Addendum Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

1767

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Business Improvement Report

DBI 02

Independent Review - Internal Building Cleaning Services

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	326360.2015
Report By	Carole Todd - Director Business Improvement
Approved By	Carole Todd - Director Business Improvement

Executive Summary

At the Council meeting of 6th August 2015, Council resolved to independently review the work which is currently completed by the Internal Building Cleaning Service (IBCS). The resolution stated the review must meaningfully engage with staff and the union with the view to retain the services of the in-house cleaning crew, and identify process and practice to find improvements and take no longer than three months.

Following the 26th August 2015 meeting Council engaged Grant Thornton Australia Pty Ltd (Grant Thornton) to undertake the review. The proposed scope of works considered by Grant Thornton were to perform the following activities:

· Identify all costs incurred (direct & indirect, fixed & variable, incremental costs and one-off costs where relevant) of the IBCS function;

· Compare the cost of the IBCS with a recent market costing exercise; and

· Provide a factual report for consideration of the future direction of the Internal Building Cleaning Service.

After consultation with the IBCS staff and Unions; Crowe Horwath were appointed to work independently with the IBCS staff and their USU representative to review the current processes and identify opportunities and practical solutions for improving the service delivery of the IBCS.

The IBCS staff and USU representative agreed objectives of the engagement were to:

· Understand the current state of all internal building cleaning service responsibilities;

· Observe the processes used to deliver the service;

· Develop a clear understanding of all process inefficiencies;

· Evaluate process solutions and recommendations; and

· Provide a strategy for implementing the process improvements

Grant Thornton Review

The Grant Thornton analysis determined that the cost to Liverpool City Council of the IBCS was approximately double, when compared to that of the recent market costing exercise for externalising building cleaning.

The Report compares the cost of the IBCS against the market costing analysis for the existing externally serviced sites. This provides a number of key concerns and considerations noted as part of the independent review. An examination of the various elements highlights:

· The significant costs to Liverpool City Council in salaries, plant and capital equipment and overhead allocation based on maintaining the in house cleaning services.

· The resources, which are currently at their limit given the amount of staff currently employed, duties required to be performed and autonomy in performing such duties, which is creating pressure on service delivery. As stated in the Internal Building Cleaning Services Review prepared by Crowe Horwath, additional resources would allow the IBCS to spend the necessary time on site to provide the expected level of service, as required.

· The potential savings that Liverpool City Council could realise based on the costing analysis performed by outsourcing the in-house building cleaning service.

This comparison between the costs to Council of the two methods of service delivery is illustrated as follows;

IBCS Delivery	Description	Budget	$ Saving	% Saving
Scenario 1	Direct costs and variable overhead	$1,042,744.00	$487,344.00	46.8%
Scenario 2	Direct costs only	$995,140.00	$439,740.00	44.2%
Scenario 3	Additional resourcing required	$122,651.00	$567,251.00	50.5%

In order to provide a substantive like for like comparison, Council would require any external tender respondents to price their services to undertake the same service provision as that currently provided by IBCS.

There are options available to Council to check the viability and value for money that could be achieved by undergoing a market testing exercise. Recent experience has seen a further 18% savings achieved through the bundling of contracts of a much lesser scale, thereby creating economies of scale.

Crowe Horwath Report

The Crowe Horwath Report states the key issues contributing to overall failures of the IBCS service delivery are due to:

· Availability of appropriate resources;

· Misaligned expectations of responsibilities and duties within the IBCS;

· High levels of autonomy in completing cleaning duties;

· Lack of communication between facilities staff and IBCS management;

· Expectations of time required to complete tasks; and

· Lack of communications and competing interests between departments (customer based service line vs non-customer based service lines)

The Report identified several practical solutions for improving the productivity and functionality of the IBCS which will contribute to improving the cleaning process efficiency, these included:

· Increase staff resourcing;

· Define team leader role;

· Extend roster start and finish times;

· Consider the introduction of a five day week;

· Implement overtime regime; and

· Increase internal and external communications.

