Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01

DA-1271/2015 - Construction of 25 detached dwellings and community title subdivision on proposed Lot 19 within stage 3 of a development of Lot 31 DP 1181985 at the former New Brighton Golf Club

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	145810.2016
Report By	Taylar Vernon - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	Lot 31 Brickmakers Crive, Moorebank NSW 2170
Owner	New Brighton Golf Club Ltd
Applicant	Mirvac Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a Development Application DA-1271/2015 proposing the construction of 25 detached dwellings on proposed Lot 19 in the staged development of the New Brighton Golf Club and community title subdivision at Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank. This application was lodged on 23 December 2015.

This application was referred to the 23 May 2016 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 4.3 and Clause 7.13(4) of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008. Clause 4.3 stipulates the maximum building height for the site is 8.5m and Clause 7.13(4) stipulates the minimum lot width applying to ‘battle-axe’ lots.

The land is the subject of a bulk earthworks DA, which will alter the ground level before each dwelling is constructed and will ensure that the height of the dwelling complies with the 8.5m height limit. As the earthworks have not yet occurred, the height of the buildings from existing ground level are greater than 8.5m and the proposal therefore results in a technical non-compliance with the standard. When measured from existing ground level, the maximum height of the dwellings exceeds the development standard by between 0.9-39%.

Clause 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008 stipulates that a battle-axe lot must have an average width greater than 10m and minimum of at least 5m. Proposed Lots 19-14 and 19-17 are inconsistent with this provision, however, each of these lots has a frontage to Hennessy Avenue, with the access handle in both cases only providing access to the rear garage and being short in length. As each of these lots have a minimum width of 4m, a variation of 20% to Clause 7.13(4) is therefore proposed.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to conditions of consent as contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (See Attachment 2).

The overall development is subject to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) which requires that certain works be undertaken at the outset of the development and throughout, including the installation of two Gross Pollutant Traps (GTPs). A condition of consent has been imposed which requires compliance with the executed VPA.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves DA-1271/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent attached to the Council officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 2).

Background

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the IHAP for consideration as the proposed development includes a request to vary a development standard in excess of 10, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

The application is accompanied by written requests to vary Clause 4.3 and Clause 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008. Clause 4.3 stipulates the maximum building height for the site is 8.5m and Clause 7.13(4) stipulates the minimum lot width applying to ‘battle-axe’ lots.

The LLEP 2008 defines building height as the vertical distance between existing ground level and the highest point of the building. The land is the subject of a bulk earthworks DA, which will alter the ground level before each dwelling is constructed and will ensure that the height of the dwelling complies with the 8.5m height limit. As the earthworks have not yet occurred, the height of the buildings from existing ground level are greater than 8.5m and the proposal therefore results in a technical non-compliance with the standard. When measured from existing ground level, the buildings exceed the maximum allowable height by between 0.9-39%.

The proposal also fails to comply with Clause 7.13(4) of the LLEP 2008 which stipulates that a battle-axe lot must have an average width greater than 10m and minimum of at least 5m. Proposed Lots 19-14 and 19-17 are inconsistent with this provision, however, each of these lots has a frontage to Hennessy Avenue, with the access handle in both cases only providing access to the rear garage and being short in length. As each of these lots have a minimum width of 4m, a variation of 20% to Clause 7.13(4) is therefore proposed.

The Site

The development site is located within Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank, having the legal description of Lot 31 DP 1181985. The subject site is identified as proposed Lot 19 in approved subdivision DA-762/2014 with an area of 9,101m2.

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

The indicative location of proposed Lot 19 within the ‘Brighton Lakes’ residential development is illustrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

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

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The application seeks development consent for the construction of 25 detached dwellings on proposed Lot 19 within Stage 3 of the Brighton Lakes residential development. The works associated with the delivery of the dwellings is summarised as follows:

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

· Construction of detached dwellings on each of the proposed development lots;

· Landscaping of the dwellings; and

· Community title subdivision recognising each of the dwellings.

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

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

The key issues identified with respect to the proposal relate to the variation to the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13(4) and the maximum building height stipulated by Clause 4.3 of the LLEP 2008. The applicant has submitted written requests seeking to vary these development standards, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the LLEP are as follows:

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

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

Clause 4.6 (3) prescribes:

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

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

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

The applicant has provided justification for the departure from the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13(4) as follows:

· There is no negative environmental impact as a result of the variation and a better design outcome will be achieved with the provision of a battle-axe lot with a side-loaded access handle.

· Through the use of a side access handle these proposed lots are not regular battle-axe lots in that they also have a frontage to Hennessy Avenue, offering a better design outcome for pedestrian safety, reduced hardstand area and residential amenity.

· The variation relates only to the width of the access handle and not the developable land area. The developable portion of the lots exceeds Council’s minimum lot size and lot width requirements as expressed in the LLEP. In this regard, suitable residential development has not been prevented from occurring over proposed Lots 19-14 and 19-17 despite the variation.

· The development is still capable of achieving the overall minimum required width of a vehicular driveway 3m wide with 0.5m of landscaping on both sides; and

· The development as proposed achieves the intent of the control, which is to provide for a 3m wide driveway that is sufficient for vehicle movements in and out of the site, and to provide extra separation or buffer to the residences adjoining the access handle via the provision of a 0.5m wide landscaped strip on either side.

The applicant has provided justification for the departure from the maximum building height stipulated by Clause 4.3 as follows:

· Once the approved earthworks on the site are completed, which will be required prior to the construction of dwellings, the height of the dwellings will range from 4.955m to 7.85m and will therefore comply.

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

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

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.13(4) and Clause 4.3 of the LLEP 2008 is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance; and that the proposal has merit and is worthy of approval.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 23 May 2016, IHAP made the following recommendation:

That development application DA-1271/2015 for community title subdivision of one allotment into 25 lots and construction of 25 detached dwelling houses at Lot 31 Brickmakers Drive Moorebank be approved subject to the conditions in the council officer’s report.

Conclusion

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

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

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

2. IHAP Report DA-1271/2015 View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendation DA-1271/2015 View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Development Application Determination Report

DAD 01

DA-820/2015 Demolition of existing structures and the construction of a 5 storey residential flat building at 15-17 Frangipane Avenue, Liverpool.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	159277.2016
Report By	Brad Harris - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	15-17 Frangipane Avenue, Liverpool
Owner	Ms D Macesic
Applicant	Maitland Road Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

The Development Application seeks consent for the construction of a five-storey residential flat building containing 33 residential units comprising 8 x 1 bedroom units, 23 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 3 bedroom units. The proposed development also provides for one level of basement car parking comprising 28 parking spaces. The development is lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

The application has been called to Council for determination by Councillors Waller, Harle and Stanley by written correspondence dated 27 November 2015. As Councillor Stanley is no longer a Councillor of Liverpool City, this matter was considered by the Planning & Development Committee meeting of 1 June 2016 where it was confirmed that this application should be determined by Council as per the request dated 27 November 2015.

The subject site is identified as Lots 8 and 9 in DP 217917 and is known as 15-17 Frangipane Avenue, Liverpool.

The proposed development does not comply with the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 in that site does not meet the minimum lot width requirements for a residential flat building resulting in adverse streetscape and overshadowing impacts. The proposal is also considered unsatisfactory in terms of vehicle access, manoeuvring and garbage collection arrangements.

The DA was exhibited in accordance with the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 between 22 September and 7 October 2015. Four (4) submissions were received objecting to the proposal.

The application has been assessed pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) 1979. Based on the assessment of the application, it is recommended that the application be refused having regard to adverse impacts in relation to overshadowing, streetscape impacts, traffic, parking and safety issues.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Refuse Development Application DA-820/2015 for the following reasons:

· The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the provisions of s.79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that the subject site does not meet the minimum building street frontage required for a Residential Flat Building as specified by Clause 7.14(2)(c) of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and the applicant has not submitted a Clause 4.6 Variation to address the non-compliance.

· The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the provisions of s.79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that the proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 in terms of minimum lot width, driveway access, parking, vehicle manoeuvring and garbage collection.

· The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the provisions of s.79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that the proposed development is likely to result in adverse privacy impacts to adjoining residential properties.

· The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the provisions of s.79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment in that the proposed development is likely to result in overshadowing and privacy impacts to the adjoining residential property to the south being No.19 Frangipane Avenue.

· The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the provisions of s.79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment in that the size, shape and location of the site is inappropriate for a development of the scale proposed.

· The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the provisions of s.79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment in that the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest as evidenced by the matters raised in the public submissions received in response to the notification of the proposal.

The Site

The development site comprises two lots being Lots 8 and 9 in DP 217917, No.15-17 Frangipane Avenue, Liverpool. The site is located at the head of a cul-de-sac and adjoins the Liverpool-Parramatta T-Way. The development site is irregular in shape with an area of 1,699.82m², a curved lot frontage of 21m and a lot depth ranging from 30m to 38.3m. The site contains two existing dwellings. The topography of the site is relatively flat with access to the site from Frangipane Avenue.

The site is not burdened by any easements.

The Locality

The locality is generally characterised by low density residential development; however the R4 High Density Residential zone will result in a change to higher density living as sites progressively redevelop in the future. Frangipane Avenue is a short cul-de-sac which runs parallel to Hoxton Park Road and is accessed from Flowerdale Road. A number of commercial developments fronting Hoxton Park Road back onto Frangipane Avenue. These consist of a number of shops and a service station which has vehicular access to and from Frangipane Avenue. Liverpool West Public School is located directly opposite the intersection of Frangipane Avenue and Flowerdale Road.

Figure 1: Locality Plan (subject site shown highlighted)

details of the proposal

The development application seeks consent for the construction of a residential flat building comprising a total of 33 residential units. Details of the application are provided as follows:

Building Design

· Construction of a 5-storey residential flat building containing 33 residential units comprising of:

- 1 bedroom unit x 8;

- 2 bedroom unit x 23 and

- 3 bedroom unit x 2.

