COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

25 May 2016

 

FRANCIS GREENWAY CENTRE

170 GEORGE STREET LIVERPOOL


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby notified that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held at the Francis Greenway Centre, 170 George Street, Liverpool on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 commencing at 6.00pm. Doors to the Francis Greenway Centre will open at 5.50pm.

 

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

 

 

 

 


Michael Cullen

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 

 


Opening

Prayer

Apologies 

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 April 2016..................................................................... 8

ExtraordinaryCouncil Meeting held on 04 May 2016............................................................. 75

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Notices of Motion

NOM 01          Wests Tigers................................................................................................... 88......... 1

NOM 02          Federal Election – Werriwa............................................................................. 91......... 2

NOM 03          Community Q & A.......................................................................................... 94......... 3

NOM 04          Universities In Liverpool ................................................................................. 97......... 4

NOM 05          Development Applications Lodged By Councillors & Their Associates......... 99......... 5

NOM 06          Overseas Travel........................................................................................... 101......... 6

NOM 07          Referral of Draft Budget for Public Exhibition.............................................. 103......... 7

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01          DA-675/2015 - 15 Lot Torrens Title subdivision of proposed Lot 2215 (DA-582/2014), with the construction of a dwelling on each lot at Lot 2 Camden Valley Way, Edmonson Park.                                                                                                                       105......... 8

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01          Corporate Sponsorships............................................................................... 113......... 9

 

Business Improvement Report

NIL

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01           Investment Report April 2016....................................................................... 127....... 10

CFO 02           Review of Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy .......................................... 135....... 11

CFO 03           Privacy Policy............................................................................................... 158....... 12

CFO 04           Budget Review - March 2016....................................................................... 161....... 13

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 City Council Sporting Grants Program 2015/2016....................... 190....... 14

Economic Development Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

NIL

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01          Parking of trucks on rural properties............................................................ 195....... 15

DPG 02          Second Council Report noting Public Exhibtion and Endorsment of Miller Town Centre Master Plan .................................................................................................. 203....... 16

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01         Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes of 4 May 2016... 225....... 17

CTTE 02         Recommendations of the Street Naming Committee Meeting.................... 231....... 18

CTTE 03         Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 4 May 2016... 241....... 19

Questions with Notice

QWN 01         Question with Notice - Clr Stanley................................................................ 253....... 20

QWN 02         Question with Notice - Clr Shelton................................................................ 254....... 21  

Questions Taken on Notice

Presentations by Councillors

Council in Closed Session

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

 

CONF 01   Tender for Environmental Health Regulatory Inspections

Reason:     Item CONF 01 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 02   ST2450 Provision of Lift Maintenance Services

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   ST2518– Off Site Records Storage and Management Services

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   Approval for Works-In-Kind Tender for DA-435/2010 and DA-582/2014

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

 

CONF 05   Recommended Action Concerning Resolution - 2016/17 Budget (Item CEO 01, 4 May 2016)

Reason:     Item CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(g) of the Local Government Act because it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

CONF 06   Update on CEO 01 and CFO 01 from the Extraordinary Council meeting 4 May 2016

Reason:     Item CONF 06 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) (c) (d i) (d ii) (d iii) (e) (g) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors); AND information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed reveal a trade secret; AND information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.  

Close

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 27 April 2016

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Mamone

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Councillor Stanley

Councillor Waller

Mr Michael Cullen, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Dr Eddie Jackson, Acting Director Community and Culture

Mr Wayne Carter, Director City Presentation

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Carole Todd, Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

 

 

.

The meeting commenced at 6.04pm

 

 

OPENING                               6.04pm

PRAYER                                The prayer of the Council was read by Reverend Stuart Pearson from St Lukes Anglican Church.

APOLOGIES                          Nil

CONDOLENCES                   Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Mamone            Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 30 March 2016 be confirmed as a true
record of that meeting.

 

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

Declarations of Interest

 

Clr Shelton declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

 

Item:          CTTE 06 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 6 April 2016

 

Reason:     Clr Shelton has business dealings with a party referred to in the report.

 

Clr Shelton left the Chamber for the duration of the item.

 

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

 

Item:          CFO 04 Local Government NSW Board Elections

 

Reason:     Clr Hadid is a member of the Local Government NSW Board.

 

Clr Hadid remained in the Chamber for the duration of the item.

 

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

 

Item:          NOM 03 Western Sydney Women

 

Reason:     Clr Ristevski has previously had a relationship with Ms Amanda Rose.

 

Clr Ristevski remained in the Chambers for the duration of the item.

Public Forum

 

Presentation – items not on agenda

 

  1. Ms Vicki Andrews addressed Council on the following matter:

 

Lack of Heritage Officer, Museum Curator, Family History Coordinator and the Draft Heritage Study: Potential Heritage Items

 

Motion:                         Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

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

 

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

 

Representation – items on agenda

 

1.    Ms Jennifer Fitzgerald  addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item 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.

 

2.    Ms Carole Bennett addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item 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.

 

3.    Ms Marella Harris addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item NOM 01: Malek Fahd Islamic School

 

Motion:                         Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

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

 

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

 

4.    Ms Tracey Liondas addressed Council on the following item:

 

Item NOM 05: Athletics Track

 

Motion:                         Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to MS Liondas.

 

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

 

5.    Ms  Nazia Pokar addressed Council in support of the following application:

 

Item IHAP 04: DA-599/2015 – Two lot Torrens title subdivision, retention of existing house on Lot 1 and construction of new house on Lot 2 at 17 Balanada Ave, Chipping Norton

 

Motion:                         Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

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

 

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


 

Mayoral Report

 

ITEM NO:       MAYOR 01

FILE NO:        101026.2016

SUBJECT:     Infrastructure coming to Liverpool

 

 

Liverpool has received two exciting new announcements about prospective infrastructure coming to Liverpool.

 

We now have confirmations from both State and Federal government that serious consideration is being given to establishing an extension of the South West Metro from Bankstown to Liverpool and a fast train connecting Badgerys Creek with Greater Sydney.

 

The commitment of Council to ensure Liverpool is not left out when it comes to major infrastructure is being fulfilled through the tireless efforts of the community and council staff calling for the South West to be recognised as a major hub for the future of Sydney.

 

Consultation between the State Government and the Liverpool Community for a planned City Metro route from Bankstown to Liverpool takes us another step forward in having fast and effective transport to and from the CBD.

 

A metro train cutting travel times to 30 - 40 minutes will make Liverpool more accessible and bring more jobs and more business to our booming city.

 

On the 11th March Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also announced plans for a high speed rail connection between Badgerys Creek and the Sydney CBD ensuring that our future airport will be accessible to all.

 

This fast rail connection will be pivotal to the success of the Western Sydney Airport and will provide the ground work for future development and prosperity in the area.

 

The success of Parramatta Council in creating a second major CBD in Sydney involving billions of dollars of state infrastructure is largely due to the willingness of councillors to generate growth and support for their region.

 

Liverpool needs to follow the example set by Parramatta and create the third major city of Sydney where the government can invest in infrastructure and entertainment venues for the benefit of our residents.

 

Liverpool certainly has this potential and the State Government is taking notice of what we have to offer.

 

We need to continue to expand this city to encourage greater involvement from both private enterprise and government agencies.

 

We have the ability to grow Liverpool from east to west to Badgerys Creek Airport.

 

The rail lines are already in place for an express service from Parramatta to Campbelltown, running through Liverpool and connecting the major centres of Sydney’s West.

 

Travel times can be slashed to 10 – 15 minutes between Sydney’s Western hubs and there is potential to continue infrastructure development to Penrith.

 

If council maintains a vision of growth and development in Liverpool we can fulfil our destiny to be a new centre of Sydney.

 

The two announcements from the Federal and State Governments give Liverpool the right base for our future.

 

As Councillors we must ensure we cultivate and protect that future.

 

Our residents voted for us to ensure Liverpool would position itself as a leader in the vast city of Greater Sydney and we now have that opportunity.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Congratulates the State and Federal governments for their initiative and foresight to provide the infrastructure for Liverpool’s future.

 

2.   Congratulates the residents of Liverpool and council staff who worked hard to lobby the State and Federal Governments for these projects.

 

3.   Commits to supporting these new projects allowing the growth and development of Liverpool as another centre of Greater Sydney with the interests of our residents at the heart.

 

4.   Lobbies the State Government for an express train service running north to south from Parramatta to Campbelltown through Liverpool.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


 

Mayoral REPORT

 

ITEM NO:       MAYOR 02

FILE NO:        108964.2016

SUBJECT:     Recognition of Staff Achievement

 

 

Tonight I would like to warmly congratulate two valued members of council staff; Lina Kakish, Manager of Development Assessment, and Tina Sangiuliano, Manager of Children’s Services.

 

They have both received high acclaim and awards from the NSW Local Government authorities.

 

Tina has turned our child care businesses around since taking the helm of Children’s Services earning her the 2016 Minister’s award for Women in Local Government.

 

Her predominantly female team dedicated to helping care for local children, has done an exceptional job in lifting our child care centres above and beyond national industry standards.

 

 Her commitment to her work is truly inspirational and worthy of the praise she is receiving.

 

Lina, was recognised by Local Government Professionals NSW, as an emerging leader for her aspirational work developing new trainees in council.

 

She was also praised for her successful role in overseeing Liverpool Council’s E-planning system that has brought development application processing times down to just four days.

 

Lina is a key member of our managerial team and her work in important areas ensures that Liverpool grows to its full potential as a skyline city for all of the South West.

 

Lina is now a finalist in the National Local Government Awards in the category of Emerging Leaders.

 

We wish her every success in the finals and put on the record that we are grateful for her dedication to the Council and her skill as a leader of our planning staff.

Recognition of these two hard-working women in our council demonstrates that some of the state’s best talent is here in Liverpool, leading the way in good governance and equality in our area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council acknowledge and congratulate Lina Kakish and Tina Sangiuliano for their recent accolades.

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

 

ITEM NO:       NOMR 01

FILE NO:        091369.2016

SUBJECT:     Rescission NOM 02 - Delegations Of The Mayor from Council meeting 30 March 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 Mayor’s message in the monthly Newsletter with a Councillors message featuring a story from each Councillor.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.7 Mayoral Minutes

 

2.7.1 What is a mayoral minute?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

 

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

 

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the resolution relating to item NOM 02 - Delegations Of The Mayor, from Council meeting 30 March 2016 be rescinded.

 

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

 

 

Motion to Bring Forward Items

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That IHAP 01, IHAP 02, IHAP 03, IHAP 04, CFO 05, DPG 01, DPG 02, DPG 03 and DPG 04  be moved forward and dealt with now.

 

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


 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

 

 ITEM NO:     IHAP 01

FILE NO:        085064.2016

SUBJECT:     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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

 

Vote against:                         Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 


Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 7.02pm.

 

Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 7.03pm.

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 02

FILE NO:        085303.2016

SUBJECT:     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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Waller                Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That:

 

  1. Council approve DA-991/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent attached to the Council officers IHAP report (Attachment 2) and the additional condition referred to in point 2 below.

 

  1. The minimum height of trees be 3 metres when planted and it be considered that the relevant Council policy be amended to reflect this.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Clr Stanley

 


Clr Mamone left the Chambers at 7.12pm.

 

Clr Mamone returned to the Chambers at 7.17pm.

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 03

FILE NO:        085557.2016

SUBJECT:     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.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That Council refuses Development Application DA-131/2015 for the following reasons:

 

1.    The development does not comply with the building separation requirements of the Residential Flat Design Code resulting in unacceptable urban form, amenity and privacy impacts.

 

2.    The application is not in the public interest.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded:  Clr Mamone

 

That Council defer this item to allow the applicant to address the non-compliances.

 

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Mayor Mannoun) was declared LOST.

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Stanley 

 

Vote against:                         Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Waller

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Karnib 

                                                Clr Waller 

 

Vote against:               Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski 

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Mamone

 

Vote against:               Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Waller

 

The approval motion (moved by Clr Hadchiti) be recommitted and voted on again.

 

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

 

The motion to adopt the recommendation (moved by Clr Hadchiti) was then voted on again and on being put to the meeting was declared CARRIED.

 

Vote for:                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Waller

 

 

Vote against:                         Mayor Mannoun 

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

 

 


Mayor Mannoun left the Chambers at 7.32pm and the Deputy Mayor, Clr Hadchiti took the Chair.

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 04

FILE NO:        085691.2016

SUBJECT:     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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the matter be deferred for the applicant to work with Council officers to provide a design which can be supported.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Mayor Mannoun) was declared LOST.

 

Vote for:                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

 

Vote against:               Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Stanley

                                                Clr Waller

 

 

Vote against:                         Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                               

 Note: Mayor Mannoun was not in the Chamber when this item was voted on.


Mayor Mannoun returned to the Chambers at 7.34pm.

 

Clr Stanley left the Chambers at 7.34pm.

 

Clr Karnib left the Chambers at 7.35pm.

 

Clr Stanley returned to the Chambers at 7.37pm.

 

Clr Karnib returned to the Chambers at 7.37pm.

 

Clr Waller left the Chambers at 7.39pm.

 

Clr Waller returned to the Chambers at 7.41pm.

 

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 8.09pm.

 

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 8.10pm.

 

Clr Mamone left the Chambers at 8.11pm.

 

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 8.13pm.

 

Clr Mamone returned to the Chambers at 8.14pm.

 

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 8.16pm.

 

Clr Waller left the Chambers at 8.30pm.

 

Clr Waller returned to the Chambers at 8.32pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 05

FILE NO:        091641.2016

SUBJECT:     Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (Including Revenue Pricing Policy)

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

 

1.   Places the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan including the draft 2016-17  Budget and Revenue Pricing Policy (Schedule of Fees and Charges) on public exhibition for a period of 28 days to allow for public comments and submissions.

 

2.   Receives a further report after a review of public submissions at the June Council meeting

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That:

1.    A report (in relation to point 1) to come back to an Extraordinary Council meeting on the reduction of costs and options on how the deficit can be reduced by the CEO in the following areas:

 

i.              reducing the Business Improvement Directorate budget by $250,000

ii.             reducing the CEOs budget by $100,000 in the research area.

iii.            reducing the Strategic Communications & Research budget by 50% and/or $570,000 whichever is higher.

 

2.    Eliminate expenditure on all consultants in the Strategic Communications and Research budget.

 

3.    Redirect the money from item 1 above to employ six new staff for the Carnes Hill Library rather than redeploy staff from our existing libraries which will put a strain on our resources and impact services to the community.

 

4.    Eliminate the $500,000 efficiency savings from the budget numbers as these numbers are not real and cannot be quantified.

 

5.    Eliminate the $800,000 efficiency savings from salaries as there is no specific detail behind the reality of these numbers. At a time when we are already short staffed in many of our front line services, we cannot put at risk our service level agreements with our ratepayers.

