Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Prayer

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 May 2015................................................................... 10

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Notices of Motion

NIL

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01 DA-986/2014 - Construction of 18 detached dwellings and Community title subdivision on proposed development Lots 3, 6 and 9 within proposed Lot 22 in the Plan of Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985 within the former New Brighton Golf Course....... 74 1

IHAP 02 DA-299/2014 - Torrens title subdivision creating 14 residential lots and associated drainage and roads works............................................................................... 83......... 2

IHAP 03 DA-480/2014 - Demolition of existing garage and shed, removal of trees and a proposed subdivision to create eight Torrens title lots and one residue lot. The proposal also involves the retention of the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 18............................... 94......... 3

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

NIL

Business Improvement Report

NIL

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01 Fit for the Future (Report to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

CFO 02 Investment Report May 2015....................................................................... 101......... 4

CFO 03 Outcome of Public Exhibition of New Fees and Charges............................ 113......... 5

CFO 04 Local Government NSW Annual Conference.............................................. 117......... 6

City Presentation Report

NIL

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01 Donations, Grants and Sponsorships........................................................... 127......... 7

DCC 02 Liverpool Access Committee Charter.......................................................... 136......... 8

DCC 03 Liverpool Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017........................ 153......... 9

DCC 04 Review of Social Impact Assessment Policy and DCP............................... 156....... 10

DCC 05 Review of Closed Circuit Television in Liverpool CBD................................ 162....... 11

DCC 06 Aboriginal Consultative Committee Charter................................................. 167....... 12

Economy and Engagement Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

NIL

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01 Proposal to amend LLEP 2008 to permit additional uses (service station and take away food and drink premises) at 1-5 Yato Road, Prestons................................. 176....... 13

DPG 02 Draft Amendment 31 to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Proposal to rezone 1975-1985 Camden Valley Way, Prestons from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B2 Local Centre........................................................................................................... 182....... 14

DPG 03 Proposal to amend the Planning Proposal for the City Centre LEP Review to include Liverpool Hospital as a Long Term Civic Site............................................... 199....... 15

DPG 04 Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Rezoning and Reclassification of Part of Hammondville Park, Hammondville............................................................. 206....... 16

DPG 05 Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 Draft Amendment 21 - Notifications relating to Single Dwelling Developments and Section 96 Modifications..................... 229....... 17

Property and Commercial Development Report

DPC 01 Classification of Lot 300 DP1205231, Moondarra Drive, West Hoxton as 'Operational' Land.............................................................................................................. 245....... 18

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 11 May 2015......... 254....... 19

CTTE 02 Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 14 May 2015........ 295....... 20

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 3 June 2015......... 305....... 21

CTTE 04 Local Traffic Committee Minutes of Meeting held on 20 May 2015............ 310....... 22

CTTE 05 Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Minutes from Meeting 30 April 2015 314 23

CTTE 06 Meeting Notes of the Street Naming Committee meeting held on 2 June 2015..... 319 24

Questions with Notice

NIL

Questions Taken on Notice

Presentations by Councillors

Council in Closed Session

The following items are listed for consideration by Council in Closed Session with the public excluded, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 as listed below:

CONF 01 Acquisition of part Lot 401 DP 1049478, 120 Bird Walton Avenue, Middleton Grange, for open space purposes

Reason: Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 02 Care, control and management of Lot 163 DP 880335, 7 Sandringham Drive, Cecil Hills, known as 'Cecil Hills Homestead'

Reason: Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 03 Council fees and charges for Outdoor Dining within Macquarie Mall

Reason: Item CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 04 Tender WT2461 - New Customer Service Centre Fit Out Works at 33 Moore Street, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 04 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 05 Acquisition of Lot 10 DP 1043935, 305 Cowpasture Road, Carnes Hill for open space purposes.

Reason: Item CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 06 Key Sites Master Planning Steering Committee Minutes from Meeting held 2 June 2015

Reason: Item CONF 06 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 07 Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel - Community Representative Recommendation

Reason: Item CONF 07 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 08 Liverpool Design Excellence Panel - Recommendations for appointment

Reason: Item CONF 08 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

CONF 09.. Legal Dispute - Rating of Council Financial Instruments

Reason: Item CONF 09 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(g) of the Local Government Act because it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

CONF 10 Legal Affairs Report (to be provided in Confidential Addendum Booklet)

Reason: Item CONF 10 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) (d ii) (g) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

CONF 11 Contract Dispute - Former Staff Member (to be provided in Confidential addendum Booklet)

Reason: Item CONF 11 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) (c) (g) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors); AND information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Close

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 26 May 2015

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Councillor Stanley

Councillor Waller

Mr Carl Wulff Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Ms Kiersten Fishburn, Director Community and Culture

Mr Michael Cullen, Director Economy and Engagement

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Carole Todd, Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

The meeting commenced at 6.04pm.

OPENING 6.04pm

PRAYER The prayer of the Council was read by Pastor John Keane from West Hoxton Community Church.

APOLOGIES Clr Mamone

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Waller

CONDOLENCES Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Harle Seconded: Clr Karnib

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 29 April 2015 be confirmed as a true
record of that meeting.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Declarations of Interest

Clr Hadchiti declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

Item CONF 01: Key Sites Master Planning Steering Committee meeting held on 5 May 2015.

Reason: Clr Hadchiti advised that he has previously declared a pecuniary interest relating to Lot 1 DP 1201516, 352-362 Macquarie Street Liverpool as he had a business relationship with the owner. He advised that he no longer has a business relationship with the owner, but will continue to declare a pecuniary interest on this matter until the matter is finalised.

Public Forum

(Presentation – items not on agenda)

Nil

(Representation – items on agenda)

Nil

Mayoral Minute

SUBJECT: Autism Advisory and Support Service

The Autism Advisory and Support Service (AASS) was established in 2007 by a group of parents from South Western Sydney, and are currently operating at 88 Memorial Avenue Liverpool.

The AASS provides a range of services to support, advocate, help, educate and guide families who have a loved one with Autism living in Liverpool as well as the surrounding greater South West community.

AASS are currently operating on donations and grants alone. From the donations and grants, AASS has completed the following projects to full operation:

an Autism Community House in Liverpool;
a 24 Hour Autism Hotline;
has assembled various support groups;
created many social groups;
and established parent workshops.

The AASS are holding their 7^th annual Foundation of Hope Charity Ball in June 2015 and all funds raised will be used by AASS to continue to provide their invaluable work of assisting children with Autism and their families in our community.

I move that the Council show their support for AASS and their work through purchasing a table for their Foundation of Hope Charity Ball at a cost of $1,200.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council donate $1,200 to the AASS through purchasing a table for their Foundation of Hope Charity Ball in June 2015.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Mayoral Minute

SUBJECT: Nepal Earthquake

On the 25^th of April 2015 Nepal’s capital Kathmandu, and surrounding areas, was devastated by a major earthquake which resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and thousands more injured. The earthquake was measured at 7.8-magnitude. The initial earthquake was followed by a large number of aftershocks, including one that measured 7.3 on the 12^th of May.

Among the worst-hit districts was Sindhupalchok, where more than 2,000 people lost their lives and in Kathmandu, more than 1000 people perished. Thousands more were badly injured by falling debris caused by the quake or the powerful aftershocks.

Since the quakes, people have been living in makeshift camps around Kathmandu, having been made homeless or because it is too risky to stay in their homes because of the risk of structural damage.

Our thoughts and condolences should be extended to all of those who have been affected by the Earthquake tragedy. Liverpool City Council should also make a donation to the World Vision Nepal Earthquake Appeal to the amount of $2000.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Sends its condolences to all those affected by the earthquake in Nepal.

Donate $2000 to the World Vision Nepal Earthquake Appeal.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Mayoral Minute

SUBJECT: UWS Learning Hub in Liverpool

On 25 May 2015, the Premier of NSW visited Liverpool and announced a major expansion by the University of Western Sydney to the Liverpool City Centre.

The UWS will establish a state-of-the-art Higher Education Centre within Liverpool in 2016.

It was stated by UWS Vice Chancellor Professor Barney Glover that the Centre will comprise of technology-rich teaching spaces, regionally targeted post-graduate offerings, the Centre for Western Sydney and a ‘Launch Pad’ Smart Business Centre. The Centre will sprawl over 1,000sqm and will accommodate over 150 students, staff and corporate partners.

The UWS expansion to Liverpool will provide greater access to the highest quality education opportunities for people within the Liverpool community. The Centre will also play a big role, along with government and industry in contributing to the shaping of Western Sydney, particularly as the home of Sydney’s next international airport.

The expansion of UWS to Liverpool aligns with our vision to create innovative education and employment opportunities through strategic partnerships. These partnerships will enable Liverpool to harness jobs and business investment potential from the Airport, benefiting the Liverpool local community.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Commend UWS for recognising Liverpool as a strategic centre for education and innovation.

Commend the Committee for Liverpool in their ongoing achievements promoting the Greater South West, and delivering positive outcomes for Liverpool.

Thank the Premier for his ongoing recognition of Liverpool’s strategic importance, and its indisputable place as Sydney’s third CBD.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That Council:

Commend UWS for recognising Liverpool as a strategic centre for education and innovation.

Commend the Committee for Liverpool in their ongoing achievements promoting the Greater South West, and delivering positive outcomes for Liverpool.

Thank the Premier for his ongoing recognition of Liverpool’s strategic importance, and its indisputable place as Sydney’s third CBD.

Congratulate Liverpool City Council staff and the Mayor on their work in having a state of the art Higher Education Centre within Liverpool in 2016.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Mayoral Minute

SUBJECT: Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility

In 2005 an application was made by Moorebank Recyclers to set up the operations of a recycling plant, known as the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility, on the bank of George’s River. The application was made under the, now repealed, Part 3(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

It is with great disappointment that the application has progressed to the Planning and Assessment Commission for a final decision.

The Department of Planning has made some recommendations to the PAC, with the end result being that the facility should be approved.

The recommendation for approval is of grave concern for Liverpool Council and the proposed site on the George’s River. The proposal to place a recycling facility that would handle approximately 500,000 tonnes of construction waste per year next to a brand new residential housing estate on the George’s river is a highly inappropriate recommendation.

Future developments on the George’s River, such as the Marina and other projects will also suffer detriment if the facility is granted approval. The facility will also disrupt surrounding areas – particularly areas where residents of Liverpool have worked hard to build homes and raise families.

The Council has worked hard to develop a positive plan for our community and our beautiful George’s River and we therefore strongly and formally oppose the approval of the facility.

On Saturday, 23 May 2015, I attended an organised community meeting in Central Park at George’s Fair and addressed the large number of people in attendance on my strong opposition to the approval of the facility. It was also clear from the large numbers of people that the Liverpool community is unanimous in its strong opposition to the facility.

It should be noted that the NSW Planning and Assessment Commission will hold a public hearing at 3pm on Monday, 1 June 2015 at the Bankstown Golf Club and Liverpool City Council will formally provide submissions opposing the approval of the facility. Liverpool City Council also urges members of the community to attend the hearing and voice their concerns.

If the outcome of the hearing results in approval of the facility, Liverpool City Council will look at options of taking the matter to the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Opposes the recommendation of the NSW Planning to approve the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility on the bank of the George’s River, Moorebank.

Inform the community of the Planning and Assessment Commission hearing at 3pm on Monday, 1 June 2015 at the Bankstown Golf Club.

Make formal submissions opposing the approval of the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility at the PAC hearing on 1 June 2015.

Launch legal action in the event that the Planning and Assessment Commission approves Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility.

Commend the efforts of the Moorebank Committee in opposing the approval of the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That Council:

Opposes the recommendation of the NSW Planning to approve the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility on the bank of the George’s River, Moorebank.

Inform the community of the Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) hearing at 3pm on Monday, 1 June 2015 at the Bankstown Golf Club.

Make formal submissions opposing the approval of the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility at the Planning and Assessment Commission hearing on 1 June 2015.

Authorise the CEO to challenge the decision in the Land and Environment Court should it be approved.

Commend the efforts of the Moorebank Committee in opposing the approval of the Moorebank Waste and Recycling Facility.

Make representations to the Planning and Assessment Commission for an extra meeting for interested members of the public, to start no earlier than 6pm, in the Liverpool area (to be held at the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre if available).

Write to our local Members of Parliament to assist us with making representations.

Acknowledges that Notice of Motion 03 from this Council Agenda has been dealt with as part of this motion.

Write to the responsible Minister to ensure that we have an additional air monitoring station in that area so that we can see what the air quality levels are.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Mayoral Minute

SUBJECT: National Sorry Day

Today, 26 May 2015, marks National Sorry Day.

National Sorry Day is an annual event that has been held in Australia on the 26^th of May, since 1998.

National Sorry Day is an Australia-wide observance and gives people the chance to come together and share the steps towards healing for the Stolen Generations, their families and communities. It also allows the national to reflect on the injustices towards the Stolen Generation back in that period of time in Australian history.

Liverpool City Council observes National Sorry Day and our thoughts are with those who were affected by the policies which resulted in the “Stolen Generation”.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Observes National Sorry Day and acknowledges the importance of this annual observance day.

Council extends its apologies to all Indigenous Australians still affected by the “Stolen Generation” policies of the past.

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That Council:

Observes National Sorry Day and acknowledges the importance of this annual observance day.

Council extends its apologies to all Indigenous Australians still affected by the “Stolen Generation” policies of the past.

Thank staff for the installation of the plaque at the Liverpool Regional Museum which recognises National Sorry Day

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

ITEM NO: DCC 02

FILE NO: 099266.2015

SUBJECT: Liverpool City Council Sporting Grants Program 2014/2015

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the following recommendations for the allocation of the $25,000 sporting grants funding, as determined by the Liverpool Sports Committee grants assessment panel:

Club	Project Description	Recommended Grant Amount
NSW Remote Control Racing Car Club	Construction of a Covered Training Area	$4,500
Moorebank Rugby League Club	Purchase of Sporting Equipment	$2,000
Kemps Creek United Soccer Club	Safety Fencing Construction	$5,000
Casula Lakers Baseball Club	Purchase of Sporting Equipment, Coaching, Umpire and First Aid Training (consisting of 3 separate grants)	$3,625
Liverpool Olympic Sports and Social Club	Purchase of Line Marking Equipment and Sporting Equipment	$3,200
Liverpool City Archers	Purchase of Sporting Equipment	$3,500
Moorebank Baseball Softball Club	Purchase of Sporting Equipment	$3,175
	Total	$25,000

2. Adopts the following recommendation for the allocation of $5,000 due to the lack of applications under the criteria allocated for sports for people with a disability:

Club

Project Description

Recommended Grant Amount

Liverpool City Robins Football Club

Mower Purchase

$5,000

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Balloot

That Council:

1. Adopts the following recommendations for the allocation of the $25,000 sporting grants funding, as determined by the Liverpool Sports Committee grants assessment panel:

Club	Project Description	Recommended Grant Amount
NSW Remote Control Racing Car Club	Construction of a Covered Training Area	$4,500
Moorebank Rugby League Club	Purchase of Sporting Equipment	$2,000
Kemps Creek United Soccer Club	Safety Fencing Construction	$5,000
Casula Lakers Baseball Club	Purchase of Sporting Equipment, Coaching, Umpire and First Aid Training (consisting of 3 separate grants)	$3,625
Liverpool Olympic Sports and Social Club	Purchase of Line Marking Equipment and Sporting Equipment	$3,200
Liverpool City Archers	Purchase of Sporting Equipment	$3,500
Moorebank Baseball Softball Club	Purchase of Sporting Equipment	$3,175
	Total	$25,000

2. Adopts the following recommendation for the allocation of $5,000 due to the lack of applications under the criteria allocated for sports for people with a disability:

Club

Project Description

Recommended Grant Amount

Liverpool City Robins Football Club

Mower Purchase

$5,000

Subject to the receipt of supporting documentation and costs, Council approves funding to All Saints Liverpool JRLFC pending their provision of all additional documents.

Foreshadowed motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Stanley

That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Hadchiti) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadowed motion (moved by Clr Shelton) lapsed.

Division called:

Vote for: Mayor Mannoun

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hadid

Clr Ristevski

Vote against: Clr Harle

Clr Karnib

Clr Shelton

Clr Stanley

Clr Waller

Note: The motion was passed on the Mayor’s casting vote.