· Ancillary site works including the demolition of existing buildings;

· Height of the building is 15.51m;

· A floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.49:1 is proposed based on a gross floor area (GFA) of 2,532.56m²

· Building forms are articulated extensively, and facades incorporate a variety of materials and finishes.

Vehicular and Pedestrian Access

· Vehicular access is provided from Frangipane Avenue, via a 5.5m wide driveway.

· Two main pedestrian access points to lift lobbies are from Frangipane Avenue. Additionally, one ground floor unit is also provided with separate pedestrian access from Frangipane Avenue.

Parking Provisions

· A total of 30 car parking spaces have been provided including 3 accessible spaces.

Floor Layouts

· Basement: The development provides one basement level with the provision of 30 car parking spaces. A Garbage Storage area of approx. 45m² is also provided.

· Ground Floor: Contains 7 units, 6 of which have direct access to a private courtyard. A bin holding area, is provided adjacent to the access driveway to the basement.

· Levels 1 and 2: Each contains 8 units divided by an open air open lobby.

· Levels 3 and 4: Each Contains 5 units with podium landscaping and open corridor.

Landscaping

· Landscaping consists of native tree species planted along all boundaries, as well as surrounding the private courtyards of the ground floor units.

· The majority of deep soil landscaping is provided along the northern boundary of the development site. Deep soil landscaping is also provided along the side boundaries and within small pockets along the front setback.

· A small area of podium landscaping is provided on Level 4.

Site Servicing Facilities

· A garbage bin storage area has been provided within the basement. This is accessed through the shared space between two accessible car parking spaces, which is considered not only unacceptable, but most likely to render the movement of bins impossible due to the need to provide a bollard centrally within the shared zone of the two spaces to prevent this space being utilised as a defacto parking space.

· A designated bin storage area is also provided at ground floor level adjacent to the access driveway. It is intended that bins be moved to this location via a tug and that from there they will be moved to the kerb for collection.

· The applicant has had ongoing discussions with Council staff regarding waste storage and collection. This is further discussed later in this report.

Stormwater Drainage

A concept stormwater plan was submitted with the application however this was found to be unsatisfactory by Council’s Land Development Engineer. The additional information requested from the applicant was as follows:

· The stormwater easement locations shall be shown on the stormwater plan together with any proposed structures including surface pits, pipes, On Site Detention basin walls, etc. shall be relocated clear of the stormwater easements.

· The applicant’s engineer shall ensure there is sufficient fall between all pits and pipes on site.

· An electronic copy of the DRAINS model shall be provided to Council.

At the time of writing this report the above information had not been submitted.

Demolition

· Demolition of existing buildings on site, consisting of two single storey detached dwellings, and associated outbuildings.

STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

Zoning

The site is zoned R4 High Density Residential, pursuant to the LLEP 2008. The proposal is defined as a residential flat building which is a permissible development in the R4 zone, subject to Council consent.

A detailed assessment of the application against all relevant provisions of the LLEP 2008 is provided below.

Figure 2 – Extract of the LLEP 2008, zoning map

Relevant matters for consideration

The relevant planning considerations for the proposed development are listed below and are discussed in further detail in this report:

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009;

· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings; and Apartment Design Guide;

· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

· State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

· Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment (now deemed SEPP);

· Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

· Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008;

- Part 1: General Controls for All Development; and

- Part 3.7: Residential Flat Buildings in the R4 zone.

ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument

(a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The DA has been lodged pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposal demonstrates full compliance with the relevant provisions, as detailed below.

Provision

Comment

Part 2 New Affordable Rental Housing

Division 1 In Fill Affordable Housing

Clause 10 Development to which Division Applies

(1) This Division applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings if:

(a) the development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument, and

(b) the development is on land that does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument, or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977.

Complies

The development is permitted with consent under the LLEP 2008 and the site does not contain a heritage item.

(2) Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within an accessible area.

‘accessible area’ means land that is within 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday

Complies

The site is within 400m of a bus stop. Bus services run along Flowerdale Road and Hoxton Park Road which are in close proximity to the site.

The nearby bus stop is serviced by the T80 bus, which travels between Liverpool Station and Parramatta Station.

The above bus services operate within the parameters specified in the SEPP.

Clause 13 Floor Space ratio

(1) This clause applies to development to which this Division applies if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20 per cent.

The clause applies

It is proposed that 19 units be dedicated to affordable housing, representing 1266.28m² of gross floor area or 50% of the gross floor area of the development (2,532.56m²).

(2) The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus:

(a) if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less:

(i) 0.5:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or

Complies

It is proposed that 50% of the gross floor area of the development be utilised for affordable housing. Therefore there a bonus of 0.5 applies. The FSR permissible is therefore 1.5:1

The development proposes an FSR of 1.49:1

Clause 14 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) Site and solar access requirements
A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(b) Site Area

if the site area on which it is proposed to carry out the development is at least 450 square metres,

Complies

The development site has an area of 1699.82m².

(c) landscaped area: if:

(i) in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider—a minimum 35m2 of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or

(ii) in any other case—a minimum of 30% of the area of the site is to be landscaped,

Complies

The development provides for a landscaped area of 30% of the site area.

(d) Deep Soil Zones

In relation to that part of the site area that is not built on, paved or otherwise sealed:

(i) there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15% of the site area (the deep soil zone), and

(ii) each area forming part of the deep soil zone has a minimum dimension of 3m, and

(iii) if practicable, at least two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site area,

Complies

15% (603.09m²) of the site area is a deep soil zone.

Approximately, two thirds of the deep soil zone is located within the rear portion of the site.

(e) solar access: if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70% of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,

Complies

79% of the development (i.e. 26 units) receive 3 hours of solar access or more.

(2) General
A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a) parking

(ii) in any other case—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms.

Complies

A total of 30 spaces are required. A total of 30 spaces are proposed within the basement.

(b) dwelling size
if each dwelling has a gross floor area of at least:

(i) 35m²in the case of a bedsitter or studio, or

(ii) 50m²in the case of a dwelling having 1 bedroom, or

(iii) 70m²in the case of a dwelling having 2 bedrooms, or

(iv) 95m²in the case of a dwelling having 3 or more bedrooms.

Complies

Minimum dwelling sizes are as follows:

- 50.00m² – 68.17m² per 1 bedroom unit; and

- 75m² -75.51m²per 2 bedroom unit.

- 95.00m² per 3 bedroom unit

Clause 16 Continued Application of SEPP 65

Nothing in this Policy affects the application of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development to any development to which this Division applies.

Complies

An assessment of SEPP 65 has been carried out and it is considered that the proposed setbacks from southern and western side boundaries do not allow for sufficient building separation for future developments on adjoining sites. Further discussion is provided within Section 5.1(c) of this report.

Clause 16A Character of Local Area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

Complies

The current character of the area is generally comprised of single and double storey detached dwellings which was influenced primarily by the architecture of mid to late twentieth century brick and tile bungalows with hipped roofs, together with front and rear gardens.

The immediate locality has recently been rezoned to R4 – High Density Residential. The area is currently in transition from low density residential to high density residential.

The proposed development comprises a residential flat building that accommodates a total of 33 dwellings over five storeys, above a basement level for car parking. Although the proposed development does not strictly conform to the current character of the area, given that this is the first of its type within the immediate locality, it will nevertheless conform to the future desired character of the area.

It is expected that adjoining development would be constructed in accordance with the current LLEP 2008 and LDCP 2008. As such, the proposed development generally complies with these requirements and therefore contributes to the desired future character of the area. It should be noted however that Frangipane Avenue is a cul-de-sac and that because of its relationship to other highly trafficked roads, presents significant constraints that makes development for residential flat buildings problematic.

Clause 17 Must Be Used for Affordable Housing for 10 Years

(1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that:

(a) for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:

(i) the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

(ii) all accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and

(b) a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met.

Complies

Conditions of consent could be imposed should the application be approved.

(b) Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

(i) Permissibility

The proposed development is defined as a residential flat building. As per the LLEP, 2008, a residential flat building is defined as follows:

Residential flat building means a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

The proposed development satisfies the definition of a residential flat building. The subject site is predominately zoned R4 High Density Residential under the LLEP 2008 and a residential flat building is permissible within the zone, subject to Council consent.

(ii) Objectives of the zone

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R4 zone. The objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

· To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

· To provide for a high concentration of housing with good access to transport, services and facilities.

· To minimise the fragmentation of land that would prevent the achievement of high density residential development.

The proposal generally satisfies the above objectives of the R4 zone as follows:

· It will provide for housing needs within a high density residential environment. It is noted that while immediate development within the vicinity of the site consists of low density residential development, the area has been zoned as High Density Residential and it is therefore envisioned that redevelopment of the area will result in the establishment of other residential flat buildings within close vicinity of the subject site.

· It will contain a number of different sized units, thereby providing a variety of housings types within a high density residential environment.

· It is unlikely to hinder the opportunity for other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

· The site is within close proximity to transport facilities which include the Liverpool Transit Way.

· Whilst the proposal will provide high density residential development that will not necessarily result in the fragmentation of land that would otherwise hinder the opportunity for other high density residential development within the area, it is considered that the two lots that form the proposed development would be better amalgamated with other sites to improve the built form outcomes, provide a more efficient use of land and minimise impacts on adjoining properties.

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the relevant objectives of the zones.

(iii) Principal Development Standards and Provisions

The application has also been considered against the relevant provisions and principal development standards of the LLEP 2008, which are listed in the table below. The proposal demonstrates full compliance with the LLEP 2008, where applicable.

