Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

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

CONDOLENCES

Aunty Nancy Davis (read by Mayor Mannoun)

On Sunday 28^th 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:

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

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.

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:

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

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 .

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

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

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

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).

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-267/2015 View (Under separate cover)

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

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

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.

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),

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

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

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

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

3. IHAP recommendation for DA-991/2015 View (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.

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 Buildings Multi Dwelling Housing

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;

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).

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

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant Details View (Under separate cover)

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

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

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

5. Initial IHAP recommendation for DA-131/2015 View (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.

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 Road Subject Site Moorebank 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:

o Proposed Lot 1 – 434.7m2,

o 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.

(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

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:

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

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

o 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:

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 details View (Under separate cover)

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

3. IHAP recommendation for DA-599/2015 View (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

3^rd 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

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

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

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 2016 View

2. Performance Graph Actual to Budget March 2016 View

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).

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

o $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.

o 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, 2015 View

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

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

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 30^th April to 7^th 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 10^th April to 15^th 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 22^nd 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 13^th 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	Local Resident Hoxton Park	Playing for the Inter Lions Soccer Club in the Football NSW – Premier 2: Women's U15's competition,	The SDSFA Delegate indicated the team Meegan has been selected in is not a regional team selection.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial

A budget allocation of $15,000 for the Sporting Donations Program was adopted by Council in its 2015/2016 Operational plan. If the recommended amount of $2,100 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $8,500. The recommendations within this report for the sporting donations will be funded from the Sporting Donations Program.

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. Liverpool Sporting Donations Program Criteria

163

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Community and Culture Report

DCC 02

Quick Response Grants

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Foster social inclusion, strengthen the local community and increase opportunities for people who may experience barriers
Key Policy	Donations Policy
File Ref	099180.2016
Report By	Phin Tang - Community Development Worker (Funding and Support)
Approved By	Eddie Jackson – Acting Director Community & Culture

executive summary

Council is committed to building strong and resilient communities in Liverpool and to maximising social wellbeing for all residents. One way of achieving these goals is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants and sponsorships to individuals and groups to develop leadership skills, increase participation in community life and address social issues.

Council provides eight mechanisms for the allocation of grants, donations and sponsorships. These are a combination of annual programs, for which applications are accepted once or twice per year and open programs which can be applied for at any time of the year. These programs are:

(a) Community Grants

(b) Quick Response Grants

(d) Sporting Donations

(e) Community Matching Grants

(f) Sustainable Environment Grants

(g) Community Facilities Fee Reductions

(h) Disaster Relief Donations

This report presents the funding recommendations for the applications received through the Quick Response Program from January to March 2016 for Council's consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the recommendations for the provision of $1,000 (GST exclusive) under the Quick Response Grants Program as summarised in the table below:

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Liverpool U3A School for Seniors Inc.	Photocopier	$1,000

REPORT

The Quick Response Grants program supports a range of small-scale initiatives for local residents and organisations. This program is for community groups who may not have experience with grants programs. It aims to provide more intensive support and build the capacity of less established groups to familiarise themselves with grants programs and Council processes. Applicants are eligible to receive one grant per year.

The Quick Response Grants program will support:

(a) Donations to young people to participate in events and experiences in the academic, cultural or environmental fields for the purposes of developing leadership skills and encouraging active community participation;

(b) Essential emergency support for community, cultural or sustainability projects – strictly for situations that could not be foreseen;

(c) Donations to schools to be given as a prize to a student who has excelled in citizenship, academic studies, artistic endeavours or sporting proficiency; and

(d) Seed funding for other strategic priorities in Council’s policies and action plans.

Applications for Quick Response Grants are accepted on an ongoing basis. Applications are reviewed quarterly.

Two applications for Quick Response Grants were received by Council this quarter. The internal assessment panel consisted of the Community Development Worker (Funding and Support), Community Planning Policy Officer and Environment Restoration Plan Officer. One application met the program criteria and is therefore recommended for funding. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the requests received are shown in the table below.

Applicant Details

Project Description and Assessment Panel Comments

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Liverpool U3A School for Seniors Inc.

Project Description:

Purchase of a photocopier that will provide printing of newsletters, enrolment forms, lesson materials and will support the daily general administration of the organisation.

Assessment Panel Comments:

· Meets Strategic Direction – Proud Engaged City

· Older learners would benefit from paper based learning

· Encourages learning by older people

· Promotion of class is also best in paper form (newsletters, flyers, etc.)

· Receiving the grant means membership funds are spent more effectively on other more beneficial projects for the community rather than maintenance expenses

· Applicant is also making a substantial contribution towards the project

Assessment Score: 92.5/100

$1,000

Sydney Kurdish Youth Society

Project Description:

Funding will be used to start a Kurdish language school on Saturday’s to teach Kurdish children and young people their Kurdish language.

Assessment Panel Comments:

· Lack of detail provided on how the project will be implemented

· No evidence provided on the organisation’s capacity to deliver the project effectively and efficiently

· No evidence provided that the project will be delivered in Liverpool LGA or that it will directly benefit residents of Liverpool

· Unrealistic budget provided with no explanation on where the additional funding will be coming from to fund the remaining project costs

· Sustainability of the project after funding ceases is in question

· Duplication of funding – NSW Department of Education specifically provides annual funding under the Community Language School Program, information on this program will be provided to the applicant

Assessment Score: 41.5/100

$1,000

Not recommended for funding

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	A budget allocation of $100,000 for the Quick Response Grants Program was adopted by Council in its 2015/2016 Operational Plan as part of the Community Grants and Donations Program. If the recommended amount of $1,000 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $68,862. The recommendations within this report for Community Grants will be funded from the Community Grants and Donations Program.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Criteria for Quick Response Grants Program

177

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01

Trapping of Indian Myna Birds

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Enhance and protect natural corridors, waterways and bushland
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	089100.2016
Report By	Madhu Pudasaini - Manager Technical Support
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

Executive Summary

Council, at its meeting held on 25 November 2015, resolved to prepare a report detailing the Indian Myna control programs in neighbouring Council’s and evaluate these programs for possible implementation within the Liverpool LGA.

Council has now undertaken the review of Indian Myna control programs in neighbouring Councils. From the review, it is clear that there is no consistent approach in managing this issue amongst Councils. While trapping and euthanisation is common practice supported and promoted by education and awareness program/workshops, a regional approach is essential for overall effectiveness of the program.

All public land managers including Local Councils have an obligation under the Local Land Services Act 2013 to manage vertebrate pests on land they own, occupy or manage. Liverpool Council currently does not have any control programs to address any pest species. This report recommends that a more strategic approach is adopted to address this issue.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts a more strategic approach to Pest Management by developing a Pest Management Strategy.

2. Liaises with relevant state agencies with the aim to form a regional action group to address pest control issues, including the Indian Myna bird issue at a regional level.

3. Designs a webpage to inform residents about Indian Myna birds.

REPORT

Indian Mynas are native to India and were introduced to Australia and across the world in order to reduce insect populations in agricultural fields. However, the populations of the birds have rapidly and significantly increased since their introduction. The birds are ranked as one of the world’s 100 most invasive pest species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The birds are regarded as invasive and aggressive towards the native birds as they eject nestlings and eggs of native birds from their nests as well as cause damage to buildings from their corrosive droppings. They can also spread diseases as they forage through garbage and sewers.

Indian Myna Control Program in Neighboring Councils

Indian Myna control programs are operating in some local government areas across the east coast of Australia in different forms. Some Council’s within NSW have also implemented control programs.

The following information provides examples of other Council’s initiatives to control Indian Mynas in Sydney Region.