Crowe Horwath recommended engaging an additional cleaner, to spend the necessary time on jobs and reduce the need to respond to unscheduled ad-hoc jobs which directly reduce the quality of work by detracting from scheduled services. An additional cleaner would require another vehicle in order to respond to the ad-hoc requests.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Undertakes a competitive process to test the market and seek expressions of interest concerning the provision of Building Cleaning Services to achieve the level of savings and efficiencies outlined in this report.

2. Following completion of the tender process, receives a report which outlines the options available, in order to make a definite decision as to how the service will be delivered in the future.

REPORT

At the Council meeting of 26th August 2015, Council resolved to independently review the work which is currently completed by the Internal Building Cleaning Service (IBCS). The resolution stated the review must meaningfully engage with staff and the union with the view to retain the services of the in-house cleaning crew, and identify process and practice to find improvements and take no longer than three months.

Liverpool City Council maintains an internal cleaning function collectively known as the IBCS, the team consists of eleven team members and one Team Leader. The IBCS team members operate a number a vehicles out of LCC's Rose Street Depot. The IBCS teams work a 36-hour 4-day week commencing either Monday or Tuesday.

Following the 26th August 2015 meeting Council engaged Grant Thornton to undertake the review. The proposed scope of works considered by Grant Thornton were to perform the following activities:

· Identify all costs incurred (direct & indirect, fixed & variable, incremental costs and one-off costs where relevant) of the IBCS function;

· Compare the cost of the IBCS with a recent market costing exercise; and

· Provide a factual report for consideration of the future direction of the Internal Building Cleaning Service.

Two further meetings were undertaken to agree the approach the review would take, together with the scope and involvement of the consultants. Those meetings involved the IBCS staff, United Service Union (USU) representative and various Council staff on 17th September 2015, and the Acting CEO, Executive Officers and two USU representatives on 15th October 2015.

Following on from those meetings it was agreed to appoint an impartial consultant, Crowe Horwath, to work independently with the IBCS staff and their USU representative to review the current processes and identify opportunities and practical solutions for improving the service delivery of the IBCS.

In consultation with the IBCS staff and USU Delegate the agreed objectives of this engagement were to:

· Understand the current state of all internal building cleaning service responsibilities;

· Observe the processes used to deliver the service;

· Develop a clear understanding of all process inefficiencies;

· Evaluate process solutions and recommendations; and

· Provide a strategy for implementing the process improvements

Grant Thornton Review Findings

· The significant costs to Liverpool City Council in salaries, plant and capital equipment based on maintaining the in house cleaning services.

· The potential savings that Liverpool City Council could realise based on the costing analysis performed by outsourcing the in-house building cleaning service.

The Grant Thornton Report (Appendix 1) analysis is based on the FY2016 budget figures which have been re-forecast as at September 2015, incorporating the fact that the IBCS team is anticipating filling the current vacancy on a permanent basis in the near future. Base data was verified and cross checked against source documents, as to the reasonableness and accuracy of the cost incurred by both the internal and the recent market costing exercise. Additional analysis to ensure that the forecast level of expenditure both at an individual transaction account level and in aggregate is reliable and in line with actual financial performance of the IBCS

This comparison between the costs to Council of the two methods of service delivery is illustrated as follows;

IBCS Delivery	Description	Budget	$ Saving	% Saving
Scenario 1	Direct costs and variable overhead	$1,042,744.00	$487,344.00	46.8%
Scenario 2	Direct costs only	$995,140.00	$439,740.00	44.2%
Scenario 3	Additional resourcing required	$122,651.00	$567,251.00	50.5%

There are options available to Council to check the viability and value for money that could be achieved by undergoing a market testing exercise. Recent experience has seen a further 18% savings achieved through bundling contracts of a much lesser scale thereby creating economies of scale.

Crowe Horwath Review Findings

The IBCS team members operate six vehicles in total out of LCC's Rose Street Depot. The team is overseen by the Team Leader in their own vehicle, who visits sites during and after service provision. The cleaning teams work a 36-hour 4-day week commencing either Monday or Tuesday.