It is noted that Clause 8 of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 prescribes that if there is an inconsistency between this Policy and any other environmental planning instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. In this regard, only those provisions of the LLEP 2008 which are not in conflict with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 have been considered.

LLEP Clause	Provision	Comment
Clause 2.7 Demolition	The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent	Complies Development consent is sought for the demolition of the existing buildings on the development site.
Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings	Maximum height of 15m	Does Not Comply A building height of 15.51m is proposed. A Clause 4.6 variation has been submitted which is contained within the applicants Statement of Environmental Effects in Attachment 4.
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio	Maximum FSR of 1.1:1	Not Applicable The SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 prescribes a maximum FSR of 1.5:1
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards	Provisions relating to exceptions to development standards	A Clause 4.6 variation to address the non-compliance with the building height development standard has been submitted.
Clause 7.14 Minimum Building Street Frontage	Minimum building street frontage of 24m	Does not Comply The site has a street frontage of 21m measured around the curved frontage. A Clause 4.6 Variation has not been submitted.

(c) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The proposal has been lodged under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP). The SEPP provisions contain concessions to development standards provided a percentage of housing is made available as affordable rental housing. The subject proposal provides 50% of the proposed units as affordable rental housing and is thereby subject to a floor space bonus. The applicable floor space ratio (FSR) is 1.5:1 rather than 1:1 as specified under LLEP 2008.

In addition, the ARH SEPP specifies a number of development standards that Council cannot use as a reason for refusal should compliance not be achieved. In summary, these are:

· Site Area - if the site is greater in area than 450m^2.

· Landscaped Area - if development by a private developer provides 30% of the site as landscaped area.

· Solar access - if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

· Parking – if at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms,

· Dwelling size - if each dwelling has a gross floor area of at least:

(i) 35 m² - studio, or

(ii) 50 m² - 1 bedroom, or

(iii) 70 m² - 2 bedrooms, or

(iv) 95 m^{2 -} 3 or more bedrooms.

Significantly Clause 16A of the ARH SEPP states that:

“A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.”

(d) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development; and the Apartment Design Guide

The proposal has been evaluated against the provisions of SEPP 65 which aims to improve the design quality of residential flat development. SEPP 65 does not contain numerical standards, but requires Council to consider the development against 9 key design quality principles; and against the guidelines of the associated Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The ADG provides additional detail and guidance for applying the design quality principles outlined in SEPP 65.

The nine key design quality principles that must be considered are listed below. In its amended form, the application demonstrates consistency with the principles and is acceptable

1. Context and neighbourhood character

2. Built form and scale

3. Density

4. Sustainability

5. Landscape

6. Amenity

7. Safety

8. Housing diversity and social interaction

9. Aesthetics

Assessment of the application against the principles of SEPP 65 and the guidelines of the ADG, together with advice from Council’s independent Design Excellence Panel has concluded that the proposal is generally satisfactory with respect to the provisions of SEPP 65 and the guidelines of the ADG, however a number of design changes were requested. These were subsequently reviewed by the DEP and no significant issues were raised by the Panel. However, in a larger planning context and having regard to the impacts of the proposal resulting from non-compliances with LLEP 2008 and LDCP 2008 and issues raised in public submissions, the proposal is not supported.

(e) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP 55, a consent authority is unable to grant development consent unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated and, if so, whether the consent authority is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state, or can be remediated to be made suitable for the purposes for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Consideration has been given to this issue. A search of Council’s available records suggest that the site appears to have been used solely for residential purposes. On this basis, it is unlikely that the site is contaminated and it is considered that no further investigation such as the submission of a contamination report is necessary.

(f) State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

The proposal is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate which is consistent with the aims and intent of the Policy.

(g) Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment (now deemed SEPP).

The proposed development is not likely to be in conflict with the objectives of the Plan which seeks to promote the protection of the Georges River Catchment. However it is noted that additional information to address engineering concerns with stormwater disposal have not been provided by the applicant.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) - Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

There are no Draft Environmental Planning Instruments that apply to the subject site.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) - Provisions of any Development Control Plan

(a) Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008

The application has been assessed against the provisions of the LDCP 2008, particularly Part 1 General Controls for all Development; and Part 3.7 Residential Flat Buildings in R4 Zones. The development is found to be generally compliant. However, it is noted that there are some variations sought to the controls.

This section addresses the variations sought to the controls of the LDCP 2008. A full compliance table is provided in the Attachments.

Car Parking

The proposal provides 30 car parking spaces within a basement level. LDCP 2008 requires parking for residential flat buildings to be provided at the following rate:

1 space per small dwelling (< 65sqm) or 1 bedroom

1.5 spaces per medium dwelling (65 -110sqm) or 2 bedrooms

2 spaces per large dwelling (> 110sqm) or 3 or more bedrooms

1 visitor car space for every 4 dwellings or part thereof

This would equate for the need to provide 55 spaces. However the ARH SEPP requires only 30 spaces and the development complies with this requirement. Council cannot refuse the application on the basis of lack of parking given that compliance with the SEPP parking provisions is met.

Vehicular Access

LDCP 2008 requires that residential flat buildings provide service access for removalists and garbage servicing. The proposal originally sought to provide a single width driveway access to the basement car parking area. This necessitated the need for a traffic signalling system to prevent conflict between vehicles entering and leaving the site. In addition to concerns regarding the one-way driveway, the applicant was advised that as no area was available within the site for cars waiting to enter the site if another vehicle was leaving the site, the one way driveway would not be supported.

The applicant’s traffic consultant subsequently provided additional details at the request of Council’s traffic engineer and eventually showed a widened entry point to allow for a car to wait on the site. However, the applicant was advised that a single width driveway would still not be supported and consequently further ‘last minute’ amendments were made to the proposal to include a two way access driveway in order to seek support for the proposal. Notwithstanding the latest changes made to the proposal it remains unacceptable for the following reasons:

· The driveway width is less than the required radius of 6.7m to allow safe passing of cars at the base of the driveway where it enters the basement car parking area.

· The access driveway at the point where it meets the basement level does not align with the central driveway between the parking spaces in the basement and is considered to result in inefficient and unsafe vehicle movements.

· The car parking spaces and driveways within the basement are not dimensioned and do not appear to be designed to meet the relevant Australian standard in relation to dimension of parking spaces or width of driveways.

Garbage Servicing

The application originally provided a garage storage area for 240 litre bins in the basement. The applicant was requested to provide further details of the proposed garbage servicing arrangements given that insufficient space is available at the kerbside for the placement of the 34 x 240 litre bins required for the development.

The applicant held discussions with Council’s Acting Waste Management Coordinator and subsequently submitted an amended plan which provided 8 x 110litre bins (4 waste and 4 recycling). It is now proposed to bring the bins to a holding area adjacent to the driveway entrance prior to collection day. This will be done by a battery operated tug. The bins will then be brought to the kerbside for collection.

The current proposal does not overcome the main problem in that collection of bins from a property at the head of a cul-de-sac with a small frontage is impractical. It also results in a garbage storage area adjacent to the front boundary which creates a further streetscape impact. Further, the bin storage room in the basement is accessed via a doorway between two shared disabled car parking spaces and given that the spaces are required to be provided with a bollard to prevent cars parking in the shared area, it is unclear how the bins will be brought into and out of the garbage room.

Setbacks

LDCP 2008 provides the following setback controls:

· Front setback - 5.5m

· Side setbacks - First 10m in height – 3m

Greater than 10m in height – 8m

· Rear setback - 8m

The objectives of the setback controls are as follows:

a) To set buildings back from the street and adjacent properties to provide reasonable space for landscaping, open space and solar access.

b) To set buildings back from each other to provide visual and acoustic privacy.

c) To establish a streetscape of a scale and sense of enclosure appropriate to the locality.

d) To provide convenient and unobtrusive vehicle access and car parking without the use of long driveways.

The setbacks proposed remain unclear in terms of demonstrating exact setbacks as the latest amended plans received are not a full set of plans and not all setbacks are dimensioned. It is clear however that the proposal is not compliant with required setbacks.

The recent amendment to provide a garbage storage area within the street setback show this element as being setback approximately 500mm from the front boundary. The nearest other element is a ground floor patio attached forming part of Unit 01 and this is set back approximately 3m from the front boundary.

The southern side boundary setback provided is 4.0m at ground floor level and does not meet the 8m setback as required by the DCP. The rear setback is also non-compliant for levels 1-3 which ranges from 6.5m – 7.5m.

The rear setback to the T-Way is 2.068m at its closest point at ground level and up to 5.66m at levels 4 and 5. This setback is considered acceptable given there are no overlooking issues for private properties on this boundary.

Private Open Space

LDCP 2008 requires private open space to be provided as follows:

- A minimum of 10m² for a dwelling size of less than 65m²; and

- A minimum of 12m² for a dwelling size of greater than 65m².

The proposal is considered to comply with these requirements.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) - Planning Agreements

There are no relevant Planning Agreements

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) - The Regulations

The development is generally satisfactory in regard to the Regulations.

Section 79C(1)(a)(v) - Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates

The site is not within a coastal zone.

Section 79C(1)(b) - The Likely Impacts of the Development

(a) Natural and Built Environment

The impacts of the development on the natural environment have been assessed and the development is considered to be acceptable and unlikely to cause any adverse impact to the natural environment. Consideration has been given to site-specific and broader issues such as, but not limited to the potential impact of earthworks.

The impacts of the development on the built environment, specifically on neighbouring properties has been discussed in this report. The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted height allowed under LLEP 2008 and does not comply with minimum setbacks required under LDCP 2008. The resultant impacts from these non-compliances on the built environment pertain to overshadowing and privacy.

b) Social Impacts and Economic Impacts

The proposal is unlikely to have any negative social impact on the locality. The proposal would have positive economic impacts due to the capital investment value of the proposed development.

