Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

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

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

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:

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 11^th 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.

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 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 31January 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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

Ensure that a contingency budget be prepared as a priority.

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.

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

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.

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

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 575m²across 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 2015 View (Under separate cover)

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

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

4. Applicants Submission to Council following IHAP decision View (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.		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		Council’s investment year to date interest income was above budget as at 30 April 2016 by $26k.

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank Board meets eleven times each year, on the first Tuesday of each month, except in January. At its meeting on 3^rd 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 2016 View

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 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

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.

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 Results View

2. Operating Budget Adjustments View

3. Capital Budget Adjustments View

4. Grant Status Report - Applications View

5. Grants Status Report - Received View

6. Cash & Investment Report View

7. Key Performance Indicators View

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

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;

· The possibility of the creation of a new community and youth precinct encompassing the Michael Wenden Aquatic and Recreation Centre;

· The creation of a north south pedestrian link through Miller Shopping Centre (a site specific DCP may be required in the future); and

· Public domain improvements, such as;

o Improvements in lighting, planting, seating, footpaths;

o Provide a small civic plaza fronting Cartwright Avenue;

o The creation of a shared pedestrian zone on Woodward Crescent

o The creation a new hard paved plaza at Lady Woodward Park (in lieu of the redevelopment of Miller Square);

Further Studies and Investigation

It should be noted that the draft Master Plan does not increase the permitted FSR or building height nor does it rezone land. The draft Master Plan does however recommend rezoning certain land as well as increasing FSR and building heights in certain locations of the Miller Town Centre. The draft Master Plan also recommends that further studies be undertaken in regards to any proposed changes to the LLEP. These studies include:

· A Feasibility Study; and

· A Residential Development Strategy

Subject to the outcome of these studies, any proposed changes to land use and development controls require further consultation with Council, State agencies, land owners and the general public.

It would be anticipated that the Feasibility Study would be undertaken by Council officers. The Feasibility Study would involve gaining a better understanding on the recommended rezonings, amending development controls as well as having a greater understanding of the cost of land, current sales prices and construction costs in the area. Council officers are in the process of commissioning several residential studies as part of the LEP review. The Residential Development Strategy for the Miller Master Plan can be incorporated into these studies.

A Site Specific Development Control Plan is also recommended (by the Master Plan) to ensure the built form outcomes meet the desired future character as proposed in the draft Master Plan.

Figure 1 – Extract Draft Miller Town Centre Master Plan

Public Exhibition of the Draft Master Plan

Council received 9 written submissions and two Liverpool Listens comments. These are outlined in the attached Submissions Table (Attachment 2).

Of the 11 submissions received, there were:

· 5 submissions in support of the Master Plan; and

· 6 submissions were neutral of the Master Plan.

It should be noted that some elements of the draft Master Plan were commented on, but there were no strong objections.

One of the major concerns was the length of the exhibition period rather than the draft Master Plan itself. To accommodate these concerns, Council extended the exhibition period from the planned 25 November 2015 end date to 29 January 2016. The draft Master Plan was on exhibition for a total of 94 days. The legislated minimum exhibition period for an LEP or DCP amendment is 28 days.

During the exhibition process, Council also provided more than 40 copies to the Miller Library and The Hub, placed notices in the local paper, held a public information session and sent letters to the surrounding area. The draft Master Plan was also placed on Council’s website and Liverpool Listens.

Two public information sessions were held on:

· 18 November 2015; and

· 7 March 2016 (The second information session was requested by members of the public).

Council officers prepared 2,000 flyers for this second information session and hand delivered these to residents in close proximity to the Miller town centre (approximately 750m radius) as well as local businesses and community services. The flyers were also translated in Arabic and Vietnamese.

The main themes of the written submissions and comments raised at the information sessions are outlined below with Council officer’s response:

· A desire to increase development potential to attract investment;

Comment: The draft Master Plan states that further investigation should be undertaken in regards to rezoning some sites from R4 High Density Residential to B2 Local Centre as well increasing the FSR and building height controls. This report recommends that further studies be undertaken to further investigate the proposed amendments. It is noted, the Master Plan does not rezone or amend development controls.