The Crowe Horwath Review reveals that IBCS teams operate at a level of efficiency consistent with the limitations currently placed on the team. Whilst there are processes administered under the cleaning schedule, the IBCS cleaners are required to take on reactive duties. The report states the key issues contributing to overall failures of the IBCS service delivery are due to:

· Availability of appropriate resources;

· Misaligned expectations of responsibilities and duties within the IBCS;

· High levels of autonomy in completing cleaning duties;

· Lack of communication between facilities staff and IBCS management;

· Expectations of time required to complete tasks; and

· Lack of communications and competing interests between departments (customer based service line vs non-customer based service lines).

IBCS teams perform on-site cleaning duties in line with the needs of facilities and respond to ad-hoc requests, as instructed by the Te.am Leader. Teams currently have the power to determine their cleaning routes and they exercise this authority on an arbitrary basis.

IBCS teams are not always given information on appropriate cleaning orders because useful information is not made appropriately available to help them determine the best daily routines. Decision making authority is shared at the Team Leader and cleaning staff level and bilateral decision making determines daily crew processes. There is inefficiency with IBCS teams often diverted contributing to the interruption of the daily schedules.

External factors are not always communicated by facility hirer's to the IBCS teams prior to commencing daily processes. The misalignment of communications between LCC departments is an issue compounded as a result of inter-departmental communications not adequately managed in order to mitigate external factors at the team leader level.

Crowe Horwath Recommendations

Based on the current process analysis and interviews conducted with staff and management, Crowe Horwath identified a number of recommendations and practical solutions for improving the productivity and functionality of the IBCS teams which will contribute to improving the cleaning process efficiency.

· Increase staff resourcing;

· Define team leader role;

· Extend roster start and finish times;

· Consider the introduction of a five day week;

· Implement overtime regime; and

· Increase internal and external communications.

The Report documents each recommendation based on the analysis of current tasks, team roles, rosters, communications, and timeframes for completing tasks. Each recommendation is provided with a background, the benefit, the issue it addresses and the implementation timeframe.

Increase Staffing Resources

Resources are at their limit given the amount of staff currently employed, duties required to be performed and autonomy' in performing such duties. Increasing the staff resources available to the IBCS would increase the delivery of key services by alleviating the pressure of ad-hoc requests on scheduled workloads and increasing the coverage provided by the IBCS. The utilisation of an additional cleaner that could be used as a 'utility' to respond to ad-hoc requests to ensure the current staff are focused on the schedule provided. By adding an additional employee; the skills and duties required under the scope of works will be maintained more effectively and efficiently. An additional cleaner would require another vehicle in order to respond to the ad-hoc requests.

Define Team Leader Role

Providing additional capacity in the team leader role will resolve the high levels of autonomy in completing cleaning duties and misaligned expectations of responsibilities and duties within the IBCS.

Implement Flexible Starting Times

Current roster times are limiting possible coverage and capacity otherwise available to IBCS cleaning crews. Adjusting shift start and finish times, and staggering crew start times will allow the IBCS teams to increase coverage, without impacting on aggregate hours or days worked. It is important to note, per our findings, that this cannot be done under the current framework of a four day working week. The implementation of updated rosters is recommended on the short to medium timeframe, pending external factors and employment contract restraints.

Five Day Week

Introducing a five day working week would adequately provide coverage to teams on the two busiest days of the week being Monday and Friday. Currently the two busiest days for the cleaning staff are done with only one member in a cleaning crew. By utilising staggered starting and finishing times for the IBCS teams, the level of service expected under the scope of works is still achievable. This addresses concerns surrounding time management, communication and external factors.

Implement Overtime

As per findings; resources available to the cleaning staff to carry out duties per the standard and time delivery expected is at capacity. A more frequent allowance of overtime would create an opportunity for staff to respond to external and mitigating events that otherwise detract from the service delivery of scheduled facilities.