Section 79C(1)(c) - The Suitability of the Site for the Development

Whilst the site meets the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP in terms of general locational requirements for proximity to public transport and services, it is considered to be unsuitable for the proposed development having regard to its shape and size and its location at the head of a cul-de-sac.

The development site is less than the minimum frontage required under Clause 7.14 of LLEP 2008 and the narrowness of the site frontage and its wedge shape is considered to result in the proposed development having unacceptable negative impacts on adjoining properties, particularly the property immediately to the south (No.19 Frangipane Avenue) in terms of overshadowing and privacy due to reduced setbacks to the southern boundary. The extent of non-compliances proposed is evidence that the subject site is inappropriate for the scale of development proposed.

Section 79C(1)(d) - Any submissions made in relation to the Development

A total of 4 submissions were made following the notification of the proposed development.

The issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

Traffic

Concern is raised in the submissions in respect of traffic impacts resulting from the development. These comments are raised in the context of the site being located in a cul-de-sac and the parking and traffic issues related to the proximity of Liverpool West Public School and shops fronting Hoxton Park Road.

Comment:

Site inspections carried out during school finishing times indicate that Frangipane Avenue is used by parents picking up children from Liverpool West Public School. A number of incidents of illegal parking and traffic movements were witnessed as parents seek to find a place to park whilst waiting for their children. The parking situation is exacerbated by the close proximity of the Frangipane Avenue/ Flowerdale Road intersection with the intersection of Flowerdale Road and Hoxton Park Road. The fact that Frangipane Avenue is a cul-de-sac makes it a convenient turnaround point for parents doing morning drop-off or afternoon pick-up of children. This, together with the fact that a local shopping strip and a service station are accessible from Frangipane Avenue contributes to a high level of traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity of Frangipane Avenue.

Parking

Concern is raised that insufficient parking is provided by the development and this will impact on available street parking for residents and parents dropping off and picking up children from the school. This is considered by residents to result in safety impacts for children given there are no footpaths in Frangipane Avenue

Comment:

The level of parking provided for the development meets the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP. However, it is acknowledged that Frangipane Avenue in addition to normal residential demand, bears the burden of additional parking demand generated by the adjacent public school. The design of the basement parking area and access to it are considered unacceptable. These issues have been addressed above.

Privacy

The submissions raise concerns that the proposal created undue privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

Comment:

Although some submitters would not be adversely impacted in terms of privacy, it is evident that the proposed development will have adverse privacy impacts on immediately adjoining properties given the non-compliant side and rear boundary setbacks.

Out of Character

The submissions raise concern that a 5 storey residential flat building is out of character for the locality as Frangipane Avenue is a short cul-de-sac which contains predominately single and two storey dwellings.

Comment:

It should be acknowledged that the subject site, and all of Frangipane Avenue and the southern side of Murphy Avenue to the north is zoned R4 High Density Residential and as the land is gradually redeveloped to its highest potential the character of the area will change. Notwithstanding this, the controls contained within LLEP 2008 and LDCP 2008 are designed to ensure development is provided in a manner that is sensitive to adjoining properties. The subject development presents a number of non-compliances that relate to the specific location of the site and its size and shape. These non-compliances lend weight to the argument presented in the submissions that the proposed development would be out of character with the immediate locality in which it is proposed.

Devaluation of Properties

Submitters have raised concern that high density housing, particularly affordable housing, will have adverse impacts on the value of their properties.

Comment:

Impact on property values is not a matter for consideration by Council in assessing a development application under s.79C of the Environmental Panning and Assessment Act, 1979. There is no evidence however, that a development of this nature would have detrimental impact on property values.

(a) Internal Referrals

The following comments have been received from Council’s Internal Departments:

DEPARTMENT	COMMENTS
Engineering	Further information required to assess compliance of stormwater design
Flooding	Satisfactory subject to conditions
Landscaping	No comment received
Traffic	The development should comply with relevant Australian Standards for vehicular access, parking and maneuvering.

(b) External Referrals

No external referrals were required.

(c) Independent Council Panels

The DA was referred to the Design Excellence Panel (DEP). The panel provided the following comments:

· The Panel requires a site analysis and context plan that clearly sets out existing & possible future relationships as the area changes to R4.

· Concerned about the setbacks from the street and the southern and western boundaries and that setbacks should comply with the ADG. Adjustments could include deletion of the south-facing bedroom balconies to the 02 and 08 line of apartments.

· The relationships of the building to the site boundaries, adjoining existing development and particularly possible future R4 development as it is the first redevelopment in the immediate locality. Need to ensure that all adjoining sites could develop in an equitable way. The proponent needs to validate any relaxation of any setback and to have “proof of concept” that solar access and ADG separation is achieved.

· Particular concern is the unit on the south eastern corner as it is too close to the southern boundary. A reduction in apartments may result in a more satisfactory interface with this boundary.

· The western common entry should be reoriented to address the cul-de-sac head.

· The Panel questions whether the southern side of the building should be moved slightly to the north to free up the southern boundary.

· The 1.6m setback to the Frangipane cul de-sac-head needs to be increased. The panel holds the view that such a minimal setback could set a very sub optimal precedent for other developments in the cul de sac subdivision pattern.

· The proposal does not address the shape of the cul-de-sac head. The building façade need not be curved, but should show a discernible relationship of the cul-de-sac “bulb”

· The architecture resolution and materials are satisfactory

· The two lift lobbies are supported.

· Good cross ventilation.

· Good architectural expression. Consider increasing the definition of the roof, top and base.

· Provide increased modulation/detailing of the balustrades and blank walls

· Provide separate access to the ground floor unit near the cul-de-sac head.

· Natural light & ventilation to be introduced to upper floor utility rooms.

· Window to kitchen Unit 105.

Amended plans were provided and were reconsidered by the DEP and the proposal was generally supported by the Panel in relation to architectural design issues.

Section 79C(1)(e) - The Public Interest

Having regard to the level of public submissions received and the issues raised regarding the non-compliance with Council’s adopted controls, it is considered that the proposed development is not in the public interest.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) 1979. Based on the assessment of the application, it is recommended that the application be refused having regard to adverse impacts in relation to overshadowing, privacy and streetscape impacts, and traffic, parking and safety issues.

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 & Landowner Details View (Under separate cover)

2. Plans of Proposed Development View - Confidential

3. Liverpool DCP Compliance Table View (Under separate cover)

4. Applicants Statement of Environmental Effects View (Under separate cover)

101

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Development Application Determination Report

DAD 02

DA-1251/2015 Use and Fitout of a shed for a rural industry (servicing of agricultural machinery) at 1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	159653.2016
Report By	Maureen Miraziz - Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly

Lot 6 DP 712840

Owner

David Bonanno

Applicant

GAT and Associates

Executive Summary

Council has received a development application for the use and fitout of an approved farm shed for a rural industry (servicing of agricultural machinery) at 1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly.

The application has been called to Council for determination by Councillors Mannoun, Hadid and Hadchiti by written correspondence dated 10 June 2016.

This report summarises the key issues which should be considered in the determination of the proposal in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act) and Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008).

The proposal was not notified to adjoining properties in accordance with the Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008.

It is considered that the proposal is a prohibited development in the RU4 zone Primary Production Small Lots, as it is more appropriately defined as a ‘vehicle repairs station’.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council refuse Development Application DA-1251/2015 for the use and fitout of a shed for a rural industry (servicing of agricultural machinery).

Background

Previous Applications

Date	Record No.	Description
4.07.12	DA-979/2012	Approved construction of a farm building (rural shed)
3.02.16	DA-979/2012/A	Approved modification to relocate the farm shed
02.07.16	DA-979/2012/B	Approved modification to relocate the farm shed

Application History

Date	Description
22.12.15	Lodgement of DA-1251/2015
10.03.16	A letter was sent informing the applicant that the proposal is prohibited, it was advised the application be withdrawn to avoid a refusal.
24.03.16	An extension of time was granted until 24.03.16, to respond to the above letter.
23.03.16	A letter was received stating that the proposal aligns with the definition of ‘rural industry’.
27.04.16	Advice from Council’s legal team was received confirming that the proposal is not defined as rural industry and is therefore a prohibited development.
29.04.16	The applicant was informed that Council’s legal team confirm that the development is prohibited, as it is more appropriately defined as a ‘vehicle repair station’.
04.05.16	A meeting was held with the applicant and the owner of the proposal, where they were advised that the proposal was prohibited. The applicant questioned the possibility of converting the proposal to a ‘home industry’ development, whereby only 50m²of the shed would be permitted to be used to operate a home industry. The applicant was advised to demonstrate how the development would comply with the definition/requirement of a home industry or otherwise withdraw the application.
31.05.16	Advice received from Council’s Environmental Health Team stating that waste drainage for an area of 50m² would not be supported as it is unlikely that it will be achieved within such a small area.
31.05.16	The applicant was advised to demonstrate how the development would comply with the definition/requirement of a home industry, otherwise to withdraw the application.
02.06.16	The applicant provided methods of waste drainage to be considered, and provided amended plans to support a home industry use. This information was referred to Council’s Health department to confirm if the proposal would impact on waste water and if it would meet the definition of home industry.
02.06.16	The methods were revised by Council’s Environmental Health department and were not considered acceptable.
8.06.16	Advice from DA manager to applicant stating that a home industry can be considered under a separate application with the construction of a new structure limited to 50m².

The Site

Site Description and Locality

The subject site is identified as Lot 6 DP712840 and is located at 1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly. It is located in a rural area surrounded by large lots occupied with residential dwellings and an educational establishment across the street on the south western side of The Northern Road. The location of the site and the zoning maps are shown below in Figures 1 and 2.

