Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Prayer

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 17 June 2015................................................................... 10

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Waiving Fees for Storage for not for profit groups ........................................ 71......... 1

NOM 02 Place Manager Carnes Hill............................................................................. 73......... 2

NOM 03 Advocating changes to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009................................................................................................................ 76......... 3

NOM 04 Publication of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Messages in Foreign Language Media 78 4

NOM 05 Youth Unemployment..................................................................................... 80......... 5

NOM 06 Jobskills Workshops for Baby Boomers......................................................... 82......... 6

NOM 07 Orthodox Interfaith Lunch - Saint Ilija Day 2 August 2015............................. 84......... 7

NOM 08 Roads & Development.................................................................................... 86......... 8

NOM 09 Trooper Lu's Garage Community Open Day................................................. 88......... 9

NOM 10 Sydney P.A.C. Fest 2015............................................................................... 90....... 10

NOM 11 Miracle Babies................................................................................................ 92....... 11

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01 DA-1136/2014 - Torrens title subdivision of one lot into eight lots at 10 Nader Place, Horningsea Park............................................................................................. 94....... 12

IHAP 02 DA-964/2014 - Torrens title subdivision of two lots into 22 residential lots with associated road construction and drainage works. ........................................................ 103....... 13

IHAP 03 DA-1059/2013 - Torrens title subdivision of two existing lots into four lots, alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling on 60 Passefield Street, demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling on 62 Passefield Street; and construction of a new dwelling on proposed 60a and 60b Passefield Street, Liverpool 111 14

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

NIL

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01 Community Performance Report
4th Quarter Jun 2015.................................................................................... 118....... 15

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01 Borrowing to Refinance Existing Loan......................................................... 120....... 16

CFO 02 Report on Progress of Policy Review (Red Tape Reduction) Project......... 122....... 17

CFO 03 Review of Ethical Governance: Conflicts of Interest Policy........................ 129....... 18

CFO 04 Review of Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures.................. 131....... 19

CFO 05 Review of Legal Services Policy.................................................................. 133....... 20

CFO 06 Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy..................................... 144....... 21

CFO 07 Local Government NSW Annual Conference.............................................. 165....... 22

CFO 08 Investment Report June 2015...................................................................... 170....... 23

CFO 09 Reimbursement of Goods & Services Tax (GST) - Councils Class Court Action 179 24

City Presentation Report

NIL

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01 Donations, Grants and Sponsorships........................................................... 183....... 25

DCC 02 Draft Grants and Donations Policy............................................................... 196....... 26

DCC 03 South West Sydney Academy of Sport Review of Contribution Request... 205....... 27

DCC 04 Liverpool Sports Committee Charter............................................................ 213....... 28

Economy and Engagement Report

DEE 01 Report on the Live At The Mall Activation Program..................................... 225....... 29

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01 Liverpool Pioneers' Memorial Park Interpretive Signage Strategy.............. 245....... 30

DIEN 02 Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) Event.............................................................. 251....... 31

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01 Proposed amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Rezoning of land at 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park.......................................... 255....... 32

DPG 02 Proposal to rezone 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets and 165 Macquarie Street from B3 - Commercial Core to B4 - Mixed Use........................................... 266....... 33

DPG 03 Bigge Park Draft Conservation Management Plan...................................... 279....... 34

DPG 04 Proposal to amend Part 2.11 of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 to remove reference to Edmondson Park South (Draft Amendment 18)..................... 287....... 35

DPG 05 Comprehensive Review of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008........ 291....... 36

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held on the 3 June 2015 301 37

CTTE 02 Minutes of the No Intermodal Committee meeting held on 2 June 2015..... 309....... 38

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee meeting held on 2 June 2015 319 39

CTTE 04 Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 3 June 2015... 324....... 40

CTTE 05 Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 3 June 2015 329....... 41

CTTE 06 Minutes of Committee for Liverpool Meeting held 25 May 2015................. 336....... 42

CTTE 07 Minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 1 June 2015..... 343....... 43

CTTE 08 Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council held on 2 June 2015 and Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council held on 7 July 2015............................................................... 349....... 44

CTTE 09 Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 1 July 2015.......... 362....... 45

CTTE 10 Minutes of Planning and Development Committee Meeting held 3 June 2015 367 46

CTTE 11 Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 14 May, 2015 and Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 11 June, 2015..................... 381....... 47

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Stanley................................................................ 395....... 48

QWN 02 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti............................................................... 412....... 49

QWN 03 Question with Notice - Clr Stanley................................................................ 413....... 50

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 Community Representation - Liverpool Council's Economic Development and Events Committee

Reason: Item CONF 01 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 02 Appointment of Community and Industry Representatives to the Environment Advisory Committee (EAC)

Reason: Item CONF 02 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 03 Acquisition of Lot 1104 DP 2475, 75 Fifth Avenue, Austral, for open space purposes

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 Proposed easement for underground electricity cables over Lot 1 and 2 DP 1069920 and Lot 1 DP 239334, Sydney Road, Warwick Farm, known as 'Military Reserve'

Reason: Item CONF 04 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 05 Tender WT2443 - Construction of City Centre Trunk Drainage Works Elizabeth Street between George and College Streets, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 05 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 06 Proposed Easement for Underground Cables over Lots 15 & 16 in DP1129945 known as Light Horse Park in Liverpool, Lot 13 in DP247485 known as Mill Park in Liverpool and Lot 11 in DP881265 known as Helles Park in Moorebank.

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 RCL2452 Trade Services - Steel Fabricataion, Fencing, Glazing

Reason: Item CONF 07 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 08 Tender WT2463 - Lift Renewal Works at 33 Moore Street, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 08 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 09 Tender WT2462 - Mechanical Services Replacement Works at 33 Moore Street, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 09 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 10 Tender RCL2327 - Horticultural Materials and Parks Services

Reason: Item CONF 10 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d ii) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

CONF 11 Tender ST2442 - Acceptance and Disposal of Waste

Reason: Item CONF 11 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 12 Tender WT2448 - Report for the Construction of the Macquarie Mall Revitalisation

Reason: Item CONF 12 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. (To be provided in Confidential Addendum Booklet)

Close

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 17 June 2015

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Mamone

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Councillor Stanley

Councillor Waller

Mr Carl Wulff Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

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 5.02pm.

OPENING 5.02pm

PRAYER The prayer of the Council was read by Minister Anne Hibbard from Liverpool Uniting Church.

APOLOGIES Nil

CONDOLENCES Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Balloot Seconded: Clr Mamone

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 26 May 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 06: Key Sites Master Planning Steering Committee Minutes from Meeting held 2 June 2015

Reason: Clr Hadchiti represents a land owner in the precinct referred to in Item 6/15 (CBD South Master Plan) of the Committee Minutes.

Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers for the duration of this item.

Clr Stanley declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

Mayoral Minute: Hazel Bradshaw Park & Tharawal Park

Reason: Clr Stanley owns property in the are of the parks discussed in the Mayoral Minute.

Clr Stanley left the Chambers for the duration of this item.

Mayor Mannoun declared a non pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:

Item IHAP 02: DA-299/2014 - Torrens title subdivision creating 14 residential lots and associated drainage and roads works

Reason: The applicant is a surveyor and Mayor Mannoun uses his service sparsely

Mayor Mannoun remained in the Chambers for the duration of the item.

Clr Hadid declared a non pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:

Item CONF 11 Contract Dispute - Former Staff Member

Reason: The former staff member referred to in the report is a member of the Liberal Party.

Clr Hadid left the Chambers during this item and was not present for the vote on the matter.

Public Forum

Presentation – Items not on agenda

1. Heather McKenna addressed the Council on the following matter:

Toilet installation at Wattle Grove Lake

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Mamone

That a two minute extension of time be given to Heather McKenna.

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

2. Peter Savidis addressed the Council on the following matter:

Toilet installation at Wattle Grove Lake

Motion: Moved: Clr Harle Seconded: Clr Hadid

That a two minute extension of time be given to Peter Savidis.

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

3. Jennifer French addressed Council on the following matter:

Proposed Moorebank Intermodal

Motion: Moved: Clr Mamone Seconded: Clr Shelton

That a two minute extension of time be given to Jennifer French.

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

4. George Tsakonas addressed Council on the following matter:

Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment No. 38) - Proposed reclassification and / or rezoning of public land in Casula, Chipping Norton, Moorebank, Lurnea, Liverpool, Moorebank, Middleton Grange & Prestons

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Shelton

That a two minute extension of time be given to George Tsakonas.

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

Representation – Items on agenda

1. James Young addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Mamone

That a two minute extension of time be given to James Young.

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

2. Gill Sukhpreet addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

3. Simon Nesbitt on behalf of Bhim Sing Chouhan addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Mamone

That a two minute extension of time be given to Simon Nesbitt.

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

4. Gerrard Turrisi from GAT & Associates addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Waller Seconded: Clr Harle

That a two minute extension of time be given to Gerrard Turrisi.

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

5. Wesley Dose from Woolworths addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

6. Tony Dimasi from MacroPlan Dimasi addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Mamone

That a two minute extension of time be given to Tony Dimasi.

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

7. Michael Cullen from Urbacity (consulting for Urban Growth NSW) addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Hadid

That a two minute extension of time be given to Michael Cullen.

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

Mayor Mannoun left the Chambers and the Deputy Mayor, Clr Balloot took the Chair at 5.59pm.

Mayor Mannoun returned to the Chambers at 6.01pm.

8. Peter Leyshon from Leyshon Consulting addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Hadid

That a two minute extension of time be given to Peter Layshon.

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

9. Donna Savage from Urban Growth NSW addressed Council on the following item:

Item 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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Mamone

That a two minute extension of time be given to Donna Savage.

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

Mayoral Minute

SUBJECT: Lennon Maher

Year 1 student from Wattle Grove, Lennon Maher, has pledged to walk 3.8km home from school once a week for an entire school term to raise money for the ChildFund Australia Dream Bike Appeal.

The six year-old took a practice walk from school to home before making the pledge which took approximately 1 hour and 1 minute. Lennon stated on Just Giving, a charity fundraising website, that there are many kids in other areas that have to walk longer distances.

The ChildFund Australia Dream Bike Appeal is an appeal aimed at donating bicycles to children who live far away from school.

At the end of the 10 week school term, it is estimated that Lennon will have walked 38km.

Lennon is a remarkable young person who has also previously sold his toys online which raised $300 to go towards the Kmart wishing tree.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Commemorate Lennon Maher for his pledge to raise money for the ChildFund Australia Dream Bike Appeal and his methods of raising the funds.

Donate $1000 towards Lennon Maher’s pledge to raise money for the ChildFund Australia Dream Bike 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: Moorebank Intermodal Terminal

On the 3^rd June 2015, the Federal Government’s Moorebank Intermodal Company (MIC) signed an agreement with the Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA) for the development of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.

The agreement will see SIMTA develop and operate the intermodal freight terminal and warehousing across both Commonwealth and SIMTA-owned land at Moorebank, with direct rail access to Port Botany via the Southern Sydney Freight Line. The current parallel MIC and SIMTA proposals will now combine into a single development. The facility is being designed to handle up to 1.5 million containers a year in total, comprised of an import-export terminal to handle up to 1.05 million containers a year plus a separate interstate terminal that will ultimately have capacity for up to 500,000 containers a year. However, in media coverage there has been discussion about ‘2 million’ containers. The proposed warehousing to support the terminal is currently 600,000 m², however there has been discussion about this increasing to 800,000 m², together with suggestions by the MIC CEO that there should be no ‘cap’ on the terminal operations.

The SIMTA EIS together with the MIC response to submissions made on their earlier EIS are currently on exhibition until 26 June 2015. Council encourages members of the community to make submissions on the proposal, and has engaged a consultant to prepare a detailed submission on behalf of Council.

The intermodal terminal proposed for Moorebank will significantly impact the Liverpool area and expose the local members of the community to significant traffic, air quality and noise impacts and potential health risks. The development of the intermodal threatens the quality and life of local residents and impedes the orderly land use planning for Moorebank. This development conflicts with Council’s and the community’s vision for the river as a residential lifestyle precinct taking advantage of all the amenity and recreational opportunities that a riverside location offers. With the relocation of the Defence operations, the site offers tremendous potential for the regeneration of Moorebank as a mixed use precinct.

The proposed intermodal site provides real opportunities for alternative development offering a mix of housing and jobs in line with Council’s vision for Moorebank as an urban renewal area that offers a quality of life, environmental amenity and sustainably planned land uses. Council is currently undertaking master planning of the Georges River precinct north of the M5 to deliver this vision and already one landowner has lodged significant planning proposal to progress the transformation of industrial land into a premium residential environment.

The proposed intermodal puts Council’s vision in jeopardy. Some of the adverse impacts of the intermodal terminal operation will include:

Increased congestion on the local road network,
Increased heavy vehicle movements on local roads - 10,000 extra trucks a day,
Increased pollution from diesel particulates,
Increased noise and visual impacts from the 24 hour operation of the site – 42 freight trains a day, and
Lost opportunity to develop the site sustainably to provide a mix of housing and employment.

Council recognises that Sydney’s growth requires more intermodal facilities and supports the need for a new intermodal, but not in this location. The Badgerys Creek airport presents a real opportunity to rethink this decision and plan for the intermodal next to the new airport in a purpose built site ideally located next to an international airport and transport infrastructure, without the negative impacts on the local community that the Moorebank proposal will represent. These impacts at Moorebank cannot be effectively mitigated.

Council’s continuing campaign against the development of the Moorebank intermodal includes the following current and proposed actions:

Preparation of a formal submission on current exhibition of the SIMTA EIS;
Proposed placement of billboard messages at the M5/Moorebank overpass and the Whitlam Centre on Hume Highway;
A community information and feedback campaign on Liverpool Listens;
A social media campaign on Facebook,
Encouraging residents to make submissions during the current exhibition of the SIMTA EIS;
A proposed mail out to Liverpool households in the most affected areas; and
Media opportunities, including print, radio, and television. (Note half page ads ran in local papers today 17 June 2015).

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Writes to State and Federal representatives and relevant ministers making clear Council’s concerns about the adverse impacts of an intermodal at Moorebank, particularly on the local road network and local residents.

Seeks further opportunities to engage directly with State and Federal Ministers on the proposed intermodal.

Continues to pursue all avenues of communication to publicise Council’s opposition to the intermodal, and to encourage the public to voice their concerns.

Approves the proposed mail-out and placement of billboard messages at an estimated cost of $60,000 to be funded from the approved no intermodal funds in the 2015/16 budget.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That Council:

Writes to State and Federal representatives and relevant ministers making clear Council’s concerns about the adverse impacts of an intermodal at Moorebank, particularly on the local road network and local residents.

Seeks further opportunities to engage directly with State and Federal Ministers on the proposed intermodal.

Continues to pursue all avenues of communication to publicise Council’s opposition to the intermodal, and to encourage the public to voice their concerns.

Approves the proposed mail-out and placement of billboard messages at an estimated cost of $60,000 to be funded from the approved no intermodal funds in the 2015/16 budget.

Notes the significant noise impacts on Glenfield House and other residents of Casula due to the 24/7 operation of the Southern Sydney freight line.

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

Clr Stanley left the Chambers at 6.26pm.

Mayoral Minute

Subject: Hazel Bradshaw Park & Tharawal Park

Council recently identified parcels of community land that may have been considered suitable for potential reclassification and alternative uses. To date, Council has not made any final decisions and is undertaking a consultative approach before a decision is made on the parcels of community land.

Small pocket parks can cost more to maintain and tend to be less well used than larger parks. Other matters which are seen as problematic are issues such as loitering, noise and rubbish.

Over the last two weeks, there has been a strong response from the community in relation to two of the pocket parks identified. The communities surrounding Hazel Bradshaw Park on Deerwood Avenue and Tharawal Park on Anjudy Close, Casula have made it very clear how much they value those spaces and are strongly opposed to any part or full reclassification of those spaces for alternative uses.

On the basis of the input provided by the two communities and the strong message conveyed, I am recommending that Hazel Bradshaw Park and Tharawal Park shall remain as community parks also referred to as pocket parks.

Another clear message that was heard was that previously our residents enjoyed the park equipment that was located at those parks. Council should also make plans for upgrading the parks and installing play equipment in Hazel Bradshaw Park and Tharawal Park.

In addition to the contents of the Mayoral Minute, Council is to examine and report on the feasibility of removing Hannan Park, 12A Brian Avenue Casula and McCarty Park, 124A Wonga Road, Lurnea from the list of parcels of community land currently under consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

Removes Hazel Bradshaw Park, Deerwood Avenue from the list of community land being considered for potential reclassification and alternative uses and remain as a park for the enjoyment of the community.

Removes Tharawal Park, Anjudy Close, Casula from the list of community land being considered for potential reclassification and alternative uses, and remain as a park for the enjoyment of the community.

Makes plans for upgrading and installing park equipment in Hazel Bradshaw Park and Tharawal Park after community consultation.

Consults with the community prior to any future Gateway applications on pocket parks.

Considers multilingual communications when consulting with the community in relation to pocket park reclassifications.

Considers and reports to a briefing session on removing Hannan Park and McCarty Park from the list of parcels of community land currently under consideration.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

Clr Stanley returned to the Chambers at 6.37pm.

MOTION TO BRING ITEM FORWARD

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Waller

That item 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 be brought forward and dealt with now.

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

ITEM NO: CONF 14

FILE NO: 142029.2015

SUBJECT: EOI 2471 - Lease of part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct by a National Sporting Organisation

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the report from staff in relation to EOI 2471 Lease of part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct by a National Sporting Organisation;

2. Pursuant to Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, approves an exemption to the requirement to enter into a tender process with the shortlisted applicant, being Wests Tigers Rugby League Football Pty Ltd, due to extenuating circumstances and unavailability of competitive tenders. Given an Expression of Interest has been publicly advertised with only one submission received and site in question is subject to constraints, a tender process would not provide a satisfactory result;

3. Directs the Chief Executive Officer to commence negotiations with the Wests Tigers Rugby League Football Pty Ltd to enter into a long term lease arrangement for part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct;

4. Directs the Chief Executive Officer to commence a public consultation process pursuant to Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993, in anticipation of a possible lease exceeding 5 years being granted to the shortlisted applicant;

5. 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 Waller

That this item be dealt with in Closed Session at the end of the meeting.

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

ITEM NO: CONF 05

FILE NO: 130992.2015

SUBJECT: Tender ST2450 - Macquarie Mall Upgrade, Procurement of Australian Granite Paving

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Declines to accept any of the tenders submitted for ST2450 Macquarie Mall Upgrade, Procurement of Australian Granite Paving.

2. In accordance with Section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, enters into negotiations with the tenderers for ST2450 and other reputable granite suppliers with the view to entering into a contract for the supply of granite paving.

3. In accordance with Section 178(4) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, note the following reasons for entering into negotiations and not calling fresh tenders:

a) The public tender process has been unable to elicit a satisfactory outcome and it is considered that inviting fresh tenders for the same proposal is unlikely to result in a different outcome;

b) No significant benefit will be achieved by inviting fresh tenders in view of the time and cost involved in such a process with consequent delays and cost implications to the project; and

c) Council’s own enquiries suggest that other feasible options exist, which would enable council to procure the required granite pavers for the timely delivery of the project.

4. Notes that Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and subject to a satisfactory outcome of the negotiation process sign the Letter of Acceptance giving it contractual effect, in accordance with delegated authority.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Waller Seconded: Clr Shelton

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Balloot

That Council move into Closed Session to consider items:

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

· CONF 11 Contract Dispute - Former Staff Member

· CONF 14 EOI 2471 - Lease of part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct by a National Sporting Organisation

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:

· Section10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors);

· Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct);

· 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.

· Section 10(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.

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

Council moved into Closed Session at 8.00pm.

The public and media left the Chambers.

ITEM NO:	CONF 05
FILE NO:	132459.2015
SUBJECT:	Acquisition of Lot 10 DP 1043935, 305 Cowpasture Road, Carnes Hill for open space purposes.
RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Approves the acquisition of Lot 10 DP 1043935, 305 Cowpasture Road, Carnes Hill, on either a vacant possession or a life tenancy basis, as outlined in the confidential report; 2. Upon settlement of the acquisition, classifies Lot 10 DP 1043935, 305 Cowpasture Road, Carnes Hill, as ‘Operational' land; 3. Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the acquisition price pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; and 4. Authorises its delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney necessary to give effect to this decision.
COUNCIL DECISION Motion: Moved: Clr Waller Seconded: Clr Shelton That the recommendation be adopted. On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 8.11pm.

ITEM NO:	CONF 11
FILE NO:	132937.2015
SUBJECT:	Contract Dispute - Former Staff Member
RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receive and note the legal advice provided by Council’s solicitors, as attached to the report of staff. 2. Delegate and direct the Chief Executive Officer to give effect to the recommendations contained within the legal advice.
COUNCIL DECISION Motion: Moved: Clr Stanley Seconded: Clr Harle That the recommendation be adopted. On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 8.15pm

Clr Harle left the Chambers at 8.16pm.

Clr Harle returned to the Chambers at 8.19pm.