SN	Council	Indian Myna Control Activities
1	The Hills Shire Council	· Council is currently implementing a trapping and euthanising program. · Traps can be hired from Council via online request. · Website has links to procedures for trapping and euthanising. · Considerations for health and safety of people and the disposal of euthanized birds. · Program is operated by Council’s Waste unit.
2	Lane Cove Council	· The control program is currently being implemented. · Eradicating the birds from Lane Cove Plaza is the main objective. · Website has links to inform community how to reduce the problem and deter the birds form yards. · Provide information to residents on trapping instructions and protocol for animal welfare. · Currently no provision to hire traps from Council. · Program is operated by Council’s Environment Health Section.
3	Blacktown City Council	· Blacktown Council ran a trial program in 2008-09 with UWS that resulted in large number of birds captured and high community interest. · Currently, Council provides traps for hire for trapping and euthanising, information packs are also provided. · Council also encourages people to be involved in monitoring to determine the extent of problem and to assist in developing any subsequent eradication program. · Provides fact sheet on the birds and ways to deter them from yards. · Program is operated by Council’s Animal Holding Facility.
4	Campbelltown City Council	· Council has a Weed and Pest Species Management Plan. · Council has established a trapping program since 2007. · Limited traps available for hire to residents. · Council also runs workshops on how to trap the birds and sells traps via the local Men’s shed. · Fact sheet is provided. · Program is operated by Council’s Environment unit.
5	Camden Council	· The control program is currently being implemented. · Has limited traps for hire and encourages residents to make their own or buy them. · Have developed a fact sheet and Standard Operating Procedure for euthanasia. · Program is operated by Council’s environment unit.
6	Sutherland Shire Council	· General advice is provided on website. · Council plays more supportive role and provides educational material. · Program is operated by Council’s Pest Species Team.
7	Hawkesbury City Council (HIMAG)	· Trapping program first launched in 2009. · Overwhelming response from residents resulted in establishment of an action group called Hawkesbury Indian Myna Action Group (HIMAG). · Council provides information regarding the trapping of these birds and runs trap building workshops. · Program is operated by Council’s Environment team.
8	Wollongong City Council	· Council launched Indian Myna Bird Action Program in 2011. · Runs free workshops for residents but no provision to hire. · Euthanising procedure is provided in workshop.
9	Fairfield City Council	· No Indian Myna bird eradication program.
10	Bankstown Council	· General advice is provided on website. · Council plays supportive role and provides educational material.

There are also community driven organisations formed to encourage the community to be involved in Indian Myna control program, including Canberra Indian Myna Action Group Inc (CIMAG) and Myna Scan.

Effectiveness of the program

Evaluating other Council’s programs for effectiveness is a complex exercise that needs a comprehensive assessment and data analysis of each strategy adopted by councils and their program. Only a small number of Councils have publicly reported on the review and analysis of their program effectiveness. For example, in November 2015 Campbelltown Council reported that 435 residents participated in 18-one hour education workshops under the trial program. Only 29 participants (7%) submitted their monitoring and data collection sheets and it was reported that a total of 449 Indian Myna birds were euthanised.

However, from the analysis of the above programs run by other councils, it is clear that trapping and euthanisation is common practice, supported and promoted by education and awareness program/workshops.

For an Indian Myna trapping program to be successful it requires a long term regional approach from beyond the council boundary to ensure the most efficient use of resources as well as effective program implementation. Currently our closest neighbouring Councils have a mixed level of involvement in the issue. For example, Fairfield Council has no Indian Myna control program, however Bankstown Council provides information on its website including pictures, links to fact sheets, research papers and relevant website links to increase public awareness. In contrary, Campbelltown Council have a trapping program and trap hire facility as well as a program that involves community education and trapping workshops.

Feasibility to run a program in Liverpool Council

All public land managers including Local Councils have an obligation under the Local Land Services Act 2013 to manage vertebrate pests on land they own, occupy or manage. Currently rabbits, wild dogs, feral pigs, foxes, camels and three species of locusts are declared pests under the Local Land Services Act 2013. Within the Liverpool LGA, there are unmanaged populations of rabbits, feral pigs and foxes. Council currently does not have any control program to address any pest species. It is considered that Council should first develop a comprehensive pest management strategy that addresses priority declared pest species with scope for a community participation program. This strategy will determine the need and feasibility of running an Indian Myna control program including resourcing needs to successfully operate any such program.

Having integrated regional approaches to Indian Myna management will have a significant impact on the overall effectiveness of programs. Council could also consider forming a regional action group to address this issue in regional level. Council could also lobby Office of Local Land Services to provide necessary support to run such regional action group.

In the meantime, Council could develop a webpage to inform residents about Indian Mynas. The webpage would include factual information about the species, how to deter them, fact sheets and links to other relevant websites.

This approach is mostly consistent with neighbouring councils and will not require an extensive resource commitment.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses. Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

175

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Draft Heritage Study: Potential Heritage Items

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history
Key Policy	Heritage Strategy
File Ref	057064.2016
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

A study was undertaken of potential heritage items which considered thirty-five (35) places and seven (7) movable objects. Based on the finding of this study, this report recommends 15 of the places and the 7 movable objects be formally assessed for heritage significance, with the view of possibly listing the places as local heritage items under Schedule 5 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. It is recommended to remove the remaining 18 items from the list. The report also recommends that Council should urgently commission an assessment of the significance of two of the potential places and seek interim heritage orders if appropriate, due to their vulnerable status.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the Draft Heritage Study: Potential Heritage Items and its findings.

2. Undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the identified potential heritage items to determine whether they are suitable to be listed under Schedule 5 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

3. Undertakes an assessment of the significance of the Skipton Lane Cistern, Prestons and the farm Buildings at 1432 The Northern Road, Bringelly and, if deemed appropriate by the assessment, delegates to the CEO to seek Interim Heritage Orders for them, due to their vulnerable status .

REPORT

Background

A list of potential heritage items was created in 2010 by Council’s Heritage Officer. This followed investigations undertaken in 2005 and 2006, recommending a number of properties be further considered for heritage listing, and also more recently, in response to recommendations made by members of the community, and members of Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee.

The impetus to review this list arose from the demolition of one of the buildings on the list of potential heritage items (361 Hume Highway). There was also the need to review the list given that it had been started five years previously. The review aimed at providing more certainty to Council and property owners on the heritage status of the places on the list.

Study Scope and Purpose

The scope of the study was limited to the 35 built and landscape places as protection can be provided for such places in the Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. This study also considered the seven moveable objects.

The purpose of the Study was to review the places nominated as potential heritage items and to make recommendations as to whether the places should be identified as potential heritage items, and for the future management of places identified or nominated as potential heritage items.

Potential Items List

The list of potential heritage items includes 35 built and landscape places, and 7 moveable objects. The 35 built and landscape places on the list are:

· 50 Ashcroft Avenue, Casula

· 113 Atkinson Street, Liverpool

· 12 Bringelly Road, Horningsea Park

· 26 Canberra Avenue, Casula

· 1 Cooper Avenue, Moorebank

· 2 Cooper Avenue, Moorebank

· 4 Cooper Avenue, Moorebank

· 955a Fifteenth Avenue, Kemps Creek

· Buggy’s Bunya pine, First Avenue, Hoxton Park

· John Edmondson Memorial Clock, 166-170 George Street, Liverpool

· 124 Hill Road, Lurnea

· 136 Hill Road, Lurnea

· 10 Hoxton Park, Liverpool

· Three Lights, Hume Highway, Liverpool

· 26 Kennedy Street, Liverpool

· 166 Longstaff Avenue, Chipping Norton

· 68 McGowen Crescent, Liverpool

· 70 McGowen Crescent, Liverpool

· 90 Memorial Avenue, Liverpool

· 12 Moorebank Avenue, Moorebank

· 1432 The Northern Road, Bringelly

· 12 Rose Street, Liverpool

· Rosedale Park, 16 Stroud Avenue, Warwick Farm

· 23-29 Scott Street, Liverpool

· 38 Scott Street, Liverpool

· 59-61 Scott Street, Liverpool

· Cistern ,Skipton Lane, Prestons

· 44 South Pacific Avenue, Mount Pritchard

Note, the items below did not have data sheets prepared in this study:

· 133 Bigge Street, Liverpool – (no data sheet prepared)

· 73-75 Flowerdale Road, Liverpool

· 361 Hume Highway, Liverpool

· 532 Hume Highway, Liverpool

· Brick drinking fountain in Bigge Park, opposite Goulburn Street

· Two milestones Hume Highway, between Brown and George St

· Milestones near the racecourse, Warwick Farm

The 7 moveable objects on the potential items list include:

· A concrete roller at Elouera Bushland Reserve, Liverpool.

