COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

27 April 2016

 

FRANCIS GREENWAY CENTRE

170 GEORGE STREET LIVERPOOL


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby notified that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held at the Francis Greenway Centre, 170 George Street, Liverpool on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 commencing at 6.00pm. Doors to the Francis Greenway Centre will open at 5.50pm.

 

Liverpool City Council Meetings are taped for the purposes of minute taking and record keeping.  If you have any enquiries please contact Council and Executive Services on 9821 9237.

 

 

 

 


Michael Cullen

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


Order of Business

 

                                                                                                              PAGE     TAB

Opening

Prayer

Apologies 

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 30 March 2016.................................................................. 9

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NOMR 01       Rescission NOM 02 - Delegations Of The Mayor from Council meeting 30 March 2016                                                                                                                         72......... 1

Notices of Motion

NOM 01          Malek Fahd Islamic School............................................................................ 74......... 2

NOM 02          Committee for Liverpool................................................................................. 76......... 3

NOM 03          Western Sydney Women................................................................................ 78......... 4

NOM 04          National Barefoot Water Ski Championships................................................. 80......... 5

NOM 05          Athletics Track................................................................................................ 82......... 6

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01          DA-267/2015 -  Two lot Torrens title subdivision, retention of existing dwelling on Lot A and construction of a new dwelling on Lot B at 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby.... 84......... 7

IHAP 02          DA-991/2015 - Construction of 20 detached dwellings and community title subdivision on proposed Lot 18 within stage 3 of a development of Lot 31 DP 1181985 at the former New Brighton Golf Club.................................................................................. 92......... 8

IHAP 03          DA-131/2015 - Demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building containing 10 units and basement carparking at 93 Nuwarra Road, Moorebank.................................................................................................... 101......... 9

IHAP 04          DA-599/2015 - Two lot Torrens title subdivison, retention of existing house on Lot 1 and construction of new house on Lot 2 at 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton 110....... 10

 

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01          Corporate Sponsorships............................................................................... 120....... 11

Business Improvement Report

NIL

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01           Investment Report March 2016.................................................................... 131....... 12

CFO 02           Comparative Analytical Report: Net Operating Result 2014-15.................. 139....... 13

CFO 03           Mayors' Weekend Seminar.......................................................................... 148....... 14

CFO 04           Local Government NSW Board Elections.................................................... 154....... 15

CFO 05           Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (Including Revenue Pricing Policy) (to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

City Presentation Report

NIL

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01          Liverpool Sporting Donations........................................................................ 157....... 16

DCC 02          Quick Response Grants............................................................................... 166....... 17

Economic Development Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01          Trapping of Indian Myna Birds...................................................................... 173....... 18

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01          Draft Heritage Study: Potential Heritage Items ........................................... 178....... 19

DPG 02          Advertising Structures and Signage............................................................. 184....... 20

DPG 03          Car parking rates for industrial development................................................ 193....... 21

DPG 04          Georges River Precinct Plan - Progress Update......................................... 198....... 22

DPG 05          Planning Agreement Policy (to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

DPG 06          Liverpool City Centre Contributions Plan Review (to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

DPG 07          Revised Contributions Plan for Established Areas (to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

 

Committee Reports

CTTE 01         Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 7 March 2016..... 201....... 23

CTTE 02         Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 16 March 2016... 206....... 24

CTTE 03         Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee held on Thursday 3 March, 2016.................................................................. 210....... 25

CTTE 04         Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 6 April 2016... 216....... 26

CTTE 05         Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 April 2016                                                                                                                       233....... 27

CTTE 06         Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 6 April 2016................. 296....... 28

CTTE 07         Minutes of Committee for Liverpool Meeting held 1 March 2016................ 301....... 29

Questions with Notice

QWN 01         Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti............................................................... 306....... 30

QWN 02         Question with Notice - Clr Shelton................................................................ 312....... 31

QWN 03         Question with Notice - Clr Harle................................................................... 315....... 32

QWN 04         Question with Notice - Clr Stanley................................................................ 317....... 33

QWN 05         Question with Notice - Clr Shelton................................................................ 318....... 34  

 

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   Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee 2016

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   Tender ST2529 - Design and Documentation of Carnes Hill North Sporting Precinct

Reason:     Item CONF 02 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 03   Waste Management Audit and Process Review Update

Reason:     Item CONF 03 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 04   Liverpool Civic Place Project, 52 Scott Street, Liverpool - Development Update and Vacant Possession

Reason:     Item CONF 04 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) (d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 

CONF 05   PQ2517 Design and Construct Artwork - Carnes Hill

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

 

CONF 06   ST2492 – Leisure Centre Management

Reason:     Item CONF 06 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 07   Tender WT2546 - Warren Service Way and Northumberland Street Car Parks Structural Repair and Crash Protection Barriers Installation Works

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.  

Close

 


 

 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 30 March 2016

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Mamone

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton (arrived at 6.11pm)

Councillor Stanley

Councillor Waller

Mr Michael Cullen, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Dr Eddie Jackson, Acting Director Community and Culture

Mr Wayne Carter, Director City Presentation

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Carole Todd, Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.05pm

 

 

OPENING                               6.05pm

PRAYER                                The prayer of the Council was read by Reverend David Clarke from Hoxton Park Anglican Church.

APOLOGIES                          Nil


13

 

CONDOLENCES        

 

Aunty Nancy Davis (read by Mayor Mannoun)

 

On Sunday 28th February the people of Liverpool lost one of our dearly loved Aboriginal elders, Aunty Nancy Davis. Aunty Nancy was a spirited member of our community and was frequently there to provide her insight and aid to our reconciliation and other indigenous programs.

 

Being taken away from her parents when she was 6 years old, Aunty Nancy was a key link to the terrible times of the Stolen Generations. As Australia moved towards reconciliation she took up the opportunities to ensure that the Gandangara people of Liverpool were included in this historic movement. Aunty Nancy was frequently on hand to perform ceremonial duties at council functions such as the welcome to country and other such roles.

 

She will always hold a special place in the hearts of council staff who knew her and members of our indigenous community. As Councillors we mourn for her and send our best wishes to her family.

 

Aunty Nancy Davis and Aunty Betty Young (read by Clr Waller)

 

It is with deep regret I inform the chambers of the passing of Local Aboriginal Elders Aunty Nancy Davis and Aunty Betty Young.

 

Nancy Davis was a local Elder since the 1980s. “Aunty Nancy” as she was known in the community, was an active member of the local Aboriginal Land Council “Gandangara” and Liverpool Catholic Club. As a registered nurse, Aunty Nancy was well respected within her industry and was a frequent guest speaker at university lectures, inspiring future leaders. In retirement Aunty Nancy became heavily involved in advocating for Aboriginal rights and human rights.  She volunteered her time to conduct Acknowledgements to Country in the local community, particularly for events and special occasions.

 

Betty Young was a local Aboriginal Elder. “Aunty Betty” as she was known in the community, was an active member of the Hoxton Park Elders Group. She volunteered her time at local community events and special occasions.  Aunty Betty was involved in advocating for Aboriginal rights and human rights all her life.

 

To family, friends and colleagues of Nancy and Betty, who were known as a kind, honest and respectful individuals, dedicated to their family and passionate about everything they did, I’m sure they will be deeply missed. Our thoughts are with their family at this difficult time.

 

Motion:                         Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That Council send a letter of condolence to Nancy Davis’ and Betty Young’s surviving family members.  

 

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

 

One minutes silence was observed for the passing of Aunty Nancy Davis and Aunty Betty Young.

 

 

Clr Shelton arrived at the Chambers at 6.11pm.

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 24 February 2016 and reconvened on 14 March 2016 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting.

 

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

 

Motion                                   Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 March 2016 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting. Note, the dates mentioned in NOM 01 of the minutes have been checked and confirmed to be correct.

 

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

Declarations of Interest

Nil

Public Forum

 

Presentation – items not on agenda

 

Nil

 

Representation – items on agenda

 

1.      Ms  Alicia Camilleri addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item DCC 03: Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-15

 

2.      Mr  Andy Oraha addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item DCC 03: Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-15

 

3.      Reverend David Clarke addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item CTTE 06: Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 2 March 2016

 

4.      Ms Doris Puccio addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item DPG 03: Kurrajong Road and Old Kurrajong Road, Casula - Upgrade of Intersection Control

 

Motion:                         Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to Ms Puccio.

 

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


 

 

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

 

ITEM NO:       NOMR 01

FILE NO:        074677.2016

SUBJECT:     Rescission of CONF 03 - Proposed disposal of Lot 8 DP 246745, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville from Council meeting 3 February 2016

 

NOTICE OF MOTION OF RESCISSION

 

Two rescission motions were received to rescind the following resolution from the Council meeting 3 February 2016:

 

CONF 03 - Proposed disposal of Lot 8 DP 246745, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville

 

That Council:

 

1.    Agrees to sell Lot 8 DP 246745, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville, by placing the property on the open market for sale by way of public auction through a local real estate agent;

 

2.    Agrees to set the reserve price for the public auction as outlined in the confidential report;

 

3.    Authorises the Chief Executive Officer or his nominee to negotiate the sale of Lot 8 DP 246745, if not sold under the hammer, for a sale price of not less than five percent below the reserve price, on the day of auction, and execute the contract for sale to facilitate the exchange of contracts on the day of the auction;

 

4.    Agrees that if the property is not sold at auction it is immediately placed on the open market for sale by private treaty;

 

5.    Transfers the proceeds of sale into the General Property Reserve; and

 

6.    Keeps confidential the details supplied in the confidential report 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.

 

7.    An amount of 20% of the proceeds go back into park upgrades.

 

8.    That the remaining 80% be used for community facilities.

 

The first rescission motion was received from Clrs Mamone, Ristevski, Shelton and Stanley and provided no alternate motion.

 

The second rescission motion was received from Mayor Mannoun and Clrs Hadchiti and Hadid and provided the following alternate motion:

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

  1. Hold a public meeting in order to seek feedback from the community in relation to this park.

 

  1. Ensure that as a minimum the residents bounded by Nuwarra Road, Heathcote Road, Walder Avenue (to the Public School) & the M5 are sent invitations to attend the meeting.

 

  1. Notify Councillors by way of a Council report on the results of this meeting once it has taken place.

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That the resolution relating to CONF 03 (Proposed disposal of Lot 8 DP 246745, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville) from the 3 February 2016 Council meeting be rescinded.

 

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

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That Council:

 

  1. Hold a public meeting in order to seek feedback from the community in relation to this park.

 

  1. Ensure that as a minimum the residents bounded by Nuwarra Road, Heathcote Road, Walder Avenue (to the Public School) & the M5 are sent invitations to attend the meeting.

 

  1. Notify Councillors by way of a Council report, which is to include a timeline on when decisions were made, what consultation was done and the results of the public meeting once it has taken place.

 

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

 


15

 

Notices of Motion

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 01

FILE NO:        067959.2016

SUBJECT:     WSROC Delegates

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Review the current WSROC delegates with the following actions to consider:

 

a) termination of current delegates

b) increasing the number of delegates

c) calling on nominations for new delegates

 

2.    Writes to WSROC informing them of any changes to the delegates that Council has voted on

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council notes:

 

1.      WSROC membership is $68,000 + GST per year.

 

2.      WSROC is made up of 10 Western Sydney Councils.

 

3.      WSROC is a company limited by Guarantee, with 2 representatives from each of its member councils, as elected by that council, forming the board of 20 directors.

 

4.      An increase in delegates from Liverpool is currently not permissible unless a change is made to the WSROC constitution which would have to be agreed on by the majority of the board members.

 

5.      Some of the recent financial benefits to Liverpool City Council rate payers include but not limited to:

 

a.      A saving of $888,000 through joint contracts during 13/14 and 14/15 financial years.

b.      A saving of over 19,640 tonnes of CO2 emissions and $5.8 million in energy costs over 20 years as a result of WSROC’s Light Years Ahead project.

c.      Regional waste programs which WSROC has generated $3.7 million in grant funding (over the 3 year duration of the waste strategy).

d.      An approximate saving of over $250k due to its participation in a joint EIS review for Badgery’s Creek Airport.

e.      For the past two financial years for an outlay of $314K and $233K respectively, Liverpool has saved itself the cost of sending recyclable materials directly to landfill - $655K and $480K respectively.  Not only is this a great environmental initiative, but also a social one as Soft Landings employs people on the margin of society and those with disabilities in fulfilling their role under this contract.

 

6.      Clr Hadchiti has been a WSROC Board member since being elected to Council in September 2008 with the second delegate rotating each of those years.

 

7.      Clr Hadchiti has served as Jnr VP, Snr VP and is currently serving as President since October 2012.

 

8.      Some of the benefits of having the President from Liverpool include:

 

a.      During 2015, generated 68 media articles with reference to Liverpool-related issues with an estimated reach of 34,896,511 readership.

b.      A seat at the table with Ministers and MP’s both at a Federal & State level from across the political divide.

c.      The opportunity to ensure that Liverpool related issues are at the forefront of any discussions including:

                          i.          Badgerys Creek airport development (transport, EIS, employment and housing).

                         ii.          Better connectivity for Liverpool as a regional city.

                        iii.          Meetings with Government to reconsider Moorebank Intermodal & the Moorebank recycling plant.

                        iv.          Timely infrastructure delivery for the South West Growth Centre.

                         v.          Improved transport links – particularly along the north-south corridor.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Mamone            Seconded:  Clr Ristevski

 

That:

 

1.    A further report come back to Council in April 2016 to review WSROC delegates with the following actions to consider:

 

a)      termination of current delegates

b)      increasing the number of delegates

c)      calling on nominations for new delegates

 

2.      The further report to include the history of the delegates of WSROC including the gender of past delegates.

 

3.      The report to outline how delegates will be appointed and whether a secret ballot should be used.

 

4.      A report to be brought to Council to outline the achievements of WSROC and other external committees.

 

5.      A report be provided to Council by June 2016 with a review of the Councillor representatives on Council’s Committees so that the same gender ratio exists on Committees as per Councillors on Council.

 

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Hadchiti) was declared LOST. The Foreshadowed Motion (moved by Clr Mamone) was then voted on and on being put to the meeting was declared LOST.

 

Division called (for the motion moved by Clr Hadchiti):

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

 

Vote against:                         Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 

Division called (for the Foreshadowed Motion moved by Clr Mamone):

 

Vote for:                                Clr Karnib

Clr Mamone

Clr Ristevski

Clr Stanley

Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Mayor Mannoun

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hadid

Clr Harle

Clr Shelton

 

 

Clr Waller left the Chambers at 7.21pm.

 

Clr Waller returned to the Chambers at 7.23pm.


21

ITEM NO:       NOM 02

FILE NO:        075222.2016

SUBJECT:     Delegations Of The Mayor 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Remove the delegation of the Mayor as the spokesperson for Council. Media statements can only be made by the Mayor ONLY after a resolution of Council.

