven reliable performer.

Caterpillar 428C: The operators considered the Caterpillar a good performing machine witha well laid out cabin and controls. The only real concern was the lower ground clearance.The Workshop Superintendent considered this backhoe easy to service and maintain,however, also commented on the lower ground clearance.



Price Variations

Tenders for the backhoe closed on 12 December, 2000. Because of the Christmas break, wetweather and availability of a suitable test site, the 60 day price period has been passed. Twocompanies have advised of price variations. Hitachi advise that the John Deere 315 SE hasreduced - price to $117,933 and Gough & Gilmour advise that the Caterpillar 428C hasreduced in price by 4% to $119,616. Both reductions are due to pending model changes anddo not alter the recommendation.

Conclusion

The Case 580SLE is the machine preferred by all operators and the WorkshopSuperintendent. Two of Council's existing backhoes are the Case 580 SLE. If purchased,spare front and rear wheels/tyres would not be required. Although $1784 dearer than theNew Holland NH95 backhoe, when the cost of the spare wheels/tyres are included, the Caseis $1,671 cheaper than the New Holland and represents best value to Council.

The Case was preferred by all Council operators for performance, comfort and ease ofoperation.

Standardising the fleet means less inventory required and existing buckets can be utilised.

Case is conveniently located in St Marys and has over the years provided good, reliableservice and access for parts.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council accept the tender of Case Equipment Sales for the supply of one (l) Case 580SLE Backhoe/Front End Loader for the sum of $99,545.


Accessible Transport Page 32

The City Supported by Infrastructure

9 Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (PAMP) – FootpathImprovement Programme (9011/54)

Compiled by: Charles Wiafe, Transportation PlannerAuthorised by: Craig Ross, Technical Services Manager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 94): A strategy for footpaths and cyclewaysacross the City has been implemented.00/01 Critical Action: Review Council's Footpath Programme and Council's CyclewaysPlan, and develop an implementation and funding plan.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the findings and recommendations of thePenrith LGA Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan.

Background

As with the provision of bicycle facilities in the last couple of years, the RTA is now puttingemphasis on the needs of pedestrians in the road network and is assisting a number of localCouncils in the preparation of a Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan.

Last financial year, as part of an RTA initiative to improve the provision of pedestrianfacilities in the State, this Council was one of the first ten Councils to be granted $12,000towards the preparation of such a Plan. Council matched the funding and in consultation withthe RTA, engaged Ove Arup & Partners – Traffic/Transport Planners to prepare the Plan.Ove Arup has completed similar plans for five other Councils.

The RTA requested that it be consulted in the preparation of the Plan, together with thePolice, so that the Plan enables the provision of pedestrian facilities in a consistent andappropriate manner throughout the State.

Current Situation

A Draft Final Report has now been completed. Details of the Plan are as follows:

Objectives of the Plan

The Plan is to be used as a guide (by Council) for the provision and/or improvements ofpedestrian facilities in the Penrith LGA. It would also assist Council in providingappropriate, safe and convenient pedestrian facilities.

The objectives of the Plan are:

§ to facilitate improvements in the level of pedestrian access and priority, particularly inareas of high demand;

§ to provide links with other transport services to achieve an integrated network offacilities;

§ to ensure that pedestrian facilities are appropriate and relevant to the surrounding land useand user groups;

§ to improve pedestrian safety and amenity in the LGA;



§ to increase community use of pedestrian facilities and promote walking as a viablealternative for shorter trips, and hence reduce car dependency;

§ to facilitate the integration of walking into the transport system as a legitimate transportmode in its own right.

Council’s Outstanding Footpaving List

Each year Council receives numerous requests and representation for footpaving in the LGA.Concerns are also expressed in correspondence about the lack of an extensive footpathnetwork in some parts of the LGA. While the Section 94 Plans for new subdivisions,including Glenmore Park, have made provision for an extensive footpath network, requestsare still received about the need for additional paved footpaths.

These requests are usually assessed and added to Council’s Outstanding (unfunded)Footpaving List. The outstanding list (excluding new subdivisions) now contains 88 projectsin South Ward, 70 projects in North Ward, and 140 projects in East Ward, which arecurrently estimated at a total cost of $4.7 million.

The outstanding list has now been revised to make provision for an extensive (and costeffective) footpath network in the LGA, as part of the preparation of the Pedestrian Accessand Mobility Plan. The revised outstanding list and the assessment criteria are discussedbelow.

The Plan has identified major pedestrian generators including employment and activitycentres, shopping centres, and recommended pedestrian facilities and links, within a generalradius of 1.5km to 2km from these concentrations. It has also highlighted pedestrianaccessibility and mobility issues, and considers recreational walkers within a 4km radius.