· Two sandstone columns at the Rose Street Depot that were corner posts at the Toll Gate Lansdowne.

· A roller at Apex Park that was in the hands of the Nepean Shire when the Shire was amalgamated in the late 1940's, now at the Rose Street Depot.

· A small roller that was at Hazel Bradshaw Park Casula, now at the Rose Street Depot.

· A gas street lamp (circa 1900's) that was at the Council Chambers Hoxton Park Road. Was originally at the Council Chambers on Moore Street. Now at the Rose Street Depot.

· A WW1 war trophy now at the Rose Street Depot.

· A boiler at Light Horse Park. Was used to drive the pylons for the railway bridge across the Georges River (circa 1917).

Most of the moveable heritage objects in the list of potential heritage items are currently located at Council’s Rose Street Depot with which they have little or no historical association. It may be that some of these objects would best be included in the collection of Liverpool Regional Museum, in which case they would be assessed by the Museum’s curator. Further discussion regarding this matter could be held with the curator.

Methodology

Data sheets were prepared for most of the places and landscapes on the potential heritage items list. Data sheets were not prepared for a few places where formal heritage assessment had already been undertaken or was being undertaken, and where that place was already listed or had been demolished.

The methodology used to determine the heritage qualities for each place included the following:

· Desktop historical research was undertaken using readily available sources.

· Site visits were taken to most of the places for which data sheets were prepared.

· The visited places were photographed.

· Consideration was made as to whether or not the place warranted being retained as a potential heritage item.

· The basis used for consideration was generally the historical context, aesthetic values and integrity.

· The places or sites not visited included:

- 124 Hill Road, the cistern in Skipton Lane at Prestons,

- 1432 The Northern Road at Bringelly, and

- Buggy’s Bunya Pine at Hoxton Park.

The information gathered for each place has been used to prepare a data sheet for the potential item. These data sheets are included in the study. Each data sheet has individual recommendations.

The findings and recommendations from the study of potential heritage items are tabled below.

1	The following places should not be considered as potential heritage items: · 50 Ashcroft Avenue, Casula · 133 Bigge Street, Liverpool · Brick drinking fountain in Bigge Park, opposite Goulburn Street · 26 Canberra Avenue, Casula · 1 Cooper Avenue, Moorebank · 2 Cooper Avenue, Moorebank · 4 Cooper Avenue, Moorebank · Buggy’s Bunya pine, First Avenue, Hoxton Park · 124 Hill Road, Lurnea · 361 Hume Highway, Liverpool · 532 Hume Highway, Liverpool · 73-75 Flowerdale Road, Liverpool · 68 McGowen Crescent, Liverpool · 70 McGowen Crescent, Liverpool · 90 Memorial Avenue, Liverpool · 12 Rose Street, Liverpool · 23-29 Scott Street, Liverpool · 38 Scott Street, Liverpool
2	The following places should remain as potential heritage items: · 113 Atkinson St, Liverpool · 12 Bringelly Rd, Horningsea Park · 955a Fifteenth Avenue, Kemps Creek · 136 Hill Rd, Lurnea · 10 Hoxton Park Road, Liverpool · Lights, Hume Highway, Liverpool · John Edmondson V.C Memorial Clock in the forecourt of the Library, Liverpool. · 26 Kennedy Street, Liverpool · 166 Longstaff Ave, Chipping Norton · 12 Moorebank Avenue, Moorebank · 1432 The Northern Rd, Bringelly · 59-61 Scott Street, Liverpool · Cistern, Skipton Lane, Prestons · 44 South Pacific Avenue, Mount Pritchard · Rosedale Park, 16 Stroud Avenue, Warwick Farm
3	Prepare inventory sheets as soon as possible for the Skipton Lane cistern, Prestons and the farm buildings at 1432 The Northern Road, Bringelly, and, if appropriate, list them in the Heritage Schedule of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. The reason for this is that these places are potentially more vulnerable to loss than the other places.
4	a) Review the heritage inventory sheets prepared for the following places as part of a previous heritage study will be reviewed and add recent photographs: · 12 Bringelly Rd, Horningsea Park · 955a Fifteenth Avenue, Kemps Creek · 136 Hill Rd, Lurnea · 166 Longstaff Ave, Chipping Norton · 12 Moorebank Avenue, Moorebank b) Use the archaeological assessment prepared by Austral Archaeology for the Skipton Lane cistern to prepare a heritage inventory sheet for the cistern. A site visit should also be made to check the current condition of the cistern. c) An assessment of the heritage significance of each of the places below should be undertaken in accordance with the Heritage Office publication, Assessing Heritage Significance and heritage inventory sheets prepared: · 113 Atkinson St, Liverpool · Lights, Hume Highway, Liverpool · John Edmondson V.C Memorial Clock in the forecourt of the Library, Liverpool · 26 Kennedy Street, Liverpool · 1432 The Northern Rd, Bringelly · 59-61 Scott Street, Liverpool · 44 South Pacific Avenue, Mount Pritchard · Rosedale Park, 16 Stroud Avenue, Warwick Farm d) Request Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee to undertake research for the Bunya Pine at First Avenue, Hoxton Park as the tree was nominated by a member of the Committee. The information should then be used to prepare a heritage inventory sheet.
5	Request Western Sydney Parklands to undertake an assessment of significance for the farm buildings at No. 12 Bringelly Road as this property falls within the land they manage.
6	Discussions should be held with the curator of Liverpool Regional Museum to determine whether a joint approach may be undertaken for the management of objects identified as potential moveable heritage items.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
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. Heritage Study - Potential Heritage Items View (Under separate cover)

181

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 02

Advertising Structures and Signage

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	072649.2016
Report By	Allan Campling - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

In response to representations to permit advertising signs in the form of billboard signs and third party commercial signs within the local government area (LGA), a review of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) and State planning controls applying to signage has been undertaken. Currently, billboard signs and commercial signs that advertise general goods or services are prohibited throughout the LGA. To permit these signs, an amendment to the LLEP is required that identifies “signage” as a permissible use within specified zones.

An analysis of potential benefits and impacts concluded that, in many zones, the erection of billboard signs and third party commercial signs would negatively impact the amenity of the surrounding areas. However, it is considered that, if sound design principles are applied, third party commercial signs would be appropriate in the City Centre. In principle endorsement for the proposed changes to the LLEP is sought from Council.

The analysis also identified that whilst the SP2 Infrastructure zone is extensive, an advertising design analysis may identify individual sites or precincts where commercial signage is appropriate. It is proposed that this analysis be undertaken as part of the comprehensive review of the LLEP.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses in principle the proposal to amend Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 to prescribe signage as a use permissible with consent in Zone B3 Commercial Centre and Zone B4 Mixed Use.

2. Requests that the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 be amended to incorporate additional design guidelines for signage.

3. Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve a Planning Proposal to permit signage in Zone B3 Commercial Centre and Zone B4 Mixed Use for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

4. Instructs the CEO to undertake an advertising design analysis to identify individual sites or precincts within the SP2 Infrastructure zone where commercial signs may be appropriate as part of the comprehensive review of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

REPORT

Background

Council officers have received representations seeking amendment to the LLEP to permit billboard signs and third party commercial signs.

Currently billboard signs and third party commercial signs that advertise general goods or services are prohibited throughout the LGA. For the purpose of this report these signs will be referred to as “Commercial Signs”.

The types of advertising signs that can be erected or installed within the LGA are restricted to “building identification signs” and “business identification signs” which are located on the premises where the relevant business is carried out. These signs can only advertise the building; person or business located at the premises and can include a logo or other symbol but cannot include general advertising of products, goods or services.