Questions with Notice

ITEM NO: QWN 01

FILE NO: 087340.2015

SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Stanley

Please address the following:

I note that Newcastle City Council are supporting an initiative for affordable housing. Can I be advised what strategies Liverpool Council has in place to encourage affordable housing in:

a) CBD of Liverpool

b) Edmondson Park

c) other suburbs

Council’s Growing Liverpool 2023 strategic plan incorporates affordable housing. The plan establishes a goal of facilitating “diverse and more affordable housing options” and sets a 10-year target of an “increase in diverse housing options”.

In working towards this goal, the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 apply to residential development across Liverpool LGA. The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP enables Council to offer developers a range of incentives in exchange for providing affordable housing, such as:

- floor space ratio bonuses;

- reduced minimum open space and solar access requirements;

- reduced minimum car parking provision requirements; and

- reduced minimum dwelling size requirements.

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP applies to all land in New South Wales, and provides Council with development controls to encourage the provision of new affordable rental housing (in-fill affordable housing, secondary dwellings, boarding houses, group homes and social housing) and the retention of existing affordable rental housing.

What plans are in place to address the additional infrastructure needs of residents in suburbs with increasing instances of higher density developments taking the place of single dwellings. Suburbs are already seeing increased competition for on street parking. How will additional traffic and parking be accommodated? Has Council investigated and made projections of requirements for the future?

Council uses a variety of mechanisms to address additional infrastructure needs and to guide development to achieve positive economic, social and environmental outcomes.

The Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008 sets provisions to ensure that development protects and improves the amenity of Liverpool. For example, LDCP 2008 sets minimum off-street car parking requirements for new development to address the car parking needs of higher density developments and ensure that “car parking does not interfere unreasonably with the amenity of the neighbourhood”.

Council’s Contributions Plans are used to levy contributions from developers in both established and greenfield areas for public infrastructure required as a consequence of the development. When formulating its contributions plans, Council reviews the capacity of existing facilities to determine when expansion of existing facilities or provision of new facilities are required to meet the demands of increasing population and density. The contributions are then used to fund a number of public services and infrastructure, including:

- Community facilities, such as community centres, libraries and cultural facilities;

- Recreation facilities, such as reserves and indoor and outdoor sporting facilities;

- Transport, such as footpaths, bike paths, public transport and traffic facilities, and

- Drainage, such as pipes, water treatment and detention basins.

The NSW Government is responsible for the provision of public transport and major road infrastructure. Council works with the NSW Government to ensure that the transport network needs of Liverpool residents are recognised and that improvements in Liverpool LGA are prioritised. The opening of Edmondson Park train station earlier this year, ahead of development of the adjacent town centre, is an example of major transport infrastructure provision addressing the additional needs of Liverpool’s growing population.

Lyn Parade extension was approved last year by Council, can I please be provided with an update and expected completion date for these works? Will they be completed by the 12 months deadline in the original recommendation adopted by Council?

On 30 July 2014, Council resolved to enter into a Deed of Agreement to facilitate the acquisition of part Lot 1 DP 1175057 for drainage purposes and the construction of the Lyn Parade, Prestons extension. As per the Council report, the Deed of Agreement entered into was as follows:

1. Maraya Holdings Pty Ltd will complete the construction of Lyn Parade at their cost;

2. The timeline for the construction of Lyn Parade is as follows:

· Maraya Holdings Pty Ltd to lodge a development application with Council for the construction of the Lyn Parade extension within 90 days of signing the Deed of Agreement;

· Maraya Holdings Pty Ltd to apply for a Construction Certificate within 90 days of receiving Development Consent; and

· Construction of the Lyn Parade extension to be completed 12 months from the date of Construction Certificate being issued.

It should be noted that the Construction Certificate was issued on 5 March 2015. Maraya Holdings therefore have until 4 March 2016 to complete the Lyn Parade extension.

ITEM NO: CONF 06

FILE NO: 111178.2015

SUBJECT: Financial Dispute With Former Staff Member

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note the report of staff in relation to the financial dispute with a former staff member of Liverpool City Council.

2. Delegate authority to the CEO to settle the financial dispute with the former staff member on the terms outlined in the report of staff.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Stanley Seconded: Clr Karnib

That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

ITEM NO: CONF 07

FILE NO: 122817.2015

SUBJECT: Tender WT2464 Renewal of Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems at Whitlam Leisure Centre

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Accepts the tender from Integral Electrical Engineering Co Pty Ltd WT2464 – Renewal of Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems at Whitlam Leisure Centre for the lump sum fixed price of $2,975,000 GST inclusive.

2. Makes public its decision regarding tender WT2464 Renewal of Air Conditioning System at Whitlam Leisure Centre.

3. Notes that the Director Infrastructure and Environment will finalise all details and sign the Letter of Acceptance following publication of draft minutes on Council’s website for the tender giving it contractual effect, in accordance with delegated authority.

4. Keeps confidential the details supplied in this report containing information on the submissions received, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Stanley Seconded: Clr Karnib

That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Motion Moved: Clr Mannoun Seconded: Clr Balloot

That Council move into Closed Session to consider CONF 04.

Pursuant to Section 10A(1)-(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, the media and public be excluded from the meeting on the basis that the business to be considered is classified confidential under the provisions of:

· s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

· s10(A)(2)(g) of the Local Government Act because it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the grounds of legal professional privilege.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Council moved into Closed Session at 8.30pm.

The public and the media left the Chambers.

ITEM NO:	CONF 04
FILE NO:	113294.2015
SUBJECT:	Bernera Road Widening - Approval Of Delay Costs With Contractor
RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receive and note the report of staff in relation to the dispute over the Bernera Road reconstruction and widening project, contract WT 2089. 2. Delegate authority to the CEO to negotiate and finalise a settlement with the contractor up to an amount specified in the report by staff and recognise the settlement as an adjustment to the capital project. If required, authorise the CEO to increase the Capital Expenditure up to the amount specific in the report. 3. Direct and authorise the CEO to do all things necessary to utilise Council’s s.94 Contributions Plan to reflect the increased capital project cost resulting from any settlement reached in this matter. If s.94 funds are insufficient authorise the CEO to fund from general funds. 4. Direct the CEO to report any settlement reached under this resolution to Council at the earliest opportunity.
COUNCIL DECISION Motion: Moved: Clr Stanley Seconded: Clr Waller That Council: 1. Receive and note the report of staff in relation to the dispute over the Bernera Road reconstruction and widening project, contract WT 2089. 2. Delegate authority to the CEO to negotiate and finalise a settlement with the contractor up to an amount specified in the report by staff and recognise the settlement as an adjustment to the capital project. If required, authorise the CEO to increase the Capital Expenditure up to the amount specific in the report. 3. Direct and authorise the CEO to do all things necessary to utilise Council’s s.94 Contributions Plan to reflect the increased capital project cost resulting from any settlement reached in this matter. If s.94 funds are insufficient authorise the CEO to fund from general funds. 4. Direct the CEO to report any settlement reached under this resolution to Council at the earliest opportunity. 5. Note the CEO’s confirmation that there have been process changes. On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Balloot

That Council move out of Closed Session and into Open Council.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Open Council resumed at 8.41pm.

The resolution relating to CONF 04 (Bernera Road Widening - Approval of delay costs with contractor) was read to the meeting by the Mayor.

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.44pm.

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title: Mayor

Date: 17 June 2015

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 May 2015. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01

DA-986/2014 - Construction of 18 detached dwellings and Community title subdivision on proposed development Lots 3, 6 and 9 within proposed Lot 22 in the Plan of Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985 within the former New Brighton Golf Course

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	130844.2015
Report By	David Smith - Acting Coordinator Development Assessment
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank

Lot 31 DP 1181985

Owner

New Brighton Golf Club Ltd

Applicant

Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-986/2014, proposing the construction of 18 detached dwellings and Community title subdivision on proposed development Lots 3, 6 and 9 within proposed Lot 22 in the Plan of Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985 (approved DA number 426/2014) within the former New Brighton Golf Course.

This application was lodged on 10 November 2014.

This application was referred to the 25 May 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 4.3 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 by more than 10%.

Clause 4.3 of the LLEP requires an 8.5m maximum height of buildings measured from existing ground level. The heights of the proposed buildings range from 6.627m-11.212m when measured from existing ground level; however, will measure at a maximum of 8.5m when measured from the proposed ground level approved by DA-426/2014, which granted consent for earthworks and subdivision to create super lots.

Eight of the proposed dwellings propose a variation to the building height development standard as follows:

· Lot 6-01 - 9.157m (657mm breach)

· Lot 6-02 - 9.449m (949mm breach)

· Lot 6-03 - 11.212m (2712mm breach)

· Lot 6-04 - 8.889m (389mm breach)

· Lot 6-05 - 9.49m (990mm breach)

· Lot 9-02 - 9.57m (1070mm breach)

· Lot 9-03 - 9.891m (1391mm breach)

· Lot 9-04 - 8.83m (330mm breach)

The proposed variations to Clause 4.3 of the LLEP range from 2.8% to 31.9%.

The application was not required to be notified or advertised in accordance with the notification policy contained within the Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to conditions of consent as contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (attached).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves Development Application DA-986/2014, subject to the recommended conditions of consent attached to the Council officer’s IHAP report attached.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-986/2014 proposing the construction of 18 detached dwellings and Community title subdivision on proposed development Lots 3, 6 and 9 within proposed Lot 22 in the Plan of Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985 (approved DA number 426/2014), within the former New Brighton Golf Course

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed IHAP Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the IHAP for consideration as the proposed development includes a request to vary a development standard in excess of 10%; pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 4.3 of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes a maximum height of buildings on the subject site of 8.5m.

The Site

The site is identified as Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank with legal description of Lot 31 DP 1181985. The proposed development will occur on proposed development lots 3, 6 & 9 within proposed lot 22 in the Plan of Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985.

An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial photograph

Figure 2 below shows the approved subdivision layout of Development Consent DA-426/2014. The portion of the site which is the subject of this application is proposed development lots 3, 6 and 9 within proposed Lot 22 in the Plan of Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985, for which development has been granted (DA 426/2014) – identified by the yellow shading in Figure 2 below. The site is located within an established residential area.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development consists of:

· Construction of 18 detached dwellings on proposed lots 3, 6 and 9;

· Community title subdivision of the three development lots into 18 residential lots;

· Works within proposed Community lot 1, including landscaping and footpaths within the road verges and the construction of six perpendicular parking spaces located off Road 20.

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 4.3 of the LLEP 2008, which prescribes the maximum height of buildings.

An extract of the proposed development plan is provided in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Proposed subdivision and ground floor layout of proposed Lot 3

Figure 4: Streetscape of proposed Roads 4 and 12 within proposed Lot 3

Figure 5: Proposed subdivision and ground floor layout of proposed Lot 6

Figure 6: Streetscape of proposed Roads 1 and 7 within proposed Lot 6

Figure 7: Proposed subdivision and ground floor layout of proposed Lot 9

Figure 8: Streetscape of proposed Road 1 within proposed Lot 9

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the maximum height of buildings development standard required by Clause 4.3 of the LLEP.

It is noted that building height is measured from existing ground level and notwithstanding that Council has granted consent to some substantial earthworks on the subject site that alter the ground levels significantly; the approved works have not been constructed and therefore the application is required to be assessed on the basis of the existing ground levels, rather than the approved ground levels. It is also noted that if the applicant had carried out the earthworks and benching works for the site prior to the determination of this application, the height would have been measured from the new benching levels which would have resulted in all of the dwellings complying with the height standard.

Given the non-compliance with the height standard, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the maximum height of buildings standard as prescribed by Clause 4.3 LLEP.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the LLEP are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6 (3) prescribes:

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard as follows:

· Once the earthworks are completed all dwellings will comply with the height control from the finished earthworks level and the development will appear as a predominantly two storey development.

· Compliance with the height control is unnecessary and unreasonable to deliver built form across the site which is of commensurate scale and character.

· The assessment of all other planning controls is from the finished levels and as such there are no environmental impacts associated with the additional earthworks.

· The breach of the control does not raise matters of State or regional environmental planning.

· There is public benefit in maintaining the standard only if the application takes into account the earthworks levels on the site that have already been approved by Council.

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 4.3:

Council has approved the extent of earthworks proposed on the site, and in doing so determined that the earthworks are appropriate for future development of the site as a residential estate. It is therefore considered that there are no significant detrimental impacts upon the amenity or environment of the area. On this basis, notwithstanding the works have not yet been completed, it was anticipated that a two-storey form of development would be constructed and measured from the approved ground levels. As this is contemplated and as the finished streetscapes are appropriate and the design does not result in excessive visual bulk or impacts from the current additional height by way of unacceptable shadowing or overlooking impacts, the variation to the control is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the height control and the zone; and as such is considered to result in a desirable planning outcome. It is therefore considered unreasonable and unnecessary to require compliance with the height control in this instance.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 4.3 of LLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 25 May 2015, the IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that DA-986/2014 for the construction of 18 detached dwellings and Community Title subdivision of proposed development Lots 3, 6 and 9 within proposed Lot 22 in the Plan on Subdivision of Lots 31 and 32 in DP 1181985 within the former New Brighton Golf Course be approved subject to conditions attached to the Council officer’s report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is worthy of support. On this basis, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant and Land OwnerDetails View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendation View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 02

DA-299/2014 - Torrens title subdivision creating 14 residential lots and associated drainage and roads works

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	131436.2015
Report By	Sandhya Davidson - Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	10 Incense Place, Casula
Owner	Jackson Chen
Applicant	John Lowe and Associates

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-299/2014, which proposes a Torrens title subdivision creating 14 residential lots and associated drainage and road works at 10 Incense Place, Casula. This application was lodged on 10 April 2014.

The application was referred to the 25 May 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary:

· Clause 7.13 (3) of the LLEP 2008 which stipulates a minimum lot width of 10m. Lots 13 and 14 propose a minimum lot width of 2.99m for a portion of the lots, representing a variation of 70.1%.

· Clause 7.13 (4) of the LLEP 2008 which stipulates a battle-axe lot must have an average width of more than 10 metres and a minimum width of at least 5 metres. Lots 9 and 10 propose a minimum lot width of 2.5m, representing a variation of 50%.

The IHAP recommendation was to defer the development application subject to either the applicant providing indicative dwelling designs for proposed lots 9, 10, 13 and 14 or a redesign of proposed lots 9-14 (See Attachment 2).

The applicant has since provided indicative building designs addressing concerns raised by IHAP.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves DA-299/2014 for Torrens title subdivision creating 14 residential lots and associated drainage and road works.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-299/2014 proposing a Torrens title subdivision creating 14 residential lots and associated drainage and road works at 10 Incense Place, Casula.

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the IHAP for consideration as the proposed development includes a request to vary a development standard in excess of 10%; pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13(3) and 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes minimum lot widths for subdivision in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4.

Clause 7.13 (3) of the LLEP 2008 stipulates a minimum lot width of 10m. Lots 13 and 14 propose minimum lot widths of 2.99m at their narrowest points.

Further, Clause 7.13 (4) of the LLEP 2008 which stipulates a battle-axe lot must have an average width of more than 10 metres and a minimum width of at least 5m. Lots 9 and 10 propose minimum lot widths of 2.5m at their narrowest points with reciprocal rights of way between the two lots.

The Site

The site is identified as 10 Incense Place, Casula, with a legal description of Lot 10 DP 1118870. The subject site is a corner allotment with an area of 5,772m².

The subject site is currently vacant and fronts Incense Place. The area situated to the south of the site is characterised by low density residential allotments with recently constructed single and two storey detached dwellings. The site is bound by open reserves that separate the site from the South Western Freeway to the north and Beach Road to the east.

An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development seeks consent for a Torrens title subdivision to create 14 residential allotments and associated drainage and road works. Specific elements of the proposal inlcude:

· The proposed lot sizes range between 321.6m² to 432.3m²;

· Road widening; and

· Drainage works.

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 7.13(3) and 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008 relating to minimum lot width.

An extract of the proposed subdivision plan is provided in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

Variation to Clause 7.13(3) – Minimum Lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4

Proposed Lots 13 and 14 fail to comply with the minimum lot width required under clause 7.13(3) which states the width of any lot, resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies, that is capable of accommodating residential development but is not the subject of a development application for that purpose, must not be less than 10 metres. Both lots 13 and 14 propose a minimum lot width of 2.99m, representing a variation of 70.1%. The lots that do not comply with clause 7.13(3) are shown in figure 4 below.

Text Box: Proposed variation to lot widths from 10m to 2.99m per lot (Lots 13 and 14)

Figure 4. Proposed Variation to Lot Widths, 10 Incense Place, Casula

Consequently, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008 the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width control as prescribed by 7.13(3).