Issu

The Northern Road

Bringelly Public School

Location of Bringelly Public School

details of the proposal

The proposed development includes:

· The use and fitout of an approved farm shed to be used as a ‘rural industry’ to service agricultural machinery brought to the site.

· The total number of employees is 6 persons, consisting of 5 mechanics and 1 administrative person;

· Carpark of 9 spaces; and

· The proposed hours of operation are:

o Monday to Friday 7am to 5.30pm

o Saturday: 7am to 1.30pm

o No work on Sundays

the issues

(a) Prohibited Development

The proposed development is incorrectly defined as ‘rural industry’, as a rural industry development must be associated with an agricultural use which is non-existent on the subject site.

The proposed development is more appropriately defined as a ‘vehicle repair station’, which is a prohibited form of development in the RU4 zone.

(b) Environmental Health Requirements

The proposal does not demonstrate how the liquid waste disposal generated by servicing of the vehicles can be adequately contained within 50m². Contamination impacts upon downstream properties and the Thompson’s Creek are highly likely to occur.

(c) Carpark

Stormwater plans demonstrating appropriate rainwater drainage for the proposed carpark area containing 9 spaces have not been provided.

(d) Home Industry Option

The option of converting the proposal to a ‘home industry’ form of development is unlikely to be supported by Council as the area must be restricted to 50m² using only one roller shutter door out of the four approved large roller shutter doors of the shed. Liquid waste disposal treatment and bunding would be required to be restricted to the allocated area only, which is unlikely to be possible. Thus, the ‘home industry’ option within the approved farm shed is not considered acceptable.

It is further noted the proposed business involves the servicing of larger machinery/vehicles, which would require a larger area than 50m² to carry out the servicing. Therefore, the partial conversion of the shed to a home industry use with an area of 50m² is considered impractical.

Planning Assessment

The following planning instruments have been considered in the planning assessment of the subject Development Application: -

· The Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (No. 2 - 1997)

· State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land; and

· Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

The development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

1. Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Any Environmental Planning Instrument

(a) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (No. 2 - 1997) (Deemed SEPP)

The subject land is located within the Hawkesbury Nepean River Catchment and as such The Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (No. 2 - 1997) applies to the application.

The Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (No. 2 - 1997) generally aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system.

When a consent authority determines a development application planning considerations are to be applied (Clause 4(1)). Accordingly, a table summarising the matters for consideration in determining a development application (Clause 5 and Clause 6), and compliance with such is provided below.

Clause 5 General Planning Considerations	Comment
(a) the aims of this plan,	The plan aims to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context.
(b) the strategies listed in the Action Plan of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Environmental Planning Strategy,	The proposal is considered inconsistent with the requirements of Clause 9(g) as the waste disposal may impact the onsite sewer management system as specified by Councils Health Section.
(c) whether there are any feasible alternatives to the development or other proposal concerned,	The proposed development is suited to be carried out from an industrial zone which have connection to Sydney Water to properly dispose of the waste associated with the vehicle repair station.
(d) the relationship between the different impacts of the development or other proposal and the environment, and how those impacts will be addressed and monitored.	The proposed development does not demonstrate or incorporate measures on how it prevents oil/grease escaping into Thompson’s Creek.
Clause 6 Specific planning policies and recommended strategies	Comment
(1) Total catchment management	The site is located within an area covered by the Liverpool District Stormwater Management Plan, as outlined within Liverpool City Council Water Strategy 2004.
(2) Environmentally sensitive areas	Not within ESL area
(3) Water quality	The water quality is likely to be impacted as measures to contain the liquid waste have not been demonstrated.
(4) Water quantity	Stormwater documents supporting the application were not provided as part of the application.
(5) Cultural heritage	Aboriginal Heritage has not been investigated as part of the development as it is not required.
(6) Flora and fauna	No significant vegetation within area of development
(7) Riverine scenic quality	Unlikely to interfere with the riverine scenic quality.
(8) Agriculture/aquaculture and fishing	Unlikely to interfere with the riverine scenic quality.
(9) Rural residential development	No existing agricultural use on site; Additional site effluent will generate as a result of the development. A waste water management report has not been submitted; and An appropriate disposal method demonstrating how the liquid waste generated from the servicing of vehicles will be treated has not been demonstrated.
(10) Urban development	Not in an urban development area
(11) Recreation and tourism	None proposed
(12) Metropolitan strategy	see previous comments

It is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the provisions of the SREP No.20 as insufficient information has been provided as part of the application.

(b) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP 55, the following shall be addressed:

Clause 7 - Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application	Comment
(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:
(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and	No evidence of contamination on subject site.
(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and	N/A
(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.	Remediation of land is not required.

Aerial images from year 2002 found on Council’s eview GIS system illustrates the presence of the a residential dwelling (Figure 1), which suggests the site has principally been used for industrial purposes for at least the past 14 years.

(c) Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008

(i) Permissibility

The proposal development is for a ‘vehicle repair station’ use of an approved farm shed which is prohibited in the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone.

The Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) defines a ‘vehicle repair station’ as follows:

vehicle repair station means a building or place used for the purpose of carrying out repairs to, or the selling and fitting of accessories to, vehicles or agricultural machinery, but does not include a vehicle body repair workshop or vehicle sales or hire premises.

(ii) Objectives of the zone

The objectives of the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots are:

· To enable sustainable primary industry and other compatible land uses.

· To encourage and promote diversity and employment opportunities in relation to primary industry enterprises, particularly those that require smaller lots or that are more intensive in nature.

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with these zone objectives.

Comment:

A vehicle repairs station is not a form of a ‘rural industry’, which is a permitted use in the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone.

The Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) defines a ‘rural industry’ as follows:

rural industry means the handling, treating, production, processing, storage or packing of animal or plant agricultural products for commercial purposes, and includes any of the following:

a) agricultural produce industries,

b) livestock processing industries,

c) composting facilities and works (including the production of mushroom substrate),

d) sawmill or log processing works,

e) stock and sale yards,

f) the regular servicing or repairing of plant or equipment used for the purposes of a rural enterprise.

Rural industries are not a type of industry—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary

Advice has been obtained from Council’s Legal Department stating that the proposed development is clearly a commercial vehicle workshop (i.e. industrial activity) as it is not associated with an agricultural use of the subject site. Reference is made to the following case law:

Hawkesbury City Council v Sammut (2002) 119 LGERA 171, and the operation of cl.9 of SEPP No.30 (Intensive Agriculture).

The following comments were made in relation to the definition of rural industry:

“The Court concludes that the words ‘ whether made before or after the commencement of this clause’ were inserted to ensure that upon an interpretation of the relevant environmental planning instrument the words ‘rural industry’ were never to be included as an ‘industry’. Such construction is consistent with the aims and objectives of the amendment wherein it is stated that the aim of the amendment was to make it plain that the term industry, where used in environmental planning instruments, does not include rural industries”.

Comment: The proposed use of the shed is considered as an industrial activity which is a prohibited form of development in the RU4 zone and is not defined as a rural industry.

Note: The applicant later sought to amend the application converting the application to a home industry use.

A ‘home industry’ development is permitted in the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone with consent.

The Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) defines a ‘home industry’ as follows:

home industry means a dwelling (or a building ancillary to a dwelling) used by one or more permanent residents of the dwelling to carry out an industrial activity that does not involve any of the following:

a) the employment of more than 2 persons other than those residents,

b) interference with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, traffic generation or otherwise,

c) the exposure to view, from any adjacent premises or from any public place, of any unsightly matter,

d) the exhibition of any signage (other than a business identification sign),

e) the sale of items (whether goods or materials), or the exposure or offer for sale of items, by retail, except for goods produced at the dwelling or building, but does not include bed and breakfast accommodation or sex services premises

A ‘home industry’ use of the shed is unlikely to be supported by Council as adequate methods of liquid waste disposal has not been demonstrated, in addition to the likely use of an area larger than the allocated 50m², given the size of machinery to be repaired.

The applicant has indicated that oils and coolants are collected and placed into a drum for collection, however the use of moveable collection devices (such as trays) is only one part of the process to adequately manage liquid waste. The workshop area would need to be fully bunded and graded to fall into a collection pit to provide a low point for pump out, collection and removal by a licenced contractor. This is a requirement as leaks / spills are reasonably likely to occur when working on mechanical equipment or storing liquids and these spills must be adequately contained to prevent potential water and/or land pollution. It is imperative that new industrial activities / premises are designed meet not just minimum requirements but also industry best practice. This is particularly important for industrial activities proposed within residential areas.

The size and accessibility of the shed combined with the potential size of agricultural machinery to be serviced raises the concern that operations including works and/or the storage of equipment / machinery may easily occur outside of the approved area and therefore not within the appropriately treated section of the workshop.

The ongoing issues of connecting such a system to an onsite sewage management system is not considered environmentally and economically feasible and it is considered that it will interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood and is therefore not considered suitable for the site.

(iii) Principal Development Standards

The LLEP 2008 contains the following principal development standard which is discussed with respect to the proposal as follows: -

Development Provision	Requirement	Proposed	Comment
5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses	(3) Home industries If development for the purposes of a home industry is permitted under this Plan, the carrying on of the home industry must not involve the use of more than 50 square metres of floor area.	The proposal does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed operations will be contained within only 50m² of the shed.	Does not comply

Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered inconsistent with the above requirement of the LLEP 2008.

2. Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

There are no Draft Environmental Planning Instruments applicable to the subject site.

3. Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Any Development Control Plan

(a) Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008.