ITEM NO:	CONF 14
FILE NO:	142029.2015
SUBJECT:	EOI 2471 - Lease of part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct by a National Sporting Organisation
RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receives and notes the report from staff in relation to EOI 2471 Lease of part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct by a National Sporting Organisation; 2. Pursuant to Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, approves an exemption to the requirement to enter into a tender process with the shortlisted applicant, being Wests Tigers Rugby League Football Pty Ltd, due to extenuating circumstances and unavailability of competitive tenders. Given an Expression of Interest has been publicly advertised with only one submission received and site in question is subject to constraints, a tender process would not provide a satisfactory result; Directs the Chief Executive Officer to commence negotiations with the Wests Tigers Rugby League Football Pty Ltd to enter into a long term lease arrangement for part North Carnes Hill Recreational Precinct; 4. Directs the Chief Executive Officer to commence a public consultation process pursuant to Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993, in anticipation of a possible lease exceeding 5 years being granted to the shortlisted applicant; 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 Shelton That Council defer this report until the next Council meeting and provide Councillors with further information about the processes. Foreshadowed motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Ristevski That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Stanley) was declared LOST. The Foreshadowed motion (moved by Clr Hadchiti) then became the motion and on being put to the meeting was declared CARRIED.

Councillors Karnib, Shelton, Stanley and Waller asked that they be recorded as voting against the motion.

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 8.24pm.

The resolutions relating to CONF 05, CONF 11 and CONF14 were displayed on the monitors for the public and media to view prior to the closure of the meeting.

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.25pm.

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title: Mayor

Date: 29 July 2015

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 17 June 2015. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Notices of Motion

NOM 02

Place Manager Carnes Hill

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Lead partnerships and collaboration with community, business and governments
Key Policy	Workforce Management Plan
File Ref	177411.2015
Author	Anne Stanley - Councillor

Background

With the Carnes Hill Community Centre set to open in 2016, it is time to consider how this community facility will interact with its neighbours and the community. Community facilities truly work when they provide the services and programmes which match the residents who will be using them. A dedicated resource could be provided by Council now to ensure that when the facility is operational it will provide the spaces and programmes to engage the residents so the benefits of the facility will be available as soon as possible.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council:

1. Dedicate a resource to become the Carnes Hill Place Manager.

2. Begin planning the uses of the facility and programmes required by residents by engaging the community and planning programmes.

3. Implement programmes before the opening of the facility.

4. Report to Council at an appropriate time the findings of this pilot programme with a view to implementing LGA wide.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

International research (OECD, 2015 )suggests that infrastructure projects should be developed in co-operation with local stakeholders including local and regional authorities, involve public consultations and be aligned with the strategic needs of specific sectors of the economy. The same principles also apply at micro-level: and in instances such as Carnes Hill, the success of the significant investment by Council is more likely to be assured if necessary preliminary activities relating to raising awareness, identifying local needs through community consultations and aligning aspirations with Council objectives are planned and organised in a systematic manner.

Done well, such processes can lead to local communities being empowered, willing to participate in organisations and projects, connected with Council and working toward shared goals. In effect, infrastructural development acts as the catalyst for building a sense of “place”, linked to a strong sense of local ownership and influence.

Best practice also suggests that, given the multiplicity of relationships involved in planning, delivering and managing major projects, resources need to be invested in the professional management of land relationships by a lead body (i.e. Council) so as to avoid blurring of lines of accountability. In this instance, the fundamental challenge is how Council manages the individual components so as to complement other activities within an multipurpose precinct.

As construction of Carnes Hill Recreation and Community Precinct is well underway and will be operational in 2016, it is timely to begin exploring best practice management models to realise its full potential. The intent of the place management approach is entirely consistent with the guiding principles and content of the Draft Community Facilities Strategy. Research undertaken for the Draft Strategy found that effective programming of libraries and community facilities is particularly pertinent during their start-up phase in activating spaces and encouraging a wider usage by different members of the community. This was supported by evidence from other successful community facilities indicating that programming creates an environment for significantly higher levels of usage and greater awareness of programs and activities offered.

It is recommended that Council officers investigate and report back the outcomes of research on best practice approaches (including international examples) for managing Carnes Hill Recreation and Community Precinct. Carnes Hill offers Council the opportunity to pilot a place management approach which, if successful, could be adopted for future projects across the LGA.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. 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.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01

DA-1136/2014 - Torrens title subdivision of one lot into eight lots at 10 Nader Place, Horningsea Park

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	157157.2015
Report By	George Dojas - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	Lot 1 DP 1093146 10 Nader Place, Horningsea Park
Owner	Mr A Pellizzeri
Applicant	Vesta Homes Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a Development Application DA-1136/2014, proposing a Torrens title subdivision of one lot into eight lots at 10 Nader Place, Horningsea Park. This application was lodged on 18 December 2014.

The application was referred to the 22 June 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 10 metre minimum lot width. The variations to the lot widths are predominately due to the constraints of the subject site, as the proposed lots are located at the end of an existing cul-de-sac and therefore the minimum width of 10 metres cannot be achieved along the front boundary of the subject lots.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the Development Application subject to amended conditions of consent discussed further within this report and included in Attachment 4.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves Development Application DA-1136/2014, subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1136/2014 proposing Torrens title subdivision of one lot into eight lots at 10 Nader Place, Horningsea Park.

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 of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes the minimum lot width for subdivision in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4. A minimum lot width of 10m for each proposed lot applies to the site. The subject site is located at the eastern end of the cul-de-sac (Nader Place) and proposed Lots 10, 15, 16 and 17 result in a technical non-compliance with the minimum lot width requirement of 10 metres stipulated within Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008.

The battle-axe access handle development standard in Clause 7.13 of LLEP 2008 requires a 30 metre wide set of 6 driveways to service lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The proposal includes one access handle to service six (6) lots with a total width of 9.2m.

The Site

The site is identified as 10 Nader Place, Horningsea Park with legal description of Lot 1 DP 1093146. The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment with an area of 3,503sqm.

The subject site includes a single storey brick dwelling house with a tiled pitched roof, and associated impervious areas. The immediate locality is characterised by low density dwelling houses particularly to the north, east, and west of the subject site. The site is adjacent to Camden Valley Way to the south.

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

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

The subject site is located in an established residential area within Horningsea Park which is characterised by low density residential development.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The application seeks consent for the subdivision of one lot into of eight (8) Torrens title lots. Details of the proposed Lots are listed below:

Lot Number	Lot Width	Site Area (excluding access handle)
Lot 10	9.01m	388.4sqm
Lot 11	12m	388sqm
Lot 12	12m	354.6sqm
Lot 13	12m	484.7sqm
Lot 14	12m	451.2sqm
Lot 15	0.62m	417.7sqm
Lot 16	0.37m*	350.3sqm
Lot 17	0.26m*	366sqm

*The measurement listed above for Lots 16 and 17 were calculated in strict accordance with Clause 7.13 of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. However, the true Lot widths are represented by the arcs of each individual Lot, which are 12.82m to Lot 16 and 17.19m to Lot 17.

Consent is also sought for associated works to facilitate the subdivision, including:

· Construction of a 9.2m wide access road way to service the battle-axe allotments.

· Construction of a vehicle cross over for the access road way.

· Construction of onsite detention and stormwater drainage system.

· Landscaping works including tree planting.

Note: The existing dwelling is required to be demolished to facilitate the proposed subdivision. Approval is not sought for demolition of the single storey dwelling located on the subject site. Therefore, demolition is subject to separate development consent prior subdivision works commencing.

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.

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13 of the LLEP.

Proposed Lots 10, 15, 16 and 17 fail to comply with Clause 7.13, which states that the width of any lot, resulting from a subdivision of land, that is not subject of a development application for residential development, must not be less than 10 meters except in the instance where the lot resulting from a subdivision of land is a battle-axe.

Lot 10 includes a minimum width of 9.01m (9.9% variation), Lot 15 includes a minimum width of 0.62m (93.8% variation), Lot 16 includes a minimum width of approximately 0.37m (96.3% variation); and Lot 17 includes a minimum width of 0.26m (97.4% variation).

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 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:

“The frontage is due to the access to a cul-de-sac head which causes irregular shaped frontage. Effective frontage should be judged at the building line. At this point width is over 10 metres.

Each of the lots has a true lot width of over 10 metres at the building line…

The prescriptive standard of a 10 metre width does not effectively relate to lots fronting either an angled road or cul-de-sac head.

The proposed layout is an effect of economic use of the land recognising the size and placement of the cul-de-sac head allowing access to future residential lots.”

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

· The variation is a result of the subject site located at the end of the Nader Place cul-de-sac, and the arcs of each proposed lot (listed previously) result in a technical non-compliance with the required minimum lot width.

· All proposed 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 Residential Zone.

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

In addition, the access handle portion development standard would require a 30 metre wide set of 6 driveways to service lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. This is considered to have negative impacts on the streetscape character both visually and aesthetically. It would result in a loss of on street parking as well as the nature strip along the frontage of the site. Therefore, the proposed 9.2m combined driveway is considered satisfactory in this instance. The proposed shared access handle is not envisaged to have negative visual impacts on the streetscape and is considered satisfactory to service the future dwellings within these lots.

It is noted that proposed Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 require reciprocal rights of way for access from Nader Place. A condition is included in the recommended conditions of consent requiring an easement for rights of way to this effect.

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

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 22 June 2015, IHAP raised the following issues related to the Development Application:

“The Panel have inspected the site and read the Council officer's report. The Panel did not hear representation from the applicant or the owner. There were no objections to this application.

The Panel recommends that a restriction as to user be created on proposed Lot 10 prohibiting vehicular access across the property boundary with Nader Place and requiring vehicular access from the shared driveway adjacent to the eastern boundary.

The Panel recommends that a restriction as to user be created on proposed Lot 15 requiring vehicular access from the shared driveway adjacent to the eastern boundary.

The Panel recommends proposed condition 20 be deleted as the Panel believes it is not necessary.

The Panel agrees with the Council officer's assessment of the proposed variation to the development standard in clause 7.13 of LLEP 2008.”

The Panel recommends that DA-1136/2014 for Torrens title subdivision to create eight lots at Lot 1 DP 1093146 be approved subject to conditions attached to the Council officer’s report, as amended.

The amendments to the conditions of consent as recommended by the Panel are supported and are reflected within the recommended amended conditions of consent attached.

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	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 details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report for DA-1136/2014 View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP recommendation for DA-1136/2014 View (Under separate cover)

4. Recommended Amended Conditions of Consent - DA-1136/2014 View (Under separate cover)

102

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 02

DA-964/2014 - Torrens title subdivision of two lots into 22 residential lots with associated road construction and drainage works.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	161095.2015
Report By	Marcus JenneJohn - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Lina Kakish - Manager Development Assessment

Property

Lot 1 DP 1194117 & Lot 1 DP 883895

2130 & 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park

Owner

Remembrance Drive Pty Ltd

Applicant

Remembrance Drive Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-964/2014, proposing a 22 lot Torrens title subdivision at 2130 & 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park.

The application was lodged on 31 October 2014.

This application was referred to the 22 June 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 10 metre minimum lot width. The development involves the creation of two lots with proposed widths of 4.9 metres at certain portions, representing a variation of 51%.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to conditions of consent as contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (see attachment) and the following changes:

· The frontage to Lots 167 and 168 be widened to the fullest extent possible without reducing the areas of lots 166 and 169 below 450m² ; and

· Proposed condition 4 and 61 be amended by deleting the words 'temporary road' in both conditions and inserting instead 'right of carriage way in favour of Liverpool City Council (to be extinguished upon the land burdened being dedicated as public road).'

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves Development Application DA-964/2014 subject to the amended Recommended Conditions of Consent attached.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-964/2014 proposing a 22 lot Torrens title subdivision at 2130 & 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes the minimum lot width for subdivision in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4. A minimum lot width of 10m for each proposed lot applies to the site. The development involves the creation of two lots with proposed widths of 4.9 metres, representing a variation of 51%.

The Site

The site is identified as Lot 1 in DP 1194117 and Lot 1 in DP 883895 and is located at 2140 and 2130 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park. The site is an irregular shaped allotment located on the southern side of Camden Valley Way. Lot 1 in DP 1194117 was created in DA-1246/2013 which approved a facilitating subdivision to create 3 allotments.

The subject site has an area of 1.34 hectares. The site also has a slope from east to west of approximately 5 metres. The subject site is currently vacant and fronted by Port Hedland Road and Normandy Road.

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

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

The context of the area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development. Work has commenced for a 50 lot low density residential development immediately south of the subject site under approved DA-1404/2013. Directly east of the site is a proposed subdivision. North-east and south-east of the subject site are recently subdivided low density residential allotments. To the north of the site across Camden Valley Way are low density residential allotments containing single and double storey detached dwellings. To the west of the subject site are large rural residential allotments.

DA-467/2015 has been lodged recently and seeks approval for establishment of the remaining four lots (north-west corner) along Port Hedland Road.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development seeks consent for a 22 lot Torrens Title subdivision with associated road construction and drainage works. The proposal was referred to NSW Rural Fire Service as integrated development. General Terms of Approval have been issued by the NSW Rural Fire Service.

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 proposal relates to the variation to the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13 of the LLEP.

Proposed Lots 167 and 168 fail to comply with Clause 7.13, which states that the width of any lot, resulting from a subdivision of land, that is not subject of a development application for residential development, must not be less than 10 metres except in the instance where the lot resulting from a subdivision of land is a battle-axe.

The application is not subject to residential development and does not seek to create a battle-axe lot. Lots 167 and 168 propose a minimum lot width of 4.9m, representing a variation of 51% (see Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Lots 167 and 168

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 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:

(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:

· Front lot boundaries of lots 167 and 168 are constrained by the cul-de-sac and neighbouring lots 166 and 169 designed as per the minimum lot sizing at the site of 450m²

· The width calculated from the frontage to the building lines of lots 167 and 168 exceeds 12m, allowing the proposed dwellings to be designed as per Liverpool DCP 2008 – Controls for residential development in the 17 dwelling/hectare area

· All of the lots will be developed by Allan Homes, the parent company of Remembrance Drive Pty Ltd.

· The proposed dwellings on lots 167 and 168 will be designed and sited to comply with the Liverpool DCP 2008 – Controls for residential development in the 17 dwelling/hectare area.

· This is an integrated design outcome that provides for dwellings, on lot widths under the minimum, but will comply with the DCP housing controls

· The integrated design outcome – housing and subdivision – dictates that strict compliance with the minimum lot width requirement is unnecessary.

· The proposed dwellings can be physically accommodated on an individual Torrens Title lot with each dwelling having separate vehicular and pedestrian access to/from a public road and separate utility servicing arrangements, consistent with the surrounding residential development now underway.

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

· Lots 167 and 168 reach a minimum width of at least 12m at the front building line, thus allowing sufficient lot area to construct a dwelling.

· The cul-de-sac layout is required due to the previous road variation on Lot 2 DP 1063141 immediately north of the subject site (approved under DA-350/2013 – see Figures 5 & 6 below).

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

· Despite the non-compliance, the proposal still satisfies the relevant objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone.

Figure 5: Cul-de-sac/road variation approved north of subject site

Figure 6: DCP road network & cul-de-sac/road variation approved north of subject site

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 22 June 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

“The Panel recommends that DA-964/2014 for Torrens title subdivision to create 22 residential lots and associated works at Lot 1 DP 1194117 and Lot 1 DP 883895, 2130 and 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park be approved subject to the conditions recommended by Council officers as amended by these minutes.”

Specifically, the above recommendation was supported by the following comments:

1. The Panel recommends that the street frontage for proposed Lots 167 & 168 be widened to the fullest extent possible without reducing the areas of Lots 166 & 169 below 450 square metres.

2. The Panel agrees with the Council officer’s assessment of the proposed variation to the development standard in clause 7.13 of LLEP 2008.

The Panel recommends proposed conditions 4 and 61 be amended by deleting the words “temporary road” in both conditions and inserting the words “right of carriageway in favour of Liverpool City Council (to be extinguished upon the land burdened being dedicated as a public road).

The above recommendations made by the Panel are supported. The amended recommended conditions of consent reflecting the recommendations 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. Recommended Amended Conditions of Consent View (Under separate cover)

110

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 03

DA-1059/2013 - Torrens title subdivision of two existing lots into four lots, alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling on 60 Passefield Street, demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling on 62 Passefield Street; and construction of a new dwelling on proposed 60a and 60b Passefield Street, Liverpool

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	162848.2015
Report By	David Smith - Acting Coordinator Development Assessment
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

Lot 8 DP 215640 & Lot 9 DP 215640

60-62 Passefield Street, Liverpool

Owner

Mr R Paudel & Mrs S Patel

Mr B Khatri & Ms D Tamang

Applicant

ACA Design Consultants

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1059/2013, proposing a Torrens title subdivision of two (2) existing residential lots into a total of four (4) lots; alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling on 60 Passefield Street including a first floor addition, and demolition of the existing detached garage; demolition of the existing dwelling over 62 Passefield Street and construction of a new two-storey dwelling; construction of a single storey dwelling on proposed 60a Passefield Street; and construction of a single storey dwelling on proposed 60b Passefield Street, Liverpool.

This application was lodged on 20 September 2013.

This application was referred to the 22 June 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 5 metre minimum width for an access handle. The proposed access handle width per allotment is 2.5m (5 metre shared between both allotments) representing a variation of 50%.

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-1059/2013 by way of Deferred Commencement consent, subject to the recommended conditions of consent attached to the Council officer’s IHAP report.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1059/2013 proposing a Torrens title subdivision of two (2) existing residential lots into a total of four (4) lots; alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling on 60 Passefield Street including a first floor addition, and demolition of the existing detached garage; demolition of the existing dwelling over 62 Passefield Street and construction of a new two-storey dwelling; construction of a single storey dwelling on proposed 60a Passefield Street; and construction of a single storey dwelling on proposed 60b Passefield Street, Liverpool.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008, which prescribes the minimum access handle width for battle axe allotments. A minimum access handle width of 5m is required. The proposed access handle width per allotment is 2.5m (5m shared between both allotments) representing a variation of 50%.

The application was previously referred to the 23 March 2015 IHAP meeting with a recommendation for refusal. The primary reason for this recommendation was that the applicant had not provided satisfactory stormwater drainage plans. The IHAP agreed with the Council officers’ recommendation that the development application should be refused on this basis.

Council officers have since considered the option to enable an updated recommendation for a deferred commencement consent following a review of the most recent stormwater drainage information submitted with the application. It is appropriate that the application now be recommended for approval by way of a deferred commencement, given the proposal generally complies with the Council’s planning controls and; a deferred commencement consent requiring the applicant to prepare a detailed stormwater design and to ensure all architectural plans are consistent before the DA becomes operational, would satisfactorily address all outstanding issues relating to the application.

The Site

The site is identified as 60-62 Passefield Street, Liverpool, with legal description of Lot 8 and 9 DP 215640. The subject site has an area of 809.4m²(60 Passefield Street) and 809.4m² (62 Passefield Street)

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

Subject Site

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

The subject site is located in an established residential area within the suburb of Liverpool (outside of the City Centre), which is characterised by residential development.

Subject Site

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development consists of:

· Demolition of the existing dwelling at No.62 Passefield Street, and demolition of all outbuildings on each lot.

· Torrens title subdivision to create 4 lots, including two battle-axe shaped lots.

· Alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling on 60 Passefield Street, including a first floor addition.

· Construction of a new two-storey dwelling on 62 Passefield Street.

· Construction of a single storey dwelling on each of the battle-axe shaped lots.

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 access handle width for battle axe allotments.

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

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the minimum access handle width required by Clause 7.13 of the LLEP.

The proposed hatchet shaped lots are provided with an access handle with an overall width of 5 metres, which is intended to be for mutual use. This is facilitated via a right of carriageway over each lot, for the length of the access handle, with each lot containing half the area of the access handle. A reciprocal right of way is proposed over each lot to enable the mutual use of the access handle. Accordingly, the minimum width of the hatchet shaped lots is 2.5 metres and presents a variation of 50%.

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 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:

(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:

· The objective of the control is to ensure that lot dimensions are able to accommodate residential development that is suitable for its purpose and is consistent with relevant development controls. The proposed subdivision of No's 60 and 62 Passefield Street, Liverpool complies with the minimum lot size requirements and average lot width requirements. Each lot is large enough to accommodate a future dwelling, vehicular access and private open space. The proposal complies with all other relevant controls of the LLEP.

· The combined 5 metre width provides appropriate vehicular access to both battle-axe allotments and therefore satisfies the objective of the control.

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

· The variation relates only to the width of the access handle and not the developable land area. The developable portion of the lots exceeds Council’s minimum lot size and lot width requirements as expressed in the LLEP. In this regard, suitable residential development will not be prevented from occurring despite the variation.

· There is not one, but two hatchet shaped lots being proposed. If only one hatchet shaped lot were proposed, it would be essential that the access handle be compliant with the minimum lot width in order to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site. The provision of a shared access handle does not inhibit the capacity for vehicles to enter and exit the site.