 

2.   Replace the Mayoral and Deputy Mayoral column in the newspapers with a Councillors column for Council and Community events with each Councillor providing a column on a rotational basis. 

 

3.   Replace the "Mayoral mobile office" with the "Mayor and Councillors mobile office" removing the words "Ned Mannoun".

 

4.   Replace the Mayors message in the monthly Newsletter with a Councillors message featuring a story from each Councillor.

 

5.   Change all Invitations to the community to be from "Liverpool City Councillors" removing the words "Mayor Ned Mannoun" including those made on social media, via random phone calls and/or surveys to households, letters to households, posters, formal invitations, radio commercials and any other means that Council invites the community to any event.

 

6.   Ensures the Mayor's photo is not used on Council invitations or any publication.

 

7.   Mayoral Minutes adhere to the OLG Practice Note 16 dated August 2009. An extract of the relevant clause of the practice note is included below:

 

2.7 Mayoral Minutes

 

2.7.1 What is a mayoral minute?

 

The mayor may put to a meeting (without notice) any matter which the council is allowed to deal with or which the council officially knows about (cl.243(1) of the Regulation). This would cover any council function under the Act or other legislation, or any matter that has been brought to the council’s attention, for example, by letter to the mayor or the general manager.

 

This power to make mayoral minutes recognises the special role of the mayor. A mayoral minute overrides all business on the agenda for the meeting, and the mayor may move that the minute be adopted without the motion being seconded.

 

Mayoral minutes should not be used to introduce, without notice, matters that are routine, not urgent, or need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision. These types of matters would be better placed on the agenda, with the usual period of notice being given to the councillors.

 

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

 

A council committee consisting entirely of councillors must run its meetings as set out in the Meeting Code (s.360(3) of the Act). Each council committee can decide on its own procedure (cl.265 of the Regulation) and these could be adopted in the Meeting Code. This includes procedures on mayoral minutes.

 

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

 

While not addressed in the Regulation, mayoral minutes may be altered in practice. This could be covered in council’s Meeting Code. Changes to mayoral minutes should avoid making changes that will introduce, without notice, matters which need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That this item be deferred for further discussion at a briefing session and a properly worded motion be brought back to Council.

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council:

 

1.    Media statements can only be made by the Mayor ONLY after a resolution of Council.

 

2.    Replace the Deputy Mayoral column in the newspapers with a Councillors column for Council and Community events with each Councillor providing a column on a rotational basis. 

 

3.    Replace the "Mayoral mobile office" with the "Mayor and Councillors mobile office" removing the words "Ned Mannoun".

 

4.    Replace the Mayors message in the monthly Newsletter with a Councillors message featuring a story from each Councillor.

 

5.    Change all Invitations to the community to be from "Liverpool City Councillors" removing the words "Mayor Ned Mannoun" including those made on social media, via random phone calls and/or surveys to households, letters to households, posters, formal invitations, radio commercials and any other means that Council invites the community to any event.

 

6.    Ensures the Mayor's photo is not used on Council invitations or any publication instead a group photo of all Councillors be used.

 

7.    Mayoral Minutes adhere to the OLG Practice Note 16 dated August 2009. An extract of the relevant clause of the practice note is included below:

 

2.7 Mayoral Minutes

 

2.7.1 What is a mayoral minute?

 

The mayor may put to a meeting (without notice) any matter which the council is allowed to deal with or which the council officially knows about (cl.243(1) of the Regulation). This would cover any council function under the Act or other legislation, or any matter that has been brought to the council’s attention, for example, by letter to the mayor or the general manager.

 

This power to make mayoral minutes recognises the special role of the mayor. A mayoral minute overrides all business on the agenda for the meeting, and the mayor may move that the minute be adopted without the motion being seconded.

 

Mayoral minutes should not be used to introduce, without notice, matters that are routine, not urgent, or need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision. These types of matters would be better placed on the agenda, with the usual period of notice being given to the councillors.

 

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

 

A council committee consisting entirely of councillors must run its meetings as set out in the Meeting Code (s.360(3) of the Act). Each council committee can decide on its own procedure (cl.265 of the Regulation) and these could be adopted in the Meeting Code. This includes procedures on mayoral minutes.

 

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

 

While not addressed in the Regulation, mayoral minutes may be altered in practice. This could be covered in council’s Meeting Code. Changes to mayoral minutes should avoid making changes that will introduce, without notice, matters which need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision.

 

8.      Any proposed changes to policies as a result of this motion be placed on public exhibition for comment.

 

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

 

Division called (for the motion moved by Clr Hadchiti):

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hadid

 

Vote against:                         Clr Harle

Clr Karnib

Clr Mamone

Clr Ristevski

Clr Shelton

Clr Stanley

Clr Waller

 

Division called (for the Foreshadowed Motion moved by Clr Ristevski):

 

Vote for:                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

 

Note: At the conclusion of the Council meeting, a Rescission Motion was lodged by Councillors Balloot, Hadchiti and Hadid in relation to the resolution for NOM 02. The Rescission Motion will be considered at the April 2016 Council meeting.

 

 

A recess of Council was called at 8.06pm.

 

The meeting reopened at 8.31pm.

 

 


23

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 01

FILE NO:        056599.2016

SUBJECT:     DA-713/2015 - Demolition of existing structures, subdivision to create (33) Torrens title lots and associated road and landscaping works at 25-45 Jardine Drive Edmondson Park

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approves Development Application DA-713/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


23

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 02

FILE NO:        052803.2016

SUBJECT:     1166/2014 - Demolition of existing dwellings and outbuildings; removal of trees on site; erection of two residential flat buildings containing a total of 61 units; associated basement parking; Torrens title subdivision to create three lots; road construction; and dedication of road at 240 Croatia Avenue, Edmondson Park.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approves Development Application DA-1166/2014 subject to Recommended Conditions of Consent contained within the Council Officer’s report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


25

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 03

FILE NO:        055297.2016

SUBJECT:     DA-698/2015 - Demolition of existing structures, construction of a new service station, food & drinks premises, commercial premises & signage at 629-631 Hume Highway, Casula

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approves DA-698/2015 subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent (See Attachment 4)

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Stanley

 

 


25

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 04

FILE NO:        051781.2016

SUBJECT:     DA-192/2015 - Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey commercial building and associated carparking, use as a health services facility, and business identification signage at No. 25 Bathurst Street, Liverpool

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approves DA-192/2015 subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent (See Attachment 3).

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 

MOTION TO BRING ITEM FORWARD

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That Council bring forward items DCC 03 and DPG 03 and deal with them now.

 

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

 

 


27

ITEM NO:       DCC 03

FILE NO:        066861.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Supports representatives from the 2014-2016 Youth Council to present the Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-2015 in open session of Council.

 

2.   Receives and notes the Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-2015 and thanks its members for their contributions, including those of Deputy Mayor Councillor Tony Hadchiti, Councillor Sabrina Mamone, Councillor Peter Harle and Councillor Wendy Waller.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That Council:

 

1.      Supports representatives from the 2014-2016 Youth Council to present the Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-2015 in open session of Council.

 

2.      Receives and notes the Liverpool Youth Council Annual Report 2014-2015 and thanks its members for their contributions, including those of Deputy Mayor Councillor Tony Hadchiti, Councillor Sabrina Mamone, Councillor Peter Harle and Councillor Wendy Waller.

 

3.      Send a letter to the Youth Council congratulating them on their great and outstanding work.

 

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

 

 

 


27

ITEM NO:       DPG 03

FILE NO:        066678.2016

SUBJECT:     Kurrajong Road and Old Kurrajong Road, Casula - Upgrade of Intersection Control

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approves the Traffic Committee recommendations.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That Council:

 

  1. Delays the construction of a proposed roundabout and:

 

2.    Rejects the Traffic Committee Recommendations.

 

  1. Formally writes to the RMS requesting a long term solution to the increasing traffic problems at the Hume Highway and Kurrajong Road / Leacocks Lane signalised intersection.

 

  1. Formally writes to the RMS asking for the closure of the right turn into Old Kurrajong Road from the Hume Highway. The RMS to consider significant anticipated increases in traffic flow due to the recently opened connection of Kurrajong Road to Cowpasture Road, the Carnes Hill Sport and Recreational Complex and the significant increases in residential and industrial developments within the area.

 

  1. Replaces the current “Give Way” signs on Old Kurrajong Road with “Stop Signs” to increase the safety aspects of the intersection.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded:  Mayor Mannoun

That:

 

  1. The Committee supports a roundabout as per Attachment 1.2.

 

  1. Council to facilitate approval of cost effective deliveries during construction of residential dwelling/s at 32 Kurrajong Road.

 

  1. Council advises the owners of 32 Kurrajong Road of its resolution.

 

  1. Council makes representation to the RMS to investigate improvements to the Hume Highway / Old Kurrajong Road intersection with possible right hand turn restriction and improvement to the Hume Highway / Old Kurrajong Road / Leacocks Lane.

 

 

  1. Council uses its best endeavours to mitigate any consequences of this resolution for any affected landowners.

 

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

 

 


29

 

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 01

FILE NO:        034931.2016

SUBJECT:     Corporate Sponsorships

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the Financial Contributions Panel’s recommendations for the provision of $21,000 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $21,000 is endorsed, the remaining balance will be $NIL.

 

Applicant name

Amount

Dekoda Exhibitions & Events

$3,000 ex gst

The Martial Arts Newspaper Online

$3,000 ex gst

Precedent Productions

$2,500 ex gst

PCYC Liverpool

$7,500 ex gst               

The Cancer Council NSW              

$5,000 ex gst

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


31

Clr Stanley left the Chambers at 9.18pm.

 

Clr Stanley returned to the Chambers at 9.21pm.

 

Business Improvement Report

 

ITEM NO:       DBI 01

FILE NO:        062313.2016

SUBJECT:     Growing Liverpool 2023 - Six-monthly Progress Report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the six-monthly Progress Report which outlines the progress of all Principal Activities contained in the 4-year Delivery Program and 2015-16 Operational Plan.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


31

Clr Waller and Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 9.23pm.

 

Clr Waller returned to the Chambers at 9.26pm.

 

Chief Financial Officer

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 01

FILE NO:        030838.2016

SUBJECT:     Investment Report February 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Ristevski

 

That Council:

 

  1. Accepts this report and also prepare a further report showing how a claimed deficit of $4m (Council 2008-2012) was turned into a surplus of $8m (2012-present) a turnaround of $12m. The report is to show how that was achieved using the previous cash flow accounting system compared to the current accrual accounting system.

 

  1. Explain how a previous increasing infrastructure backlog of approximately $280m was reduced to $80m as per the External Financial Auditors report to Council late last year. The report to show how a difference of $200m was achieved.

 

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

 

 


33

Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 9.27pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 02

FILE NO:        059045.2016

SUBJECT:     2016 National General Assembly of Local Government

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council nominates delegates to attend the 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from Sunday 19 June – Wednesday 22 June 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That Councillors Karnib, Hadchiti and Waller be nominated to attend the National General Assembly Conference and any other Councillors wishing to attend the conference notify the Office of the Chief Executive Officer.

 

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

 

 


33

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 03

FILE NO:        059792.2016

SUBJECT:     Councillor representation on Audit and Risk Committee

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Amend Clause 7.1 of the Audit and Risk Committee Charter to read:

“The Deputy Mayor and one Councillor will be the Council representatives on this Committee. All other Councillors are welcome to attend the meetings, however would not have voting rights.” 

 

2.   Nominate the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Shelton as its representatives on the Committee for the current one year term.

 

3.   Officers to source a third independent panel member to join the Committee, following which Clause 7.2.1 of the Committee Charter to be amended to provide for three independent members. 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


35

 

Community and Culture Report

 

ITEM NO:       DCC 01

FILE NO:        064789.2016

SUBJECT:     Draft Graffiti Management Strategy 2016-2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the final Graffiti Management Strategy 2016-2018.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That:

 

1.      Council remove section 4.1 and 4.2 from the Graffiti Policy and remove the legal graffiti status of CPAC tanks.

 

2.      Any resultant savings, compared to the present annual costs in graffiti removal, are to go towards funding the Murals program.

 

3.      The proposed changes to the Graffiti Policy be placed on public exhibition.

 

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

 


35

Mayor Mannoun left the Chambers at 9.41pm and the Deputy Mayor, Clr Hadchiti took the Chair.

 

Clr Mamone left the Chambers at 9.41pm.

 

Mayor Mannoun returned to the Chambers at 9.42pm.

 

ITEM NO:       DCC 02

FILE NO:        034198.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Listens Evaluation 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes this report; and

 

2.    Receives a further report in 12 months on the progress of Liverpool Listens.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


37

 

 

Infrastructure and Environment Report

 

ITEM NO:       DIEN 01

FILE NO:        059021.2016

SUBJECT:     Review of Tree Management Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the Tree Management Policy.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


37

Clr Mamone returned to the Chambers at 9.46pm.

 

ITEM NO:       DIEN 02

FILE NO:        066022.2016

SUBJECT:     Austral and North Leppington - Management of Stormwater

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Authorises the Director Infrastructure and Environment to invite tenders for the design of required stormwater infrastructure to facilitate development of the Austral and Leppington Precincts.

 

2.    Notes that budget is available in the S94 Reserve for necessary investigation and design works.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


39

 

Planning and Growth Report

 

ITEM NO:       DPG 01

FILE NO:        032672.2016

SUBJECT:     Collimore Car Park - Truck Parking

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Approves the introduction of 2 hour parking restrictions between 6.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday in the truck parking area at Collimore Park.

 

2.    Notes that Council parking officers will enforce these restrictions through regular patrols.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


39

 

ITEM NO:       DPG 02

FILE NO:        064206.2016

SUBJECT:     Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 57)  & LDCP 2008 (Draft Amendment 22) - Rezoning of Part of Ardennes Avenue, Edmondson Park

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Adopts draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft Amendment No. 57) and forwards a copy of the attached planning proposal and supporting documentation to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation.

 

2.    Adopts Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Draft Amendment No. 22) and forward a copy of the Development Control Plan (as per changes attached) to the Department of Planning and Environment for notification.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              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.

 

 


41

 

 

Committee Reports

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 01

FILE NO:        057613.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 2 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes the Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee held on 2 March 2016.

 

2.    Congratulates the Committee for Liverpool and Liverpool Council staff for their efforts in developing the Investment Prospectus.

 

3.    Notes that a meeting is to be organised between Jenny Rand (Consultant), Karress Rhodes (Committee member) and the Mayor to resolve any misunderstandings or inaccuracies with respect to the draft Destination Management Plan (DMP) document.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


41

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 02

FILE NO:        065906.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 8 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee meeting held on 8 March 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


43

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 03

FILE NO:        065063.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Liverpool Aboriginal Consultative Committee 4 February 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held on 4 February 2016.

 

2.    Allocate a total of $25,000 on an annual basis towards the ATSI budget as per the Minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held on 6 August 2014.