 

6.    No rates are to be increased via the domestic waste charge with savings to come from departments and options to be presented by the CEO at the next Council meeting rather than our ratepayers bearing this cost.

 

7.    Review the $1,425,000 asbestos cleanup cost item in the budget to show supporting working papers on how that item was determined. Considering that $5,000,000 has been spent in this financial year and that the total cleanup cost are estimated around $13,000,000, this item needs to be verified. A report is to be provided at the next Council meeting on the estimated clean-up costs of asbestos over the next 5 years. How these numbers were determined considering 6 months ago Councillors were advised that it wasn't even a $1. 

 

 

8.    No funding to be allocated to the stadium proposal from the budget given the concerns of Oasis in the past and its impact on the budget. Let’s not forget that an Administrator was appointed to the Council when our rates went through the roof to pay for the Oasis. This motion will protect ratepayers from the risk associated with the Mayor’s stadium funding model as our rates are one of the highest in SW Sydney. If we have $400m to spend on a stadium let’s spend it on rates relief, roads and parks. Council writes to all media in particular the Liverpool Leader and Daily Telegraph advising them of same.

 

9.    Remove all funding for the night markets until the budget is brought back to surplus.

 

10.  Charge a commercial rent on the coffee shop immediately as the current annual rental is only $1.

 

11.  A 12 month freeze on all non-essential frontline service consultant fees.

 

12.  Reduce the expenditure of the Destination Management Plan by $200,000.

 

13.  Delete participation in the US studies project and cease all payments to the Mayor advisor Professor Blakely – (that’s over $65,000 a year currently).

 

14.  Mayoral ball to be cost neutral (whatever gets raised is donated over the redemption of costs of the event.)

 

15.  50% reduction of funding to Starry Sari night whilst the budget is in deficit.

 

16.  Cease budget funding for CCTV whilst the budget is in deficit (this is housed in the police station and has not reduced crime as it was being reduced anyway).

 

17.  A complete analysis of the budget item listed as additional salary savings depot of $1.2m focusing on how it was calculated and what impact this will have on front line services?

 

18.  Council prepare and submit a reconciliation for the period from 1 July 2015 to 31 January 2016 showing total payments to Propel and details of the savings achieved for the same period focusing on:

 

i.      breakdown of how the savings were generated

ii.     confirm that these savings were made from the first month of the operation of the Alliance

iii.    Council provide a breakdown of all expenses incurred by Council relating to Propel employed staff for the period 1 July 2015 to date and details on whether Council was reimbursed for these costs

iv.   confirm if a substantial payment was made to Propel in January 2016

v.    confirm if a purchase order for $48,000 to buy laptops for the Propel employed management team was raised this month and paid by our ratepayers.

 

19.  The above changes to be incorporated into a new budget with the changes to be brought back to an Extraordinary Council meeting for review.

 

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Mayor Mannoun) was declared LOST.

 

Division called:

 

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

 

 

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

 

Division called:

 

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

 

 

Mayor Mannoun called for a recess of Council at 8.52pm.

 

The meeting reopened at 9.15pm.

 


Planning and Growth Report

 

ITEM NO:       DPG 01

FILE NO:        057064.2016

SUBJECT:     Draft Heritage Study: Potential Heritage Items

 

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 .

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That Council defer item DGP 01 to the Heritage Advisory Committee for consultation.

 

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

 

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       DPG 02

FILE NO:        072649.2016

SUBJECT:     Advertising Structures and Signage

 

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       DPG 03

FILE NO:        076123.2016

SUBJECT:     Car parking rates for industrial development

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       DPG 04

FILE NO:        089125.2016

SUBJECT:     Georges River Precinct Plan - Progress Update

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


Notices of Motion

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 01

FILE NO:        085939.2016

SUBJECT:     Malek Fahd Islamic School

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Amendment:                         Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Mamone

 

That Council use the Compliance Levy to engage external compliance officers to work with  a senior officer of Council to ensure compliance conditions are met and to ensure the independence of the results and that all issues raised by the resident who spoke on this matter at this Council meeting are addressed.

 

On being put to the meeting the Amendment (moved by Clr Ristevski) was declared CARRIED.

 

The Amendment then became the motion and on being put to the meeting was declared CARRIED.

 

Mayor Mannoun, Clr Balloot, Clr Hadchiti and Clr Hadid asked that they be recorded as voting for the original motion.

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       NOM 02

FILE NO:        088245.2016

SUBJECT:     Committee for Liverpool

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That this item be deferred and considered at the Extraordinary Council meeting in conjunction with CFO 05 from this meeting.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       NOM 03

FILE NO:        099000.2016

SUBJECT:     Western Sydney Women

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Mamone            Seconded: Clr Ristevski

 

That Council:

 

  1. Notes that:

 

a.    late last year a Women’s Forum was adopted by Council in order to formulate some synergies between public and private enterprises with the focus of empowering and supporting women at a Local Government level.

 

b.    that this forum was postponed for the first half of 2016 as the date set clashed with Parliamentary sitting dates and questions around amalgamations.

 

c.    the new date for the Women’s Forum has now been scheduled for June and invitations are being sent out

 

  1. Advertises on its website and Facebook page that it will be holding a Women’s Forum with its new scheduled date.

 

  1. Invites Ms Amanda Rose or a representative of Western Sydney Women, and members of NSW ALGWA to the forum and liaise with Ms Amanda Rose and Western Sydney Women to address the forum.

 

  1. Create a bio flyer of all the Women Councillors in the history of Liverpool and send to all ratepayers prior to the event.

 

Note: The CFO advised that it would cost approximately $1 to $2 per household to send a flyer to all 50,000 households and Mayor Mannoun asked that this comment be noted in the Minutes.

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

Division called:

 

Vote for:                                Clr Mamone

Clr Harle

Clr Karnib

Clr Ristevski

Clr Stanley

Clr Waller

 

Vote against:                         Mayor Mannoun

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Shelton

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       NOM 04

FILE NO:        099010.2016

SUBJECT:     National Barefoot Water Ski Championships

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That Council:

 

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

 

2.   Notify the club of Council grants to encourage residents to attend their “Come & try” days

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       NOM 05

FILE NO:        099870.2016

SUBJECT:     Athletics Track

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 01

FILE NO:        065967.2016

SUBJECT:     Corporate Sponsorships

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Waller                Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

Chief Financial Officer

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 01

FILE NO:        086832.2016

SUBJECT:     Investment Report March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

                       

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CFO 02

FILE NO:        088366.2016

SUBJECT:     Comparative Analytical Report: Net Operating Result 2014-15

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes contents of this paper.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


Clr Mamone left the Chambers at 10.05pm.

 

Clr Mamone returned to the Chambers at 10.07pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 03

FILE NO:        090072.2016

SUBJECT:     Mayors' weekend seminar

 

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the LGNSW be thanked for their invitation to the Mayor’s weekend seminar and Council decline the offer.

 

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

 

Clr Mamone retired from the meeting at 10.08pm

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CFO 04

FILE NO:        090450.2016

SUBJECT:     Local Government NSW Board Elections

 

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. 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:Clr Hadid                  Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council endorse the same 8 voters, as per the Council resolution on 26 August 2015 (being Mayor Mannoun, Clr Balloot, Clr Hadchiti, Clr Hadid, Clr Harle, Clr Karnib, Clr Mamone and Clr Ristevski) as its voting representatives for the forthcoming LGNSW Board election, and in addition nominate Clr Shelton and Clr Waller.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

 

Community and Culture Report

 

ITEM NO:       DCC 01

FILE NO:        092509.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Sporting Donations

 

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

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       DCC 02

FILE NO:        099180.2016

SUBJECT:     Quick Response Grants

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Balloot               Seconded: Clr Waller

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

Infrastructure and Environment Report

 

ITEM NO:       DIEN 01

FILE NO:        089100.2016

SUBJECT:     Trapping of Indian Myna Birds

 

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Waller

 

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.      Provide a link on the Council website to relevant information about Indian Myna birds.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


Clr Shelton left the Chambers at 10.12pm.

 

Committee Reports

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 01

FILE NO:        079603.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 7 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 7 March 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 02

FILE NO:        085388.2016

SUBJECT:     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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 03

FILE NO:        085853.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee held on Thursday 3 March, 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday, 3 March 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 04

FILE NO:        090188.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 6 April 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Building our New City Committee Meeting held on 6 April 2016.

 

2.   Notes the Committee endorsed the Public Projection Strategy presented at the Committee meeting.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 05

FILE NO:        091823.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 April 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the Minutes of the Economic Development and Events Committee held on 6 April 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 06

FILE NO:        095502.2016

SUBJECT:     Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 6 April 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee Meeting held on 6 April 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 07

FILE NO:        100072.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Committee for Liverpool Meeting held 1 March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Committee for Liverpool Meeting held on 1 March 2016.

 

2.   Endorses the addition of Louise Courtney (Department of Premier and Cabinet), Lillian Saleh (The Sunday Telegraph), Lee Hagipantelis (Brydens) and Michael Parkinson (Ingham Property Group) to the membership of the Committee for Liverpool.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


Clr Shelton returned to the Chambers at 10.13pm.

 

Questions with Notice

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 01

FILE NO:        087712.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti

 

Please address the following:

 

1.    Council owns many buildings.

Are all these buildings compliant with the current fire standards?

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

 

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.

 


 

ITEM NO:       QWN 02

FILE NO:        087714.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Shelton

 

Please address the following:

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 


 

ITEM NO:       QWN 03

FILE NO:        087718.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Harle

 

Please address the following:

 

1.   Questions relating to the Civic List:

 

a.   How current is the civic list?

b.   How far back does it go?

c.   Are invites to council events extended to all individuals on the civic list?

 

The most comprehensive invite list is a list of over 400 people compiled when inviting people to the 2015 Christmas function.

 

It includes current and former Mayors and Councillors, Members of Parliament, Committee representatives, various government and non-government organisations and representatives, including companies and representatives who have sponsored or attended previous Council events, members of the Civic Advisory Committee and other community stakeholders.

 

This list is regularly updated and tailored specifically according to the nature, purpose and size of the event.  As such, there isn’t “one” civic list.

 

Council staff are working on a “Civic Events and Ceremonial Functions Policy” which will be presented to Councillors in the next month or so.  This policy will aim to address the planning procedure for civic events and ceremonial functions.

 

2.   Questions relating to the Propel Management System:

 

a.   How much money does propel receive per month?

b.   How is the money paid?

 

Propel payments are paid via invoice, LCC has made a net payment of $323,012 to January 2016 on average $46,000 per month.

 

The net budget position is zero as payments are made from savings on the contract.

 


 

ITEM NO:       QWN 04

FILE NO:        099886.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Stanley

 

 

Please address the following:

 

Can an update be provided on the Wests Tigers plans to move to the fields at Carnes Hill.

 

When is this likely to happen?

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the May 2016 business papers.

 


ITEM NO:       QWN 05

FILE NO:        099906.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Shelton

 

Please address the following:

 

1.    What is currently the average interval of time to process an application for a certificate a. under s.149(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and b. an application for a certificate under s.149(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Please answer separately with respect to residential, commercial/industrial and rural property.    

 

2.    Please give the same figures for April of 2015.

 

3.    Please give the same figures for April of 2014.

 

4.    Please give the same figures for April of 2013.

 

5.    Please provide a qualitative description of changes in staffing levels for this function over the years identified.

 

6.    Is the turnaroud time for such certificates a performance criteria, of any description, under the Propel terms of engagement. Also, having regard to the Propel terms of engagement is Council actually able to formally set goals for the turnaround of these certificates. These two question may be answered under confidential cover if considered appropriate.

 

7.    Looking to the future what are the goals of Council generally as to the turnaround time for these certificates. Are these goals or will these goals be recorded in any written policy of Council, and if so please identify as much.

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the May 2016 business papers.

 

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       DPG 05

FILE NO:        075691.2016

SUBJECT:     Planning Agreement Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Endorses the principles of the draft Planning Agreement Policy.

 

2.   Exhibits the draft Planning Agreement Policy.

 

3.   Notes that a report be brought back to Council following exhibition of the draft policy.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       DPG 06

FILE NO:        083466.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool City Centre Contributions Plan Review

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Exhibits the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2016 – Liverpool City Centre; and

 

2.   Notes that a report will be brought back to Council following exhibition of the draft plan.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council:

 

1.   Exhibits the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2016 – Liverpool City Centre; and

 

  1. Notes that a report will be brought back to Council following exhibition of the draft plan.

 

3.  Investigate staging payments over the progress of the development.

 

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

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       DPG 07

FILE NO:        084561.2016

SUBJECT:     Revised Contributions Plan for Established Areas

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Exhibits the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2016 – Established Areas;

 

2.   Notes that a study will be undertaken to assess the likely impact that the proposed levy would have on the economic feasibility of development in the established areas; and

 

3.   Notes that a report will be brought back to Council following exhibition of the draft plan.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       CONF 01

FILE NO:        088095.2016

SUBJECT:     Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Waller                Seconded: Clr Stanley

 

That:

 

  1. Council endorses the applicants outlined in the table below as members of the Liverpool Access Committee.

 

Name

Suburb

Representation Category

Harley Davidson 

Lurnea

Category 1

Peter Fraser

Liverpool

Category 1

Jim Simpson

Liverpool

Category 1

Andy Watts         

Austral

Category 1

Olilie Lassen

Ashcroft

Category 1

Lyn Bright  

Minto

Category 2

Ellie Robertson

Holsworthy

Category 3

Jane Chigley

Liverpool

Category 3

Sean Langshaw  

Green Valley

Category 3

Rebecca Scirolli

Lurnea

Category 3

 

2.    The Charter read, “that the quorum be 5 including one Councillor”.

 

3.    The Charter read under “Membership”, “The Mayor (or their delegate) and a Councillor nominated by Council. This can be the same Councillor”.

 

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

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CONF 02

FILE NO:        088233.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.       In accordance with Section 178(1)(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation, declines to accept any of the tenders for ST2529 – Design and Documentation of Carnes Hill North Sporting Precinct and cancels the proposal for the contract.

2.       Makes public its decision regarding Tender ST2529 – Design and Documentation of Carnes Hill North Sporting Precinct.

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council:

 

1.      In accordance with Section 178(1)(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation, declines to accept any of the tenders for ST2529 – Design and Documentation of Carnes Hill North Sporting Precinct and cancels the proposal for the contract.

 

2.      Makes public its decision regarding Tender ST2529 – Design and Documentation of Carnes Hill North Sporting Precinct.

 

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

 

4.      Supports officers endeavours to seek reimbursement from the Wests Tigers for the time spent on this application.

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 10.30pm.

 

Clr Waller left the Chambers at 10.32pm.

 

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 10.34pm.