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6(3) prescribes:

“Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard summarised as follows:

“Lots 13 and 14 have frontage to the street of 3m, less than DCP’s required 10m, but will share the access handle so combined frontage of 6m. This is due to the nature of the road, the lots are in the corner of the road similar to cul-de-sac situations where lots have narrow frontages but much wider width inside. However, the lots still have more than enough room (471m² and 406m² respectively) and width for a good sized house envelope and car manoeuvrability as shown in the subdivision plan.”

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.13(3):

· Both Lots 13 and 14 are allotments located at a street end. As a consequence, splayed frontages are required to be provided, reducing the lot widths a minimum of 2.99m at the entry point of the sites.

· Lots 13 and 14 are triangular in shape. The lots widen to approximately 25m in width enabling adequate developable area. The proposal has been accompanied by plans demonstrating the area of land occupied by the building footprint.

· Both lots reach a minimum width of at least 10m at the front building line, thus allowing sufficient lot area to construct a dwelling.

· The impacts of the proposed non-compliance are considered negligible on the surrounding context, road network and future residential forms.

· Despite the non-compliance, the proposal still satisfies the relevant objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

· The recommendation for approval of this variation is based on the combination of factors which have made the circumstances of this proposal acceptable. The exclusion of any one of the factors considered may lead to non-support of the proposal. In this regard, approval of the proposed variation does not set a precedent for other non-compliant developments. Any future proposal must still be assessed based on the circumstances of the site; the merits of the proposal; and the provisions in Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.13(3) is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Variation to Clause 7.13(4) – Minimum Lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4

Clause 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008 states;

“If a lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is a battle-axe lot:

(a) the lot must have an average width of more than 10 metres and a minimum width of at least 5 metres, and

(b) the access handle must not be included when calculating the size of the lot for the purposes of clause 4.1 (3).”

Proposed Lots 9 and 10 also fail to comply with the minimum lot width required under Clause 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008. In accordance with Clause 7.13 (4), a minimum lot width of 5m is required. Both Lots 9 and 10 propose a minimum lot width of 2.5m, representing a variation of 50%. The lots that do not comply with Clause 7.13(4) are shown in Figure 5 below:

Text Box: Proposed variation to lot widths from 10m to 2.5m per lot (Lots 9 and 10)

Figure 5. Proposed Variation to Lot Widths, 10 Incense Place, Casula

Consequently, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008 the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width control as prescribed by 7.13(4).

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6(3) prescribes:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard summarised as follows:

“Proposed lots 109 and 110 (battle-axe lots) have been designed with only 2.5m access handles each. The two lots however share access side by side and have a total width of 5m. We believe that although outside the requirements set out that this is a workable and good design to keep the residential character in line with the zone objective. By providing a total 10m width driveway as required to access the two lots the character of the street will be decreased with an unattractive gap in the streetscape being created with the appearance of two driveways, dividing fences and no visible dwelling. By allowing a shared 5m access by way of reciprocal easements there will be only one driveway with no dividing fence down the centre. This will in turn open up the appearance of the access handles despite the reduced width and allow room for landscaping down either side of the pavement. This design will also include the creation of reciprocal easements at the top of the access handles (as shown on the attached plan of proposal) to help facilitate with vehicle maneuverability to ensure that all vehicles can enter and leave in a forward direction.”

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.13(4):

· The intent of the minimum 5m lot width is to enable vehicle access and landscaping to be provided. In this instance while the proposed lot widths are 2.5m wide, given they are located immediately adjacent to each other, an overall lot width of 5m is able to be provided.

· The combined width of the proposed access handle of 5m will enable provision of adequate vehicular access as well as a 1 metre landscaped strip along either side of the driveway.

· To necessitate 5m wide access handles per lot will result in an access handle with an overall width of 10m which will be contrary to the desired character of the locality.

· To necessitate 5m wide access handles per lot will result in an access handle with an overall width of 10m which will adversely affect on street car parking provisions.

Presently, draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 32) proposes to amend the LLEP 2008. The amendments propose to modify Clause 7.13 to allow for access handles to be shared. Currently the LDCP 2008 states that two adjacent battle-axe lots may share an access handle with a minimum width of 5m. Upon gazettal of Amendment 32, the LLEP 2008 would allow Council to grant consent to the subdivision, as proposed Lot 9 and Lot 10 each provide an access handle width of 2.5m with reciprocal rights of way to benefit both lots.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.13(4) is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 25 May 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that DA-299/2014 for a Torrens title subdivision to create 14 residential allotments and associated drainage and road works at Lot 10 DP 1118870 be approved subject to either the applicant providing indicative dwelling designs for proposed lots 9, 10, 13 and 14 or a redesign of proposed lots 9-14.

To address the concerns raised by IHAP in relation to proposed lots 9, 10, 13 and 14, the applicant has provided indicative building designs to demonstrate that the subject lots are capable of accommodating dwellings with reasonable amenity, sufficient area for parking and manoeuvring of two vehicles and adequate private open space. The indicative designs have demonstrated that a dwelling is capable of being accommodated on the subject lots.

Extract of the indicative building design plans are provided in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6. Indicative Building Design Plan for Lots 13 and 14

Figure 7. Indicative Building Design Plan for Lots 9 and 10

Conclusion

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant Details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendation View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 03

DA-480/2014 - Demolition of existing garage and shed, removal of trees and a proposed subdivision to create eight Torrens title lots and one residue lot. The proposal also involves the retention of the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 18

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	131671.2015
Report By	George Nehme - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	38-44 Bottlebrush Avenue Casula NSW 2170, Lot 93, DP 2031
Owner	Sillvue and Manzak Pty Ltd
Applicant	Sillvue and Manzak Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-480/2014, proposing the demolition of the existing garage and shed, removal of trees and a proposed subdivision to create eight Torrens Title lots and one residue lot. The proposal also involves the retention of the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 18. The subject site is known as 38-44 Bottlebrush Avenue Casula NSW 2170, Lot 93, DP 2031. The application was lodged on 29 May 2014.

This application was referred to the 25 May 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 7.13 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 which requires a minimum lot width of 10m for sites within zone R1, R2, R3 and R4. The development involves the creation of one lot that proposes a width of 7.25m.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to the conditions of consent contained within the Council Officers IHAP report attached. The IHAP also recommended that Council review recommended Condition 20 contained within the attached conditions of consent. The concerns raised regarding condition 20 are discussed in detail in the report. Based on the concerns raised regarding the imposition of condition 20, the conditions of consent have been amended and are provided as a separate attachment.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves Development Application DA-480/2014 subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent attached.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-480/2014, proposing the demolition of the existing garage and shed, removal of trees and a proposed subdivision to create eight Torrens title lots and one residue lot. The proposal also involves the retention of the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 18. The subject site is known as 38-44 Bottlebrush Avenue Casula NSW 2170 (Lot 93 DP 2031).

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008 which requires a minimum lot width of 10m. Proposed Lot 13 that is to be created as part of the proposal has a minimum lot width of 7.205m representing a variation of 28% to the development standard.

The Site

The site is identified as Lot 93 in DP 2031 and is located at 38-44 Bottlebrush Avenue, Casula. The site is a regular shaped allotment located on the southern side of Bottlebrush Avenue. The subject site has a total site area of 4,553m².

Currently, the subject site contains a single storey dwelling house with a detached garage and shed. To the north, south and east of the subject site are detached single and double storey detached dwellings. To the west of the subject site is a vacant lot of land that is owned by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

The context of the area is predominately characterised by low density residential development. To the north, south and east of the subject site are detached single and double storey detached dwellings. To the west of the subject site is a vacant lot of land that is owned by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). An aerial photograph of the subject site is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development seeks consent for the demolition of the existing garage and shed, removal of trees and a proposed eight lot Torrens Title subdivision, with one residue lot. The proposal also involves the retention of the existing dwelling house on proposed Lot 18.

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008, which prescribes the minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4.

An extract of the proposed subdivision plan is provided in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

Variation to Clause 7.13 – Minimum Lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4

The key issue identified with respect to the application relate to the Clause 4.6 variation to the minimum building street frontage control under Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008. Proposed Lot 13 does not comply with the minimum lot width required under Clause 7.13(3). In accordance with Clause 7.13(3) the minimum lot width requirement is 10m. Lot 13 proposes a minimum lot width of 7.205m, representing a variation of 28% (see figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Lot 13

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width control as prescribed by Clause 7.13(3) LLEP.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6(3) prescribes:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard summarised as follows:

· A large portion of the reduced width will be located within the front setback.

· The proposed lot will be suitable for dwelling development.

· This will assist with streetscape by providing variation at the front of the sites.

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.13(3):

· Lot 13 reaches a minimum width of at least 10m at the front building line, thus allowing sufficient lot area to construct a dwelling.

· The impacts of the proposed non-compliance are considered negligible on the surrounding environment, road network and future residential forms.

· The lot layout is a consequence of the isolated site location and is the most appropriate design outcome given the existing site constraints.

· Despite the non-compliance, the proposal still satisfies the relevant objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.13(3) is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 25 May 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

“The Panel recommends that Development Application DA-480/2014 for the demolition of the existing garage and shed, removal of trees and a proposed eight lot Torrens Title subdivision, with one residue lot. The proposal also involves the retention of the existing dwelling house on proposed Lot 18, at 38-44 Bottlebrush Avenue, Casula be approved subject to the conditions of consent attached to this report.”

Notwithstanding the above recommendations, the IHAP Panel did raise a concern regarding the imposition of Condition 20. Condition 20 reads as follows;

“20. Permeable man proof fencing shall be designed and erected around the perimeter of the proposed flood storage area for safety reasons”.

Concern: The IHAP provided comment that consideration should be given to requiring a permeable fence for only the public road frontage portion of the drainage reserve and allowing solid fencing along the private lot boundaries with the drainage reserve.

Response: Condition 20 was imposed to prevent the impediment of flood water and to prevent easy or unauthorised access to the drainage reserve. The condition was not intended to restrict the type of fencing permissible provided that flooding and security matters are addressed. As such, Council concurs with the considerations of the IHAP panel and will proceed to delete the condition from the consent given that the following conditions of consent were already included in the consent as follows:

31. Fencing around the flood compensatory area shall be constructed in a manner that does not obstruct the flow of floodwaters so as to have an adverse impact on flooding.

32. Fencing around the flood compensatory area shall be constructed to withstand the force of floodwaters or collapse in a controlled manner so as not to obstruct the flow of water, become unsafe during times of flood or become moving debris.

Condition 31 and 32 above were imposed to ensure that fencing does not obstruct the flow of floodwater and collapses in a safe manner when the floodwaters become extensive. Conditions 31 and 32 specify fencing is required around the flood compensatory area, however does not restrict the type of fencing. As such, it is considered that condition 20 is not warranted as the requirements for fencing are addressed through conditions 31 and 32.

Given the fact that conditions 31 and 32 do not restrict the type of fencing, it is considered that deleting condition 20 is worthy of support in this instance.Condition 20 however does require “man proof fencing” to restrict access to the site for safety reasons. As such, Condition 31 will be amended to ensure the fencing remains man proof to restrict access to the site. Consequently condition 31 is amended as follows;

31. Man proof fencing is to to be constructed around the perimeter of the proposed flood storage area and shall be desgined in a manner that does not obstruct the flow of floodwaters so as to have an adverse impact on flooding.

The amended conditions of consent are attached.

Conclusion

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant and Land Owner Details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendations View (Under separate cover)

4. Amended Conditions of Consent View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 02

Investment Report May 2015

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Provide business excellence and financial sustainability to deliver services that meet community expectations
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	134020.2015
Report By	Christian Hope - Senior Financial Accountant
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

This report details the Council’s Investment portfolio.

At 31st May 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $168 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.93 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.65 per cent by 128 basis points for the same period.

Council’s investments and reporting obligations fully comply with the requirements of Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer must provide Council with a written report setting out details of all money that Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Council’s Portfolio

At 31st May 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $168 million. Council’s investment register detailing all its investments is provided as an attachment to this report.

In summary, Council’s portfolio consisted of investments in:

As at the end of May 2015, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

Asset Class	MAY-15	Jun-14
Senior Debts (FRN’s & *TCD’s)	100.56 %	101.48%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	65.77 %	60.14%
Total	97.16%	91.64%

* A TCD stands for Transferrable Certificate of Deposit; it is a security issued with the same characteristics as a Term Deposit however it can be sold back (transferred) in to the market prior to maturity. A floating TCD pays a coupon linked to a variable benchmark (90 days BBSW).

Council is fully compliant with the requirements of the Ministerial Investment Order including the grand fathering provision in regards to its investment portfolio holdings. The grand fathering provision states that Council continues to hold to maturity, redeem or sell investments that comply with previous Ministerial Investment Orders. Any new investments must comply with the most recent Order. Council continues to closely monitor the investments in its portfolio to ensure continued compliance and minimal exposure to risk.

Portfolio Maturity Profile

The table below shows the percentage of funds invested at different durations to maturity

Security Type	Amount	% Holdings	Term to Maturity Policy Limit
Tradeable Securities (liquid assets)	30,816,363	18.34%	100%
Cash & Cash at Call	18,166,114	10.81%	100%
Term Deposits & 31 Days’ Notice <1 Year	53,028,710	31.56%	100%
Term Deposits 1 to < 3 years	34,000,000	20.24%	60%
Term deposits 3 to <5 Years	32,000,000	19.05%	25%
Total Portfolio Holdings	168,011,187	100.00%

Market Value by Issuer

The following table breaks down Council’s investment by issuer and provides an analysis on their credit ratings

Credit Rating	Bank	Total Market value	% Holding	Institutional Policy Limit	Credit Rating Category Policy Limit
S&P A	Bank of China	1,010,630	0.60%	25%
	Bank of Queensland	2,008,580	1.20%	25%
	Bendigo & Adelaide Bank	3,035,360	1.81%	25%
	Emerald Reverse Mortgages Class C	797,655	0.47%	25%
	Suncorp Metway	2,006,580	1.19%	25%
S&P A Category		8,858,805	5.27%		60%
S&P A1	AMP	4,970,014	2.96%	35%
S&P A1 Category		4,970,014	2.96%		100%
S&P A1+	Commonwealth Bank	14,224,809	8.47%	45%
	National Australia Bank	35,000,000	20.86%	45%
S&P A1+ Category		49,224,809	29.33%		100%
S&P A2	Bank of Queensland	30,000,000	17.89%	25%
	ME Bank	5,000,000	2.98%	25%
	My State Bank	2,000,000	1.19%	25%
	Police & Nurses Bank	11,000,000	6.55%	25%
	Police Bank	2,000,000	1.19%	25%
S&P A2 Category		50,000,000	0.298		60%
S&P AA-	ANZ	704,648	0.42%	35%
	National Australia Bank	10,000,000	5.98%	35%
	Rabo Bank	9,000,000	5.36%	35%
	ST George	2,000,000	1.19%	35%
	Westpac	4,000,000	2.40%	35%
S&P AA- Category		25,704,648	15.35%		100%
S&P AAA	Emerald Reverse Mortgages Class A	1,158,950	0.69%	45%
S&P AAA Category		1,158,950	0.69%		100%
S&P BBB+	Credit Union Australia	4,032,460	2.40%	15%
	Heritage Bank	2,003,940	1.19%	15%
	ME Bank	1,013,020	0.60%	15%
	Newcastle Permanent Building Society	10,026,540	5.96%	15%
	Police Bank	1,001,080	0.60%	15%
	Teachers Mutual Bank	2,016,920	1.20%	15%
S&P BBB+ Category		20,093,960	11.95%		50%
Unrated UR	Banana Coast Credit Union	4,000,000	2.38%	5%
	Bank of Sydney	3,000,000	1.79%	5%
	SGE Mutual	1,000,000	0.60%	5%
Unrated UR Category		8,000,000	4.77%		25%
Grand Total		168,011,187	100%

Portfolio Performance

Council’s investment portfolio yield for the 12 months ended 31 May 2015 was 3.93 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.65 per cent by 128 basis points for the same period. Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower deposit yields on offer. Council’s ongoing outperformance has been boosted by a handful of longer term investments yielding above 4% and maturing out to 2019. Return on investments is expected to slowly decrease as old investments in Council’s portfolio mature and replaced with investments yielding lower returns. Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance vs. 90 day Bank Bill index over the 12 month period.		The portfolio yield for 12 month ended is 128 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.93% against 2.65%).
Annual Income vs. Budget		Council’s investment interest income is $97k above the revised year to date budget. This result is made up of $37k for the General Fund and $60k for the Externally Restricted Funds and excludes $134k realised capital gains for the year.

