My notice of motion put to Council on Monday 24th June 2024

Whilst it’s important we remain focused on the mega capital public transport projects they shouldn’t come at the cost of improving intermediate bus services and maintain local bus services.

My notice of motion was to request an updated feasibility study for the implementation of a shuttle bus.
A Penrith CBD shuttle bus would
– provide alternative access for CBD visitors and workers
– It would help shoppers move around the CBD and visit more of the CBD
– Overall, it will make the CBD more accessible.

The second part of the notice of motion was to request to review current bus routes into the CBD with a view to implementing express services from outer suburbs.

I would like to thank the staff for their work on representation to busways around local bus services.
It was disappointing to hear that Busways believe that any additional local services are generally not warranted.

However, they did concede that additional number of late-night services on weekdays and weekends should be considered

So, under the integrated public transport services Penrith also needs an improved level 2 Intermediate transit network
Which includes Express services in peak periods and all-stop all day services.

My fellow councilors voted in Favour of this motion.

My view is that State Government is failing the residents of Penrith! read last week’s story with the Western Weekenders Emily Chate..

In the wake of two Council submissions to Parliamentary Inquiries regarding transport infrastructure, Penrith City Councillor Sue Day is asking the State Government to do more for bus stop infrastructure.

Day is drawing attention to a bus stop on Maxwell Street, South Penrith, as an example of the issues associated with local bus services.

The stop sits on the side of a hill with no access for those with impairments.

“The here and now still lacks infrastructure,” Day said.

“People today can’t access that bus stop especially in situations like this.”

Day’s comments come on the back of the Bus Industry Task Force Report which identifies buses as an essential service in the State’s public transport network, but sees the NSW bus system as presently predicted to fail to deliver on the needs of the growing population.

“The NSW bus system as presently configured is at risk of failing to deliver on the needs of a growing and expanding population in a financially and energy challenged environment,” the Bus Industry Taskforce Report said.

“The current system is struggling to keep pace with population changes.”
Day is asking the State Government to do more to improve the state of bus stops across the state.

“The State Government needs to look at a more holistic approach to public transport and infrastructure,” Day said.

“Because just saying to us, ‘this is what we want you to do’, without any funding models, it’s difficult.

“Because then there is a pressure in services because we have to provide [the] services and if that is part of it, what service is going to miss out?”.

Day believes the burden shouldn’t be on the shoulders of local Councils to deliver better transport infrastructure.

“I believe the burden of addressing the bus shelter gaps should not fall on Council budgets to the detriment of other services, and can be provided by the State Government as an investment in the health, safety and sustainability of western Sydney,” Day said.

Day is suggesting that improved funding models need to be delivered for improvements to be made.

“They [State Government] need a better funding model for bus stop infrastructure, public transport infrastructure, cycle ways, cycle lockers and all the stuff people need to get them out of their cars,” Day said.

“Because ultimately, that is what we want, because we want more development, but we don’t want more cars on the road and that underpins everything.”

Day said the good work Council is doing needs to be supplemented by the State Government with real funding.

“We need urgent funding for people to be able to access good public transport, in line with all the good work Council [is doing],” Day said.

story from the Western Weekender – By Emily Chate – April 3, 2024, 11:30

Failing to deliver: Bus services need overhaul, says Councillor – The Western Weekender The Western Weekender I Penrith News

If you want to know whose running, check out the link..
The Australian Electoral Company is running two Local Government Elections, Fairfield and Penrith.

All Penrith candidates are listed by ward.

AEF-203P-Notice-of-Contested-Election-Penrith.pdf (austelect.com)

further details on individual candidate sheets can be found below:

CHANGES TO VARIOUS PLANNING INSTRUMENTS FOR PENRTIH LGA –  Have your say by 29th May 2020

I have looked through the planning changes and have identified the changes that will affect the Southward suburbs

As Outlined by Council, changes to planning instruments for the LGA have been proposed because they’re responsible for implementing various planning instruments that create land use and guide future developments to realise the community vision at the same time meeting the social, economic and environmental needs.

The current planning instruments:

Penrith Local Environmental plan (2010)

• Penrith Development Control plan (2014)
• Development Contribution plans – Various
• Penrith Community Plan

Council are claiming that phase 1 of the LEP Review Planning Proposal primarily responds to the immediate actions arising from the:

• Draft local housing strategy.
• Draft Rural Lands and Villages Strategy

They claim that resolving these matters will provide a more accurate planning instrument and reduce the potential for delays for any development proposals received.