 

3.    Allocate an additional $7,294 towards the 2015/2016 ATSI budget to bring the total budget to $25,000.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


43

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 04

FILE NO:        057963.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 11 February 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the minutes of the Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on Thursday, 11 February 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


45

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 05

FILE NO:        066087.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee held on Tuesday 1 March, 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 1 March, 2016.

 

2.    Notes that the meeting day of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee Meeting has been changed to the second Monday of the month to ensure that a quorum can be achieved. Updates to the Youth Council Charter will be made to reflect the current timetable for meetings.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


45

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 06

FILE NO:        066444.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 2 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Building our New City Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2016.

 

2.   Notes the delivery of an activation program in Macquarie Mall, the costs of which will be absorbed as part of the overall project cost for the duration of the construction program.

 

3.   Note that the Committee requested that:

a.   Councillors be provided with a statement to use in the public arena to articulate the rationale for the assumption of day-to-day management of the Macquarie Mall project by Council, and the novation of sub-contractors to Council

b.   Council staff, in particular Manager, Special Projects (Albert Galletta), the CEO and the Director, Infrastructure and Environment be commended for successfully negotiating a clean and timely transfer of responsibility for the construction of the Mall to Council from the contractor

c.   A briefing be provided to Councillors on the history and process of the assumption of day-to-day management of the Macquarie Mall project by Council, including advice on Council’s forward programming of works for the Mall

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


47

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 07

FILE NO:        066455.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee meeting held on 1 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee Meeting held on 1 March 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


47

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 08

FILE NO:        066834.2016

SUBJECT:     Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Minutes from Meeting 25 February 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Meeting held on 25 February 2016.

 

2.   Adopt the revised draft Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Charter as approved by the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board at the 25 February 2016 Board meeting.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


49

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 09

FILE NO:        073364.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 4 February 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee Meeting held on 4 February 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


49

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 10

FILE NO:        073624.2016

SUBJECT:     Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes of 2 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2016.

 

2.    Adopts the Committee’s recommendations

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


51

 

Questions with Notice

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 01

FILE NO:        046443.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Stanley

 

Please address the following:

 

Kurrajong Road, Prestons

 

1.      Can I be advised when the last traffic management study was done for Kurrajong Road?

 

In 2015 Council engaged a consultant to review traffic management around Carnes Hill Shopping Centre.  A draft report has been received and comments on the draft report have been provided with the final report yet to be received.

2.      Since the expending of the link between Prestons and Carnes Hill the traffic has increased the right hand turn to Cowpasture Road, there is concerning traffic behaviour due to frustration at the right turn from Kurrajong Road to the Carnes Hill Shopping Centre. Also the intersection at the roundabout at Kurrajong Road and San Merino Drive is causing traffic to back up in both directions.

 

Council has recently engaged Transport and Traffic Planning Associates to undertake a review of the existing traffic signals at the Cowpasture Road and Kurrajong Road intersection.  Council has organised intersection traffic counts to assist with the traffic signal review.

 

3.      Are there future plans to address this?

 

Future plans will be based on the final outcome of both studies.

 


Heritage Properties in private ownership

 

4.      I believe there are several properties listed as local heritage value in the current LLEP can I be advised how many?

 

There are approximately 132 listed heritage places within the Liverpool LGA as well as two conservation areas.  Most of these are locally listed items although 13 are also listed on the State Heritage Register.  We have one declared Aboriginal Place, the Collingwood Precinct.

 

Approximately 35% of these listed places are government owned.  The rest are religious organisations, private companies and individuals.

 

 

 

5.      What does Council do or can it do to retain these properties for the future?

 

Locally listed heritage places and conservation areas have statutory protection, i.e. it is an offense to demolish or alter a listed place without consent.  The approvals process is the way that Council manages change and facilitates appropriate conservation for the future.

 

In addition, Council provides a free advisory service so that owners of heritage places or property within conservation areas can seek advice about the best way to maintain or alter their property to conserve significance but achieve their requirements. 

 

6.      Is there any legal requirement for these properties to be retained for the future?

 

Once listed on the Liverpool local Environmental Plan 2008 (or other similar planning instruments), a place (being either built and/ or landscape elements) is afforded legal protection and consent is then required for demolition or alterations.  Whilst Clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation) does not specifically state that demolition is not permissible, the objectives of the clause are to conserve.  In heritage conservation practice, demolition is not considered a means of conservation and is rarely, if ever, supported.

 

7.      When will a review be done of heritage properties in Liverpool and when will that report be presented to Council?

 

Council’s last review of heritage was 10 years ago.  As part of updating the comprehensive local environmental plan, a new heritage study will be undertaken.

 

The following question was asked by Clr Stanley while dealing with this item, during the Council meeting:

 

8.    Can Council be provided with timelines for the future plans that are to be developed as a result of the traffic studies referred to in point 3 of this Question With Notice.


53

Clr Mamone left the Chambers at 9.56pm.

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 02

FILE NO:        075114.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti

 

Please address the following:

 

1.      Council owns many buildings.

Are all these buildings compliant with the current fire standards?

Can a register be provided showing these assets and due dates for next fire inspections?

 

2.      Recently Council committed to upgrading pocket parks that were the subject of surplus lands.

Has any community consultation taken place in relation to the upgrades of these pocket parks?

 

3.      A request has been made by some of our youth for the possibility of building a skate park in the Casula area.

Can I be informed of any issues, besides budget constraints, of constructing a skate park on the Southern side of Jardine Park along Old Kurrajong Rd.?

 

4.      There is some confusion relating to the name of Phillip Park in Lurnea.  At a recent community consultation meeting the granddaughter of Mr Phillip was present and stated that originally it was named Phillips Park.  Signs at the park state ‘Phillips Park’

Can the history of naming this park please be looked into?

Can the sign ‘Phillips Park’ that was originally located on the corner of Hill Road & Reilly St please be re installed?

 

5.      Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Area

Has Council served any orders or proposed orders for the demolition of dwellings within that area?

If so:

1.      Has Council done its due diligence on whether these orders could have been served?

2.      Has council obtained any legal advice on the prospects of success if these matters were before the courts?

 

6.      Council was looking into changes to the LEP in relation to truck parking in rural areas.

Can an update please be provided on the progress?

 

 

 

 

7.      The traffic issues around Westfield’s seem to be not going away.

Is Westfield’s complying with their TMP?

What progress has been made with any discussions held with Westfield’s in relation to fixing the traffic issues around their centre now, not in the future?

Is Westfield’s complying with their DA?

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the business papers for the Council meeting 27 April 2016.

 


55

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 03

FILE NO:        075201.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Shelton

 

Please address the following:

 

Given the likelihood that a container deposit levy or similar container recovery scheme will commence in the state of New South Wales in the foreseeable future, possibly on 1 July 2017, please provide the following information (and, where appropriate, under confidential cover).

 

  1. Is it the case under existing collection contracts title to all containers passes to the contractor from the moment of collection? Or does title remain with the Council until a later point, and if so please identify the point when title does pass?

 

  1. Is it anticipated Council would be able to benefit from the increased value of containers in collections it organises for household and other refuse. If so, how is as much to be implemented, and if not, why not?

 

  1. Have any estimates or calculations been made as to the increased value of waste collected where a deposit or similar benefit is recoverable. Equally, are there estimates available simply as to the quantity of containers collected that might be eligible for a benefit to be paid.

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the business papers for the Council meeting 27 April 2016.

 

 

 

 

 


55

ITEM NO:       QWN 04

FILE NO:        075208.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Harle

 

Please address the following:

 

  1. Questions relating to the Civic List:
    1. How current is the civic list?
    2. How far back does it go?
    3. Are invites to council events extended to all individuals on the civic list?

 

  1. Questions relating to the Propel Management System:
    1. How much money does propel receive per month?
    2. How is the money paid?

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the business papers for Council meeting 27 April 2016.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


57

Clr Mamone returned to the Chambers at 10.03pm.

 

Economic Development Report

 

ITEM NO:       DEE 01

FILE NO:        076333.2016

SUBJECT:     Future Cities Collaborative/United States Studies Centre invitation to participate in Australian City Exchange on Innovation Ecosystems

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider participation in the Exchange and either nominate a Councillor or Councillors and/or staff to attend OR decline the offer of participation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded:  Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council decline the invitation for Councillors, and delegate authority to the Acting CEO to decide if a staff member shall attend.

 

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

 


57

ITEM NO:       CONF 01

FILE NO:        065194.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2501 - Davy Robinson Seawall and Carpark Upgrade

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Under Section 178(3)(a) of the Local Government Regulation, cancels the proposal for this contract and invites fresh tenders following completion of redesigns and obtaining of development consent for the remediation works.

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2501 - Seawall renewal and carpark upgrade works at Davy Robinson Reserve, Moorebank.

 

3.    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 Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


 

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 02

FILE NO:        041318.2016

SUBJECT:     Acquisition of part Lot 110 DP 1150684, Progress Circuit, Prestons, for drainage purposes

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Approves the acquisition of part Lot 110 DP 1150684, Progress Circuit, Prestons, containing an area of approximately 4,650 square metres for the price and terms outlined in the confidential attachment;

 

2.   Upon settlement of the acquisition, classifies the portion of Lot 110 DP 1150684, Progress Circuit, Prestons, being acquired as 'Community' 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 Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


59

ITEM NO:       CONF 03

FILE NO:        046754.2016

SUBJECT:     Proposed easement for underground electricity cables over Lot 515 DP 235072, 104 Lawrence Hargrave Road, Warwick Farm, known as 'Hargrave Park'

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Grants an easement for underground electricity cables over Lot 515 DP 235072, 104 Lawrence Hargrave Road, Warwick Farm, known as ‘Hargrave Park’, as outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the compensation amount 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 Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.   Transfers the compensation amount into the General Property Reserve; and

 

4.   Authorises the relevant documentation necessary for the formalization of the easement to be signed under Power of Attorney by Council's delegated officer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


61

ITEM NO:       CONF 04

FILE NO:        050587.2016

SUBJECT:     Proposed disposal of part Copeland Street, Liverpool

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Subject to a successful road closure, agrees to the sale of part Copeland Street, Liverpool, containing an area of approximately 200 square metres, for the price and terms set out in this confidential report;

 

2.    Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the purchase 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 Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.    Transfers the proceeds of sale into the General Property Reserve; 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 Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


61

Clr Karnib left the Chambers at 10.18pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 05

FILE NO:        065742.2016

SUBJECT:     Procurement of Waste Investigation Services

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Extends the contract between C.M Jewell and Associates Pty Ltd and Council for the ongoing supervision and oversight of Council’s site remediation activities in accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act on the basis that extenuating circumstances exist that prevent competitive tenders being called.

 

2.    Extends the contract between Douglas Partners and Council to undertake all required site investigations, development of remediation strategies, reporting and certification in accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act on the basis that extenuating circumstances exist that prevent competitive tenders being called.

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid        Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


63

Clr Karnib returned to the Chambers at 10.21pm.

ITEM NO:       CONF 06

FILE NO:        067143.2016

SUBJECT:     Legal Affairs Report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the report concerning the Legal Affairs of Council.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


63

ITEM NO:       CONF 07

FILE NO:        070643.2016

SUBJECT:     Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the applicants outlined in the confidential report as members of the Liverpool Access Committee:

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

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.

 

 


65

ITEM NO:       CONF 08

FILE NO:        071943.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2534 – Whitlam Leisure Centre Spa Renewal

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council: 

 

1.    In accordance with Section 178(3)(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, cancels the contract for the delivery of the Whitlam Leisure Centre Spa Renewal.

 

2.    In accordance with Section 178(3)(f) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, carries out the requirements of the Whitlam Leisure Centre Spa Renewal itself.

 

3.    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 Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Clr Ristevski

 

 


65

ITEM NO:       CONF 09

FILE NO:        074290.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2516 - Middleton Grange Rural Fire Station, West Hoxton

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 

1.    Accepts the Tender WT2516 Middleton Grange Rural Fire Station, West Hoxton from Midson Construction NSW Pty Ltd, for value of $1,365,414 exclusive of GST.

2.    Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2516 Middleton Grange Rural Fire Station, West Hoxton.

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

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Mayor Mannoun

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Stanley

 


67

ITEM NO:       CONF 10

FILE NO:        074337.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2538 - Design, Supply and Installation of Gross Pollutant Trap at Blamfields Oval, Ashcroft

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 

1.    Accepts the Tender from Ecosol Pty Ltd for WT2538 Design, Supply and Installation of GPT at Blamfields Oval at Maxwell Avenue, Ashcroft for lump sum contract price of $261,000 exclusive of GST.

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2538 Design, Supply & Installation of a GPT in Blamfields Oval at Maxwell Avenue, Ashcroft.

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.


67

ITEM NO:       CONF 11

FILE NO:        078634.2016

SUBJECT:     Macquarie Mall Revitalisation Works

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


 

Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 10.49pm.

 

Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 10.51pm.

ITEM NO:       CONF 12

FILE NO:        078581.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2495 - Upgrade of Bigge Park Precinct, Liverpool

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 

1.    Declines to accept the tender from Regal Innovations Pty Ltd for Tender WT2495 - Upgrade of Bigge Park Precinct, Liverpool.

2.    Authorises Council officers to explore the feasibility of undertaking the works using in house project management resources and appropriate subcontracting arrangements and undertake the works if found to be feasible.

3.    Under Section 178(3)(b) of the Local Government Regulations, invites fresh tenders if this is found to be the most effective means of delivering the works.

4.    Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2495 - Upgrade of Bigge Park Precinct, Liverpool.

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 Mamone            Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Stanley

That Council: 

  1. Declines to accept the tender from Regal Innovations Pty Ltd for Tender WT2495 - Upgrade of Bigge Park Precinct, Liverpool.

 

 

 

  1. Under Section 178(3)(b) of the Local Government Regulations, invites fresh tenders and simultaneously authorises Council officers to explore the feasibility of undertaking the works using in house project management resources and appropriate subcontracting arrangements and undertake the works if found to be feasible .

 

  1. Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2495 - Upgrade of Bigge Park Precinct, Liverpool.

 

  1. 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.

 

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

 


 

Council moved into Closed Session at 10.58pm. Clr Karnib and Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 10.58pm

 

Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 10.59pm.

 

Clr Karnib returned to the Chambers at 11.00pm.

 

 

ITEM NO:

CONF 07

FILE NO:

070643.2016

SUBJECT:

Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the applicants identified in the confidential report as members of the Liverpool Access Committee.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                         Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the report be deferred and dealt with at the next Council meeting.

 

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

 

 

Motion:                         Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council move back into open session.

 

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

 

Council moved back into open session at 11.02pm.

 

Mayor Mannoun read the Council resolution relating to CONF 07 which was discussed during Closed Session.


 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 11.04pm.