 

Clr Waller returned to the Chambers at 10.34pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 03

FILE NO:        091846.2016

SUBJECT:     Waste Management Audit and Process Review Update

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       CONF 04

FILE NO:        094902.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Civic Place Project, 52 Scott Street, Liverpool - Development Update and Vacant Possession

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Agrees to the Vacant Possession agreements with the two existing tenants at 52 Scott Street, Liverpool, as outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.    Authorises the Acting Chief Executive Officer, or his/her nominee, to negotiate and/or formalise both Vacant Possession agreements as outlined in the confidential report;

 

3.    Notes the executed Heads of Agreement with a prominent educational facility to lease space within 33 Moore Street, Liverpool and within the LCPP, once completed;

 

4.    Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the Vacant Possession agreements pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; and

 

5.    Authorises the funding for the Vacant Possession agreement to be sourced from the General Property Reserve.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded:  Clr Stanley

 

That:

 

  1. Council write to the State Government and University requesting that they pay for any costs associated with lease terminations on 52 Scott St, Liverpool.

 

2.    A new valuation be conducted based on actual numbers and not assumptions and information be tabled at the Extraordinary Council meeting to discuss the impact of the budget.

 

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

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       CONF 05

FILE NO:        095983.2016

SUBJECT:     PQ2517 Design and Construct Artwork - Carnes Hill

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.       Accept the Tender from Tilt Industrial Design Pty Ltd for Tender PQ2517 – Design and Construct Artwork for Carnes Hill Recreation and Community Precinct at the price specified in the confidential report.

2.       Makes public its decision regarding tender PQ2517 – Design and Construct Artwork at Carnes Hill Recreation and Community Precinct.

3.       Notes that the Acting Chief Executive Officer (or his delegate) will finalise all details and sign the Letter of Acceptance following publication of draft Minutes on Council website for the tender, giving it contractual effect, in accordance with delegated authority.

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

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 

 


ITEM NO:       CONF 06

FILE NO:        096058.2016

SUBJECT:     ST2492 – Leisure Centre Management

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Decline to accept any tenders for ST2492 - Leisure Centre Management.

 

2.    In accordance with Section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, enter into negotiations with Belgravia Leisure Pty Ltd and YMCA NSW with the view to entering into a contract for the E.G Whitlam Leisure Centre and the Michael Wenden Aquatic Leisure Centre.

 

3.    In accordance with Section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, enter into negotiations with any person(s) or parties for the purchase of any equipment and services required for the operation and management of the Carnes Hill Recreation Centre, with a view to entering into a contract, or series of contracts, directed at facilitating the management and operation of that centre.

 

4.    Delegate to the Acting Chief Executive Officer all necessary authority to finalise and execute a contract with the parties ultimately determined to present the best value for provision of the specified services.

 

5.    In accordance with Section 178 (4)  of the Local Government Regulations states its reasons for entering into negotiations as follows:

 

a.    By further negotiation with Belgravia Leisure Pty Ltd and YMCA NSW, a value for money proposition for Council can be achieved for the Whitlam and Wenden Leisure Centres.

b.    The timeframe to the Carnes Hill Centre opening does not allow a fresh tender process, and further, that in light of a review of the tendered options as contained in the report of staff, exploration of alternative operating models may be warranted for that centre.

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That Council:

 

1.      Decline to accept any tenders for ST2492 - Leisure Centre Management.

 

2.      In accordance with Section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, enter into negotiations with Belgravia Leisure Pty Ltd and YMCA NSW with the view to entering into a contract for the E.G Whitlam Leisure Centre and the Michael Wenden Aquatic Leisure Centre.

 

3.      In accordance with Section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, enter into negotiations with any person(s) or parties for the purchase of any equipment and services required for the operation and management of the Carnes Hill Recreation Centre, with a view to entering into a contract, or series of contracts, directed at facilitating the management and operation of that centre.

 

4.      Delegate to the Acting Chief Executive Officer all necessary authority to finalise and execute a contract with the parties ultimately determined to present the best value for provision of the specified services.

 

5.      In accordance with Section 178 (4) of the Local Government Regulations states its reasons for entering into negotiations as follows:

 

a.    By further negotiation with Belgravia Leisure Pty Ltd and YMCA NSW, a value for money proposition for Council can be achieved for the Whitlam and Wenden Leisure Centres.

b.    The timeframe to the Carnes Hill Centre opening does not allow a fresh tender process, and further, that in light of a review of the tendered options as contained in the report of staff, exploration of alternative operating models may be warranted for that centre.

 

6.      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.

 

7.      Negotiations should maintain or enhance current community users including not for profit organisations that are currently using the facilities.

 

8.      At a future meeting a report to come back to Council to look at options for in-house management of the centres.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CONF 07

FILE NO:        100135.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2546 - Warren Service Way and Northumberland Street Car Parks Structural Repair and Crash Protection Barriers Installation Works

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council: 

 

1.   Accepts the Tender from Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd for Tender WT2546 - Warren Service Way and Northumberland Street Car Park Structural Repair and Safety Barrier Upgrade Works as per Separable Portions 1 and 4, at the price specified in the confidential report.

 

2.   Accepts the Tender from Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd for Tender WT2546 - Warren Service Way and Northumberland Street Car Park Structural Repair and Safety Barrier Upgrade Works as per Separable Portions 3 and 6, at the GST exclusive price of $310,268. Contract for this Separable Portion is to be awarded following approval of the 2016/17 Budget.

 

3.   Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2546 - Warren Service Way and Northumberland Street Car Park Structural Repair and Safety Barrier Upgrade Works.

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Stanley              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 10.46pm.

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title:     Mayor

Date:     25 May 2016

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on  27 April 2016. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE Extraordinary Meeting

HELD ON 4 May 2016

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Mamone

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Councillor Waller

Mr Michael Cullen, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Dr Eddie Jackson, Acting Director Community and Culture

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

 

.

OPENING                               6.07pm.

PRAYER                                The prayer of the Council was read by Pastor Phil Hanbury from Southwestern Community Baptist Church.

APOLOGIES                          Nil

CONDOLENCES                   Nil

Declarations of Interest

Nil

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

Presentation - items not on the Agenda    

 

Nil

Representation - items on the Agenda      

 

1.    Ms Fiona Macnaught addressed the Council in opposition to the following item:

 

Item CFO 01: Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (including Revenue Pricing Policy).

 

Motion:                         Moved: Mayor Mannoun     Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Ms Rebekah Foxe addressed the Council in opposition to the following item:

 

Item CFO 01: Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (including Revenue Pricing Policy).

 

Motion:                         Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Ms Signe Westerberg addressed the Council in opposition to the following item:

 

Item CFO 01: Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (including Revenue Pricing Policy).

 

Motion:                         Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded:  Clr Shelton

 

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

 

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

 


 

Motions of Urgency

 

ITEM NO:      MOU 01

FILE NO:        112890.2016

SUBJECT:     Resignation of Councillor Anne Stanley - Request to Minister of Local Government to Dispense with By-election

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Respectfully seek leave from the Chairperson to deal with this matter as a matter of urgency pursuant to clause 17.2 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

 

2.   Note the resignation of Anne Stanley from the role of Councillor for the City of Liverpool, effective Friday, 29 April 2016.

 

3.   Delegate authority to the Acting Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister for Local Government on behalf of the Council, seeking that the requirement for a by-election to fill Anne Stanley’s seat be dispensed with under the provisions of s.294(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

4.   Notify Councillors of the Minister’s response as soon as possible after it is received.

 

5.   Thank Anne Stanley for her service to the Council and the residents of the City of Liverpool.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded:  Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

The Mayor ruled that the above item be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The motion was then voted on and on being put to the meeting declared CARRIED.

 

 


 

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

ITEM NO:      CEO 01

FILE NO:        114502.2016

SUBJECT:     Budget 2016/17

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Note the Report

 

2.   Note that Management’s recommendation is that costs should be reduced across the whole of Council’s operations to achieve a budget outcome in line with its Fit for the Future submission consistent with previous and ongoing budget discussions.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That items CEO 01 and CFO 01 be dealt with concurrently.

 

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

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council:

 

  1. Adopt option 4 ($864,000 deficit as shown on page 806 of the Agenda for Council meeting 27 April 2016) as presented to Council at its ordinary meeting 27 April 2016 with the following changes:

a.    A reduction in the salary of the CEO by $50,000.

b.    Direct the CEO to implement efficiency savings across the board which may include consultancy fees of $350,000.

c.    Cease participation in the US Studies Centre - $70,000.

d.    Ensure Mayoral Ball is cost neutral - $34,000.

e.    Discontinue the Committee for Liverpool - $110,000.

f.     Reduce the budget of Business Improvement Department by $250,000.

 

  1. Note this will deliver a balanced budget for the financial year 2016/17.

 

  1. Staff respond to the following questions:

Key issues in Council to date that can/do have a budget impact include;

a.    Asbestos contamination,

b.    Propel arrangements within Council,

c.    The Fleet Savings,

d.    Tenders and consultancy arrangements regarding;

                                          i.    Propel Outsourcing of LCC Records Department,

                                         ii.    City Presentation Reviews.

 

4.    With regard to the Asbestos contamination; Council to be provided with the following information prior to making any final budget determination;

a.    How did the allegation of an employee allegedly planting asbestos into Council mulch stockpile in the Rose Street Depot carpark arise?

b.    Who was it reported to?

c.    What action was taken to investigate the allegation?

d.    Is the investigation complete? If so please provide a copy.

e.    What is the anticipated cost to Council to remediate the asbestos sites?

f.     Has our insurer been notified of the issue?

g.    Has Westpool indicated Liverpool’s insurance premium or membership in Westpool is likely to be adversely affected?

h.    Who conducted the investigation and how were they engaged?

i.     What was the cost of the investigation?

j.     Who from LCC instructed or oversighted the investigation?

k.    If still awaiting the report or finalisation of the investigation, when is it likely to be completed?

l.     What were the terms of reference or instructions provided to the investigator;

                                          i.    To initiate the investigation?

                                         ii.    During the course of the investigation?

                                        iii.    At the conclusion of the investigation?

m.  The investigator provided certified copy of the investigation report to Council.

 

5.    With regard to Propel, Council to be provided with the following information?

a.    List of all payments made to Propel and their associated or affiliated entities, including any natural person made during this Council term.

b.    Unredacted copy of the Propel contract.

c.    Funding source used to make those payments.

d.    Dates of all payments made and who authorised those payments.

e.    Copies of invoices received from Propel or their associated or affiliated entities, including any natural person requesting payment from LCC.

f.     The Council resolution authorising the payment.

g.    ASIC extracts showing all historical and current directors of Propel and associated entities.

h.    Certifications by the Director of Business Improvement and the Chief Financial Officer that:

                                          i.    The original terms of engagement regarding Propel have been adhered to,

                                         ii.    No payments to Propel are in breach of the original engagement terms,

                                        iii.    Any payments comply with LCC procurement policies and delegations.

 

6.    With regard to the Council Fleet arrangements entered into in 2014, please identify the following information;

a.    Itemised list of all income received from fleet sales of Council’s passenger fleet vehicles since 2014,

b.    Itemised list of all expenditure incurred, including depreciation under the new operating lease arrangement,

c.    All savings realised since commencing the operating lease arrangement,

d.    The budget line items or reserve identifying where the savings have been recorded.

 

7.    In relation to the following tenders and consultancy arrangements please provide;

a.    Tender to outsource LCC Records Unit;

                                          i.    Unredacted memos, emails and reports relating to the proposed tender for outsourcing of the Records unit.

                                         ii.    What is the status of the tender?

                                        iii.    What costs and funding sources associated with the tender process have been incurred by LCC?

b.    City Presentation Reviews

                                       iv.    List of all consultants engaged in 2014, 15 and 16 to undertake reviews of City Presentation.

                                        v.    Details regarding how consultants were engaged; the letters of instruction provided to the Consultants and any revised / addendum instructions.

                                       vi.    Costs of all consultants paid by LCC to conduct the review and funding sources.

                                      vii.    All unredacted reports prepared by each of the consultants.

 

8.    Could the Acting CEO provide;

a.    An itemised list of all decisions made by the CEO in the 30 days preceding 24-03-2016  including but not limited to;

                                          i.    All contracts signed,

                                         ii.    All payments authorised,

                                        iii.    All DA’s approved,

                                       iv.    All tenders released,

                                        v.    All decisions made under delegated authority,

                                       vi.    All official letters, emails sent from the CEO.

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Ristevski

 

That Council staff address the following questions prior to approving or amending the current Budget:

 

1.    Key issues in Council to date that can/do have a budget impact include;

a.    Asbestos contamination,

b.    Propel arrangements within Council,

c.    The Fleet Savings,

d.    Tenders and consultancy arrangements regarding;

                                          i.    Propel Outsourcing of LCC Records Department,

                                         ii.    City Presentation Reviews.

 

2.    With regard to the Asbestos contamination; Council to be provided with the following information prior to making any final budget determination;

a.    How did the allegation of an employee allegedly planting asbestos into Council mulch stockpile in the Rose Street Depot carpark arise?

b.    Who was it reported to?

c.    What action was taken to investigate the allegation?

d.    Is the investigation complete? If so please provide a copy.

e.    What is the anticipated cost to Council to remediate the asbestos sites?

f.     Has our insurer been notified of the issue?

g.    Has Westpool indicated Liverpool’s insurance premium or membership in Westpool is likely to be adversely affected?

h.    Who conducted the investigation and how were they engaged?

i.     What was the cost of the investigation?

j.     Who from LCC instructed or oversighted the investigation?

k.    If still awaiting the report or finalisation of the investigation, when is it likely to be completed?

l.     What were the terms of reference or instructions provided to the investigator;

                                          i.    To initiate the investigation?

                                         ii.    During the course of the investigation?

                                        iii.    At the conclusion of the investigation?

m.  The investigator provided certified copy of the investigation report to Council.

 

3.    With regard to Propel, Council to be provided with the following information?

a.    List of all payments made to Propel and their associated or affiliated entities, including any natural person made during this Council term.

b.    Unredacted copy of the Propel contract.

c.    Funding source used to make those payments.

d.    Dates of all payments made and who authorised those payments.

e.    Copies of invoices received from Propel or their associated or affiliated entities, including any natural person requesting payment from LCC.

f.     The Council resolution authorising the payment.

g.    ASIC extracts showing all historical and current directors of Propel and associated entities.

h.    Certifications by the Director of Business Improvement and the Chief Financial Officer that:

                                          i.    The original terms of engagement regarding Propel have been adhered to,

                                         ii.    No payments to Propel are in breach of the original engagement terms,

                                        iii.    Any payments comply with LCC procurement policies and delegations.