Amendments proposed to align the Penrith LEP with he planning priorities set in the Greater Sydney Commission’s (GSC) – Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities and Western City District Plan. Justification

The Penrith Community Plan was adopted by Council on 24 June 2013 and represents the community’s vision for the Penrith Local Government Area over the next 20 years.

The Plan outlines the priorities for the community and includes the following outcomes:

1. We can work close to home.
2. We plan for future growth.
3. We can get around the city.
4. We have safe, vibrant places.
5. We care for our environment.
6. We are healthy and share strong community spirit.
7. We have confidence in our Council.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Penrith Community Plan, gives effect to achievement to   the Plan’s vision and/or the changes are of minor significance.

Local Planning Directions set out by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces issue Local Planning Directions that councils must follow when preparing a planning proposal. The directions cover the following broad categories:

• Employment and resources,
• Environment and heritage,
• Housing, infrastructure, and urban development,
• Hazard and risk.

The Penrith Councils Planning Priorities of the LSPS are:

1. Align development, growth and infrastructure
2. Work in partnership to unlock our opportunities
3. Provide new homes to meet the diverse needs of our growing community
4. Improve the affordability of housing
5. Facilitate sustainable housing
6. Ensure our social infrastructure meets the changing needs of our community
7. Enrich our places
8. Recognise and celebrate our heritage
9. Support the North-South Rail Link and emerging structure plan
10. Provide a safe, connected and efficient local network supported by frequent public transport    options
11. Support the planning of the Western Sydney Aerotropolis
12. Enhance and grow Penrith’s economic triangle
13. Reinforce the Quarter as a specialised health, education, research and technology precinct
14. Grow our tourism, arts and cultural industries
15. Boost our night-time economy
16. Protect and enhance our high value environment lands
17. Define and protect the values and opportunities within the Metropolitan Rural Area
18. Connect our green and blue grid
19. Create an energy, water and waste efficient city
20. Manage flood risk
21. Cool our city

Community Consultation

Unfortunately, the community consul

tation is being handled differently. It’s a shame they didn’t allow webinars or Zoom meetings!

On 25 March 2020, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) made updates to NSW’s planning policies and legislation in response to COVID-19. The COVID- Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Bill 2020 temporarily removes the requirement for local councils to display physical copies of certain documents in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

These documents will now be available online on the Penrith City Council Your Say webpage and exhibited for the duration of the exhibition period. As the Council offices are closed, residents are unable to view documents in person.

The change in consultation is in accordance with approval granted to local councils by the Secretary of DPIE.

The recent amendments to the regulations also temporarily remo

ved the requirements for physical print advertising, applying to planning processes that will require notification as of 17 April 2020 onwards.

Council Corporate News Page will appear as digital copy on the Weekender newspaper website and will be promoted through social media and the New West newsletter to ensure broader engagement with the community.

By exhibiting the planning proposal, accompanying documents and advertisement in a digital format, the local community will continue to be informed and have access to the exhibition materials without compromising the public health, safety and welfare.

To get comprehensive community consultation, Council should provide a mail service for those residents who can’t access digital formats..

Make sure you have your say!

Submissions to be received between 1^st May to 29^th May

www.Yoursaypenrith.com.au

Email: cityplanning@penrith.city

By mail:   City planning Team

The General Manager

P.O. BOX 60

PENRITH NSW 2751

Some of the changes proposed

Increase the minimum lot size controls for multi-dwelling housing in R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 High Density Residential zones.

The proposed amendment will amend the LEP 2010 to increase the minimum lot size controls for mutli-dwelling housing.

Where multi-dwelling housing is define

d as 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

The amendment:

• Increase the minimum lot size for multi-dwelling housing from 800m2 to 1200m2 for standard lots.
• Increase the minimum lot size for multi-dwelling housing from 900m2 to 1200m2 for battle axe lots.

There will be anew savings an

d transitional clause to ensure the proposed amendment does not affect any current development applications or appeal process.

Benefits:

Deliver better amenity and design outcomes for both new and existing residents and preserve neighbourhood character.