· The draft Master Plan is a positive step for Miller;

Comment: The endorsement of the draft Master Plan provides a strategic framework for guiding future development options and improvements to the public domain within the Miller town centre.

· The open space should be upgraded, safety of open space improved and greater Police presence in Miller;

Comment: The draft Master Plan aims to improve public open space and increase passive surveillance through urban design outcomes and proposed new linkages. The draft Master Plan will provide a background document that can also help guide public space / domain improvements in the future.

· Improved landscaping and green cover for Miller Town Centre;

Comment: There are many benefits of increased tree planting such as shading of public areas and climatic benefits. Green cover and deep soil zones are also important in addressing stormwater runoff. It is recommended that the draft Master Plan be amended to emphasise the importance of increasing indigenous vegetation and green cover for the Miller town centre.

· Car parking is an issue at Miller;

Comment: Parking was a common theme raised during the information sessions and in some written submissions. All new development that occurs within the Miller town centre will need to address Council’s car parking requirements. It should be stated however that the proposed shop top housing development (DA-62/2015) above the existing car park will be providing in excess of 60 more spaces than what is currently required. Council has also recently increased the number of available on street car parking bays in response to some of these issues raised. The above stated additional car parking will help address car parking issues in Miller.

During the exhibition period and in some submissions received there was confusion between issues with the development application and the master planning process. In the information session, 7 March 2016, Council officers clarified that the two processes were different.

· Concern that ‘The Hub’ (The Hub Community Health Centre) may close;

Comment: The draft Master Plan does not propose to close any community service. The Hub Community Health Centre is a service provided by NSW Health. NSW Health is investigating the possibility of transferring the management of this service to a non-government organisation. However this is not a process linked to this Master Plan. In fact the Master Plan states on page 54.

“In the event that Council is required to close facilities, Council will endeavour to find appropriate alternative locations for these important community services. All monies raised from the sale of any council land within Miller will be reinvested back into community facilities for the benefit of the residents of Miller and surrounding suburbs.

This is a very important statement within the draft Master Plan that should reassure local residents that Council is not looking to close important community services.

· The Miller Senior Citizens Centre is not shown in the Preferred Scenario;

Comment: The draft Master Plan did not include the Miller Senior Citizens Centre in the Preferred Scenario. This is to be corrected in the Master Plan. To clarify, the draft Master Plan does not propose the closure any community service as part of this process.

· Affordable housing should be increased;

Comment: Council officers are currently preparing an Affordable Housing Policy for the LGA which will include examination of areas like the Miller Town Centre and surrounding suburbs. A future report will be brought to Council.

The recommendation in the Master Plan to increase FSR and building heights could facilitate opportunities to redevelop land owned by Family and Community Services (and by others) by increasing development potential and in turn creating more affordable housing and housing choice.

· Community Services need more space in Miller;

Comment: The question of whether there needs to be more community space (facilities) in Miller is not assessed as part of this Master Plan. It is Council’s aim to transform the community services locations currently provided in Miller and improve the facilities. Additional space will be considered as part of the redevelopment of these community facilities.

· The draft Master Plan is too focused on development / developers; and

Comment: The draft Master Plan looks at a number of options for improvements to the Miller Town Centre. Residential flat buildings are existing permitted uses within the B2 Local Centre and R4 High density zones. The existing controls within LLEP 2008 allow residential flat buildings to be built to heights up to 21m (within the core).

It is acknowledged that the draft Master Plan recommends additional residential and commercial development, but with the aim of providing greater housing choice and a safer and more vibrant centre.

· Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008;

Comment: Concerns were raised during the exhibition period that the draft Master Plan was allowing additional building height and increased development. The draft Master Plan does explore the possibility of rezoning certain land from residential to business, increasing the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and building heights.

It should be noted that the draft Master Plan does not increase building height or rezone land. There has yet to be any investigation into this proposed uplift in zone and proposed increases in FSR and building heights. These changes require further analysis.