· As the two hatchet shaped lots are proposed as adjacent to each other, the development is still capable of achieving:

o The overall minimum required access width of 5 metres necessary for a vehicular driveway 3 metre wide with 1 metre of landscaping on either side.

o A shared access that will be formalised via a registered reciprocal vehicular right of way.

o Minimal traffic impacts to Passefield Street by reducing the number of crossings.

o Minimal impact on the number of kerb-side parking on Passefield Street

· The development as proposed achieves the intent of the control, which is to provide for a 3 metre wide driveway that is sufficient for vehicle movements in and out of the site; and to provide significant separation or buffer to the residences adjoining the access handle via the provision of a 1 metre wide landscaped strip on either side.

· A shared access handle serving two lots is acceptable and consistent with the character of the locality and the objectives of the zoning.

In consideration of these factors, it would be unreasonable to require that each hatchet shaped lot achieve the minimum 5 metres lot width for the access handle as it would result in negligible environmental benefit. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard in this case.

In addition to the matters raised above, it is important to note that Council resolved at its meeting dated 24 September 2014 to ‘adopt Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment No. 32) and forward a copy of the attached planning proposal and supporting documentation to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation’ after the proposal was publicly exhibited from 30 April to 4 June 2014. The amendment would specifically enable reciprocal rights of way each being 2.5m wide, to be provided, as proposed within this application.

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

The proposed deferred commencement consent conditions are required to be satisfied prior to the consent becoming operational. Condition 1 requires a detailed OSD and stormwater design to be submitted and approved by Council. Condition 2 requires all architectural plans to be updated showing the amended subdivision layout on all plans. Condition 3 requires a landscape plan to be prepared in accordance with Council’s requirements. Once these conditions have been satisfied, the Council can issue an operative consent.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 22 June 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that DA-1059/2013 for consolidation of two existing lots and creation of four lots at Lots 8 & 9 DP 215640, 60-62 Passefield Street, Liverpool be approved subject to conditions recommended by Council officers.

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. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Recommendation View (Under separate cover)

117

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01

Community Performance Report
4th Quarter Jun 2015

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	153719.2015
Report By	Miles Carter - Project Officer - Strategy and Performance
Approved By	Carole Todd - Director Business Improvement

Executive Summary

The quarterly Community Performance Report provides an overview of Council’s performance for the April to June period against the 4-year Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Budget 2014-15. It demonstrates operational achievements and provides information and statistics for key areas of Council’s operations during the quarter.

It is Council’s final Quarterly Report for the 2014-15 Operational Plan.

Council committed to delivering 137 ongoing activities, 75 short term actions and 16 strategic projects for the 2014-15 year. By the end of the June quarter, 96% of short term actions in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan were completed. Of the 4% of actions experiencing delays, 1% required attention and 3% were on hold.

Explanations for all delayed or on hold actions have been provided in the report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the June Community Performance Report which outlines the progress of all principal activities contained in the 4-year Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2014-15.

REPORT

On 26 June 2013, Council adopted the Growing Liverpool 2023 Community Strategic Plan.

Growing Liverpool 2023 outlines the community’s vision and priorities for the Liverpool area and contains seven directions and corresponding strategies for Liverpool. It was developed following an extensive community consultation and engagement process. The Plan sets the direction for Council's operations and services for the next ten years.

Section 404(5) of the Local Government Act (1993) requires the Chief Executive Officer to ensure that regular progress reports are provided to the Council at least every six months with respect to the principal activities detailed in its four year Delivery Program. This is an important mechanism that enables Council and the public to monitor progress.

The 4-year Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2014-15 is Council’s commitment to the community. It details the principal activities that Council will deliver towards achieving the community vision and directions outlined in Growing Liverpool 2023. Each principal activity has several actions for the 2014-15 year, these actions make up Council’s annual Operational Plan.

June 2015 Performance Report

Council determined to deliver 27 principal activities as part of its 4-year Delivery Program, with 212 specific actions for the 2014-15 year. Of this 137 were ongoing activities and 75 were short term actions.

The June 2015 Community Performance Report contains information on the progress of all principal activities, it showcases highlights during this period, provides a progress update for all of Council’s strategic projects and includes statistics on several areas of Council’s operations. It is attached under separate cover.

By the end of the June quarter, 96% of short term actions in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan were completed. Of the 4% of actions experiencing delays, 1% required attention and 3% were on hold. Explanations for all delayed or on hold actions have been provided in the report.

It is recommended that Council receives and notes the June 2015 Community Performance Report.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Ensures Council operates effectively and demonstrates accountability and transparency in its business operations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Community Performance Report June 2015 - To be provided under separate cover prior to the July Council meeting

121

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 02

Report on Progress of Policy Review (Red Tape Reduction) Project

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Good Governance
File Ref	141105.2015
Report By	David Maguire - Governance Coordinator
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

On 29 October 2014, Council resolved to review Council policies to reduce red tape.

Following an initial review of Council-adopted policies at its meeting on 16 December 2014, Council resolved that Council policies be reviewed within 12 months in accordance with a timetable attached to that Council report.

The attachment to this report provides Council with an update as to the progress of the Red Tape Reduction Project.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note this report.

REPORT

On 29 October 2014, Council passed a resolution directing Council staff to commence a review of Council policies so as to reduce red tape and deliver greater efficiency.

Following an initial review of Council-adopted policies at its meeting on 16 December 2014, Council resolved that Council adopted-policies be reviewed within 12 months in accordance with a timetable attached to that Council report. (For the sake of this report, the word “policy’ also refers to codes and charters.)

Council directors and managers who are “policy owners” have been contacted regularly since last December by the Governance Coordinator to ensure that the timetable for the review, as determined by Council, is met.

The attachment to this report sets out the current position in relation to progress of the review of Council-adopted policies. It should be noted that the creation of a new business unit, the appointment of two new managers and some complex issues relating to drafting enforcement policies have delayed progress with the review of a number of Planning and Growth policies. It is anticipated, however, that these policies and all other outstanding policies for which other departments are responsible will be reviewed by Council by the end of this year.

Since 29 October 2014, 32 policies have been reviewed by Council, six new policies have been adopted by Council and nine policies have been revoked by Council. (There are currently 44 Council-adopted policies and 20 Council charters.)

As well as the review of Council-adopted policies, all Council internal (operational) policies and procedures have been or are being reviewed by Council business unit “policy owners”. There are currently 60 Council internal policies and 28 Council procedures (excluding WHS and Children’s Services Procedures) listed in Council’s Policy and Procedure Register. As of the date of this report, five internal policies and eight procedures have been revoked by the CEO, under his delegated authority, since 29 October 2014.

Substantial progress has been made in ensuring that Council policies and procedures are produced with similar formatting and, where possible, procedures and forms are attached to policies. The use of technical words, jargon, Latin abbreviations and words no longer used in everyday speech is being discouraged in the drafting of policy documents in favour of the use of plain language so that policies are clearly understood by their readers and not just by their authors.

A final report on the progress of the review will be prepared for the Council meeting to be held on 16 December 2015.

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	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. 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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council-Adopted Policies for Review (Red Tape Policy Review Project) in 2015 View

143

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 06

Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Provide business excellence and financial sustainability to deliver services that meet community expectations
Key Policy	Good Governance
File Ref	149130.2015
Report By	David Maguire - Governance Coordinator
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

Section 252(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires that Council adopt or amend a policy annually for the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to the Mayor

and Councillors. The Mayor and Councillors are entitled to be paid fees, to receive reimbursements for expenses and to be provided with facilities in accordance with such a policy. Council’s current policy is known as the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy.

On 26 May 2015, Council adopted the attached policy in principle, subject to public exhibition, as required under section 253(1) of the Act. The two main changes made to the policy are the amounts set out in the statement of remuneration for the Mayor and Councillors (in the table to clause 4.1.2) and the insertion of a new clause 4.17, providing for the voluntary contribution from fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors to complying superannuation funds.

In accordance with section 253(1) of the Act, the attached policy was publicly exhibited. As at the date of the drafting of this report, no public submissions have been received. If any public submissions are received after this date, they will be the subject of a supplementary report to Council.

It is noted that clause 4.5.1(d) has required clarification so that the postal allowances mentioned are per Councillor and not for all Councillors, reflecting the intention of previous resolutions of Council relating to this policy. This does not require public exhibition.

It is recommended that Council note this report, adopt the policy attached to this report, and provide a copy of the policy and the related public notice to the Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government within 28 days of the date of this Council resolution.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note this report;

2. Adopt the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy, as attached to this report; and

3. Provide a copy of the attached policy and the related public notice to the Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government within 28 days of the date of this Council resolution.

REPORT

Section 252(1) of the Act requires that Council adopt or amend a policy annually for the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to the Mayor and Councillors.

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal (the LGRT), an independent tribunal, makes an annual determination of fees paid to mayors and councillors throughout NSW, based on the size of particular councils. This year’s determination was handed down on 13 April 2015, recommending an increase in fees of 2.5% for the 2015/2016 financial year. The fee range determined for the category in which Liverpool is placed (Metropolitan Centre), has the following minimum and maximum range as determined by the Tribunal on 13 April 2015:

Councillor		Mayor*
Minimum Annual Fee	Maximum Annual Fee	Minimum Annual Fee	Maximum Annual Fee
$12,520	$23,370	$26,600	$62,090
* NOTE: This fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the Mayor and Councillors as per section 249(2) of the Act.

Clause 4.1.3 of Council’s current policy states:

As a policy objective, the annual fee paid for Councillors and the Mayor will be equivalent to the maximum fee as recommended by the Tribunal. This objective recognises that Liverpool is a rapidly growing Council, requiring enormous effort in managing this growth while simultaneously ensuring that the existing population is supported and well served.

Therefore, it is recommended that the fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors be consistent with the maximum for the Metropolitan Centre category, determined by the LGRT on 13 April 2015 and set out in clause 4.1.2 of the attached policy. The new fees will be payable monthly in arrears from 1 July 2015.

Apart from the changes to the fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors, the other main change to the previous policy, approved by Council on 24 June 2014, is the insertion of a new clause 4.17, providing for the voluntary contribution from fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors to complying superannuation funds.

In addition to the main changes referenced above, a minor amendment has been made to Clause 4.5.1(d) to clarify that postal allowances are per Councillor (and not a total sum for all Councillors). This minor amendment clearly reflects the Council resolution of CORS 08 of the Council meeting 19 December 2011. There is no requirement to publicly exhibit this minor amendment.

In accordance with section 253(4) of the Act, a copy of the policy must be forwarded to the Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government within 28 days of its adoption.

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	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. Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy Adopted in Principle by Council 26 May 2015 View

164

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 07

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	164583.2015
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

A report was submitted to the 17 June 2015 Council meeting in relation to the Local Government NSW Annual Conference which will be held at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse, Rosehill from Sunday 11 October to Tuesday 13 October 2015.

This report addresses the proposed motions to be submitted to the Conference and the number of voting delegates which Liverpool Council will be entitled to.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse the key issues to be submitted for consideration at the Local Government NSW Annual Conference 2015.

2. Notes that further information will be provided to Councillors in relation to number of voting delegates that Liverpool will be entitled to when it comes to hand.

REPORT

At the 17 June 2015 Council meeting, Council resolved that:

1. Any Councillors who wish to attend the 2015 Local Government NSW Annual Conference notify the Councillor Support Officer.

2. Staff prepare a report to the July 2015 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.

The Mayor and all Councillors (except Councillor Waller) will be attending the Conference.

In accordance with point 2 of the June 2015 Council resolution, this report addresses the proposed motions to be submitted to the Conference.

The Board of Local Government NSW have resolved that motions will be included in the Business Paper for the Conference where they:

1. Are consistent with the objects of the Association (Rule 4 of the Association’s rules);

2. Relate to Local Government in NSW and/or across Australia;

3. Concern or are likely to concern Local Government as a sector;

4. Seek to advance the Local Government policy agenda of the Association and/or improve governance of the Association;

5. Have a lawful purpose (a motion does not have a lawful purpose if its implementation would require or encourage non-compliance with prevailing laws);

6. Are clearly worded and unambiguous in nature; and

7. Do not express preference for one or several members over one or several other members.

Motions are to be submitted to the Association by 24 August 2015.

It is recommended that Council submit the following issues to be considered for inclusion in the Conference Business Paper:

1. Licensing Brothels in NSW (considered by Council at its meeting in October 2014)

Motion

Call upon the NSW government to urgently proceed with the proposed licensing laws for sex industry premises including brothels that should empower police and the local Council to oversee the brothel industry in their local area and apply for suspension or cancellation of brothel licenses if they are shown to operate illegally or not in the public interest.

2. Train service from Liverpool to Sydney CBD (considered by Council at its meeting in November 2014)

Details of issue

Sydney is fast becoming a polycentric city, that is, one with multiple CBDs with high value jobs available close to high-density quality housing, public transport and health services. This means we need to start thinking about immediate measures we can take to ensure our population growth continues to be sustainable within this model of growth, and that Liverpool and greater South West Sydney continues to be an attractive place to live.

It’s time to start planning infrastructure that will facilitate our rapidly growing population. The welcome announcements from the Federal and New South Wales State Governments that they will be spending around $3billion on upgrades to road and rail associated with the second international airport at Badgerys Creek are placing us on the right track to a sustainable future.

Part of this burgeoning polycentric model of Sydney, is express public transit services which link the CBDs of Sydney. As yet, Liverpool is not linked with such a service.

Motion

Call upon the NSW Government to plan for an express train service from Liverpool to Sydney CBD.

Notes the significant capital investment in the Sydney Trains network that is currently underway, and the planned upgrades that are connected to the proposing leasing of the poles and wires in NSW.

Notes that when the line to Liverpool was electrified a train from Liverpool to Central Station would take 45 minutes, and now most trains from Liverpool to Central Station take more than 50 minutes.

Notes that with the opening of the South West Rail Link, that more services will be arriving in Liverpool CBD for residents hoping to be connected to employment options by public transport. Liverpool’s regional city status and rapid growth require efficient public transport in order to support employment and economic development in the region.

3. Moorebank Intermodal Terminal (considered by Council at its meeting in June 2015)

Details of issue

On 3 June 2015, the Federal Government’s Moorebank Intermodal Company signed an agreement with the Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance for the development of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.

It’s recognised that Sydney’s growth requires more intermodal facilities and Councils support the need for a new intermodal, but not at this location. The Badgerys Creek airport presents a real opportunity to rethink this decision and plan for the intermodal next to the new airport in a purpose built site ideally located next to an international airport and transport infrastructure, without the negative impacts on the local community that the Moorebank proposal will represent.

Motion

Express concerns to the State Government about the adverse impacts of an intermodal at Moorebank, particularly on the local road network and local residents.

Seek further opportunities to engage directly with State and Federal Ministers on the proposed intermodal.

Propose that the new intermodal be located next to the Badgerys Creek airport site.

4. Affordable Housing (recommended by Executive Team)

Details of issue

While the complex policy factors that influence housing cost are mainly controlled by

national and state governments, the social and environmental impacts of poor housing affordability are felt largely at the local level.

Local Government does not have the resources to make a direct financial contribution to affordable housing. Rather, Council’s seek to facilitate the increased supply of affordable housing using the planning tools at hand; yet existing planning policy does not enable local government the means to ensure adequate levels of affordable housing to meet the demands of the community. In recent years NSW has seen strong increases in supply, however this has had little effect on housing affordability. Increasing supply will only make a difference if it is specifically targeted to the lower end of both the home ownership and rental markets.

Motion

Liverpool City Council calls upon the NSW Government to better equip and support Councils facilitate greater affordable housing provision at a local level by:

• Setting aspirational targets in the Metropolitan Strategy of at least 15 per cent of the additional dwellings in the Sydney region as a whole provided as affordable housing; and

• Working in partnership with local Councils and other key stakeholders including financial institutions to identify models of best practice and related systems of finance to increase the supply of affordable housing.

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.

At the time of preparing this report, no advice had been received from the Association on the number of voting delegates that Liverpool is entitled to. Once information on this matter has been received from the Association, it will be provided to Councillors.

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

Nil

169

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 08

Investment Report June 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	167690.2015
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 30th June 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $151.6 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.86 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.60 per cent by 126 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 30th June 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $151.6 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 June 2015, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

Asset Class	JUNE -15	Jun-14
Senior Debts (FRN’s & *TCD’s)	100.49 %	101.48%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	66.01 %	60.14%
Total	97.35%	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)	31,810,612	20.98%	100%
Cash & Cash at Call	10,777,061	7.11%	100%
Term Deposits < 1 Year	44,000,000	29.03%	100%
Term Deposits 1 to < 3 years	33,000,000	21.77%	60%
Term deposits 3 to < 5 Years	32,000,000	21.11%	25%
Total Portfolio Holdings	151,587,673	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	Sum of Market Value	% Holding	Institutional Policy Limit	Credit Rating Category Policy Limit
Fitch A	Emerald Reverse Mortgage	278,055	0.18%	25%	60%
Fitch BBB+	Heritage Bank	3,013,350	1.99%	15%	50%
Moodys P-1	Rabo Bank	9,000,000	5.94%	35%	100%
S&P A	Bank of China	1,012,680	0.67%	25%	60%
	Emerald Reverse Mortgage	523,650	0.35%	25%	60%
S&P A-	Bank of Queensland	2,007,900	1.32%	25%	60%
	Bendigo Adelaide Bank	3,022,030	1.99%	25%	60%
S&P A+	Suncorp Metway	2,011,660	1.33%	25%	60%
S&P A1	AMP	1,470,014	0.97%	35%	100%
S&P A1+	Commonwealth Bank	9,307,047	6.14%	45%	100%
	National Australia Bank	33,000,000	21.77%	45%	100%
S&P A2	Bank of Queensland	27,000,000	17.81%	25%	60%
	ME Bank	3,000,000	1.98%	25%	60%
	Police Credit Union	2,000,000	1.32%	25%	60%
	My State Bank	2,000,000	1.32%	25%	60%
	Police & Nurses Bank	11,000,000	7.26%	25%	60%
S&P AA-	Westpac	4,000,000	2.64%	35%	100%
	ANZ	703,829	0.46%	35%	100%
	National Australia Bank	8,000,000	5.28%	35%	100%
	St George	2,000,000	1.32%	35%	100%
S&P AAA	Emerald Reverse Mortgage	1,162,078	0.77%	45%	100%
S&P BBB+	Credit Union Australia	4,007,620	2.64%	15%	50%
	ME Bank	1,015,040	0.67%	15%	50%
	Newcastle Permanent Building Society	10,044,400	6.63%	15%	50%
	Police Credit Union	1,003,180	0.66%	15%	50%
	Teachers Mutual Bank	2,005,140	1.32%	15%	50%
Unrated UR	Banana Coast Credit Union	4,000,000	2.64%	5%	25%
	Bank of Sydney	3,000,000	1.98%	5%	25%
	SGE Mutual	1,000,000	0.66%	5%	25%
Grand Total		151,587,673	100.00%

Portfolio Performance

Council’s investment portfolio yield for the 12 months ended 30 June 2015 was 3.86 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.60 per cent by 126 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 126 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.86% against 2.60%).
Annual Income vs. Budget		Council’s investment interest income is $57k above the revised year to date budget. This result is made up of $29k for the General Fund and $28k 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 July 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 7 July 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 $57k above the revised year to date budget. This result is made up of $29k for the General Fund and $28k 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. Investment Portfolio Details June 2015 View

2. Performance Graphs Actual to Budget June 2015 View

3. RBA Cash Rate Media Release July 2015 View

178

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 09

Reimbursement of Goods & Services Tax (GST) - Councils Class Court Action

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	175013.2015
Report By	Vishwa Nadan - Manager Financial Management
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

In 2011, the Federal Court ordered that Councils form part of the State Government for GST purposes, and as a result, subject to special concessions enjoyed by the Federal and State Governments. Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants is coordinating a class Court Action to seek reimbursement of GST paid by Council’s on sale of assets, for at least the last 6 years. Genesis is expecting in excess of 100 Councils will participate in this action. If successful, there is potential for significant revenue gains.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Direct and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to engage Council in a Court Action seeking declaration that Councils form part of the State Government for GST purposes;

2. Note that Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants will act as agents of Liverpool City Council for the duration of the Court Action.

3. Note that there will be no additional cost to Council, except when successful, Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants will take 25% of the total GST reimbursement as their fees;

4. Direct and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an agreement with Genesis Accounting – Chartered Accountants to represent Council in this Court Action.

REPORT

Under A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, the Commonwealth and State Governments enjoy certain special concessions, which include GST exemption on sale of real estate properties and other assets.

In a Federal Court ruling (Melton Shire Council vs Commissioner of Taxation, 2011), it was determined that Councils are part of the State Government for GST purposes in the case of Melton Shire, the State being Victoria) and therefore should enjoy concessions as the State itself. The Australian Tax Office has accepted this ruling.

Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants, a tax specialist firm, is relying on the Melton Shire Council ruling in coordinating a class action to seek refund of GST paid by Council’s on all sales of assets, for at least the last 6 years. More than 40 Council’s across Australia have signed up to be part of the action. See letter of introduction attached as Attachment 1. Genesis is anticipating that in the order of 100 Councils will eventually join in the action.

The general terms of the arrangement are that Genesis is appointed as Council’s tax agent and they represent Council in all dealings with the ATO for the duration of the action. Genesis will meet all costs associated with the claim, which may include employment of barristers to prepare and argue the case. Council will not have to provide any funds towards the case. If successful, Genesis will take 25% of the total GST refund due to the Council.