Investment Policy Compliance

Legislative Requirements		Fully Compliant.
Portfolio Credit Rating Limit		Fully Compliant.
Institutional Exposure Limits		Fully Compliant.
Term to Maturity Limits		Fully Compliant

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

At its June 2015 meeting, the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.0 per cent. A statement released on 2June 2015 by Glenn Stevens, Governor of the RBA commenting on the central bank decision is attached to this report. The cash rate is at historically low level and adversely impacting returns on investment. Returns on Term Deposits have significantly dropped since the last twelve months. The average market returns on term deposits are:

· Longer term deposits (> 3years maturity) - 3.1% to 3.3% p.a

· Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) - 2.9% to 3.1% p.a.

· Short term deposits rate (less than one year to maturity) – ranges from 2.25% for 30 days to 2.9% per annum.

· Cash & Cash At Call accounts range from1.8% to 2.55%

· 31 Days’ Notice Account 2.7%

Certificate of Responsible Accounting Officer

The Chief Financial Officer, as Responsible Accounting Officer certifies that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Councils Investment Policies at the time of their placement. The previous investments are covered by the “grandfather” clauses of the current investment guidelines issued by the Minister for Local Government.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Council’s investment interest income is $97k above the revised year to date budget. This result is made up of $37k for the General Fund and $60k for the Externally Restricted Funds and excludes $134k realised capital gains for the year
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Media Release Reserve Bank Of Australia June 2015 View

2. Investment Detail Report May 2015 View

3. Performance Graphs Actual to Budget Ytd May 2015 View

111

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 03

Outcome of Public Exhibition of New Fees and Charges

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	118303.2015
Report By	Miles Carter - Project Officer - Strategy and Performance
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

At the April 29 Council meeting, Council resolved to place several proposed new fees and charges, as part of the Statement of Revenue Policy (Fees and Charges) 2015-16, on public exhibition.

The exhibition period has now ended with no submissions being received. Consequently it is recommended that the following new fees and charges be adopted:

Item	Proposed Fee
Minor planning proposals (simple proposals)	First meeting - $600 Second and subsequent meetings - $250
Major planning proposals (proposals involving complex issues)	First meeting - $1,100 Second and subsequent meetings - $450
Heavy Vehicles Local Roads Permit	$70.00 per vehicle
Whitlam Leisure Centre - PrYme Membership (Over 50’s)”	$10.00 per week for holders of a Seniors or DVA card

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the following new fees and charges, as part of the Statement of Revenue Policy (Fees and Charges) 2015-2016:

Item	Proposed Fee
Minor planning proposals (simple proposals)	First meeting - $600 Second and subsequent meetings - $250
Major planning proposals (proposals involving complex issues)	First meeting - $1,100 Second and subsequent meetings - $450
Heavy Vehicles Local Roads Permit	$70.00 per vehicle
Whitlam Leisure Centre - PrYme Membership (Over 50’s)”	$10.00 per week for holders of a Seniors or DVA card

REPORT

Pre-planning proposal meeting fees

Item

Proposed Fee

Minor planning proposals (simple proposals)

First meeting - $600

Second and subsequent meetings - $250

Major planning proposals (proposals involving complex issues)

First meeting - $1,100

Second and subsequent meetings - $450

It is proposed to introduce this fee to cover the cost of Council’s assistance and advice provided to developers and land owners seeking preliminary advice regarding planning proposals

Currently, Council officers are approached regularly to meet with proponents in the early concept stages of their planning proposal, often involving very complex issues. These meetings involve a number of senior professional staff. Currently there is no fee to cover the cost to Council of officer preparation and meeting time. Often several meetings are held as the applicant develops detailed plans and prepares technical and planning studies to support the proposal.

These meetings are valuable for applicants as they are able to structure their proposals to address key issues and any concerns identified by Council officers, and progress the relevant supporting studies.

It is considered appropriate to continue to offer this service, but a fee should apply in order to maintain consistency across Council services. Currently, Council charges a fee for pre-lodgment meetings with applicants regarding proposed development applications. The proposed fee will better streamline Council’s fee structure.

Heavy Vehicles Local Roads Permit

The operation of heavy vehicles is regulated under the Heavy Vehicle National Law and National Regulations by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR).

Applications for heavy vehicle permits that involve the use of local roads in the Liverpool area are referred to Council for assessment. The NHVR has advised that councils are permitted to charge a fee of $70.00 per vehicle to cover administrative costs associated with the application process. It is recommended to commence charging this fee.

Seniors’ Fitness Membership Fee

Item	Proposed Fee
Whitlam Leisure Centre - PrYme Membership (Over 50’s)”	$10.00 per week for holders of a Seniors or DVA card

The YMCA have advised Council that they intend to offer a new reduced membership fee designed to make participation in fitness classes more attractive and affordable to seniors.

Currently seniors wishing to participate in fitness classes at the Whitlam Leisure Centre need to join regular classes. The YMCA intends to introduce fitness classes specifically for seniors to encourage greater participation by this sector of our community.

Public Exhibition Process:

Information on all of the above Fees and Charges was placed on Council’s website under the Public Exhibition section, inviting submissions and comment, from the 4 May to 1 June.

Council did not receive any submissions on the proposed amendments. It is therefore recommended that Council adopts all of the proposed fees and charges.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The financial implications for each of the fees and charges have been outlined in the attached documents and report.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Ensure Fees and Charges are equitable.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

115

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 04

Local Government NSW Annual Conference

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	131913.2015
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

The Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2015 is being held at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse, Rosehill from Sunday 11 October to Tuesday 13 October 2015.

Traditionally, the Local Government NSW Association entitles Liverpool City Council to 11 voting delegates and this report recommends that Council seeks nominations from Councillors to attend the Conference to enable planning for accommodation arrangements (if required).

This year the Association’s rules mean that they will develop two rolls of voters, one for voting in the elections for Office Bearers and the Board, and a separate roll of voters for voting on motions.

The Association will notify member Councils in approximately July 2015 of the number of both types of voting delegates that they are entitled to send to the Conference. A further report will be submitted to the July Council meeting to consider proposed motions to be sent to the Conference.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Nominates Councillors who wish to attend the 2015 Local Government New South Wales Annual Conference.

2. Staff prepare a report to the July Council meeting to consider proposed motions to be submitted to the Conference and provide an update on the number of voting delegates for Liverpool City Council.

REPORT

The 2015 Local Government NSW Annual Conference is being held at Rosehill, Sydney from Sunday 11 October to Tuesday 13 October 2015. The Conference is the annual policy making event for Councils who are members of Local Government NSW. Councils work together through Local Government NSW to promote local government and advocate on behalf of their communities for local democracy, informed decision making and good governance.

Voting

This year the Conference will involve two types of voting.

The Association’s rules mean that they will develop two rolls of voters, one for voting in the elections for Office Bearers and the Board, and a separate roll of voters for voting on motions.

Council will need to nominate the names of their voting delegates for voting on motions and, where applicable, the names of their voting delegates for voting in the elections for Office Bearers and the Board. The Association will notify member Councils of the number of both types of voting delegates that they are entitled to send to the Conference in approximately July 2015. Each member must nominate its delegate(s) to the Conference by 18 September 2015.

Motions

A separate report will be submitted to the July 2015 Council meeting to consider proposed motions to be submitted to the Conference and provide an update on any advice received from the Association on the number of voting delegates Council is entitled to send to the Conference. Motions are to be submitted to the Association by 24 August 2015.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Costs will be approximately $2,000 per delegate for registration, travel, accommodation (if required) and meals.
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Local Government NSW Draft Program and Conference Information 2015 View

125

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01

Donations, Grants and Sponsorships

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Foster social inclusion, strengthen the local community and increase opportunities for people who may experience barriers
Key Policy	Donations Policy
File Ref	089693.2015
Report By	Sarah Rees - Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

Council provides financial assistance to the community under three categories: Community Donations (including Community Grants, Small Grants, School and Youth Donations), Sporting Donations and Corporate Sponsorship.

The Financial Contributions Panel (FCP) recently considered a number of applications from local community organisations for Community Grants and Corporate Sponsorship.

This report presents the funding recommendations made by the FCP for Council's consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the Financial Contribution Panel's recommendations for the provision of $16,500 (all GST exclusive) under the Community Donations Program as summarised in the table below:

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Guntawang Aboriginal Resources Incorporated (GARI)	Arts and Craft Workshops	$3,000
Liverpool Women’s Resource Centre	Cultural Connection Camp	$3,000	$3,000
Inspire Community Services	Liverpool Community Kitchen and Hub Services	$5,000
YouthLink, Salvation Army	Buzz Cuts (Hairdressing Social Enterprise project for youth)	$5,000

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Priyanka Kanthan	Volunteer opportunity in Vietnam with International Volunteer HQ	$500

2. Endorses the Financial Contributions Panel's recommendations for the provision of $5,000 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $5,000 is endorsed, funds will need to be allocated from the Council Reserve.

Applicant name

Amount

Southern Districts Soccer Football Association Inc

$5,000

REPORT

The Donations program has three categories:

· Community Donations (including Community Grants, Small Grants, School and Youth Donations);

· Sporting Donations; and

· Corporate Sponsorship.

Applications for Sporting Donations, Community Grants and Corporate Sponsorship are accepted on an ongoing basis. Applications are then reviewed by the Financial Contributions Panel (FCP) comprised of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and delegated staff.

This report contains the most recent recommendations by the FCP for Community Donations and Corporate Sponsorship. There were no Sporting Donation applications received.

Community Grants

Council's Community Grants Program is available to community groups who provide programs or services to the residents of Liverpool. Five applications for community grants were received by Council. Five applications met the program criteria and are recommended for funding. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the requests are outlined in the table below.

Community Grants Program

Applicant Details	Event Name and Description	Amount Requested	FCP Recommendation
Guntawang Aboriginal Resources Incorporated (GARI)	Arts and Craft Workshops To provide opportunities for Aboriginal people to come together to learn how to make Aboriginal arts and crafts and enhance a sense of community among its people by teaching the younger generation various cultures and traditions. Community Benefits: · Increased awareness and understanding of Aboriginal cultures and traditions; and · Enhanced social and cultural cohesion and harmony among the Aboriginal community.	$3,000	$3,000
Liverpool Women’s Resource Centre	Cultural Connection Camp To provide an opportunity for local Aboriginal women and children to participate in a cultural camp that increases their knowledge about local heritage and cultural traditions. The Cultural Connection Camp includes aboriginal site tours and bush walks. Community Benefits: · Increased awareness and understanding of Aboriginal cultures and traditions; and · Fosters community participation through social activities that are culturally appropriate to Aboriginal members of the community.	$3,000	$3,000
Inspire Community Services	Liverpool Community Kitchen and Hub Services The Hub provides a safe and clean space for homeless, disadvantaged and marginalized people to have access to healthy food and activities. The project will provide arts, crafts, music cooking and budgeting activities. Community Benefits: · Access to support services; and · Engagement in community capacity building activities.	$5,000	$5,000
YouthLink (Salvation Army)	Buzz Cuts (Hairdressing Social Enterprise project for youth) The Buzz Cuts hairdressing social enterprise project works in partnership with the Work For the Dole program to provide skills training and experience in hairdressing. This partnership social enterprise project will be based at the People’s Shed at Busby which will service disadvantaged residents of Liverpool. Community Benefits: · Increased youth participation in Work For The Dole partnership project; and · Enhanced opportunities for young people to engage in pathways to employment.	$5,000	$5,000

Youth Donations Program

Applicant Details

Event Name and Description

Amount Requested

FCP Recommendation

Priyanka Kanthan

Volunteering opportunity in Vietnam with International Volunteer HQ

Priyanka is a university student who is volunteering to work in Vietnam during her semester break to care for children and young people affected by Agent Orange or in schools and community clinics supporting children with a disability.

Community Benefits:

· Increased skills development by working with children and young people with disabilities.

$500

Corporate Sponsorship

Council delivers a Corporate Sponsorship Program for local organisations seeking financial support to deliver events that benefit Liverpool. One application for corporate sponsorship was received by Council. One application met the program criteria and is recommended for funding. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the request received and the FCP recommendation is shown in the table below.

Applicant Details

Project Name and Description

Amount Requested

FCP

Recommend-ation

Southern Districts Soccer Football Association Inc.

Liverpool Cup Match and Liverpool Shield match incorporating SDSFA KO finals – 5 & 6 September 2015

Knock out competition finals for Liverpool Cup and Liverpool Shield held at Ernie Smith Reserve. Anticipated attendance is 5,000 people.

Benefits:

Opportunity to speak and present trophy. Logo inclusion on event signage, advertising and on media releases. Logo placement on medals.

The annual event is unique to Liverpool and attracts a significant crowd. Aligns with program criteria of healthy active city.

Recommended for funding in line with previous support.

$5,000

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	A budget allocation of $80,000 for the Community Grants Program was adopted by Council in its 2014/2015 Operational Plan as part of the Community Donations Program. If the recommended amount of $16,500 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $245. The recommendations within this report for Community Grants will be funded from the Community Donations Program. The 2014/15 Corporate Sponsorship Program has a budget of $80,000 and these funds have now been fully committed. If the recommended amount of $5,000 is endorsed, the funds would need to be provided from the Council Reserve.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Criteria for Corporate Sponsorship View

2. Criteria for Community Grants Program

134

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 02

Liverpool Access Committee Charter

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community
Key Policy	Disability Strategy
File Ref	123448.2015
Report By	Sarah Rees - Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 24 September 2014, Council Committees were voted on and Councillor representatives were appointed which prompted a review of the Liverpool Access Committee Charter.

The proposed amendments to the Liverpool Access Committee Charter include:

· Change from ‘open’ committee to 'closed’ committee through the establishment of a formal membership process;

· Community representatives appointed in an individual capacity based on skills and experience and not as a representative of a particular group; and

· Access Committee members serve a two-year term. At the commencement of a new term, previous members may reapply.

It is anticipated that the proposed amendments to the Liverpool Access Committee Charter will foster good governance practice, ensure representation is reflective of a range of disabilities and streamline the process of appointing members during mid-term.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the Liverpool Access Committee Charter as attached to this report.

REPORT

The Liverpool Access Committee was established primarily to provide advice to Council which will effectively improve and alleviate access difficulties experienced by people with disabilities in Liverpool. Membership is currently open to all members of the community who have a disability or are interested in disability issues.

The committee aims to achieve the following:

· Increase accessibility for people with a disability, including people with mobility issues and vision impairment, and their carers;

· Provide input into development applications;

· Provide advice to Council on matters relating to accessibility; and

· Lobby and advocate on access issues.

Since its inception, the committee has proactively advocated for people with a disability on key issues including the provision of services, health, transport and housing. Furthermore, the Committee has a long history and a strong commitment to disability access being addressed at the planning stages and a strong commitment to disability access being available in the built environment to provide access to everyone.

The Committee meets monthly and is governed by the Liverpool Access Committee Charter which was last updated and adopted by Council on 24 September 2014. In an attempt to align the Liverpool Access Committee Charter with other Council Committee Charters, a number of changes are proposed which are detailed below.

Membership

At present, Liverpool Access Committee is an open committee whereby all members of the community who have a disability or are interested in disability issues can attend. It is proposed that the Liverpool Access Committee Charter be amended to include the establishment of a formal membership process making it a closed committee as detailed in Section 8.3.1 of the attached Charter.

It is proposed that membership consist of 12 members, 4 from each of the 3 categories as follows:

· Category 1 – People with a disability living, working or studying in the local area;

· Category 2 – Family members and/or carers of people with a disability; and

· Category 3 – Agencies providing services to people with a disability or people living in the area who have a specific area of interest or skill that could contribute to the work of the committee.

Following the application process, informal interviews will be conducted with all nominees by the Manager Community Development and Planning (or delegate) and the Community Development Worker (Aged & Disability). Following the assessment, nominees will be nominated against selection/eligibility criteria and recommendations for appointments to Council for endorsement will be submitted.

A closed committee and a formal membership process ensures that membership will be reflective of a range of disabilities including vision, hearing, physical/mobility, intellectual, psychiatric, chronic medical conditions, and learning disabilities covering the range of life experience including caring for children and adults with disabilities, education, employment, assistive technology, leisure activities, retirement and ageing, as well as the built environment.

Term of Office

It is proposed that Access Committee members serve a two year term. At the commencement of a new term, previous members may reapply as detailed in Section 9.1 of the attached Charter. This amendment will enable new community members to apply bringing innovative ideas whilst retaining the important knowledge of previous members.