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title:     Mayor

Date:     27 April 2016

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on  30 March 2016. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

 


73

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

   

NOMR 01

Rescission NOM 02 - Delegations Of The Mayor from Council meeting 30 March 2016

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement

Key Policy

Communications Plan

File Ref

091369.2016

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION OF RESCISSION

 

That Council rescinds the resolution relating to NOM 02 Delegations of the Mayor from the Council Meeting 30 March 2016. A copy of the resolution is shown below:

 

That Council:

 

1.    Media statements can only be made by the Mayor ONLY after a resolution of Council.

 

2.    Replace the Deputy Mayoral column in the newspapers with a Councillors column for Council and Community events with each Councillor providing a column on a rotational basis. 

 

3.    Replace the "Mayoral mobile office" with the "Mayor and Councillors mobile office" removing the words "Ned Mannoun".

 

4.    Replace the Mayors message in the monthly Newsletter with a Councillors message featuring a story from each Councillor.

 

5.    Change all Invitations to the community to be from "Liverpool City Councillors" removing the words "Mayor Ned Mannoun" including those made on social media, via random phone calls and/or surveys to households, letters to households, posters, formal invitations, radio commercials and any other means that Council invites the community to any event.

 

6.    Ensures the Mayor's photo is not used on Council invitations or any publication instead a group photo of all Councillors be used.

 

7.    Mayoral Minutes adhere to the OLG Practice Note 16 dated August 2009. An extract of the relevant clause of the practice note is included below:

 

2.7 Mayoral Minutes

 

2.7.1 What is a mayoral minute?

 

The mayor may put to a meeting (without notice) any matter which the council is allowed to deal with or which the council officially knows about (cl.243(1) of the Regulation). This would cover any council function under the Act or other legislation, or any matter that has been brought to the council’s attention, for example, by letter to the mayor or the general manager.

 

This power to make mayoral minutes recognises the special role of the mayor. A mayoral minute overrides all business on the agenda for the meeting, and the mayor may move that the minute be adopted without the motion being seconded.

 

Mayoral minutes should not be used to introduce, without notice, matters that are routine, not urgent, or need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision. These types of matters would be better placed on the agenda, with the usual period of notice being given to the councillors.

 

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

 

A council committee consisting entirely of councillors must run its meetings as set out in the Meeting Code (s.360(3) of the Act). Each council committee can decide on its own procedure (cl.265 of the Regulation) and these could be adopted in the Meeting Code. This includes procedures on mayoral minutes.

 

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

 

While not addressed in the Regulation, mayoral minutes may be altered in practice. This could be covered in council’s Meeting Code. Changes to mayoral minutes should avoid making changes that will introduce, without notice, matters which need research or a lot of consideration by the councillors before coming to a decision.

 

8.    Any proposed changes to policies as a result of this motion be placed on public exhibition for comment.

 

 

Signed:

 

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hadid

  


75

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 01

Malek Fahd Islamic School

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

085939.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

There have been numerous issues involving Malek Fahd Islamic School, Hoxton Park Campus and the residents of Hoxton Park, that have been ongoing since construction began in 2009 and occupation with students since 2011.

 

Residents have sought to resolve the issues through numerous phone calls and meetings, with council, to no avail.

 

The various issues impacting the privacy and quality of life of the residents include:

 

1.   The impact of the flood lighting on adjoining residents’ property.

 

2.   The decimal impact of the School PA system is above acceptable levels, for the adjoining residents.

 

3.   The usage of Dorrigo Ave for access to the school should be prohibited as per the DA conditions.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That a report be brought back to the next Council meeting outlining the resolution of the above three issues.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

Council officers have comprehensively investigated noise and other complaints about the Malek Fahd School dating back many months. Council’s Manager Community Standards has taken a personal role in investigating these complaints and has undertaken site visits and conducted noise testing herself.  She has also met with the complainant.  Meetings have also been held with the School Principal to ensure that the PA system speakers are turned off during school holidays.

 Noise assessments were conducted during the second half of last year on the following dates: 

 

·    4 and 13 August

·    9 October

·    12, 20 and 24 November, and

·    7 December

 

This testing found no evidence of the alleged noise nuisance.   

 

Other complaints relating to access via the construction fencing on Dorrigo Avenue and outdoor lighting have also been investigated and remedied.

 

These results have been explained to the complainant and formally communicated to her in a letter signed by the CEO dated 15 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

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


77

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 02

Committee for Liverpool

 

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

088245.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

Currently the Mayor is the only representative from Council on the Committee for Liverpool. As no decisions of this Committee can be made without Council approval and to further prevent this discriminatory policy of not allowing Councillors to have an active role on this important Committee, this needs to be amended. In particular as the Mayor can no longer make any media announcements on behalf of the Council without a Council resolution, having all Councillors sit on this committee is a more efficient means to keep the Mayor in check when he attempts to make media announcements without them being budgeted and costed with their impact on Council rates.  

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That all Councillors be invited to sit on the Committee For Liverpool.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

The Committee for Liverpool was proposed to be formally established drawing on membership from key corporate and government decision makers. The Committee has created an influential network of ambassadors for Liverpool as well as providing external perspectives and input to Liverpool Council’s marketing and economic development initiatives. Taylor Street Advisory were engaged by Council to put in place a strategy to engage key external decision makers and continue to facilitate the Committee for Liverpool model.

 

The committee’s purpose is primarily an information exchange and, as such, has no decision making authority.

 

Council resolved on 25 February 2015 to support the Committee’s establishment and adoption of the charter.

Alteration of the Committee Charter would require the same process and adoption. A report to Council would need to be put up and the opportunity for current members to make comment would need to be considered as a courtesy.

 

The current membership is already at capacity so this would also need to be taken into account.

 

Minutes of the meetings have been presented to Council and Councillors have been kept abreast of outcomes from the Committee including an invitation to the Premier Mike Baird’s announcement of Western Sydney University’s Launchpad in Liverpool and receiving a copy of the Investment Prospectus prior to the official launch.

 

If it is Council’s wish, Councillors can be invited as observers, pending members being offered the opportunity to comment on any charter changes.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.

Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital health and medical precinct (of the City Centre).

Facilitate economic development.

Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions.

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

There are no social and cultural considerations.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes.

Deliver services that are customer focused.

Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


79

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 03

Western Sydney Women

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement

Key Policy

NA

File Ref

099000.2016

Author

Tony Hadchiti - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

Western Sydney Women has become a trademark of women’s independence across our greater western suburbs. From the North West to the South West they speak up for equality and the rights of women in Australia. Under the guidance of their management team of Amanda Rose and Maria Kovacic this proud organisation has quickly made a name for itself as a leader for the women’s movement.

 

Western Sydney Women has experienced great successes in drawing influential women from all walks of life to become members of an increasingly notable organisation including key ambassadors; Pru Goward, NSW Member for Goulburn and Minister for Women, and Senator Marise Payne, our first ever female Minister for Defence.

 

Amanda Rose is a true local figure head known to many of us here on council and is an exemplary ambassador for women from our greater western suburbs. This wonderful, home grown, organisation should be promoted at every opportunity and given the proper recognition from this council.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Invite Amanda Rose, founder of Western Sydney Women to address the next Council meeting on the work her organization does

 

2.    Give consideration to be a supporting partner of the organization

 

3.    Invite Councillors and staff to become members of the organization

 

 

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.

Promote community harmony and address discrimination.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

Deliver services that are customer focused.

Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


81

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 04

National Barefoot Water Ski Championships

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Deliver a range of stimulating and vibrant cultural events, programs and festivals

Key Policy

Events Strategy

File Ref

099010.2016

Author

Tony Hadchiti - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

Barefoot water skiing is one of the premier sports of Australia’s fresh water rivers with competitors demonstrating feats of acrobatics and skill on the water while being towed from a boat on nothing but the soles of their feet. The NSW division of the national club operates out of Helles Park on the banks of the Georges River and is one of the icons of our area. From Tuesday 29th March to Sunday 3rd April the NSW Barefoot Water Ski Club hosted the national championships here in Liverpool and I was proud to represent the Mayor at the presentation dinner on the Sunday night.

 

Operating for over 50 years the NSW Barefoot Water Ski Club has hosted both national and international titles and has had many world champions in its ranks. Barefoot Australia is now bidding for the world championships to return to Liverpool in 2020 and is calling for more patronage and promotion of the sport. The club is open to professionals and beginners who are trying it for the first time. As a council that supports our local clubs and continues to push for more world class entertainment in our city all efforts should be made to support the promotion of barefoot water skiing here in Liverpool.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Help promote the NSW Barefoot Water Ski Club operating out of Helles Park Moorebank and encourage residents to join in the club’s first timer lessons.

 

2.   Assist the club in applying for Council grants to encourage residents to attend their “Come & try” days

 

3.   Supports the club’s bid to bring the world titles to Liverpool in 2020 and if successful, help promote the event in the area.

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Facilitate economic development.

Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions.

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.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


83

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 05

Athletics Track

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community

Key Policy

Recreation Strategy

File Ref

099870.2016

Author

Anne Stanley – Councillor

Mazhar Hadid - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

At the most recent Council Sport Committee meeting representations were received from Athletic representatives for an all weather synthetic athletics track. Whilst Council has several Little Athletics clubs, and many junior athletes, without the availability of such facilities Liverpool is currently losing athletes to other districts. As part of the Recreation and sport strategy the feasibility of providing such a track should be explored, perhaps at the new fields to be built at Carnes Hill.

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Explore the feasibility of providing a synthetic athletics track and associated facilities.

 

2.   Report findings with the Recreation and Sports strategy to Council.

 

 

 

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.

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.

Deliver services that are customer focused.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil   


91

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

IHAP 01

DA-267/2015 -  Two lot Torrens title subdivision, retention of existing dwelling on Lot A and construction of a new dwelling on Lot B at 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

085064.2016

Report By

Patrick Waite - Development Assessment Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

Property

8 Aberdeen Road, Busby

Owner

Shal Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Mr Hany Habib

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-267/2015, proposing a   two lot Torrens Title subdivision, retention of the existing house on the proposed front lot and construction of a single storey dwelling on the proposed rear lot at 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby.  This application was lodged on 10 April 2015.

 

This application was referred to the 29 March 2016 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 lot width for battle-axe lots. The proposed lot width for lot B at its narrowest point is 4 metres, representing a variation of 20%.

 

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 2).

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve DA-267/2015 subject to recommended conditions of consent contained within the Council officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 2).

 

 

Background

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-267/2015 for a one (1) lot into two (2) Torrens title subdivision in the form of a battle-axe lot with alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and the construction of a single storey dwelling on the proposed rear lot.

 

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 in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4 to be not less than 10m unless the subdivision of land is a battle axe-lot in which case a minimum lot width of 5m applies. The proposed subdivision is in the form of a battle axe lot and will result in a minimum lot width of 4m (for the access handle) which equates to a variation of 20% to Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008.

 

The Site

 

The site is identified as 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby, with legal description of Lot 260 DP 220818. The site is a regular shaped rectangular lot with a site area of 702m2 and a frontage of 15.5m.

 

The subject site is improved by a single storey dwelling fronting Aberdeen Road to the east and is bounded by detached dwellings on the remaining boundaries (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby (source: Eview January 2016).

 

The subject site is located in an established residential area within Busby characterised by detached single storey dwellings and is located in the vicinity of Busby Public School and Snowy Park (Figure 2).

 

Busby Public SchoolSouth Liverpool Road Subject SiteSnowy Park

Figure 2: Aerial image of the subject site 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby (source: Eview January 2016).

 

details of the proposal

 

The proposed development seeks consent for:

 

·    A two (2) lot Torrens title subdivision resulting in a battle-axe lot, with the following lot sizes:

o    Proposed Lot A = 300.5m2

o    Proposed Lot B= 300.4m2

·    Alterations and additions to existing dwelling on proposed Lot A, including basement car parking.

·    Construction of a single storey detached dwelling with basement on proposed Lot B located to the rear.

 

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 Minimum Lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4, pursuant to Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of the LLEP 2008.

 

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

Figure 3: Extract of proposed Torrens title subdivision plan for subject site 8 Aberdeen Road, Busby (source: submitted architectural plans with DA-267/2015).

 

the issues

 

Variation to access handle width, prescribed by Clause 7.13 (Minimum lot width in zones R1, R2, R3 and R4) of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

 

The submitted written request to vary Clause 7.13 (Minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4) has been assessed against the provisions of Clause 4.6; the objectives of Clause 7.13; and the objectives of the R3 zone, as discussed below:

 

The objectives and standards of Clause 4.6 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2008 are as follows:

 

      Objectives:

(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.

 

(3)  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.

 

(4)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)     the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

Officer’s assessment of variation:

 

1)   Circumstances of the development

 

The proposed development seeks consent for a two (2) lot subdivision in the form of a battle axe lot at the rear and a small (300sqm) lot directly fronting the road. A single storey dwelling with basement parking is proposed to be constructed on the rear lot. The existing dwelling will include partial demolition, reconfiguration of the internal layout and an extension to the front of the dwelling. Subject to the proposed works to the existing dwelling, the proposed subdivision layout will provide for a 4m wide access way.

 

2)   Written request addressing why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case [Clause 4.6(3)(a)]

 

The applicant has provided the following comments addressing why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this case, as summarised:

-    The proposal includes partial demolition of the existing dwelling which is considered to provide for appropriate access arrangements, setbacks and visual amenity for the proposed dwelling on the rear lot.

-    Strict compliance would result in requiring the full demolition of the existing dwelling which is argued to be unreasonable.

-    Separate access to Busby Rd is provided for each proposed lot. 

-    The proposed subdivision is not considered to result in negative environmental impacts on existing neighbours.

-    Suitable residential development can still be accommodated as demonstrated by the proposed dwelling for proposed lot B on the resulting battle-axe lot despite the non-compliant width.

-    The driveway carriage way of 4m complies with Australian Standard (AS) 2890.1.

-    A new entry access driveway is consistent with the scale, massing and form of surrounded development, maintain the same or similar setbacks to the adjoining properties and has been designed to alleviate any adverse impacts to the surrounded properties.

 

Responding comments:

-     The proposed development provides for an access way width of 4m. The partial demolition of the existing dwelling provides for a compliant side setback of 0.9m to the respective internal lot boundary.

-     Landscape screening strips of 0.5m wide are provided on either side of the 3m carriage way width of the access handle to enhance the visual amenity of the development.

-     The corresponding northern neighbouring property adjoins directly to the boundary of the proposed access way. The dwelling in this neighbouring allotment is located to the very rear of the allotment and as such the vast majority of the proposed access way would not be visible or apparent form the dwelling. Any impact on this neighbour would most likely be negligible.

-     The proposal has demonstrated that suitable residential development can be achieved on both proposed lots.

-     With suitable landscaping it is considered that an inviting point of entry from the proposed access can be achieved.

-     A 4m access way is not considered to restrict the access to the proposed rear allotment. Service vehicles such as removalist vans could access the proposed lot.