Council may however have exposure to third party claims. This may apply in situations where a purchaser is registered for GST, has received a GST credit, and is asked to pay back when ATO reverses the credit to pay Council. In these cases, the Council would need to pass all such benefits to the purchaser. Genesis has indicated that it will adjust its fees for all such transactions.

Staff resources have not been allocated to attempt to estimate the potential income that may be achieved if the case is successful because any reasonable estimate would take significant time to calculate.

Council’s internal legal team has been consulted on this matter and they support the Council participating in the Court Action.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no cost implications for the Council. If successful, there is potential for significant income for the Council.
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. Letter of Introduction - Genesis Accounting

182

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 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	089694.2015
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 the 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 $15,000 (GST exclusive) under the Community Donations Program as summarised in the table below:

Community Grants Program

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Australian Foundation for Disability	Cultural Music and Dance Therapy Workshops for People with a Disabilities	$4,000
Gurkha Nepalese Community (GNC) Inc.	Gurkha Nepalese Community 17th Soccer Competition	$5,000
Think & DO Tank Foundation Ltd.	A Gathering Place	$5,000
Youth Donations Program
Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Hani Gamildien	Intercultural Study Tour	$500
Hasibe Aysenur Odemis	Intercultural Study Tour	$500

2. Endorses the Financial Contributions Panel’s recommendations for the provision of $19,600 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below:

Applicant name	Amount
Shining Star Events P/L	$3,000
South West Metro Aboriginal Football Club	$100
Thomas Hassall Anglican college	$2,500
World Fusion of Cultures Inc.	$1,000
Australian Turf Club	$5,000
Pacific World International	$5,000
Fiji Australia Sports Association	$3,000

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 are no Sporting Donations for July 2015.

Community Donations

Council's Community Grants Program is available to community groups who provide programs or services to the residents of Liverpool. Five applications for community donations 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.

Applicant Details	Project Name and Description	Amount Requested	FCP Recommendation
Australian Foundation for Disability	Cultural Music and Dance Therapy Workshops for People with a Disabilities: To provide culturally appropriate music and dance workshops to aged care clients with high support needs including physical and/or mental disabilities who attend the Chipping Norton Community Day Program. Community Benefits: · Enhanced social and cultural cohesions among the attendees of these therapeutic workshops; · Improved health and wellbeing of clients attending; and · Reduced social isolation to those who are disengaged in structured activities.	$4,000	$4,000
Gurkha Nepalese Community (GNC) Inc.	Gurkha Nepalese Community 17^th Soccer Competition: To provide an opportunity for local Nepalese young people to participate in community organised sports, namely soccer which promotes social harmony and cohesion among the Nepalese community. Community Benefits: · Fosters community participation through sporting activities that are culturally and linguistically appropriate to Nepalese community members; and · Enhanced social cohesion and understanding of the Nepalese cultures and traditions.	$5,000	$5,000
Think & DO Tank Foundation Ltd.	A Gathering Place: To design and build a moveable, community hub, meeting place and a mobile kitchen co-designed to share culture and learn/teach traditional skills, managed by local Aboriginal women, for the Aboriginal and broader community in the 2168 and 2170 areas. Community Benefits: · Strengthens individual and collective capacity building; · Facilitates interconnectedness and the exchange of knowledge; and · Encourages participation and local leadership.	$5,000	$5,000
Youth Donations Program
Applicant Details	Project Name and Description	Amount Requested	FCP Recommendation
Hani Gamildien	Intercultural Study Tour	$500	$500
Hasibe Aysenur Odemis	Intercultural Study Tour	$500	$500

Corporate Sponsorship

Council delivers a Corporate Sponsorship Program for local organisations seeking financial support to deliver events that benefit Liverpool. Seven applications for corporate sponsorship were received by Council. Seven 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 request received and the FCP recommendation are shown in the table below.

Applicant Details	Project Name and Description	Amount Requested	FCP Recommend-ation
Shining Star Events P/L	Eid Festival in the park, Woodward Park, 31 July, 1and 2 August 2015 Community Eid Festival consisting of rides, stalls and entertainment. Car park entry fee of $5. Donation of $3,000 will be made to the Lions Club and 10% of profits to a number of local community organisations. Attendances of 15,000 -20,000 people over the 3 days. Benefits Logo inclusion on event signage, advertising and on media releases. Opportunity to speak at the event. Last year’s event attracted strong crowds. Aligns with program criteria. Recommended for funding in line with previous support.	$30,000	$3,000
South West Metro Aboriginal Football Club	Football Rugby league Aboriginal Knock Out Carnival – Dubbo, Oct 3-5, 2015 The South West Metro Waratahs Aboriginal football club is a not-for profit football club competing in the Annual Aboriginal Rugby league Knockout Carnival held over the long weekend in Dubbo. Funds will be used to assist in the purchase of sporting equipment for the team. Benefits Diamond Package - $10,000 Company logo on front of team jersey and training shirt, game shirt, players’ bas, team jacket, signed framed jersey accommodation for 2 to attend the tournament and company banner at the event. Gold package - $5,000 Company logo on back of team jersey and training shirt, game shirt and team jacket and framed display jersey. Silver package - $2,500 Company logo on sleeve of team jersey, training shirt and framed display jersey Bronze package - $1,500 Company logo on team playing shorts and training shirt. Framed display shorts. Basic Sponsorship - $100-$1,250 Team polo shirt and a letter of appreciation. Whilst the event will not be held in Liverpool the South West Metro Waratahs provides important sporting opportunities for Aboriginal football players in the region, having previously produced players that have gained contracts with NRL clubs. Recommended for funding at the basic sponsorship level.	Packages range from $100 - $10,000	$100
Thomas Hassall Anglican college	Thomas Hassall South West Festival – Middleton Grange, August 22, 2015 Annual school festival and community event comprising of stalls, rides, entertainment and a motor show. Free event. Anticipated attendances 5,000 visitors. Benefits Platinum - $5,000 Gold - $2,500 Silver - $1,000 Logo inclusion on event signage, advertising and on media releases. Opportunity to speak at the event and present motor show trophies. Opportunity to have a stall at the event. The event aligns with program criteria. Recommended for funding in line with previous support.	Packages range from $1,000 - $5,000	$2,500
World Fusion of Cultures Inc.	Fusion Fest – Northumberland Street Car Park, Liverpool 24 October 2015 New event aimed at celebrating the multicultural contribution of various communities across the area. The event will include entertainment and stalls which aim to showcase the diversity of Liverpool. Plans are for it to become an annual event. Not for profit. Free entry. Anticipated attendance 500 at any one time. Benefits Logo inclusion on event signage, advertising and on media releases. Opportunity to speak at the event. Aligns with program criteria of activating the city centre and provides an opportunity to showcase Liverpool’s diversity. Recommended for funding in line with similar support provided to new events.	$10,000	$1,000
Australian Turf Club	Three year partnership race sponsorship proposal – Chipping Norton Stakes Day – Warwick Farm Naming rights to the Group 1 Liverpool City Council Chipping Norton Stakes over a 3 year partnership. Branding associated with the race day includes: Benefits Signage at winning posts, race book adverts, branded grass, branded parade ring signs, on screen advertising across the day, branded trophy table, sash, saddle cloths and strapper bibs. Additional benefits include: 1,000 general admission tickets to distribute, promotions through local media, naming rights and branding to 12 midweek races at Warwick Farm, 6 ATC membership passes, logo website presence, messaging in EDMs, competition of local businesses in line with small business week where a business owner wins a free race sponsorship, school holiday race day for kids on a selected Wednesday, seniors race day on a selected race day, 10 Directors Room invitations including three course luncheon and beverages, one table of 8 in the Grandview Dining room at Royal Randwick on Melbourne cup day. Invitations to the ATC Directors functions on selected days. Moderate alignment with program criteria with the event not being focused on activating the city centre. With the recent announcement of Inglis moving their operations to Warwick Farm it is recommended that a stronger synergy for Council would be to work with the ATC to leverage the economic benefits associated with the promotion of the new operation. Recommended for funding in line with large scale festivals and events.	$75,000 over 3 years	$5,000
Pacific World International	Pacific World 7’s – Hillier Oval 19-20 September 2015 State based 7’s rugby competition which also includes teams from Pacific Island nations. Eight male and 8 female teams will be participating. Previously run at Parramatta Stadium with over 3,000 spectators and moving to Liverpool for the first time. Free event. Benefits Logo inclusion on event signage, advertising and on media releases. Opportunity to speak at the event. Aligns with program criteria of a healthy active city and brings a new event with a track record and strong attendances to the region. Recommended for funding in line with events of similar scale.	$5,000	$5,000
Fiji Australia Sports Association	International Veterans Soccer Tournament, Marconi Oval, 3-5 October, 2015 International Veterans Soccer Tournament to be held at Marconi Oval. The competition includes 24 teams from Sydney, Brisbane, Fiji and New Zealand. Teams will be staying in hotels in the local area. Not for profit event. Benefits Official opening opportunity at Marconi Oval, presentation at the 3 October dinner and presentation of trophies on 5 October at the end of the tournament. Whilst the event is not being held in Liverpool it will be held close to Liverpool and will be of benefit to a large number of people in the local area. A number of international and interstate players are also confirmed as staying at Liverpool based hotels. Recommended for funding but also recommended that the organisation consider having their event in Liverpool in the future.	$6,000	$3,000

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	A budget allocation of $100,000 for the Community Donations Program was adopted by Council in its 2015/2016 Operational Plan as part of the Community Donations Program. If the recommended amount of $15,000 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $85,000. The 2015/16 Corporate Sponsorship Program has a budget of $114,000 and if the recommended amount of $19,600 is endorsed, the remaining balance will be $94,400.
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 Community Grants Program View

2. Criteria for Corporate Sponsorship Program

194

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 02

Draft Grants and Donations Policy

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	136273.2015
Report By	Dany Ya - Policy and Projects Officer
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

Council adopted a Donations Policy at its 28 May 2014 meeting. The Policy outlines Council's commitment to building strong and resilient communities in Liverpool through the provision of financial assistance in the form of donations, grants and fee reductions to individuals, groups and organisations.

The Policy has been reviewed with reference to best practice principles of grant making and grants administration as outlined by the Australian Institute of Grants Management and NSW Government. The recommended changes to the Donations Policy have a strategic intent to build the capacity of local community groups, organisations and services to better meet the needs of our growing community.

This report recommends the revised Grants and Donations Policy be endorsed for public exhibition. It describes the key elements and proposed improvements to Council’s grants and donations programs to develop a more effective, coordinated and transparent suite of grants and donations programs that deliver positive outcomes for individuals and communities of Liverpool.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the draft Grants and Donations Policy to be placed on public exhibition and receives a further report following public exhibition.

REPORT

The current Donations Policy was adopted by Council at its meeting on 28 May 2014. The Policy outlines Council's commitment to building strong and resilient communities in Liverpool through the provision of financial assistance in the form of donations to individuals and groups. The Policy outlines processes that govern General Community Grants, Small Grants, School Donations, Youth Donations, Sporting Donations and Disaster Relief.

The provision of grants, donations and community facilities fee reductions provides a mechanism for Liverpool City Council to further the directions highlighted in Growing Liverpool 2023 and the subsequent aims identified in social, economic, environmental and cultural policies.

The Donations Policy has been reviewed to better align all Council grants and donations programs to tighten procedures, minimise inconsistencies and make the most effective use of limited resources with a strategic intent to build the capacity of individuals, local community groups, organisations and services to better meet the needs of our growing community.

As part of this review, the Grants and Donations Policy has been aligned with national best practice principles of grant making and grants administration as outlined by the Australian Institute of Grants Management and the NSW Government. Key principles of best practice grant making include:

a) Alignment with key organisational priorities – delivering on Growing Liverpool 2023

b) Partnerships and collaboration – working together and minimising duplication

c) Capacity building – developing skills and capacity to meet a community need

d) Social inclusion – encouraging participation in community activities and building social networks

e) Leveraging value – ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in grant making

f) Good governance – ensuring accountability and transparency

The Grants and Donations Policy demonstrates Council's commitment to building strong and resilient communities in Liverpool through the provision of financial assistance in the form of donations and grants to individuals and groups. This is in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act (1993) which stipulates that:

1. A council may, in accordance with a resolution of the council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions.

The overall review of the policy has been to enhance and better align existing and new donation and grants programs to ensure the most effective and efficient distribution of funding to the community. The grants and donations programs funding amounts and timeframes are outlined as follows:

Program	Funding available	Frequency
Community Grants	Up to $5,000	Two rounds per year
Quick Response Grants	Up to $1,000	Open
Sporting Grants	Up to $5,000 per Junior Sporting Club (clubs catering for members under 16 years old) Up to $5,000 for Junior Disability Sports	One round per year
Sporting Donations	$100 for regional representation (competitor only) $200 for state representation (competitor only) $300 for Australian national representation at an event within New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Victoria (competitor only) $400 for Australian national representation at an event within Tasmania, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia (competitor only) $500 for Australian national representation at an overseas event (competitor only) $500 for team representation (competitor only) $100 for Coach/Referee/Umpire/Official representation at a regional, state or national event more than 100km from Liverpool	Open
Community Matching Grants	Matched funding up to $15,000	One round per year
Sustainable Environment Grants	Up to $2,500	Two rounds per year
Community Facilities Fee Reduction	Reduced rate of hire for Council community facilities in accordance with Council’s Statement of Revenue Policy	Open
Disaster Relief Donations	Up to $5,000 for national and international events including disasters and wars	By Council resolution
Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing)	Refer to Council’s Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Policy.
Corporate Sponsorship (Incoming)	Refer to Council’s Corporate Sponsorship (Incoming) Policy.

The key recommended changes to the Policy are as follows:

1. Change to policy name

It is proposed to rename the Donations Policy to Grants and Donations Policy as the policy relates to both donations and grants distributed by Council under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

2. Change to frequency of grant rounds

It is proposed to change the frequency of some of the grants rounds including the Community Grants, and Community Matching Grants. This is proposed to manage the demand from applicants and provides staff with time to complete rigorous assessment. This also provides set parameters and encourages applicants to allow time to adequately plan projects.

3. Clearly defined funding priorities and expected outcomes

These changes have been proposed to adequately capture the priorities of each grants program ensuring they align with strategic priorities set out in Growing Liverpool. Funding allocated towards community projects need to make the most effective use of limited resources. Therefore, setting parameters for what projects will be funded and the expected outcomes of each project makes this clearer for applicants.

4. Strengthened eligibility and assessment criteria

These changes have been proposed to make sure organisations, groups and individuals making applications for funding to council are not duplicating any existing projects and that the proposed projects meet an identified community need.

5. Council staff assessment panel for each program

It is proposed that applications made under each respective grants and donation program will be assessed by an assessment panel comprising of council staff and identified stakeholders (for example, Sports committee members). Recommendations will be made by each assessment panel and reports will go to Council in the timeframes outlined in the next point. This will make the current Financial Contributions Panel redundant.

6. Change to frequency of recommendations to Council

To improve efficiency at Council meetings, it is proposed to reduce the frequency of reports made to Council with recommendations for funding. The proposed timeframes are as follows:

a) Open grants programs will be assessed on an ongoing basis and recommendations will be reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

b) Programs with specific funding rounds will be reported to Council within three months of the closing date

7. Community Grants

The proposed changes to this grants program are to change the frequency to two rounds per year and to increase the funding allocation to $100,000. Applications will remain capped at up to $5,000 per application.

Funding priorities for this grants program are to:

a) Build social networks and increase participation in community activities and programs

b) Facilitate access to education, training and employment opportunities

c) Improve collaboration and coordination of community support and services

d) Improve social and physical wellbeing through a prevention and early intervention approach

8. Quick Response Grants

This grants program is a newly created program that combines the Small Grants, School Donations and Youth Donations programs. The funding allocation has been increased to $30,000 and applications will be accepted throughout the year. Applications will be capped at $1,000 per project per year.

The review of the Outgoing Corporate Sponsorships Policy has identified the need to provide seed funding to local community events for cultural and community groups and that this is best provided through the Quick Response Grants program. Support for these groups to apply under this program will be provided through the Community Development team. Corporate Sponsorships will continue to provide financial assistance to individuals and organisations whose events will enhance Council’s brand and reputation.

Funding priorities for this grants program are:

a) Donations to individuals to participate in events and for the purposes of developing leadership skills

b) Donations to schools to be given as a prize to a student

c) Seed funding for projects that align with strategic priorities in Council’s policies and action plans

9. Sporting Grants

No changes are proposed to this grants program.

10. Sporting Donations

No changes are proposed to this grants program.

11. Community Matching Grants

Council resolved to establish this grants program at the 25 February 2015 council meeting. The funding allocation proposed is $200,000 and applications will be accepted once per year. Applications will be capped at $15,000 per project per year and must be matched by financial or in-kind contribution by the applicant.

Applicant financial and/or in-kind contributions can include:

a) In-kind contributions such as donated supplies, materials or services

b) Volunteering time such as labour, set up and pack down, and meeting time to identify, plan and implement projects

c) Direct cash input to the project through donations or income generated

d) Funds raised through crowd funding platforms

This matching grants program will have a community focus to enable a broader applicant pool and offers greater benefit to the community. The funding priorities for this grants program are:

a) Accessibility

b) Arts

c) Community safety / public space activation

d) Environment

e) Infrastructure

f) Social /community capacity building

g) Sports development

h) Youth engagement

12. Sustainable Environment Grants

Council resolved to establish this grants program at the 29 April 2015 council meeting. The funding allocation proposed is $75,000 and there will be two application rounds per year. Applications will be capped at $2,500 per project per year and applications are open to all local schools and community groups.

This grants program has been modelled on the NSW Eco Schools Program and Council’s previously funded Green Grants Program which was open to schools and community groups.

The funding priorities for this grants program are:

a) Improving local biodiversity

b) Sustainable gardening

c) Education for sustainable living programs

d) School grounds environmental works

e) Waste minimisation or recycling

f) Sustainable water use, saving energy or greenhouse gas emissions

13. Community Facilities Fee Reduction

This grants program has a funding allocation of $35,000 and applications are accepted throughout the year. Applications will be capped at up to $5,000.

There are two categories for for fee reductions off the applicable fee:

a) 50% reduction (applicants receiving ongoing funding)

b) 20% reduction (applicants not receiving ongoing funding)

All reduced rates are based on the published rate of hire set out in the Statement of Revenue Policy available on Council’s website. All applicants granted fee reductions are still required to pay costs associated with their booking (e.g. bonds) in accordance with their hiring or licencing agreement.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was granted delegation to approve applications of up to $3,000 on 27 February 2013. Applications of greater than $3,000 will be approved by Council.

Funding priorities for this grants program are:

a) Facilitating the provision of support services including health related services to the community

b) Supporting the delivery of functions or events for a specific community group, occasion or specific issue

14. Disaster Relief Donations

Donations made under this program will be done via resolution of Council through a Mayoral Minute or Notice of Motion. It is recommended that donations of up to $5,000 be made based on the severity of the disaster. The proposed change is new assessment criteria that ensures that donations made under this program contribute to the overall national aid effort and directly respond to local and international disasters in countries where there are significant members of the community in Liverpool.

The funding priorities for this program are:

a) Donations for relief in disaster stricken areas, locally, nationally and internationally

b) Disasters or crises that have a direct impact on our immediate region and community

c) Donations made to community groups that have cultural connections with the affected areas

d) Financial donations for national or international disasters

e) In-kind donations for disasters that have occurred in NSW

Management of grants programs

The recent council resolutions to establish two additional grants programs has identified the need for additional resources to manage the grants programs and significantly increased workload.

It is recommended that should this Policy be adopted that Council employ one full-time equivalent position to manage the two additional grants programs proposed by Council resolution.

It is also recommended that Council introduce an online grants management system to streamline the application and assessment process across all Council grants programs. This represents good value for money for Council as it will reduce overall transaction costs for both Council and applicants. Council has explored the range of suppliers for this type of product and recommends subscribing to SmartyGrants, which has been developed by the Australian Institute of Grants Management. SmartyGrants is a system well used by other councils across Australia and state and federal government departments. The annual cost is $12,500. It is recommended Council subscribe to SmartyGrants for a 12 month trial and then consider continuing the subscription following the outcome of the trial period.