Methodology Used in the Preparation of the Plan

Preparation of the Plan involved a number of components including the following:

§ community consultation;

§ data collection/review and review of footpath assessment matrix;

§ PAMP route development, prioritisation of outstanding footpaving list, action plan;

§ pedestrian audit of routes;

§ recommendations and consideration of Council policies and funding sources.

The stages and expected outcomes are as follows:

Stage OutcomeCommunityConsultation

Raise community awareness, gain community input, facilitatecommunication between Council and agencies

DataCollection/Review

Identification of relevant transport strategies, identification of hazardouslocations, identification of land use ‘pedestrian attractors’

Route Development& Action Plan

Outstanding Footpaving Schedule reviewed, specific routes audited,identification of required action, creation of PAMP network

Pedestrian Audit ofRoutes

Identify deficiencies for mobility impaired pedestrians in the network

Recommendations Work schedule of Council actions, PAMP route maps, Council policyreview, prioritisation of works



Community Consultation

Consultation was considered to be an essential part of the PAMP development to ensurepublic needs were considered and incorporated into the development of an EngineeringAction Plan. The following community consultation exercises were undertaken.

Media Coverage - The Penrith PAMP received media coverage in the local papers. This wasin the form of discussion on the PAMP in the Mayor’s weekly column. The scheduled focusgroup workshop was also advertised in local papers.

Focus Group Workshop - A focus group workshop was held at Penrith City Council on28 September 1999. The workshop was attended by approximately 30 people, and involvedCouncil officers, local community representatives, and representatives of local disabilityorganisations. The focus group identified issues relevant to further development of thePAMP with specific reference to concerns within the Penrith LGA.

The major issues raised included:

§ improve co-ordination and increase information flow between Council and relevant StateGovernment agencies such as the RTA, State Rail and the Department of Transport;

§ increase the information base for the Penrith PAMP process;§ strategic issues relating to the development of a pedestrian network;§ consultation with key stakeholders;§ development of the Penrith PAMP network;§ prioritisation of pedestrian facilities;§ Council’s budget allocation for footpaving;§ standardising pedestrian facilities;§ lighting and security;§ easy access public transport opportunities and pedestrian links to these facilities.

Consultation with Disability Access Committee – Members of the Committee attended thefocus group workshop. The Committee was informed throughout the Plan preparation.Identified locations where pram ramps are required have been considered by the Committeeat two recent meetings.

PAMP Route Development

As part of the Plan preparation, the consultants have reviewed Council’s outstandingfootpaving list and have assessed footpaving on all streets/roads carrying a significant trafficvolume, and in particular where walking on the roadway or footpath reserve is consideredunsafe. The review covers footpaths in all built-up areas and in the villages, excludingGlenmore Park (where appropriate footpaving is being provided as part of the subdivision).Surveys were conducted to provide a comprehensive picture of significant generators andattractors of pedestrian traffic and pedestrian routes, trip origins, type of users, factors thatinhibit walking and pedestrian related accidents.

The Plan has also identified strategic links and elements in the pedestrian network in thePenrith LGA, with particular reference to links between major pedestrian generators andattractors including transport nodes, shopping centres, entertainment and recreationalfacilities, commercial/retail, residential, and open spaces.

An Engineering Action Plan (work schedule) has been developed to provide an extensivefootpath network and improve mobility. This Engineering Action Plan is based upon areview of Council’s Outstanding Footpath Schedule and the completion of Physical Access



Audits on routes identified in Penrith/Kingswood and St Marys. A copy of the work scheduleis attached to this report.

A map showing the network has been provided to Councillors previously.

The revised outstanding footpath list now contains projects in South Ward estimated at$2.3 million, $2.4 million in North Ward, and $2 million in East Ward. The list includesfootpaving on at least one side of all local streets where pedestrian conflict would beunacceptable, ie, streets that carry more than approximately 2,000 vpd as recommended byAMCORD. It also includes footpaving on streets carrying less than this volume of trafficwhere a strong pedestrian desire exists, as well as footpaving on both sides of streets carryinggreater than 6,000 vpd. This would provide an extensive footpath network in the LGA.

Assessment Criteria of the Prioritised Footpath Network

The identified footpaths have been prioritised using the following criteria:

§ proximity to pedestrian generators;§ estimated traffic volume;§ nature of predominant users (young, old, disabled, parents with prams, etc);§ evidence of wear.

Weighted scores were allocated to these factors as indicated below.