Ensure appropriate lot size and dimensions are provided for multi-dwelling housing

Achieve better environmental outcomes such as reducing the effects of urban heat through increased landscaping and tree planting and improving on-site water management.

Overall these amendments are to elevate existing controls in Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 to strengthen the implementation.

Apply minimum lot size control for dual occupancy development in the RU5 village zone for the Luddenham village

The proposed amendment seeks to amend the LEP2010 to set a minimum lot size for dual occupancy development as follows:

• A minimum area for attached dual occupancies of 650m2
• A minimum area for detached dual occupancies of 750m2

Benefits;

Penrith’s rural villages are an important part of the city and contribute to the wider Metropolitan Rural Area of Greater Sydney.

The proposal apply a consistent minimum lot size control for dual occupancy development in all rural villages.

The proposals will help retain the character and amenity of Luddenham village

Ensure parking, landscaping, greater setbacks and improved design outcomes are achieved for dual occupancies.

Ensure dual occupancies are compatible with the environmental capabilities of land and available infrastructure.

Ensure additional housing opportunities continue to be available.

Overall, these amendment will prepare LEP2010 for the application of the Low – rise Medium Density Housing Code. (Whilst, Council has deferred this code until 1^st July 2020). Once this new code comes into effect, the code will allow dual occupancy development in the RU5 zone to be considered as complying development subject to meeting the code’s development standards.

 Permit eco-tourist facilities with consent in E4 Environmental living zone

An eco-tourist facility states that it must be located in or adjacent to an area with special ecological environmental and cultural values of the site or area.

Currently Eco-tourist facilities are only allowed in E3 Rural areas.

This amendment supports the planning principle 14 and 17

PP14:     Grow tourism, arts and cultural industries

PP17:     Define and protect the values and opportunities within the metro rural area.

We need to leverage existing natural areas, rural heritage properties and rural event spaces to grow rural tourism. It recognises that rural tourism relies on increasing accommodation for visitors in the city’s rural areas.

The amendment will permit eco-tourist facilities with consent in an additional environmental zone, it will allow investigation in to the expansion of appropriate forms of rural tourism and visitor accommodation.

This amendment is the first step towards expanding these opportunities.

Extend the additional permitted used provision for 164 Station Street Penrith

(Panasonic site – North eastern portion)

In conjunction with the planning priorities.

PP3 – Provide new homes to meet diverse needs of or growing community

PP5 – Facilitate sustainable housing

PP7 – Enrich our places

This amendment is to extend additional permitted use permissions

The objective and intended outcome

The additional permitted uses (APU) currently apply to the North Eastern portion of (lot 12 DP234581) will provide a uniform and consistent suite of planning provisions to the site and enable orderly development of the land

The amendment to is to remove the reference to “Part” of the lot in subclause 25(1)

Clause 25 Schedule 1 25(1)

It will be subject to legal drafting and may alter under this process.

• This clause applies to land at 164 Station St, Penrith being part Lot12 DP234581 that is identified as “24” on the additional uses map (DCP2014 – Chapter E11 Penrith Part C)

This amendment is to extend the additional permitted use (APU) provision across the entire site to provide a uniform and consistent suite of planning provisions to the site and enable orderly development of the land.

The amendment will provide greater flexibility in terms of where additional permitted uses are located on the site to achieve better design outcomes for the whole site.

The limit of commercial and retail uses remain in place.

The amendment updates the planning control for additional permitted uses to allow greater flexibility in their location on the site to deliver better design outcomes. It will provide greater flexibility to support improved design and architectural excellence on the site

Rezone Triangle Park, to RE1 Public recreation

Currently the park is zoned as B3 – Commercial core and B4 mixed use zones.

The current proposal is to rezone the park to RE1 public recreation to align with the same zone consistently applied to local parks.

It is also proposed to remove existing height and floor space ratio controls from the site, this is the standard practice for RE1 Zone.

The proposed amendment will be subject to legal drafting and may alter under this process.

The amendments are consistent with the local strategic planning statement

PP6:       Ensure our social infrastructure meets the changing needs or our communities

PP7:       Enrich our places

This amendment serves to formalise the planning controls relating to existing established local parks, which are meeting the needs of the Penrith community and also enriching the recreational value of this part of the Penrith City Centre.

