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:
Access to Information – Penrith City Council (nsw.gov.au)
Declarations of interests and abstaining from voting should be on a public register, only then will we discover how often our interests are not considered!
Unless we have a fully transparent scheme, residents cannot make a judgement about it.
We should be asking, how many times in the past 12 months have Councillor’s declared an Interest or had to refrain from voting due to a conflict of interest?
Under Part 4 of the Local Government code of conduct – Pecuniary Interests: Councillor’s only having to declare once a year if they had any interests. The yearly returns are designed to promote openness and transparency in local government, and to avoid a conflict of interest on the part of Councillors and senior council staff who exercise decision-making functions.
Pecuniary interests meaning: A person’s pecuniary interests are their business interests (for example their employment, trade, profession, contracts, or any company with which they are associated) and wider financial interests they might have (for example trust funds, investments, and assets including land and property).
If you look at the declarations for Penrith Council, most of the information supplied by the current Councillor’s have been redacted.
Access to Information – Penrith City Council (nsw.gov.au)
This begs the question, how can we have confidence in our Council, when the information that is supposed to show transparency is not available to be examined?
In fact, redacted returns were a concern raised by an ICAC investigator who claims that redacting disclosure forms was ‘as bad as not complying’. In the same article the Minister for Local Government has said that the lack of transparency was concerning.
Therefore, I believe matters in Part 4 of the Code of conduct should not be redacted
Secondly, If Councillors believe in transparency, they will agree to include matters that fall under Part 5 of the Code to be listed on a public register.
Code of Conduct – Part 5 relates to Non-Pecuniary and Conflict of interest matters.
Non-pecuniary interests meaning: Relate to private or personal interests of a council official that do not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in clause 4.1 of this code. These commonly arise out of family or personal relationships, or out of involvement in sporting, social, religious or other cultural groups and associations, and may include an interest of a financial nature.
Currently, Non-Pecuniary and conflict of Interests are recorded in meeting minutes, however, the total number of times and range of matters are not readily available. So, for us to see the big picture, they should be transferred to a register that highlights the date of the matter, the relevant Councillor and the reason (as per part 5) which resulted in the interest.
This is important, it would provide transparency, we would be able to see the number of time’s a Councillor has had to refrain from debate and voting due to a conflict of interest. Every time this happens, they are not representing the interests of the residents who voted for them.
Finally, to be fully transparent, all registers should be attached to the Councillor profile via the Council Websites.
Information about each Councillor under their profile must contain:
NSW Government concerned by Sydney councils failing to comply with tranInsparency rules (msn.com)
Penrith People are important
Have you ever seen something being built close to your home or business and wondered what it was? More importantly, what impact will it have on you?
I believe it’s so important that Community engagement in planning is responsive, effective, and relevant to the local people who live, work and play in Penrith.
Email me your support, like and share this blog, share my social media posts, together we can get this done.
Until Council implement this critical communication tool, there is a not for profit agency that does the job that Council should be doing. follow the link and sign up.
The aim of this organisation “Is to enable shared scrutiny of what is being built (and knocked down) in peoples’ communities. You’d probably know if your next door neighbour was going to knock their house down (you’d get a letter through the door telling you they had applied for planning permission and asking you what you thought about it). But you’d probably never find out if the old cinema or pub 5 streets away is going to be converted into luxury flats until the bulldozers turned up.”
This is a picture of my parents and my eldest daughter.
We all have stories to tell, our families have stories to tell. To me this march is justice for all the women past and present. My friend Nelly has also shared her story of what she’s endured throughout her life. She’s going to March4Justice.
She asked if I was going to march on Monday, my response was truthful, if I wasn’t working, I would definitely be there.
I felt bad because whilst I consider the march important, due to my work commitments, I don’t feel I have a choice in choosing the march over work. I will however mark the day in my office with a sign “I support March4Justice”.
As a mother of two daughters, I think it’s important to teach them to be independent and not accept bad behavior from anyone especially men.