Building identification signs and business identification signs are permitted with consent in all zones apart from SP1 Special Activities, SP2 Infrastructure and E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves. Building identification signs are permitted in E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management.

Council controls for signs

The Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (DCP) provides guidelines and controls for the erection or installation of building identification signs and business identification signs. These controls have been applied consistently and effectively to minimise the visual clutter and ensure that the signs do not impact visually on the surrounding locality. The DCP limits signs to the following:

Zone	Control
Rural	1. One pole or pylon sign of not more than 2sqm in area and not exceeding 2m in height above ground level per lot. 2. One additional sign of not exceeding 0.75sqm in area on the face of a building where the business is carried out in an architecturally compatible manner.
Residential	One sign of not more than 0.75sqm in area attached to a solid masonry fence or one pole or pylon sign of not more than 0.75sqm in area and not exceeding 2m in height from ground level for each business operation or activity.
Business	One under-awning sign, one fascia sign and one top hamper sign on each shop or business premises.
Industrial	1. One pole or pylon sign (including directory board for multiple occupancies) not exceeding 5sqm in area and 5m in height from ground level for each development. 2. For multiple occupancy development, one additional company identification sign, not exceeding 2 x 0.6m at the entrance to each occupied unit. 3. For single user development, one additional company identification sign is permitted at the rate of not exceeding 1sqm of advertising area per 3m of street frontage or a maximum of 50 sqm whichever is the less.

Exempt Development controls for signs

Certain categories of signs that have a minimal effect on the appearance of a building or place are identified as exempt development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or under Clause 3.1 of the LLEP and do not require development approval. The exempt development provisions apply to business identification signs and also address advertising on bus shelters, real estate signs and temporary signs for religious, cultural, political, social or recreational events.

Types of commercial signs

Whilst commercial signs can include a variety of types and sizes they are generally characterised as follows:

Sign type	Details
Freestanding and wall advertisements	Freestanding advertisements are mainly displayed on structures mounted on the ground by supports, while wall advertisements are generally painted on or fixed to the wall of a building. Sizes range from “Small format” (3 m x 1.5 m) to “Spectacular” which are over 50 square metres in area (standard dimensions are 18.9 m x 4.5 m) and are generally located on highways.
Roof advertisements	Displayed on or above the parapet or eaves of a building. They may be freestanding structures or wall advertisements and range up to spectacular size (over 50 square metres).
Building wrap and hoarding advertisements	Building wraps are materials such as vinyl mesh used to cover or wrap buildings and hoarding signs are placed around construction sites.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) regulates the development of outdoor advertising signage. SEPP 64 outlines provisions relating to the design, placement and development of advertisements and advertising structures. The SEPP prohibits advertising and signage in heritage areas, environmentally sensitive areas, open space zones and residential zones (but not including B4 Mixed Use)

SEPP 64 does not permit advertising where it is otherwise prohibited under a LEP.

Under the SEPP the Minister for Planning becomes the consent authority for advertisements, where permitted under a LEP, on railway corridor land undertaken on behalf of Sydney Trains or NSW Trains, or undertaken on behalf of RMS on a freeway, tollway or associated land and structures such as bridges. Councils remain the consent authority in other circumstances.

The SEPP requires that a development application for signage cannot be approved unless it is consistent with the SEPP’s objectives and is in accordance with a range of prescribed assessment criteria which include the character of the area, views, streetscape and safety.

Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines

The Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines (the Guidelines) have been prepared by the Department of Planning to complement the provisions of SEPP 64. The Guidelines outline best practice for the planning and design of outdoor advertisements in transport corridors, such as along classified roads, freeways, tollways, transitways and railway lines. The Department of Planning and Environment has recently exhibited a revised version of the Guidelines which, among other issues, introduce provisions for digital signage.

SEPP 64 consultation and review criteria

SEPP 64 prescribes a range of consultation and review criteria for the assessment of development applications for different categories of advertising structures and commercial signs:

Sign category

Consultation and review criteria

Advertisements greater than 20 square metres or higher than 8 metres

· the applicant is required to prepare an impact statement that addresses the assessment criteria in the SEPP; and

· the application is advertised development in accordance with section 79A of the EP&A Act.

Advertisements greater than 20 square metres and within 250 metres of, and visible from, a classified road

· concurrence of the RMS is required; and

· the RMS must take into the account the Guidelines and consider the impact of the advertisement on traffic safety.

Advertisements greater than 45 square metres

· a development control plan based on an advertising design analysis for the relevant area is required to be in force.

· applications are required to be consistent with the Guidelines

Transport corridors

· The Minister for Planning is the consent authority for development applications for signs in transport corridors;

· applications are required to be consistent with the Guidelines;

· the Minister may appoint a design review panel to provide advice on the proposal

Advertisements in rural or non-urban land

· Council is required to prepare a development control plan, based on an advertising design analysis for the area, in consultation with the advertising industry, representative of local businesses, and the RMS if the land to is within 250 metres of a classified road.

Local zoning controls on commercial signs across the metropolitan area.

There is no consistency in local planning controls applied to commercial signs by councils across the metropolitan area. Prohibitions and permissibility of signs vary significantly across different land use zones.

It is generally accepted that signs are more commercially viable in locations with high volumes of passing traffic such as major road and railways. However, only three Metropolitan Councils permit advertising within Zone SP2 transport corridors.

Advantages and disadvantages of permitting commercial signs

The following briefly summarises some of the advantages and disadvantages of permitting commercial signs.

Disadvantages

Advantages

Road safety

Advertising displays within the visual catchments of roads are designed to attract drivers’ and passengers’ attention. A reduction in driver attention away from the road has the potential to create a road safety hazard.

Economic

Advertising and marketing play a significant economic role and contribute in excess of $7.2 billion to the Australian economy annually. Outdoor advertising employs over 500 people in NSW (Outdoor Media Association - February 2016). Individual business and property owners, including public authorities, also benefit from rental income derived from ground or airspace rights for advertising structures.

Visual clutter

Multiple signs in a locality can result in visual clutter resulting in a negative impact on a streetscape and making the locality visually unattractive. Large signs can also obscure attractive architecture and vistas.

Community benefit contribution

Advertising revenue can contribute to funding the construction of public infrastructure, such as pedestrian bridges. Access to advertising space can be provided to emergency services, charities and local events, particularly with the introduction of digital sign technology.

Visual amenity

Advertising signs, particularly in natural or rural areas can adversely impact the visual amenity, character and experience of an area.

Visual enhancement

If sound design principles are applied, advertisements and signs may enhance the visual environment by contributing to visual diversity, interest and character and may enhance a sense of place. As a medium of expression, advertisements and signs may make a positive contribution to a streetscape.

Amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan to permit commercial signs

To permit the erection or installation of commercial signs within the LGA it is necessary to amend the LLEP.

The Standard Instrument includes the following relevant definition:

signage means any sign, notice, device, representation or advertisement that advertises or promotes any goods, services or events and any structure or vessel that is principally designed for, or that is used for, the display of signage, and includes any of the following:

(a) an advertising structure,

(b) a building identification sign,

but does not include a traffic sign or traffic control facilities

The amendment to the LLEP would involve identifying “signage” as a permissible use within the Land Use Table under Part 2. This would result in signage being permitted on all land within the identified zone.

Alternatively, signage may be identified as an Additional Permitted Use on nominated sites under Clause 2.5 of the LLEP. However the purpose of this clause is to provide a specific site or precinct response to a development proposal or land use. It is noted that the identification of signage as an Additional Permitted Use on land owned by a public authority may raise issues of competitive neutrality.

The following table provides an analysis of options to permit commercial signs in land use zones under the LLEP, noting that SEPP 64 prohibits advertising structures in certain zones.