Communications

Improving communication to external parties creates opportunities to plan and further clarifies duties on a daily basis between the IBCS and facilities. External communications result from mitigating circumstances and one-off requests. To better manage IBCS staff and schedules, opportunities for improving requests between departments will be improved by increased communications and protocols.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Provide Value for Money services to the Council ratepayers
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations
Social and Cultural	Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community
Civic Leadership and Governance	Deliver services that are customer focused

ATTACHMENTS

1. Independent Review of Council’s In-House Building Cleaning Service

1807

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Community and Culture Report

DCC 02

Live Life Get Active Program Continuation

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities
Key Policy	Recreation Strategy
File Ref	299052.2015
Report By	Mark Egan - Coordinator Community Planning
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide data on the success of the on-going Live Life Get Active program that is currently being delivered in Bigge Park, and to seek funds for the continuation of this program in following years.

The Live Life Get Active program commenced operation in Liverpool in February 2014. As the first local government area in Western Sydney to take up the program, the Live Life Get Active manager considers Liverpool to be one of their flagship locations. Liverpool’s program is now the second largest in Australia, second only to the one operating in the Domain in Sydney’s CBD. As the program has continued, Council staff have also been working with the program manager to find ways of expanding the program with corporate and private sector investment. Recent advice indicates that they may be close to securing such investment.

This report seeks the endorsement for the program to continue in Bigge Park for the next two calendar years.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report;

2. Allocates $17,600 per year for two years in the draft budget for the continuation of the Live Life Get Active program in 2016-17 and 2017-18, with a comprehensive program evaluation to be prepared and reported to Council at the end of this term; and

3. Continues to work with Live Life Get Active to identify opportunities for the program to expand to other areas across the Liverpool local government area and advises Council of any progress towards this goal (savings made within the Community Planning budget will provide bridging finance for the second half of the financial year to enable the program to operate uninterrupted).

REPORT

Following a presentation at a Council meeting in late 2013, the Live Life Get Active program has been operating in Liverpool since February 2014. Liverpool’s program operates every weekday of the school term at Bigge Park (200 sessions per year). The current program offers a range of cross-training, boxing and yoga classes throughout each week. The program is completely free to attend, with participants registering on-line and then booking a place in each class using the on-line platform. The current program is funded up until December 2015. It was paid for with remaining funds from the completed Healthy Communities Initiative – a Federal Government grant that was secured by Council to deliver health and wellbeing programs.

The Live Life Get Active program has been enormously successful in Liverpool. As the first local government area in Western Sydney to take up the program, the Manager considers Liverpool to be one of their flagship locations. Liverpool’s program is now the second largest in Australia, second only to the one operating in the Domain in Sydney’s CBD.

The detailed report attached outlines the success of the program over the third term this year. Some of the current highlights are as follows:

· 786 registered participants, with almost one new participant registering every day

· Steady increase in membership since the program commenced in 2014

· Significant proportion of at-risk people joining, which means the program is benefiting those who need it

· Program participants have collectively lost 1,156cms from waistlines and 1,012 kilograms

· Facebook page has been set up with a great sense of community being developed amongst participants

Future programs

Live Life Get Active management have been working behind the scenes to secure private sector sponsorship for additional programs in Liverpool. With data provided by Council staff that outlines key areas suitable for future programs, Council has been advised that two additional programs are likely to come on-line during 2016. Once confirmation has been provided, this information will be passed on to Councillors and added to the information webpage on Councils’ website.

Diabetes Research and Prevention

Live Life Get Active have been working with Blacktown Hospital’s Diabetes Unit to see if research can be jointly undertaken to demonstrate the definitive effect that the program has on Type 2 diabetes patients. It is anticipated that the program will become a “Green Prescription” through diabetes clinics to help prevent and manage the disease. Live Life Get Active are keen to explore the possibility of a similar arrangement at Liverpool Hospital. Council staff will work with the program management to facilitate this relationship.

Bigge Park

Given the success of Live Life Get Active at Bigge Park, it is proposed that Council commit funds for a further two years of operation. This investment will continue to activate Bigge Park while providing a free health and wellbeing program that can help address health issues common to Liverpool residents, such as lower activity rates, and higher rates of lifestyle related illnesses such as diabetes. It will also allow Liverpool residents the potential further benefit of additional programs delivered across the LGA, subject to securing private sector support.