It is further proposed that the Charter be amended to include the establishment of an eligibility list as detailed in Section 9.3.1 of the attached Charter. That is, should a vacancy occur during the term of appointment it will be filled by an applicant on the eligibility list. The eligibility list will contain names of applicants who have been previously interviewed and have met the stipulated criteria. Appointments made via the eligibility list will be endorsed by Council through its standard process.

The benefits derived from the establishment of an eligibility list include:

· Streamlined recruitment processes – can contact applicant straight away, rather than having to advertise, interview and appoint;

· Reduced costs of advertising for membership during mid-term;

· Reduced staffing resources required to undertake recruitment and appointment process; and

· Prompt return to full membership.

The draft Charter was tabled at the Liverpool Access Committee meeting on 14 May 2015 and adopted. The changes detailed within this report are reflective and responsive to the discussions held at the meeting.

In conclusion, it is anticipated that the proposed amendments to the Liverpool Access Committee Charter will foster good governance practice, ensure representation is reflective of a range of disabilities and streamline the process of appointing members during mid-term.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Access Committee Charter View

151

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 03

Liverpool Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Foster social inclusion, strengthen the local community and increase opportunities for people who may experience barriers
Key Policy	Multicultural Action Plan
File Ref	131033.2015
Report By	Sarah Rees - Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 29 April 2015, Council resolved to place the draft Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017 on public exhibition to allow for public comments and submissions and to receive a further report after a review of public submissions.

We received a submission from Liverpool Multicultural Resource Centre (MRC) commending Council on its commitment to delivering accessible and equitable programs and services for Liverpool’s diverse communities. Minor changes to the Strategy are reflective and responsive to the feedback received from Liverpool MRC which includes an additional action for Refugee Week. The additional action has no financial implications to Council as funds have been allocated through existing resources.

This report proposes that Liverpool City Council’s Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017 be adopted.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts Liverpool City Council’s Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017.

REPORT

The purpose of the Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017 is to direct our programs for the next two years. The Strategy sets out a two year plan of action that Council, stakeholders and communities will deliver together to achieve accessible and equitable programs and services for Liverpool’s diverse communities.

The draft Strategy has been guided by the broad principles of Social Justice. It includes requirements by National, State and Local Government. Council thus has an important role to play in the development of a socially just, healthy, inclusive and sustainable community where all members, irrespective of their ability, social, ethnic, or economic background, can fully and fairly participate in community life.

The draft Strategy was developed following extensive consultation processes with community groups, residents, and external stakeholders, to ensure that it is reflective of the thoughts, opinions and ideas of diverse communities. The strategies and actions will be developed in partnership with key stakeholders and link back to what is currently being undertaken in the community.

The strategies detailed in the Action Plan are good practice and align with the Community Relations Commission Multicultural Policies and Services Program that provides coordination of multicultural priorities and activities across a range of organisations.

The Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017 is attached to this report. Subject to Council’s endorsement, the strategies will be delivered across Liverpool over the two years.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The projects identified in the Strategy are resourced through external grants or have been included in operational budgets.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community. Promote community harmony and address discrimination. Support access and services for people with a disability.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Multicultural Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2017 View (Under separate cover)

154

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 04

Review of Social Impact Assessment Policy and DCP

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Social Impact Assessment Policy
File Ref	132147.2015
Report By	Dany Ya - Policy and Projects Officer
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its 25 March 2015 meeting, Council resolved to defer public exhibition of the draft Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy until “obtaining and considering independent expert recommendations on enhancing the proposed SIA process”.

Council staff sought the professional services of Alison Ziller, an experienced social scientist, who has extensive knowledge of social impact assessment and best practice regarding consideration of social impacts in Council’s decision making and planning processes.

Alison was asked to review Council’s draft Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy and Development Control Plan (DCP) for Social Impact Assessments and to provide a report on the content of the Policy and DCP and propose enhancements to Council’s process for the consideration of social impacts as part of development assessment, based on best practice.

The review has identified a number of recommendations to revise the policy and DCP so it is consistent with Council’s responsibilities to assess social impacts as part of the development application (DA) process in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993.

A key recommendation is to establish a local Social Impacts Advisory Panel comprising of a pool of external advisors with expertise in a range of social impact issues that Council can consult with to seek their advice when DAs which raise significant social impacts are received.

It also makes recommendations to improve in-house capacity to manage social impact assessment particularly with regards to DAs including addressing under-staffing issues and providing opportunities for professional development for staff on social matters to improve understanding and consideration of social matters in the assessment of DAs.

Enhancements were recommended that improve the notification and assessment process for liquor and gaming machine licence applications, although the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (ILGA) is the determining authority for these applications.

This will not only ensure that Council is demonstrating due diligence with regards to comprehensive assessment of social impacts but also ensures that potential impacts of any DAs/liquor licences/gaming licences do not have any further detrimental effects on the broader Liverpool community.

The recommendations of the review have been incorporated into the draft policy and DCP. Both documents have been presented to Council for endorsement to be placed on public exhibition, with a further report to be provided to Council following public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Development Control Plan for Social Impact Assessments to be placed on public exhibition, with a further report to be provided to Council following public exhibition.

REPORT

Social impact assessment refers to the process in which plans, policies and applications for change to either the physical or cultural landscape of the area are reviewed and assessed in relation to the likely impact of these changes on the community. Among other things, social impacts can include changes to way of life, opportunity, inter-generational equity, health and culture in a community, and the capacity of a community to sustain these things.

· Capacity to improve Council’s decision making processes;

· Triggers to social impact assessment;

· Types of social impact assessment;

· Adequacy of community consultation with impacted communities;

· Common social impact types;

· Assessment and implementation of mitigation measures;

· Relative benefits of establishing a local liquor/social impact assessment panel.

Council staff have considered the recommendations from the policy review and the following is a summary of the key changes to the policy and DCP:

Proposed revisions to the Social Impact Assessment Policy

1. Revise the policy so that social impact assessment has a greater scope as set out in the draft policy and to ensure that it is sufficiently integrated into Council’s planning processes;

2. Make it clear that Council may, at its discretion, seek independent expert advice, and/or obtain an independent review of an applicant’s SIA and/or commission its own SIA through a proposed Advisory Panel on social impact issues (see also point 13 below);

3. Rewrite all of section 6.4 of the draft policy to clearly set out Council’s responsibilities regarding licenced premises;

4. Outline a system / process by which Council is always informed about all liquor and gaming machine licence applications received by OLGR in the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA);

5. Outline a process by which Council annually obtains the list of licenced premises from OLGR and add this information to Council’s mapping system;

6. Outline a process that ensures that licenced premises data from OLGR is analysed on receipt and the analysis is referred to when any DA for a licensed premises is received or Council is notified of a liquor / gaming machine licence application;

7. Set standards to make the criteria clear for Council’s expectations for submitted SIAs;

8. Set standards for mitigation effectiveness, namely that any mitigation proposed should be tangible, deliverable and likely to be durable effective;

9. Make reference to section 79(C)(1)(e) of the EP&A Act in section 2.1 of the draft policy, which requires a consent authority to take the public interest into consideration when assessing a development application;

10. Add information on section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993, which refers to distributional equity (fairness) being a key consideration in social impact assessment;

11. Add to the definition of community and place it earlier in the draft policy to demonstrate the importance of the concept and to clearly define it in the context of this policy;

12. Revise Council’s public notification procedures to take account of the geography of affected communities, acknowledging that the affected community for many proposals can be spread over a wide area;

13. Modify parts of section 4 of the draft policy to set out public notification processes and how community members can make submissions to council;

14. Remove any references in the draft policy that provide discretion to waive the requirements for an SIA;

15. Add section to the policy which refers to the establishment of an expert Advisory Panel on social impact issues, members of which are consulted about proposals likely to have significant social impact (see also point 2 above);

16. Outline a clear referral system between Council’s Community Planning and Development Assessment units that will increase Council’s in-house capacity to manage social impact assessment particularly with regards to DAs.

This includes addressing under-staffing issues within Community Planning and Development Assessment units to deal with the high volume of DAs and applications from ILGA.

Providing opportunities for professional development for staff to include social matters such as public health and social impact assessment will help to bridge the traditional divide between town and social planners and improve town planners’ understanding and consideration of social matters in their assessments of DAs.

Proposed revisions to the LDCP 2008 Amendment

The revised SIA Policy underpins the proposed DCP amendment by setting out in detail the policy rationale for social impact assessment. It is intended to provide clear, step-by-step guidance to assist Council staff and applicants undertake social impact assessments as part of a development application in line with the proposed DCP controls.

The review of the DCP identified some areas in which the DCP could be improved to ensure it provides adequate triggers for the requirement for SIA for development applications. This includes:

1. Adding precaution in decision making about planning matters and the social justice aim of distributional equity in the objectives of the DCP;

2. Remove any references in the draft policy that provide discretion to waive the requirements for an SIA.

Social Impacts Advisory Panel for Liverpool City Council

Regular access to a team of experts on health and social impact matters can be a benefit to Council, however, the team should be constituted such that the advice is independent of Council.

In line with the recommendations above for Council to seek independent expert advice, and/or obtain an independent review of an applicant’s SIA and/or commission its own SIA about proposals likely to have significant social impact (points 2 and 13); it is further recommended that Council establish a local Social Impacts Advisory Panel.

A local Social Impacts Advisory Panel would comprise of a pool of external advisors with expertise in a range of social impact issues that Council can consult with to seek their advice when DAs which raise significant social impacts are received. The panel could also include representatives of Family and Community Services, Health, Housing, a public health research body, the social impacts profession, police, or non-government organisations.

The role of panel members should be to provide Council with any of the following as required:

a) Advice about likely social impacts of specific proposals before Council

b) A review of the adequacy of a social impact assessment accompanying a DA

c) A social impact assessment regarding a DA received by Council.

The advice received should be incorporated into the report Council prepares for its Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, should be made public.

This would have the dual purpose of achieving transparency in the assessment process and of enabling ratepayers to see that advice is being sought on appropriate matters. Integrated with improvements in community consultation practices, this would help to achieve better Council processes in considering social impact assessments.

Conclusion

The commissioned review identified areas where revisions were needed in the draft SIA policy and the proposed DCP to be consistent with Council’s responsibilities to assess social impacts under Section 79C of the EP&A Act and the Local Government Act 1993.

The review also identified that there were inadequate internal processes in place to deal with social impact issues as they arise particularly with regards to DAs and recommended improving in-house expertise by way of professional development and addressing under-staffing issues within the Community Planning and Development Assessment units to deal with the high volume of DAs and applications from ILGA.

Providing opportunities for professional development for staff on social matters will help to bridge the traditional divide between town and social planners and improve town planners’ understanding and consideration of social matters in their assessments of DAs.

The establishment of an external panel of experts on social impact issues assists council to make a decision on proposals with potential for significant social impact and/or are highly contentious, by obtaining independent expert advice for their consideration.

This demonstrates to ratepayers and the community that there is transparency in the assessment process. It also shows a commitment to considering social impacts and that the public interest is taken into consideration when assessing development applications and liquor / gaming machine licence these applications.

The revised draft policy and DCP have been presented to Council for endorsement to be placed on public exhibition, with a further report to be provided to Council following public exhibition.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Public interest is taken into consideration when assessing applications for development and liquor / gaming machine licences. Support policies and plans that optimise social outcomes and community wellbeing. Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Social Impact Assessment - Draft DCP Amendment View (Under separate cover)

2. Draft Social Impact Assessment Policy June 2015 View (Under separate cover)

160

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 05

Review of Closed Circuit Television in Liverpool CBD

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Improve the community’s sense of safety in Liverpool
Key Policy	Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy
File Ref	135570.2015
Report By	Sarah Rees - Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 16 December 2014, Council resolved that a further report be presented detailing the current operations of the closed circuit television (CCTV) program in the Liverpool City Centre.

This report provides a summary of the outcomes of the CCTV program including the operations, management, financials and effectiveness of the crime prevention program. In order to make a full assessment as to the effectiveness of the program, it is recommended that a longitudinal approach be adopted and a further report be presented at the December 2015 Council meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report.

2. Requests a further report to the December 2015 Council meeting detailing the outcomes of the program.

REPORT

The closed circuit television (CCTV) program has been in operation in Liverpool City Centre since April 2014 to prevent crime and improve perceptions of safety.

The CCTV program aims to:

· enhance public safety in the city centre;

· prevent and deter crime and anti-social behaviour;

· reduce and remove fear of crime;

· identify criminal activity and suspects;

· reduce the cost and impact of crime on the community; and

· assist in the allocation and deployment of law enforcement resources.

Operations of the CCTV Program

Twenty cameras were installed at a number of hotspot locations in Liverpool CBD in December 2013 and became operational in April 2014. A map detailing the locations of the cameras is attached to this report.

Since the program’s inception, Liverpool Local Area Command (LAC) has submitted 29 CCTV requests to view footage and a total of 15 requests to download footage forms.

Council has received a number of requests from the public and media representatives for CCTV footage. In accordance with Council’s Standard Operating Procedures, the public and media representatives are directed to report any incidents to Police to obtain an event number which is required for Police to consider any request.

Similarly, any incidents occurring on Council property or involving Council staff should be reported to Police to obtain an event number which is required to view footage. The process is as follows:

1. Staff member reports the incident to their manager;

2. Manager informs their Director;

3. Director (or delegated person) reports the incident in person to the officer on duty at the police station;

4. Director (or delegated person) making the report advises the officer on duty that the incident occurred within proximity to CCTV;

5. An event number will be issued to the Director (or delegated person) the next day upon request - phone call to police station or in person; and

6. Police view footage and will report the outcome to the Director (or delegated person) within 7 days.

Serious matters should be reported directly to Police and then reported to the relevant Manager. Instances of damage or vandalism to Council property should also be reported to the Risk Management Coordinator.

Management of the CCTV Program

The CCTV Internal Stakeholders meeting was held on 23 April 2015. A number of policies including the Code of Practice, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Standard Operating Procedures and Terms of Reference were discussed as they are due for review. As the program continues to be reviewed, these documents will be amended and updated accordingly.

Financials of the CCTV Program

The table below details the total expenditure of the CCTV program to date (May 2015). No additional funds have been expended for the CCTV program since December 2014.

Item Description	Amount
System design for ring 1 and ring 2	36,960
Hardware for rings 1 and 2, including CCTV	568,392.20
Installation of rings 1and 2	66,000
ISP core router	33,000
First year maintenance	31,460
Balance of installation completion from ring 1 and ring 2	88,000
Microwave link equipment hardware for ring 3,4,5 including 6 links	99,000
Equipment for ring 3,4,5	138,034.22
Total	$1,060,846.42

We were successful in receiving $300,000 to assist with the implementation of the CCTV program under the Safer Streets Programme which is administered by the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. This program includes comprehensive educational activities and community awareness campaigns.

Effectiveness of the CCTV Program

Anecdotally, Liverpool LAC has advised Council that the CCTV program has resulted in the successful identification of a number of offenders and has assisted in the prosecution stages.

A crime analysis of Liverpool CBD identified that the area is a hotspot location for assaults, steal from motor vehicle, steal from person, malicious damage and robbery. Importantly, the rate of these crimes is not increasing and the rate of some crimes is actually decreasing.

According to Liverpool LAC, alcohol related crime at licensed premises including assaults, stealing, malicious damage and robbery have decreased by 28 percent in Liverpool CBD in the 2013 - 2015 period. Furthermore, robberies have decreased by 26 percent from 122 in 2013 to 90 in 2014. The reduction in crime in Liverpool CBD may well be attributable to the combination of situational crime prevention strategies including the installation of CCTV.

Future Directions

The Internal Working Group involving Council staff and Liverpool LAC will continue to meet quarterly to review and consider operational policies and procedures, undertake lighting and safety audits and develop an evaluation framework.

Conclusion

Preventing crime and anti-social behaviour is most effective when careful consideration is given to the social and urban context of the crime issue. Accordingly, CCTV together with public space design and activation can significantly enhance perceptions of safety and prevent and deter crime and anti-social behaviour.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Support policies and plans that prevent crime.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Location and Vision Angles of LCC Public Spaces CCTV Program

174

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Proposal to amend LLEP 2008 to permit additional uses (service station and take away food and drink premises) at 1-5 Yato Road, Prestons

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	101193.2015
Report By	Benny Horn - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council has received a Planning Proposal to permit additional uses (Service Station and Take Away Food and Drink Premises) on Lot 1 DP 1168422, known as 1-5 Yato Road, Prestons. The applicant proposes amending the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 Key Sites map to mark the site as a Key Site to which Schedule 1 Clause 9 - Use of certain land for service stations and take away food and drink premises would apply.