Criteria WeightingsProximity to pedestrian generators and attractors(on road distance)

Within 250m of travel250–500m of travel>500m travel

15100

Estimated traffic volumes (2 way flow) 6000+ vpd>2000-<6000 vpd<2000* vpdThrough reserve/off-road path

10505

Nature of Predominant Users(young/aged/disabled/parents with prams)

Yes/No 5/0

Evidence of wear Continuous worn trackDiscontinuous worn trackContinuous slight evidenceDiscontinuous slight evidenceNo evidence

20151050

* Based on the Australian Model Code for Residential Development (a report by theCommonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services), and thelocal environment, the scoring range has a cut off at minimum traffic volume of 2,000vpd, however the scoring system also recognises the benefits of off-road paths forpedestrian safety and aesthetic quality.

A threshhold of ten points has been set to determine projects to be included in the outstanding(unfunded) footpath list.

Current Footpaving Programme

For the last seven years, Council has spent an average of $200,000 annually for theconstruction of concrete footpaths. This financial year, in response to numerousrepresentations for additional footpaving and the need to advance implementation of theoutstanding footpath programme, Council has allocated $600,000.



Council has now recognised that developments in older parts of the city require additionalpaved footpaths, and a Section 94 Plan for Established Areas (including footpaving) iscurrently on public exhibition. In new subdivisions as well as major pedestrian generators,eg, schools, neighbourhood shopping centres, major industrial subdivisions, and majorresidential developments, Council now imposes conditions for footpaving to be provided aspart of the development works.

In addition, in the 1998/99 financial year Council matched an RTA allocation of $5,000 forthe installation of kerb ramps. In this financial budget a total of $40,000 is allocated tocontinue with this programme, with a view to improving access to the pedestrian network,particularly for the people with limited mobility, the elderly, and parents with prams.

Improving Access for People with Limited Mobility

As part of the preparation of the Plan, physical access audits were carried out to identifyaccess barriers for pedestrians with specific focus on access for less mobile pedestrians,including the elderly and people with mobility impairment.

A Physical Access Audit was also carried out on the existing pedestrian network in thePenrith, Kingswood and St Marys Central Business Districts, and options recommended forappropriate treatment for the people with limited mobility. A staging programme has beenproposed in the Plan.

The identified barriers found in a number of locations include:

§ lack of paved footpaths;§ poor kerb ramp/pram crossing design;§ major cracks and raised paving in the path of travel;§ lack of tactile hazard indicators at major crossings;§ trees, bus shelters, signage and seating obstructing path of travel;§ lack of kerb ramps at pedestrian crossings;§ lack of adequate lighting at pedestrian crossings;§ poor pedestrian crossing signals (audible, tactile).

For each identified problem a possible solution has been assessed against a set ofperformance criteria, which include benefits to pedestrians, impact on other road users(including public transport routes), cost, local impacts (social and environmental), andassessment with respect to Government strategies.

The potential solutions have been prioritised, taking into consideration estimated pedestrianusage, proximity to pedestrian generators and existing level of pedestrian and public transportlinks.

The priority listing of the identified barriers (deficiencies) and solutions has been discussedwith the Disability Access Committee, with a recommendation that the $40,000 allocation forthis financial year should be used to provide additional pram ramps in the Penrith andSt Marys CBDs.

Specific Recommendations Identified in the Plan

The study has concluded that the objectives of the PAMP could be achieved in the PenrithLGA by the staged implementation of actions across the areas of enforcement,encouragement, education and engineering. In the latter area of engineering, the Plan hasrecommended the implementation of the proposed Engineering Action Plan.



The Plan has recommended that Council consider for adoption the PAMP network andassociated Engineering Action Plan and other actions in conjunction with the RTA and otherAuthorities. Other specific recommendations are included in the attachments to this report.

WCMM’s Comments

As previously stated in the Report, Council places a high priority on the provision offootpaths and increased the budgetary allocation from $200,000 to $600,000 in this financialyear. Based on a continuation of this allocation, the revised outstanding footpath programmeestimated at $6.7 million, is approximately a 11-year programme to provide an extensivefootpath network in the LGA.

Summary

The revised outstanding footpath list now contains projects estimated at $6.7 million. The listincludes footpaving on at least one side of all local streets where pedestrian conflict would beunacceptable, and also a strong pedestrian desire exists. In addition, footpaving on both sidesof trunk collectors, distributor and arterial roads where the daily traffic volume of trafficexceeds 6,000 vehicles, has been proposed.

Completion of the revised list, in an acceptable time frame would ensure the provision of anextensive footpath network in the LGA.

The plan has prioritised the revised outstanding footpaving projects, based on: - proximity topedestrian generators; estimated traffic volume; nature of predominant users (young, old,disabled, parents with prams, etc); and evidence of wear. The priority list will useful in theselection of footpaving projects as part of the annual project evaluation and footpath selectionprocess and it is it is recommended that it is used as such.

On adoption of the footpath schedule, the PAMP will be finalised by the consultant andbecome available for public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council note the findings of the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan;

2. Council consider the recommended work schedule in setting funded footpaving projects;

3. the final Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan be placed on public exhibition;

4. the $40,000 allocation from Council/RTA be used for the construction of pram ramps atthe Penrith and St Marys CBDs, in consultation with the Disability Access Committee.