 

4.    With regard to the Council Fleet arrangements entered into in 2014, please identify the following information;

a.    Itemised list of all income received from fleet sales of Council’s passenger fleet vehicles since 2014,

b.    Itemised list of all expenditure incurred, including depreciation under the new operating lease arrangement,

c.    All savings realised since commencing the operating lease arrangement,

d.    The budget line items or reserve identifying where the savings have been recorded.

 

5.    In relation to the following tenders and consultancy arrangements please provide;

a.    Tender to outsource LCC Records Unit;

                                          i.    Unredacted memos, emails and reports relating to the proposed tender for outsourcing of the Records unit.

                                         ii.    What is the status of the tender?

                                        iii.    What costs and funding sources associated with the tender process have been incurred by LCC?

 

b.    City Presentation Reviews

                                          i.    List of all consultants engaged in 2014, 15 and 16 to undertake reviews of City Presentation.

                                         ii.    Details regarding how consultants were engaged; the letters of instruction provided to the Consultants and any revised / addendum instructions.

                                        iii.    Costs of all consultants paid by LCC to conduct the review and funding sources.

                                       iv.    All unredacted reports prepared by each of the consultants.

 

6.    If Council Officers are unable to provide all additional information as requested in the preceding motion within sufficient time to allow the 2016/17 budget to become operative then the following interim actions should take place;

a.    CFO identify;

                                          i.    All operating budget items critical for the day to day activities of Council including but not limited to salaries, utilities, fuel, consumables, waste expenses to be advertised in the usual manner to meet 2016/17 Budget deadlines.

                                         ii.    All other non critical expenditure is to be quarantined until all outstanding budget enquiries are resolved, including matters such as unawarded tenders, non-contractual works and hold all unfilled vacancies.

                                        iii.    All usual public notifications within this interim will note the outstanding matters to be clarified by Council Officers prior to the final budget confirmation.

 

7.    Could the Acting CEO provide;

a.    An itemised list of all decisions made by the CEO in the 30 days preceding 24-03-2016  including but not limited to;

                                          i.    All contracts signed,

                                         ii.    All payments authorised,

                                        iii.    All DA’s approved,

                                       iv.    All tenders released,

                                        v.    All decisions made under delegated authority,

                                       vi.    All official letters, emails sent from the CEO.

 

  1. Ensure that a contingency budget be prepared as a priority.

 

  1. That the capital budget proceed to public exhibition.

 

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Hadchiti) was declared LOST.

 

 

Division Called:

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

 

 

 

Vote against:                         Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Mamone

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

                                                Clr Waller

 

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

 


 

Chief Financial Officer

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 01

FILE NO:        110357.2016

SUBJECT:     Supplementary Report - Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (including Revenue Pricing Policy)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Approve the amended 2016/17 Budget with a deficit of $3.734m as detailed in this report.

 

2.   Delegate to the CEO to amend the draft Delivery Program, draft Operational Plan and the draft Revenue Pricing Policy (Schedule of Fees and Charges) that was presented in CFO 05, 27 April 2016 as a result of changes resulting from the approved 2016/17 Budget.

 

3.   Places the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan including the draft 2016-17  Budget and Revenue Pricing Policy (Schedule of Fees and Charges) on public exhibition for a period of 28 days to allow for public comments and submissions.

 

4.   Receives a further report after a review of public submissions at the June Council meeting.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

This item was dealt with in conjunction with item CEO 01 (on page 4 of these minutes).

 

 


 

Council In Closed Session

 

ITEM NO:      CONF 01

FILE NO:        115383.2016

SUBJECT:     Information relating to the Propel Partnership and Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (including Revenue Pricing Policy)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council notes the report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

1.      That Council move into Closed Session to consider CONF 01.

 

2.      Pursuant to Section10A(2)(di) and 10A(2)(dii) of the Local Government Act 1993, the media and public be excluded from the meeting on the basis that the business to be considered is classified confidential under the provisions of:

 

·         s10(A)(2)(di)of the Local Government Act 1993 because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 

·         s10(A)(2)(dii) of the Local Government Act 1993 because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

 

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

 

Clr Balloot and Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 7.10pm.

 

Council moved into Closed Session at 7.10pm.

 

Clr Balloot and Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 7.15pm.

 

 

Motion:                                            Moved: Clr Waller       Seconded:  Clr Harle

 

That Council move back into Open Session.

 

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

 

Council move back into Open Session at 7.35pm.

 

 

 

 

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council:

 

  1. Notes the report.

 

2.    That any Councillor can pose questions relating to the contract by COB, 12 May 2016 and those questions be responded to by an external solicitor.

 

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

 


 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.36pm.

 

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title:     Mayor

Date:     25 May 2016

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on  4 May 2016. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

 


 

NOM 01

Wests Tigers

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community

Key Policy

Recreation Strategy

File Ref

119656.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

Currently the Western Suburbs Magpies train and play out of Durrant Oval Warwick Farm. However this ground has many flaws in particular floods heavily making access to the ground impossible as well as flooding their training and gym facilities.

 

In 2018 the Magpies will be playing in the NRL NSW Cup as the representative team of West Tigers. They need better facilities than they already have if they are to stay in Liverpool. We run the risk of losing the team to Campbelltown and given the fact that the West Tigers are no longer moving their training facilities to Liverpool, we cannot afford to lose the Magpies.

 

The benefits to Liverpool of hosting the Magpies to train and play out of Liverpool include the following:

 

1.   Games will be televised live on Fox Sports

2.   NRL players will be playing out of Liverpool

3.   Media coverage showcasing our City

4.   Away teams will be visiting Liverpool

5.   The team will be Liverpool’s highest representative team

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council establish a taskforce to work with the West Tigers board in finding training/facilities suitable to keep the Magpies in Liverpool. The Council representatives on the taskforce to be made up of the following Councilors:

 

·    Wendy Waller

·    Peter Harle

·    Peter Ristevski

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

For any club to play in the NSW Cup, a division below the NRL, a higher order facility is required, of which only one exists in Liverpool – the Aubrey Keech Reserve in Hinchinbrook (currently under licence by Mounties).  In the event that Council resolved to investigate the need for such a facility, new funding and operational models should be explored to ensure optimal financial outcomes for Council and maximum community benefit.

 

A key objective of the forthcoming Recreation Strategy is to improve the regional identity of Liverpool through higher order passive and active recreational facilities.  However, Council’s primary responsibility remains in providing space and facilities for organised sports in order to encourage local participation.  Strong participation in local district competition gives rise to support and demand for higher order facilities. 

 

The NRL’s guiding document on facility development, “The Preferred Facility Guidelines for Grassroots Rugby League (2014)”, states that “providing access to high quality Rugby League facilities is essential to facilitating participation...”.    The NRL’s guidelines also state that “a ‘whole of game’ and strategic approach to facility planning and development will ensure that investment is maximised and the overall quality of Rugby League facilities is improved.” 

 

In accordance with this principle, and given the interests of multiple stakeholders, including those of the Magpies, Council’s preferred model would be that a high level taskforce including, amongst others, Council, NSWRL, local district associations and, potentially, Wests Tigers be established to address declining participation in Rugby League, and to work towards establishing a higher order facility in Liverpool.  Council representatives would ideally include Councillors and relevant staff involved in delivering improved recreation and community outcomes.

 

The CEO is scheduling a meeting with the Chief Executive of Wests Tigers and could use that opportunity to raise the issue of the participation of the Wests Tigers in the proposed taskforce.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.

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

Civic Leadership and Governance

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

NOM 02

Federal Election – Werriwa

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

Provide business excellence and financial sustainability to deliver services that meet community expectations

Key Policy

Local Government Act 1993

File Ref

119773.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

With Councillor Stanley having recently resigned from Council to focus on her campaign for the federal seat of Werriwa, it is more concerning when it comes to transparency if the Mayor decides to campaign for the same federal seat. At the last Council meeting, the Mayor made a public announcement that he does not intend to run for the federal seat of Werriwa. However, he has verbally stated since that statement that he intends to run which a complete contradiction to what he has said in Council.

 

The most concerning issue for ratepayers is that with this contradiction, will the Mayor now also resign in line with the high standard set by Councillor Stanley?

 

If the Mayor resigns, where will this leave our ratepayers as we still haven’t been able to pass a budget?

 

One of the options presented was a budget deficit of $11m+; what burden will this have on the next Council, especially if the Mayor decides to run for Werriwa and resign leaving behind such a financial burden?

 

The perception that there is potential use of ratepayers resources used in the electioneering in the Mayors campaign for the seat of Werriwa MUST be avoided.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

1.   The Mayoral car is to be sold with the proceeds to go into front line services in particular the beautification of the pocket parks. This is only for the purpose to avoid its potential use in the Mayors electioneering for his campaign in the Federal seat of Werriwa.

 

 

2.   The Mayoral office is not to be used for electioneering purposes in his campaign in the Federal seat of Werriwa.

 

3.   The Mayoral column is to cease immediately to avoid the potential use in the Mayors electioneering for his campaign in the Federal seat of Werriwa. The money saved is to go directly into front line services in particular the beautification of the pocket parks.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

The Mayor’s vehicle is part of the Council fleet and under a current lease arrangement.  Given these arrangements the vehicle is unable to be sold.

 

The Mayor’s Office provides secretarial and administrative support the Mayor to undertake his duties as Mayor of Liverpool City Council.  In the course of their work with Council staff do not undertake duties for any particular political party or on behalf of the Mayor for electioneering purposes.  Staff as individuals may choose to support local candidates with their campaigns with respect to the upcoming elections, but clearly this would need to be in their own time (including taking leave).

 

At the Council meeting of 27 April 2016 a motion was passed to replace the Deputy Mayoral Column  with a Councillor’s Column, details of this change were emailed to Councillors to advise of this change, as outlined below.

 

 “At the Council Meeting on 27 April, a Notice Motion was passed to “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.” 

Therefore, every second week we will replace the Deputy Mayor’s column in the Liverpool Leader with a column from one of the Liverpool Councillors.

 

This will be done on an alphabetical basis, beginning with Councillor Balloot and changing every fortnight until all the Councillors have had their turn.”

 

If Council were to remove the Mayor’s column the Mayor, as a Councillor, would still be able to participate and provide input in to the Councillor’s column given the wording of the above motion.

 

If Councillors have concerns about the Mayor and Councillors column being used for electioneering purposes, the other option is to consider the suspension of the column entirely up to until 10 September, 2016.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

 

Nil


 

NOM 03

Community Q & A

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Long-Term Financial Plan

File Ref

120095.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

It is important that Councillors are held accountable to the ratepayers of our great city for decisions they make. Transparency is also important so that ratepayers can ask questions of their Councillors of why they voted a certain way.

 

Many questions raised by the community include:

 

1.   Why have Mayoral advisors been employed when we have a $41m debt?

 

2.   Why do we have a $2m budget for the Media department when we have a $11m budget deficit as an option?

 

3.   Why is the Mayor canvassing a Stadium without a Council resolution especially since it involves spending $400m of ratepayer money when that money could be spent on bettering our roads to eliminate traffic congestion?

 

4.   Why has ratepayer been used to publish a prospectus by the Mayor on Liverpool with misleading information?

 

5.   What qualifications does the Mayor have to preside over a $200m budget? Has he ever had his company liquidated by the Taxation Office?

 

6.   The community have a right to ask these questions and many more as we have a fiduciary duty to spend their money wisely.

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

1.   The Francis Greenway Centre be reserved on Wednesday 15th June 2016 at 6pm for a Community Q&A.

 

2.   Councillors and the general public be invited to attended.

 

3.   The Q&A to be advertised as per Council guidelines.

 

4.   The room to be setup so that microphones are available for the public to be able to ask questions to Councillors.

 

5.   The CEO is the Chair of the meeting.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

The Council Chamber, Francis Greenway Centre has been booked by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on June 15, on the same evening.  In addition, Council staff will better be able to manage the supporting logistics for the event at the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre (CPAC) (including technical requirements, parking and catering).  The Performance Space is available at CPAC on the evening of June 15, but there is a theatre show running concurrently with dinner on the same evening that will create significant logistical challenges. An alternative date for the Forum is preferred to avoid these logistical challenges.

 

Council should also keep in mind that a July 2 Federal election has now been called.  The timing of a Council Forum before the election is likely to create confusion about the focus of the event.  The clear intent of the Forum is to focus on Council’s role and local community issues with respect to this role. 

 

As Acting CEO I am available to Chair the meeting.  However, given the nature of the event any comment or questions raised at the forum will be a matter for Council’s elected representatives to respond to.  Staff will be available to provide logistics for the event.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

NOM 04

Universities In 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

120771.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

With the recent announcements of the University of Wollongong setting up a campus in Liverpool for 7000 students as well as UWS, congratulations should be extended to the CEO Michael Cullen. It was through the work and contacts of the CEO that Liverpool has reaped this reward.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

1.   Council congratulate Michael Cullen for his success in bringing both Universities to Liverpool.

 

2.   The CEO is to be the only spokesperson for Council when it comes to the Universities in terms of the media and other engagements.

 

3.   The Mayoral column in the papers is to now become a CEO column to prevent electioneering on ratepayers money.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

Council’s success in bringing university facilities to Liverpool has been as of a result of a concerted team effort.  The leadership of the Mayor, the work of the Economic Development and Property and Commercial Development Directorates and the previous CEO in negotiating arrangements with the universities have all been critical elements in securing this result.  The Strategic Communications and Marketing Unit also played a strong role in ensuring successful coverage for these announcements in partnership with the universities.

 

While the CEO of Council plays a key role in implementing the strategic directions of the Council, the community and stakeholders would expect that Council’s elected Mayor and Councillors are the spokespeople for Council on strategic matters. 

 

Any proposed change to the spokesperson for Council would ideally be reflected in an amendment to the Media Representation Policy. 

 

If the motion proposed is adopted, consideration should be given to whether the timing of making such a change ahead of a September election is warranted and whether the change should be exhibited for public comment.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

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

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

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

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

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

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

NOM 05

Development Applications Lodged By Councillors & Their Associates

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

122423.2016

Author

Peter Ristevski - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

Is it important that rate payers have complete transparency of their elected Councillors when conducting business with Liverpool Council. To ensure that Councillors maintain high standards in the discharge of their duties and to prevent the public perception of favorability, the following is requested:

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

1.   A public report to come back to the next Council meeting identifying all DAs lodged/approved during this Council term by Councillors or entities they have both a direct/indirect interest in , including items approved under delegation by staff which haven't come to council.