The subject site is zoned IN3 Heavy Industrial in the LLEP 2008 and measures 8,541 square metres. It is located in the 160-hectare western precinct of Prestons industrial area, a predominantly IN3 precinct with lots on the southern fringe zoned IN1 General Industrial.

In the LLEP 2008 the proposed uses are not permitted on IN3 zoned land. There are currently no service stations located in the western precinct. The nearby M7 motorway is also poorly serviced by service stations.

The site is suitably located to provide for worker amenities such as food and refuelling as it is situated at an intersection through which most traffic in the western precinct flows. The local workforce would no longer need to travel outside the area to access these services. The proposed uses would result in a minor (0.2%) reduction in land used for heavy industry in Prestons.

Whilst not currently permissible on the subject site, the proposed additional uses are industrial support services consistent with objectives of the IN3 zone and State and local policies. Reflecting compatibility with heavy industry, these uses are commonly classified as permissible on IN3 land in other LGAs. This report recommends Council endorses the Planning Proposal and submits it to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the Planning Proposal and forwards it to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway determination

2. Subject to Gateway approval, proceeds with public authority consultations and public exhibition in accordance with the determination.

3. Notes that the outcomes of public authority consultation and public exhibition will be reported to Council in the future.

REPORT

Background

On 31 March 2015, Council received a Planning Proposal seeking an amendment to LLEP 2008 to permit additional uses (Service Station and Take Away Food and Drink Premises) on Lot 1 DP 1168422, 1-5 Yato Road, Prestons and located in Prestons industrial area.

Prestons industrial area is nearly 400 hectares in area and divided by the M7 Motorway running from the south to the north-west. The subject site is located in the 160-hectare western half of Prestons industrial area (see Figure 1). The western precinct was rezoned as an IN3 Heavy Industrial area in 2007 and is still undergoing transformation from market gardens and related uses. Lots on the southern fringe, along Kurrajong Road, are zoned IN1 General Industrial, with a residential neighbourhood located opposite. Access ramps to/from the M7 Motorway are north of the subject site along Bernera Road.

Future industrial development in the western precinct is expected to be of a similar form and function to that in the eastern precinct. The eastern precinct was rezoned for heavy industry in the 1990s and now comprises a mix of factory units and warehouse uses that capitalise on the area’s proximity to the M7 Motorway.

The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, measuring 8,541 square metres, and is situated at a four-way intersection at the centre of the western precinct. The site has frontages to Yato Road (68 metres) and Bernera Road (95 metres) (see Figure 2). It is zoned IN3 (see Figure 3), and is 600 metres south of M7 Motorway on- and off-ramps and 300 metres north of Kurrajong Road. The site was previously used for market gardens and is currently unused.

The proposed uses are currently not permitted on the site. Under LLEP 2008, service stations are prohibited on IN3 and IN1 land and thus not permitted in the western precinct. Take away food and drink premises are prohibited on IN3 land. There are presently no service stations or take away food and drink premises in the western precinct.

Fig 1: Site context

Fig 2: Aerial view of the subject site (marked in red)

Furthermore, the subject site is situated in a low and medium flood risk area. Fuel storage – a likely ancillary use of a service station – is prohibited on all flood liable land to which the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan (GMREP) 2 – Georges River Catchment applies, including this site. However, in 2014 Council approved a development application for interim flood mitigation works as agreed by the property owners, to be completed by October 2016. Subject to the completion of these works and a work-as-executed plan being submitted to Council, the site will be flood-free under 100-year flooding levels and thus the prohibition on fuel storage under GMREP 2 will no longer apply to this land.

Fig 3: Current zone IN3 Heavy Industrial Fig 4: Proposed Key Site in LLEP 2008

Proposed LLEP 2008 amendment

The Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) seeks to amend LLEP 2008 to permit additional uses (service station and take away food and drink premises) on the subject site. Council’s Traffic and Transport, Development Assessment, Flood Engineering and Land Development departments have reviewed the planning proposal and support the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment would alter the LLEP 2008 Key Sites Map to mark the subject site in yellow as a ‘key site’ to which Schedule 1 Clause 9 – Use of certain land for service stations and take away food and drink premises would apply (Attachment 2), as follows:

Maps to be amended	Map reference	Proposed change
Key Sites Map	4900_COM_KYS_007_020_20140716	Yellow fill
Key Sites Map	4900_COM_KYS_013_020_20140716	Yellow fill

Schedule 1 Clause 9 permits the following with consent:

· Service stations

· Take away food and drink premises if:

o there will be no more than 1 take away food and drink premises at each key site, and

o the gross floor area of the take away food and drink premises is not greater than 300 square metres.

Evaluation

The provision of a service station and take away food and drink premises in the western precinct of Prestons industrial area would address the growing demand of the local workforce for amenities and reduce unnecessary traffic generation, as these workers would no longer need to travel outside the area to refuel or obtain food and refreshments. Currently, the nearest service station equipped for heavy vehicle traffic is on Hoxton Park Road, approximately 2.5 kilometres by road from the subject site.

The subject site is ideally located to provide these services in the western precinct, as the road layout of the area funnels most local heavy vehicle traffic through the Bernera Road/Yato Road intersection adjacent to the site. The proposed take away food and drink premises may attract some trade from similar outlets in nearby residential neighbourhoods. However, this is likely to be minor, as its location in an industrial area would deter residents and similar outlets in adjacent neighbourhoods are in closer proximity to local residents.

Service stations and take away food and drink premises are currently prohibited on land zoned IN3 in LLEP 2008, and permitting these uses on this site would reduce land available for industrial development in the area. However, the reduction in land would be minor as the site comprises some 0.2% of land in Prestons industrial area. Furthermore, the proposed uses would provide services that support the industrial development of the precinct, and these wider benefits would outweigh the impact of the loss of land.

The additional permitted uses are consistent with objectives of the IN3 zone, particularly “to minimise any adverse effect of heavy industry on other land uses” and “to encourage employment opportunities”. Reflecting their compatibility with heavy industrial land use, service stations and take away food and drink premises are commonly classified as permissible on land zoned IN3 in other NSW local government areas. It is noted that the alternative of locating service stations in residential areas (local centres) can often result in adverse amenity impacts on nearby residents (e.g. noise, odour, traffic, light spill). Additionally, the proposed approach to amend LLEP 2008 to permit these additional uses would not replace the IN3 zoning of the site, thus ensuring the site can still be used for heavy industrial purposes in the future.

Consistency with State and local policies

Metropolitan and subregional strategies

The metropolitan strategy ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’ sets out strategic directions and subregional priorities for Sydney. The proposed service station and take away food and drink premises will make a minor contribution to strengthening Prestons industrial area and the employment opportunities this area provides. This is consistent with the metropolitan strategy’s Action 1.9.2 - Support key industrial precincts with appropriate planning controls, which advocates an evidence-based decision-making approach to identify where improved and innovative planning controls may allow for the ongoing evolution of industrial activities.

Growing Liverpool 2023

This document identifies economic, social, environmental and governance strategies and goals for Liverpool. By strengthening Prestons industrial area and the employment opportunities this area provides – albeit to a minor extent – and reducing heavy vehicle traffic generation in local neighbourhoods, the Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the following strategies in Growing Liverpool 2023:

· 1d. Improve the availability of a diverse range of jobs and increase workforce participation rates; and

· 6a. Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network.

Liverpool Industrial Lands Strategy

Liverpool’s Industrial Lands Strategy aims to guide the development of employment lands in the LGA. The Planning Proposal involves the provision of support services for Prestons industrial area in a suitable location, and is thus considered consistent with this Strategy as it promotes the development of local employment lands.

Conclusion

The Planning Proposal to permit a service station and take away and food premises on this site would support the development of the western precinct of Prestons industrial area. It would provide refuelling to heavy vehicles and food and drink amenities to the local workforce in an area where such industrial support services do not currently exist.

The site is ideal for such services, being centrally located at the intersection through which most heavy vehicles in this area will pass when travelling to/from the M7 motorway. Permitting the proposed uses on this site would thereby reduce traffic generation caused by heavy vehicles and the workforce travelling further afield to access such services.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with relevant guidelines, legislation, policies and Ministerial directions. It is recommended that Council resolve to forward this Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Proposal View (Under separate cover)

2. Proposed LLEP 2008 Key Sites Map View (Under separate cover)

180

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 02

Draft Amendment 31 to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Proposal to rezone 1975-1985 Camden Valley Way, Prestons from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B2 Local Centre

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	136598.2015
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 29 May 2013 Council resolved to prepare a planning proposal (Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment No. 31) for the rezoning of 1975-1985 Camden Valley Way Prestons from B6 – Enterprise Corridor to B2 – Local Centre and to forward the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (then known as Department of Planning and Infrastructure) requesting Gateway determination. Council also resolved to commission a peer review of the proponent’s Economic Impact Assessment (EIA).

A Gateway determination issued on 22 August 2013 required the planning proposal be updated to address the impacts of the proposal on the planned Edmondson Park Town Centre, Prestons Village Shopping Centre and other nearby centres. The Gateway determination also required the planning proposal to be updated to demonstrate that the proposed development could not be accommodated in existing or planned centres.

Following public exhibition of the draft amendment, assessment of the submissions received and the peer review, it is concluded the planning proposal should be supported by Council for the reasons detailed below:

· The proposal will not adversely impact the viability of existing centres including the Prestons Village Shopping Centre, or delay the development of the planned Edmondson Park Town Centre.

· The proponent has demonstrated that the proposed development cannot be accommodated within the existing available floor space within the Prestons area, and that it would not be appropriate to locate in an existing or planned centre outside the Prestons area.

· The proposed development on the subject site within Prestons meets the existing market demand of the Prestons local area catchment for a full line convenience supermarket.

For the reasons outlined above, this report recommends Council writes to the Minister of Planning to request that Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment No. 31 be made.

The applicant has also proposed to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to contribute to a community benefit for the local area. Accordingly, this report also provides a framework for the proposed VPA to facilitate a contribution towards the development of Macleod Park for the benefit of the local community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Supports the Planning Proposal and writes to the Minister of Planning pursuant to clause 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to request that the Minister determine that Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment No. 31 be made.

2. Writes to the proponents informing them of Council’s decision.

3. Writes to the parties that made a submission informing them of Council’s decision.

4. Provides in principle support for and delegates the CEO the authority to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement to facilitate additional community benefits for the Prestons local area prior to the determination of a Development Application for the proposal.

REPORT

Background and Site Identification

The legal description of subject site is Lot 50, DP1082416 and Lot 1, DP661177, otherwise known as 1975-1985 Camden Valley Way, Prestons. Located at the north-west corner of Camden Valley Way and Corfield Road, the site covers approximately 1.7 hectares and has street frontages on Camden Valley Way and Corfield Road.

The current use of the site consists of a landscape supplies and garden centre. The site also has an approved Development Application for a service station, car wash, fast food premises and retail shops (DA-1517/2010 and DA-1517/2010A, approved 10 May 2011), for which retail floor space equates to 2,855sqm.

Council Resolution and Gateway Determination

The potential rezoning of the site was originally considered as a submission to the Liverpool Retail Hierarchy Review 2012, which was adopted by Council on the 28 November 2012. Council resolved at that time to consider a planning proposal for the subject site.

The application to rezone the site was lodged with Council on 14 January 2013. At its meeting on 29 May 2013, Council resolved the following:

That Council:

1. Prepares a planning proposal which seeks to rezone 1975-1985 Camden Valley Way Prestons from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B2 Local Centre under Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008, and forward this proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure seeking gateway determination.

2. Recommends that Gateway Determination require the following further reporting to be provided and considered in the assessment of the proposal.

a. Updated Economic Impact Assessment that reflects the economic impact of the proposed development on the planned Edmondson Park Town Centre, based on a timeline for its development being provided by Urban Growth and the proposed ALDI supermarket on Camden Valley way Edmondson Park.

b. Sequential test demonstrating site suitability as outlined in The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy.

3. Undertakes a peer review of the applicant’s updated Economic Impact Assessment to be considered in the assessment of the planning proposal.

Gateway determination was issued by the Department on 22 August 2013. Along with the standard conditions of Gateway, as the request of Council, the following specific conditions were noted by the Department requiring attention for the matter to proceed:

Prior to undertaking public exhibition, the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by MacroPlan Dimasi (March 2013) is to be updated to address the impacts of the proposal on the Edmondson Park Town Centre, Prestons Village Shopping Centre and other nearby centres. The planning proposal is also to be updated to demonstrate that the proposed development cannot be accommodated in existing or planned centres. This additional information and any submissions received prior to public exhibition, regarding the proposal for a supermarket at the subject site, are to be placed on public exhibition with the planning proposal.

The proponent submitted an updated EIA and Sequential Test in February 2014 addressing the aforementioned conditions. Subsequently, the proposal was publicly exhibited from Wednesday 24 September to Wednesday 22 October 2014 with DA-1163/2013 pursuant to the requirements of Section 72K of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the conditions as specified in the Gateway determination.

Public Authority Consultation

Submissions

Council received submissions from the RMS (no objection), Urban Growth, Camden Council and Fairfield City Council (refer to Attachment 1). Both Camden Council and Fairfield City Council raised concerns about the proposal regarding the impact on the viability of approved centres within local and regional plans, and that the proposal constituted a stand-alone centre that was outside any local, metropolitan or subregional strategy.

Urban Growth NSW commissioned Urbacity to prepare their submission, presenting a number of issues in objection to the proposed amendment, but largely concerning the viability and vibrancy of the planned Edmondson Park Town Centre (EPTC), and the potential impact of the proposed development in Prestons in delaying the development of Stage 1 of EPTC.

Officer assessment

Council officers have assessed these submissions and reviewed the Economic Impact Assessment provided by the applicant. It is considered that the Prestons area catchment generates a demand that is currently unmet in approved centres and justifies the proposal. Given the increased population that has occurred in this catchment since the LLEP was prepared, it is appropriate to support the provision of this additional local centre.

Public Exhibition

Submissions

Council received nine submissions, all of which objected to the proposal. In addition, Council received three duplicate objections from owners of businesses located at the Prestons Village Shopping centre in February 2015, after the exhibition had closed (refer to Attachment 1). The key issues regarding the proposed rezoning are detailed below.

Prestons Village Shopping Centre

Wakefield Planning, representing the IGA supermarket at Prestons Village, noted the Primary Trade Area of the proposal incorporates the entire trade area for the Prestons Village, and estimated the impacts of the proposal would result in a 30% loss of trade to Prestons Village, given the proposed development would replace at least a third of the present Prestons Village catchment as the most convenient location for top-up shopping.

GAT and Associates, representing the Prestons Village Shopping Centre, utilised a review of the proponent’s EIA conducted by Leyshon Consulting, and concluded that the approval of the proposal would change the performance of the existing and planned centres and would fundamentally undermine Prestons Village, a successful localised centre.

Officer assessment

Council officers have assessed these submissions and reviewed the Economic Impact Assessment provided by the applicant. It is considered that the proposed new supermarket will not detrimentally impact on the Prestons Village, and that the two offerings do not directly compete with each other. The Prestons Village shopping centre does not satisfy the market demand currently generated by the Prestons area catchment. Currently the Village meets only 4% of the retail demand for this catchment.

MacroPlan estimates the impact of the proposal on the Prestons Village would be -$0.8M, or -8.6%, that the proposed 4100sqm supermarket will not compete on a ‘like for like’ basis with the 460sqm IGA that anchors the Prestons Village. The IGA is a large convenience outlet, oriented for top-up shopping, and not comparable to the full-line supermarket that is proposed for the subject site. The two formats trade differently and therefore do not compete directly with each other with their respective offering.

The peer review undertaken by Hill PDA estimates the trading level for the Prestons Village at $9.3 million, or an average of $6,200/sqm in 2016, on the assumption that the proposed supermarket development does not proceed, which is significantly lower than the estimated levels for other centres in the peer review. By contrast, the review adopts an average turnover level of $11,000/sqm for the proposed supermarket. This would imply Preston Village provides an exceptionally limited offer to the local catchment.

The EIA equates this to a market share for the centre of approximately 4% of the total available retail expenditure generated by the main trade area population. Given the Prestons Village attracts such a low market share prior to the proposed supermarket being developed, it would be unlikely to experience a significant impact as a result of the proposed development, primarily due to the fact that overwhelmingly the main trade area expenditure is already spent elsewhere.