2



ATTACHMENT

• Road crossings should take advantage of signalised crossings and more centrepedestrian refuges should be provided to ensure the safe crossing of busy roads. Indetermining appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities the recommendations of Section 3- Treatments for Pedestrian Crossing Roads of AustRoads Part 13, Pedestrians, 1995should be taken into consideration.

• To maximise access for people with disabilities, planners and designers must giveconsideration to relevant design guidelines, specifically the Australian Standards 1428series with particular note of Part 2: Enhanced and Additional Requirements -Buildings and Facilities.

• Walking should be encouraged as a mode by the introduction of measures aimed ateducating people of the benefits associated with walking. Council should consider theintroduction of such initiatives, which could be linked into other areas including SafeRoutes to Schools and the provision of special educational information.

• The enforcement of policies relating to the blocking of paths of travel.

• A survey of pedestrian areas at night should be undertaken to ensure acceptablelighting standards are maintained. Regular maintenance checks should also beundertaken to ensure sufficient lighting in public areas.

• As agreed with the RTA’s Road Safety Directorate, pedestrian facilities identified withinthis PAMP must be constructed to meet the requirements of AS 1428 and AustRoadsPart 13, Pedestrians, 1995 as the best standards that are currently available.

• Council should maintain contact with the RTA Road Safety Directorate regarding thereview currently being undertaken of the use and design of tactile ground surfaces onkerb ramps. Council should recognise these standards when they become available.

• Council should request funding from developers for the provision of safe pedestrianfacilities if the development will increase the number of pedestrians in the vicinity underSection 94 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

• Council should discuss the installation of audible signals at locations requested byThe Guide Dog Association of NSW and ACT and to provide audible and tactile signalsat other locations listed in the Engineering Action Plan with the RTA.

• Council and RTA maintenance works should be undertaken in regard to the safemovement and access of pedestrians throughout Penrith City. Any maintenance shouldbe undertaken with regard to the requirements of AS 1428 and AustRoads Part 13,Pedestrians.

• The provision of traffic, pedestrian and cyclist facilities in the road space should beconsidered in an integrated way and the same should apply in the allocation of funding.

• The Outstanding Footpaving Schedule should be regularly reviewed to ensure thatprojects which have been completed, are removed and that the criteria weighting scoresfor each item are regularly updated as information changes.

• Monitoring of the quality of pedestrian routes should be undertaken by establishing anongoing regular Route Quality Audit process, with the results catalogued and regularlyupdated.



• Careful consideration by Council should be given to pedestrian safety, access andmobility for all special events. Reference should be made to The Department of LocalGovernment Circular to Councils 'A Guide to Major and Special Events Planning',Circular No 97/65, 1997 and to the RTA booklet ‘Traffic Management for SpecialEvents’, March 1999.

• Council should take into consideration the requirements for shared paths (AustRoadsPart 13, Pedestrians, 1995 and Part 14, Bicycles, 1999) when installing any newfootpath facilities within the LGA.

ORDINARY MEETING

2 APRIL 2001


Item Page

COUNCIL'S OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

10 2001 Geac/Lgma Forum 932/4 Pt9 41

11 General Property Insurance 6011/77 42

12 Changes To Local Government Act 754/3 Part 11 43

13 Proposed Kiosk - Tench Reserve, Penrith 3032/16 45

Ordinary Meeting 2 April 2001Council's Operating Environment

Management of the Organisation Page 41

Council's Operating Environment

10 2001 Geac/LGMA Forum 932/4 Pt9

Compiled by: Angela Lennon, Corporate Secretary

Authorised by: Steve Hackett, Director - City Services

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 141): Effective corporate governance hasbeen maintained.00/01 Critical Action: Undertake effective local government.

The 2001 Geac/LGMA Forum will be held on Monday 28 May 2001 at the Westin Hotel,Grand Ballroom, No. 1 Martin Place, Sydney. The theme of the forum is “Walking theTightrope”.

The forum will address such important issues as:

§ Success on the Business Tightrope§ Trends in Environmental management/awareness§ Law and order and local government§ The Sproat’s Inquiry – what it really means§ The financial viability of Councils

Due to the high profile of this forum, early registration of Council delegates is suggested.

Copies of the program were distributed to Councillors in March together with a memoseeking their attendance.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council consider requests received from Councillors wishing to attend the 2001Geac/LGMA Forum to be held on 28 May 2001.