The benefits of the SmartyGrants system are:

a) Consistent and effective management of all grants programs

b) Time and cost savings for applicants and staff

c) Provides in-built transparency and accountability

d) Strengthened reporting capabilities

e) Centralised grants records management system

f) Currently used for Liverpool ClubGRANTS Scheme

Evaluation of grants programs

Integral to effective grants management are mechanisms to ensure that programs are regularly evaluated to assess the following:

a) Cost effectiveness and sustainability of resources

b) Achievement of expected outcomes of the programs

c) Feedback mechanisms from applicants

d) Eligibility and assessment criteria

e) Transparent and accountable processes

f) Conflicts of interest

These mechanisms have been included in the revised policy.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	An adequate level of resources is required to manage and administer the respective grants programs. The recent council resolutions to establish two additional grants programs has identified the need for additional resources to manage the grants programs and significantly increased workload as this will not be possible within existing resources. A total of $200,000 is required in the 2015/2016 budget as per resolution at 25 February 2015 Council meeting to be allocated towards a proposed Community Matching Grants program. It is proposed that funds be allocated from the Special Projects Reserve to cover this cost. A total of $75,000 is required in the 2015/2016 budget as per resolution at 29 April 2015 Council meeting to be allocated towards a proposed Sustainable Environment Grants program with funds to be allocated from the Environment, Stormwater and Waste Levy programs. It is recommended that Council employ one full-time equivalent position to manage the two additional grants programs proposed by Council resolution. This position will be graded at Grade 13. It is proposed that funds be allocated from the Special Projects Reserve to cover this cost. A one year subscription to SmartyGrants will cost $12,500 per year and it is proposed that funds be allocated from the Special Projects Reserve to cover this cost.
Environmental and Sustainability	The proposed Sustainable Environment Grants program will fund projects that raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental and sustainability issues.
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	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. DRAFT Grants and Donations Policy July 2015 View (Under separate cover)

203

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 03

South West Sydney Academy of Sport Review of Contribution Request

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community
Key Policy	Recreation Strategy
File Ref	142459.2015
Report By	Mark Westley - Sports Development Officer
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

Liverpool City Council is one of the South West Sydney Academy of Sport’s (SWSAS) four foundation member Councils and has been a significant long term supporter. The Academy provides advanced athlete development programs to create a clear pathway for athletes from regional through to State and National representation.

The SWSAS continues to develop strongly, increasing from 163 athlete scholarships 3 years ago to 345 in the 2014/2015 intake, of whom 61 reside in the Liverpool LGA.

The Academy is funded through a number of sources, currently receiving 14% ($62,000) of its income from Local Government, 36% from State Government ($143,000), 8.5% from athlete levies ($38,400). The remaining 41.5% of funding is sourced on an annual basis through corporate and sports program partnerships and other fundraising.

In June 2006, Council voted to increase Liverpool City Council’s annual grant to the Academy from $20,000 to $22,000. Council’s contribution has remained at $22,000 and the Academy has now written to all member Councils requesting an increase to the annual grant.

The SWSAS requests Council consider an increase to its contribution from $22,000 exGST to $26,000 exGST for the 2015/2016 financial year and that this contribution be automatically increased by the CPI for all subsequent years.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Increase its annual contribution to the South West Sydney Academy of Sport for the 2015/2016 financial year by $4,000 to $26,000 ex GST.

2. Increase subsequent annual contributions to the South West Sydney Academy of Sport by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price Index.

REPORT

The South West Sydney Academy of Sport (SWSAS) was established in 1997 by the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation becoming an autonomous body in 2002. The Academy services the South West Sydney region which includes the Local Government Areas of Liverpool, Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly. The academy is one of eleven which operate in NSW all of which have the same principal roles:

· Facilitate the development and support of talented junior athletes in the region;

· Provide these athletes with access to specialist support services including coaching, sports science and sports medicine;

· Identify and support the development of high performance coaches at the local level; and

· Provide a clear pathway for athletes from the junior development through to State and National representation.

The current SWSAS sports program includes AFL, Athletics, Triathlon, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Netball, Hockey, Softball, and ‘Athletes with a Disability’ programs in Athletics and Basketball. In addition there are “Lone Star” programs for sports such as Cycling, Cricket and Track and Field Athletics, where the Academy cannot support a full program. The Academy also provides ‘Parents Sports Education’ and ‘Coaches and Support Staff Education’ programs. The academy is due to further expand the sports program in the 2015/2016 financial year to include BMX and Basketball, sports in which Liverpool athletes have traditionally excelled.

The number of SWSAS participants continues to develop strongly, increasing from 163 athlete scholarships 3 years ago to 345 in the 2014/2015 intake, of whom 61 reside in the Liverpool LGA. These scholarship numbers make the SWSAS the third largest academy of sport in NSW.

In June 2006, Council voted to increase Liverpool City Council’s annual grant to the Academy from $20,000 to $22,000. Council’s contribution has remained at $22,000 and the Academy’s Executive Director has now written to all four member Councils requesting an increase to the annual grant.

The SWSAS requests Council consider an increase to its contribution from $22,000 ex GST to $26,000 ex GST for the 2015/2016 financial year and that this contribution be automatically increased by the CPI for all subsequent years.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	An additional $4,000 is required in the 2015/2016 budget to meet this request rising by the CPI in future financial years.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	The SWSAS provides a valuable pathway for the development of local athletes within the South West region and contributes positively to the sporting culture of the region.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. South West Sydney Academy of Sport review of Grant Request

223

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Economy and Engagement Report

DEE 01

Report on the Live At The Mall Activation Program

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	Economic Development Strategy
File Ref	145282.2015
Report By	Julie Scott - Manager Economic Development
Approved By	Michael Cullen - Director Economy and Engagement

Executive Summary

At its meeting of 26 November 2015, Council authorised the CEO to use funds from the Councillor Reserve to fund activation projects in the Mall and on the George’s River on a needs basis to fill gaps in city activation throughout the renewal of the Mall. Council also requested that the CEO report back to Council at an appropriate time on the effectiveness of the program.

Macquarie Mall was selected as the focus for the activation program over the month of May.

Overall the program proved to be very successful, drawing in over 3,600 people over the 7 days the program ran. A post event report on the “Liverpool Live” at Macquarie Mall activation program is attached as information.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the report on the Live at the Macquarie Mall activation program.

REPORT

At is meeting of 26 November 2014 a motion was approved that:

1. Council authorise the CEO to use $30,000 from the Councillor’s Reserve to fund activation projects in the Mall and on the George’s River on a needs basis to fill gaps in city activation throughout the renewal of the Mall.

2. The CEO report back to Council at an appropriate time on the effectiveness of this program.

Macquarie Mall was selected as the focus for the activation program, with the program run on Friday and Saturday evenings to stimulate activity at periods outside peak trading times. These times and the types of activation initiatives implemented arose from consultation with the food outlets and cafes in the Mall.

The month of May was chosen as a time of year where trade was slower.

The Mall was selected as it provided the ability to trial activities ahead of work commencing on the Mall upgrade and to concentrate a range of activities over a short period of time to build knowledge about what types of activities work best in a Liverpool city centre context.

An important confirmation from activity undertaken was that the Mall is a destination in its own right on Saturdays but more of a location people transit through on a Friday afternoon. This has implications for the types of future activation programs run by Council.

Overall the program proved to be effective, drawing in over 3,600 people over the 7 days the program ran (the Friday 22 May program was cancelled due to rain). The Stay and Play program for children, the Saturday night family friendly movie and buskers proved to be extremely popular. The family movie audience grew from 80 attendees to 170 attendees (full capacity) over the period. This re-affirms the potential for the large TV screen at the Moore Street end of the rejuvenated Mall to act as a strong focus for community engagement.

Friday nights did not draw the same audience numbers. However, strong anecdotal feedback was received on the quality of the bands and how that music changed the whole ambience of the Mall. Pleasingly comments received also noted how safe people felt in the Mall while the activation program was being run.

A post event report on the Live at the Macquarie Mall program is attached for the information of Councillors.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development. The Live at the Macquarie Mall program involved expenditure of $30,000 on the activation activities over 4 weekends. Staff resources were also required to support program logistics.
Environmental and Sustainability	Council’s events policy encourages the running of environmentally sustainable events.
Social and Cultural	Entertainment through the Live at the Mall program provided free entertainment to a diverse range of communities and ages.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The activation program was implemented as an initiative to help build confidence in the Liverpool city centre as a place to visit and shop and as a safe location for families.

ATTACHMENTS

1. REPORT Liverpool Live at Macquarie Mall Post Event Report June 2015 View

2. Live at the Mall Analytics Report View (Under separate cover)

243

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01

Liverpool Pioneers' Memorial Park Interpretive Signage Strategy

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history
Key Policy	Heritage Strategy
File Ref	151009.2015
Report By	Kevin Smith - Manager Infrastructure Delivery
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

Executive Summary

Council, at its meeting held on 26 November 2014, considered a draft Interpretive Signage Strategy for Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park. At this meeting, Council resolved that the consideration of this strategy be deferred pending a Council briefing due to its significance in celebrating the local history and the resultant implementation costs.

A Council briefing was subsequently held in early 2015 to present the findings of the extensive research and investigations that were undertaken to inform the developement of the draft strategy. Following this briefing, the draft strategy was placed on public exhibition for a period of 21 days between 22 April 2014 and 13 May 2014. Council also undertook consultation with the Liverpool Historical Society during this period. All of the feedback received and Council’s responses have been collated and tabulated in attachement one of this report.

This report recommends that Council adopts the final Interpretive Signage Strategy for Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the Interpretive Signage Strategy for Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park.

2. Includes the implementation of the signage strategy in the 2016/17 Operational Plan.

REPORT

Background

Council engaged the services of a heritage consultant to guide and develop a suitable strategy for Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park that would enable visitors traversing the cemetery to appreciate the importance of the place and the range of people buried in the park.

Following research and some targeted consultation and in view of a large number of people buried at the park, which is estimated to be over 13,000, the strategy recommends the following approach for an interpretive signage strategy:

1. The provision of robust and self-standing illustrative and interpretive signs positioned at park entry points to minimise clutter and maintain large open areas within the park. Signs will be incorporated with well researched historical information on the park and biographical information about notable individuals or groups;

2. Development of a separate Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park webpage on Council’s website including a Wikipedia style link; and

3. Production and distribution of educational pamphlets to visitors. Pamphlets will be made available to the community at Council Libraries, Museums and Casula Powerhouse and will also be available for download on Council’s website.

Following a Council briefing in early 2015, the strategy was publicly exhibited and advertised through Council’s website, Liverpool Listens, on social media and in LCC news. Only one response was received from the general public. A meeting was convened with members of the Liverpool Historical Society, Council’s heritage officer and museum staff. A summary of all feedback received including Council’s responses are included as an attachment to this report.

A copy of the final Interpretive Signage Strategy is attached to this report. This report recommends that Council adopts the Interpretive Signage Strategy for Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of the strategy is anticipated to cost as follows:

No.	Recommendation	Budget ($)	Council Department Responsible
1	Design, manufacture and installation of interpretive signage	$50,000	Infrastructure and Environment
2	Development and launch of an online webpage and Wikipedia style database on all known persons buried within Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park	$120,000	Information Technology
3	Design, approval and printing of supporting educational pamphlets	$1000 per annum	Community and Culture

Subject to approval of the final strategy, the above expenditures will be included in Council’s 2016/2017 draft budget and Operational Plan for implementation.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Approved budget provisions will be made following adoption of the Interpretive Signage Strategy.
Environmental and Sustainability	The implementation of the Interpretive Signage Strategy will assist in the preservation of a significant heritage infrastructure of Council.
Social and Cultural	Promote and educate the community and park visitors on the history of Liverpool’s early pioneers buried within Pioneers’ Memorial Park.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no Civic Leadership of Governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Summary of feedback received and Council's responses View

2. Interpretive Signage Strategy for Liverpool Pioneers' Memorial Park View (Under separate cover)

249

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 02

Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) Event

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Reduce adverse environment impacts for present and future generations
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	164856.2015
Report By	Sonya Reyes - Environment Restoration Plan Coordinator
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

Executive Summary

Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) is a public speaking and drama competition that recognises and celebrates World Environment Day (WED). S4P invites local high school students to participate by preparing speeches and performances related to the WED theme – “Seven Billion Dreams, One Planet, Consume with Care”.

2015 marks the first year that Liverpool Council has supported and assisted in facilitating an S4P event in Liverpool. The event, opened by Mayor Ned Mannoun, was held at James Busby High School on 3 June. Three high schools participated this year in three speech categories.

Winners of this year’s event were:

· Prepared Speech Winner – Julious Vergara, Liverpool Boys High School;

· Impromptu Speech Winner - James John Mansaray, Liverpool Boys High School; and

· Impromptu Eco-Drama – James Busby High School (eight students).

The winners of the prepared and impromptu speech have been invited to this Council meeting to deliver their winning speeches.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council writes to each winner and congratulates them on their success.

REPORT

Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) is a public speaking and drama competition that recognises and celebrates World Environment Day (WED). S4P invites local High School students to participate by preparing speeches and performances related to the WED theme.

World Environment Day 2015

World Environment Day is celebrated each year on 5 June. It is an internationally recognised day endorsed and supported by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). It is designed to raise global awareness of the need to take positive environmental action. Each year, it designates a theme for special attention and action. This year, the UN urges us to remember that the well-being of humanity, the environment and the functioning of the economy, ultimately depend upon the responsible management of the planet’s natural resources.

According to the UNEP website, it is becoming evident that people are consuming far more natural resources than what the planet can sustainably provide. The website also explains that as a result of high population growth and economic development, many of the earth’s ecosystems are nearing critical tipping points of depletion or irreversible change. By 2050, if current consumption and production patterns remain the same and with a rising population expected to reach 9.6 billion, we will need three planets to sustain our ways of living and consumption.

The WED theme this year is “Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care”. This theme highlights the need to live within our planets means in order to ensure a sustainable future for all life on earth. Living sustainably is about doing more and better with less. It is about knowing that excessive consumption of resources and associated environmental impacts should not necessarily be a by-product of economic growth.

The S4P Event

This year, Sutherland Shire Environment Centre and Keep Australia Beautiful National Association, along with event organiser Phil Smith from Know Hands Consultancy invited Liverpool Council to support this year’s S4P event in Liverpool. Each S4P event is registered on the UN’s World Environment Day website. In conjunction with Council, James Busby High School hosted the 2015 event.

Students delivered speeches and performances based on the WED theme. They were asked to think creatively about how problems are identified, defined and solved. They were invited to present quirky ideas as they challenge the audience to think differently.

There were three sections of the competition, each based on the UN’s theme. There were prizes for each section and all participants received a gift. The three sections were:

· Prepared speech - One student from each school delivered a five minute speech on a sustainability topic linked to WED theme. Students for this section were drawn from the school’s environmental group.

· Impromptu speech - One student from each participating school delivered a three minute impromptu talk on a topic given to them on the day. Students were given at least 30 minutes to prepare their talks. Students for this section were drawn from the school’s public speaking or debating teams.

· Impromptu Eco-drama - Drama students (up to five) from each school performed a short piece that expressed a point of view on the UN’s theme. Students had 30 minutes to prepare.

Council’s Support

Liverpool Council were proud supporters of this year’s S4P event. As an important stakeholder Council supported the event by:

· Sending a Mayoral Letter to all Liverpool Schools inviting them to participate in the event;

· Providing an information pack from Council to all schools including event information, a flyer on Council’s Sustainability programs, and flyers and brochures regarding Council’s programs;

· The Mayor opening the event at James Busby High School on the 3 June 2015;

· Inviting the winner of the S4P event to be invited to the July Council meeting to give their winning speech; and

The Speaking 4 the Planet Event – 3 June 2015

Three Liverpool high schools accepted the offer to participate in this year’s first Liverpool Speaking 4 the Planet Event, including James Busby High School (event hosts), Casula High School and Liverpool Boys High School.

The Event was opened by Mayor Ned Mannoun who provided his support for the event in addition to giving participants some insight into public speaking in his role as Mayor of Liverpool.

Each high school provided entrants in each event category and proceeded to deliver their speeches in front of participants, guests and a panel of three judges.

Through careful deliberation and assessment using event judging criteria, judges awarded the following winners of the three categories:

· Prepared Speech Winner – Julious Vergara, Liverpool Boys High School;

· Impromptu Speech Winner - James John Mansaray, Liverpool Boys High School; and

· Impromptu Eco-Drama – James Busby High School (eight students).

The three category winners and other participants were awarded their prizes. The winners of the prepared and impromptu speeches were invited to attend this Council meeting to deliver their winning speeches.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

253

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Proposed amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Rezoning of land at 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	115637.2015
Report By	Ian Stendara - Trainee Town Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

An amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008) and Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP 2008) has been prepared to assist in the orderly development of 2088, 2092 & 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park. The land is zoned R1 General Residential with the exception of Ardennes Avenue which is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road). The portion of Ardennes Avenue which runs through the land was designed to be a 30 metre wide Asset Protection Zone (APZ) road.

As part of DA-1404/2013 and DA-999/2014, Advanced Bushfire Solutions Pty Ltd and Sydney Bushfire Consultants prepared Bushfire Assessment Reports and found that the 10 metre outer protection area (part of the 30m wide SP2 zoned land) was not required to achieve an appropriate setback between the potential bushfire hazard and future dwellings. DA-1404/2013, DA-582/2014 and DA-583/2014 were subsequently authorised by the Rural Fire Services, and DA-999/2014 is currently with the RFS for assessment. Therefore it has been recommended that the 10m buffer be dropped and the road reserve reduced from 30 metres to 20.5 metres. This will require a 9.5 metre portion of Ardennes Avenue to be rezoned from SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road) to R1 General. This amendment will also remove reference to the road as an Asset Protection road, and will instead be referred to as a Former Asset Protection Road in Part 2.11 of the LDCP 2008, see Figures 5 & 6.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Resolves to prepare and exhibit the Draft amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

2. Resolves to prepare and exhibit the Draft Amendment to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008.

3. Forwards a copy of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway determination and following that proceed with public authority consultation and public exhibition.

REPORT

Site Context and Background

The land is located at Lots 1, 2 & 3 DP 1194117, Lot 1 DP 577163 and Lot 1 DP 652146, otherwise known as 2088, 2092 & 2140 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park, see Figure 1 on the following page. The north eastern area of the land was historically occupied by the Tree Valley Golf Course, with the remainder in the south and west being occupied by rural residential dwellings and market gardens. The Edmondson Park precinct was rezoned from 1(e) Rural – Future Urban to 2(e) Residential – Developing Communities by Amendment 83 to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 1997 on the 31^st March 2006. Following the adoption of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 the precinct was primarily zoned R1 (General Residential). Since the initial rezoning the precinct has been undergoing urbanisation, which has been steadily accelerating in the past few years; this is likely to continue following the commencement of train services from Edmondson Park Station. Much of the land formally known as the Tree Valley Golf Course both within and adjoining the subject lots to the north east of the site have been subsequently subdivided for residential development under the provisions of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. There is a conservation area located immediately to the south and east of the subject site, which is zoned E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves, as well as an area for public recreation, zoned RE1 Public Recreation, by State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2006.

The proposed amendment seeks to rezone a 9.5 metre wide portion of land, currently zoned SP2 (local Road), as the extent of the Outer Protection area is not required to provide adequate bushfire protection. The subject land is currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road) and is proposed to be rezoned to R1 General Residential.

Figure 1: Site context and aerial identification map.

The Asset Protection Road (Ardennes Avenue), shown in Figure 2, was formed to provide a bushfire buffer between the developing urban area to the west of Ardennes Avenue and the Conservation Area located to the east. The Conservation Area will retain significant vegetation.

The extent of the rezoning and change to planning controls is provided in Figure 2 below.

Change of Controls

Figure 2: Land to which Planning controls are proposed to change.

Bushfire Assessment Reports

The subject land can be divided into two distinct areas, as the land is being subdivided by two different parties. Advanced Bushfire Solutions Pty Ltd prepared a bushfire assessment report for lots 1-3 DP 1194117 (3 eastern lots), whilst Sydney Bushfire Consultants prepared a bushfire assessment report for lot 1 DP 652146 and lot 1 DP 577163 (2 western lots). Both reports were prepared to assess the risk of bushfire to future residential dwellings and to determine future Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL). Both reports also utilised Method 2 Calculations (as described in AS3959-2009) which is the more detailed assessment procedure described by the standard, as the lands are identified as being bushfire prone on Council’s bushfire prone land maps, provided by the Rural Fire Service.

Conclusion and effects of Advanced Bushfire Solutions Pty Ltd Report

The report prepared by Advance Bushfire Solutions Pty Ltd determined that a 10m outer protection area was not required to achieve an appropriate setback between the potential bushfire hazard and future dwellings. This report acknowledged that a fire trail, being 10m wide, lies on the lot to the immediate south of the subject site and road reserve. When this 10m existing bushfire buffer was considered in calculating the appropriate setbacks and BAL contours, it was concluded that the outer extent of the asset protection zone was well within the road reserve (see the BAL-FZ contour in figure 3). As a result of this conclusion the total road reserve for Ardennes Avenue could be reduced. The road reserve was reduced from 30m to 20.5m by removing the mandatory 10m wide outer protection area and adding an additional 0.5m to the verge adjacent to residential lots to protect some lots to the east of the site which would still be within the flame zone. The verge width for the western side of Ardennes Avenue is proposed to be 5.3m to allow for construction of a 1.8m footpath and a 3.5m dedicated cycleway as per the DCP.

Figure 3: APZ map for DA-1404/2013, DA-582/2014 & DA-583/2014 (Source: Advanced Bushfire Solutions Pty Ltd, p.12)

Conclusion and effects of Sydney Bushfire Consultants Report

Council received an additional DA (DA-999/2014) for land adjoining the previously assessed land. The bushfire assessment report (prepared by Sydney Bushfire Consultants) reached a similar conclusion: a 10m wide fire trail located off-site provided a buffer which could be utilised in the calculation of BAL levels (see Figure 4). As a result of this report the road reserve, again, could be reduced, as the 30m width was not required to provide adequate protection. The 20.5m road reserve width was chosen to provide consistency with the previously approved DAs.