Growing up, I had a loving kind and gentle dad who adored me and was a real gentleman to all women. he taught my three brothers to be kind to women.
My dad was a musician, he played the guitar, he was classically trained but loved Country and Western music. He was always fun to have around and definitely the favorite of all my aunties’ (my mum had 8 sisters).
He would quote his famous line when any of our aunties visited us, his greeting was always “My favorite sister in-law” is here, let me sing you a song. We always had music and laughter in our house and it was safe because there was only a little alcohol and definitely no violence.
Sadly, a lot of the time they were visiting was because they were escaping from vicious relationships. You see, my mother, her sisters and their mother were of a generation where women were considered subservient and quite often fell prey to controlling usually alcoholic men.
In fact, from what I understand, their father (my grandfather) was a raging alcoholic during their childhood, it was only in his senior years when he stopped drinking that he mellowed and became “human”, unfortunately the damage to some of his daughters was done.
Having a great dad did not stop me from choosing men that treated me very badly. They hurt me once I did not stick around! I moved to Sydney to get away from a bad relationship. I broke that damaging cycle! I found a man who is kind and caring and is my best friend. This march is important for all women to recognise it. The way I see it, the more times women stand together, the more we can achieve!
My friend Nelly has had a lot more turmoil and has suffered a great deal. I understand why she is marching for justice.
Nelly’s story
My first experience of sexual abuse was at my father’s hand. I was incredibly young about 10 I think, and it continued until I was about 14. I did tell my mother when I was 16 but she did not believe me for a few years. During this time, I was cast out of my family, I was left out of stuff on purpose, it feels like my confession divided me from my siblings. This isolation had me moving out of my family home at the age of 18, straight into the arms of another abuser. We married had two kids.
During my younger years, I suffered what would be considered molestation and was sexually harassed in most of my workplaces. in my home in 1972, the first time it happened a family gathering situation. A trusted family friend made lewd suggestions; I was shocked.
In fact, it occurred at my first job in 1973 in a hamburger bar in Penrith on the 2nd shift, I never went back.
Again in 1973 a friends Dad tried it on while we were watching tv in the dark, but I sensed what was coming got up & moved. I never gave that arse-wipe another opportunity.
Then in 1975 a friends boyfriend began calling me at work, he was making lewd suggestions, saying don’t tell his girlfriend or my boyfriend (she was one of my closest friends and my boyfriend was his best friend) . He arrived at my workplace too pick me up. I saw his car got back in the lift and went out a different exit. He came back to work next week insisted we go for lunch. I went to lunch told him no way and he left it at that.
Next occurrence, my boss constantly made remarks and tried to engage me in conversation designed to denigrate me, he also spent his day distracting me then had to gall to chastise me when I was behind on my work. I left, it was a boring job anyway, I remained unemployed for a little while.
The Next time – I decided to resume studies at Tafe. Like other women I was subjected to continual flashers on the train, they did not seem to care that I was travelling with my young child as I was still breast feeding her. As my only form of transport, I gave up my dream of studying.
Next, I was accosted in the street in broad daylight with my two incredibly young daughters they were four and seven at the time. I was just walking on a foot path from a busy carpark to shops, looking back, as I was holding the hands of my girls, so I was totally vulnerable. A man was walking towards us and as he got closer, he did not look at me, he averted his eyes and put both hands out and squeezed both my breasts. It seemed not to matter that even though I was dressed in T shirt and jeans.
I told My husband when I got back to the car, he was livid we drove around for an hour or so trying to find him. Thank goodness I never saw his face again. The next time I was sexually harassed I was much older I was 40 at university. Rang my professor to ask for an extension due to relationship breakdown. He immediately propositioned me. I declined his invitation three days later he called again with invite to tennis game. I detest tennis and told him so. He didn’t bother even talking to me again for whole term, he would not answer any questions about the lectures etc ignored me. This is why I’m marching for Justice.