Other Comments Received

Through the exhibition process, Council received a number of good suggestions that do not necessarily fit into the draft Master Plan itself; however they will be forwarded to relevant Council departments for action and comment. Some of the suggestions included;

· Possible community gardens / food production area near Cabramatta Creek;

· Creation of a ‘technology hub’ to connect with the new WSU campus in Liverpool;

· Open space infrastructure access for those with disabilities, and inclusion of public art; and

· Access to quality outdoor spaces and recreational activities such as outdoor gyms.

Agency / Stakeholder Information Session

During the public exhibition period, Council officers also arranged an Agency / Stakeholder Information Session on 24 November 2015. The following comments were raised:

Transport for NSW

Transport for NSW advised that they did not object to the draft Master Plan and provided the following comments:

· Buses should be retained on Woodward Crescent for routes 802 and 803;

· Following redevelopment route 804 may need to be relocated to Cartwright Avenue and shelters will be required;

· The bus company will need to undergo a risk assessment if a shared zone on Woodward Crescent was considered in the future.

Police Citizen Youth Club (PCYC)

The PCYC were enthusiastic and supportive of the draft Miller Master Plan.

Transit Systems (Local Bus Provider)

· Realigning routes onto the new street could present an opportunity.

o Services within the town centre currently terminate at approximately 6:00pm due to historic social issues and safety concerns.

o Proposed changes to improve sight lines, lighting, streetscape and activity have the potential to re-introduce night services if safety improves.

o The service provider would like to operate along the same route all the time.

Comment: Improving safety and improvements to access to public transport are two of the guiding principles of the draft Master Plan. It is seen as a positive that the local provider would consider potentially increasing public transport services to the Miller Town Centre if the plan is implemented.

Department of Education and Training

· There needs to be additional community facilities aimed at children which would allow development of the arts.

· There needs to be much better awareness of the Miller Library (many do not know it is there).

· The Library should become the real focal point of Miller

· There is a need to attract people (particularly youth) to events who do not typically participate in community events (often same people and faces attend events).

Comment: The draft Master Plan should be amended to include a section outlining the importance of the local library to the community. Other comments raised will be forwarded to Council’s Community and Culture section for comment.

Family and Community Services (Land and Housing Corporation)

Family and Community Services (FACS) have advised in writing of their support for the draft Master Plan.

Post Exhibition changes to the draft Master Plan

As a result of the public exhibition process the following minor amendments to the draft Master Plan are recommended:

1. Amend Option 8 of the draft Master Plan by relocating the north south pedestrian link within the shopping centre (Page 54). This was raised as an option in a meeting with the owners of the shopping centre and also raised as an issue by the owners of the Cash Convenience store.

a. Remove all comments which refer to acquiring the pawn shop;

Delete “It is recommended that the pawn shop site is acquired/redeveloped, in order to create a wider pedestrian corridor that is open and direct, with strong view lines through the space.”

b. Remove any reference to “business premises being demolished” in reference to Cash Convenience store.

2. Include in the Master Plan increased indigenous vegetation and green cover;

3. Relocate (to the west) the small civic plaza fronting Cartwright Avenue;

4. Allow a potential space to be leased within Bradshaw Park for a café near the play equipment (Page 54);

5. Include Indigenous Culture / Art within the public art section (Page 37);

6. Include a section within the draft Master Plan that outlines the importance of the local library to the community;

7. Community facilities (services) should be central and accessible to the communities they are intending to serve – ideally along Cartwright Avenue near Jersey Park (amend second paragraph to option 6 (Page 54);

8. Existing bus stops and any new bus stops at Miller need to be improved and include weather protection;

9. Include the Miller Senior Citizens Centre (adjacent to Bradshaw Park) in the preferred scenario; and

10. Correct minor grammatical and spelling errors (as required).

Conclusion

This report recommends that Council endorses the Miller Master Plan, subject to the changes outlined in this report.