 

2.   Councillors disclose all applications lodged with Liverpool City Council this term by them, any entities they have an interest in and by their spouses to the acting CEO in the next two weeks.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

Council is currently reviewing the documentation and will provide a report to the next Council meeting.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

NOM 06

Overseas Travel

 

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

129334.2016

Author

Mazhar Hadid - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

Ratepayers money must be spent in a responsible fashion maintaining their interests as paramount at all times. Councillors are often required to undertake overseas travel for the purposes of study or sister city relations and for too long our ratepayers have been taking the cost of these extravagancies. The ratepayers of Liverpool should be assured that their money is not been spent on business class flights and private hotel rooms for councillors and their spouses, if they chose to invite them. It is our duty not only to keep residents informed about costs incurred by council for bookings and holding of reservations but also ensuring that practices are changed to meet the standards the community holds us to.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Prepare a report to come back to the next meeting outlining which councillors have outstanding costs for overseas travel for themselves or any person that they have selected to join them.

 

2.   Require councillors to pay for their own costs of flights and accommodation on trips they undertake as elected representatives of Liverpool Council.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMENT

 

A report will be prepared for next Council meeting.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

 

Nil


 

NOM 07

Referral of Draft Budget for Public Exhibition

 

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

130683.2016

Author

Peter Harle  - Councillor

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Adopt option 4 being an $864,000 deficit as shown on page 806 of the Agenda as presented to Council at its ordinary meeting 27 April 2016 with the following changes:

a.   A reduction in the salary of the CEO by $50,000.

b.   Direct the CEO to implement efficiency savings across the board which may include consultancy fees of $350,000.

c.   Cease participation in the US Studies Centre - $70,000.

d.   Ensure Mayoral Ball is cost neutral - $34,000.

e.   Discontinue the Committee for Liverpool - $110,000.

f.    Reduce the budget of Business Improvement Department by $250,000.

 

2.   Note this will deliver a balanced budget for the financial year 2016/17.

 

3.   Direct the Acting CEO to utilise the Internal Audit Unit to:

a.   Undertake a review of the accuracy, completeness and veracity of the response provided to matters identified in the NOM at the Extraordinary Meeting of the 5th of May 2016 and provide a written report to councillors by the 22nd of June 2016.

b.   Investigate all associated costs surrounding the circumstances of the Propel contract including details of all vendor expenditures.

 

4.   Direct the Acting CEO to employ an independent financial consultant to coordinate, oversee and verify the accurateness and completeness of the review identified in 3 above.

 

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

This motion will be considered in conjunction with item CFO 05 Draft Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget (including Revenue Pricing Policy) on this meeting Agenda (provided in Addendum).

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.

Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil   


 

IHAP 01

DA-675/2015 - 15 Lot Torrens Title subdivision of proposed Lot 2215 (DA-582/2014), with the construction of a dwelling on each lot at Lot 2 Camden Valley Way, Edmonson Park.

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

108960.2016

Report By

Michael  Oliveiro - Senior Development Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

Property

Lot 2 Camden Valley Way Edmonson Park

Owner

Mr B & Ms N Vartuli

Applicant

Remembrance Drive Pty Ltd

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received and considered development application DA-675/2015, proposing to subdivide proposed Lot 2215 into 15 Torrens title lots with 15 dwellings constructed on each lot, with one residual lot created and associated civil works. The proposal includes the construction of:

 

·    Single storey detached dwellings on Lots 2412 to 2415;

·    Two storey detached dwellings on Lots 2401 to 2409;

·    Two storey semi-detached dwellings on Lots 2410 and 2411.

 

No demolition works or tree removal are proposed as part of this development. The application was lodged with Council on 22 July 2015.

 

The development application was referred to the IHAP for consideration at its meeting on 29 March 2016 as the proposal seeks a variation to a development standard of more than 10% as per Clause 4.6 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008. The development proposes to vary Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size. In this regard, the panel recommended that the proposal be amended by the applicant to reduce the number of lots and increase lot sizes or, if not amended, the application be refused due to the minimum subdivision lot size non-compliance (See Attachment No.3).

 

Notwithstanding this IHAP recommendation, the potential impacts of the development have been addressed in the previous Council Officer’s IHAP report and at that stage the development was recommended for approval. On this basis and despite the IHAP recommendation the development is considered acceptable as proposed, and is recommended for approval subject to recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment No.2.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve Development Application DA-675/2015, subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained in the Council officer’s IHAP Report.

 

The Site

 

The site is identified as a residue Lot (Lot 2215) approved under DA-582/2014 being part of Lot 2 DP 1194117 and is bound by proposed streets Milling Road to the north and Changsha Road to the South. The street address of the site is Lot 2 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park. The site area is approximately 5,000sqm.

 

The subject site is vacant and does not include any structures or vegetation. The immediate locality is undergoing change from large lot residential allotments to small lot low density residential dwellings.

 

Subject Site

Figure 1: Aerial view of overall site (Lot 2 DP 1194117)

 

Subject Site

Figure 2: Location of proposal within Lot 2 DP 1194117

 

The Locality

 

The context of the immediate locality is undergoing change from large lot residential allotments to small lot low density residential dwellings. The site is in close proximity to major roads including Camden Valley Way to the north, and the M5 and M7 Motorways to the east.

 

details of the proposal

 

The application seeks consent to subdivide Lot 2215 in DA-582/2014, into 15 Torrens title lots with 15 dwellings constructed on each lot, with one residual lot and associated civil works. The proposal includes:

 

·    Single storey detached dwellings on Lots 2412 to 2415;

·    Two storey detached dwellings on Lots 2401 to 2409;

·    Two storey semi-detached dwellings on Lots 2410 and 2411.

 

No demolition works or tree removal are proposed as part of this proposal. Required site preparation works were approved as part of DA-582/2014.

 

the issues

 

The key issue with respect to the proposed development relates to the variation of a development standard, specifically Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot size of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

 

The variation to the development standard is addressed below. Notwithstanding, it should be read in conjunction with the previous Council Officer’s IHAP Report attached (See Attachment 2).

 

Minimum subdivision lots size requirement:

 

Clause 4.1 (3) and (4A) of the LLEP 2008 states the following;

 

“The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.”

 

“Despite subclause (3), the size of any lot resulting from the subdivision of land shown on the  Lot Size Map to be within Area 1, Area 2 or Area 3 for the purposes of:

a)   a dual occupancy that was approved before the making of this Plan and that satisfies any conditions of that approval, or

b)   multi dwelling housing, or

c)   attached dwellings, or

d)   semi-detached dwellings”

 

As demonstrated in the figure below, the site falls within an area affected by two minimum subdivision lot size standards. Accordingly, the site is affected by minimum lot sizes being 300sqm (blue shade) and 450sqm (green shade).

 

Figure 3: Minimum subdivision lot size affecting the subject site

 

The following table lists the variations sought to Clause 4.1 of the LLEP 2008 (Minimum subdivision lot size):

 

Lot Number

Min Lot Size Required

Site Area

Variation

2404

300sqm

289sqm

11sqm/3.7%

2406

300sqm

296sqm

4sqm/1.3%

2410

450sqm

301sqm

149sqm/33%

2411

450sqm

326sqm

124sqm/27.5%

2412

450sqm

364sqm

86sqm/19%

2413

450sqm

419sqm

31sqm/6.8%

2414

450sqm

346sqm

104sqm/23%

2415

450sqm

384sqm

66sqm/14.6%

 

Consequently, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008 the applicant submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum subdivision lot size development standard as prescribed by Clause 4.1 of the Liverpool LEP (See Attachment 2).

 

It is important to note that Council’s previous assessing officer agreed with the proposed variation to the minimum subdivision lot size development standard and based on the applicant’s written Clause 4.6 variation statement, considered that strict compliance with Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size is unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance.

 

The applicant has provided a further written justification for the departure of the development standard in response to the IHAP recommendation (See Attachment 3). An extract from this written response is provided as follows:

 

“The applicant considers IHAP’s decision to be overly focused on the numeric planning controls of minimum lot size without taking into account the objectives of the planning standard addressed in this submission. As such, the recommendation to remove a lot is unreasonable and does not achieve any significant change to the outcome of the development.

 

Furthermore, the applicant considers IHAP have overlooked the merits of this integrated housing Development Application in terms of the certainty in built form provided by the architecture plans, its strategic location in proximity to Edmondson Park train station, and its location in a transition zone between urban land and suburban land.

 

IHAP’s comment the variation to the minimum lot size is not justified due to the site being Greenfield is considered immaterial. While the site is being developed in an area on the periphery of urban land, the site is no longer Greenfield in nature. The site and its surrounds have now been developed to an extent, with approval and construction of roads and drainage under DA 582/2014 now constraining the site. As such, the proposal responds to the existing approved street layout with plans which are specifically designed to the site location and geometry.

 

It is noted there is precedence for IHAP and Council endorsing and approving Integrated Housing Development Applications with variation to minimum lot size greater than this proposal. For example, DA 613/2013 was approved on 15 September 2013 with a variance of 42% below the minimum lot size standard of 450 square metres. DA 866/2013 was a similar development to this proposal and was approved on 18 December 2013 with a variance of 36% below the minimum lot size standard of 450 square metres.

 

In context of planning principles adopted by the NSW Land & Environment Court, the recommendation of IHAP as a condition are not considered to pass the Newberry Test that is:

 

1. It must be imposed for a planning purpose.

2. It must fairly and reasonably relate to the development for which permission is being given.

3. It must be reasonable

 

In considering this criteria, the IHAP’s requirement is not considered to be reasonably justified. A reduction in yield is not justified in terms of achieving any beneficial planning purpose with regards to density and amenity, rather it simply results in less variation to the density standard without any material benefit identified. On this basis, such condition is considered unreasonable.”

 

The attached Council Officer’s IHAP Report (Attachment 2) contains a full assessment of the application, particularly the variation of Clause 4.1 of the LLEP.

 

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

 

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

 

“The panel has inspected the site and read the council officers report.

 

The panel is concerned that more than half of the proposed lots are less than the minimum area and the combined area of non-compliance is 575 square metres. The panel accepts that the minimum density controls and minimum lot size control appear to conflict and that compliance with both controls appears to be difficult. However the minimum density standard requires 13.8 dwellings and the proposal creates 15 lots/dwellings. It is not necessary to create the 15th lot in order to comply with the minimum density standard.

 

Accordingly the panel does not consider that the significant variation to the minimum lot size, to the extent proposed, is justified particularly on a greenfield site. The panel would support a proposal to create 14 lots with a variation to minimum lot sizes commensurate with that density. The variation to minimum lot sizes would be less than the proposed development as designed and would be acceptable in those circumstances. The panel recommends that council officers invite the applicant to amend the proposal by deleting one of the proposed allotments and distributing the additional area across the remainder of the proposed allotments.

 

The panel recommends that DA-675/2015 be deferred pending the outcome of discussions with the applicant as outlined in the minutes above. In the event that the applicant decides not to amend the proposal, the panel recommends that the application be refused for the reasons outlined above.”

 

Comments: Notwithstanding the IHAP recommendations outlined above, it is considered that the proposed 15 lot subdivision and construction of 15 dwellings is acceptable and warrants approval.

 

IHAP has noted that they are unable to support the application given that more than half of the proposed lots within the subdivision are below the minimum subdivision lot size, which results in a combined area discrepancy of 575m2 across the entire site. On this basis IHAP proposes that the number of lots should be reduced from 15 to 14 lots.

 

Despite IHAP’s comments, Council’s assessing officer maintains the previous recommendation to approve the subject DA in light of the variation to minimum subdivision lots sizes and considers there to be no additional adverse environmental, social and economic impact to the locality if the site were developed for 15 lots as opposed to 14 lots. As previously addressed in the attached Council Officer’s IHAP report, the variation to the minimum subdivision lot size as proposed by the applicant is acceptable on the grounds that strict compliance with the development standard is considered unnecessary.

 

Furthermore, when assessing the subject application and any variation to Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot sizes, the objectives of that clause must be considered. As such, Objective (1) (b) of Clause 4.1 – Minimum subdivision lot size states, “to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose and consistent with relevant development controls”.

 

Although the minimum subdivision lot sizes are not achieved by the proposal, the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed lots are able to facilitate low density residential housing types and has included the construction of those dwellings as part of the subject development application. The assessment of the proposed dwellings and their compliance is contained in the attached IHAP report, which demonstrates that the proposed dwellings achieve compliance with a majority of the relevant development controls. Accordingly, the departure from the minimum subdivision lot size and the creation of 15 residential lots is considered acceptable in this case, despite the IHAP recommendation.  

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the variation proposed to the subdivision lot size standard is considered worthy of support in this instance, subject to conditions of consent (Attachment No.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

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 DA-675 2015View (Under separate cover)

2.         Final IHAP report DA-675/2015View (Under separate cover)

3.         IHAP recommendation for DA-675/2015View (Under separate cover)

4.         Applicants Submission to Council following IHAP decisionView (Under separate cover)    


 

CEO 01

Corporate Sponsorships

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity

Key Policy

Communications Plan

File Ref

097147.2016

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 $22,200 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $22,200 is endorsed, the Corporate Sponsorship budget will be in deficit $65,973.04. This deficit will be adjusted at the Quarterly Budget Review.

 

Applicant name

Amount

Sydney Ice Dogs

$2,500 ex gst

South West Metro Waratahs Aboriginal Football Club

$2,500 ex gst

Congolese Youth Soccer Team

$2,500 ex gst

Share Care Inc

$5,000 ex gst

Hoxton Park Public  School

$1,200 ex gst

Friends of India Australia

$3,000 ex gst

Pakistan Multicultural Services of Australia

$3,000 ex gst

Samoan Council Sydney

$2,500 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

Sydney Ice Dogs

2016 season, home games at Liverpool Catholic Club

The Sydney Ice Dogs are one of eight teams in the Australian Ice Hockey League (AIHL). The AIHL season starts in late April and concludes at the end of August with a playoff weekend in early September amongst the top four teams. Attendance at each home game is approx. 250 – 300 people.

 

Branding benefits:

Member passes or home game tickets, logo on game day program, sponsor announcements at home games, social media mentions, logo on uniforms (dependent on sponsorship level), dashboard signs for home games (dependent on sponsorship level).

 

Moderate alignment with program criteria.  The club encourages junior players to attend games and help grow the sport, which is in line with Council’s active city direction. However the games will not activate the city centre and will not draw large crowds. Recommended for funding at the $1000 level.

Bronze - $2,500, Silver - $3,500, Gold - $5,000

$2,500 ex GST

South West Metro Waratahs Aboriginal Football Club

Aboriginal Knock Out Rugby League tournament, 1-3 October 2016

Rugby League tournament consisting on 64 teams from around NSW that has been running each year since 1970. The tournament was created as a more accessible alternative to state rugby league for indigenous players and offers an opportunity for young players to develop and participate in the sport.

 

Funds will be used to purchase equipment including uniforms, bags and sporting gear.

 

Branding benefits:

Logo on sleeve or jersey and training shirt. Acknowledgment of sponsorship in print material.