Funding

While Council’s financial planning is aligned to the financial year, the Live Life Get Active program is planned and funded according to the calendar year. This means that the current program is funded up until the end of the 2015 school term. In order to fund the program in 2016, Council needs to find savings within this year’s budget to pay for the remaining six months and then commit funds in next year’s budget to cover the next financial year.

The program can continue until the end of the 2015-16 financial year by utilising $8,800 in identified salary savings in this year’s Community Planning budget.

Given the success of the program to date, it is proposed that the program be funded for an additional two financial years. The annual fee for the program is $17,600, including GST. The Council recommendation therefore seeks the allocation of $35,200 over the next two years.

If the above strategy is approved, the program would recommence on Monday 1 February 2016.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Program costs for the remainder of the 2015-16 financial year will be covered through salary savings in the Community Planning budget. If approved, the program will require $17,600 to be allocated in the 2016-17 budget, and $17,600 to be allocated in the 2017-18 budget. This equates to a total commitment of $35,200 over two years.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Activates a key piece of open space in the Liverpool City Centre. Provides a free and accessible health and wellbeing program that will help reduce and prevent lifestyle related illness amongst Liverpool residents and visitors.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Continues to build on Liverpool’s lead role in being the first Western Sydney Council to deliver Live Life Get Active.

ATTACHMENTS

1. CAMP REPORT - T3 Year 2 - 3 August 2015 to 25 October 2015 View

1831

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 08

Planning Proposal for Middleton Grange Town Centre

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	326354.2015
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council has received an application for a Planning Proposal to rezone land at 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange. The site is known as the Middleton Grange Town Centre.

The proposal seeks to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 as follows:

· Realign the boundary of the B2 Local Centre and R1 General Residential zoned lands respectively to align with the cadastre boundaries of the approved super-lot subdivision, reducing the number of lots which have split zonings and to facilitate rationale building and development boundaries;

· Rezone part of the site from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre to accommodate a future publicly accessible through site link within the Town Centre;

· Rezone part of the site from B2 Local Centre to RE1 Public Recreation to provide a consolidated area of public open space within the north-eastern portion of the site (the quantum of RE1 Public Recreation zoned land remains unchanged);

· Amend Schedule 1 – ‘Additional Permitted Uses’ to enable the use of the R1 General Residential zoned land for business premises, hotel or motel accommodation, health services facility, and restaurant or café;

· Amend Schedule 1 – ‘Additional Permitted Uses’ to enable the use of land zoned B2 Local Centre within the Middleton Grange Town Centre for hotel or motel accommodation; and

· Amend the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 – Middleton Grange Road Network to support the Planning Proposal objectives.

This Planning Proposal provides the opportunity for the Middleton Grange Town Centre to develop as a place of mixed use, offering a high level of amenity with compact urban form, and supporting a quality of life for residents and workers alike with retail, personal and community services and public open space to ensure the viability, liveability and marketability of Middleton Grange as a place to live, work, shop and play.

Council officers are in the process of finalising the Planning Proposal which details the changes that will be sought to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. To continue to progress this application and not be delayed by the Christmas break, in principle endorsement for the rezoning of the subject site is being sought from Council. Following this, officers will proceed with finalising the proposal to be approved by the CEO to send to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses in principle, the Planning Proposal to rezone land at 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange.

2. Supports increasing the reservation of land designated exclusively for a public purpose to 3,000m² to reflect the intensification of uses and increased density within the Middleton Grange Town Centre as a result of this Planning Proposal.

3. 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.

REPORT

Background

On 25 June 2015 an application was lodged with Council by APP Corporation Pty Ltd on behalf of Manta Group Pty Ltd for 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange. The site comprises eight (8) lots and is legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in DP 1207518, Lot 1 in DP 1078564 and Lot 12 in DP 1108343.

The site forms the majority of what is known as the Middleton Grange Town Centre, and has been planned to support future retail, commercial and other employment generating uses from both a strategic policy perspective and a statutory zoning perspective. It is anticipated that Middleton Grange, as a whole, will contain approximately 2,500 dwellings and accommodate approximately 10,000 residents, and include a community facility, parks and sporting facilities.