Zone	Comment
RU1 Primary Production RU2 Rural Landscape Ru4 Primary Production Small Lot	The installation of billboard signs and commercial signs in rural areas, even when subject to rigorous controls can adversely impact the visual amenity and experience of the areas. Provision of signage would have to have regard to future Growth Centre planning.
B1 Neighbourhood Centre B2 Local Centre	Neighbourhood and Local Centres are by their nature located adjacent to low to medium scale residential areas. Advertising signs in these centres may result in additional visual clutter adversely impact the amenity of the adjacent residential areas.
B3 Commercial Centre B4 Mixed Use	These two zones constitute the Liverpool City Centre. Whilst the City Centre adjoins residential zones, the area has an urban character with medium to high density residential buildings. The areas attract high levels of pedestrian use with a slower, human scale at street level. If sound design principles are applied, advertisements and signs may contribute a sense of place and reinforce its role as a Regional City Centre as well as provide flexibility to create some benefit, particularly with digital signs in locations such as Macquarie Mall.
B5 Business Development	There is only a limited number of B5 zoned areas. The sites comprise bulky goods or “big box” type retailing and are in high visibility, car oriented locations with limited pedestrian activity. Consequently, the likely type of signage would be large freestanding signs having the potential to create road safety hazards. Commercial signs in these areas may also result in additional clutter and negative visual impacts.
B6 Enterprise Corridor	The B6 land is predominantly located along major traffic routes. The areas have a diverse and predominantly linear single storey built form with a significant amount of existing business signage. They are car oriented sites with limited pedestrian activity. Consequently, the likely type of signage would be large pylon or roof signs having the potential to create road safety hazards and result in additional clutter and negative visual impacts.
IN1 General Industrial IN2 Light Industrial IN3 Heavy Industrial	These areas are large and relatively contained with the outer edges adjoining major traffic routes. Commercial signs in these areas may result in additional clutter and negative visual impacts.
SP1 Special Activities SP2 Infrastructure	SP1 applies to the Cemetery and Airport site. The land within the SP2 Infrastructure zone is extensive and includes Defence land, drainage lands and transport corridor lands. Permitting advertising within this broad zone may result in visual clutter which will adversely impact on the visual amenity of extensive areas of the local government area. However, whilst the SP2 zone is extensive there may be individual sites or precincts where commercial signage may be appropriate and identified as an additional permitted use under Clause 2.5 of the LLEP.

Consultation

A number of internal departments were consulted in preparing this report. It is noted that the Property and Commercial Development department is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit commercial advertising in a broader range of zones, including in the rural areas. They are particularly keen to have them permissible in the B6 zone. The department’s opinion is that visual clutter will not result because the market will limit the number of signs erected

It is acknowledged that there is no consistency across the region regarding commercial signage and that there are arguments for and against making it permissible. It is considered that a prudent course of action is to support making Commercial Signs permissible in the B3 and B4 zones which are, in general, lower speed traffic environments with significant pedestrian activation and to monitor the impacts this strategy has. If the impact is considered acceptable and manageable, Council can then consider extending the strategy to other zones.

Conclusion

Billboard signs and third party commercial signs are currently prohibited within the LGA. However, should Council decide to permit commercial signs within the LGA, the following are considered:

Option 1

Permit commercial signs in all zones allowed under SEPP 64.

Option 2

Permit commercial signs in all or any of the following zones: B5 Business Development, B6 Enterprise Corridor, IN1 General Industrial, IN2 Light Industrial, IN3 Heavy Industrial.

Option 3

Permit commercial signs in the City Centre in the B3 Commercial Centre and B4 Mixed Use zones.

Option 4

Undertake an advertising design analysis of the SP2 Infrastructure zoned land to identify individual sites or precincts where commercial signage may be appropriate and list as an additional permitted use under Clause 2.5 of the LLEP.

The above analysis of potential benefits and impacts concluded that, in many zones, the erection of billboard signs and third party commercial signs would result in negative visual impacts and have the potential to create a road safety hazards. It is recommended that a precautionary approach be adopted and that commercial signage not be introduced across all zones.

However, it is considered that, if sound design principles are applied, commercial signs would be appropriate in the City Centre, acknowledging that this area is a relatively low speed traffic environment with considerable pedestrian activation and a wide variety of built forms. It is considered that additional signs in this locality may contribute a sense of place and reinforce its role as a Regional City Centre as well as providing flexibility to create some benefit, particularly with digital signs in locations such as the Macquarie Mall.

An advertising design analysis may also identify individual sites or precincts within the SP2 zone where commercial signs may be appropriate. However, as this analysis is likely to be a significant body of work, it is proposed that it be undertaken as part of the comprehensive review of the LLEP.

Next steps

Should Council agree to permit commercial signs within the City Centre, a Planning Proposal will be finalised for the CEO’s delegated approval for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

It is also proposed that the DCP be amended to incorporate additional design guidelines for signage.

Subject to Council’s endorsement, officers can undertake an advertising design analysis to identify individual sites or precincts within the SP2 Infrastructure zone where commercial signs may be appropriate as part of the comprehensive review of the LLEP.

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

195

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 03

Car parking rates for industrial development

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	076123.2016
Report By	Allan Campling - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Summary

In response to the assessment of recent large industrial developments, Council officers have reviewed the car parking rates within the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008. The assessment of parking requirements for large industrial developments generally relies on analysis of existing similar developments and reference to RMS Guidelines rather than application of the rates contained within the DCP.

It is noted that the rates required by our DCP are considered excessive by many developers of industrial sites and are significantly more onerous than those suggested by the RMS guidelines. It is considered that a more flexible approach to parking demand may assist the viability of new industrial development in the City and facilitate compact industrial development which will reduce the adverse environmental impacts caused by urban sprawl.

It is therefore proposed that the parking rates for large industrial development in the DCP be amended to be more relevant to current industrial operations and consistent with the RMS “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments”.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council amends the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 by inserting the following provision in the sections on “Industry” and “Warehouses” in Table 13: Car Parking, Servicing and Loading Provision:

Warehouse developments of GFA >1000m²: 1 space per 250m ² in GFA

REPORT

Background

Council officers recently completed an assessment of a development application by Stockland Development Pty Ltd for the construction and use of four warehouse buildings at 200 Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm. The proposal was for a substantial industrial development having a floor area exceeding 50,000m² and was referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination.

The proposal did not meet the parking requirements stipulated within Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (DCP) of 1 space per 75m² of leasable floor area for factories and warehouses. However, Council’s Traffic Engineer had reviewed the supporting documentation and concluded that the applicant had adequately justified the parking short fall with reference to the car park demand and provision at similar warehouse developments at Nexus Business Park and Aldi Warehouse, Prestons. The applicant’s traffic consultants had also referenced the RMS “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” which indicates that warehouses should provide one space per 300m².

Comparison between RMS and Council parking rates

Note that the DCP refers to leasable floor area (LFA) whereas the definitions in the standard instrument, and therefore our LEP refer to gross floor area (GFA). The definitions, although not identical, are very similar. It is therefore proposed to utilize GFA as the defined area in this amendment

There is a substantial variation in the car parking rates for warehouses between the RMS Guidelines and Council’s DCP, with Council’s controls being more onerous.

The following is an extract from Council’s DCP:

Table 13 Car Parking, Servicing and Loading Provision

Industry

1 space per 35sqm of office LFA

1 space per 75sqm factory/warehouse

LFA or 1 space per 2 employees,

whichever is the greater

Developments of LFA >

1,000sqm require

occasional access for an

articulated vehicle

Service Facilities detailed in

Section 4.

Warehouses

1 space per 35sqm of office LFA

1 space per 75sqm factory/warehouse

LFA or 1 space per 2 employees,

whichever is the greater

Where it can be shown that employee numbers will be significantly less than the required car parking provision, some of the car spaces may be set aside as unformed car parking.

Developments of LFA >

1,000sqm require

occasional access for an

articulated vehicle

Service Facilities detailed in

Section 4.