 

Recommended for funding at the $2,500 level. Although the tournament is not held in the Liverpool area, it provides an opportunity for local players to train and participate in sport, learn leadership skills, develop new friendships and share cultural heritage. This aligns with Council’s healthy and active city direction and promotes a socially inclusive community.

$2,500 ex GST

$2,500 ex GST

Congolese Youth Soccer team

African Soccer Tournament, September – December 2016

The Congolese Youth Soccer team participates in a competition with 12 African teams that takes place at Progress Park, Auburn each year. The team is based in Liverpool.

 

Funds will be used to buy shirts and equipment required to play in the tournament.

 

Branding benefits:

Logo on printed material, signage and uniforms.

 

Recommended for funding at the $2,500 level. Although the tournament is not held in the Liverpool area, it provides an opportunity for local players to train and participate in sport, and provides a new focus for young people who have experienced conflict in their country of origin. This aligns with Council’s healthy and active city direction and promotes a socially inclusive community.

$5,000 ex GST

$2,500 ex GST

Share Care Inc

Share Care Twilight Charity Ball– Campbelltown, 22 October 2016

Annual fundraising ball for Liverpool based organisation that provide services for children and young adults with a disability and their families.  Tickets $120 each or $1,000 for a table of ten.  Not for profit activity.  Anticipated attendances 500-600 people

 

Branding benefits:

Logo inclusion on all promotional material.  10 tickets.  Opportunity to distribute publications or merchandise at the event.  Opportunity to draw lucky door prize on the night. Banner display at entry point.

 

Whilst the event will be not be held in Liverpool, the organisation is based in Liverpool and services the Liverpool community. Aligns with program criteria.  Recommended for funding in line with previous support.

$5,000 ex GST

$5,000 ex GST

Hoxton Park Public  School

Hoxton Park Public School Spring Fair, 17 September 2016

School fundraising event. Free entry, expected attendees 2000+.

 

Funds will be used to hire rides and equipment.

 

Branding benefits:

Logo inclusion on all promotional materials. Opportunity to attend and distribute publications at the event.

 

Moderate alignment with program criteria. Recommended for funding at the $1,200 level in line with support for similar events.

Not specified

$1,200 ex GST

Friends of India Australia

Ganetshotsava, Whitlam Centre, 10-11 September 2015

Community event marking the Annual celebration of Lord Ganesh’s birthday.  Well attended event with long track record.  Free event, anticipated attendances 6,000 people.

 

Funds will be used for hire of Whitlam Leisure Centre and security hire.

 

Branding benefits:

Speaking opportunity at the event, logo inclusion on all promotional materials, social media and website.

 

Aligns with program criteria.  The event aligns with the aims of socially inclusive community and will use local businesses as suppliers for the event. Recommended for funding at the $3,000 level in line with support for other similar events.

$10,000 ex GST

$3,000 ex GST

Pakistan Multicultural Services of Australia

Ramadan EID Bazaar, Whitlam Leisure Centre, 2 July 2016

Community event to celebrate the end of Ramadan. Free entry, expected attendees 5000.

 

Branding benefits:

Speaking opportunity at the event, logo inclusion on all promotional materials, social media and website.

 

Aligns with program criteria.  The event aligns with the aims of socially inclusive community. It will attract attendees from various cultural groups and bring people to Liverpool. Recommended for funding at the $3,000 level in line with support for other similar events.

$5,000 ex GST

$3,000 ex GST

Samoan Council Sydney

Samoa Day, Whitlam Leisure Centre, 13 June 2016

Annual community celebration for the Samoan and broader community.  Cultural items, entertainment, food and market stalls. Not for profit, free event. Anticipated attendances 10,000 people.

 

Benefits include: Branding on all promotional material and at the event, signage on the main stage. Speaking opportunity.

 

Aligns with the program criteria, the event will draw significant crowds to the Liverpool area and promotes and inclusive community.  Recommended for funding at the $2,500 level.

$9,000 ex GST

$2,500 ex GST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

 

The 2015/16 Corporate Sponsorship Program has a budget of $125,000. It is currently $43,773.04 in deficit. If the recommended amount of $22,200 is endorsed, the deficit will be $65,973.04. 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



 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 

CFO 01

Investment Report April 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

113713.2016

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 30 April 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $160.1 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.18 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.25 per cent by 93 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 30 April 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $160.1 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 April 2016, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

 

Asset Class

Apr-16

Jun-15

Senior Debts (FRN’s & *TCD’s)

  100.18%

 100.49%

MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)

     65.22%

   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.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

 

 

 

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 30 April 2016 was 3.18 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.25 per cent by 93 basis points for the same period. Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower deposit yields on offer. Council’s ongoing out performance has been boosted by a handful of longer term investments yielding above 4% and maturing out to 2019. Return on investments is expected to slowly decrease as old investments in Council’s portfolio mature and replaced with investments yielding lower returns.

 

Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

 

 

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance vs. 90 day Bank Bill index over the 12 month period.

MCWB01114_0000[1]

The portfolio yield for 12 month ended is 93 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.18% against 2.25%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Council’s investment year to date interest income was above budget as at 30 April 2016 by $26k.

 

Investment Policy Compliance

Legislative Requirements

 

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Portfolio Credit Rating Limit

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

 

Institutional Exposure Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Term to Maturity Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant

 

 

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank Board meets eleven times each year, on the first Tuesday of each month, except in January. At its meeting on 3rd of May, the Board decided to lower the cash rate by 25 basis points to 1.75 per cent, effective 4 May 2016.  This cut to a historically low cash rate will further impact 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) - 2.7 % to 3.0 % p.a.

·    Short term deposits rate (less than one year to maturity) – ranges from 2.3% to 2.7% per annum.

·    Cash & Cash At Call accounts range from1.7% to 2.25%

·    31 Days’ Notice Account 2.45%

 

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 30 April 2016 by $26k.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Investment Portfolio April 2016 View

2.         Performance Graph Actual to Budget April 2016View  



 



 

CFO 02

Review of Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Good Governance

File Ref

114394.2016

Report By

David Maguire - Governance Coordinator

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires that Council adopt or amend a policy annually for the payment of expenses and provision of facilities to the Mayor and Councillors. The Mayor and Councillors can only receive reimbursement for expenses and be provided with facilities in accordance with this policy. The current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy was adopted by Council on 25 November 2015.

 

Apart from minor amendments, including changes to the fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors in accordance with the determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal of 29 March 2016, the only other change to the current policy is the inclusion of a proposed clause 4.18 relating to mobile offices for the Mayor and Councillors, as a result of the decision of Council relating to Mayoral delegations (NOM 02) on 27 April 2016.

 

If Council decides to amend the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy to include the proposed clause 4.18, then the draft policy should be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the above Council decision and section 253(1) of the Act.

 

It is recommended that Council receive and note this report, provide public notice of 28 days for the making of public submissions of Council's intention to amend the policy attached to this report and be provided with a further report at its meeting on 27 July 2016, following the receipt and review of any public submissions.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Provide public notice of 28 days for the making of public submissions of Council's intention to amend the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy attached to this report; and

 

3.    Be provided with a further report at its meeting on 27 July 2016, following the receipt and review of any public submissions.

 

REPORT

 

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

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal (the LGRT), an independent tribunal, makes an annual determination of fees paid to mayors and councillors throughout NSW, based on the size of particular councils. This year’s determination recommends an increase in fees of 2.5% for the 2016/2017 financial year. The fee range determined for the category in which Liverpool City Council is placed (Metropolitan Centre), has the following minimum and maximum range, as determined by the LGRT on 29 March 2016:

 

Councillor

Mayor*

Minimum Annual Fee

Maximum

Annual Fee

Minimum

Annual Fee

Maximum Annual Fee

$12,830

$23,950

$27,260

$63,640

* NOTE: This fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the

              Mayor and Councillors as per section 249(2) of the Act.

 

Clause 4.1.3 of Council’s current policy states:

 

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

 

Given the above policy objective, it is recommended that the fees payable to the Mayor and Councillors should be consistent with the maximum amount for the Metropolitan Centre category, as determined by the LGRT on 29 March 2016. The fees for the Mayor and Councillors of our Council are set out in clause 4.1.2 of the attached policy and are in accordance with the recent LGRT determination.

 

Apart from minor formatting changes (highlighted in red type), the other changes to the policy are the inclusion of a proposed clause 4.18, relating to mobile offices for the Mayor and Councillors and the deletion of the corresponding clause 4.4.2 o) so as to reflect the decision of Council relating to Mayoral delegations (NOM 02) on 27 April 2016

 

If Council seeks to adopt clause 4.18 in the attached draft policy, then, in accordance with the decision of Council relating to Mayoral delegations (NOM 02) on 27 April 2016 and section 253(1) of the Act, Council must give public notice of 28 days of its intention to adopt or amend the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy to allow for public submissions. Under section 253(4) of the Act, within 28 days after adopting its policy, or making an amendment to its policy, Council must forward to the Chief Executive Officer of the OLG:

 

a)   A copy of the policy or amendment together with details of all submissions received;

b)   A statement setting out for each submission, Council's response to each submission and the reasons for Council's response; and

c)   A copy of the public notice.

 

It is recommended that, in accordance with section 253 of the Act, Council provide public notice of 28 days for the making of public submissions of Council's intention to amend the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy attached to this report and a further 14 days after the exhibition period for the receipt of submissions by Council.

 

A further report, following the receipt and review of any public submissions, will be presented at Council's meeting on 29 July 2016.

 

Councillors should also note that the allowance payable to Councillors for mailing and stationery is reduced to $50 per month per Councillor for April-September prior to this year’s election in accordance with clause 4.5.1 d) of the policy.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

CFO 03

Privacy Policy

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Good Governance

File Ref

116092.2016

Report By

David Maguire - Governance Coordinator

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s Privacy Management Plan was last adopted on 24 March 2015.

 

In accordance with section 33(5) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (the PPIP Act), the Privacy Management Plan was submitted to the NSW Privacy Commissioner.

 

In response, the Privacy Commissioner wrote to Council, recommending some minor amendments to the Privacy Management Plan. These recommendations (highlighted in red type) have been included in the renamed Privacy Policy.

 

It is recommended that Council receive and note this report and adopt the Privacy Policy attached to this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Adopt the Privacy Policy attached to this report.

 

REPORT

 

Section 33(1) of the PPIP Act requires Council to prepare and implement a privacy management plan. Council’s current Privacy Management Plan is based on the prescribed Model Privacy Plan for Local Government.

 

Council’s adopted its current Privacy Management Plan on 24 March 2015. In accordance with section 33(5) of the PPIP Act, the Privacy Management Plan was then submitted to the NSW Privacy Commissioner.

In response, the Privacy Commissioner wrote to Council, recommending some minor amendments to Council’s Privacy Management Plan. These include the following:

 

1.   The role of the Privacy Contact Officer (currently Council’s Governance Coordinator);

2.   The provision of contact details for the Privacy Contact Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal;

3.   Further details regarding misuse of personal or health information; and

4.   How to amend personal or health information held by Council.

 

While it is a privacy management plan within the meaning of section 33 of the PPIP Act, it is recommended for the sake of consistency with other Council policies and simplicity, that the Privacy Management Plan be renamed as the Privacy Policy.

 

Unfortunately, given that is based on the Model Privacy Plan, the contents of the Privacy Policy cannot be reduced. However, the Privacy Contact Officer, in collaboration with other Council staff members, is currently reviewing privacy notes on Council websites and forms to ensure that Council privacy requirements are summarised in plain and simple English.

 

It should be noted that Council’s current system for handling requests by adjoining property owners for the purpose of providing dividing fencing notice details (in accordance with Appendix 1 of the Policy) is working well: 91 such requests have been processed since 1 July 2015 within processing time requirements and without any customer complaints. The Privacy Commissioner has approved Council’s current process in this regard.

 

Council has also dealt with five customer queries and three customer complaints regarding alleged breaches of privacy by Council since 1 July 2015. Two internal reviews were referred to the Privacy Commissioner who was satisfied in both cases that Council acted promptly and properly in responding to these complaints and in apologising to customers affected by inadvertent breaches of privacy by members of Council staff. The Privacy Contact Officer is providing ongoing support and training for Council staff in regard to privacy requirements.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Privacy PolicyView (Under separate cover)  


 

CFO 04

Budget Review - 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

128330.2016

Report By

Vishwa Nadan - Manager Financial Services

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In May 2015 Council adopted its 2015/16 operating budget with projected revenue of $197.2m and expenditure of $156.6m. In terms of the net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes, the Council budgeted for a deficit of $0.3m.

 

For the two quarters ended 31 December 2015, Council approved budget adjustments through resolutions and budget review process, resulting in a revised revenue target of $214.4m and expenditure of $165.7m. This translated to revised deficit net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes of $0.7m. In relation to Fit For the Future (FFtF), the operating result significantly changed unfavourably to a deficit of $7.2m, mainly due to additional $5m allocated for asbestos waste remediation and $1.4m upward adjustment to depreciation expenditure.

 

The proposed budget changes will increase the unfavorable budgeted net operating result before grants and contributions for capital purposes to a deficit of $5.2m for the year ending 30 June 2016 (Ref attachment 1 – Note G). The deficit of $5.2m is the accumulation of the Original Budget of -$0.3m, Q1 adjustment of -$0.8m, Q2 adjustment of +$0.5m and the proposed Q3 adjustment of -$4.6m (Ref attachment 1 – Note C).

 

The revised deficit net operating results for Fit For the Future purposes at $7.1m is $0.3 million better than Quarter 2 revised budget result for reasons stated above. Note profit on the land sales is excluded for FFtF calculations.

 

The third quarter budget review for 2015/16 has resulted in a net $15.4m (Ref attachment 1 – Note F) decrease to Council’s capital expenditure program. This mainly includes $17.4m s94 acquisitions and developer works that has been delayed, $1.2m for delay of Bulk-A-Bag initiative and offsetting $2.9m allocation to fund accelerated Macquarie Mall works. See Attachment 3.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the report;

 

2.   Approves the identified budget variations in accordance with this report.

 

 

REPORT

 

Legislative Requirements

Clause 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires the Responsible Accounting Officer to provide a quarterly budget review not later than two months after each quarter's end. This report provides an overview of the results on the financial review for the quarter ended 31 March 2016.

 

Commentary

 

Operating Budget

In May 2015 Council adopted its 2015/16 operating budget with projected revenue of $197.2m and expenditure of $156.6m. In terms of the net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes, the Council budgeted for a deficit of $0.3m.

 

For the two quarters ended 31 December 2015, Council approved budget adjustments through resolutions and budget review process, resulting in a revised revenue target of $214.4m and expenditure of $165.7m. This translated to revised deficit net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes of $0.7m. In relation to Fit For the Future (FFtF), the operating result significantly changed unfavourably to a deficit of $7.2m, mainly due to additional $5m allocated for asbestos waste remediation and $1.4m upward adjustment to depreciation expenditure.