11 General Property Insurance 6011/77

Compiled by: Ken Muir, Risk Management Co-Ordinator

Authorised by: Vicki O'Kelly, Acting Chief Financial Officer

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 110): Effective risk management is practiced.00/01 Critical Action: Incorporate appropriate risk exposure assessment in theorganisation's decisions and activities.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council be included in the Westpool bulktendering for bulk General Property Insurance.

Definition

The term ‘General Property’ refers to the insurance categories of Industrial Special Risk; fire& all risk (property only), machinery breakdown, marine hull, computer breakdown, fidelityguarantee, contract works, personal accident and extra territorial workers compensation.

Background

Council has previously tendered for three-year General Property coverage but the most recenttender was accepted for one year only. Our General Property and General Insurance cover isdue to expire in June 2001.

The insurance market is hardening and even though we have a reasonably low record ofclaims, premium increases should be expected at time of renewal. Westpool is embarking onthe development of bulk purchase of General Property Insurance for members. This has thepotential for savings and would pave the way for pooled self-insurance.

Council has expressed commitment to expanding Westpool’s scope of activities toincorporate all lines of insurance as part of our risk management strategy.

Westpool has offered to tender for the purchase of bulk General Property Insurance andPenrith City Council has the opportunity to participate in this process. Potential savings maybe possible through economies of scale and inter-council co-operation. Westpool is bound bythe Local Government Act and would be required to follow the processes in the LocalGovernment Act 1993 as amended.

RECOMMENDATION

That Westpool offer be accepted and Council authorises Westpool to prepare and call tendersand submit the results to Council.

Ordinary Meeting 2nd April, 2001Council's Operating Environment



12 Changes to Local Government Act 754/3 Part 11

Compiled by: Stephen Britten, Legal Officer

Authorised by: Steve Hackett, Director ~ City Services

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 135): Effective corporate governance hasbeen maintained.00/01 Critical Action: Undertake effective local government.

Background

Under the Local Government Act 1993, the previous practice was that when a Councillor or amember of a committee attended a meeting and established that they had a pecuniary interest,they were obliged to disclose that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable. TheCouncillor or member of a committee then could not take part in the discussion orconsideration of the matter, and could not vote upon any question relating to the matter.

Pecuniary interest under the Act is defined as “an interest that a person has in a matterbecause of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of an appreciable financial gain or loss tothe person or another person with whom the person is associated”. The Act also prescribes anumber of matters that do not have to be disclosed, such as an interest as an elector.

A conflict of interest that is not pecuniary by nature would not fall into an interest that iscontrolled under the Local Government Act. Non-pecuniary conflicts of interest aregenerally controlled through the Code of Conduct.

Current Situation

A new Local Government Amendment Act was enacted last year. A number of its provisionsare relevant to this area of disclosure at Council and committee meetings. The newprovisions commenced on 1st April 2001. These provisions are effective in respect of themeeting tonight. The Department of Local Government has issued a circular, which has beendistributed to all Councillors. The controlling section of the Act is Section 451. The circularstates as follows in respect to Section 451:

“One amendment to this section requires a Councillor or a member of a Council committeewith a pecuniary interest in a matter to not only disclose the existence of the interest, (as isthe case now) but to also disclose the nature of that interest. This is to promote greateraccountability and does not unduly impinge upon a person’s private affairs, given that muchdetail is already required in the annual written “return” of interests, also required by the Act.

A further amendment prevents a Councillor or member of a Council committee who hasdisclosed a pecuniary interest in a matter from being present at the meeting (or even in sightof other Councillors/members) when the matter is being considered, discussed or voted on.This clearly avoids any perception of influence that a Councillor or member of a Councilcommittee may still have by being in the Chamber, for example through body movements,expression or mere presence”.

Accordingly, a Councillor will, in disclosing an interest, have to decide whether the interest isa pecuniary interest or not, and also disclose that to the meeting.

Ordinary Meeting 2nd April, 2001Council's Operating Environment


Further amendments to the Act requires persons giving advice at a Council or committeemeeting to also disclose the existence of any pecuniary interest in the matter, the subject ofthe advice and also to disclose the nature of that interest.

Another amendment requires designated persons (generally Senior Officers) who are dealingwith a matter to also disclose the existence of a pecuniary interest in the matter and the natureof that interest.

There are other amendments covered in the circular, a copy of which is attached. The aboveamendment is the most significant in this area.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in this report be received.


Finance Page 45


13 Proposed Kiosk - Tench Reserve, Penrith 3032/16

Compiled by: Bob Anderson, Property Officer - Valuation

Authorised by: Brian Griffiths, Property Development Manager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 114): Maintain a sound financial position andliquidity.00/01 Critical Action: Implement a property development strategy to support Council'seconomic, social and environmental objectives.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to call for “Expressions of Interest”for the provision of a refreshments kiosk service at Tench Reserve, Penrith.