The peer review’s estimated impact is -$1.6 million or -16.7% on Prestons Village Centre is therefore overstated, having regard to the above and because it is not a like-for-like shopping facility. The modelled impacts in the peer review assume that the 460sqm IGA at Prestons Village and the proposed Woolworths supermarket are directly substitutable. As evidenced by the absence of shopping trolleys, Prestons Village does not cater to the full needs of the Prestons catchment area which is primarily made of young families. The IGA which anchors the centre is too small to compete on a ‘like-for-like’ basis with the proposed full-line supermarket for the reasons outlined above.

Additionally, the likely impact on Prestons Village Centre will be diminished as ancillary retail floorspace for the proposed supermarket development on the subject site has been reduced by 440sqm. This reduction in specialty retailing further mitigates the forecasted impacts on the Prestons Village which consists of approximately 1500sqm of retail floor area, the IGA making up 460sqm of the total, thereby presenting Prestons Village with a more diverse retail mix than the proposed development on the subject site.

Edmondson Park Town Centre

Wakefield Planning raised concerns that the proposed development would contribute to an oversupply of retail floorspace, which together with the recently developed Aldi, would delay the establishment of an appropriately anchored town centre at Edmondson Park, resulting in EPTC not achieving its planned floorspace target due to a potential oversupply of retail development in the area.

Urban Growth (Urbacity), as discussed above raised concerns that the proposal being in close proximity to EPTC was counter-intuitive to the intent of local and regional planning and would negatively impact retail trade at EPTC. Urbacity also submitted that a vibrant street environment was critical for the delivery of mixed use development and encouraging private investment in EPTC, and the approval of the proposal would reduce the level of trade in EPTC, impacting its vibrancy and investment feasibility.

Referring to recent out-of-centre developments, Urban Growth claimed the impact on the supermarket for Stage 1 of EPTC would be -$10.8M or 50% of trade in 2016, thereby delaying provision of the supermarket at EPTC. Urban growth further commented that the potential failure of the EPTC risks $3.2 billion of public money invested in the South west Rail Link, and a further $20 million invested by Urban Growth in Edmondson Park.

Officer assessment

The extent to which the Primary Trade Area for the proposed development extends south of Camden Valley Way is debatable. The peer review and submissions received have argued the northern portions of Edmondson Park, the first of the release area to be developed, should be incorporated into the Primary Trade Area of the proposal. The implications of this would be a greater impact on the expected turnover of Stage 1 of EPTC. The peer review argues that on this basis, the proposed development may impact and, or delay the point at which the trading levels for the planned EPTC become viable.

The proponent has acknowledged that the proposal would be an attractive shopping destination for residents in the northern portions of Edmondson Park, but states that the estimate of trade for the Secondary Trade Area of the proposal (i.e. Edmondson Park) is an average, which accounts for higher sales from the northern portions. As EPTC is developed, the impacts from the Secondary Trade Area (i.e. Edmondson Park) will be reduced as EPTC will provide more convenience and accessibility for these new residents.

MacroPlan estimates the impact on Stage 1 of EPTC at -$5M, or -9.6% of the overall turnover if the proposed full-line supermarket development is approved on the subject site. The peer review counters that the proponent has overestimated the level of spending on food and packaged liquor items and therefore overstates the demand for supermarket floorspace in the trade area. The peer review quantifies the likely impact of the proposal on EPTC Stage 1 at -7.6M or -14.5%, sufficient to delay the development of the planned centre.

Urban Growth (Urbacity) stress that the impact of the proposal must be understood in the context of existing approvals for other out-of-centre retailing in the surrounding area including the Aldi at Village Square, the Costco warehouse development at Casula and the rezoning of land at the former Tree Valley Golf Course, to allowing another. The contention is that the cumulative impact of the approvals on EPTC, including this proposal, would be either to delay the development of Stage 1 of EPTC by up to five years, or else it would significantly reduce visitation to EPTC, impacting the required vibrancy of the EPTC and further slowing the development of planned higher-density housing in and around the town centre.

The proponent has countered that cumulative impacts of the rezoning, including the proposal for the subject site, will not delay the development of EPTC. The timing of Stage I of EPTC will be determined by the rate of residential growth of Edmondson Park itself, and the demand generated from this growth will primarily influence the timing for the delivery of Stage 1 of EPTC. Additionally, the impact of the proposed development on the EPTC by the peer review is overstated. Analyses presented in the review and in submissions do not substantively demonstrate this impact would be likely to delay the development of the Stage 1 EPTC or reduce the vibrancy of the planned town centre as a result of increasing retail floorspace on the subject site in Prestons.

The sales estimates for the Edmondson Park Town Centre in the peer review have been called into question. The peer review initially estimated sales at $47.4M by 2016 for Stage 1 assuming the proposed Prestons supermarket was not developed. This is a sales level which peer review considered sufficient for the Stage 1 EPTC to proceed at the time. The review since then has revised the estimate for Edmondson Park Town Centre to $44.5M (after allowing for the impact of the proposed Prestons supermarket). This is only 6% less than that original estimate, and is equivalent to an average trading level of $7,400/sqm, which is considered reasonable and viable first year trading level.

In this context, the analyses presented confirms that the proposed supermarket will not have significant impact on the timing of any potential development of Stage 1 of EPTC by showing that such a Stage 1 can trade successfully despite the proposed supermarket being developed at Prestons.

Potential of accommodating proposal in existing or planned centres

Wakefield Planning argued that the Sequential Test has failed to demonstrate why an additional supermarket may not be developed at either Carnes Hill or EPTC. Charter Hall, operators of the Carnes Hill Marketplace, argued that there was sufficient land zoned B2 – Local Centre available at Carnes Hill for the development of an additional full-line supermarket. Charter Hall further claimed that the rezoning of the subject site in Prestons would delay the development of vacant B2 zoned land at Carnes Hill. GAT and Associates similarly argued the proposal could be accommodated at Carnes Hill.

Officer assessment

On the matter of whether a 4100sqm supermarket could be located in an existing or planned centre, the subject site is zoned B6 – Enterprise Corridor, which permits the development of shops up to an individual size of 1600sqm. The only portion of the proposal that is not permissible on the site is the proposed supermarket. The nearest sites that could accommodate the proposal are Carnes Hill Marketplace or the planned EPTC. A number of submissions argue that the rezoning of the subject site to enable the development of a 4100sqm supermarket would simply relocate the supermarket from a planned centre (Carnes Hill to EPTC) to an unplanned location, to the detriment of both centres.

Charter Hall, the owners of the Carnes Hill Marketplace argue in their submission that there is appropriately zoned land available for the development of an additional supermarket and parking at Carnes Hill Marketplace, and that approving the rezoning proposal would delay the development of the Carnes Hill Town Centre. It is considered that while there appears to be potential for the Carnes Hill Marketplace to expand, and the planned extension of Kurrajong Road from the Prestons area will make Carnes Hill more accessible, the provision of additional supermarket facilities in Carnes Hill will not address the under-provision identified around Prestons.

Regarding Stage 1 of EPTC, the proponent acknowledges that, sites are available for retail development in the centre. However, it will be several years before supermarket facilities will be provided in EPTC. Moreover, the proposed development of the supermarket at Prestons will not delay the timing of a supermarket at EPTC as this would be driven by the population growth within Edmondson Park itself. Stage 1 of EPTC is likely to be developed when the population within the Edmondson Park area reaches a sufficient scale for a supermarket operator to consider the location. Conversely, the proposed supermarket at Prestons would primarily service the residents of the Prestons catchment, where there is already an existing gap or market demand.

The assessment has considered the fact that the planned extension to Kurrajong Road will increase access to Carnes Hill town Centre for the Prestons catchment. The Prestons development will meet market demand within the Prestons catchment whereas the Carnes Hill Centre services a much broader catchment. Locating a full-line supermarket on the subject site will service the local area population (primarily made up of young families) by providing increased local shopping options and convenience. This will also reduce the travel distance required to meet those needs to less than 1.5km as opposed to the 2-5km currently required to travel outside the trade area.

There is compelling evidence that the proposal cannot be developed in either the existing Carnes Hill Marketplace or the planned EPTC. There is sufficient demand for these centres in their fully developed catchments as distinct from the demand arising from the Prestons area.

Conclusion

There is significant population driven market demand within the main trade area of Prestons that is presently being met by supermarkets located beyond the local area. The proposal has demonstrated that there is a lack of convenience-based supermarket options in this region, in particular around the subject site. The provision of the proposed supermarket at Prestons will assist in reducing the size of the supermarket floor space gap in the Prestons local area.

The EIA and Sequential Test sufficiently account for the economic impacts of the extension of Kurrajong Road on the Prestons Village Shopping Centre. In addition, the sequential test verifies that while there is sufficient land zoned B2 – Local Centre (on which the development of a 4100sqm supermarket is permissible) available for development at both Carnes Hill and the proposed Edmondson Park Town Centre, these are not suitable in providing convenience orientated supermarket facilities to service the primary trade area of Prestons.

The assessment of this proposal demonstrates that there will be an insignificant impact on existing and planned centres. There is sufficient demand for these centres in their fully developed catchments as distinct from the demand arising from the Prestons area.

It is therefore recommended that Council writes to the Minister of Planning pursuant to clause 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to request that the plan be made.

Options for Voluntary Planning Agreement

Council officers have considered a framework for the proponent and Council to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement to contribute to community benefits for the Prestons area. The applicant has proposed a contribution towards embellishments in Macleod Park in the order of $50,000 as a consequence of the planning proposal being made. This framework will be further developed should Council resolve to proceed with the amendment for the rezoning of the subject site.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Amendment 31 - Submissions Table View

2. Prestons Catchment Area - Market Demand

197

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 03

Proposal to amend the Planning Proposal for the City Centre LEP Review to include Liverpool Hospital as a Long Term Civic Site

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Assist exiting businesses to grow, innovate and become more competitive
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	136625.2015
Report By	Graham Matthews - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

At its meeting of 29 April 2015 Council adopted the City Centre LEP review report. That report endorsed in principle the rezoning of the B3 – Commercial Core zoned land in Liverpool City Centre to B4 – Mixed Use and delegated to the CEO the responsibility to approve the final Planning Proposal for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for Gateway Review. On 29 May 2015 the finalised planning proposal seeking the rezoning of Liverpool City Centre was submitted to DP&E under the CEO’s signature requesting Gateway review.

Subsequent to the lodgement of the planning proposal, Council Officers have been made aware of plans by the Liverpool Hospital to redevelop part of the hospital site in a manner that may exceed existing planning controls applying to the site. This report seeks Council support for amending the planning proposal for the rezoning of the Liverpool City Centre to add the Liverpool Hospital Precinct as a Long Term Civic Site. This would permit development to exceed existing planning controls upon the submission of an approved masterplan for the site.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Amends the planning proposal for Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 52) to include the Liverpool Hospital Precinct as a Long Term Civic Site, enabling an increase in height and floor space based on the submission of an approved master plan for the site.

2. Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the amended planning proposal for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment pursuant to Section 58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

REPORT

Background

At its meeting of 29 April 2015 Council adopted the City Centre LEP review report. This report endorsed in principle the rezoning of the B3 – Commercial Core zoned land in Liverpool City Centre to B4 – Mixed Use and delegated to the CEO the responsibility to approve the final Planning Proposal for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for Gateway Review. On 29 May 2015 the finalized planning proposal seeking the rezoning of Liverpool City Centre was submitted to DP&E under the CEO’s signature requesting Gateway review.

Subsequent to the submission of the planning proposal, Council Officers have been made aware that NSW Health is considering a proposal to significantly redevelop certain properties in the Liverpool Hospital complex. The scale of the development envisaged would be likely to exceed that currently permissible pursuant to development standards that currently apply to the site.

It is recommended that Council should be supportive of the Liverpool Hospital’s plans to expand. The development envisaged is likely to provide greater scope for jobs in Liverpool City Centre, consistent with Council’s expectation that a large proportion of new jobs will be in the health and education industries. It is also to be noted that the Liverpool Hospital occupies a discreet campus as described below. Development within the Hospital site however, would be assessed at development application stage to ensure that it did not is impact residential and other properties outside the Hospital precinct.

Figure 1: Liverpool Hospital site shown as shaded on the map above.

Source: Liverpool City Council GIS

Long Term Civic Sites

In the report on the Liverpool City Centre LEP Review adopted by Council on 29 April 2015, intended objectives and outcomes for Long Term Civic Sites in Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 were described as follows:

Long Term Civic Sites

Characteristics

Two long term civic sites are identified They are the Liverpool Public School and Court House Site in the block bounded by Moore Street, Bigge Street, Railway Street and Crawford Serviceway and the Bus Interchange and Rail Station site bounded by Moore Street, the heavy rail line and Bigge Street

Objectives

The objectives for the development of the civic sites are to:

· provide opportunities for cultural, education, civic, transport, commercial and residential places and uses

· integrate the current civic uses, heritage buildings and places into the CBD

· integrate transport infrastructure into the CBD

· link the CBD to the Georges River and Light Horse Park

· link Bigge Park to the Rail Station

· define the edge of the CBD to the river

· create and / enhance the heritage forecourts and places

· and

· provide for public car parking as required by Council

Outcomes

The method of achieving the desired outcome is to develop a master plan. This is to ensure that these sites contribute to the overall function of the city. The matters that need to be considered in formulating the master plan are:

· introducing new circulation networks on the Bus Interchange site to reconnect the site to the CBD

· reinforcing the heritage ,civic and transport role of the sites in the CBD

· enhancing the Court House and the Railway Station and its entrance plaza

· improving connections within the CBD and to the river

· the impact on existing and potential development on the neighbouring sites,,

· overshadowing of both the public domain and private lands,

· the size, shape, topography and area of the site relative to new building typologies ,

· street and pavement widths,,

· the views across the river to the CBD . and

· parking availability and vehicle entrance.

The master plan will show in plan and section the massing and built form including:

· circulation and movement patterns

· FSR, shadowing, building alignment, building envelopes, set-backs, building footprint, awnings levels and general layout.

· pedestrian and car entrances, parking, waste collection and indicative uses.

Building Envelopes

The building envelopes will be derived from the master plan. The objectives for the building form in the long term civic sites are to:

· enable new buildings and proposed street networks to relate to and enhance the heritage buildings

· enable new buildings and proposed street networks to relate to the existing buildings, streets and open space

· take account of solar access to the public domain and neighbouring sites;

· define the site edges related to the river and the streets network

· and

· enable the appropriate separation distances between buildings.

FSR

The objectives for the FSR are to:

· facilitate a wide range of development potential; and

· encourage better built form outcomes by relating floor space ratio to building typology and public domain outcomes.

The FSR for the civic sites will be derived from the building envelope/s as agreed in the masterplan and they will be determined by a formula as a percentage of the building envelope and related to the proposed uses.

Uses

These will be determined in the Masterplan

The development of the Liverpool Hospital Precinct meets the objectives of the Long Term Civic Sites described above. Permitting development within the Liverpool Hospital Precinct to exceed existing controls, subject to Council’s approval of a masterplan will obviate the need for preparation of a further planning proposal for the site in the future, saving considerable time and expense.

Proposed amendment to planning proposal

The planning proposal submitted to DP&E on 29 May 2015 currently identifies two sites within the Long Term Civic Sites Precinct, as developed in the report adopted by Council on 29 April 2015. These sites are the Liverpool railway station and bus interchange site and the Liverpool Public School and Old Liverpool Courthouse sites, as shown as “Area 9” on the section of the Floor Space ratio Map depicted in the planning proposal depicted in Figure 2 below.

It is proposed to amend the following LEP maps to show the Liverpool Hospital site as “Area 9” on the Floor Space Ratio maps:

FSR-011; and

FSR-014.

For the information of councillors, Figure 2 below depicts the existing “Area 9” (covering the Rail and bus interchange and the Liverpool Public School and Old Liverpool Couthouse sites) depicted in the existing planning proposal (see attachment). The proposed amendment would add a further area labeled “Area 9” over the Liverpool Hospital campus as depicted in Figure 1 above.

Figure 2: “Area 9” shows Long Term Civic Sites described in the existing planning proposal

Source: Planning Proposal for Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (Amendment 52)

It is also proposed to amend draft Clause 7.5A of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 to include reference to the Liverpool Hospital site as follows (please note the proposed amendment is in red):

7.5A Long Term Civic Sites

(1) The objectives of this clause are to:

(a) Provide opportunities for cultural, educational, civic, transport, commercial, health and residential uses within the Liverpool City Centre

(b) Integrate existing civic uses, heritage buildings and places into the Liverpool City Centre

(c) Integrate transport infrastructure into the Liverpool City Centre

(d) Link Liverpool City Centre to the Georges River and Light Horse Park

(e) Link Bigge Park to Liverpool railway station

(f) Define the edge of Liverpool City Centre to the Georges River

(g) Create and enhance the heritage forecourts and places and

(h) Provide for car parking as required by Council.