Remember: Submissions to be received between 1^st May to 29^th May

www.Yoursaypenrith.com.au

Email: cityplanning@penrith.city

By mail:  City planning Team

The General Manager

P.O. BOX 60

PENRITH NSW 2751

Reference:

http://Penrithcouncil.

Unbelievable! Council have a proposal to rezone the land on the corner of Henry and Evan Street to build two high rise apartment blocks ( 25 storeys and 41 storeys).

We need as many submissions as possible by 30th June.

If you wish to object to this proposal, put your name in the comments field and I will add it to the my submission.

I was contacted by a local resident who was concerned about Penrith Council’s proposal to change the zoning for recreational land in Kingswood, it’s located on the corner of Somerset and Rogers Street Kingswood.

I door knocked the surrounding streets and gathered over 200 signatures on a petition against this ludicrous proposal. The overwhelming sentiment from local residents, ” It’s just a pure land grab for cash”.

On the 4th June there was a public meeting and I spoke on behalf of the local residents. My submission to the public meeting is below:

Kingswood Residents DO appreciate this natural area and want to preserve the passive recreation space.

The NSW State Recreational strategy STATES the open space benchmark standard is 2.83 hectares per 1000 people:

If this proposal lowers this standard in the Kingswood area, the proposal should be rejected.

documents that formed part of the proposal included the LEP Practice Note, it indicates there’s a loss of 5082m2 of public land in Kingswood,

Therefore it’s only fair and equitable for Kingswood residents that the NSW State Govt  imposed  benchmarks of 2.83m is maintained.

The proposal states that the site is used as a car park for Hospital staff, and given the lack of improvements it has resulted in the site not being used for recreation purposes for a long time.

This statement doesn’t explain how this came about.

In 2011 the residents were notified that this car park was a temporary measure and would be subject to a license agreement.

At this time, residents were promised that at the end of the leasing period the hospital will be required to restore the area to its natural state and additional embellishment works to be negotiated as compensation to the local community. Given this, it would ensure this area is well utilised.

Where the proposal states that residents have access to other parks.

If you read the Hospital Open Space analysis, which indicates this area is a heath precinct.

It states the recreation value of pocket parks in this precinct are actually restricted.

Basically the residents are losing over 5000m2 of recreational land and will be left with restricted parks in the area.

 The justification paints the picture that this proposal is a valuable opportunity to contribute to the provision of diverse housing.

Council don’t need to sell off this land to aid diverse housing, the surrounding lots are already classified B4 and are being sold off under this zoned development, (just google 38-40 Orth Street)

I can tell you, whilst out Door knocking, I heard many stories of long term residents being continually harassed by real estate agents, So, in their view, Council has no need to sell of our recreational space for housing.

 In fact If this this 5000m2 recreation land is preserved it can actually have a positive benefit socially and economically.

• An embellished recreation space close to Nepean Hospital; would provide a wonderful space for workers and visitors to enjoy.
• A safe and attractive recreation space for current residents to enjoy, would make local housing more attractive for future investment.
• This space would provide backyard experiences for children living in the adjacent apartments and townhouses.

The social and economic effects modelling undertaken shows negligible impact on reducing three parks down to two.

Local residents truly believe, any reduction in recreational space is considered more than negligible and they feel the reduction will have a negative impact on Kingswood.

Given that the carpark lease expires in 2020, once reinvestment in this space is done.

IT will provide urban revitalization to improve its viability.

Traffic conditions outlined in the report are a concern;

There are already delays on the highway in this vicinity every day. Given that this future development will generate additional 74 vehicle trips during peak hour, the report actually states that it’s high compared to exiting uses. Most residents don’t need a report to tell them.

They live with it.  in-fact, the current traffic conditions and current parking provision in Penrith causes the most concern and they believe future development will make it worse.

Where the proposal, assumes that future residents would opt to use public transport rather than private vehicles is questionable, especially if you look at the 2016 bureau of statistics for Kingswood

• In 2016 nearly 60% of the Kingswood population traveled to work by car

So In conclusion. Based on our community consultation, the rezoning proposal is against community sentiment, and given the current situation and statistics I have outlined in my submission.

The residents’ major concerns around this proposal is fully justified.

BASED ON THE EXISTING supply of B4 ZONING plots in this AREA.

This recreation space does not need to be-rezoned.

  Sue Day making a submission on behalf of Kingswood residents

Ian Hammond – concerned Kingswood resident making a submission