-     Ultimately, strict compliance would only result in the extension to the width of the access way by one (1) metre which is not considered to improve the amenity of any neighbouring properties, and the provision of a 4m access way is not considered to be a constraint on the utility or amenity of the battle axe allotment. 

 

3)   Written request addressing that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard [Clause 4.6(3)(b)]

 

The applicant has provided the following comments:

-     The variation does not prevent the objective of clause 7.13 from being satisfied, that is: (to) ensure that the minimum lot dimensions are able to accommodate residential development that is suitable for its purpose and is consistent with relevant development controls.

 

Responding comments:

-     The objectives of the development standard are considered to have been satisfied as the proposal results in achieving the objectives for the access handle width development control, associated landscaping, setback requirements and streetscape objectives of Council’s Policy.

-     The proposal will result in an additional housing allotment that complies with the average lot width development control. This supports the achievement of the planned density of the area.

 

 

4)   Consistency with objectives of the development standard Clause 7.13 (Minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4) [Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)]

 

The objectives of Clause 4.3 and assessment are as follows:

 

1.   The objective of this clause 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 lot dimensions for the resulting allotments have been demonstrated as being able to accommodate suitable residential development that is consistent with the relevant development controls (refer to Appendix 3 of Attachment 3 for DCP compliance table), subject to the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling.

 

5)   Consistency with objectives of the zone – R3 Medium Density Residential [Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)]

 

The proposal will result in providing an additional housing type, being a battle axe housing lot, within the medium residential development zone, with residential developments that satisfies the objectives and intent of the relevant development standards and control. This supports the objectives of the medium density residential zone to provide for the housing needs of the community, to provide for a variety of housing types and to ensure a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

 

6)   Consistency with Clause 4.6 objectives

 

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

 

Flexibility with Clause 7.13 is sought.

 

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

 

By allowing for flexibility in this circumstance a two (2) lot subdivision with the ability of retaining the majority of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling on a proposed rear lot is possible. Strict compliance with the development standard of Clause 7.13 would essentially result in requiring the full demolition of the existing dwelling.

 

In reference to the proposed development, it is considered that there would be no reduction in environmental impacts and no improvement to the amenity of the proposed residents and neighbouring properties if strict compliance of the development standard was enforced. As such, flexibility in this circumstance would allow for the majority of the existing dwelling to remain which subsequently maintains the current urban streetscape and provides for a reduced impact on the family living in the subject dwelling.

 

 

 

7)   Recommendation

 

With consideration to the discussion above, the proposal has demonstrated merit and the proposed variation to the Clause 7.13 Minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4 has satisfied the provisions of Clause 4.6 and as such is supported in this circumstance.

 

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

 

At their meeting on 29 March 2016, IHAP made the following recommendation:

 

The Panel recommends that DA-267/2015 for a two lot Torrens Title Subdivision and construction of a single storey dwelling and alterations and additions to existing dwelling at Lot 260 DP 220818 be approved subject to conditions attached to the Council officer’s report.

 

The IHAP recommendation is attached as Attachment 3.

 

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 of consent contained within the Council officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 2).

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

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

2.         IHAP Report DA-267/2015View (Under separate cover)

3.         IHAP recommendation for DA-267/2015View (Under separate cover)  


99

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

IHAP 02

DA-991/2015 - Construction of 20 detached dwellings and community title subdivision on proposed Lot 18 within stage 3 of a development of Lot 31 DP 1181985 at the former New Brighton Golf Club

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

085303.2016

Report By

Taylar Vernon - Senior Development Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

Property

Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank NSW 2170 (Lot 31 DP 1181985)

Owner

New Brighton Gold Club Ltd

Applicant

Mirvac Homes Pty Ltd

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-991/2015, proposing the construction of 20 detached dwellings on proposed Lot 18 in the staged development of the New Brighton Golf Club and community title subdivision at Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank. This application was lodged on 7 October 2015.

 

This application was referred to the 29 March 2016 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 4.3 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008, which stipulates the maximum building height for the site is 8.5m. The land is the subject of a bulk earthworks DA, which will alter the ground level before each dwelling is constructed and will ensure that the height of the dwelling complies with the 8.5m height limit. As the earthworks have not yet occurred, the height of the buildings from existing ground level are greater than 8.5m and the proposal therefore results in a technical non-compliance with the standard. When measured from existing ground level, the maximum height of the dwellings exceeds the development standard by between 18-47%.

 

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 2).

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve DA-991/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent attached to the Council officers IHAP report (Attachment 2).

 

 

Background

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-991/2015, proposing the construction of 20 detached dwellings on proposed Lot 18 in the staged development of the New Brighton Golf Club and community title subdivision at Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank.

 

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 4.3 of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes a maximum building height of 8.5m.  The LLEP 2008 defines building height as the vertical distance between existing ground level and the highest point of the building. The land is the subject of a bulk earthworks DA, which will alter the ground level before each dwelling is constructed and will ensure that the height of the dwelling complies with the 8.5m height limit. As the earthworks have not yet occurred, the height of the buildings from existing ground level are greater than 8.5m and the proposal therefore results in a technical non-compliance with the standard. When measured from existing ground level, the buildings exceed the maximum allowable height by between 18-47%.

 

The Site

 

The development site is located within Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank, having the legal description of Lot 31 DP 1181985. The subject site is identified as proposed Lot 18 in approved subdivision DA-762/2014 with an area of 7598m2.

 

All earthworks and tree removal required to facilitate the development have been approved by DA-762/2014.

 

The indicative location of proposed Lot 18 within the ‘Brighton Lakes’ residential development is illustrated in Figure 1 below:

 

Figure 1: Brighton Lakes Locality Plan

 

The locality is characterised by residential development to the north and to the west of the subject site; and the New Brighton Golf Club to the east. The M5 Motorway is located to the south of the site.

 

Subject Site

Figure 2: Aerial photograph of site and surrounding locality

 

details of the proposal

 

The applicant seeks development consent for the construction of 20 detached dwellings on proposed Lot 18 within Stage 3 of the Brighton Lakes residential development. The works associated with the delivery of the dwellings is summarised as follows:

 

·    Minor civil works to bench the lots ready for construction and installation/connection to key services;

·    Construction of detached dwellings on each of the proposed Development Lots;

·    Landscaping of the dwellings and

·    Community title subdivision recognising each of the dwellings proposed.

 

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

 

Figure 3: Proposed Subdivision Plan

 

the issues

 

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the maximum building height stipulated by Clause 4.3 of the LLEP.

 

The proposed development results in a technical non-compliance with Clause 4.3 of the LLEP 2008. The LLEP 2008 defines building height as the vertical distance between existing ground level and the highest point of the building. The land is the subject of a bulk earthworks DA, which will alter the ground level before each dwelling is constructed and will ensure that the height of each of the dwellings will comply with the 8.5m height limit once all works have been completed. As the earthworks are yet to be completed, the maximum height of the buildings exceeds the development standard when measured from existing ground by between 18-47%. Pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, the applicant has submitted a request to vary the prescribed development standard.

 

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

 

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

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

 

Clause 4.6(3) prescribes:

 

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

 

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

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

 

Building Height is defined as:

 

“Building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.”

 

The earthworks proposed to alter the ground level before each dwelling is constructed will ensure that the height of the dwellings comply with the height control in the LLEP 2008. However, as the earthworks have not yet occurred, the development results in a technical non-compliance with respect to the maximum building height permitted on the land. The building heights range from 10.067m to 12.468m when measured to existing ground level and hence all exceed the 8.5m height limit measured to the natural surface, assuming no earthworks. Once the approved earthworks on the site are completed, which will be required prior to the construction of dwellings, the height of the dwellings will range from 4.955m to 7.85m and will therefore comply.

 

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

 

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

 

As mentioned above, the clear expectation of development on this site is that buildings will have a maximum height of 8.5m. The height of building clause included in the Liverpool LEP 2008 is aimed at, as the name suggests, regulating the maximum height of the building. Once the earthworks have been completed then all dwellings will comply with the 8.5m height limit delivering the clear expectation of 2 storey development on the site.

 

The measurement of building height to natural ground level (rather than the approved earthworks levels) on a site means none of the proposed dwellings comply with the 8.5m height standard, but they will be nonetheless commensurate with the bulk and scale and comparative height to the majority of other dwellings within the Brighton Lakes Estate whether or not the land has been modified by earthworks involving cut, fill or is at grade.

 

Based on the above, compliance with the standard for the dwellings listed is both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances to deliver built form across the site which is of commensurate scale and character.

·    that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

All other planning controls required to be assessed in the DCP to determine solar access, privacy and the like for Brighton Lakes can only be meaningful if it is based on examining the impacts of dwellings assuming the bulk earthworks are complete.

 

There are no environmental impacts associated with the assessment of the application based on the earthworks levels, nor adverse impacts if the natural ground levels are applied to the calculation of height, recognising the remaining controls are applied to assess impacts from the finished ground levels.

 

·    Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(i)         the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3),

(ii)        the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

This written submission serves to respond to the matters in Clause 4.6 of Liverpool LEP 2008 and it addresses the matters raised in subclause (3) as summarised above, noting the development of the site for 2 storey development as intended by the planning controls will be achieved and is in the public interest.

 

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

It is understood that the Council has been granted delegation from the Director- General to deal with variations under Clause 4.6 of Liverpool LEP 2008, but in doing so must have regard to the matter listed below.

 

In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

 

a)   whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

The contravention of the development standard does not raise any matters of State or regional environmental planning.

 

b)   the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

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

 

c)   any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence.

There are no other known matters to be taken into consideration by the Director-General.

 

Given the justification provided above, compliance with the standard is considered to be both unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances, as the height of all dwellings will comply once the required earthworks have been completed. Despite the technical non-compliance, it is evident that the dwellings are commensurate with the bulk and scale and of a comparative height to the majority of other dwellings within the Brighton Lakes Estate, whether or not the land has been modified by earthworks involving cut & fill, or is at grade.

 

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the standard as all other planning controls required to be assessed, such as solar access, privacy and the like can only be meaningful if it based on examining the impacts of dwellings assuming the bulk earthworks have been completed.

 

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) prescribes that the consent authority must be satisfied that the granting of consent for development which contravenes a development standard will be in the public interest. There is public benefit in maintaining the standard, but only if the application takes into account the earthworks levels on a site that have already been approved by Council.

 

Given the above, the request to vary Clause 4.3 of the LLEP 2008 has merit and is worthy of approval.

 

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

 

At their meeting on 29 March 2016, IHAP made the following recommendation:

 

The panel recommends that DA-991/2015 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the council officer’s report.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

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 DetailsView (Under separate cover)

2.         IHAP Report DA-991/2015 View (Under separate cover)

3.         IHAP recommendation for DA-991/2015View (Under separate cover)  


109

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

IHAP 03

DA-131/2015 - Demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building containing 10 units and basement carparking at 93 Nuwarra Road, Moorebank.

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

085557.2016

Report By

George Dojas - Senior Development Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

Property

93 Nuwarra Road, Moorebank 2170

Owner

Miss J Helme

Applicant

Baini Design

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-131/2015, proposing demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building containing 10 units and basement car parking. The proposal is lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and is located at 93 Nuwarra Road, Moorebank. This application was lodged on 23 February 2015.

 

The subject Development Application (DA-131/2015) was previously referred to the Independent Hearing Assessment Panel (IHAP) at its meeting on 23 November 2015 for consideration, as the application received more than five (5) unresolved objections. The Panel recommended that the application be deferred, in order for further assessment of the proposal under the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) in relation to building separation, and submission of an amended Landscape Plan.

 

The applicant was requested on 7 December 2015 to address the above items in a submission to Council. Additional information was received on 22 December 2015 and 27 January 2016, including an amended Landscape Plan, and a letter further discussing building separation in detail. The Application was re-referred to IHAP on 29 March 2016, and the IHAP recommendation was to refuse the development application for reasons outlined in their recommendations (see Attachment 3). Notwithstanding the IHAP recommendation, the potential adverse impacts have been sufficiently addressed in the Council Officer’s IHAP Report and accompanying documentation. As such, the proposal is recommended to Council for approval subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent (Attachment 4).

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve Development Application DA-131/2015, subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment 4.

 

 

Background

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-131/2015 proposing demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building containing 10 units and basement car parking. The proposal is lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, and is located at 93 Nuwarra Road, Moorebank.

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to IHAP for consideration, as the application has generated more than five (5) unresolved objections.

 

In this instance, the subject application is referred to Council for determination as Council staff recommended approval of the application whilst the IHAP recommended refusal.

 

The Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Nuwarra Road, Moorebank. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a total site area of 670sqm. The site falls to the west with an approximate slope of 0.76m. The subject site currently contains a two storey dwelling house with a pitched roof, and does not contain any significant vegetation. Vehicular access to the site is from Nuwarra Road.

 

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

 

Subject Site

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

 

The surrounding locality consists of low density development typically one and two storey buildings. However, the area is undergoing a transformation with larger development types, being medium and high density buildings having been constructed or proposed. Newly constructed six (6) storey residential flat buildings including two towers are located to the south, in close proximity to the subject site.

 

Two (2) Newly Constructed 6 Storey Residential Flat BuildingsMulti Dwelling HousingSubject Site

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

 

 

 

details of the proposal

 

Consent is sought for the construction of a residential flat building, including:

 

·    Demolition of all existing structures and excavation to facilitate the development;

·    Construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building containing ten (10) units and one (1) level of basement car parking.

·    Landscaping works including a variety of plants.

 

The proposal is lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

An extract of the architectural plans is provided in Figure 3 below. 

 

Figure 3: Elevations of the proposed residential flat building

 

the issues

 

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the building separation design control listed in the Residential Flat Design Code pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The design control is addressed below, and should be read in conjunction with the Council Officer’s IHAP Report attached.

 

The RFDC lists the following building separation design controls:

 

“For buildings over three storeys, it is recommended that building separation increase in proportion to building height to ensure appropriate urban form, adequate amenity and privacy for building occupants. Suggested dimensions within a development, for internal courtyards and between adjoining sites are:

up to four storeys/12 metres

- 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies

- 9 metres between habitable/balconies and non-habitable rooms

- 6 metres between non-habitable rooms

five to eight storeys/up to 25 metres

- 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies

- 13 metres between habitable rooms/balconies and non-habitable rooms

- 9 metres between non-habitable rooms”

 

The proposed development provides setbacks of 3m from the northern side boundary, and 4.15m from the southern side boundary. The Council Officer’s IHAP Report contains further discussion on setbacks (Attachment 2). The windows on the northern elevation are predominately kitchen windows that do not promote overlooking to neighbouring properties. The other areas of potential overlooking are the private open space of each unit, however this is mitigated by the following recommended condition of consent.