The following is an extract from the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments:

5.14 Summary table for parking requirements

Industry
Factories	1.3 spaces per 100m² GFA
Warehouses	1 space per 300m² GFA

Review of car parking rates for industrial development

Council officers recognise that a more flexible, evidence based approach to the assessment of car parking for large scale industrial development is required. Consequently, it is proposed that the parking rates for industrial development in the DCP be amended to be more relevant to current industrial operations and consistent with the RMS “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments”.

The issue of car parking rates for industrial developments can be addressed through a minor amendment to the DCP. However, a review of all car parking provisions is more complex and should more appropriately be undertaken as part of a future comprehensive review of the DCP.

A review of the industrial car parking rates of surrounding councils was undertaken. (see Attachment 1). The review indicates that, with the exception of Campbelltown Council and Camden Council, the car parking rates for factories and warehouses are similar and generally consistent with Council’s DCP. It is noted that all the parking rates for warehouses, apart from Camden, are inconsistent with the RMS Guidelines. The Campbelltown DCP 2015 has a lower and flexible rate as follows:

A minimum of two (2) spaces (per unit), plus

i) one space for every 100m2 of GFA for buildings up to 2000m².; plus

ii) one space per 250m2 for that part of the building exceeding 2000m² in GFA.

It is considered that the Campbelltown DCP provides a sound model to address parking rates for larger warehouse developments. However a threshold of 1000m² is considered more appropriate to maintain consistency with the 1000m² threshold already contained in our DCP regarding service and loading in these categories. It is considered that the existing rate for factories should remain unchanged.

Proposed DCP clause

It is proposed that, for development of warehouse buildings exceeding 1000m² in GFA, the parking provision be increased to one space for every 250m². Consequently, it is proposed that the DCP be amended by adding the following provision to the sections on “Industry” and “Warehouses” in Table 13 Car - Parking, Servicing and Loading Provision:

Warehouse developments of GFA >1000m²: 1 space per 250m ² in GFA

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	A more flexible approach to parking demand may assist the viability of new industrial development in the City.
Environmental and Sustainability	Reduction of parking demand will facilitate compact industrial development which will reduce the adverse impacts caused by urban sprawl.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Comparison of industrial car parking rates

195

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 04

Georges River Precinct Plan - Progress Update

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	089125.2016
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

This report is to inform Council about the progress of the work undertaken to date for the Georges River Master Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the progress of the work undertaken to date for the development of the Georges River Master Plan.

REPORT

As its meeting on 29 April 2015, Council resolved to:

1. Investigate the Moorebank Georges River area as an urban renewal precinct.

2. Develop a Master Plan for the Moorebank Georges River mixed use precinct to provide opportunities for housing and employment, with access to transport and infrastructure.

3. Explore options with current landowners and associated developers to fund the costs of this investigation.

4. The study also include land on the west side of the Georges River.

Moorebank East is unique within Liverpool as the area encompasses significant waterfront land along the Georges River and Lake Moore, and is also strategically placed in proximity to the Liverpool CBD and Liverpool Station. Further, this area is well connected to the regional road network, including the M5 Motorway, Newbridge Road, Heathcote Road, and Hume Highway, connecting it to the South-Western Region and Greater Western Sydney.

The Georges River precinct provides an opportunity for Liverpool to meet its future housing and employment targets, deliver substantial environmental, recreational and community benefits in close proximity to the Liverpool CBD, while also realising its potential as a truly mixed use riverfront lifestyle city in the greater south-west.

The precinct plan for this area, otherwise known as the Georges River Master Plan, involves investigating the opportunities for transforming what is a somewhat fragmented and inefficient industrial area into a revitalised mixed use waterfront precinct. The project evaluates the precinct’s urban renewal potential, including options for increased housing and employment and an improved level of transport connectivity, given its proximity to Liverpool Station, including improvements to the existing bus network, potential realignment of local roads as well as options for greater active transport, including pedestrian and cycle links.

Project Initiation and Scope

Following the Council resolution in April, the Georges River Master Plan was formally initiated through an expression of interest. By September 2015, a team of consultants were engaged to assist Council to develop the precinct plan. The consultant team includes Group GSA, MacroPlan Dimasi, Calibre Consulting, and EMM. The scope of works undertaken by the consultants includes:

· Assessment of precinct context/ conditions/ constraints

· Precinct employment & market capacity

· Assessment of future drivers (i.e. IMT, Badgerys Creek Airport, CBD)

· Planning and design shapers – spatial market inputs

· Assessment of transport/traffic base case & scenario development

· Assessment of flooding – opportunities appraisal

· Infrastructure capacity, preferred outcomes and potential costs

· Precinct land use opportunities (mixed use – housing vs. employment)

· Cost-benefit appraisal/ modelling implications

· Assessment of options for project staging & delivery

Initial Findings

The project, as outlined above, is well underway. Some of the key preliminary findings are as follows:

· The precinct generates a significant portion of total employment for the Liverpool LGA.

· The precinct is not significantly affected by archaeological and heritage constraints.

· There are a number of properties in limited ownership, which are good size and are well located within the precinct.

· There are areas suitable for mixed use, higher density development within the precinct, subject to further detailed investigation to inform a more comprehensive land use strategy and urban design outcome.

· The challenge is to generate a higher employment mix and density that is proportional to the increase in residential use and intensity.

· The challenge also is to generate higher value-added employment.

· The precinct has significant flood affectation, however subject to further detailed investigation, there is potential to create a precinct-wide flood mitigation strategy which would maximise the development potential of the area, including opportunities for recreation and public amenity.

· The precinct has significant road congestion and the existing network is severely constrained, however subject to further detailed investigation, a more comprehensive strategy may be developed to improve transport and mobility, including road, public, and active transport infrastructure options.

Consultation Workshops

These finding were also informed by a number of workshops conducted by the Strategic Planning officers and consultant team, including workshops with internal officers from various department, councillors, state authorities, and landowners. Broader consultations will also take place, and further workshops will be organised as the strategy is refined

Next Steps

In the coming weeks, Council officers and consultants will undertake a more detailed investigation of traffic and transport options, precinct flood mitigation, options for mixed-use, with a view to finalising density targets for housing and employment, as well as the requisite infrastructure that may be required to support the transition to mixed use for the Georges River Precinct. Following this, the strategy for the Georges River Master Plan, with recommended actions, will be drafted and presented for Council’s consideration.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses. Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

203

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Committee Reports

CTTE 02

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 16 March 2016

Strategic Direction	Accessible Connected City Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network
Key Policy	Traffic and Transport Plan
File Ref	085388.2016
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 March 2016.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and adopts the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on
16 March 2016

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

REPORT

At its meeting on 16 March 2016, the Local Traffic Committee considered six agenda items and three technical discussion items. Minutes of the meeting are attached.

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

Summary of the Local Traffic Committee recommendations:

Item 1 Kurrajong Road and Old Kurrajong Road, Casula – Revised Design of an Approved Roundabout

The minutes on this item were considered by Council at its meeting on 30 March 2016. Further consideration is not required.

Item 2 Liverpool CBD – Special Community Event ‘Festival of Chariots’ – Request for Classification of the Event

1. Council approves classification of the event as a Class 2 Special Event with all associated conditions including a Traffic Management Plan, advertisement of event in the local papers, public liability insurance and Police approval.

2. Council notes the proposed closure of a portion of Bathurst Street car park for the event.

Item 3 Pine Road, Casula – Request for a Pedestrian Refuge

1. Council supports the proposed pedestrian refuge on Pine Road.

2. Council undertakes community consultation with the adjoining neighbours prior to construction.

3. Council advises the residents of Maple Grove Retirement Village of its resolution.

Item 4 College Street, Liverpool – Request for Additional Parking

1. Council approves modification of the existing No Stopping zone on the eastern side of College Street, in front of Liverpool TAFE College to provide nine (9) parking spaces including two (2) disabled spaces.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 5 Dalmatia Avenue, Buchan Avenue and Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park – Line Marking and Sign Posting in New Subdivisions

1. Council approves the proposed traffic facilities in Buchan Avenue, Edmondson Park.

2. Council approves the proposed facilities in Dalmatia Avenue, Edmondson Park, subject to the Roads and Maritime Services approval of a Traffic Management Plan.