 

A comprehensive budget review conducted at third quarter ended 31 March 2016 has resulted in further operating budget adjustments, as detailed in Attachment 2. As part of the Budget Review, managers have conducted a review of their programs with a view to providing a revised forecast for the financial year ended 30 June 2016.  Managers take into consideration events that have occurred to date and/or information that has become available since the adoption of the original budget and the impact of which provides the basis for the budget adjustments.

 

The review has resulted in $5.6m decrease in total revenue, mainly due to $2.4m nett unfavorable change in developer contributions and $4.7m reduction in profit from disposal of assets resulting from delays and/or cancellation of plans to sell Council properties.

 

Total expenditure is also projected to increase by $1.4m to $167.1m mainly due to to inclusion of additional $1m for asbestos waste remediation (Western Depot stockpile was initially estimated at close to 10,000 tonnes whereas actual was 17,000 tonnes) and allocation of $0.2m for legal expenses associated with unexpected appeals by developers and the Moorebank Recyclers case.

 

The proposed budget changes will increase the unfavorable budgeted net operating result before grants and contributions for capital purposes to a deficit of $5.2m for the year ending 30 June 2016 (Ref attachment 1 – Note G). The deficit of $5.2m is the accumulation of the Original Budget of -$0.3m, Q1 adjustment of -$0.8m, Q2 adjustment of +$0.5m and the proposed Q3 adjustment of -$4.6m (Ref attachment 1 – Note C).

 

The revised deficit net operating results for Fit For the Future purposes at $7.1m is $0.3 million better than Quarter 2 revised budget result for reasons stated above. Note profit on the land sales is excluded for FFtF calculations.

 

Capital Budget

 

The third quarter budget review for 2015/16 has resulted in a net $15.4m (Ref attachment 1 – Note F) decrease to Council’s capital expenditure program. This mainly includes $17.5m s94 acquisitions and developer works that has been delayed, $1.2m for delay of Bulk-A-Bag initiative and offsetting $2.9m allocation to fund accelerated Macquarie Mall works. See Attachment 3.

 

Details of the proposed budget changes are provided in the attachments.

 

Attachments 1 - Quarter 1 Budget Review Summary (QBRS): This report presents a summary of Council's budgeted financial position at end of the quarter. The key indicators include:

1.   The revised budgeted income and expenditure for the year against the original estimate of annual income and expenditure as shown in Council’s Operational Plan

2.   The forecast income and expenditure to 30 June 2016

3.   Changes following Quarter 3 budget review

4.   The proposed budget for 2015/16 financial year

 

Attachments 2 – This report provides details of operating budget adjustments

 

Attachments 3 – This report provides details of capital budget adjustments

 

Attachment 4 & 5 – Grants Status Report: Has two components, first listing all annual grant submissions and second, listing all grants that have been applied for during the quarter detailing the project title, amount sought, funding body and status of the application. Council officers are continually seeking alternate sources of funding as opportunities arise.

 

Attachment 6 - Cash and Investments Statement: Providing a reconciliation of restricted and unrestricted funds to the level of Cash and Investments held as at 31 March 2016.

 

Attachment 7 - Key Performance Indicators

 

Attachment 8 - 9 Contracts and Other Expenses Statement.

 

As the Responsible Accounting Officer, it is the Chief Financial Officer’s opinion that the short term financial position of Council is considered satisfactory.

 

This Report recommends that Council receives and notes the report and votes the budget variations in accordance with this report.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

 

The budgeted net operating result before Grants and Contributions for Capital Purposes following Quarter 3 Budget Review and Council resolutions to December 2015 will be a deficit of $5.3m

 

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

Deliver services that are customer focused.

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         QBRS - Consolidated Financial ResultsView

2.         Operating Budget AdjustmentsView

3.         Capital Budget AdjustmentsView

4.         Grant Status Report - ApplicationsView

5.         Grants Status Report - ReceivedView

6.         Cash & Investment ReportView

7.         Key Performance IndicatorsView

8.         Consultancy & legal Expenses Budget Review Statement



 



 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 



 


 



 


 


 


 


 




 


 


 

DCC 01

Liverpool City Council Sporting Grants Program 2015/2016

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community

Key Policy

Recreation Strategy

File Ref

122685.2016

Report By

Mark Westley - Sports Development Officer

Approved By

Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting held on 15 February 2010, Council approved funding which established the Liverpool City Council Sporting Grants Program to provide sporting grants to the sporting clubs of Liverpool.

 

The total amount of available grant funds for the 2015/2016 financial year is $30,000 with $5,000 of this total targeted at applications that support sports participation by people with a disability.

 

This report recommends the allocation of sporting grants as per the recommendations of the Liverpool Sports Committee grants assessment panel.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the following recommendations for the allocation of the $30,000 sporting grants funding, as determined by the Liverpool Sports Committee grants assessment panel:

 

Club

Project Description

Proposed Grant Amount

Liverpool City Little Athletics Club

Sporting Equipment -Athletics timing equipment

$5,000

Chipping Norton Baseball Club

Sporting Equipment - Baseball equipment

$2,645

South West Tigers Junior AFL

Sporting Equipment - protective post pads

$3,600

Liverpool BMX Club

Sporting Equipment - Shade Marquees

$3,000

Chipping Norton Netball Club

Sporting Equipment - First Aid and Netball items

$2,645

Special Needs Ability Program Providers

Sports Development - Disability Coaching program

$3,590

Moorebank Sports Netball Club

Sports Education - Coaching and Umpiring Courses

$1,875

Southern Districts Softball Association Inc.

Ground Maintenance - Mowing Equipment

$5,000

Bringelly Netball Club

Sports Development and Equipment

$2,645

Total

$30,000

 

 

 

REPORT

 

A total of $30,000 has been allocated within Council’s 2015/2016 budget for distribution to sporting clubs through the Liverpool City Council Sporting Grants program, with $5,000 of this total allocated to applications supporting people with a disability.  The maximum grant is limited to $5,000 per applicant.

 

Applications are assessed against the following criteria:

 

a)   Clubs must be located in Liverpool City Council Local Government Area and provide activities for Liverpool residents.

b)   Grants must be spent within 12 months of receiving funds.

c)   Proof of costs must be provided.

d)   Applications must be received before the closing date.

e)   Applications must be signed by Club Office Bearers.

f)    Clubs must not have received funding under the previous year’s grants program.

g)   Projects must meet Council’s construction and safety standards.

h)   Projects must address one of the following six categories:

 

-     Sports Development - (e.g. Coaching clinics, sports camps, training and development)

-     Ground Development - (e.g. Minor capital improvements)

-     Maintenance Equipment - (e.g. Line marking and ground maintenance equipment)

-     Sporting Equipment - (Kits, bags, balls etc., first aid and safety equipment. *Note* Equipment must remain the property of the club to be eligible)

-     Education - (First aid training, coaching education programs, safe play)

-     Club diversity - (Introduction of additional sports, expansion of club to include
greater community involvement)

 

Council received 23 applications from 17 sporting organisations requesting a total of $86,230 in grants assistance.  Applications were assessed by a panel of representatives from the Liverpool Sports Committee who have recommended the following allocation of grants:

 

Club

Project Description

Proposed Grant Amount

Liverpool City Little Athletics Club

Sporting Equipment -Athletics timing equipment

$5,000

Chipping Norton Baseball Club

Sporting Equipment - Baseball equipment

$2,645

South West Tigers Junior AFL

Sporting Equipment - protective post pads

$3,600

Liverpool BMX Club

Sporting Equipment - Shade Marquees

$3,000

Chipping Norton Netball Club

Sporting Equipment - First Aid and Netball items

$2,645

Special Needs Ability Program Providers

Sports Development - Disability Coaching program

$3,590

Moorebank Sports Netball Club

Sports Education - Coaching and Umpiring Courses

$1,875

Southern Districts Softball Association Inc.

Ground Maintenance - Mowing Equipment

$5,000

Bringelly Netball Club

Sports Development and Equipment

$2,645

Total

$30,000

 

The applications that were not recommended for funding by the assessment panel are as follows:

Club

Project Description

Requested Grant Amount

 

 

Panel Assessment

Chipping Norton Cricket Club

Ground Development - Cricket Nets

$5,000

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application.  The total project cost was $20,000.  The requested grant and club contribution would have accounted for approximately half of the funds needed however the assessment panel felt the applicant did not adequately explain where the remaining funds would be sourced.  The committee therefore did not select this application for funding against other worthy applicants.

NSW Remote Control Racing Car Club Inc.

Ground Development - toilet block

$7,500

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as this organisation had received funding under the 2015 Liverpool Grants Program and are therefore not eligible for funding consideration in 2016.

NSW Remote Control Racing Car Club Inc.

Ground Development - disability access ramp

$2,500

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as this organisation had received funding under the 2015 Liverpool Grants Program and are therefore not eligible for funding consideration in 2016.

Moorebank Cricket Club

Ground Development – Amenities extension

$5,000

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application. This project is a major ground development and a grant of $5,000 through this program would not have been sufficient for this project to go ahead.  Further funding from other sources would be required.

Moorebank Cricket Club

Sports Development - Winter coaching academy

$5,000

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application when compared to other applications.  Proof of project costs were not adequately provided.

Prestons Robins Little Athletics

Ground Development - Discus Cage

$4,100

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application when compared to other applications.  The panel found the proof of cost information insufficient.  Other sources of Council provision of funding for development of the requested facilities will be investigated.

Prestons Robins Little Athletics

Ground Development - Long Jump

$4,450

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application when compared to other applications.  The panel found the proof of cost information insufficient.  Other sources of Council provision of funding for development of the requested facilities will be investigated.

Southern Districts Soccer Football Association

Ground Development - Dugout installation

$5,000

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application when compared to other applications.

Liverpool BMX Club

Sporting Equipment - First aid

$730

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as the applicants first priority application had been approved for funding.

Chipping Norton Netball Club

Sports Education = Coaching and Umpiring Courses

Not Identified

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as the applicant had not identified any proof of costs information.

Austral City Bears

Ground Maintenance - Mowing Equipment

$4,600

This application was not received by Council until after the closing date.

Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club

Sports Development - League development program

$3,500

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as the applicant had not sufficiently identified proof of costs information.

Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club

Ground Maintenance - Line marking Equipment

$1,700

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as the applicant had not sufficiently identified proof of costs information.

Iron Up Sport

Sports Development - Sports Training Courses

$4,200

The Assessment panel recommended no funding for this application as the applicant is a private fitness organisation.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

A total of $30,000 has been allocated within Council’s 2015/2016 budget for distribution to sporting clubs through the Liverpool City Council Sporting Grants program.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

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


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil    


 

DPG 01

Parking of trucks on rural properties

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

072595.2016

Report By

Allan Campling - Executive Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council officers have been requested to review the planning controls applying to the parking of trucks and storage of shipping containers on rural properties. Under Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008, the parking of trucks can fall under the definition of “depot”, “truck depot” or “transport depot” whilst the storage of shipping containers would also be defined as a “depot”. These uses are prohibited in all of the rural zones. However, the storage of trucks and shipping containers can occur when their use is ancillary to rural or residential purposes.

 

The report considers planning options to address truck parking and storage of shipping containers and recommends that guidelines and controls be included in Liverpool Development Control Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Endorses the proposal to amend Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 to include guidelines and controls for the parking of trucks on rural properties, as detailed in this report (Option 3).

 

2.   Endorses the proposal to amend Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 to include guidelines and controls for the placement of shipping containers on rural properties, as detailed in this report.

 

3.   Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the preparation and exhibition of a draft amendment/s of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 in accordance with (1) and (2) above.

 

 

REPORT

 

Background

Council officers have been requested to review the planning controls applying to the parking of trucks and storage of shipping containers on rural properties. 

 

Under Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP), the use of land for the parking of trucks could, depending on the circumstances, be defined as a “depot”, “truck depot” or “transport depot”. Currently these uses are prohibited in all the rural zones within the LGA.

 

Council’s Traffic and Transport section previously prepared a Discussion Paper on Truck Parking in Liverpool which was focused on the parking of trucks within residential areas.

 

The study identified the reasons drivers generally park at their residence are as follows:

·    Owner-driver with no depot;

·    Unable to leave vehicle at the depot they work from; or

·    Security of vehicle.

 

These reasons also apply to the parking of trucks associated with the residential use of rural lands.

 

Current Local Environmental Plan and DCP requirements

Under Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP), the use of land for the parking of trucks could, depending on the circumstances, be defined as a “depot”, “truck depot” or “transport depot”. These uses are defined as follows:

 

depot means a building or place used for the storage (but not sale or hire) of plant, machinery or other goods (that support the operations of an existing undertaking) when not required for use, but does not include a farm building.

 

truck depot means a building or place used for the servicing and parking of trucks, earthmoving machinery and the like.

 

transport depot means a building or place used for the parking or servicing of motor powered or motor drawn vehicles used in connection with a business, industry, shop or passenger or freight transport undertaking.

 

The storage of shipping containers would also be defined as a “depot”.

 

Uses for “depot”, “truck depot” and “transport depot” are prohibited in all of the rural zones under the LLEP.

 

Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (DCP) does not contain any specific provisions or guidelines addressing the parking of trucks or storage of shipping containers in rural areas.

 

 

Controls on truck parking in adjacent Council areas

The following table details the planning controls applying to the parking of trucks on rural lands in adjacent LGAs.

 

LGA

Zone*

Depots

Truck Depots

Transport Depots

Campbelltown

RU2

X

X

X

 

RU5

X

X

X

Fairfield

RU1

X

X

X

 

RU4

X

X

X

Wollondilly

RU1

permitted

permitted

permitted

 

RU2

permitted

X

permitted

 

RU4

X

X

X

Camden

RU1

permitted

permitted

X

 

RU2

permitted

X

X

 

RU4

permitted

permitted

X

*       RU1 – Primary Production                                                         X = not permitted

RU2 – Rural Landscape

RU4 – Primary Production Small Lots

RU5 - Village

 

Zoning amendment issues

There are a number of consequences that can arise from permitting the development of Depots, Truck Depots or Transport Depots on rural land. Permitting these uses could result in potentially large scale commercial operations being undertaken which are unrelated to the rural use of surrounding land. For example a “depot” may allow the storage of scaffolding and vehicles associated with a construction company, a “truck depot” may allow the servicing and parking of removalist trucks and a “transport depot” may permit the operation of a freight transport business.

 

These uses would involve the parking and movement of trucks, potentially including heavy vehicles, in rural areas with resultant impacts on the amenity of the area due to noise, vibration, odour and emissions. There would be an associated increase in traffic movement and hazards as well as damage to road pavements and an increased maintenance burden on the ratepayers.  However, some potential impacts can be addressed by Council through the development assessment process and conditions applied to ameliorate any impacts.