As a result of both bushfire reports and the approved DAs the remnant of the 9.5m APZ (that is no longer required) should be rezoned to facilitate residential development.

Figure 4: APZ map for DA-999/2014 (Source: Sydney Bushfire Consultants, p.31)

Rural Fire Service Consultation

DA-582/2014, DA-583/2014 and DA-1404/2013 were sent to the Rural Fire Service (RFS) as part of integrated development applications. These three applications were subsequently authorised for the proposed subdivision of the land (See Attachments A to C of the Planning Proposal). None of the proposed lots were within the minimum setback prescribed by Preparing for Bushfire Protection 2006. Currently, the RFS is assessing DA-999/2014, which identifies similar setbacks to the three previous subdivisions. It could be reasonably assumed that DA-999/2014 will have a similar outcome to that of the three previous DAs.

Additionally, in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s A Guide to Preparing a Local Environmental Plan and Clause 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Department will consider which agencies Council should consult with. It is likely that the Department will require that Council consult the RFS as a public authority in the gateway conditions. Regardless of the Department’s Gateway conditions, Council would seek to undertake further consultation with the RFS for this matter. This will give the RFS another opportunity to review this corridor and comment to ensure that no land is rezoned if it could potentially lead to the loss of life or property.

Changes to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

The 9.5 metre wide portion of the APZ road would need to be rezoned from SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road) to R1 General Residential to permit the construction of residential dwellings on the future approved and future lots. This would also require an introduction of planning controls pertaining to Minimum Lot Size, Height of Building, Floor Space Ratio, Minimum Dwelling Density and removal of the Land Reservation Acquisition applying to the subject land. Table 1 outlines the controls which would be implemented for the land associated with the rezoning.

Table 1: LEP Maps to be amended, including an explanation of provisions

LEP Maps to be Amended	Explanation of provision	Proposed change
Land Zoning 4900_COM_LZN_009_020_20140903 4900_COM_LZN_013_020_20150210	Rezone 9.5m wide area of SP2 (Local Road) land (30m wide) to R1 (General Residential)	SP2 (Local Road) to R1 General Residential
Lot Size 4900_COM_LSZ_009_020_20140903 4900_COM_LSZ_013_020_20150210	Introduce the standard of 450sqm, 300sqm (identified as areas 2 & 3 subject to clause 4.1 LLEP 2008) as carried over from land adjacent	No minimum Lot Size to D-300sqm (Area 2 & 3) & G 450sqm
Floor Space Ratio 4900_COM_FSR_009_020_20140716 4900_COM_FSR_013_020_20150210	Introduce the standard of G 0.65, I 0.75:1 and N 1.0:1 as carried over from land adjacent	No maximum FSR to G-0.65, I 0.75 & N 1.0
Height of Building 4900_COM_HOB_009_020_20140716 4900_COM_HOB_013_020_20150210	Introduce the standard of I 8.5m, M 12m and O 15m as carried over from land adjacent	No maximum building height to I-8.5m, M-12m & O-15m
Dwelling Density 4900_COM_DWD_009_020_20140903 4900_COM_DWD_013_020_20150210	Introduce the standard of 14, 17 and 28 dwellings per hectare as carried over from land adjacent	No minimum dwelling density to 14, 17 & 28 dwellings per hectare
Land Reservation Acquisition 4900_COM_LRA_009_020_20140903 4900_COM_LRA_013_020_20140716	Abolish the Local Road (SP2) land reservation acquisition	Local Road (SP2) to nil

For maps detailing the extent of the planning controls applying to the subject lands, please see Part 4 of the Planning Proposal. The minimum Lot Size, Floor Space Ratio, Height of Building and Dwelling Density controls will be that of adjoining land zoned R1 General Residential.

Changes to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008

In addition to the Planning Proposal, this development will require an amendment to Part 2.11 of the LDCP 2008 to change reference of Ardennes Avenue as an Asset Protection Road (APR). The entire length of Ardennes Avenue through the subject lands will be changed from an APR to a Former Asset Protection Road (FAPR) to reflect the new standard being sought.

The amendment will replace the current APR cross section (Figure 17 of the DCP) with the cross section shown in Figure 5 below. Written parts of the DCP will also be amended to correctly reference this APR as a FAPR.

Figure 5: The new cross section of a Former Asset Protection Road to replace the current cross section for an Asset Protection Road

Figure 6: Indicative amendment to Part 2.11 Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 Road Network

Conclusion

The current SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road) zoning encroaches on land proposed for residential use as per the subdivision plans in DA-1404/2013, DA-582/2014, DA-583/2014, and DA-999/2014 impacting on the orderly development of the subdivision. It is proposed to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 to change the zoning and amend ancillary planning controls applying to 9.5 metres of Ardennes Avenue to support the residential development already approved and under assessment for these lots.

The purpose of the rezoning is to reflect the reduction in road width of the Asset Protection Road from 30m to 20.5m. The residue land left from the narrowing of this road reservation, currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure, is proposed to be rezoned to R1 General Residential, to allow for the subdivision of lots and development of dwellings. The Lot Size, Dwelling Density, Floor-space Ratio, Height of Buildings and Land Reservation Acquisition maps are to be amended accordingly. Part 2.11 of the Liverpool Development Control Plan will also be amended accordingly. Part 2.11 of the Liverpool Development Control Plan will also be amended to reflect the new road type.

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	Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.
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)

264

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 02

Proposal to rezone 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets and 165 Macquarie Street from B3 - Commercial Core to B4 - Mixed Use

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	133470.2015
Report By	Graham Matthews - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council has received an application to rezone 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets and 165 Macquarie Street, Liverpool. The proposal seeks a rezoning from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use as well as changes to development standards corresponding to the proposed changes in land use and built form.

Council officers are in the process of finalising the review of this application and preparing a Planning Proposal which details the changes that will be sought to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. To allow Council officers to continue to progress this application in good faith with the proponent, in principle endorsement for the rezoning of the subject site is being sought from Council. Following this, officers will proceed with finalising the planning proposal, pending the receipt of outstanding information from the proponent. The finalised planning proposal would be approved by the CEO to send to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses in principle, the proposal to rezone 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets and 165 Macquarie Street, Liverpool from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use.

2. Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the final Planning Proposal to administer this rezoning, for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

REPORT

Background

On 20 June 2014 Council received an application to rezone land at 77-83 Moore Street and 133 Macquarie Street Liverpool from the Abacus Property Group (the proponent). In a revised proposal submitted to Council in June 2015 the proponent has also sought to rezone 165 Macquarie Street as part of the proposal.

The subject site is identified as being Lot 1 DP 628824, Lot 2 DP 1189772 and Lot 1 DP 1189772 and is pictured in Figures 1 & 2 below.

The application seeks to rezone the site from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use, and also seeks to increase the permissible building height pertaining to part of the subject site as detailed below.

On 20 August 2014 Council wrote to the proponent seeking further information on their proposal. The proponent submitted further information to Council on 24 April 2015, on 24 June 2015 and 8 July 2015.

As noted above, the proposal has been modified in later submissions. The scale of the proposed rezoning has been expanded to include the Liverpool Plaza site (165 Macquarie Street), the proposed increase in permissible height of buildings on the development site (i.e. 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets) has been increased from 70 metres to 100 metres and the foreshadowed development on the site has been modified to incorporate an elliptical tower on podium, where the original proposal envisaged a square tower. The proponent has also agreed to Council’s request to incorporate more floorspace for commercial uses than the original proposal provided, as discussed below.

It is to be noted that the Liverpool City Centre LEP Review, which was endorsed by Council at its meeting of 29 April 2015, proposes to rezone all existing B3 – Commercial Core zoned land in Liverpool City Centre to B4 – Mixed Use. This review would rezone the subject site to B4 but proposes to designate most of the subject site as part of the “Fine Grain Precinct”, and would establish a maximum FSR for the site of 2.5:1 and a maximum building height of 21 metres, as depicted in Figure 3 below. The western portion of the Liverpool Plaza site would be designated as part of the “Mid Rise Precinct”, with a maximum FSR of 3.0:1 and a maximum building height of 28 metres.

The proponent’s application seeks further amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008, which would permit the development of a much taller building on the subject site to that envisaged in the Liverpool City Centre Review. It includes an increase in the permissible building height to 100 metres to permit the development of a mixed-use tower on the site.

As the proponent’s proposed development for the subject site differs significantly from that outlined in the LEP Review, it is recommended that the proponent’s application be treated as a separate and unique proposal.

Figure 1: The subject site situated on the corner of Macquarie and Moore Streets,

and between Macquarie and Northumberland Streets Liverpool

Source: Liverpool City Council GIS

Figure 2: Liverpool City Centre services map showing

the subject site marked with a red star.

Source: Proponent’s planning proposal

Figure 3: The subject site is designated both as “Fine Grain” and “Mid Rise”

Source: City Centre LEP Review report to Council 29 April 2015

The proposal

The proponent is seeking Council support to rezone the subject site from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use, so that mixed-use development is permitted on the site, which is in line with Council’s objectives for Liverpool City Centre as articulated in its adoption of the City Centre LEP review report at its ordinary meeting of 29 April 2015. Specifically, the proponent has indicated that they wish to develop a 28 storey tower on podium building on the site with uses including retail, office, serviced apartments and residential flats.

Building Height

In addition to rezoning the subject site from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use, the proponent has sought to amend the Height of Buildings Map for the subject site to increase the maximum permissible building height for the development site (i.e. 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets) from 18 metres to 100 metres, which would permit the development of the 28 storey tower on podium building on the site as described above.

Floor Space Ratio

The revised planning proposal does not seek to increase the FSR applying to the subject site, on the basis that any substantial increase in FSR for the site would provide a precedent and raise expectations of neighbouring landowners of a similar increase, which would risk undermining the recommendations of Council’s City Centre LEP Review.

The proponent does foreshadow that, were the proposed amendments to the LLEP 2008 to be adopted, a development application for the proposed site would seek to utilise the provisions of Clause 4.5(6) of LLEP 2008, which allows the residual FSR of an adjoining lot to be utilised, on condition that “significant development” is also being proposed on that adjoining lot.

The proponent has indicated that they intend to develop a childcare centre and an additional level of carparking on the adjoining lot (Liverpool Plaza) to the development site, as partly illustrated in Figure 6 below. LLEP 2008 does not provide a definition of “significant development” for the purpose of meeting the requirements of clause 4.5(6). In support of their rezoning application, the proponent has argued that the proposed development of the Liverpool Plaza site should be considered as “significant development” because:

· The sole purpose of the car parking will be to serve the retail and serviced apartments on the development site (i.e. 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets);

· Without the proposed carparking to be developed on the Liverpool Plaza site, there would be insufficient parking provided for the proposed retail and serviced apartment uses on the development site, according to the requirements of Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008;

· The carparking and childcare centre will be substantial structures that will increase the existing building envelope on the Liverpool Plaza site by more than 50%;

· The carparking and childcare centre are not incidental or ancillary to the overall envisaged development, but are core uses supporting the overall concept of the envisaged development; and

· The carparking and childcare centre are physically and functionally connected to the envisaged development on the development site.

The proponent has provided a draft covenant (see attached) which would prevent “double dipping” of the floor space to be taken from the Liverpool Plaza site. The covenant would be required to satisfy the requirements of clause 4.5(9) of LLEP 2008 for a future development application for the envisaged development.

Legal considerations

The proponent has provided legal advice to Council (see attached), which considers whether the proponent’s intention to develop a childcare centre and carparking on the adjacent (Liverpool Plaza) site would be considered “significant development”.

The legal advice notes that there is no definition of “significant development” provided by either LLEP 2008 or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. While the Act defines “development”, this is a very broad definition; “significant development” must imply greater nature and scale. As neither the Act nor the Court has provided a definition of the term, it must retain its everyday meaning. The advice notes in part:

5.6 “Significant” means material, noteworthy or of consequence. In this case, the development on Site C is ancillary and directly related to the retail, commercial and serviced apartment uses to be constructed on the Development Site – development it will support. Accordingly, in comparative terms it is clearly material, noteworthy and of consequence. The addition of a gymnasium or child-care centre (although having no direct relationship to the Development Site uses) adds further weight to that proposition.

On account of the late submission of the proponent’s legal advice, Council Officers have been unable to commission a peer review of the advice provided. However, having considered legal advice on the matter in general terms, it is recommended that, in the absence of a detailed development application, Council is not in a position to indicate if the proponent is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of clause 4.5(6) of LLEP 2008.

As the proponent is not requesting modification to the existing FSR for the site, the issue of whether the proposed development on the Liverpool Plaza site constitutes “significant development” does not require resolution prior to the submission of a planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, were the proponent’s definition of “significant development” to fail, a development application for the site would be unable to rely on residual FSR from the Liverpool Plaza site to provide extra floorspace on the subject site pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.5(6) of LLEP 2008.

Commercial uses

The proponent has proposed to develop one floor (894sqm) of retail, two floors (2,182sqm) of commercial floorspace on the subject site in addition to 72 serviced apartments (3186sqm) in order to provide for employment in Liverpool City Centre. Prior to the submission of a planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E), Council Officers will work with the proponent to develop a mechanism (i.e. specific wording for an additional clause to LLEP 2008) that ensures that the proposed commercial floorspace is developed in any new mixed-use building developed on the site.

Proposed building form and uses

An application to amend planning controls for a site need not be tied to a specific building design. The proponent has not lodged a development application for the redevelopment of the site at this time.

The proponent has provided Council with images of a building that they intend to develop were the planning proposal to proceed. These images are reproduced for councillors’ information at Figures 4, 5 & 6 below.

Figures 4 & 5:Future development of the subject site envisaged by the proponent

Source: JPRC Architects as supplied by the proponent.

Figure 6: Envisaged uses of proposed development

Source: JPRC Architects as supplied by the proponent.

Justification for the proposed rezoning

The proponent has provided justification for the proposal in the document Highest and Best Use Options. A summary of the justification provided is as follows:

Housing

· There is strong underlying demand for infill residential development, compatible with the demographic profile of market catchment residents, and evidenced by strong capital and rental growth, strong sales rates for competing developments and ongoing population growth;

· The need to maintain housing growth to keep downward pressure on dwelling prices.

· There is market demand to support the absorption of an additional 134 residential units.

· The proposal will contribute to the development of Liverpool City Centre as a mixed-use centre.

· The inclusion of serviced apartments in Liverpool City Centre will promote local tourism and improve access to Liverpool by visitors.

Commercial

There is limited demand for new office space in Liverpool City Centre. Retaining the B3 – Commercial Core zoning for the site (which prohibits most residential uses) may restrict the development of the site to its highest potential.

Feasibility

The proponent’s preliminary feasibility analysis demonstrates that the rezoning would provide a net development profit in the order of $15.1 million, or 18.75%, which is within the viable development margin of 18-20%. Were the site not to be rezoned as requested, the proponent maintains that development on the site would not be readily viable.

Economic Impact

The proponent indicates that development made permissible by the rezoning of the subject site as proposed, would yield 324 construction jobs, 381 operational jobs and support an additional retail spend of $4.7 million annually.

The proponent’s Highest and Best Use Options document is included as an attachment for reference.

Overview of the Assessment of the Proposal

An initial assessment of the proposal was undertaken by Council officers in 2014, following which further information and justification was requested of the applicant in a letter dated 20 August 2014. The applicant submitted a letter detailing further information to Council on 24 April 2015, with extra information submitted on 24 June 2015 and again on 8 July 2015.

Suitability of the foreshadowed development

The proponent has provided photographic images which depict the proposed building outcome but no scaled plans for assessment.

The proposed rezoning would permit the development of a 100 metre high (28 storey) mixed-use building on the site. The planning controls currently applying to the development site restrict the maximum building height to 18 metres. Council’s City Centre LEP Review proposes to increase the maximum height of a building on the development site to 21 metres.

In support of their application to increase the maximum height of a building on the development site to 100 metres, the proponent has argued that the development site meets the criteria for an Opportunity Site as described by the City centre LEP Review. The criteria outlined in the LEP Review for a site to qualify as an Opportunity Site is as follows:

· The site must have a minimum area of 1500sqm;

· The site must have multiple street or laneway/serviceway frontages;

· The site can accommodate tower footprints of up to 750 square metres gross floor area for residential uses or 1200 square metres gross floor area for commercial uses;

· The site can accommodate tall buildings without significant impact on the adjacent public domain, heritage buildings or neighbouring sites;

· The site offers the potential to deliver some additional car parking located in key locations in the CBD; and

· The site has the potential to improve the public domain, extend lanes and/or provide through-site links.

The proponent has provided evidence that the site generally meets the criteria as follows:

· The site area exceeds the minimum of 1500sqm necessary to qualify as an ‘Opportunity Site’;

· The site has multiple street/laneway frontages (the site fronts both Macquarie Street and Moore Street and is serviced by Davis Serviceway to the rear);

· The proponent states that the site is capable of mitigating impacts on the public domain, heritage buildings or neighbouring sites. Submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and Shadow Analysis will be required to confirm this;

· The proponent states that the site can accommodate a tower footprint of up to 750sqm with the appropriate setbacks. It is noted, however, that the proponent has not provided plans which demonstrate this;

· The proponent has stated that there is the potential to provide additional roof-deck parking on the adjacent Liverpool Plaza site; and

· The proponent has not addressed the consideration of the site having the potential to improve the public domain or provide through-site links.

On available evidence, it may therefore be concluded that the site generally meets the criteria for an Opportunity Site as described in the City centre LEP Review. The site may meet all criteria, dependent on further information being provided to permit a more detailed assessment.

The proponent has advanced further arguments in favour of the rezoning, stating that the site should be considered as a special case for the following reasons:

· The site is at the centre of Liverpool City Centre, at the junction of Moore and Macquarie streets, on the southern end of the Macquarie Street Mall;

· The site is one of only two “Fine Grain” sites that have the potential for tower development (the other being the Liverpool RSL Club site directly opposite the development site);

· Other sites around the Macquarie/Moore streets corner do not have potential, on account of heritage restrictions or fragmented ownership;

· The opportunity to consolidate “Opportunity Sites” to the south of the development site is limited by fragmented ownership and rear lanes which limit lot size. Similar impediments exist on much of the east of the Macquarie Street mall; and

· Being situated at the southern end of the Mall, the site can accommodate a tower development without overshadowing the Mall.

Impact on the development potential of the adjacent site

At Council’s request, the proponent has provided information regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the development potential of the adjacent site (85-95 Moore Street). This site along with the development site comprise a Key Site identified by LLEP 2008. The sites are depicted in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Depiction of the development site and adjacent site

Source: Urbis

According to Part 4 of LDCP 2008, this Key Site, constituted by both sites, has the following development potential:

This site is in a prominent location fronting directly onto the south western corner of the Macquarie Street Mall. The present treatment of this important corner and “arrival” point to the Mall is relatively poor and requires improvement through a quality architectural and urban design response to this site. (Part 4 LDCP 2008 p73)

The City Centre LEP Review seeks to remove reference to the Key Sites in the city centre, to allow for greater flexibility for individual lots to develop as Opportunity Sites, as discussed above. The proponent has also provided the following information regarding the impact of the proposal on the site as follows:

· The site (of itself) is smaller than 1500sqm and is therefore unable to support a tower development as an “Opportunity Site” as described by the City Centre LEP Review;

· The site cannot be amalgamated with any other site; and

· The site has the potential to be developed according to the recommendations of the City Centre LEP Review, which would permit a 6 storey street edge and 4 storey lane edge form.

Conclusion

On the basis of the evidence provided by the proponent, it is concluded that the proposal has merit. It is therefore recommended that Council support the proposal in principle, including the drafting of a planning proposal and its submission to the department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) seeking a Gateway Review.

It is noted that, should DP&E issue a gateway Determination for the site, the proposal may be further refined and assessed including in response to any submissions received during public authority consultation or public exhibition. Council would then have a further opportunity to assess the proposal prior to the proposed amendment being made.

Outstanding Information

Certain information required by Council Officers for the completion of a planning proposal remains outstanding. The completion of a planning proposal for submission to the DP&E is contingent on Council receiving such information. The outstanding information that the proponent has agreed to provide includes:

· A shadow analysis depicting the likely shadowing generated by the foreshadowed development on surrounding development, at 9am, 12pm and 3pm on March 21, June 21, September 21 and December 21; and

· A mechanism to ensure the development of the proposed commercial floorspace, as detailed above, on the development site.

Following the receipt of the outstanding information, a planning proposal detailing the changes sought to the LLEP 2008 will be prepared by Council Officers to be forwarded to DP&E for Gateway Review.

The proponent has also agreed to submit a Heritage Impact Assessment assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on heritage items (particularly item #95 – the Corner Pub). It is recommended that the report, including any recommendations for amelioration of impacts is to be submitted prior to the planning proposal being publicly exhibited.