Item 6 Greendale Road, Greendale – Request for Approval of Regulatory Signs and Line Marking

1. Council approves the signs and line marking scheme for Greendale Road upgrades as per Attachment 6.1.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

In addition to the above agenda items, the Committee considered the following three technical discussion items and the outcome of the discussion is summarised below:

Item TD1 Bird Walton Avenue, Middleton Grange – Proposed Temporary Full Road Closure

The Committee discussed and noted that the requested road closure (by TRN) will affect school bus services. Transport for NSW and the local bus company, i.e. Interline Bus Service will need to be informed of the requested road closures.

Item TD2 Redpa Close, West Hoxton – Request for Speed Calming

The RMS representative requested that Council investigates options to reduce speeding along Redpa Close, West Hoxton.

Item TD3 Elizabeth Street and Moore Street, Liverpool CBD – Request for Additional Parking

The Committee discussed the item and noted that Council will prepare a drawing of the existing and proposed parking provision along George Street, Moore Street and Elizabeth Street, in consultation with Transport for NSW for approval under delegated authority applications to NSW Police and the Roads and Maritime Services.

Budget Impact of Matters Arising from Minutes

Item	Description	Funding Arrangements
2	Liverpool CBD – Special Community Event ‘Festival of Chariots’ – Request for Classification of the Event.	To be funded by the event organisers
3	Pine Road, Casula – Request for a Pedestrian Refuge.	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Works Program
4	College Street, Liverpool – Request for Additional Parking.	RMS Block Grant
5	Dalmatia Avenue, Buchan Avenue and Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park – Line Marking and Sign Posting in New Subdivisions.	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Works Program
6	Greendale Road, Greendale – Request for Approval of Regulatory Signs and Line Marking.	Council’s Road Construction Program

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 March 2016 View (Under separate cover)

295
CTTE 06	Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 6 April 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of Planning and Development Committee Meeting 6 April 2016.DOCX

MINUTES OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING

6 April 2016

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ned Mannoun Mayor, Liverpool City Council

Toni Averay A/Chief Executive Officer

Peter Harle Councillor, Liverpool City Council

Geoff Shelton Councillor, Liverpool City Council

Mazar Hadid Councillor, Liverpool City Council

Tony Hadchiti Councillor, Liverpool City Council

OTHER ATTENDEES:

Lina Kakish A/Director Planning and Growth

Bruce Macnee Manager Strategic Planning

Stephen Joannidis Manager Development Engineering

David Smith A/Manager Development Assessment

Nada Mardini Manager Community Standards

Ash Chand Executive Planner

EXTERNAL ATTENDEES:

Adam Perrott Mirvac

Daniel Seraglio Mirvac

Ernest Dupere Benedict

MINUTE TAKER:

Sheela Naidu PA to Director Planning and Growth

APOLOGIES:

Nil

ITEM NO: 1

SUBJECT: WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

The meeting opened at 3.08pm

ITEM NO: 2

SUBJECT: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Shelton declared conflict of interest for item 5.3 Major DAs update on 45 Huntingdale Denham Court.

ITEM NO: 3

SUBJECT: Confirmation of Previous Minutes

The committee was advised that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 March 2016 were adopted on 14 March 2016.

ITEM NO: 4

SUBJECT: Business Arising from Previous Minutes

Nil

ITEM NO: 5.1

SUBJECT: Renbury Farm

Manager Community Standards provided a statistical update on the current usage of the Renbury Farm Facility by Council. It was noted that the pound owner does not wish to operate the pound and has offered Council the opportunity to lease the pound facility for a period of two years.

Various options and possible solutions were discussed and noted by the committee.

Council will continue to liaise with neighboring Councils to explore various options and aim for a regional solution. A report will be provided to council within 2 months with explored options.

ITEM NO: 5.2

SUBJECT: MIRVAC PRESENTATION – Subdivision Newbridge Road

Mirvac and Benedict representatives presented to Council their proposed approach to the current subdivision application and residential subdivision and the timing of the delivery of the collector road.

The committee discussed the presentation and various options but confirmed its position regarding the timing for the construction of the collector road.

Action: Officers to prepare summary of options and recommendations and circulate to the committee members. Matter to be further discussed at the next committee meeting.

ITEM NO: 5.3

SUBJECT: Major DAs Update

An update on the following DAs was provided to the committee:

· 45 Huntingdale Denham Court (Status of Class 1 appeal)

Councillor Shelton declared conflict of interest and was not present during the discussion of this item

· DA-131/2015 – 93 Nuwarra Road Moorebank

ITEM NO: 6

SUBJECT: GENERAL BUSINESS

Section 149 Update

The committee was updated on the current status of the 149 applications and issues in the current processes/procedures. The committee was informed that a detailed review of the current processes and procedures has been undertaken. The review has identified deficiencies in the processes and data integrity, resulting in delays in the issue of certificates. Changes to processes are being implemented and a project to address data integrity commenced.

Action: Further update on the progress to be provided at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting.

Close: The meeting closed at 5.30pm

303

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Questions with Notice

QWN 01

Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

087712.2016

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

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?

Council currently has on its register of Essential Services (copy attached) 74 council owned buildings which contain fire safety equipment. The equipment is inspected regularly and required to be certified annually. A number of these properties are due for annual certification. However, due to changes to building fire standards since these buildings were occupied, many existing buildings would not comply with current fire standards under the National Standards Codes (BCA). This would also be the case for many privately owned existing buildings. This is because it may not be practical or economically viable to upgrade these buildings to current standards; however, this does not mean the buildings are unsafe. To determine if Council owned buildings are compliant with the current fire standard and the extent of upgrade works needed, an audit of all the buildings would need to be carried out.

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?

Four of the identified pocket parks have been included for renewal/upgrade in Council's four year Delivery Plan. This includes Hazel Bradshaw Park and Tharawal Park which are scheduled for delivery in the 2016/17 financial year, and improvements to Ferrington Park and St Andrews Park to be delivered in financial years 2017/18 and 2018/19 respectively. Council staff have met onsite with residents to discuss a possible community garden at Wendlebury Park, Chipping Norton.

For the planned park upgrades identified in 2016/17 budget, community consultation will be undertaken onsite and using Liverpool Listens in the new financial year.

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?

Skate parks are important youth and family infrastructure. Liverpool currently has two existing smaller skate parks at Kelso Park (Moorebank) and Powell Park (Cartwright), and a third being constructed at Carnes Hill as part of the Community and Recreation Precinct. Council is spending approximately $160,000 on upgrading Kelso skate park to provide improved amenities and undertake a number of repairs to the park itself. Community engagement with young people undertaken by Council staff over the years has consistently identified a demand for additional skate parks across Liverpool.

Ideally, skate parks should be sited in a prominent location (i.e. close to major thoroughfare or town centre park), co-located with other social infrastructure (e.g. public transport, local shops, library, community facility etc) and supported by infrastructure such as car parking, public toilets, shade, drinking water and lighting. Best practice indicates that a small number of larger district level skate parks are better utilised by the community (catering for a broader age range), and are easier to manage and maintain.

Unfortunately, Jardine Park is unsuitable due to the size of the site, poor natural surveillance and lack of supporting amenities e.g. public toilets, parking, close to shops, public transport. However, there are a range of alternatives in the nearby vicinity including Phillips Park, Lurnea and Collingwood/Discovery Park, Liverpool that can meet the above principles and which can service Casula residents. Planning for Phillips Park is considering a skate park, whilst a forthcoming Recreation Strategy will identify a number of potential locations for future skate parks across Liverpool.

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?

The Park is named after the ‘Phillips’ family who lived in Lurnea (formerly Hillview) but was unfortunately, gazetted incorrectly as ‘Phillip’ Park in 1962. Mrs Margaret James nee Phillips has confirmed that the name of the park should indeed be ‘Phillips’. In light of this administrative error, recently installed park signage in the north east corner of park now says ‘Phillips’.