 

Removing zoning restrictions can provide for greater flexibility in the economic use of rural land and provide additional revenue for land owners. Further, it may provide opportunities for small scale operators to relocate from residential or urban areas to rural properties where the likely impacts on neighbouring properties is reduced given the much larger distance between dwellings.

 

Truck parking as an ancillary use

The keeping of trucks on a rural property can, subject to the specific circumstances, be considered to be ancillary to the residential or rural use of the property.

 

An example is as follows: the resident is an owner–driver with no depot, drives the truck during the day and parks the truck overnight on the property but does not service the truck at the property. There may also be circumstances where more than one resident drives a truck and parks it on the property.

 

Similarly, a truck used for the collection and distribution of hay on a large property would be considered ancillary to extensive agriculture – a use that is permissible without consent.  Similar scenarios would apply to trucks associated with agriculture, extractive industries, forestry, home businesses and home industries, and other uses permissible in the rural zones.

 

The keeping of trucks on a rural property can also be considered to be ancillary to a home business carried out on the property. In this case, the number of trucks would be limited to those driven by the residents of the property and by no more than two employees associated with the home business.

 

Options to address truck parking

On 4 May 2016, Officers presented the Planning and Development Committee with options to address the parking of trucks on rural properties. The Committee considered the options and agreed there was an opportunity to consider allowing a maximum of 5 trucks based on 1 truck per 4000m2, subject to stringent assessment. This proposal has been further developed by Officers and is included below as Option 4.

 

The options are discussed below:

 

Option 1 – Amend LEP

Amend the land use table to permit Truck Depots or Depots in the RU1 and RU4 zones.

 

Pros:

·    Creates flexibility in planning documents that provide additional location choice for truck depots and depots.

 

Cons:

·    Potential for rural roads to degrade more quickly, with additional truck movements;

·    Potential to introduce land use conflicts; and

·    Potential for existing trucking businesses to relocate their businesses from existing industrial sites to rural areas.  This could result in additional truck movements on the roads feeding into the built-up areas as these trucks service their city clients.

 

Option 2 – Amend Schedule 1 of the LLEP to permit with consent “Truck depot associated with agricultural uses.”

This option involves permitting Truck Depots in the rural area restricted to trucks used only in association with agricultural activities. An example would be a rural trucking business that involves cartage of rural goods, using sheep and cattle trucks, and transporters for farm machinery and hay etc.  Non-agricultural uses, such as a removalist truck operation referred to above, would not be permitted.

 

Pros:

·    Create flexibility in the planning documents that provide additional location choice for appropriate truck parking;

·    Allows consent conditions to be applied to the use;

·    Reduces road congestion by reducing the number of trucks travelling from the urban areas to service rural clients; and

·    Permits non-residents of a rural property to park truck/s on the property.

 

Cons:

·    Potential for rural roads to degrade more quickly, with additional truck movements;

·    Potential to introduce land use conflicts; and

·    Potential for businesses to relocate their existing businesses to rural areas from existing industrial sites.

·    The Department of Planning and Environment may be reluctant to accommodate this as a Schedule 1 amendment.

 

Option 3 – Apply DCP guidelines for truck parking on rural property

This mechanism involves inserting specific clauses in the DCP to clarify and formalise the parking of trucks as an ancillary use and to introduce guidelines and controls. This approach is used by Camden Council. The approach clarifies the circumstances where the keeping of trucks is acceptable and is explicit that the keeping of more than two trucks may be defined as a “truck depot”. Using this approach in Liverpool would involve a statement that the use would be deemed to be prohibited.

 

The relevant extract of Camden DCP 2011 is included below:

 

 

Pros:

·    Provides clear policy position for Council and assists in compliance;

·    Establishes performance requirements and controls.

 

Cons:

·    Does not provide flexibility in planning documents to provide additional location choice for truck depots.

 

Option 4 – Amend Schedule 1 of the LLEP to permit with consent “Truck depot” limited to a maximum of five (5) trucks

This option involves permitting Truck Depots in the rural areas (excluding RU2 Rural Landscapes) limited to one (1) truck per 4000m2 of site area with a maximum of five (5) trucks on a site. Specific DCP controls and guidelines can be introduced to address amenity issues including hours of operation, noise, setbacks and visual screening.

 

Pros:

·    Create flexibility in the planning documents that provide additional location choice for limited truck parking;

·    Allows consent conditions to be applied to the use; and

·    Permits non-residents of a rural property to park truck/s on the property.

 

Cons:

·    Potential for rural roads to degrade more quickly, with additional truck movements;

·    Potential to introduce land use conflicts;

·    Potential for businesses to relocate their existing businesses to rural areas from existing industrial sites; and

·    The Department of Planning and Environment may be reluctant to accommodate this as a Schedule 1 amendment.

 

Consideration of options

It is considered that Option 1, involving the amendment of LLEP to permit Depots or Truck Depots in the RU1 and RU4 zones, would create land use conflicts with resultant impacts on the amenity of the rural areas. However, it is considered appropriate to include the consideration of this issue in the comprehensive LEP review.

 

Option 2, which would permit truck depots associated with agricultural uses, has the potential to reduce truck movements from truck depots in the urban area transporting rural goods. However, the change would potentially create land use conflicts and adverse impacts on the amenity of the rural areas; although the number of potential operators would be fewer due to the use being restricted to agricultural related activities. It is noted that there has been no demand for this activity to date and that the Department of Planning and Environment may be reluctant to accommodate this as a Schedule 1 amendment.

 

Option 3, involving the amendment of the DCP, provides a straightforward approach and establishes performance requirements and controls for the parking of trucks. It provides some flexibility in the parking of trucks but limits it to no more than two drivers who are not residents of the property if they are associated with a home business carried out on the site.

 

Option 4, which would permit truck depots in the rural areas (excluding RU2 Rural Landscapes) limited to a maximum of five (5) trucks on a site, provides the flexibility of permitting drivers who are not residents of the property to park a limited number of trucks on the site but does not allow for large scale commercial depots. Whilst the number of trucks per site can be limited, it is not known what the likely take up of this flexible approach would be, and consequently the potential cumulative impacts on the amenity of the rural areas cannot be quantified. Nonetheless, development consent conditions can be applied to address potential amenity impacts. Similar to Option 2, the Department of Planning and Environment may be reluctant to accommodate this as a Schedule 1 amendment.

 

Council Officers have assessed the Options and consider that Option 3 is the best choice because it is the option which is least likely to result in land use conflicts and there is no doubt whether the Department will support it.  This option provides a straightforward approach, establishes performance requirements and controls for the parking of trucks and will assist in compliance enforcement.

 

Should this approach be supported, a draft amendment to the DCP similar to the Camden Council example could be prepared and exhibited, with a subsequent report being submitted to Council.

 

Use of shipping containers on rural properties

The use of shipping containers on rural properties was discussed by the Planning and Development Committee 4 May 2016.

 

A shipping container is permissible if it is an outbuilding, ancillary to a lawful residential or rural use. The State Environmental Planning Policy, (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008 (SEPP), permits the installation of one shipping container per rural lot as Exempt Development (Subdivision 16 Farm Buildings), subject to a number of bulk and location requirements. 

 

Containers may also be installed as Complying Development, under Part 3A Rural Housing Code of the SEPP. The Code has specific provisions applying to containers used as rural outbuildings in the R5 zone. In these cases, the total floor area per site is limited to 500m2 with a setback from a side or rear boundary of at least 10 metres (generally containers have an area of 14m2 or 28m2.). The SEPP prescribes setbacks for outbuildings in the rural zones but does not limit total floor area per site. This is considered to be an oversight on the part of the Department. Officers have written to the Department seeking clarification of this issue.

 

If containers were simply stored on the property or used for storage of materials not associated with the agricultural or residential use of the property, the use would be considered to be a “depot” and prohibited in all rural zones.

 

Option to address containers

The DCP addresses outbuildings but does not contain specific provisions controlling the location, appearance or use of containers on rural properties.

 

It is proposed that specific clauses be inserted in the DCP to clarify the use of containers as outbuildings and introduce guidelines and controls. It is also proposed that provisions be included explicitly stating that the storage of containers would be considered to be a “depot” and is a prohibited use. Officers have undertaken to prepare an Implementation Note to provide guidance regarding this issue.

 

Officers have also undertaken to establish if a complying development certificate has been issued before investigation of any compliant about shipping containers.

 

Conclusion

In regard to the parking of trucks on rural properties, it is recommended that the DCP be amended to clarify and formalise the parking of trucks as an ancillary use and to introduce guidelines and controls to address amenity issues, including hours of operation, noise, setbacks and visual screening.

 

In regard to the use of shipping containers on rural properties, it is recommended that the DCP be amended to introduce guidelines and controls to clarify the use of containers as outbuildings.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Deliver a high quality local road system including the provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

DPG 02

Second Council Report noting Public Exhibtion and Endorsment of Miller Town Centre Master Plan

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

100671.2016

Report By

Murray Wilson - Senior Strategic Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In September 2015, Council resolved to publicly exhibit the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan (draft Master Plan) and to receive a further report detailing the community’s feedback on the draft Master Plan noting any changes.

 

The purpose of the draft Master Plan is to provide a framework for guiding future opportunities for the Miller Town Centre. The framework aims to benefit all stakeholders, including the local community, and provides recommendations for public domain improvements, changes to land use controls, potential land swaps, land acquisitions, opportunities to minimise the effect of social disadvantage and measures for improving safety.

 

Comprehensive community consultation has been undertaken on the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan. This consultation has been generally supportive of the proposed Master Plan and has identified a number of changes and improvements. The draft Master Plan will be amended subject to endorsement of this report.

 

This report recommends that Council endorses the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan (Attachment 1) incorporating the proposed changes outlined in this report.

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Endorses the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan subject to the changes outlined in this report.

 

2.    Prepares a Feasibility Study and Residential Development Strategy into the proposed amendments to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 as stated in the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan.

 

3.    Notes that a report on the findings of the Feasibility Study and Residential Development Strategy and recommended changes to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008, if appropriate, will be prepared for a future Council meeting.

 

4.    Advises the members of the public and government agencies who made submissions, of Council’s resolution. 

 

 

REPORT

 

Background

In 2013, Strategic Planning and Community Planning teams collaborated on an application for a $60,000 grant to develop a Master Plan for the Miller Town Centre.

 

In 2014, Council held three stakeholder workshops to gather information to prepare a draft Master Plan. As a result of these sessions, the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan (Figure 1) was developed. 

 

In September 2015, Council resolved to publicly exhibit the draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan and to receive a further report detailing the community’s feedback on the draft Master Plan noting any changes.

 

The Draft Master Plan

The vision for the future of the Miller Town Centre is to provide a safe and sociable environment where everyone is welcome. It is envisaged that the Miller Town Centre will effectively service a variety of community needs by providing a choice of retail products, community services, public open space and a mix of housing options:

 

·    The centre will be a secure environment where safety is a priority, with improved lighting, sightlines and passive surveillance over streetscapes, parks and open space;

 

·    Upgrades to the public domain will assist in creating a revitalised sense of place and build a unique and recognisable character for the Town Centre;

 

·    A focus on the pedestrian environment will provide clear connections between destination points, encouraging movement and activity on the streets, supported by places for outdoor dining, relaxing and interactive play;

 

·    An increase in housing density will promote interest and investment in the Centre, and introduce a new resident and visitor population; and

 

·    Additional retail will provide increased employment opportunities for residents and locals in surrounding suburbs.

 

Guiding Principles of Draft Master Plan

The following guiding principles have informed the process of developing scenarios for the future town centre. These principles have been sourced from best practice theory and developed through the consultation period:

 

·    Promote the design and planning of amenable, vibrant and lively places;

·    Improve connections for pedestrians;

·    Ensure that designs cater for multiple demographics and tenancies;

·    Provide existing and future communities with a good level of access to public transport, services and employment;

·    Promote spaces for social interaction;

·    Promote a safe, welcoming and attractive public domain;

·    Ensure that the design of buildings and space respond to the attributes of the physical and natural environmental; and

·    Foster ecologically sustainable development.

 

Development Scenarios

Four development scenarios were created in response to stakeholder input and application of the guiding principles. Each of the four scenarios presents a different approach to developing a framework for the future of Miller Town Centre. The focus of each scenario is outlined below:

·    Scenario 1 - ‘Quick Wins’ Through Minimal Intervention:

Development Scenario 1 demonstrates an option which proposes minimal intervention to the overall infrastructure of the town centre and relies predominantly on the provision of new and/or improved public domain and clustering of similar land uses. This approach suggests more easily achievable opportunities which can be initiated quickly and at a relatively low cost to Council.

 

·    Scenario 2 - Strengthening the Town Centre by Expanding the Retail Capacity:

Development Scenario 2 demonstrates the partial closure of Woodward Crescent in order to allow for retail expansion of the Miller Shopping Centre to the south.


 

 

·    Scenario 3 - A Lively Town Centre through a Pedestrian Focussed Retail Core:

Development Scenario 3 demonstrates a pedestrian focussed retail centre. Vehicles are restricted to the outskirts of the town centre with a pedestrian focussed core. The central part of Woodward Crescent is a shared zone which gives pedestrians the priority over vehicles.

 

·    Scenario 4 -The ‘Live, Work and Play’ Approach through a Mix of Uses:

Development Scenario 4 demonstrates an approach which increases the residential density, and provides a pedestrian focussed town centre which suggests retail/ community uses at the ground floor of most buildings.

 

Officer’s Preferred Scenario

Figure 1 (below) represents the officer’s preferred option. The preferred scenario is a hybrid of the four scenarios outlined above. There is a discrepancy between the preferred scenario and the possible zoning map as shown in Figure 32 of the draft Master Plan.

 

To be completely clear, it is noted that it is not planned to change the majority of the existing R4 zone on the eastern and western edges of the town centre to B2. It is only proposed to investigate rezoning land to the north of Cartwright Avenue and to the south of Woodward Crescent as depicted in the preferred scenario.  

 

Features of the Preferred Scenario of the draft Master Plan

The most desirable elements of each of the development scenarios have been consolidated to form the “preferred scenario”, these are outlined below:

 

·    Proposed amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) to rezone certain land and increasing FSR and building heights on certain land within the Miller town centre. 

 

To support the proposed amendments to the LLEP, the draft Master Plan also recommends that a Feasibility Study and a Residential Development Strategy be undertaken. Should these studies support changes to the LLEP, a further report will be prepared for consideration by Council.

 

·    Redevelop the Mission Australia site, as mixed use, by retaining the existing use with residential above;

 

·    Consider the potential redevelopment of the existing Miller Square site;

 

·    New road infrastructure between Woodward Crescent and Shropshire Street;