The proposed development is applicable to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008. The following key controls are discussed in the following table:

Part 1 General Controls for all Development
Control	Requirement	Proposed	Comment
Section 2. Tree Preservation	Consider impact of development on existing vegetation	No trees to be removed	N/A
Section 3. Landscaping and Incorporation of Existing Trees	Incorporation of existing trees into development where appropriate	No changes to existing landscape.	N/A
Section 5. Bush Fire Risk	Consider impact of development on bushland and habitats	Not affected	N/A
Section 6. Water Cycle Management	Stormwater Drainage Concept Plan (SDCP): For developments that require construction of stormwater drainage, a SDCP shall be submitted with the Development Application demonstrating the feasibility of the proposed drainage system within the site and connection to Council’s system. Early consultation between engineers and architects is required to reduce possible conflicts in the final plan.	A stormwater concept plan demonstrating SW drainage of the large parking area in accordance with Council’s LDCP 2008 including finished floor surface levels have not been submitted as part of the application.	Does not comply
Section 7 Development Near a Watercourse	Consideration of impact to riparian corridors	The site is affected by a riparian corridor, considerations of the impacts have not been provided.	Does not apply
Section 8. Erosion and Sediment Control	Control 1. The development application shall be accompanied by an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for developments Up to 2,500sqm	N/A	N/A
Section 9. Flooding Risk	To satisfy flooding mitigation requirements	The subject site is not identified to be within a flood risk area on the LLEP 2008 Flood Risk Map	N/A
Section 10. Contaminated Land Risk	Previous use to be considered in assessing risk	previous residential use	Complies
Section 11. Salinity Risk	Salinity Management response required for affected properties	N/A	N/A
Section 12. Acid Sulfate Soils Risk	Affected properties to consider impact of development on soils	N/A	N/A
Section 13. Weeds	Noxious weeds to be removed as part of development where applicable	N/A	N/A
18. Notification of Applications	Notification is not required	The proposed development was not notified in accordance with LDCP 2008.	N/A

Having regard to the above, the proposal does not address the water cycle management controls.

4. Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F

There are no draft planning agreements that apply to the site.

5. Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – The Regulations

6. No relevant provisions of the regulations apply.

7. Section 79C(1)(a (v) – Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates

There are no Coastal Zones applicable to the subject site.

8. Section 79C(1)(b) – The Likely Impacts of the Development

The proposed development in its current form is likely to have detrimental environmental impacts as appropriate measures to contain the liquid waste generated by the servicing of vehicles have not been demonstrated, it is therefore likely to pollute the waterway, the marine habitat within the downstream Thompsons Creek and inevitably, the Hawkesbury Nepean River.

9. Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the Site for the Development

10. The proposed development is a prohibited use on the subject site.

11. The option of proposing a home industry is inadequate as the area of 50m² is not sufficient for the operation of repairing large trucks and other agricultural machinery.

12. Section 79C(1)(d) – Any Submissions made in relation to the Development

(a) General Public

The proposal was not notified to the adjoining properties.

(b) Consultation with Internal Council Departments

Department

Comments

Legal Services

Advice received as discussed earlier in this report.

Environmental Health

The proposed application is unsatisfactory, as an adequate wastewater report has not been submitted.

In relation to the home industry option: the Environmental health team have expressed the following concerns:

Treatment to the proposed workshop area in order to prevent water pollution from occurring and capture any liquid waste generated is required.

13. Section 79C(1)(e) – The Public Interest

Due to the prohibited development proposed on the subject site, likely environmental impacts and Council’s Environmental Health Department’s concerns, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

Section 94 Contributions

The proposed development does not trigger any contributions.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered not worthy of support. The application is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

a) The proposed ‘Vehicle repair station’ is a prohibited form of development in the RU4 zone as per the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008), pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act).

b) Pollution hazard upon the downstream properties and water runoff to Thompsons Creek is likely to occur as the submitted information does not demonstrate appropriate waste drainage treatment to the area used for the proposed ‘Vehicle repairs station’ in accordance with Clause 6 (4) of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (No. 2 - 1997), pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) and Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP & A Act 1979.

c) The proposed development does not comply with Section 6 (Water Cycle Management) and Section 7 - (Development near a watercourse) of Part 1 of the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP 2008). Stormwater drainage of the proposed carpark area and impacts upon the riparian corridor have not been demonstrated, pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the EP & A Act 1979.

d) Information submitted does not adequately demonstrate a suitable method of entirely containing the liquid waste generated from the servicing of the vehicles, pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) and Section 79C(1)(c) of the EP & A Act 1979.

e) Due to the above reasons, approval of the application is not in the public interest pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP & A Act 1979.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses. Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant and Owner Details View

2. Proposed Architectural Plans

111

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01

Corporate Sponsorships

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity
Key Policy	Communications Plan
File Ref	160177.2016
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 $10,600 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $10,600 is endorsed, the Corporate Sponsorship budget will be in deficit $86,073.04. This deficit will be adjusted at the Quarterly Budget Review.

Applicant name	Amount
Vedic Festival	$5,000 ex gst
Sydney Indians	$2,000 ex gst
Eggtober Foundation	$2,500 ex gst
Catherine Maher	$1,100 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. Four applications 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
Vedic Festival Inc	Festival of Chariots, 9 July 2016, Bathurst Street Carpark Indian community festival to promote the celebration and respect of Indian art, cultural heritage and unity amongst communities. Free event. Not for profit activity. Anticipated attendances 2,000-5,000 Benefits Logo inclusion on all promotional material. Speaking opportunity at the event. Aligns with program criteria as it activates the CBD and strengthens community ties. Recommended for funding at the $5000 level in line with previous support.	$8,000 ex GST	$5,000 ex GST
Sydney Indians	Garba, 2-3 September 2016, Whitlam Leisure Centre Indian cultural celebration and festival of dance. Ticketed event, expected attendees 4,000 maximum. Benefits Logo inclusion on all promotional material and opportunity to display signage. Speaking opportunity at the event. The event aligns with the aims of socially inclusive community. There are other similar cultural events within a short time frame that are free for the community to attend. Recommended for funding at the $2000 level.	$4,500 ex GST	$2,000 ex GST
Eggtober Foundation Ltd	Eggtober Foundation – Purple Tie Charity Ball, Saturday September 3, 2016, Liverpool Catholic Club Not-for profit event raising funds for equipment and research into gynaecological cancers. Benefits: $20,000 PLATINUM PARTNER – Recognition of your Platinum sponsorship status • Proudly sponsored by {company logo} placed on our website home page with a link to your web page • These inclusions are repeated on our website sponsors page – Proudly sponsored by logo inclusion on our invitation to participate in our major charity events which is distributed by email – Proudly sponsored by logo inclusion on our official event stationery in both hard copy and which can be downloaded from our website www.eggtober.com.au – Proudly sponsored by logo inclusion on dedicated slide on audiovisual presentations given to community groups (Rotary, CWA, Quota) and Cancer Support Groups in the following 12 months exposing your brand to a captured and targeted market – Proudly sponsored by logo inclusion on dedicated slide on the rolling power point during our Purple Tie Charity Ball $10,000 GOLD PARTNER – Logo inclusion on our website home page and a link to your web page – These inclusions are repeated on our website sponsors page – Logo inclusion on our invitation to participate in major charity events which is distributed by email – Logo inclusion on our official event stationery in hard copy and which can be downloaded from our website www.eggtober.com.au – Logo inclusion on shared slide on audiovisual presentations given to community groups (Rotary, CWA, Quota) and Cancer Support Groups in the following 12 months exposing your brand to a captured and targeted market – Placement on our Honour Roll as a Gold Partner – Acknowledgement of Gold Partnership by CEO during handover of equipment ceremonies and at our major charity events – Complimentary table of 10 at our Purple Tie Charity Event $5,000 SILVER PARTNER – Name inclusion on our website home page and a link to your web page – Logo inclusion on our website’s dedicated sponsors page – Name inclusion on our invitation to participate in our major charity events which are distributed by email – Name inclusion on official event stationery both in hardcopy and which can be downloaded from our website www.eggtober.com.au – Name inclusion on shared slide on audiovisual presentations given to community groups (Rotary, CWA, Quota) and Cancer Support Groups in the following 12 months exposing your brand to a captured and targeted market – Placement on our Honour Roll as a Silver Partner – Acknowledgement of Silver Partnership during major charity events. – Complimentary table of 10 at our Purple Tie Charity Event $2,500 BRONZE PARTNER – Logo inclusion on our website’s dedicated sponsors page as a Bronze partner and a link to your web page – Name inclusion on our invitation to participate in our major charity events which is distributed by email – Name inclusion on shared slide on audiovisual presentations given to community groups (Rotary, CWA, Quota) and Cancer Support Groups in the following 12 months exposing your brand to a captured and targeted market – Placement on our Honour Roll as a Bronze Partner – Acknowledgement of Bronze Partnership at our major charity events – Complimentary Table of 10 at our Purple Tie Charity Event Aligns with program criteria as it is an event occurring within the local area and is raising funds for an important medical condition. Recommended for funding in line with previous support.	$2,500 - $20,000 ex GST	$2,500 ex GST
Catherine Maher	“Bad Moms” Movie Charity Screening, August 21, Event Cinema Liverpool A screening of the movie “Bad Moms” to raise money for non-funded resources that the Liverpool Women’s Resource Centre offers to women in the Liverpool Community. Expected attendees 100-200. Ticketed event, funds raised go to the Liverpool Women’s Resource Centre. Funds will be used to cover the Event Cinema fees to host the event. Benefits: Logo inclusion on all promotional material and opportunity to display signage. Speaking opportunity at the event. Aligns with program criteria as it is an event occurring within the local area, using local resources and is raising funds for a local organisation assisting people in the community. Recommended for funding at the $1100 level.	$1,100 ex GST	$1,100 ex GST

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The 2015/16 Corporate Sponsorship Program has a budget of $125,000. It is currently $75,473.04 in deficit. If the recommended amount of $10,600 is endorsed, the deficit will be $86,073.04. 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