Catalyst for further development

The proposed rezoning from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use is considered appropriate for the subject site. This zoning change would provide for a more flexible range of uses, in particular residential accommodation as part of a mixed-use development. This will facilitate increasing the population in the City Centre, contributing toward Council’s vision to increase activity and vibrancy within the Liverpool City Centre.

While the proposal for the site does not align with that described in the Liverpool City Centre LEP review, the proposal has merit and could provide a catalyst for further development of Liverpool City Centre as a mixed-use precinct.

Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA)

The subject site occupies a central position in Liverpool City Centre at the entrance to Macquarie Street Mall. The proposed rezoning of the site would afford significant additional development opportunities and it is expected that such development should make a substantial contribution to the improvement of the public realm.

The subject site is liable to a developer contribution equivalent to 3% of the cost of carrying out the development according to the Liverpool City Centre Contributions Plan 2007. Nevertheless, it is recommended that Council seek to negotiate a VPA with the developer which could include required road works and public domain improvements in both the Macquarie Street Mall and Moore Street.

Process from here

The usual process for rezoning applications following a review of the application is for Council Officers to prepare a planning proposal detailing the proposed changes to the Liverpool LEP 2008. This planning proposal would then be reported to Council for endorsement to send to the DP&E for Gateway Review.

This report seeks in principle endorsement from Council before finalising the detailed planning proposal. To expedite the lodgment of the proposed amendment with DP&E, it is further recommended that Council delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the final planning proposal to send to the DP&E for Gateway Review.

Following a Gateway Determination for a planning proposal, there is a process of state agency consultation, public exhibition, and a further report to Council before proceeding with the making of any changes to the LEP.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the proposal to rezone the subject site in the Liverpool City Centre from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use be endorsed, in principle, and that the authority to approve the finalised planning proposal be delegated to the CEO so that it can be submitted to the DP&E for Gateway Review.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. 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. Liverpool Plaza - Highest and Best Use Options View (Under separate cover)

2. Draft Covenant View (Under separate cover)

3. Proponent's legal advice View (Under separate cover)

4. Proponent's Planning Proposal View (Under separate cover)

277

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 03

Bigge Park Draft Conservation Management Plan

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history
Key Policy	Heritage Strategy
File Ref	158046.2015
Report By	Kate Higgins - Heritage Officer
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

A conservation management plan (CMP) was sought for Bigge Park in response to the proposed upgrading of Bigge Park as part of the Building Our New City program.

Council engaged a consultant, Betteridge Consulting, to prepare a conservation management plan. The Draft Bigge Park Conservation Management Plan (BPCMP) was placed on public exhibition from 20 May 2015 to 25 June 2015 in order to seek comments on the draft prior to finalisation.

Four submissions were received during the period of public exhibition. As a result of the submissions a number of small changes are proposed to the Draft Bigge Park Conservation Management Plan prior to finalisation. These changes to wording of four of the conservation policies will clarify the intent of the policies and remove the need for some unnecessary archaeological assessment.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the draft Bigge Park Conservation Management Plan for Bigge Park, Liverpool, subject to the amendments proposed in Table 1 of this report.

REPORT

Background

Bigge Park was established at the direction of Governor Macquarie with the intention of it being used as a public market place and venue for annual fairs by the future residents of the newly established Town of Liverpool and surrounding rural area. Provision for the park was accordingly made in the town plan grid prepared by Surveyor James Meehan in late 1810. Bigge Park was formally proclaimed as a park for public recreation in 1868. The BPCMP was sought in response to the proposed upgrading of Bigge Park as part of the Building Our New City program.

The BPCMP supports previous assessments of the significance of Bigge Park and recommends that, as an historic town square; it warrants listing on the State Heritage Register, with appropriate exemptions to allow for day-to-day management.

The BPCMP recommends policies to retain and enhance the park’s heritage values, comments on current development proposals and provides an interpretation strategy for communicating the heritage values of the park to present and future communities.

Key recommendations of the BPCMP are:

· Endorse the BPCMP as the guiding document for Council’s decision making in regard to the future conservation and management of Bigge Park.

· Retain existing park boundaries as curtilage for Bigge Park.

· Retain Bigge Park as essentially open space for passive recreation.

· Manage Bigge Park in accordance with current best practice and statutory requirements to retain and conserve its heritage values.

· Implement the conservation policies in the BPCMP to achieve the above outcomes.

· Prepare an Interpretation Plan for Bigge Park to communicate its heritage values to present and future generations.

· Nominate Bigge Park for inclusion on the State Heritage Register.

· Coordinate the implementation of the BPCMP with an endorsed Landscape Masterplan for Bigge Park.

· Conserve the Cook Memorial Obelisk and relocate it from Discovery Park to an agreed location in Bigge Park.

Council resolved on 29 April 2015 to place the BPCMP on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

Heritage Significance

The Statement of Significance for Bigge Park is set out below.

Bigge Park has historical significance at a State level as an example of the town squares included by Governor Lachlan Macquarie in his plans for the towns he established in the colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s land between 1810 and 1822. As an area of public open space in continuous use since it was created, Bigge Park has been a key part of Liverpool for more than 200 years. The park is one of the few colonial places (along with the former Court House, former Hospital, St Luke’s Church and the street grid plan) remaining which demonstrate the history of the town. The park also has a long history as a place for memorials to important events and persons associated with Liverpool.

The park (formerly Bigge’s Square, then Bigge-square Park) named after Commissioner John Thomas Bigge has strong associations with important figures in the early colonial planning and development of the colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, including Governor Lachlan Macquarie and Surveyor James Meehan as well as Bigge. The park contains memorials to several figures important in the development of Liverpool including Thomas Moore (drinking fountain), T G Scott (gateway), Alex Grimson (music shell) and Dr James Pirie (former baby health clinic, later community centre). The park has contained two war memorials including the current Liverpool Regional War Memorial and is the focus of annual Anzac Day and Armistice Day commemorations. There are strong associations at a local level with local sports including football, cricket, tennis and bowls, the park being the former headquarters of the Liverpool City Bowling Club and the Southern Districts Tennis Association. There are more minor associations with dignitaries who unveiled memorials including former NSW governors Sir Eric Woodward and Sir Roden Cutler VC.

Bigge Park has aesthetic significance at a local level as a designed cultural landscape with several prominent buildings and structures and mature tree plantings. Significant built elements include the Dr Pirie Centre, the T G Scott Memorial Gateway and the Rotary clock tower. The aesthetic values of the park derived from its open spaces and ornamental plantings are compromised to some extent by relatively recent buildings including the bowling club house and tennis club house and the additions and disabled access ramps to the Dr Pirie Centre.

It is likely that Bigge Park has high social significance for particular groups within the contemporary Liverpool community, particularly local sporting groups, those who use the park for passive recreation or attendance at ceremonies such as Anzac Day commemorations and the homeless people who use the park’s Music Shell for overnight shelter. Aboriginal land claims over the park by the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council indicate the park has special significance to a group representing local Aboriginal people.

Bigge Park has some technical significance as an example of Macquarie’s town planning for the colony of New South Wales and there is potential for further information about the history of the place through ongoing research of archival sources.

Bigge Park has rarity value at a State level as a relatively intact example of one of the few town squares ordered by Governor Lachlan Macquarie and surveyed by James Meehan in the second decade of the 19th century. Bigge Park is representative of early town squares later dedicated as municipal parks.

While some of the original area of Bigge’s Square was appropriated for railway use in the 1850s, the present boundaries are largely unchanged since that time although some sections have been alienated for sectional sporting interests.

The significance of Bigge Park warrants its nomination for inclusion on the State Heritage Register, with appropriate exemptions for routine repairs and maintenance and for implementation of an endorsed CMP.

Public Exhibition

Public exhibition of the BPCMP was advised in the following ways:

· Placed on the “On Public Exhibition” page of Council’s web site.

· Notice on the “Liverpool City Council News” pages of Liverpool Leader.

· Written advice to members of Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee.

· Written advice to the Office of Environment and Heritage NSW Heritage Division.

Comment on the BPCMP was also invited from relevant Council staff.

A discussion of issues raised in submissions is attached.

As a result of submissions received, it is recommended that the BPCMP be finalised in accordance with the proposed amendments set out in Table 1 of this report.

The discussion in the BPCMP about policies for conservation of significant fabric in section 7.3.8 states that works must be guided by “current best practice”. This phrase lacks some clarity and can be better understood through reference to The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS (International Committee on Monuments and Sites) Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013. It is therefore recommended that the wording of this section be amended.

Policy 9.1 states that any disturbance of the ground requires an archaeological assessment. This may be appropriate in some circumstances but not all and some work may be covered by NSW Heritage Council Standard Exemption 4 - Excavation. In addition, the Casey and Lowe Liverpool Archeological Zoning & Management Plan (1996) provides a preliminary archaeological assessment of Bigge Park. It is recommended that the unlimited requirement for an archaeological assessment in Policy 9.1 of the BPCMP be deleted.

It is proposed to delete Policy 9.2 as it is considered unlikely that an archaeological investigation of the wall cavities of the tennis pavilion will reveal useful information which would not be available from other sources. It is noted that the Pirie Building is covered by its own Conservation Management Plan.

Conservation guidelines for the tennis pavilion are set out in section 8.2 of the BPCMP. The tennis pavilion is an attractive low scale face brick and weatherboard building set near the Moore Street boundary of Bigge Park. The building has a large verandah on its northern side which overlooks the tennis courts. The pavilion is currently used as a cafe. A key aspect of the heritage significance of Bigge Park is its historical use as public open space. The tennis courts have been associated with the park for almost 100 years and are ancillary to the general public use of the park. The tennis pavilion has a compatible new use as a café and, given the simple character of the building, could also be able to be adapted for other uses. The pavilion also serves to interpret the long association with tennis at Bigge Park. It is proposed that the BPCMP be amended to state that the tennis pavilion is to be retained, however its retention is to be re-evaluated of the pavilion becomes unviable.

Table 1, below, sets out the current wording in the BPCMP and the proposed changes. The wording of the BPCMP recommended to be amended is underlined.

Table 1

Current wording

Proposed wording

Section 7.3.8 Detailed policies on conservation of significant fabric

Rationale

Retention and care of significant building fabric must be guided by current best

practice in materials conservation, using methods appropriate to the particular type of

fabric and traditional methods of construction and repair.

Section 7.3.8 Detailed policies on conservation of significant fabric

Rationale

Retention and care of significant building fabric must be guided by the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter using methods appropriate to the particular type of

fabric and traditional methods of construction and repair.

Policy 9.1

Any disturbance of the sub-surface, for installation of services and the

like, shall comply with the requirements of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, as amended.

The minimum requirement is for an archaeological assessment by a qualified

archaeologist.

Policy 9.1

Any disturbance of the sub-surface, including for installation of services and the like, shall comply with the requirements of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, as amended.

Policy 9.2

Any work involving disturbance of original building cavities on a

significant building to be retained should also be subject to assessment by a qualified

archaeologist.

Section 8.2 Specific element conservation guidelines.

Tennis club house/Courtside Cafe

Retain while viable and manage to minimise visual impacts on the park. Enhance surroundings in accordance with endorsed Landscape Masterplan.

Section 8.2 Specific element conservation guidelines.

Tennis club house/Courtside Cafe

Retain and manage to minimise visual impacts on the park. Re-evaluate retention if the pavilion becomes unviable.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Table of issues raised in public submissions - Bigge Park View

2. Draft Conservation Management Plan for Bigge Park with Appendices attached View (Under separate cover)

285

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 04

Proposal to amend Part 2.11 of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 to remove reference to Edmondson Park South (Draft Amendment 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	161759.2015
Report By	Laura Perry - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

At its meeting of 4 February 2015, Council resolved as follows:

1. Resolves to prepare and publicly exhibit an amendment to Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 in accordance with Section 74C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. Receives a future report considering the comments received during public exhibition.

The draft amendment to the LDCP 2008 was placed on public exhibition for 28 days from 15 April 2015 to 13 May 2015 pursuant to Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. No submissions were received.

It is recommended that Council proceeds with progressing LDCP 2008 (Draft Amendment 18).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts LDCP 2008 (Amendment 18) in accordance with section 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to come into effect on the publication of the required notice in the local newspaper.

REPORT

Background

This amendment seeks to alter Part 2.11 of Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008 applying to the Edmondson Park release area to remove reference to Edmondson Park South for which there is now a separate DCP. The amendment also seeks to protect the accessibility and navigability of the Edmondson Park release area, by increasing the number of fixed roads.

Amending the DCP to increase the number of fixed roads (which may be deleted only via an amendment to the DCP) prevents the navigability of the road network from being eroded by road changes approved as part of development consents issued for subdivision. The increase in fixed roads is the minimum necessary to ensure vehicular and pedestrian access is maintained. See Attachment 1 ‘Fixed Roads’.

On 5 August 2011, an amendment to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major

Development) 2005 was gazetted, zoning land described as Edmondson Park South under the SEPP. The planning controls including zoning outlined in Part 31 of Schedule 3 of the Major Development SEPP and associated maps, supersede the controls provided by the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 for this part of the release area.

On 12 December 2012 the Edmondson Park South Development Control Plan 2012 came into force over the land described as Edmondson Park South. This DCP specifically supersedes Part 2.11 (Land Subdivision and Development in Edmondson Park) of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 as it applies to land described as Edmondson Park South. The sections of Part 2.11 of LDCP 2008 that apply to Edmondson Park South have therefore been redundant since this time.

At its meeting of 4 February 2015, Council resolved to direct planning staff to “prepare and publicly exhibit an amendment to Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 in accordance with Section 74C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979” and that Council “receives a future report considering the comments received during public exhibition.” This report has been prepared pursuant to that direction.

Public Exhibition Summary

LDCP 2008 (Draft Amendment 18) was publicly exhibited between 15 April 2015 and 13 May 2015. An exhibition period of 28 days was required pursuant to Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Council received no submissions regarding the planning proposal. It is therefore recommended that the amendment proceed without variation.

Conclusion

LDCP 2008 (Draft Amendment 18) proposes amendments to Part 2.11 of LDCP 2008 involving minimal changes made necessary by the making of the Edmondson Park South DCP 2012. The proposed amendment also seeks to increase the number of fixed roads applying to the Edmondson Park release area, in order to guarantee future accessibility and walkability. No submissions were received during the public exhibition.

It is recommended that LDCP 2008 (Draft Amendment 18) is adopted by Council to come into effect on the publication of a notice in the local newspaper.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Fixed Roads

290

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 05

Comprehensive Review of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	169350.2015
Report By	Bruce Macnee - Manager Strategic Planning
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council’s current Local Environmental Plan (LEP) was gazetted in August 2008. Although the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) does not specify how often a LEP should be reviewed, Councils are encouraged to update their planning instruments on a regular basis. As early as 2010, the Council resolved to commence a comprehensive review of the Liverpool LEP 2008 (LLEP 2008).

The seven years since gazettal of the LLEP 2008 have seen a dramatic shift in development trends in Sydney and Liverpool. The shift reflects structural changes to the Australian economy and demographic changes. The geography of employment has fundamentally changed due to the steady and rapid contraction of the manufacturing sector, the growth of the knowledge economy and the emergence of the Generation Y in the jobs market. These changes will impact on Liverpool more than most other LGAs because of its demographic profile, its location relative to the CBD and the dominance of the manufacturing sector in Liverpool. The recent decision to proceed with Badgerys Creek airport is a fundamental game-changer, promising approximately 20,000 jobs and generating more than $11 billion in increased economic activity by 2050. Moreover, recent planning proposals reflect a desire to develop high-rise mixed-use buildings in the CBD and Moorebank. This focus is supported by the recent decision to review the City Centre LEP and develop a planning proposal for the Moorebank precinct.

These demographic, economic and structural changes, together with changes to the state government’s planning framework, are compelling reasons to undertake a comprehensive review of Liverpool's LEP as soon as possible.

This report outlines the studies that are considered necessary to inform a new LEP and estimates the costs, key milestones and timeframes to produce the plan. The report recommends that the process of developing a comprehensive city-wide LEP be commenced immediately.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the proposed project to prepare a comprehensive new Liverpool Local Environment Plan.

2. Notes the estimated timeframes and budget implications as detailed in the report.

3. Notes that a budget funding request will be referred to the first quarterly review this year.

REPORT

Background

LLEP 2008

In 2004 the NSW Department of Planning introduced a raft of State-wide planning reforms including the introduction of the Standard Instrument (LEPs) Order 2006 which established the standardised LEP template. The LEP was prepared with the aim of meeting the long term goals established under the State Government Metropolitan Strategy and to provide certainty and direction, in light of local challenges such as ongoing population growth and development pressures.

Liverpool City Council had a prioritised timeframe to deliver a comprehensive LEP. The LLEP 2008 was prepared over a two and a half year timeframe, from the commissioning of the background studies in early 2006, to gazettal on 28 August 2008.

A number of studies were commissioned including:

· Residential Development Strategy;

· Business Centres and Corridors Strategy;

· Industrial Lands Strategy;

· Public Land Strategy; and

· Rural Lands Strategy.

These background reports not only informed the comprehensive LEP but continue to be referenced in the assessment of rezonings and amendments to the principal LEP.

Further Studies

On 28 February 2011, Council resolved to undertake a detailed review of LLEP 2008 in 2011/2012 subject to consideration and approval of the 2011/2012 budget. The report to Council estimated the cost of the review would be $375,000 in the first year. On 18 April 2011 Council resolved to initiate background studies, noting the budget implication and the need for additional staffing resources. The Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy Review 2012, the Rural Lands Study 2012 and Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study 2014 were commissioned as a result. Council has also completed the Liverpool Biodiversity Management Plan 2012 and the Liverpool City Centre Review of Planning Controls which will certainly assist in the review of the LEP.

On 16 December 2014 Council resolved to review the LLEP 2008 as follows:

That Council:

· Receives a further report in March 2015 regarding further detail on a review of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

· Receives in that report a process that solicits councillors’ involvement in the development of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

Planning Proposals

Since 2008, Council has initiated or received approximately 50 applications (planning proposals) for amendments to the LLEP 2008. Recent planning proposals reflect a desire to develop high-rise mixed-use buildings in the CBD and Moorebank. This focus is supported by the recent decision to review the City Centre LEP and develop a planning proposal for the Moorebank precinct.

LLEP 2008 was one of the first LEPs created under the Standard Instrument. It is now significantly outdated and requires revision to reflect the current trends and future needs of a growing community. This will involve a comprehensive updating of the current zoning and the principal standards as well as of the associated sections and clauses within the statutory instrument.

Context

Planning Strategies

There are a plethora of strategies and directions set out in the Act and its regulations and on the Department of Planning and Environment’s website which must be addressed in the process of creating a new comprehensive LEP. These include A Plan for Growing Sydney, December 2014, the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, 2012 and the State Infrastructure Strategy, 2010 update. There are a number of studies and strategies under development at the moment, notably the South West Subregional Strategy, due to be released in the following months, which will also impact on development in Liverpool.

Liverpool Council has developed a number of strategies, plans and visions which demonstrate a desire to create a more active, healthy, connected, innovative, sustainable and attractive City. A new comprehensive LEP can support and facilitate these aspirations.

Demographic and Economic Drivers

There are a number of economic, social and environmental drivers which have dramatically changed development trends in Liverpool and which demand an urgent comprehensive review of our planning framework, including:

· An increasing focus on south western Sydney for the supply of houses and jobs for Sydney as a whole;

· The issue of housing affordability and the influence of supply;

· The ageing of the population;

· The growing acceptance of apartment living as a desirable housing choice;

· The recent interest in in-fill, high-rise residential development in and around the CBD;

· Climate change impacts and concerns about resilience;

· The steady contraction of the manufacturing sector;

· The poor take-up of Liverpool’s CBD commercial zone;

· The growth of the knowledge economy and the emergence of Generation Y in the jobs market; and

· The announcement of Badgerys Creek airport and infrastructure initiatives.

LEP Principles and Strategies

It is considered that a number of principles and themes, that are consistent with the goals and principles underpinning A Plan for Growing Sydney and Growing Liverpool 2023, should inform Council’s approach to the new LEP.

The plan must have the following objectives:

· Encourage investment by providing certainty and a clear vision;

· Encourage smart, innovative and sustainable jobs;

· Facilitate excellence in architecture and urban design - amenity is critical;

· Provide for housing to meet growth projections;

· Achieve a compact city, with development concentrated around efficient transit options;

· Achieve improved connectivity and encourage walking and cycling;

· Enhance the public domain to achieve a greener city and a healthier environment;

· Encourage and improve our natural resources, including biodiversity corridors, riverside reserves, agricultural lands and mining resources; and

· Encourage the creative industries, public art, heritage and culture;

· Be informed by a robust strategic foundation;

· Development should be sequenced to achieve efficient provision of infrastructure;

· Community consultation must be best practice; and

· The plan must be compatible with ePlanning systems;

Studies Required and Budget Implications

A number of detailed background studies are required to inform the review of the LLEP. The recommended studies are listed in the following table.

The total estimated cost for the supporting studies is $790,000. It is proposed that the majority of these studies will be undertaken in the 2015/16 financial year.

$150,000 is already available in the 2015/16 budget, and there are opportunities to access grant funding to cover some studies. This will leave an additional budget requirement of $340,000 for the 2015/16 financial year. This will be referred to the first quarterly review.