 

1.       Fixed and opaque privacy louvres angled upwards at a 45 degree angle are to be constructed, along the entire northern perimeter of all balconies on the northern elevation. The privacy louvres are to be 1.8m high as measured from the finished floor level of the balconies, to prevent overlooking onto neighbouring properties. Amended plans are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the release of any Construction Certificate.

 

The windows on the southern elevation are bathroom and bedroom windows, these rooms are not identified as high use rooms like living spaces. Bedrooms are mainly used at night which reduces the potential for adverse visual privacy impacts. Bathrooms are not foreseen to accommodate direct overlooking into neighbouring properties as they include obscure glazing.

 

The existing neighbouring development typically comprises of one and two storey dwelling houses. The sites are able to accommodate residential flat buildings in accordance with the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008).

 

Despite the building separation variation, the proposed building has been designed to be sympathetic to neighbouring properties with a design that mitigates adverse privacy impacts, and provides sufficient amenity to occupants. A condition has been recommended requiring a privacy screen on the northern elevations to further reduce impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

The objectives of the building separation control are listed and addressed below:

 

·    To ensure that new development is scaled to support the desired area character with appropriate massing and spaces between buildings.

 

The subject locality was rezoned in the LLEP 2008 review from low density residential development to high density residential development. There are some examples of development that have taken advantage of the change in zoning, however the subject site and immediate surrounds remain low density. The development typology (residential flat building) is in accordance with the desired character of the area, and complies with density development standards such as floor space ratio, and building height.

 

·    To provide visual and acoustic privacy for existing and new residents.

 

The proposal is well designed to mitigate potential adverse privacy impacts. The proposal includes windows that predominately face the front and rear of the site, which provide further separation between existing and future neighbours. The proposal complies with the maximum height and FSR requirement. As addressed in the Assessment Report, the proposal is an adequate built form for the site and in line with the desired character of the locality. A condition of consent is recommended requiring privacy screens to be installed along the entire length of balconies on the northern elevation. This condition aims to alleviate adverse privacy concerns from the private open space to neighbouring properties.

 

·    To control overshadowing of adjacent properties and private or shared open space.

 

The proposed built form is five stories in height, complying with the maximum building height development standard listed in LLEP 2008. As demonstrated from the submitted shadow diagrams, neighbouring properties achieve a minimum of 3 hours solar access in mid-winter, this date is considered to be the worst case scenario of overshadowing as the sun travels lower during the winter solstice.

 

·    To allow for the provision of open space with appropriate size and proportion for recreational activities for building occupants.

 

Communal open space is located at the rear of the site, the area is an accessible area and maintains privacy for future occupants of the development. The communal open space is designed to provide sufficient amenity with landscape treatment that is sympathetic to the development and locality. In addition, each unit is also provided with large private open spaces (balconies), larger than the minimum, that can be used for outdoor recreation.

 

·    To provide deep soil zones for stormwater management and tree planting, where contextual and site conditions allow.

 

The proposal provides sufficient deep soil zones and landscaping onsite, complying with the requirements listed in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. These areas onsite allow for adequate onsite stormwater management and tree planting.

 

Despite the variation, the design has incorporated windows predominately to the front and rear and a careful internal layout to address any potential impacts resulting from a lesser building separation, and to minimise any impact on the privacy of adjoining residents.

 

The variation to the building separation guideline is considered to be acceptable as the overall development achieves design excellence. The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Design Review Panel (DRP), the Panel recommended design amendments to the proposed built form and the applicant was requested to amend the design as recommended. Additional architectural plans were submitted on 21 July 2015 that included an amended built form to address the DRP concerns. The changes have been reviewed by Council’s City Architect and are considered acceptable and provide a better design outcome then the previous design.

 

Additionally, Council Officer’s hold the view that strict compliance with the building separation distance would result in an awkward shaped built form for the site as the floor plate will be reduced and apartments are unlikely to be functional.

 

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

 

At their meeting on 29 March 2016, IHAP raised the following issues and recommendation:

 

“The panel received representations from two objectors to the proposal who reside in the local area. The panel notes that Council has received a petition containing 212 signatures and 31 individual submissions opposing the proposed development.

 

The panel is concerned about the extent of the variation to the minimum side boundary setbacks to the northern boundary required by the residential flat design code (“RFDC”). The code requires either 9 or 12 metres separation between the balconies on levels ground to 4 on the northern elevation of the proposed building and any new building on the adjoining lot to the north. The variation is more significant on the fifth level of the proposed building, where the RFDC requires a building separation of either 13 or 18 metres between buildings.

 

The accepted principle is that building separation distances should be shared equally between adjoining owners. This means that a minimum setback of either 4.5 or 6 metres for ground to level 4 and 6.5 or 9 metres on level 5 is required to the balconies on the northern elevation. A setback of only 2 metres from the proposed balconies and 3 metres from the proposed building is proposed.

 

The extent of the variation and the impacts arising from it are not justified or adequately addressed by the installation of privacy screens on the proposed balconies. The purpose of the building separation controls is to ensure appropriate urban form, adequate amenity, and privacy for building occupants. The installation of privacy screens does not address urban form or acoustic privacy.

 

The panel is concerned that this development is one of the first high density residential proposals in this locality and that permitting variations to such an extent as proposed will create an undesirable precedent.

 

The panel is also concerned that approval of the development will impose an unreasonable burden on development of the property to the north of the development site. The future building on this property will be required to provide the bulk of the building separation requirement (between 7 and 10 metres depending on the detailed design of the building) within that site.

 

The panel recommends that the application be refused because of the significant non-compliance with the building separation controls contained in the RFDC, resultant unacceptable urban form and adverse impacts on existing and future occupants of the property to the north of the subject land.”

 

Comments: Notwithstanding the IHAP Panel recommendations above, it considered the development has proposed a design that is worthy of support in this instance. A response to the concerns raised by the IHAP pertaining to building separation is detailed below.

 

The proposed development provides setbacks of 3m from the northern side boundary, and 4.15m from the southern side boundary. The windows on the northern elevation are predominately kitchen windows that do not promote overlooking to neighbouring properties. The other areas of potential overlooking are the private open space of each unit, however this is mitigated by the following recommended condition of consent;

 

1.    Fixed and opaque privacy louvres angled upwards at a 45 degree angle are to be constructed, along the entire northern perimeter of all balconies on the northern elevation. The privacy louvres are to be 1.8m high as measured from the finished floor level of the balconies, to prevent overlooking onto neighbouring properties. Amended plans are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the release of any Construction Certificate.

 

The windows on the southern elevation are bathroom and bedroom windows, these rooms are not identified as high use rooms like living spaces. Bedrooms are predominantly used at night which reduces the potential for adverse visual privacy impacts. Bathrooms are not foreseen to accommodate direct overlooking into neighbouring properties as they include obscure glazing.

 

The existing neighbouring development typically comprises of one and two storey dwelling houses. The sites are able to accommodating residential flat buildings in accordance with Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008).

 

Despite the building separation variation, the proposed building has been designed to be sympathetic to neighbouring properties with a design that mitigates adverse privacy impacts, and provides sufficient amenity to occupants. A condition has been recommended requiring a privacy screen on the northern elevations to further reduce impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Despite the variation, the design has incorporated windows predominately to the front and rear and a careful internal layout to address any potential impacts resulting from a lesser building separation, and to minimise any impact on the privacy of adjoining residents.

 

The variation to the building separation guideline is considered to be acceptable as the overall development achieves design excellence.

 

Additionally, strict compliance with the building separation distance would result in an awkward shaped built form for the site as the floor plate will be reduced and apartments are unlikely to be functional.

 

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 of consent (Attachment 4).

 

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 DetailsView (Under separate cover)

2.         IHAP Report for DA-131/2015View (Under separate cover)

3.         IHAP recommendation for DA-131/2015View (Under separate cover)

4.         Recommended Conditions of Consent for DA-131/2015View (Under separate cover)

5.         Initial IHAP recommendation for DA-131/2015View (Under separate cover)  


109

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

IHAP 04

DA-599/2015 - Two lot Torrens title subdivison, retention of existing house on Lot 1 and construction of new house on Lot 2 at 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

085691.2016

Report By

Patrick Waite - Development Assessment Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

Property

17 Balanada Avenue, Chipping Norton

Owner

Louis and Helen Jabbour

Applicant

Planzone Consulting

 

 

 Executive Summary

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-599/2015, proposing a subdivision of the existing lot into two (2) Torrens Title lots with construction of a single storey dwelling on the proposed rear lot with the retention of the existing dwelling on the front lot at 17 Balanada Road, Chipping Norton. This application was lodged on 1 July 2015.

 

This application was referred to the 29 March 2016 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008. Clause 7.13 prescribes the minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4 to be not less than 10m unless the subdivision of land is a battle axe-lot in which case a minimum lot width of 5m applies. The proposed subdivision will result in a minimum lot width for the access handle of 3.00m which equates to a variation of 40% to Clause 7.13 LLEP 2008.

 

The IHAP recommendation was to refuse the development application for the reasons outlined in the Council officer’s IHAP report (see Attachment 2).

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council refuses DA-599/2015 for the reasons contained within Council officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 2).

 

Background

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-599/2015 proposing a one (1) lot into two (2) lot subdivision in the form of a battle axe lot at the rear and a small residential lot at the front, with construction of a dwelling on the rear lot and retention of the existing dwelling on the front lot at 17 Balanada Avenue, Chipping Norton.

 

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 key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation proposed under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008 to the minimum lot width control under Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008 and the suitability of the site for the proposed development.

 

Proposed Lot 2 fails to comply with the minimum lot width requirement in accordance with Clause 7.13, which states that the

 

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

 

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

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

 

In this clause, battle-axe lot means a lot that has access to a road by an access handle.

 

Proposed Lot 2 is to be granted access to Balanada Ave via an access handle and as such is considered to be a battle-axe lot. The access handle will have a minimum width of 3m and not the required 5m, which equates to a variation of 40% to Clause 7.13 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

 

The Site

 

The site is known as Lot 9 DP 240419 and is located at 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton. The site has an area of 897.5m2 with a frontage of approximately 15.5m to Balanada Ave. The topography of the site provides for a fall of approximately 1.5m from the northwest to southeast.

 

The subject site is improved by a single storey dwelling fronting Balanada Ave to the north and bounded by lots with detached dwellings on the remaining boundaries (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton (source: Eview April 2016).

 

The subject site is affected by class 5 Acid Sulfate soils pursuant to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and is burdened by an easement to drain water 4 ft wide (1.22m) benefitting Lot 3 to the north.

 

The subject site is located in an established residential area within Chipping Norton characterised by detached single and two storey dwellings and is located in the vicinity of Moorebank High School (Figure 2).

 

Newbridge RoadSubject SiteMoorebank High School

Figure 2: Aerial image of the subject locality around 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton (source: Eview April 2016).

 

details of the proposal

 

The proposed development seeks consent for:

 

·    A two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision resulting in a battle-axe lot, with the following lot sizes:

Proposed Lot 1 – 434.7m2,

Proposed Lot 2 – 306.26m2.

·    Construction of a single storey detached dwelling on proposed Lot 2.

·    Retention of existing dwelling on proposed Lot 1.

 

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 Minimum Lot Width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4, pursuant to Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of the LLEP 2008.

 

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

Figure 3: Extract of proposed Subdivision Plan for subject site 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton (source: submitted architectural plans with DA-599/2015.).

 

the issues

 

Variation to access handle width as prescribed by Clause 7.13 (Minimum lot width in zones R1, R2, R3 and R4) of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

 

A development standard may be varied pursuant to the satisfaction of the provisions of Clause 4.6 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2008. The objectives and provisions of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

 

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

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

 

(3)  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.

 

(4)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

The submitted written request to vary Clause 7.13 (Minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4) has been assessed against the provisions of Clause 4.6; and objectives of Clause 7.13; and the objectives of the R3 zone, as discussed below:

 

Officer’s assessment of variation:

 

1)   Circumstances of the development

 

The proposed development seeks consent for a battle axe lot subdivision and construction of a new single storey dwelling on the proposed rear lot. The existing dwelling on the subject site is proposed to be retained on the proposed lot fronting Balanada Ave. Due to the location of the existing dwelling the proposed access handle servicing the rear lot is unable to comply with the minimum 5m width required by the LLEP 2008 and LDCP 2008. The minimum width of the proposed access handle is 3m.

 

2)   Written request addressing why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case [Clause 4.6(3)(a)]

 

The applicant has provided the following comments:

-    Strict compliance with the minimum lot width would result in a contravention of the objectives of the EPA Act 1979 under clause 5(a)(ii) which requires the promotion and coordination of orderly and economic use and development of land.

-    The Australian Standards require a driveway width of 3m for vehicular access and 300mm of landscaping  to be provided on either side if there are high obstructions

-    The Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 requires a minimum (5) metre lot width to ensure that a 3 metre driveway is provided along with (1) metre of landscaping strips on either side of the driveway. The applicant understands that the intent of the 1m landscaping strips is to provide an inviting point of entry, however the applicant considered this onerous and unreasonable.

 

Responding comments:

-     In reference to objective (a)(ii) of Clause 5 of the EPA Act 1979, the proposed development is not considered to result in the orderly use or development of land as illustrated by the following reasons:

The proposal would result in unreasonable impacts on the existing dwelling;

The proposal would result in the proposed rear lot having an unnecessarily constrained access way;

The proposal would detract from the existing streetscape.

-     The subject site is considered to be capable of being developed in an orderly manner through a holistic redevelopment of the subject site, which would alleviate the poor outcomes outlined above, as a result of the retention of the existing dwelling.

-     The proposed development provides for a minimum width of 3m at the entrance of the access way which extends to a width of 3.6m. The access handle entrance width of the proposed access handle does not support the intention the Australian Standard. Further, sole compliance with the Australian Standards does not satisfy the intent of the control to ensure that the proposal is compatible with the amenity and character of the area.

-     The required 5m access handle width seeks to provide for an inviting point of entry to the proposed battle axe lot and to ensure that the access way enhances and compliments the appearance of the development. The 5m access handle width further supports the ability of opening car doors and provides for sufficient access for service vehicles such as removalist vans and repair vehicles.

 

3)   Written request addressing that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard [Clause 4.6(3)(b)]

 

The applicant has provided the following comments:

-     The proposal achieves the objectives of the development standard.

-     The proposal achieves a satisfactory level of compliance with the other applicable SEPPs and Council’s Planning Policy.

 

Responding comments:

-     The objectives of the development standard are not considered to have been satisfied as the proposal results in non-compliances to the access handle width development standard and associated landscaping, setback requirements and streetscape objectives of Council’s Policy.

