Sue Day – The Voice of Penrith



Posted on: May 25th, 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 1st May to 29th May


By mail:   City planning Team

The General Manager

P.O. BOX 60



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.


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


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 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 1st May to 29th May


By mail:  City planning Team

The General Manager

P.O. BOX 60


















Posted on: June 18th, 2019

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.





WE NEED YOUR HELP! STOP Penrith Council Rezoning Recreational Land in Kingswood

Posted on: June 17th, 2019

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)

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.

Not welcome

 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.


Public Meeting photo sd

  Sue Day making a submission on behalf of Kingswood residents

Public meeting Photo IH

Ian Hammond – concerned Kingswood resident making a submission




Politicians Take Note: We can Afford Better public Transport! If we stop building motorways

Posted on: June 23rd, 2018

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.

Major Parties treating Council like a Preschool

Posted on: May 6th, 2018

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.

BLAH BLAH BLAH Major parties talking!

Posted on: April 29th, 2018

BLAH,BLAH, BLAH, Yep, that’s exactly how the Liberal and Labor Candidate’s priorities resonated!

A whole lotta words with no meaning, let alone sentiment! Fun fact though! one works for a Major Party and one works for a State MP!

Both released their platforms, No real surprises!  They’re based around State Issues! which are obviously more important to the Candidates when you consider who they both work for. Also remember, both left this vital information from their bios..

Their priorities are clear, State issues!  Clearly, the major parties don’t care about local issues!  Really, it’s not surprising, it’s not like they can stand proud on their achievements in Penrith.

My priority this week has been  spending time talking to the small business owners on High Street, Everyone I spoke to are absolutely peeved off with Council. The complaints ranged from, inconsistent policies, lack of communication and currently, the severe lack of strategy to really improve businesses during the current construction zone. (or as it was explained to me,  making it more attractive to Investors so they can sell off to the council owned land for the city park). They all agreed, my policy around resolving parking issues would be a great benefit, and would support it whole heartily.



Another focus this week was the Western Sydney Airport.  concerned residents have been contacting me asking for my view on the Airport. As far as I’m aware it’s a done deal.. I’m definitely concerned about the no curfew though!  The main concern for me, is not the Passenger airlines, but the freight side. I’m concerned about the whole logistic hub, that may create a massive increase in heavy haulage trucks. This huge scale of increase will definitely impact the residential areas.

Remembering that this airport has been pouted to become a aerotropolis that will become a 24/7 Freight depot!

This airport is being advertised as the only curfew-free international airport in the Sydney Basin (I Ackeran,, Nov 2017).

Further reading and investigation definitely needed! if anyone can shed light on the topic, I’m happy to hear from you!

Remember on 12th May vote for a real chance for change!


Both Major Parties are full of it!

Posted on: April 21st, 2018

Both Major Parties are full of it!

Well, the Penrith By-Election on May 12th is shaping up to be full of the same old major party spin!

Seriously, both parties are so far out of touch it’s almost laughable. No actually, it is laughable.

In fact today, whilst door knocking and speaking to residents, the overwhelming comment was, “They’re as bad as each other”. Most locals told me that, both parties are full of utterly self-assured cookie cutter personality types. Overwhelmingly, all those I spoke too are sick of both parties.

As I told them, “This is your chance to stop the Major Parties doing anymore damage to Penrith”.

Our future depends on you saying enough is enough. This is your real chance to change!

So, on May 12, vote for me. I will stand up for you, and not party politics.

Please don’t vote for the cookie cutter party followers, your vote does matter. We need to focus on local issues, not party political agendas of State and Federal Politicians.

It’s time! Put Penrith people first, not Party Politics.

Vote 1 – Sue Day

Parking solutions that work – Lower Council Rates – Sports and Recreation investment

Posted on: April 7th, 2018

Save the Date! 12th May 2018 – Vote #1 Sue Day

This is the date when you can help reshape Penrith by sending a clear message to Council 

We want to set new Priorities!

  • Better Parking facilities now!
  • Lower Rates
  • Increase spending on local sporting facilities, parks and recreation areas.

We need  to correct the current deficit in parking infrastructure!

We need to be able to meet the current needs as well as future needs.

We need to make better use of existing infrastructure, before we justify further expenditure or rate increases.

Help me make the people of Penrith the priority.

The Major Parties have had years to get it right, yet we have an absolute mess, we have the worst parking and congestion, They’ve inflicted special rate variation increases and have run down local sporting facilities.

All we ever hear from them are empty promises!

On the 12th May, hold them accountable for all the years of bad planning which has resulted in the current mess.

Seriously, we need a new focus, we have to reshape Council and make people the priority.

Remember on the 12th May send a clear message and Vote #1 Sue Day

Submission for the Draft Community Engagement strategy 2016

Posted on: November 27th, 2016

Below are the questions I asked in my submission:

We need to know how will the community be able to measure if Council has increased the level of public participation?

Plus how will feedback be provided back to all participants in the following engagement areas:

 Advocacy, planning and development?

City, Places and Projects?

Community Wellbeing

Emergency Services, regulation and waste?


Public Spaces and Community Safety?

Nepean Avenue Residents let down by Councillors

Posted on: August 13th, 2016

Seriously, How angry would you be living on Nepean Avenue right now?

Finding out, by chance, there was a proposal put forward two months earlier for your idyllic street to be changed forever, and without any consideration on how you would feel about it, or your voice being heard!

Issues like these are why I want to be elected, Council needs a real shake up. They are making decisions without real consideration of local residents.

Even worse, currently Council has two blokes feigning interest in local issues, personally and it’s my view only. I think one is anti-everything and we all know the other has jumped wards, it makes me question their true  intentions. To me it’s quite obvious their only interest in this issue is getting in on any photo opportunity.

I also personally believe, residents deserve representatives that won’t ditch them when there are other things that interest them, (state and federal elections).  For this reason, I believe these questions should be answered by Councillors Cornish and Girotto?

  • Why didn’t they put the recommendation forward for a public meeting with residents of Nepean Avenue at the Council meeting 23rd May
  • Since 23rd May, what have they been doing in regards to consulting with the Nepean Avenue residents about the proposal?
  • What is their true interest in local issues, Why did they abandon the local area to fight the Federal election, you have to wonder though? did they by running against Fiona Scott end up playing a major part in the ousting of then federal member.

What’s the most important is finding  a real solution in consultation with residents for this situation so, on September 10th you have a chance for REAL CHANGE and ACTION