Background

Council’s 2000/01 Management Plan includes the provision of a kiosk in Tench Reserve as acomponent of the Property Development Reserve Programme.

A preliminary amount of $126,000 has been included in the budget representing an amount toconstruct a facility containing 40 square metres with decking or surrounding paved facilitiesto compliment the structure.

The most suitable location for a kiosk would be in the region between the children’splayground area and the boat ramp. Due to flood liability, any structure would have to bebuilt on the high ground adjacent to Tench Avenue. This report discusses the merits of apermanent structure versus a mobile kiosk that could be removed nightly.

Current Situation

The land is zoned 6(d) Regional Open Space, “Kiosks” and “Restaurants” are permitted withCouncil consent subject to advertising of the development allowing for the making andconsideration of submissions. Additional matters need to be taken into consideration such asneed, impact, public use, access, size and noise generation, as well as flood liability of theland. The zoning allows a kiosk building up to 75m2 in area however, SEPP 20 needs to betaken into consideration for the erection of a structure greater than 50m2 or over one (1)storey in height.

The land is classified as “Community” land and Council’s adopted Plan of Management forTench Reserve allows “the licensing or leasing of outdoor seating concessions/kiosks asapproved by Council”.

Any building larger than a “kiosk” and containing internal seating would be deemed aRestaurant and a new Plan of Management would need to be advertised and adopted topermit the leasing of a “Restaurant”.


Finance Page 46

Permanent Structure

A permanent kiosk building would need to be above the 1% AEP (1:100) flood level. Thisvirtually restricts any construction to the high ground adjacent to Tench Avenue.

Whilst water and power are located along Tench Avenue, sewer mains are approximately 800metres north in Jamison Road or 900 metres south in Bellevue Road of the children’splayground area and would require pumping.

Vandalism and graffiti is a significant ongoing problem at Tench Reserve and is acongregating area for many youths after normal user hours. The permanent structure wouldbe required to be built to withstand onslaughts from vandals and professional thieves due to itcontaining goods and equipment in an isolated area.

Experience with kiosks in remote parts of the City which are known to be stocked with goodsand equipment have been the target of repeated break-ins and vandalism attacks. Thecontinuing costs to repair these buildings has been substantial and attempts to make themvandal-proof has not been successful. Goods and equipment may have to be removed dailyand insurance could be difficult to obtain by the operator.

Mobile Food Unit

An alternative to a permanent building would be the use of a mobile food unit.

Such units can be designed to provide for hot and cold drinks, ice creams, snacks, pre-prepared foods (hot or cold) the same as any permanently built building with the addedadvantage of being able to be taken from the site at the end of the day’s trading.

An ice-cream style van has operated at Mrs Macquaries Point for many years. To replace thisservice, The Botanical Gardens Trust recently called Tenders for a mobile snack food outletwhich is based on a small as possible unit, fully mobile, quiet, visually unobtrusive and withlow environmental impact, which can produce a limited range of quality take-awayfood/refreshments. The new service is due to commence in May. A similar facility may beappropriate for Tench Reserve.

Mobile food units have been used at many functions in the Penrith area including PenrithRegional Gallery Autumn Market Day, Australia Day Celebrations, Rowing Regattas andOlympics at the Regatta Centre, Field Days and Expos at Panthers, Netball Carnivals as a fewexamples.

The use of mobile food unit could provide a sufficient level of service to the users of theReserve, eliminate out of hours vandalism and eliminate the need for a major capital outlay inbuilding construction (plus ongoing maintenance) and extension of services.

A mobile food unit could be located at a suitable flat area that could be accessed easily byvehicle with a concrete or paved area serviced with an electricity supply. The unit can beself-contained as to water and waste requirements.

The location would not have to be restricted to being adjacent to Tench Avenue as floodliability would cease to be a major factor.

Once the mobile food unit has been operating for a reasonable period of time to determine itsviability and secure its presence, a more permanent structure could be considered.


Finance Page 47

Summary

Given the concerns regarding the vandalism of a permanent structure in this location, it isconsidered more feasible to trial a mobile food unit at Tench Reserve and “Expressions ofInterest” be sought from interested operators.

The location of the mobile kiosk to be determined in consultation with the selected operatorto maximise the benefit to all parties. However, it is considered that within proximity of theexisting amenities building would be the most desirable.

It will be necessary to utilise some funds to establish the above proposal. The provision of ahard stand area, power supply and other establishment costs will leave a substantial balanceof the allocation of $126,000 which could be put towards an amenities building towards thenorthern end of Tench Reserve.

RECOMMENDATION

That “Expressions of Interest” be called for the operation of a mobile food unit at TenchReserve for a period of up to three (3) years.