153

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01

Grants and Donations Report

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Foster social inclusion, strengthen the local community and increase opportunities for people who may experience barriers
Key Policy	Donations Policy
File Ref	119316.2016
Report By	Daniel Collins - Grants and Donations Project Officer
Approved By	Eddie Jackson – Acting Director Community & Culture

executive summary

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

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

(a) Community Grants

(b) Quick Response Grants

(d) Sporting Donations

(e) Community Matching Grants

(f) Sustainable Environment Grants

(g) Community Facilities Fee Reductions

(h) Disaster Relief Donations

This report presents the funding recommendations for the applications received through the Community Grants, Quick Response Grants (Youth), and Community Matching Grants Programs from April to June 2016 for Council's consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the following recommendations:

1. For the provision of $18,742 (GST exclusive) under the Community Grants Program as summarised in the table below:

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
The Shepherd Centre for Deaf Children	Enhancing the outdoor play area for children	$4,730
City of Liverpool Meals on Wheels Inc	Christmas Hamper Project	$4,000
The City of Liverpool & District Historical Society	In the Foot Steps of Thomas Moore Walking Tour	$500
Liverpool Volunteer Resource Centre	Community & Volunteer Training and Resources	$3,800
Creative Movement Group	Dancing my Dreams	$5,000
Greek Orthodox Community NSW	Super Tech Seniors	$712

2. For the provision of $100 (GST exclusive) under the Quick Response Grants (Youth) Program as summarised in the table below:

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Louisa Taia	PACFEST	$100

3. For the provision of $57,000 (GST exclusive) under the Community Matching Grants Program as summarised in the table below:

Applicant Name	Project Name	Amount
Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre	Community HeART	$12,000
Mark Grundy Oesophageal Cancer Awareness Group Incorporated	Liverpool Oesophageal Cancer Project	$15,000
New South Wales Radio Controlled Racing Car Club Inc	Strengthening Collaboration and Engagement within our community	$15,000
Inspire Community Services	Youth Centre Youth Cafe	$15,000

REPORT

Community Grants Program

The Community Grants Program provides financial assistance to community groups, organisations and services for projects that foster partnerships and collaboration, build capacity, promote social inclusion and increase community participation. The program assists in developing pilot or trialling innovative services or programs that addresses the needs of residents, workers and visitors.

Eleven applications for Community Grants were received this quarter. Six applications met the program criteria and are therefore recommended for funding. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the requests received are shown in the table below.

Applicant Details	Project Description	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
The Shepherd Centre for Deaf Children	Seeking funds to replace the sunshades in the centre's outdoor area. Also planning to purchase new play equipment for the outdoor area.	$5,930	$4,730
City of Liverpool Meals on Wheels Inc.	A grant enables the purchase of food items for Christmas hampers delivered by volunteers to all clients, supplemented by donations of cakes, puddings, hams etc. from clubs and suppliers. Bags are donated by a local firm and volunteers purchase and pack each one.	$4,000	$4,000
The City of Liverpool & District Historical Society	Undertake tours run by The City of Liverpool and District Historical Society of the historic centre of Liverpool. The tour follows in the footsteps of its founding father Thomas Moore. It will feature surviving buildings and monuments such as Liverpool TAFE, St Luke's, and the Milestone, headstones at Pioneer's Park.	$500	$500
Liverpool Volunteer Resource Centre	Facilitate reduced rate training for all people in the Liverpool Area. A need to supply a greater number of volunteer information packs and training kits/resources and manuals. The purchase of a photocopier would put less strain on printer which does not cope with the amounts of resources required. This would increase the capacity to deliver training sessions and volunteer placements.	$3,800	$3,800
Creative Movement Group	Using the Indian dance style of Bharatanatyam to work with women of different abilities, ages and diverse backgrounds to create a performance themed around their feelings, thoughts, experiences, and dreams. Participants will creatively express these, including their migrant experiences, in the final dance performance showcased on International Women's Day in March 2017.	$5,000	$5,000
Greek Orthodox Community NSW	Practical computer navigation and information sessions to be held in the public library, delivered in Greek for seniors. Supports seniors learning basic computer and internet skills for accessing information, and also keeping in touch with family members.	$800	$712 (Liverpool City Library to absorb all other costs in-house)
Pacific Unity Inc.	To unite all Pacific Island nations through a family orientated day of celebration, fun, sport, and entertainment and to foster pride in being of Polynesian decent while embracing the opportunities of living in Australia.	$5,000	Did not meet criteria, not recommended for funding
Inspire Community Services	Convert an existing Basketball Court to a Beach Volleyball Court and provide soccer facilities. The aim is to offer young people a variety of sporting options as activities to improve their health.	$5,000	Did not meet criteria, not recommended for funding
Green Valley Languages and Arts School	Funding a set of tablets to modernise teaching and learning. We provide Hindi language and cultural education in the Liverpool area but with technology advancing at a rapid rate, younger children are not as engaged in traditional book-and-pen teaching and learning.	$4,490	Did not meet criteria, not recommended for funding
Moorebank Cricket Club Inc.	Redevelopment of the existing clubhouse facility at Hammondville	$5,000	Not recommended for funding, eligible for Community Matching Grants
Mark Grundy Oesophageal Cancer Awareness Group Incorporated	Education about oesophageal cancer, raising funds for targeted oesophageal cancer research, and providing support to the community for those diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and their families.	$5,000	Not recommended for funding, eligible for Community Matching Grants

Quick Response Grants (Youth) Program

The Quick Response Grants (Youth) program supports a range of small-scale initiatives for local residents and organisations. It aims to provide more intensive support and build the capacity of less established groups to familiarise themselves with grants programs and Council processes. Applicants are eligible to receive one grant per year.

One application for the Quick Response Grants (Youth) was received this quarter, and met the program criteria. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the request received is shown in the table below.

Applicant Details	Project Description	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Louisa	A group of 50 school students are performing in a cultural competition at the festival	$500	$100

Community Matching Grants Program

The Community Matching Grants program is designed to provide financial support to projects and activities that build or strengthen communities within Liverpool. These projects will focus on supporting the development and implementation of community capacity building activities as Council as maintaining and conserving the community’s assets and provide opportunities for a broader cross section of the community to be involved in community and recreational activities.

Eight applications for Community Matching Grants were received this quarter. Five applications met the program criteria and are therefore recommended for funding. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the requests received are shown in the table below.

Applicant Details	Project Description	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Inspire Community Services	This project is to complete the fit out of, and begin operating the Inspire Youth Centre Cafe. This project would provide ongoing funding as well as train engaged youth in barista and food handling courses to assist in employment.	$15,000	$15,000
Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre	Community HeART is a collaborative local arts project that brings together three local artists to design and execute a public mural conveying a message of ‘Welcome” to new arrival refugees and migrants to the area.	$12,000	$12,000
Mark Grundy Oesophageal Cancer Awareness Group Incorporated	Education about oesophageal cancer, raising funds for targeted oesophageal cancer research, and providing support to the community for those diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and their families.	$15,000	$15,000
New South Wales Radio Controlled Racing Car Club Inc.	The project will deliver a new club room facility which will incorporate a race control and canteen facility. The club room will provide a comfortable environment and disabled access for families	$15,000	$15,000
Moorebank Cricket Club Inc.	Redevelopment of the existing clubhouse facility at Hammondville	$15,000	$15,000 pending outcome of further grant applications
Inspire Community Services	The Liverpool Community Kitchen project is one that feeds the disadvantaged people of our community. Seeking to maintain this program’s sustained growth and meet the needs of these disadvantaged people.	$15,000	Did not meet criteria, not recommended for funding
Catholic Parish of St Joseph Moorebank	The hall next to St Joseph's Catholic Church Moorebank is 45yrs old. The existing kitchen, bathroom and general hall area require substantial improvements to make the facility more functional and attractive to prospective users.	$6,770	Did not meet criteria, not recommended for funding
Think & DO Tank Foundation Limited	Enquires into root causes of ongoing disadvantage in 2168 and experiments with how to influence those causes. TMR is examining: food security, transport disadvantage, and digital connectivity	$15,000	Did not meet criteria, not recommended for funding

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	A budget allocation of $100,000 was adopted by Council in its 2015/2016 Operational Plan as part of the Community Grants and Donations Program. There is currently $68,952.91 remaining in the budget. If the recommended amount of $18,842 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $50,110.91. A budget allocation of $200,000 for Community Matching Grants was resolved by Council to be expended as part of the Community Grants and Donations Program. No grants have been allocated from this budget to date. If the recommended amount of $57,000 is endorsed, the remaining balance will be $143,000. Note that a recommended approval of $15,000 for the Moorebank Cricket Club is subject to their own further external funding applications. Should this also be endorsed, the total recommended amount would increase to $72,000, reducing the balance remaining to $128,000.
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. Sporting Donations Criteria View

2. Community Matching Grants Criteria View

3. Community Grants Criteria View

4. Quick Response Grants Criteria

175

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Draft Amendment Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Leppington Pastoral Company

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	088058.2016
Report By	Murray Wilson - Senior Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	1675 The Northern Road, Greendale
Owner	Leppington Pastoral Company Pty Ltd
Applicant	Leppington Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

On 1 September 2015, a proposal to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008) was received from Leppington Pastoral Company Pty Limited (LPC) in relation to 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale. The subject site is identified as Lot 100 and 101 in DP 1171843, and Lot 11 DP 1092165.

The proposal seeks to amend the LLEP 2008, by adding a clause that permits up to 25 dwellings (dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings) on the subject site. The proposed amendment will enable LPC to continue its operations in a sustainable manner.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses in principle the Planning Proposal to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008, to allow with consent a maximum of 25 dwellings (dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings) on 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale;

2. Delegates to the A/CEO the authority to finalise a modified Planning Proposal as detailed in this report, and submit to DPE for Gateway approval.