CHANGES TO VARIOUS PLANNING INSTRUMENTS FOR PENRTIH LGA – Have your say by 29th May 2020
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)
Council are claiming that phase 1 of the LEP Review Planning Proposal primarily responds to the immediate actions arising from the:
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:
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:
The Penrith Councils Planning Priorities of the LSPS are:
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 1st May to 29th May
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:
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:
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 1st 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 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 1st May to 29th May
Email: cityplanning@penrith.city
By mail: City planning Team
The General Manager
P.O. BOX 60
PENRITH NSW 2751
Reference:
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.
The intention of the changes being proposed in relation to 57 Henry St, Penrith are to facilitate the development of the land for a mixed use development in two towers;
one at 25 storeys, the other at 41 storeys.
The development would provide approximately 451 residential units, commercial office space and retail space.
Reading the traffic management report, it will create over 350 trips (cars) during peak hours. Let alone the lack of car spaces. 450 residential units and they are only providing car spaces of around 330 spaces for residents. That’s already a deficit of 120 car spaces!
We need to send a clear message to Council that the Penrith people do not want this development in Penrith.
https://www.yoursaypenrith.com.au/planning-proposal-for-57-henry-street-penrith
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.
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
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
There are few people who want a car-dominated sprawl, but that’s what we’ll get if we keep building roads.
This is because transport is supply led. History shows that if we build more roads, we get more traffic.
If we provide more public transport, people will use it.
Which means a better outcome for all. It’s time to make smarter choices about how our city grows.
This is an extract written by Daniel Bowen, who is the former president of the public transport users association in Victoria, He’s clearly articulated the same issue we have in Penrith.
Penrith is a regional city that is earmarked for substantial growth. Yet we have a public transport system that is ineffective. How can you entice people to use public transport, when the current bus system is still operating on a a Tier two transport planning hierarchy. (all routes end up at the station/City Centre).
Secondly, the timetable frequency hasn’t kept pace with the growth. Western Sydney people have no choice but to jump in their cars to drive to work, or simply get to the Penrith City centre!
Sadly, it definitely seems that the current Government’s view is; put more people in cars to travel outside Penrith for work! That way Western Sydney people have to use Toll Roads!
The current Government don’t care about the impact on an already stretched family budget. They careless that Western Sydney families have to wear the costs of running extra vehicles.
Look a few years ahead! What happens when your children reach driving age, in some cases there could be another three cars from one single household are on the road! Imagine the profit that will generate for the Toll companies.
I bet my bottom dollar that Transurban loves the current NSW Government.
Stop Using our Council as A Pre-School
I’m over both major parties treating Penrith City Council as their own “Political pre-school”. Both the Labor and Liberal Southward candidates are political staffers.
Worst still, neither of them mention this fact in their campaign biographical information.
It’s another instance of the major parties treating the community like mugs. They treat our Council as their own political pre-school; given staffers a run in local government simply to either try and train them up for state or federal politics or push the state and federal major party agendas.
I find it dishonest, that they prefer to pretend their motivations are community orientated.
it’s rank cynicism, especially when candidates only see council as a stepping stone, and like so many councillors before them who have used local Government as a kind of internship, they don’t care about the community. They only care about their own careers.
I’m calling on all voters to scrutinise the backgrounds of all candidates who wanted their votes.
Our local council does not need more career politicians, or political staffers to do the bidding on behalf of state and federal politicians. Our council needs people from the community, who are dedicated to building a better Penrith, not a better CV for themselves. I’m urging voters to ask questions of all the candidates; find out who they are and why they want to be on Penrith City Council.
The self-serving attitude from the Liberal and Labor parties gives little to the rest of us; for them it’s jobs for the boys and girls, whereas it should be about community service and dedication to local people.
I’m proud to be an independent, a local who wants to be on Penrith Council to make things better for ratepayers.
Local councils, should not be the playground for aspiring state or federal politicians. Local councils should be run by and or local residents and should address their concerns ad build better communities.