It is considered that the Miller Master Plan will assist in delivering appropriate redevelopment of the Miller Town Centre by improving the amenity of the physical environment, encouraging economic investment in the area, facilitating population growth and housing choice, decreasing anti-social behaviour and strengthening the community’s sense of ownership and belonging to the area.

The next steps would require Council officers to undertake a Feasibility Study and a Residential Development Strategy to ascertain whether the recommendations of the draft Master Plan can be incorporated in the LLEP. The preparation of a site specific Development Control Plan may also eventuate.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues. Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Support policies and plans that prevent crime. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community. Promote community harmony and address discrimination. Support access and services for people with a disability. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. 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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Miller Town Centre Master Plan View (Under separate cover)

2. Submissions Table View

CTTE 02

Recommendations of the Street Naming Committee Meeting.

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	113679.2016
Report By	Peter Pham - Strategic Planning
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

This report presents the Council officer’s recommendations regarding street and park naming proposals which were emailed to the Street Naming Committee on 17 March 2016. Please note, attempts so far to obtain recommendations from the Committee have been unsuccessful but no objections have been received from Committee members. Accordingly, in the interest of achieving a timely outcome, the proposal items are recommended for Council approval.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and adopts the officer recommendations as follows:

(a) The naming of Skyline Crescent in Horningsea Park;

(b) The naming of School Terrace in Middleton Grange;

(d) The naming of Major Badcoe Park in Edmondson Park; and

(e) The naming of Tropea Street in Austral.

Background

At Council’s December 2015 meeting, it was resolved to hold all Street Naming Committee meetings electronically, unless otherwise required. In the interim, Council officers have been preparing a review and update of the Street Naming Committee Charter and Policy.

In order to move forward with street and park naming proposals, Council officers have consulted the Street Naming Committee utilising email. Unfortunately Council has not received responses from the Committee members. It is considered appropriate to bring the Officer recommendations to the Council meeting in order to progress various items regarding street and park naming proposals.

Council officers are in the process of reviewing the policy and the charter for street naming. This review will consider a process to deal with the situation when a quorum of responses is not achieved by the Committee.

REPORT

Council officer recommendations regarding street and park naming proposals were emailed to the Street Naming Committee on 17 March 2016 (please see Attachment). No objections were received by Committee members. Accordingly, the proposal items are recommended for Council approval.

Item 1 – Renaming of Skyline Crescent (Old Bringelly Road), Horningsea Park

As a result of the road upgrade and realignment of Bringelly Road, a portion of the existing road between Stuart Road and Cowpasture Road now requires renaming (please see Attachment - Item 1). The Geographical Names Board of New South Wales (GNB) no longer accepts the use of ‘old’ or ‘new’ in the naming of streets and therefore the RMS has requested that Council rename this portion of Bringelly Road to Skyline Crescent.

The proposed name of Skyline Crescent was placed on public authority exhibition by the GNB. During the public authority exhibition no objections to the name were received. The Western Sydney Parklands Trust was also consulted in the process and was supportive of Skyline Crescent.

The Committee was consulted by email but no recommendation was received. Council’s street naming officer recommends that Council proceeds with the naming of this portion of Bringelly Road to Skyline Crescent.

Item 2 – ‘Salvatore Street’ West Hoxton

An application has been received by Mr. Antonio Princi to name a street of Fourteenth Avenue, West Hoxton, Salvatore Street, after his father (now deceased). (Please see Attachment - Item 2)

The Committee was consulted by email but no recommendation was received. Council’s street naming officer recommends that Council proceeds with the naming of Salvatore Street.

Item 3 - Merlin Street and Merlin Terrace, Middleton Grange

It has been brought to Council’s attention that two streets in Middleton Grange have the same name but with a different suffix. (Please see Attachment - Item 3)

The Committee was consulted by email but no recommendation was received. Council’s street naming officer recommends that Council proceeds with replacing Merlin Terrace with “School Terrace”.