Table 1: LEP Proposed Studies and indicative costing

Proposed Studies/ Strategies	Total cost	New Budget allocation 2015/16	Alternative funding/ available funds	Comments
Residential land use	$150,000	$150,000		A comprehensive study will analyse market trends and drivers, including A Plan For Growing Sydney and anticipated population targets. It will consider take up of land in the Release Areas and renewed interest in the infill precincts.
Employment and Economic Land Use	$200,000	$130,000	$70,000 allocated in 2015/16 Economic Development budget to undertake an industrial audit - to be transferred to LEP budget.	A comprehensive study will analyse market trends and drivers and anticipated employment targets. A comprehensive industrial lands study will analyse industrial market conditions in the city, particularly in light of proposals to redevelop industrial land near the city for residential, commercial and retail development.
Retail and Commercial Centres	$60,000	$60,000		This study will be an update of the Retail Hierarchy Review 2012, which will take account of the changed economic drivers in Liverpool and how they affect planned centres. As well as considering retail dynamics, the study will also analyse office market conditions and opportunities. The review will assess the scale and function of existing and proposed commercial centres, forecasted retail expenditure and whether the likely supply of commercial development will meet the projected demand. A revised strategy will be developed.
Transport Management and Accessibility	$130,000		$130,000 Funds available in grants reserve under LLEP Review	This study will complement and update the Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study, 2014. It will assess the likely impact of the Release Areas on traffic conditions around and through the CBD. It will also review likely traffic impacts and solutions brought about by urban renewal proposals and the new airport. The study will also consider strategies to facilitate improved opportunities for walking and cycling in the City.
Proposed Studies/ Strategies	Total cost	New Budget allocation 2015/16	Alternative funding/ available funds	Comments
CBD parking	$80,000		$80,000 S94 funds are available as study will consider a revised contributions plan for the city centre.	The study will assess existing parking in the CBD and consider strategies to cater for growth of the city centre.
Open space and recreation	$50,000	.	$50,000 There is potential to access grants to finance this	This study will assess the distribution of public lands in the City and develop a strategy to enhance our public realm.
Heritage	$50,000		$50,000 There is potential to access grants.	This study will entail a heritage review focused on the City Centre and post war and industrial development outside of the CBD.
Strategic planning vision		To be developed in-house		An over-arching strategic planning vision will be developed that sets out guiding principles for the Liverpool LGA over the next 25 years at least. It will describe the city that we aspire to and how to get there. It will provide a valuable resource when liaising with the State and Federal governments and when developing future plans and assessing planning proposals.
Enlarged CBD design study	$70,000		$70,000 Funding will be available from planning proposals.	To consider creation of a master plan for an enlarged CBD embracing the east bank. The study will be informed by the George River master planning project.
TOTAL	$790,000	$340,000	$450,000

The LEP Plan Making Process

There are a number of steps in the process of developing a new LEP. In summary, the following steps apply as a minimum:

1. The relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal, which usually involves commissioning studies and developing strategies which inform the drafting of the plan. The planning proposal must explain the effect of and justification for the plan.

2. Council submits the planning proposal to the Minister for gateway approval. The minister decides to approve or refuse, whether further studies are required and how much consultation is required.

3. Council consults with state and Commonwealth agencies and neighbouring local authorities. Subsequently, Council consults with the public.

4. Council receives a report, detailing the submissions and any hearings that are held and submits the final document to the Minister for drafting into legislation.

Attachment 1 to this report sets out an estimated timeline for the production of a comprehensive LEP. Please note these estimates will be able to be confirmed once the project plan has been completed and the briefs for the consultants have been finalised. It must be acknowledged however that the process of creating a LEP is subject to factors beyond the control of Council, which may extend the timeline. Such factors include the response times of the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and other agencies, the local government election, the outcome of the Fit for Future review, and any changes to relevant legislation, policies and strategies. For example the imposition of new targets in the sub-regional plan may significantly impact on zoning.

Council Staffing requirements

The project will require the appointment of a full time project manager for a two year period to oversee the entire program, including the management of consultants and coordination of the consultation process. A detailed community consultation plan will also be developed. Significant staff resources will be required to support the project manager. It is proposed to undertake the drafting of the LEP in-house and to develop the strategic vision internally. Staff will also be involved in briefing consultants, reviewing draft studies, consulting with DPE officers, and undertaking internal and external consultation. The Manager Strategic Planning will review the existing structure to identify if existing staffing levels are adequate to manage this additional workload, particularly given the large number of amendments to the LEP and DCP already in progress, as well as the recent influx of planning proposals, many of which are complex, large-scale projects.

There will also be considerable input from other Council Departments.

Public Exhibition and Consultation

A comprehensive consultation strategy should be adopted for the LEP review. The strategy will need to incorporate all of requirements of the Act and other relevant legislation. Further to this, Council will need to consider proactive methods to consult with the community, industry groups and general stakeholders. This can be done through a variety of ways including;

· Public information sessions;

· Targeted stakeholder workshops;

· Extensive consultation with Councillors;

· Mail out to affected property owners within the local government area;

· Newspaper notifications above that required by legislation; and

· Interactive maps and submission capabilities through Council website.

Project total budget implications

The total cost for preparation of the new LLEP over 2.5 years is estimated at $1.1m, excluding in-house staff costs. The additional budget cost for 2015/16 is estimated at $450,000, and this will be referred to the first quarterly review. Budget requirements for 2016/17 will be referred to next year’s budget process.

There will also be an additional cost for a project manager. Further expenses will be incurred in the second year associated with the consultation program.

Conclusion

Liverpool is facing a time of dramatic change and exciting opportunity. A comprehensive review of the LLEP is essential to provide the tools to exploit the opportunities available to the City. A new LEP, supported by a clearly enunciated strategic framework, will enable Council to plan a clear, orderly and innovative response to the growth pressures and to achieve the most attractive and sustainable outcomes. A detailed consultation strategy will be required to inform residents, landowners and stakeholders of potential changes to planning policy. A comprehensive review of the LLEP will require significant input from senior Council staff throughout the process which is expected to take approximately two and a half years to complete. A corresponding review of the Liverpool DCP 2008 will also need to be undertaken to maintain consistency between the two documents.

It is recommended that Council endorses the preparation of a draft planning proposal for a comprehensive new Local Environmental Plan for Liverpool. It is further recommended that Council notes the funding implications of the project will be referred for separate budget consideration.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The total cost for preparation of the new LLEP over 2.5 years is estimated at $1.1m, excluding in house staff costs. The projected additional budget cost for 2015/16 is estimated at $450,000 and this will be referred to the first quarterly review. Budget requirements for 2016/17 will be referred to next year’s budget process. Facilitate economic development. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways.
Environmental and Sustainability	Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses. Retain viable opportunities for local food production while managing land use to meet growth. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Support policies and plans that prevent crime.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. LLEP Review timeline

395

Ordinary Meeting 29 July 2015

Questions with Notice

QWN 01

Question with Notice - Clr Stanley

Strategic Direction

Natural Sustainable City

Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices

Key Policy

Integrated Environmental Sustainability Action Plan

File Ref

159587.2015

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

Please address the following:

Environmental Levy

1. When was the Environmental levy first added to council rates?

Council’s first Environment Levy program named “The Environment Plan” was originally adopted by Council in May 2002 and approved by the Minister for Local Government in June 2002. This levy program was based on an ad velorum charge to all rateable properties and was approximately $12 per household. This levy program was approved for a five year period and concluded in June 2007.

Due to the success of this Environment Levy program, Council applied for a permanent Environment Levy in 2006. Council was granted approval for the new permanent environment levy named The Environment Restoration Plan (ERP). This new Program was approved by the Minister for Local Government on 2 July 2007. The ERP Levy program is also an ad velorum charge which equates to approximately $20 per household per year for a 650m2 (approx.) property. This currently generates approximately $1.5 million per annum.

2. What was the original reason and objectives of the scheme and levy?

The Environment Levy was originally adopted to ensure Council had a separate and a sustainable source of funding to specifically deliver natural area restoration and environmental education programs. Large areas of existing bushland and riparian corridors in Liverpool are substantially degraded, mostly arising from urban pressures over a period of time. The ERP aims to restore the ecological health of the creeks, rivers and bushland areas through an ongoing program of the following on-ground works:

· Noxious and environmental weed management and control;

· Litter removal;

· Planting of locally native plants;

· Provision of access paths and fences to protect vegetation of ecological significance;

· Building community networks through the Environment Volunteer Program and Environment Advisory Committee;

· Delivering environmental education to the Liverpool community.

· Major natural area (bushland) restoration works;

· Schools programs and newsletters; and

· Community based environmental activities including support for Environment Groups (who undertake environmental restoration works in various Council parks and reserves) and community tree planting activities to support natural area restoration.

A broad program of works for the Environment Levy is outlined in the ERP program (attached).

3. What major projects have been completed using the environmental levy?

Environment Plan Program 2002-2007

Outlined below is a list of achievements delivered by Council’s first five year Environment Plan Program from 2002 to 2007:

Activity	Qty
Total number of Trees planted 37,200 planted by volunteers	103,892
Metres of creek line restored	18,202
Number of Community members involved 100 Regular Volunteers 500 Community Participants	650
Number of tree planting activities	169
Number of Environment Groups	10
Total area regenerated or revegetated	546,368m2
Number of sites	31
Number of trees given away	37,600
Number of Environment Workshops completed	26
Length of Pathway installed	222m

The Environment Restoration Plan

Councils permanent Environment Levy program “The Environment Restoration Plan” commenced in 2007. Projects and programs delivered through the ERP are reported quarterly to the Environment Advisory Committee (EAC). Outlined below is an overview of some of the projects and programs delivered annually under the ERP:

· Eight Major Bush Regeneration projects per year;

· Support for Environment Volunteer activities including Environment Group works and Community Tree Planting Activities (held monthly);

· Support for Schools Environmental Programs including Schools National Tree Day, Environment Citizen of the Year and for the first time this year, Speaking 4 the Planet;

· Environmental Education including Quarterly Sustaining Liverpool Newsletter, facilitation of monthly Sustainability Blitz Workshop series (held monthly);

· Facilitation of the National Tree Day event;

· Facilitation of the Environment Advisory Committee (EAC);

· Involvement in broader Council Events eg: Spring Expo, Australia Day; and

· Facilitation of Grant projects including Green Army.

· Facilitation of an annual Environment Volunteer Recognition Event

ERP Indicators

With the commencement of the permanent Environment Levy program in 2007, Council developed a set of indicators to monitor the success of the program. Each year, Council reports on these indicators to the Environment Advisory Committee. Below is a table showing the indicator results for 2013/14 (2014/15 report is currently being prepared).

Record	Qty	Total
Total number of trees planted		38,664
Volunteers	#	9,637
Contractors	#	25,000
Council's Bush Regeneration Team	#	4,027
Area regenerated or revegetated	m²	81,125m2
Kilometres creek regenerated	km	12.06
Volume of green waste removed	m³	1,103
Volunteers	m³	175
Contractors	m³	922
Council's Bush Regeneration Team	m³	6
Volume of solid waste removed	m³	628
Volunteers	m³	120
Contractors	m³	184
Council's Bush Regeneration Team	m³	324
Hours of on-ground work completed		8,844
Volunteer Hours	hrs	1,557
Contractors	hrs	4972
Council's Bush Regeneration Team	hrs	2,315
Number of tree days	#	40
Community Information
Environment Groups	#	10
Database of interest size	#	1,328
Sustainability Workshops	#	8

School Environmental Grant Program

4. Has council set criteria for the $75,000 funding recently approved?

The criteria has been developed and is included in the Draft Grants and Donations Policy, which is being presented to Council for endorsement and public exhibition.

5. What is the criteria?

6. Have any schools applied for funding as yet?

7. Which schools?

N/A

The Environmental Education Centre & Community Nursery

8. How and when did council decide to pursue a nursery and environmental education centre?

Through the delivery of the Environment Plan 2002-2007, Council acknowledged the possibility of an Environmental Education Centre and Community Plant Nursery.

A Business Case for the proposed facility is presently being prepared for consideration by Council.

9. What was the estimated cost of this project?

Estimated costs will be developed to inform the preparation of the business case.

10. Can the reports pertaining to the Nursery/Education Centre be provided to me?

A copy of the most pertinent EAC Reports and associated Council resolutions are attached. A number of reports regarding the Education Centre and Community Nursery were considered in between the two reports provided, however these were all associated with various prospective site reviews.

11. Can I be advised the financial commitments and priorities for the Environmental Levy for the budget periods 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

As a requirement of the Environment Levy funding, Council is required to provide a detailed cost report of the spending of the Environment Levy in the Annual Report. The information from the report is summarised in the table below.

Description of works*	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16 (estimate)
Education, consultants and coordination	$439,226	$418,354	$450,000
Bush Regeneration Maintenance	$279, 848	$305,856	$310,000
New bushland and riparian restoration works	$414,286	$400,105	$600,000
Total	$1,151,360	$1,124,315	$1,360,000

*includes salary costs

The annual report information for 2014/15 is currently being prepared.

In addition, $80,000 has been allocated per project for the following bush regeneration project sites for 2015/16:

· Lot 10 Heathcote Road (Area 2), Holsworthy;

· Blamfield Oval (Area 2), Ashcroft;

· Glen Regent Reserve (Tom Way) (Area 2), Glen Regent;

· Tepper Park (Area 3), Liverpool;

· Dwyer Oval (Area 2), Warwick Farm;

· Mannix Park (Area 3), Heckenberg;

· Clinches Pond (Area 1), Moorebank; and

· Bill Anderson Park (Area 1), Kemps Creek.

JRPP

1. Can I be advised of the usual process of applications that come to Council that meet the criteria to be assessed by the JRPP or Department of Planning?

Development applications with a capital investment value in excess of $20m are required to be determined by the JRPP.

Development Applications required to be determined by the JRPP undertake the following process:

a. The JRPP is notified of the lodgement of any application which meets the criteria of being determined by the JRPP.

b. Upon initial assessment of the application by the assessing officer, a meeting is held with the JRPP and Council officers, whereby the Panel is briefed on the application including any preliminary matters which have been identified. This is also an opportunity for the Panel to relay any concerns to Council officers raised with respect to the application upon initial review of the application and supporting documentation. The specific concerns raised by the Panel at this meeting are required to be considered as part of the assessment of the application.

This meeting is not a public meeting, however the chair of the Panel may agree to allow the Applicant to make representations at this meeting.

c. Upon completion of the assessment of the application, the assessment report including the recommendation made by Council officers is submitted to the JRPP who publish on the NSW Planning and Environment website, the officers report and supporting documentation submitted with the application one 7 days before the scheduled determination meeting.

d. At the JRPP determination meeting, the Panel, Council officers, the Applicant and their representatives and objectors/members of the public are invited to speak for or against the application. The Applicant may also be asked to clarify certain matters raised by the Panel in respect to the application.

e. While this is a public meeting, a closed session is held with the Panel and Council staff to discuss or clarify any matters, prior to reconvening the public meeting where the Panel will advise of the determination of the application which can either be an approval or refusal. The Panel may also choose to defer the determination of the application subject to further information being provided. If an application is deferred, a further determination meeting is held pending receipt of further information or clarification as outlined by the Panel.

2. What input is sought from the elected Council before these reports are provided to the JRPP?

Prior to the establishment of the Planning and Development Committee, there was no formal process for seeking the input of Councillors prior to the determination of a JRPP application.

3. How are Councillors advised of applications that meet the criteria to go the JRPP?

There is currently no formal process in place whereby Councillors are advised of the applications being referred to the JRPP for determination. The newly established Planning and Development Committee provides a forum for major applications, including those to be determined by the JRPP, to be discussed with Councillors prior to a JRPP determination hearing. Note all development applications are published on Council’s eplanning portal and those subject to determination by the JRPP are identified as such in the application description.

However, to ensure Councillors are kept informed of the progress of JRPP applications, a similar process to that used for IHAP reports will be introduced. Councillors will be advised by Memo of all applications listed for JRPP hearings and determination meetings at least one week prior to the meeting.

4. If this process has recently changed given the Planning and Development Committee, please provide information on the previous process and any changes thereto?

See comments for (4) above.

5. What notification is provided to Councillors that applications are to be forwarded to the JRPP?

See comments for (4) above.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Environment Restoration Plan View (Under separate cover)

2. EAC Reports relating to Community Nursery

Storage Size	Monthly Charge	Example of Space
Locker	$6.50	Double locker/cupboard under sink cupboard
Storeroom	$20.00	Sole usage of a Storeroom
Large Shed or Storeroom	$50.00	Sole usage of a shed or storeroom with the capacity of a small office

Language spoken	Number	Percentage of the Liverpool Population
Arabic	17,199	9.5
Hindi	8,042	4.5
Vietnamese	7,838	4.4
Italian	5,105	2.8
Spanish	5,066	2.8
Serbian	5,064	2.8
Filipino/Tagalog	3,226	1.8
Greek	2,941	1.6
Assyrian	2,884	1.6
Cantonese	2,662	1.5

Loan History	Loan Amount	Interest Rate	Commencement Date	Expiry Date
Original Loan	$7.25m	Fixed @ 8.41%	27 June 2008	9 August 2009
1^st Refinancing arrangement	$7.0m	Variable	9 August 2009	10 August 2010
2^nd Refinancing arrangement	$6.5m	Fixed @7.2%	10 August 2010	10 August 2015

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity
Key Policy	Communications Plan
File Ref	177570.2015
Author	Gus Balloot - Deputy Mayor

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Position Liverpool as the destination of choice to attract business and investment in South Western Sydney
Key Policy	Economic Development Strategy
File Ref	177598.2015
Author	Gus Balloot - Deputy Mayor

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities
Key Policy	Ageing Strategy
File Ref	177671.2015
Author	Gus Balloot - Deputy Mayor

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Celebrate and respect Liverpool’s rich cultural and social diversity and embrace the opportunities it provides
Key Policy	Multicultural Action Plan
File Ref	179294.2015
Author	Peter Ristevski - Councillor

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	179425.2015
Author	Tony Hadchiti - Councillor

Economic and Financial	Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environmental and Sustainability	Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

Economic and Financial	Anticipated lower borrowing cost for the remaining duration of the loan in the current low interest rate environment.
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.

127
CFO 02	Report on Progress of Policy Review (Red Tape Reduction) Project
Attachment 1	Council-Adopted Policies for Review (Red Tape Policy Review Project) in 2015

143
CFO 05	Review of Legal Services Policy
Attachment 1	Draft Revised Legal Services Policy

177
CFO 08	Investment Report June 2015
Attachment 2	Performance Graphs Actual to Budget June 2015

177
CFO 08	Investment Report June 2015
Attachment 3	RBA Cash Rate Media Release July 2015

213
DCC 04	Liverpool Sports Committee Charter
Attachment 1	Liverpool City Council Sports Committe Charter (Draft) Reviewed July 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	134002.2015
Report By	Sarah Rees - Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn – Director Community and Culture

303
CTTE 01	Minutes Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held on the 3 June 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held on 3 June 2015

311
CTTE 02	Minutes of the No Intermodal Committee meeting held on 2 June 2015
Attachment 1	Draft Minutes No Intermodal Committee meeting 2 June 2015

321
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee meeting held on 2 June 2015
Attachment 1	Draft Minutes Warwick Farm Racing Precinct Steering Committee 2 June 2015

Economic and Financial	The activities of the Committee support Council’s efforts to further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.
Environmental and Sustainability	Environmental and sustainability considerations will be factored into urban design for key City Centre precincts.
Social and Cultural	Revitalisation of the City Centre will embrace a range of arts and space activation opportunities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The Committee provides guidance for Council’s Building Our New City Projects.

327
CTTE 04	Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 3 June 2015
Attachment 1	MINUTES Building Our New City Committee 3 June 2015 FINAL

331
CTTE 05	Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 3 June 2015
Attachment 1	MINUTES Economic Development and Events Committee 3 June 2015 FINAL

Economic and Financial	The Committee for Liverpool will provide important external perspectives to Council in pursuing its economic development and marketing activities. Costs will be incurred in using the services of Taylor Advisory Services to support the Committee as well as minor meeting costs
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no specific environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	The group will if and as required be able to provide external perspectives on relevant social and cultural matters.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The Committee for Liverpool is an important leadership initiative for Liverpool Council.

341
CTTE 06	Minutes of Committee for Liverpool Meeting held 25 May 2015
Attachment 1	MINUTES Committee for Liverpool 25 May 2015 FINAL

345
CTTE 07	Minutes of Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 1 June 2015
Attachment 1	Draft Heritage Advisory Committee minutes of meeting held on 1 June 2015

351
CTTE 08	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council held on 2 June 2015 and Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council held on 7 July 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes Liverpool Youth Council June 2015

365
CTTE 09	Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 1 July 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee meeting dated 1 July 2015

369
CTTE 10	Minutes of Planning and Development Committee Meeting held 3 June 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee Meeting held on 3 June 2015 PDF Version

Economic and Financial	All recommendations are accommodated within existing 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 access and services for people with a disability.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

383
CTTE 11	Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 14 May, 2015 and Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 11 June, 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 14 May, 2015