 

4)   Consistency with objectives of the development standard Clause 7.13 (Minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4) [Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)]

 

The objectives of Clause 4.3 and assessment are as follows:

 

1.   The objective of this clause 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 proposal is not consistent with the objective of Clause 7.13 as the residential subdivision and associated dwelling construction is not considered to result in a suitable residential development because of the resulting impacts on access, privacy and the streetscape as discussed below:

 

a)   Constrained access:

The lot dimensions for the developable portion of the proposed battle axe has been demonstrated as being capable of accommodating residential development, however the associated access way is considered to result in unnecessary constraints. The proposed access way is limited to a maximum width of 3m – 3.6m as a result of the location of the existing dwelling that is proposed to be retained. This width will result in a reduced ability for service vehicles such as removalist vans and house repair vehicles to access the proposed dwelling that is serviced by this access way.

 

b)   Impact on existing dwelling:

As a result of the proposed subdivision the existing dwelling that is to be retained would result in a non-compliant setback to the new internal lot boundary. Part 3.2 (Dwelling houses in Lots greater than 400sqm in R2, R3 and R4 zones) of the LDCP 2008 requires a minimum side setback of a 0.9m. The proposal seeks consent for a 0m setback to the new internal lot boundary. The implications of the non-complaint side setback are summarised as follows:

 

·    This 0m setback (creating a zero lot line) would mean that an easement for access and maintenance would need to be created benefiting the lot with the existing dwelling and burdening the proposed rear lot.

·    Due to the non-compliant setback the existing dwelling would need to demonstrate that it meets the Fire Resistance level requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

·    Windows are generally not permitted along the zero lot line. The subject dwelling has two windows along this proposed boundary, which means that alterations to the dwelling would most likely be required to address this whilst ensuring the dwelling satisfies ventilation and solar access provisions of the NCC and BASIX.

·    A zero lot line wall should generally be presented with select face brickwork, rendered or similar finish.

·    Generally, the wall length for a detached house abutting a property boundary would be limited to 50% (for one storey) or 30% (for two storeys) of the total depth of the building. The existing dwelling would result in the full width of the western wall would be abutting the property boundary.

 

In addition to the work required to satisfy the considerations mentioned above, the eaves and guttering of the existing dwelling adjacent to the zero-lot boundary would need to be removed as they would overhang the proposed lot boundary.

 

The resulting outcome of the narrow access handle width combined with a 0m setback to the associated boundary, is considered to result in unreasonable amenity impacts on residents of the existing dwelling in terms of acoustic, vibrational and visual considerations.

 

c)   Streetscape:

The reduced (non-compliant) access handle width further excludes landscaping that is required by the development controls of Part 3.3 of the LDCP 2008. The proposal is not considered to contribute to a positive suburban streetscape or demonstrated that satisfactory residential amenity is maintained.

 

5)   Consistency with objectives of the zone – R3 Medium Density Residential [Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)]

 

The proposal will result in providing an additional housing type, being a battle axe housing lot, within the medium residential development, however the proposal has not demonstrated that a high level of residential amenity is achieved or will be maintained.  

 

 

6)   Consistency with Clause 4.6 objectives

 

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

 

Flexibility with Clause 7.13 is sought.

 

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

 

The subject site is not considered to be constrained for the purpose of residential development by any planning land affectations or specific site constraints. The subject site exhibits a regular shaped lot and is burdened by an easement to drain water on the western boundary. The existing dwelling is not a valid site or planning constraint to restrict what could otherwise be orderly development. The holistic redevelopment of the subject site is capable of providing for a fully compliant battle axe subdivision that completely satisfies the objectives of Clause 7.13 and the objectives of the zone. 

 

The proposal does not promote the co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land. A poorer outcome is considered to result in allowing flexibility with Clause 7.13 in this particular circumstance.

 

7)   Recommendation

 

With considerations to the discussion above, the proposal is not considered to have merit and the proposed variation to the Clause 7.13 Minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4 has not satisfied the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is therefore not supported.

 

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

 

At their meeting on 29 March 2016, IHAP made the following recommendation:

 

The Panel recommends that DA-599/2015 for a two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision and construction of a dwelling on the proposed rear lot at Lot 9 DP 240419 be refused for the reasons outlined in the Council officer’s report (Attachment 2).

 

The IHAP recommendation is attached as Attachment 3.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is no considered to be worthy of support. The application is recommended for refusal, subject to the reasons outlined in Council officer’s report (Attachment 2).

 

 

 

 

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

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.         Applicant and landowner detailsView (Under separate cover)

2.         IHAP Report for DA-599/2015View (Under separate cover)

3.         IHAP recommendation for DA-599/2015View (Under separate cover)    


119

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

CEO 01

Corporate Sponsorships

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity

Key Policy

Communications Plan

File Ref

065967.2016

Report By

Ray Chesterton - Manager Strategic Communications & Research

Approved By

Michael Cullen - Acting Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council provides financial assistance to the community through the Corporate Sponsorship program.

 

The Financial Contributions Panel (FCP) recently considered applications from local residents and community groups for Corporate Sponsorship.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the Financial Contributions Panel’s recommendations for the provision of $4,000 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $4,000 is endorsed, the Corporate Sponsorship budget will have a deficit of $43,773.04.

 

Applicant name

Amount

Pacific World International

$3,000 ex gst

Sydney Taekwondo Festival

$1,000 ex gst

 

REPORT

 

This report contains the most recent recommendations by the FCP for Corporate Sponsorship.

 

Corporate Sponsorship

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

                  

APPLICANT

PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT REQUES-TED

AMOUNT RECOMM-ENDED

Pacific World International

Sydney Pacifica – Whitlam Leisure Centre, 22 July 2016

Sydney Pacifica is a high school cultural festival for Pacific, Maori and Indigenous students in Sydney. Expected attendee numbers are 3500.

 

Funds will be used for venue hire, security, first aid, cleaning and waste management.

 

Benefits

Logo inclusion on event signage, opportunity to display council signage at the event, logo inclusion on advertising and recognition in media releases.  Opportunity to present a speech and to distribute publications at the event.

 

Moderate alignment with program criteria as the event is held in Liverpool and promotes a socially inclusive community. Recommended for funding at the $3,000 amount.

 

Note: this event is separate to PACFest, which is being held at the Whitlam Leisure Centre in June. Council is currently awaiting additional information regarding a sponsorship application from PACFest.

$5,000 ex GST

$3,000 ex GST

Sydney Taekwondo Festival

Sydney Taekwondo Festival – Liverpool Catholic Club, 1 May 2016

3rd annual Taekwondo festival, includes demonstrations and competitions plus children’s activities. Expected attendees 550.

 

Funds will be used for hall hire at the Liverpool Catholic Club.

 

Benefits

Logo display on big screen, opportunity to have a stall at the event, opportunity to display signage at the event.

 

Recommended for funding at the $1000 level. The short time frame will reduce promotional opportunities for this event, and the event does not activate the CBD. However the event will attract a variety of community members and bring visitors to Liverpool.

$3,700 ex GST

$1000 ex GST

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

 

The 2015/16 Corporate Sponsorship Program has a budget of $125,000. It is currently $39,773.04 in deficit. If the recommended amount of $4,000 is endorsed, the deficit will be $43,773.04. The deficit will be adjusted at the Quarterly Budget Review.

 

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.         Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Policy


129

CEO 01

Corporate Sponsorships

Attachment 1

Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Policy

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


135

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 01

Investment Report March 2016

 

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

086832.2016

Report By

Christian  Hope - Senior Financial Accountant

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report details the Council’s Investment portfolio.

 

At 31 March 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $168.9 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.21 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.23 per cent by 98 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 31 March 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $168.9 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 March 2016, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

 

Asset Class

Mar-16

Jun-15

Senior Debts (FRN’s & *TCD’s)

  100%

 100.49%

MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)

  64.85%

  66.01%

* 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.

Term To maturity

Total

% Holdings

Term To maturity Policy Limit

Cash & Cash at Call

23,341,266

13.82%

100%

Term Deposit < 1 Year

34,000,000

20.13%

100%

Tradeable Securities

55,698,440

32.97%

100%

Term Deposits 1 to < 3 Years

33,000,000

19.54%

60%

Term Deposits 3 to < 5 Years

21,000,000

12.43%

25%

Grandfathered Securities

1,869,868

1.11%

N/A

Total Portfolio

168,909,574

100.00%

Market Value by Issuer and Institution Policy limit as per Investment Policy

 

Issuer

Rating

Total Market Value

% Holdings

Institutional Policy Limit

Bank of Queensland Ltd

S&P A-

30,980,690

18.34%

25.00%

National Australia Bank Ltd

S&P AA-

29,034,600

17.19%

35.00%

Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd

S&P A1+

15,566,142

9.22%

35.00%

P&N Bank Ltd

S&P A2

11,000,000

6.51%

15.00%

Rabobank Australia Ltd

Moodys P-1

11,000,000

6.51%

25.00%

AMP Bank Ltd

S&P A1

10,807,975

6.40%

25.00%

Newcastle Permanent Building Society Ltd

S&P BBB+

10,000,280

5.92%

15.00%

Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd

S&P A-

9,949,520

5.89%

25.00%

Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd

S&P AA-

6,015,240

3.56%

35.00%

Macquarie Bank

S&P A

4,973,500

2.94%

25.00%

Credit Union Australia Ltd

S&P BBB+

4,004,880

2.37%

15.00%

Banana Coast Community Credit Union Ltd

Unrated UR

4,000,000

2.37%

5.00%

Heritage Bank Ltd

Fitch BBB+

3,001,110

1.78%

15.00%

Bank of Sydney Ltd

Unrated UR

3,000,000

1.78%

5.00%

MyState Bank Ltd

S&P A2

2,000,000

1.18%

15.00%

Police Credit Union SA

Unrated UR

2,000,000

1.18%

5.00%

Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd

S&P BBB+

1,999,980

1.18%

15.00%

Suncorp-Metway Ltd

S&P A+

1,999,880

1.18%

25.00%

Credit Suisse Sydney

S&P A

1,996,660

1.18%

25.00%

Emerald Reverse Mortgage Trust

S&P A

1,869,868

1.11%

25.00%

Members Equity Bank Ltd

S&P BBB+

1,010,050

0.60%

15.00%

SGE Mutual Ltd - G&C Mutual Bank

S&P BBB

1,000,000

0.59%

15.00%

Police Bank Ltd

S&P BBB+

999,270

0.59%

15.00%

ANZ Banking Group Ltd

S&P AA-

699,930

0.41%

35.00%

Grand Total

 

168,909,574

100.00%

 

 

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

 

Rating

Total Market Value

% Holdings

Portfolio Credit Limit

Moodys P-1

11,000,000

6.51%

100.00%

S&P A1+

15,566,142

9.22%

100.00%

S&P AA-

35,749,770

21.17%

100.00%

S&P A+

1,999,880

1.18%

60.00%

S&P A

8,840,028

5.23%

60.00%

S&P A-

40,930,210

24.23%

60.00%

S&P A1

10,807,975

6.40%

60.00%

S&P A2

13,000,000

7.70%

60.00%

Fitch BBB+

3,001,110

1.78%

50.00%

S&P BBB

1,000,000

0.59%

50.00%

S&P BBB+

18,014,460

10.67%

50.00%

Unrated UR

9,000,000

5.33%

25.00%

Grand Total

168,909,574

100.00%

 

 

 

 Portfolio Performance against Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW)

 

The 90 day BBSW is often referred to as the reference rate for market interest rates and, in particular, is used to benchmark yield on fixed Income securities.

 

Council’s investment portfolio yield for the 12 months ended 31 March 2016 was 3.21 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.23 per cent by 98 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 out performance 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.

MCWB01114_0000[1]

The portfolio yield for 12 month ended is 98 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.21% against 2.23%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Council’s investment year to date interest income was above budget as at 31 March 2016 by $32.6k.

 

Investment Policy Compliance

Legislative Requirements

 

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Portfolio Credit Rating Limit

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

 

Institutional Exposure Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Term to Maturity Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant

 

 

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank Board meets eleven times each year, on the first Tuesday of each month, except in January. The cash rate remains at historically low level of 2.0 per cent and it is adversely impacting returns on investment. Returns on Term Deposits and Floating Rate Notes have significantly dropped since the last twelve months. The average market returns on term deposits are:

·    Longer term deposits (> 3years maturity) - 3.0% to 3.4% p.a

·    Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) - 2.9 % to 3.0 % p.a.

·    Short term deposits rate (less than one year to maturity) – ranges from 2.3% to 2.9% per annum.

·    Cash & Cash At Call accounts range from1.7% to 2.5%

·    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 year to date interest income was above budget as at 31 March 2016 by $32.6k.

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 Details March 2016View

2.         Performance Graph Actual to Budget March 2016View

 


135

CFO 01

Investment Report March 2016

Attachment 1

Investment Details March 2016

 


 


137

CFO 01

Investment Report March 2016

Attachment 2

Performance Graph Actual to Budget March 2016

 


143

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 02

Comparative Analytical Report: Net Operating Result 2014-15

 

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

088366.2016

Report By

Vishwa Nadan - Manager Financial Services

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its 30 March 2016 meeting, Council requested further information on the following:

 

·    How a claimed deficit of $4m (Council 2008-2012) was turned into a surplus of $8m (2012-present). 

The statement is incorrect. There was a $12m turnaround but not resulting from the timeframes or amounts stated.

$12m turnaround resulted from an $8m deficit in 2013/14 to a $4m surplus in 2014/15.

 

·    Explain how the previous backlog of $280m was reduced to $80m as per the Financial Auditors Report to Council.

The variance of $200m is incorrect. A $146.8m reduction was the result of additional data available to perform the assessment and an improved methodology used to estimate cost to bring infrastructure assets to satisfactory condition (referred to as backlog).

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes contents of this paper.

 

 

REPORT

 

At its 30 March 2016 meeting, Council requested further information on the following:

 

·    Accepts this report and also prepare a further report showing how a claimed deficit of $4m (Council 2008-2012) was turned into a surplus of $8m (2012-present) a turnaround of $12m. The report is to show how that was achieved using the previous cash flow accounting system compared to the current accrual accounting system.

 

·    Explain how a previous increasing infrastructure backlog of approximately $280m was reduced to $80m as per the External Financial Auditors report to Council late last year. The report to show how a difference of $200m was achieved.

 

$12m Turnaround

 

The statement contained within the CFO 01 motion is incorrect. There was a $12m turnaround; however the timeframes and the amounts that contributed to the turnaround are incorrect.

 

The $12m turnaround was not the result of variances resulting from Cash versus Accrual Accounting but from Council improving from an $8m deficit in 2013/14 to a $4m surplus in 2014/15. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is unaware of any statement that proposes that Council during 2008-2012 Council Term made an accrual or cash deficit of $4m.The CFO is also unaware of any formal reporting of 2012-present Council Term whether Accrual or Cash identifying a surplus of $8m. There are no formal financial statements prepared for Council Terms; furthermore the current Council Term is incomplete which obviously prevents a comparison.

 

A media release, issued on 3 November 2015 (Attachment 1) does refer to the $12m turnaround. The release refers to the improve operating results from 2013/14 to 2014/15 and does not mention Council Terms.