ORDINARY MEETING

LATE REPORTS

CONTENTS


Item Page


14 Keeping Of Greyhounds, Tickner Street, Castlereagh DA00990973 49

Ordinary Meeting - Late Report 2 April 2001The City in Its Environment

Rural Environment Page 49


14 Keeping of Greyhounds, Tickner Street, Castlereagh DA00990973

Compiled by: Jennifer Hanna, Assistant Legal Officer and Paul Lemm, Co-ordinator, Land Use Development Team

Authorised by: Stephen Britten, Legal Officer and Craig Butler, BuildingApprovals & Environment Protection Manager

Management Plan 4 Year Outcome (Page 22): The purpose and role of the City's ruralareas are defined and secured, and their conservation is optimised.00/01 Critical Action: Manage development consistent with the principles of Council'sRural Land Strategy and promote best practice rural development.

Purpose of the Report

Mr Geoffrey Blakeney, a resident of Tickner Street, Castlereagh, has made arrangements toaddress the meeting in respect to legal proceedings in the Land and Environment Court whichrelated to the keeping of greyhounds on an adjoining property.

This report provides Council with some background as to Council’s conduct of the legalproceedings at the Land and Environment Court and the manner in which other related issuesraised by Mr. Blakeney have been addressed.

Background

In response to ongoing complaints about the use of 26 Tickner St Castlereagh for thekennelling of greyhound dogs, without prior Council approval, an application was submittedto Council for determination on 1 April 1999.

The application sought approval for consent to construct two sheds to house 15 dog kennels.The application was amended following discussion with Council Officers about the size andscale of the proposal. The amendment proposed a maximum of eight dogs.

This application was reported to Council on 5 July 1999. At that meeting Council resolved toissue a deferred commencement approval for the proposal. Many of the deferredcommencement conditions related to providing certification to the structural adequacy of thebuilding, acoustic compliance of the use of the property, and a detailed plan of managementfor the control of the dogs.

One operational condition attached to the approval required that the existing colorbond fenceconstructed adjacent to the eastern boundary be replaced with one of a rural character.



The applicant lodged an appeal to the Land and Environment Court on 15 November 1999,and in particular to the condition requiring the removal of the existing fence. A Section 34Conference, in accordance with the Land and Environment Court Act, was held on 22December 1999. The purpose of this conference was to discuss the conditions of consent andattempt to reach agreement between both parties. With the exception of the conditionrequiring the removal of the fence, all other conditions were successfully negotiated.

As complete agreement could not be reached, the matter proceeded to hearing on 14 April2000. Counsel representing Penrith City Council at this hearing, and subsequent hearings,was Mr Steven Flanigan.

On 5 February 2000 Council received a report which canvassed its chance of successfullydefending the condition requiring the removal of the fence. Council resolved to excise thiscondition from the consent whilst still pursuing consent orders by the Court in relation to thesection 34 agreements.

At a hearing on 14 April 2000, Mr Chaker would not agree to the consent orders because itbecame apparent that he intended to train greyhounds over the whole of his property, ratherthan confining this activity to the areas nominated on the approved plans. The matter wasadjourned until 12 May 2000.

The Court was of the view that if Mr Chaker intended to exercise his greyhounds over thewhole of his property, he would need to apply to formally modify the consent granted by theCourt.

On 15 May 2000, Mr Chaker appeared before the Registrar of the Land and EnvironmentCourt and asked for an extension of time until the end of August for him to make theappropriate application to modify his consent. This application was opposed by Council, andthe matter was adjourned until 14 June 2000.

On 14 June 2000, the matter was for mention before the Registrar of the Land andEnvironment Court, whereupon Mr Chaker requested the Court grant his town planningconsultant more time to modify his consent. Council opposed the request, and Mr Flaniganrecounted the history of the matter and the time that had lapsed since the consent was firstissued by Council.

Notwithstanding this, the matter was adjourned until 6 July 2000. The Court ordered MrChaker to file and serve any town planning evidence by 5 July 2000.

On 6 July 2000, the matter was set down for hearing on 25 August 2000.

At the hearing on 25 August the Court ordered that consent be granted to the application asspecified, which principally excised the condition requiring the removal of the colourbondfence from the determination. The consent issued by the Court still allowed a further 3 monthperiod for compliance with deferred commencement conditions.

On 13 October 2000, Mr Chaker lodged an application to the Land and Environment Court toallow the greyhounds to be exercised over the whole yard.



This modification would mean that Mr Chaker’s greyhounds would still be limited toexercise times of one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening, but would bepermitted to run over a larger area.

As a consequence, the consent was effectively “frozen” pending an outcome, meaning that itdid not lapse, but at the same time was not operative.

The matter was set down for hearing on 14 February 2001. It is this hearing that is the subjectof the next section of this report.

Land and Environment Court Hearing on Wednesday 14 February 2001

At the time this appeal was heard at the Land and Environment Court, Council was in anextremely difficult position.