Prior to lodgement of the Planning Proposal, and subsequently, the proponents have held a number of discussions with Council Officers for the development and refinement of the proposal. These discussions addressed the key considerations for the proposal and necessary technical requirements and studies for its support. Comments and issues raised by Council officers have been incorporated and addressed in the concept plans and will form part of the final Planning Proposal.

Planning Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 as follows:

· Rezone part of the site from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre to accommodate a future publicly accessible through site link within the Town Centre;

· Amend Schedule 1 – ‘Additional Permitted Uses’ to enable the use of land zoned B2 Local Centre within the Middleton Grange Town Centre for hotel or motel accommodation; and

· Amend the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 – Middleton Grange Road Network to support the Planning Proposal objectives.

Justification

The objective of the Planning Proposal is to enable a broader range of permissible uses within the planned town centre. This will provide opportunities for retail and commercial investment to support the residential catchment for Middleton Grange and accommodate an improved configuration of public open space. It will ensure the viability, liveability and marketability of Middleton Grange Town Centre as a place to work, live, shop and play.

A further objective of the proposal is to rationalise the zoning boundary between the B2 Local Centre and R1 General Residential zoned portions of the site to reflect cadastre boundaries and reduce the number of lots that have split zoning, which is also supported by a more rational and efficient road network within the Town Centre. The intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate development of the site in a coordinated fashion and, in doing so, achieve the site’s highest and best use.

An urban design analysis for the site was undertaken by Urbis to demonstrate the capability of the site to accommodate the vision for Middleton Grange Town Centre and to guide future planning (refer to Attachment 1 – Urban Design Report).

Key features of the concept plan are:

· Creation of two new north-south streets, that provide a connection from Southern Cross Drive to the north and Flynn Avenue to the south;

· Creation of a new publicly accessible through-site east-west link, within the central portion of the site adjoined on both sides by two new areas of public open space;

· Retail and commercial uses provided at ground level to the north and south of the new publicly accessible link;

· Creation of a vibrant and successful new town centre that will comprise a wide range of retail, commercial, entertainment, civic recreation, residential and employment uses including approximately 36,881m² of commercial and retail space (supermarkets, specialty food stores, restaurants, hotels, personal and household retail and a community facility);

· Provision of approximately 75,840m² of residential floor space and some 840 dwellings within the new town centre and an opportunity to provide a range of housing products at different price points, including housing for moderate income households;

· Establishment of a potential cultural/ entertainment precinct on the northern side of the envisaged east-west through site link, above ground level and overlooking the town square and areas of public open space;

· Provision of a consolidated area of landscaped open space within the north-eastern portion of the site to accommodate a park and community centre;

· A mix of commercial and residential uses above ground level, generally built to street edge with central areas of landscaped open space; and

· A range of densities and dwelling types providing housing choice to satisfy the needs of a wide spectrum of households, at different life stages and from varying socio-economic circumstances and lifestyle preferences.

Land Use Zone

The existing B2 Local Centre and R1 General Residential zones remain appropriate zones for the site. The proposed amendments to the land use zones realign the boundaries depicted below to reflect the cadastre boundaries of approved super-lot subdivision application, reducing the number of lots which split zonings and facilitating rationale building and development boundaries while maintaining the quantum of RE1 Public Recreation zoned land for open space and community centre within the site.

Floor Space Ratio

Currently the site has a FSR of 1.5:1 for land zoned B2 Local Centre and an FSR of 0.75:1 for land zoned R1 General Residential. The maximum FSR proposed for land zoned B2 Local Centre and R1 General Residential is 2.5:1.

Floor Space Ratio Map

Building Height

Currently a maximum building height of 18m applies to land zoned B2 Local Centre and a maximum building height of 8.5m applies to land within the R1 General Residential zone. The planning proposal seeks to vary the maximum building height for land zoned B2 Local Centre and R1 General Residential with a range of heights proposed from 14m within the western and south-east corner of the site to 28m and 35m within the central portion of the site.