Item 4 - Major Peter John Badcoe VC Park

The GNB has advised that either “Peter Badcoe Park” or “Major Badcoe Park” can be progressed to advertising for public comment. The Board noted Major Peter Badcoe’s military contributions and resolved that as Major Badcoe was a VC recipient, the use of a title would be appropriate in this instance for the renaming of the proposed park. (Please see Attachment - Item 1)

The Committee was consulted by email but no recommendation was received. Council’s street naming officer recommends that Council proceeds with “Major Badcoe Park” keeping with the military theme of Edmondson Park.

Item 5 – ‘Tropea Street’ in Austral

An application was received for the use of Tropea Street in the proposed subdivision of Lot 150 Tenth Avenue Austral, Tropea Street. (Please see Attachment - Item 5)

The Committee was consulted by email but no recommendation was received. Council’s street naming officer recommends that Council proceeds with the naming of Tropea Street in Austral.

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Street Naming Meeting - Memo to Committee Members dated 17 March 2016 View

QWN 02

Question with Notice - Clr Shelton

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

099963.2016

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

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.

The current May 2016 average for s149 (2) / (5) certificates is 4.5 days.

April 2016

Average 19.8 Days - The table on page 2 has a breakdown of the figures as requested.

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

Average 2.6 - The table on page 2 has a breakdown of the figures as requested.

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

Average 4.0 The table on page 2 has a breakdown of the figures as requested.

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

Average 7.8 The table on page 2 has a breakdown of the figures as requested.

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

The number of requests for s149 Certificates has increased substantially during the past 4 years. The Table 1 below

Historically this role has been performed by the same permanent s149 Officer, there has been no change in terms of permanent staffing levels during the stated period, however, Council engaged a temporary staff member in August 2015 due the substantial increase in requests for Certificates.

The function was assigned to a temporary staff member and relocated from the ground floor Customer Service Centre to the Level 4 due to a staffing issue in December 2015. The staffing issue was resolved in March 2016 and the temporary staff member was moved back to the Customer Service Centre in April 2016.

At that the point there was a significant backlog and both the Strategic Planning Department and the Alliance redirected considerable resources to ensure the outstanding Certificates were actioned as quickly as possible.

Table 1

Growth in Number of Certificates Issued	Apr 13	Apr 14	Apr 15	Apr 16
Number of Certificates	358	493	486	764
Average Turnaround Time (Days)	2.6	4.0	7.8	19.8
Using 2013 April As Base (%)		38%	36%	113%

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.

This is not currently a performance criteria for Propel, the issuing of the certificates is not solely the responsibility of the Alliance; there is a requirement for input from the Strategic Planning department.

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.

Business Improvement has introduced weekly monitoring of the lodgement and issuing of all s149 applications. Due to increasing the staffing resource, we are confident that in most cases they can be issued within 5 days.

There are some instances where due to the complexity of the information and the necessity for scrutiny, this may not be possible. There is now a KPI for Propel from May 2016 to achieve a 5 day turnaround for at least 95% of lodgements.

Additionally, it is useful to also consider the broader context regarding the increased demand for 149 certificates and the long term plans for further improvements. The number of applications for 149 certificates has significantly increased over recent years, and particularly in the last 12 months, as highlighted in the table below. This reflects the growth in population and housing development within the Liverpool LGA. Existing Council resources have been inadequate to deal with this workload and additional resources have had to be dedicated to meet the increased demand. New resources had to be trained to do this work and this contributed to the backlog. Additionally, a review of processes and property data accuracy was also undertaken. This review identified the need for changes to procedures associated with the processing of certificates, as well as a comprehensive review of Council's property records to ensure data integrity and accuracy. The approval process further contributed to the backlog, but it is essential to ensure that all certificates are accurate and reliable. A temporary project officer position has been created to undertake the review of property data. Additionally administrative processes are being revised to improve efficiency and turnaround times. All certificates are being equally prioritised and generally issued in order of lodgement except in complex cases.

The backlog was cleared at the beginning of May and all certificates are now within the 5 day turnaround time. Concurrent with the data review, process improvements are underway. The goal is to be able to implement on-line 24 hour turnarounds for most certificates within 12 months.

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

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

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