 

To further explain the $12m turnaround, attached is an Income and Expenditure Variance Report (Attachment 2) listing variances between 2014/15 and 2013/14 that total to $12.881m

 

Table 1 below lists Council’s Net Operating Results (before grants & contributions for capital purposes) and Net Cash Positions from 2008/09.

 

 

Table 1

 

 

$200m Backlog Variance

 

The Backlog Variance of $200m is incorrect. A $146.8m Backlog reduction was the result of additional data available to perform the assessment and an improved methodology used to estimate cost to bring infrastructure assets to satisfactory condition.

 

The Office of Local Government (OLG) defines infrastructure backlog as the estimated cost to bring council’s infrastructure assets to a condition level equal to or better than “satisfactory” (BTS). Table 2 below presents a breakdown of the infrastructure backlog as reported in Council’s Special Schedule 7 over the last three reporting years.

 

Table 2

 

 

Key reasons for reduction in the BTS

 

1.   Roads & Transport Assets

A review of the BTS in 2014 resulted in a $111 million reduction in the upgrade costs for the road pavement assets for the following reasons:

 

a)   Road network condition (-$81M)

Council undertakes a physical condition assessment of its road pavements every 3-5 years and uses its computer modelling and predicting tools for determining conditions in the intervening period. The BTS estimates developed in the 2012-13 period were based on predicted pavement performance and condition from 2009 physical condition assessments. However, a comprehensive pavement assessment undertaken in 2013-14 found that the overall pavement condition was in a far better state than earlier predicted. The improved pavement condition, arising from a range of reasons including accelerated renewal programs and new roads in urban release areas, meant that there were lesser roads in poor to very condition that would require costly upgrades to achieve a satisfactory condition. Detailed analysis of this change resulted in a reduction in the BTS costs by $81 million.

 

b)   Calculation methodology (-$30M)

In view of OLG’s approach to the use of BTS in determining Council’s financial sustainability, Council in 2014 engaged asset management consultants, Morrison Low (ML), to undertake an independent review of council’s infrastructure backlog reporting practices and estimation methodology.

 

Following a detailed review of Council’s past calculation methodologies and asset condition rating systems, ML formed the view that:

 

§ setting “satisfactory” as the upgrade standard for all assets was  not in keeping with Council’s already adopted road pavement management strategy, which aims to maintain the current average condition over the long term and in a cost effective manner .i.e. the average condition should not decline over the long term; and

 

§ while the upgrade of assets to bring it to satisfactory standard would return it to almost new condition in most cases, the proportion of costs involved in upgrading beyond satisfactory standard should not be included in BTS estimates.

 

Based on the foregoing assessment of ML, the BTS cost for roads dropped by a further $30 million.

 

2.   Building Assets

 

a)   Calculation methodology and utilisation (-$30M)

 

As with roads, ML’s assessment found that the past practice of applying OLG’s method for estimating BTS without considering Council’s own strategies was unnecessarily overstating the BTS cost for Buildings for the following reasons:

 

§ previously reported upgrade costs for building assets included a vast range of smaller secondary buildings, small sheds and associated structures that would be demolished in coming years and these structures therefore should not have been included in BTS projections;

 

§ most of the amenities/toilet blocks located in parks and reserves were considered to be fit for the intended purpose and would not require any major upgrades, hence including full upgrades of these assets in calculating BTS was not in keeping with Council’s adopted asset management strategy; and

 

§ further, in previous estimates of BTS, analysis found that enhancements and upgrades were also included for some of the car parks and heritage buildings, which were primarily aimed at capacity enhancements and not renewals. 

 

The above review resulted in a drop in the BTS cost for Building assets by $30 million.

 

Discussion and conclusion

 

Council considers that there are serious flaws in using upgrade costs as a sustainability indicator for the following reasons:

 

a)   Council considers that the estimated cost to bring assets to a satisfactory standard is only relevant for reporting purposes and has no real significance to asset management or financial sustainability - it would make no sense to replace perfectly serviceable assets, just because they are below average condition.

b)   The Independent Local Government Review Panel said in its report Future Directions for NSW Local Government - “It needs to be more widely understood that at any given time a significant percentage of a council’s infrastructure assets will be at less than desirable standard: it is simply financially impossible to aim for every road, bridge, drain, buildings etc. to be ‘satisfactory’ or better”

c)   The Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines (AIFMG) states that if council is responsibly maintaining and renewing its assets in accordance with a well prepared asset management plan, then the fact that sustainability ratios are outside the benchmark should not be a cause for concern - providing it is operating sustainably.

d)   With respect to backlog, the AIFMG states that the term backlog is not even used in the Guidelines as the preferred term/principle is unfunded renewals (refer to (g) below).

e)   Based on Council’s extensive asset portfolio and resource capacity, a more relevant cost indicator for this council would be the cost to maintain and renew Council’s infrastructure assets so that it continues to provide acceptable levels of service (current average condition is maintained) over the long term and in a cost effective manner - this is consistent with and reflects Council’s asset management philosophy which is well documented in Council’s various asset management plans.

 

f)    Council’s asset management practices and programs are driven by defined service levels and objective assessment of its assets to ensure the limited available funding is directed to the areas of greatest need. Focusing on reconstructing and upgrading of only those assets that are below average condition (as backlog measure appears to suggest) would be counterproductive and, due to relatively constrained budgets, could result in a more rapid deterioration of the overall asset condition.

 

g)   A more relevant measure would be the infrastructure renewal gap .i.e. the gap between works identified in the asset management plan (projected renewal) and the works that are able to be funded based on budget constraints (planned renewal).

 

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

Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Media Release November 3, 2015View

2.         Income and Expenditure Variance Report


143

CFO 02

Comparative Analytical Report: Net Operating Result 2014-15

Attachment 1

Media Release November 3, 2015

 


 


145

CFO 02

Comparative Analytical Report: Net Operating Result 2014-15

Attachment 2

Income and Expenditure Variance Report

 


149

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 03

Mayors' Weekend Seminar

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation

Key Policy

Workforce Management Plan

File Ref

090072.2016

Report By

George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

To advise Council of details of the Mayors’ Weekend Seminar organised through Local Government NSW which will be held in Sydney on 21-22 May 2016.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:

 

1.    Council determine whether it wishes to nominate any Councillor/s to attend the seminar on 21-22 May 2016.

 

2.    Any Councillor who wishes to attend the seminar to notify the Acting CEO’s office by Friday 29 April 2016.

 

 

REPORT

 

The attached correspondence has been received from Local Government NSW regarding a Mayors’ Weekend Seminar in Sydney on 21-22 May 2016.

 

The seminar will address issues faced by Mayors in metropolitan, rural and regional settings, and covers the vital skills and knowledge they require in order to perform their varied tasks effectively and in a thoroughly professional manner.

 

The two-day program of specialised professional development is designed for NSW Mayors, Deputy Mayors and aspiring Mayors to work through the particular demands of the mayoral role.

 

The Program overview and outline and presenters is attached to this report and the cost to attend is $1,320.

 

The attendance of Councillors at seminars is covered in Clauses 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 of Council’s Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy as copied below:

 

4.8.1 Conferences, seminars and courses are an important means of learning and maintaining knowledge, as well as contributing to public policy development. Councillors may attend those conferences, seminars and courses listed below if there is a resolution to do so, if Councillors are nominated by Council to attend and if there is a nominated budget. Councillors may attend training courses and seminars related to their duties as a Councillor at their own discretion provided that that cost can be met within Council’s budget allocation and attendance at the course or seminar is organised through Council’s CEO.

 

4.8.2 Conference Attendance

The conferences, seminars and workshops to which this policy applies and which require a resolution of Council to attend are the:

 

a)   Local Government Association Annual Conference;

b)   Australian Local Government Women’s Association Annual Conference and Australian Local Government Women’s  Association meetings for the one year term

c)   Special “One-Off” Conferences called by the Local Government Association on important issues or of an educational nature;

d)   Annual Conferences and Congresses of the major industry associations and professions in Local Government (such as LGMA or UDIA and subject to suitable agenda);

e)   Conferences and/or Annual General meetings or organisations for which Council has appointed delegates.   

 

Council is to determine whether it wishes to nominate any Councillor/s to attend.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

The cost to attend the program is $1,320 per person.

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

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

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.         Mayors' Weekend Seminar Program Outline


149

CFO 03

Mayors' Weekend Seminar

Attachment 1

Mayors' Weekend Seminar Program Outline

 


 


 


155

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 04

Local Government NSW Board Elections

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

Lead partnerships and collaboration with community, business and governments

Key Policy

Workforce Management Plan

File Ref

090450.2016

Report By

George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

To advise Council of the Board elections for LGNSW and to determine its voters for the election of 13 board members.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the same 8 voters (as per the Council resolution on 26 August 2015) as its voting representatives for the forthcoming LGNSW Board election, and in addition nominate a further two Councillors. 

 

REPORT

 

Correspondence has been received from Local Government NSW (LGNSW) in relation to their Board elections. LGNSW had asked the Australian Electoral Commission to seek an Inquiry immediately after the Board election held at the last annual conference, because an error caused a voting irregularity.

 

As explained in the LGNSW’s correspondence, the positions of President and Treasurer were unaffected, and the Court determined on 20 March 2016 that three other directors were not impacted by the irregularity because of the size of their respective primary votes.

 

As such, the board comprises:

 

President, Clr Keith Rhoades; Treasurer, Clr Scott Bennison, and directors: Clr Mazhar Hadid, Clr Leo Kelly, and Clr Ben Shields.

 

The court has declared the election of 13 board members void and that a fresh vote is to be conducted by a secret postal ballot. The vacant positions are:

 

·  Vice President Metropolitan/Urban

·  Vice President Rural/Regional

·  11 directors (6 x Rural/Regional, 5 x Metropolitan/Urban)

 

The Court has determined that the only candidates eligible for these positions in the postal ballot are those who stood for them in 2015. LGNSW is liaising with the Australian Electoral Commission to determine the earliest possible date for the ballot and hope that the whole process will be complete by the end of June.

 

LGNSW has advised that Liverpool City Council will be entitled to 10 voters in the Board election and will be writing to Councils shortly requesting Councils to advise LGNSW of the names and postal addresses of their voters. The voting papers will be mailed to each voter by the Australian Electoral Commission.

 

Despite being entitled to 10 voting delegates in 2015, when the voting delegates for the Local Government Association Conference and election of the Board was reported to Council on 26 August 2015, Council resolved only the following 8 as its voting delegates:

 

·  Mayor Mannoun, Clrs Balloot, Hadchiti, Hadid, Harle, Mamone, Karnib and Ristevski

 

It is now a decision for Council to determine whether it wishes to endorse the same 8 delegates as its voting representatives for the forthcoming board election, or whether it wishes to utilise one or both of the additional votes it’s entitled to.

 

Council Management recommends that the existing 8 voting representatives are maintained and that Council also nominates a further two Councillors.

 

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

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

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.         Correspondence from LGNSW


157

CFO 04

Local Government NSW Board Elections

Attachment 1

Correspondence from LGNSW

 

 


155

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Community and Culture Report

 

DCC 01

Liverpool Sporting Donations

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

Foster social inclusion, strengthen the local community and increase opportunities for people who may experience barriers

Key Policy

Recreation Strategy

File Ref

092509.2016

Report By

Long Chung - Recreation and Open Space Officer  

Approved By

Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council provides financial assistance to residents selected to representative teams at a regional, state and national level through the Liverpool Sporting Donations Program.

 

Applications are reviewed by the Liverpool Sports Committee then presented to Council for approval. This report represents the funding recommendations made by the Liverpool Sports Committee for Council’s consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the Financial Contribution Panel’s recommendations for the provision for $2,100 (GST exclusive) under Sporting Donations Program as summarised in the table below:

 

Applicant Details

Amount

   Ash Eastwood

$200

   Georgia Heath

$200

   Maddison Heath

$200

   Luke Baker

$100

Claire Kemp

$100

Maclane Walmsley

$100

Jordan Richardson

$500

Luke Stig

$100

Emily Eker

$100

Leteine Tikeri

$200

Page Merriman

$200

Oliver Eparaima

$100

 

 

 

REPORT

 

Council’s Sporting Donations Program is available to individuals and sporting teams who live in the Liverpool City. Applications are accepted on an ongoing basis and are reviewed by the Liverpool Sports Committee.

 

Thirteen applications for sporting donations have been received by Council since December 2015. Twelve applications met the program criteria and were recommended for funding by the Liverpool Sports Committee. 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 recommendations are shown in the table below.

 

Applicant Details

Eligibility

Eligibility

Recommendation

Ash Eastwood

Local resident – West Hoxton

Representing NSW Indoor Netball Team at the 2016 Super nationals Championships held in Mackay from 30th April to 7th May 2016.

$200

Georgia Heath

Local resident – Holsworthy

Representing NSW U/16 Youth Women’s Baseball Team at the 2016 Youth Women’s Nationals Championships held in ACT from 10th April to 15th January 2016.

$200

Maddison Heath

Local resident – Holsworthy

Representing NSW U/16 Youth Women’s Baseball Team at the 2016 Youth Women’s Nationals Championships held in ACT from 10th April to 15th January 2016..

$200

Luke Baker

Local resident – West Hoxton

Representing Liverpool Swim Club at the 2016 Australian Open and Age Open  Water  Championships held in Sunshine Coast from 12th April to 14th February 2016..

$100

Claire Kemp

Local resident – West Hoxton

Representing Liverpool Swim Club at the 2016 Australian Open and Age Open  Water  Championships held in Sunshine Coast from 12th April to 14th February 2016..

$100

Maclane Walmsley

Local resident – Hinchinbrook

Representing Liverpool Swim Club at the 2016 Australian Open and Age Open  Water  Championships held in Sunshine Coast from 12th April to 14th February 2016..

$100

Jordan Richardson

Local resident – Wattle Grove

Representing U18 Womens A-ROO National Development Team at the 2016 Phoenix Cup held in Hong Kong from 19th to 22nd February 2016.

$500

Luke Stig

Local resident – Moorebank

Representing Liverpool Swim Club at the 2016 Australian Open and Age Open  Water  Championships held in South Australia from 28th March to 4th April 2016..

$100

Emily Eker

Local resident – Chipping Norton

Representing Liverpool Swim Club at the 2016 Australian Open and Age Open  Water  Championships held in South Australia from 28th March to 4th April 2016..

$100

Leteine Tikeri

Local resident – Green Valley

Representing NSW Athletics Team at the 2016 Australian Junior National Championships held in Perth from 8th to 13th March 2016..

$200

Page Merriman

Local resident – Green Valley

Representing NSW Athletics Team at the 2016 Australian Junior National Championships held in Perth from 8th to 13th March 2016..

$200

Oliver Eparaima

Local resident – Casula

Representing Liverpool Swim Club at the 2016 Australian Open and Age Open  Water  Championships held in South Australia from 28th March to 4th April 2016..

$100

Meegan Jimenez