All of the Council’s files were subpoenaed for proceedings against Mr Chaker in the LocalCourt. These proceedings were unrelated to the development. As Council was not a party tothese proceedings, it was not possible for the files to be uplifted from the Court and removedfrom the Registry for other proceedings.

At the outset of the hearing, an application was made to the Commissioner for anadjournment on the basis that Council did not have the files available to it. TheCommissioner was of the opinion that this would not be a disadvantage to Council, as thesame evidence tendered in a previous hearing was going to be used again, as the position ofthe parties had not changed. The application for an adjournment was thus refused, andCouncil had to proceed immediately.

It was agreed that the written report of Paul Lemm, prepared for an earlier hearing betweenthe parties, would be used as common evidence by both parties, as a matter of fairness.

A short adjournment was taken of approximately one and half-hours. During this timediscussions were held with Mr and Mrs Blakeney, concerning specific issues of the case.Counsel took full statements from them about the matter. They were invited to give evidence.

The evidence produced on behalf of Mr and Mrs Blakeney was:

a) Copies of Community Grievance Forms sent to Councilb) Oral evidence of Mr Blakeneyc) Evidence of Paul Lemm from previous Land and Environment Court hearing

During the hearing Mr Chaker was cross-examined by Counsel, which gave Council theopportunity to point out inconsistencies in Mr Chaker’s evidence.

Evidence for Council was given by Mr Blakeney and Paul Lemm.

Paul Lemm was not called to give oral evidence as his previous report was already tendered.



Only Mr Blakeney and Mr Chaker were called to give oral testimony. Mrs Blakeney was notcalled to give evidence due to the fact that she had no additional information to add to thetestimony of Mr Blakeney.

Mr and Mrs Blakeney were informed of this by Counsel, and it was agreed that only MrBlakeney would give oral evidence.

A point of law was raised at the hearing. This was whether a failure to comply with acondition that stipulated the carrying out of certain matters within a period of three monthscaused the consent to become ineffective for the applicant.

The Commissioner was of the opinion that this did not change the nature of the appeal beforeit, and considered that proceedings should continue in the interests of certainty for theresidents.

In regard to the point of law which was sought to be raised, there is a decision of Bignold J inAustraland Holdings v Hornsby Shire Council which suggests that although a developmentconsent may be inoperative, due to non compliance with a condition, it is still capable ofbeing modified. This was the view adopted by the Commissioner at the hearing.

Ultimately, Mr Chaker’s appeal was upheld, and a deferred commencement consent wasissued by the Court. This requires compliance with certain conditions by 16 May 2001, or theconsent will lapse.

Meeting at Council on 20 March 2001

Mr. Blakeney was displeased with the Court’s decision and Council’s conduct of theproceedings. A meeting was arranged by Council in an attempt to understand the nature ofMr. Blakeney’s concerns. The Council Officers attending this meeting were:

Craig Butler, Building Approvals and Environment Protection ManagerPaul Lemm, Co-ordinator, Land Use Development TeamJennifer Hanna, Assistant Legal Officer

In addition, Counsel acting for Penrith City Council also attended this meeting. Counsel, MrSteven Flanigan, in conjunction with Council, thought it appropriate to meet personally withMr and Mrs Blakeney to have an opportunity to address their complaints regarding theconduct of the hearing at the appeal.

All of the Blakeney’s concerns were discussed in detail at the meeting, and Mr Flanigan gavea technical explanation of the tactics and decisions employed on the day to Mr and MrsBlakeney. It was pointed out that Council had to make tactical decisions in the best interestof the court case.

Mr and Mrs Blakeney left the meeting with assurances that Council would follow throughwith the appropriate action.



Conclusion

It is understandable that the Blakeney’s are dissatisfied with the outcome from the appeal.The case involved a Section 34 conference, modifications, adjournments, numerous delaysand various other ‘diversions’. It is testament to the latitude which the Land and EnvironmentCourt seems prepared to allow individuals.

As stated our Counsel, Mr Flanigan was fully briefed for a period of almost two years duringthe progress of this matter. His knowledge of the detailed aspects of the case was extensive.On that basis and given his obvious expertise he was understandably responsible for directingCouncil’s proceedings.

Whilst ultimately the Land and Environment Court found in the appellant’s favour, Council’sofficers and our Counsel refute that their conduct of the case was anything but of the higheststandard.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report be received.

FOR INFORMATION ON THE ATTACHMENTSIN THIS BUSINESS PAPER PLEASE CONTACT

PENRITH CITY COUNCILON

4732 7777AND ASK TO SPEAK

TO THE OFFICER WHO COMPILED THE REPORT

PENRITH CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS PAPER

Documents

Transcript of PENRITH CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS PAPER