(2) Despite clause 4.4(2), the maximum floor space of a building on a lot in “Area 9” identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map may exceed 2.5:1 if the development application is submitted in association with an approved masterplan for the site.

(4) The maximum floor space of a building granted development consent pursuant to this clause is to be derived from the building envelope as determined by the masterplan. Maximum floorspace will be calculated at 80% of the building envelope for commercial purposes and 75% of the building envelope for residential purposes. The Floor Space Ratio shall not exceed 7:1.

(5) Despite clause 4.3(2), the maximum height of a building on a lot in “Area 9” identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map may exceed building height as shown on the Height of Buildings Map, if the development application is submitted in association with an approved masterplan for the site.

It will also be necessary to amend item 2c of Part 2 Explanation of Provisions of the planning proposal to include reference to the Liverpool Hospital site as follows (the proposed amendment is in red):

2c. Long Term Civic Sites would include the follow lots: Lot 1 DP 1053994, Lot 2 DP 1053994, Lot 30 DP 859887, Lot 1 DP 50779, Lot 10 DP 303625, Lot 1 DP 178665, Lot 3 DP 878452, Lot 8 Sec 61 DP 758620, Lot 6 DP 797682, Lot 4 DP 797682, Lot 1 DP 956168, Lot 441 DP 831058, Lot 30 DP 1117676, Lot 1 DP 178206, Lot 1 DP 878452, Lot 2 DP 878452, Lot 4 DP 878452, Lot 9 Sec 61 DP 758620, Lot 5 DP 797682, Lot 7 DP 797682, Lot 1 DP 799619, Lot 442 DP 831058, Lot 31 DP 1117676, Lot 1 DP 827031, Lot 2 DP 827031, Lot 3 DP 827031, Lot 100 DP 1067487, Part Lot 501 DP 1165217, Lot 1 DP 596770 and Lot 3 DP 1137425 being the Liverpool rail station/bus interchange site, the Liverpool Public School/Old Liverpool Courthouse site and the Liverpool Hospital Precinct. The Long Term Civic Sites would be shown as being within Area 9 on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The maximum FSR of any site within the precinct would be mapped as 2.5:1. The maximum height of any building within the Long Term Civic Sites Precinct would be mapped as 28 metres on the Height of Buildings Map, with the exception of the Liverpool Hospital Precinct, which would retain its current 35 metre height limit. However, this planning proposal seeks to add clause 7.5A Long Term Civic Sites to LLEP 2008 which would specify that where the applicant lodges an approved masterplan for the site, the FSR of buildings may exceed 2.5:1 to a maximum FSR of 7:1 and the height of buildings may exceed the height shown on the Height of Buildings Map as described below.

Conclusion

The proposed amendment to the planning proposal and FSR maps of Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 52) is considered a minor amendment in the spirit of the report adopted by Council on the Liverpool City Centre LEP Review on 29 April 2015. The amendment to the planning proposal will facilitate future development at the Liverpool Hospital, which will create jobs for Liverpool City Centre, without recourse to the lodging of a further costly and time-consuming planning proposal.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital, health and medical precinct (of the City Centre). Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

204

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 04

Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Rezoning and Reclassification of Part of Hammondville Park, Hammondville

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities
Key Policy	Recreation Strategy
File Ref	137604.2015
Report By	Taylar Vernon - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

It is proposed to rezone part of Lot 10, DP 1162812, known as Hammondville Park, Hammondville, from RE1 Public Recreation to RE2 Private Recreation and B6 Enterprise corridor. The rezoning will facilitate potential development outcomes for the land, including a potential roadside convenience use and a potential recreation or community use. The land is also proposed to be reclassified from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ land, pursuant to section 30 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The attached draft planning proposal outlines Council’s intent and provides justification for the reclassification and rezoning. It is recommended that Council endorse the draft planning proposal and forward the relevant documentation to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking a Gateway determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the attached draft planning proposal and authorises Council officers to forward a copy to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway determination

2. Agrees that subject to Gateway approval, public authority consultation and public exhibition proceed in accordance with the determination

3. Notes that the outcomes of public authority consultation and public exhibition will be reports to a future meeting of Council.

REPORT

Background

It is proposed to rezone part of Lot 10, DP 1162812, known as Hammondville Park, Hammondville, from RE1 Public Recreation to RE2 Private Recreation and B6 Enterprise corridor to facilitate potential development outcomes for the land.

The land is currently either vacant, or utilised for car parking to service the adjoining recreational facilities. The Liverpool Master Planning Steering Committee identified that the land is appropriate for a higher and better use, given its location adjacent to Heathcote Road. a major arterial road.

On 16 December 2014, Council resolved (inter alia) to commence the process of reclassifying the land from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ through an amendment to the Liverpool local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008; and on 24 March 2015, Council resolved the following;

That Council:

1. Agrees to commence the process to rezone part Lot 10 DP 1162812, Heathcote Road, Hammondville, to RE2 Private Recreation and B6 Enterprise Corridor as outlined in the confidential attachment, through an amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008; and

2. Receives a further report following the public exhibition process with a recommendation as to proceeding with the rezoning.

The attached draft planning proposal details Council’s intent to reclassify and rezone the land and provides justification for undertaking this process. It is recommended that Council endorse the draft planning proposal and forward the relevant documentation to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking a Gateway determination.

Site Identification

The planning proposal affects part of Lot 10 DP 1162812, Hammondville Park, Hammondville. Lot 10 has an area of 16.58 hectares. It is proposed to rezone 2.9 hectares under this proposal.

The land is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 and is partly occupied by car parking for the adjoining sports fields and the Moorebank Sports Club. The remainder is vacant land.

RE2 Private Recreation

B6 Enterprise Corridor

Subject land

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph and proposed zoning of Lot 10 DP 1161812

Subject land

Figure 2: Current LLEP 2008 Zoning Map of Lot 10 DP 1161812

Objectives

The intent of the planning proposal is to facilitate the potential development of part of the proposed B6 land for roadside convenience use, and the land adjoining the sports club for a potential future recreational or community use. The majority of the land which is proposed to be rezoned will remain in Council ownership and continue to be utilised for car parking to service the adjoining facilities.

Reclassification

It is proposed to reclassify the land from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ in accordance with Division 1 of Chapter 6 of the Local Government Act 1993. ‘Community’ land is generally open to the public, for example, parks, reserves or sports grounds. ‘Operational’ land may be used for other purposes, in this instance to be held by council as a temporary asset.

In accordance with section 29 of the Local Government Act 1993 and section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council must arrange a public hearing to discuss its intent to reclassify the land. The public hearing will be held after the public agency consultation and public exhibition of the planning proposal. The outcomes of each of these processes will be reported to Council at a future meeting.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council endorse the attached planning proposal which seeks to rezone and reclassify part of Lot 10, DP 1161812, known as Hammondville Park, to facilitate potential development outcomes for the land. Once Council has endorsed the proposal, Council officers will forward a copy to the Department of Planning & Environment seeking a Gateway determination.

Following the determination, Council officers will proceed with gathering any additional information required by the Department and proceed with the consultation process. The outcomes of the consultation process will be reported to Council at a future meeting.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Planning Proposal LLEP 2008 Amendment Hammondville Park

227

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 05

Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 Draft Amendment 21 - Notifications relating to Single Dwelling Developments and Section 96 Modifications

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	139823.2015
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council prepared and exhibited draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment No 21). Public exhibition and consultation of the draft control plan was undertaken from Wednesday 22 April 2015 to Thursday 21 May 2015, with no external comments being received.

The draft plan relates specifically to Section 18 Notification of Application of Part 1 of the Liverpool Development Control Plan (DCP) 2008. The proposed amendment was deemed necessary for orderly and efficient use of the DCP.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment No 21), to come into effect on the day of its notification in the local paper.

REPORT

Council at its meeting on Tuesday, 24 March 2015, resolved to publicly exhibit draft Amendment 21 in accordance with Section 74C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to facilitate the changes to Part 1 of the Liverpool DCP 2008 and to receive a further report following the public exhibition period (refer to Attachment 1).

The DCP is seen as a working document where regular reviews and amendments are required to keep the document up to date and concise. Draft Amendment No 21 promotes the orderly and efficient use of the DCP in respect to notification of minor applications.

Amendment 21 will make the following changes:

· The notification process will not apply where minor, aesthetic modifications to existing approvals for Residential Flat Buildings are proposed. This will mean minor alterations will no longer be subject to lengthy delays, and will be treated similarly to new applications, that are of equal or even greater intensity.

· In the instances of applications for single dwellings, the notification process will no longer be required where the application complies with the principal development standards of maximum height and maximum floor space ratio and does not intensify the development.

These changes are designed to reduce delays associated with unnecessary notification for development in appropriate zones.

Public Exhibition

The draft changes to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 proposed under Amendment 21 were publically exhibited from Wednesday 22 April 2015 to Thursday 21 May 2015 in accordance with Section 74C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No comments were received for this public exhibition.

Conclusion

The draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment 21) is designed to reduce delays associated with unnecessary notification for development in appropriate zones. There have been no objections or external comments received for to the proposed changes.

It is therefore recommended that Council adopts draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment No 21), to come into effect at the time of it is notified in the local paper.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Resolution and Report Am 21 to DCP 2008 Notifications relating to single dwelling developments

310

Ordinary Meeting 17 June 2015

Committee Reports

CTTE 04

Local Traffic Committee Minutes of Meeting held on 20 May 2015

Strategic Direction	Accessible Connected City Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network
Key Policy	Traffic and Transport Plan
File Ref	132771.2015
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Toni Averay – Director Planning and Growth

Executive Summary

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 20 May 2015.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 20 May 2015.

2. Adopts the Local Traffic Committee recommendations as noted in the report below.

REPORT

1. The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee held on 20 May 2015 are attached for Council to adopt the recommendations made.

2. The Minutes identify a number of actions that require Council staff to undertake. The financial implication of each of the recommendations is noted at the end of this report.

Summary of the Local Traffic Committee recommendations:

Item 1 Bigge Street and Speed Street, Liverpool – Proposed Traffic Signals (Regulatory Signs and Linemarkings)

That:

1. Council notes the construction of the proposed traffic signals at Bigge/Speed/Pirie Streets intersection, Liverpool.

2. Council approves the signs as indicated on the submitted plan (Attachment 1.1).

Item 2 Monteclair Avenue, Liverpool – Proposed Parking Restrictions

That:

1. Council undertakes signposting changes in the Liverpool Regional Museum car-park to provide approximately 27 unrestricted parking spaces.

2. Council monitors parking conditions in Monteclair Avenue and consults with the local residents for further required parking restrictions, if any.

Item 3 Dalmeny Drive, Prestons – Proposed Traffic Calming Measures

That:

1. Council installs double barrier road line markings along the curved section of Dalmeny Drive, Prestons, as indicated in the submitted sketch plan (Attachment 3.2).

2. Council undertakes consultation with the local residents on the proposed speed humps in the vicinity of 20 to 26 Dalmeny Drive.

Item 4 Dewsbury Serviceway, Liverpool – Proposed Extension to George Street – Regulatory Sign and Linemarking

That:

1. Council undertakes public consultation of the proposed road extension.

2. Council installs signs and line markings as indicated in the submitted sketch plan (Attachment 4.1).

Item 5 Macquarie Street, Liverpool – Special Event Night Markets

That:

1. Council approves the classification of the Liverpool Night Markets as a Class 2 event for the next 12 months period ending May 2016.

2. Council submits Traffic Management and associated Traffic Control Plans to the RMS for endorsement.

3. Council undertakes temporary road closures for the monthly events until May 2016, in accordance with the RMS Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events.

Item 6 Georges Fair, Moorebank - Proposed Bus Route and Bus Stops

That:

1. Council approves the proposed re-routing of the bus route 902 through Georges Fair.

2. Council approves the proposed bus stop locations subject to consultation with the Council staff and the affected local residents.

Item 7 Jedda Road and Lyn Parade, Prestons – Proposed Intersection Treatment

That:

1. That Council undertake design investigation for a roundabout at the intersection of Jedda Road and Lyn Parade, Prestons and the detailed design report be brought back to the Traffic Committee at a future meeting.

Item 8 Norfolk Serviceway, Liverpool – Proposal to Convert to One-Way (Eastbound) and 2P On-Street Parking

1. That Council undertakes community consultation and a report is presented to the Committee at a future meeting.

Item 9 Liverpool City Centre Parking Changes

1. That Council assesses the request for additional parking and submits appropriate applications to the NSW Police Force and RMS for approval under Delegated Authority.

Item 10 Slow Down Bin Sticker Evaluation

1. The Committee considered the review from other Councils and recommended that this initiative is not cost effective and may “not produce” tangible returns in improving road safety.

Budget Impact of Matters Arising from Minutes

Item	Description	Funding Arrangements
1	Bigge Street and Speed Street, Liverpool – Proposed Traffic Signals (Regulatory Signs and Linemarkings)	The regulatory signs are to be funded as part of the RMS grant for the project.
2	Monteclair Avenue, Liverpool – Proposed Parking Restrictions	Will be funded under the Minor Traffic Facilities funding.
3	Dalmeny Drive, Prestons – Proposed Traffic Calming Measures	Will be funded under the Minor Traffic Facilities funding.
4	Dewsbury Serviceway, Liverpool – Proposed Extension to George Street – Regulatory Sign and Linemarking	Will be funded under Council’s Liverpool City Centre traffic management changes.
5	Macquarie Street, Liverpool – Special Event Night Markets	Will be funded under the Liverpool Night Market project.
6	Georges Fair, Moorebank - Proposed Bus Route and Bus Stops	Proposed bus stop signs will be installed by the local bus company.
7	Jedda Road and Lyn Parade, Prestons – Proposed Intersection Treatment	No funding required at this stage.
8	Norfolk Serviceway, Liverpool – Proposal to Convert to One-Way (Eastbound) and 2P On-Street Parking	No funding required at this stage.
9	Liverpool City Centre Parking Changes	No funding required at this stage.
10	Slow Down Bin Sticker Evaluation	No funding required at this stage.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environmental and Sustainability	Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Improved traffic and pedestrian safety.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The recommendation provides opportunity to advocate for the local community. The recommendations are required in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes - Local Traffic Committee Meeting 01 - 20 May 2015 View (Under separate cover)

105
CFO 01	Investment Report May 2015
Attachment 1	Media Release Reserve Bank Of Australia June 2015

105
CFO 02	Investment Report May 2015
Attachment 2	Investment Detail Report May 2015

111
CFO 01	Investment Report May 2015
Attachment 3	Performance Graphs Actual to Budget Ytd May 2015

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	136780.2015
Report By	Sarah Rees - Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

167
DCC 06	Aboriginal Consultative Committee Charter
Attachment 1	Draft Aboriginal Consultative Committee Charter

249
DPC 01	Classification of Lot 300 DP1205231, Moondarra Drive, West Hoxton as 'Operational' Land
Attachment 1	Council Report - 29 October 2014 - Dedication of Lot 6020 DP1143651, Moondarra Drive, West Hoxton to Council

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	115203.2015
Report By	Kevin Smith - Manager Infrastructure Delivery
Approved By	Raj Autar – Director Infrastructure and Environment

261
CTTE 01	Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 11 May 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of the EAC Meeting held on 11 May 2015

277
CTTE 01	Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 11 May 2015
Attachment 4	EAC Report No.10/15

281
CTTE 01	Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 11 May 2015
Attachment 5	EAC Report No. 11/15

287
CTTE 01	Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 11 May 2015
Attachment 6	EAC Report No.12/15

293
CTTE 01	Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of 11 May 2015
Attachment 7	EAC Report No. 13/15

297
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 14 May 2015
Attachment 1	Civic Advisory Committee Minutes from 14 May 2015

307
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 3 June 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of Budget and Finance Committee Meeting 3 June 2015

317
CTTE 05	Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Minutes from Meeting 30 April 2015
Attachment 1	Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Minutes 30 April 2015

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	135520.2015
Report By	Benny Horn - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay – Director Planning and Growth

321
CTTE 06	Meeting Notes of the Street Naming Committee meeting held on 2 June 2015
Attachment 1	Draft meeting notes of Street Naming Committee 2 June 2015