Building Height

Minimum Lot Size

Currently the site has a minimum lot size of 1,000m² for land zoned B2 Local Centre and minimum lot size of 300m² for land zoned R1 General Residential. The planning proposal does not seek to amend the minimum lot size development standard as it relates to each zone.

Land Reservation Acquisition

The Planning Proposal seeks to reserve land exclusively for a public purpose (2,000m²). This land is to be included on the Council’s existing Land Reservation Acquisition Map and Section 5.1 of the Liverpool LEP 2008 includes all land zoned RE1 Public Recreation (to be dedicated to Council). An updated land reservation and acquisition map is provided below.

However, it is recommended that the reservation of land exclusively for a public purpose be adjusted to 3,000m² to proportionally reflect the intensification of uses and increased density within the Middleton Grange Town Centre as a result of this proposal.

Restrictions on ‘business development’ within B2 Local Centre

Clause 7.29 of Liverpool LEP 2008 states that for development of a site on land shown as being within Area 4 on the Floor Space Ratio Map, no more than 25% of the gross floor area of all buildings on the site may be used for the purposes of ‘business premises’. No change to this development standard is proposed as part of the planning proposal.

Assessment

A preliminary assessment of the proposal was undertaken by Council officers, following which further information and justification was requested of the applicant. This was submitted to Council on 26 November 2015 and is currently being reviewed.

Following this review, and as outlined above, the updated Planning Proposal detailing the changes sought to LLEP 2008 will be finalised by Council officers to be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination.

Social, Economic, Traffic Impacts

While the Planning Proposal is not consistent with the Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy Review 2012, which identifies Middleton Grange as a neighbourhood centre, the proposal presents a unique opportunity to realise a fully mixed use town centre with compact urban form in Western Sydney.

The proposed intensification of the town centre will effectively expand its trade area which will impact nearby established centres, including Carnes Hill. However, the level of impact is not significant as demonstrated by the Economic Impact Assessment undertaken by MacroPlan Dimasi (refer to Attachment 1 – Appendix B).

The degree of intensification is desirable to create a viable and vibrant town centre. This intensification of the subject site as a mixed use town centre holds merit as it would provide a unique offer in Liverpool. The proposal embodies a level of compactness for a town centre which will be able to provide higher uses and amenities for the local catchment of Middleton Grange. It is acceptable that this level of intensification and uniqueness may also attract customers from outside the catchment area.

The Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes undertook a traffic and transport analysis which finds the proposal would provide services and facilities for the surrounding area, reducing the need for residents to travel further afield. With the increased residential densities close to existing public transport services, and with the proposed road network, would provide an opportunity to provide for buses to circulate through the town centre (refer to Attachment 1 – Appendix C).

Next Steps

The usual process for rezoning applications following a review of the application is for Council officers to finalise the proposal detailing the proposed changes to LLEP 2008. The Planning Proposal would then be reported to Council for endorsement, and subsequently forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking Gateway.

In this instance however, in principle endorsement from Council is sought prior to finalising the detailed proposal. This is because of the potential for the application to otherwise be delayed as a result of the Christmas break, which would result in the submission of the Planning Proposal for Gateway not occurring until March 2016 at the earliest.

To address this, it is recommended that Council delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the final proposal to send to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway. It is anticipated that this will occur in January 2016.

Following a Gateway Determination, in support of the Planning Proposal, there will be public authority and agency consultations, a public exhibition period, and a further report to Council prior to proceeding with the making of any amendment to LLEP 2008.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal to rezone land at 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange be endorsed in principle, and that the authority to approve the finalised proposal be delegated to the CEO so that it can be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway in January 2016.

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Middleton Grange Town Centre Concept Plan, Economic Impact Assessment, and Traffic Study (submitted 26 November 2015)View

1831
DPG 08	Planning Proposal for Middleton Grange Town Centre
Attachment 1	Middleton Grange Town Centre Concept Plan, Economic Impact Assessment, and Traffic Study (submitted 26 November 2015)