In light of this information, Council staff have written to the Geographical Names Board seeking to amend the naming to ‘Phillips’ Park”. Due action will be undertaken by Council once the approval is received from the Geographical Names Board.

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?

Legal advice was obtained by Council regarding the Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Area, which recommended Compliance action be taken regarding unauthorised works carried out on properties within the area. On this basis, Council officers issued orders on 7 properties. The prospects of success if these matters are challenged or enforced in the courts will depend on the merits of each case. There is currently one case that is in the process of court action which once determined, may set a precedent. Council officers will provide a further update of the outcome of the court proceedings once concluded.

Council resolved at its meeting in 28 October 2015 as follows:

1. Reinstate the Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Scheme and commit to purchasing a minimum of one property per year on a voluntary or compulsory basis within Council’s fiscal constraints;

2. Write to the State and Federal Government outlining the financial burden on Council and seeking additional funds to assist with acquisition costs;

3. Write to residents / owners affected by the Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Scheme and provide current information with regard to flood constraints, flood evacuation procedures and potential risks associated with living within a flood way;

4. Recommence compliance action against unauthorised building or structural works on properties within the Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Scheme area; and

5. Initiate a dialogue with emergency services regarding emergency procedures and related strategies to assist residents within the Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Scheme area.

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?

An issues and options report will be brought to the May Council meeting which provides options for truck parking provisions in rural areas. However, prior to this, the Councillors will be briefed on this matter at the May Planning and Development Committee.

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

Is Westfield’s complying with their TMP?

Last year, Council officers undertook an extensive search of Council’s records in an attempt to locate any development consents or approved plans/documents associated with the development of Westfield and any subsequent additions to the main building. Unfortunately, Council’s records for the site only relate to minor alterations and usage of shop applications, which provide no indication of approved traffic and access arrangements for the development.

Council officers have requested copies of development consents and approved plans for the main building and subsequent additions from Westfield; however, this information has not been forthcoming. Council officers will be meeting with Westfield to further discuss traffic concerns and request information relating to previous approvals to be submitted prior to the consideration of any development on the site which is considered to create traffic generation or exacerbate the existing traffic concerns.

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?

During previous discussions held between Council officers and Westfield regarding the traffic issue, Westfield committed to undertaking short-term improvements for traffic management, particularly during peak times (such as the Christmas period) and investigating long term solutions such as ticketless parking, with an expected delivery timeframe of 2017.

At the next meeting, Council officers will reiterate the need for Westfield to submit their previous approvals and commit to further traffic solutions in the short-term, to enable consideration of any further development on the site.

An update can be provided in respect to the outcomes of the discussions with Westfield once the meeting has been held.

Is Westfield’s complying with their DA?

Unfortunately, Council cannot be certain as to whether compliance with their DA for the main building is being achieved, as the consent and approved documentation has not been located as detailed above.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Owned Premises ‐ List of Essential Service Licences

309

Ordinary Meeting 27 April 2016

Questions with Notice

QWN 02

Question with Notice - Clr Shelton

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Long-Term Financial Plan

File Ref

087714.2016

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

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?

The current contractual agreement is that all waste currently collected from the kerbside will remain the property of Council, until deposited at the nominated disposal or recycling facility.

2. 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?

Should a container deposit scheme (CDS) be introduced as planned in 2017, it is anticipated that the amount of recyclable comingled containers collected from kerbside by Council would be significantly reduced, both within the residual waste and recycling streams.

As a result, it is envisaged that Council would stand to benefit in the following ways:

Financially

· Less recyclable beverage containers disposed of in the red-lid residual bin will result in a reduction of waste tonnage disposed of to landfill (and respectively, a reduction in the associated landfill disposal fees); and

· An increase in paper rebate amounts payable to Council, as a result of improved quality of the paper waste collected in the yellow-lid recycling bin (due to reduced contamination from beverage containers).

Operationally

· The reduction of waste volumes within both residual and recycling collection vehicles would enable more kerbside collections to occur, thereby reducing overall operational and maintenance costs; and

· A reduced volume of litter to be collected by Council Litter Collection staff members resulting in increased efficiency and allowing litter hotspots to be targeted quicker.

Aesthetically

· Increased aesthetics of the local natural and built environments due to a reduction of litter volumes.

The position of WSROC, as a representative body of Western Sydney Councils, is that a refund CDS, similar to the model currently operating in South Australia, be established here in New South Wales to minimise the logistical and administrative burden of running such a scheme. Liverpool City Council supports this view.

Ideally, as proposed by WSROC, “Local Government should be able to claim deposits on materials collected via the kerbside system. Bulk redemptions by local government enables the whole community to participate, even if householders choose not to individually redeem the deposit”. (WSROC Submission NSW Container Deposit Scheme: Discussion Paper Review, February 2016).

It has not yet been determined as to how the CDS will actually be implemented as the South Australian CDS was operational prior to the introduction of kerbside recycling service, whereas here in New South Wales, a CDS is to be enacted in conjunction with an already well-established kerbside recycling practice. Reference is unable to be made with a comparative Australian situation.

3. 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.

Reference is unable to be made to any estimates or calculations (relating specifically to New South Wales) in respect to the increased value of waste where a deposit (or similar) is recoverable.

It is, however, estimated that more than 2 billion plastic bottles are littered every year in NSW (Local Government NSW: Understanding the potential impacts of CDS on Local Government Kerbside Collection).

This same report stated that, based on a study commissioned by the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW and released in 2012, it was found that, should a CDS be introduced in NSW that:

· Kerbside recycling would contain 17% less material;

· 5% of the material in the remaining kerbside bin would be unreturned CDS material;

· Material Recycling Facility (MRF) revenues would be 31% higher (due to the value of unredeemed deposits);

· Recycling is likely to result in a payment (as opposed to a charge to Councils at the MRF gate;

· Council’s overall recycling costs would be reduced by 19-47%; and

· NSW council could save $23 to $62 million annually on recycling costs.

The current diversion rate of recyclables from landfill attributed to kerbside recycling should not be discounted and the introduction of a CDS, however it is implemented, would only assist in increasing this diversion rate.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

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

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

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.

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

137
CFO 01	Investment Report March 2016
Attachment 2	Performance Graph Actual to Budget March 2016

205
CTTE 01	Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 7 March 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of meeting

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Improve the community’s sense of safety in Liverpool
Key Policy	Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy
File Ref	085853.2016
Report By	Kamrun Rahman - Community Development Worker (Community Safety)
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

209
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee held on Thursday 3 March, 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee meeting held on 3 March 2016

Economic and Financial	The activities of the Committee support Council’s efforts to further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.
Environmental and Sustainability	Environmental and sustainability considerations will be factored into urban design for key City Centre precincts.
Social and Cultural	Revitalisation of the City Centre will embrace a range of arts and space activation opportunities, with the “Sari Street” activation projects an example of such activity.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The Committee provides guidance for Council’s Building Our New City Projects.

215
CTTE 04	Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 6 April 2016
Attachment 1	MINUTES Building Our New City Committee 6 April 2016 FINAL

241
CTTE 05	Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 April 2016
Attachment 1	MINUTES Economic Development and Events Committee 6 April 2016 FINAL

259
CTTE 05	Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 April 2016
Attachment 3	PRESENTATION ePlanning

279
CTTE 05	Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 April 2016
Attachment 4	PRESENTATION Street Art on Eat Street

Economic and Financial	There are no significant 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.

Economic and Financial	The Committee for Liverpool will provide important external perspectives to Council in pursuing its economic development and marketing activities. Costs will be incurred in using the services of Taylor Advisory Services to support the Committee as well as minor meeting costs
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no specific environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	The group will if and as required be able to provide external perspectives on relevant social and cultural matters.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The Committee for Liverpool is an important leadership initiative for Liverpool Council.

305
CTTE 07	Minutes of Committee for Liverpool Meeting held 1 March 2016
Attachment 1	MINUTES Committee for Liverpool 1 March 2016 FINAL