Report

Background

The proposal seeks to amend the LLEP 2008, by adding a clause that allows (with consent) a maximum of 25 dwellings (inclusive of existing residences and rural workers’ dwellings) on the subject property. The request for the amendment comes from the need to relocate existing rural workers’ dwellings as a result of the government acquisition of land for the proposed Western Sydney Airport as well as the potential noise impacts from the future airport on existing rural workers’ dwellings.

Context of the Subject Land

The subject site is identified as Lot 100 and 101 in DP 1171843, and Lot 11 DP 1092165, within the rural area of Greendale, approximately 20 kilometres west of the Liverpool city centre. The subject property lies outside of the South West Priority Growth Area, and borders the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. The location of the Leppington Pastoral Company property is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Image illustrating location of subject property and zoning

Badgerys Creek Airport Site

In October 2015, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) publicly exhibited the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed airport. It is anticipated that the first runway (being the northern runway - Stage 1) will be completed, and operational in 2025. Stage 2 or the long term scenario, involving the construction of the second (and southernmost) runway, is anticipated to be completed in 2063. The LPC dairy lies just west of the proposed southern runway (refer Figure 2).

While additional residential accommodation would not normally be supported in such close proximity to a future airport, the need to relocate or replace existing rural workers’ dwellings has arisen as a direct result of acquisition of some of the existing land by the Commonwealth Government for the future airport. As a result of these land acquisitions, it is likely that LPC will lose approximately seven rural workers’ dwellings.

To ensure LPC can continue as a sustainable farming operation, it is considered appropriate to allow them to relocate or replace their existing rural workers’ dwellings on their property in a location that is currently located outside of the current ANEF contours 20-25. It should be noted that this planning proposal will also be referred to the DIRD for comment, if the recommendations of this report are supported.

Figure 2 – Image illustrating location of subject property in relation to location of Badgerys Creek Airport runways and ANEF contours

A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney identifies the dairy farm as being outside of the urban growth area as shown in Figure 3. The support of this amendment would be consistent with Action 1.9.1 (supporting the growth of a priority industry i.e. agriculture) of the plan and Action 4.1.2 (minimise adverse economic impacts on existing primary industry and productive agriculture and protecting productive agricultural land).

Western Sydney Priority Growth Area

LPC is also located just to the west of the recently created Western Sydney Priority Growth Area (WSPGA). The WSPGA includes the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area (but not WSEA), the SWPGA (north of Bringelly Road) and Western Sydney Airport as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Image illustrating the location of Leppington Pastoral Company’s property (solid red shape)
in relation to the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area

Leppington Pastoral Company

LPC began operating in 1962 with the purchase of a 230 hectare property at Greendale. Following incorporation a year later, LPC acquired an adjoining property of approximately 350 hectares. These two properties have operated together since then and are referred to by LPC as the “Base Farm” (dairy farm). The dairy farm comprises water storage, dryland farming, year-round irrigation, as well as utilities such as houses, sheds, silage pits and irrigation infrastructure. Approximately 100 workers are directly involved in the daily operation of the pastoral company.

In 1991, the Commonwealth Government acquired 38 hectares of the subject site for the purpose of accommodating a site for an airport at Badgerys Creek. Since the acquisition, the 38 hectares have been leased back to the LPC. The Commonwealth gave notice of its intention to repossess the 38 hectares in May 2016.

LPC have advised they milk over 2,000 cows on the property, on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis. This represents the second largest single-site dairy farm in Australia. Total dairy sales for 2014 were $17.8 million. The dairy operation also includes the rearing of calves born on the farm or on nearby LPC associated properties (about 2,700 per year). After about 4 months the calves are sent to other properties in south west Sydney (also owned by LPC). The females are later returned to the farm as pregnant heifers and potential milkers, while the males are sold as steers. Refer to Attachment 2 for images of the farm in operation in late May 2016.

In addition to the dairy-based operations, onsite farming processes produce organic fertilizer, which in 2014, achieved $8.3 million in sales.

As stated above, LPC’s core agricultural business is dairy focused. Cows are milked on a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The family who own and operate the business live onsite in five separate dwellings. In addition to this, 29 farm employees also live onsite in 16 existing rural workers’ dwellings, which result in a total of 21 dwellings (including rural workers’ dwellings).

Proposed LEP Amendment

The applicant’s Planning Proposal requested the following clause be drafted for consideration.

22 Use of certain land at Bringelly in Zone RU1

(1) This clause applies to Lots 10 and 11, DP 1092165 and Lot 102 DP 812653 in Zone RU1 Primary Production The Northern Road, Bringelly.

(2) The provisions of clause 7.24A(2) do not apply to the land referred in sub-clause (1).

It is noted that Clause 7.24A, which restricts the number of rural workers’ dwellings to one per property, was introduced to ensure that rural workers dwellings do not conflict with zone objectives and undermine ongoing viability of rural enterprises.

Council officers had concerns with the lack of a dwelling cap, the impacts of any new dwellings on the development and operation of the proposed Western Sydney Airport, and potential impacts on the rural amenity of the locality.

The proponent has suggested a maximum cap of 25 dwellings for the possible future expansion of the business. This represents an addition of four (4) rural workers’ dwellings to those currently on the site.

Council officers have held discussions with the applicant and developed a revised clause that addresses officers’ concerns while still allowing the relocation and replacement of existing rural workers’ dwellings. The appropriateness of the additional cap and a revised clause is discussed later in this report.

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008)

The subject site is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the LLEP 2008 (see Figure 1). The objectives and permitted uses of the RU1 zone are outlined below.

Zone RU1 Primary Production

1 Objectives of zone

· To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

· To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

· To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

· To ensure that development does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

· To ensure that development does not hinder the development or operation of an airport on Commonwealth land in Badgerys Creek.

· To preserve bushland, wildlife corridors and natural habitat.

2 Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home-based child care; Home occupations

3 Permitted with consent

Agriculture; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Cemeteries; Community facilities; Crematoria; Dual occupancies; Dwelling houses; Environmental facilities; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Flood mitigation works; Forestry; Hazardous storage establishments; Health consulting rooms; Helipads; Heliports; Home businesses; Home industries; Landscaping material supplies; Offensive storage establishments; Open cut mining; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (outdoor); Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural industries; Rural supplies; Rural workers’ dwellings; Secondary dwellings; Veterinary hospitals; Water recreation structures

4 Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

It is considered that this proposed amendment would be consistent with encouraging sustainable primary industry production and diversity in primary industry enterprise and systems by supporting necessary residences for employees of the dairy operation. It is anticipated that the proposed rural workers’ dwellings would not hinder the development potential of the proposed airport in the short or long term.

There are two main clauses within LLEP 2008 that affect this land. These are outlined below:

1. Clause 7.18 Development in areas subject to potential airport noise, dwellings are not permitted on land where the ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) exceeds 25. While residential accommodation is permitted where the ANEF exceeds 20, subject to meeting the requirements of AS 2021-2000 Acoustics—Aircraft noise intrusion—Building siting and construction with respect to interior noise levels.

This intent of this clause is to ensure new developments in the vicinity of the Badgerys Creek airport (and Bankstown Airport) do not hinder the development or operation of the airport.

As explained on the DIRD’s webiste:

The ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) System was developed through a major socio-acoustic survey carried out in the vicinity of a number of Australian airports in 1980. Based on the results of this work the system then in use in Australia—the NEF system—was modified to suit Australian conditions and became termed the ANEF system. The ANEF system incorporated a weighting for the period 7pm to 7am (as opposed to the 10pm to 7am period under the NEF system) as the study showed that this gave the best correlation between noise dose and community reaction. (Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development)

2. Clause 7.24A was included in LLEP 2008 (Amendment 32), which was gazetted in April 2016. The purpose of Clause 7.24A was to place restrictions on the size and quantity of rural workers’ dwellings.

Clause 7.24A was introduced as a result of the NSW Department of Primary Industries’ Prime Fact Bulletin, released to assist local councils in determining how to provide for rural workers’ dwellings in LEPs.

It is proposed that Council consult with the NSW Department of Primary Industries as well as the DIRD if the recommendations of this report are adopted.

Difference between a Dwelling House and a Rural Worker’s Dwelling (LLEP 2008)

A dwelling and rural worker’s dwelling are similar in appearance but are considered to be quite different in terms of use. The definition, as stated in LLEP 2008, of a dwelling house quite simply is a building containing one dwelling. While a rural worker’s dwelling has a very specific use: a rural worker’s dwelling is allowed in addition to a dwelling, but it must be associated with a rural industry and used as a place of residence by a person working on the particular property.

· dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling; and

· rural worker’s dwelling means a building or place that is additional to a dwelling house on the same lot and that is used predominantly as a place of residence by persons employed, whether on a long-term or short-term basis, for the purpose of agriculture or a rural industry on that land.

Existing Dwellings (including Rural Workers’ Dwellings) on the site

There are currently 21 dwellings on the subject property. These consist of five (5) main dwellings and 16 rural workers’ dwellings. Council officers have located 14 approvals, dating back to 1964, for dwellings (including rural workers’ dwellings) on the subject site. Council officers have been unable to locate seven (7) consents or building certificates. This could be for the following reasons:

· Dwellings may have been built prior to 1963;

· The property files searched did not contain information prior to 1963; or

· Some files have not been able to be located.

Council has no evidence to conclude that the dwellings located on the site are unauthorised. It is clear the rural workers’ dwellings have been erected for a significant period of time based on a number of site visits carried out by Council staff.

The existing rural workers’ dwellings currently house 29 employees of the dairy farm operation. Council officers have been provided with a list of employees who reside in the rural workers’ dwellings as well as a copy of the template Accommodation Agreement. The Accommodation Agreement provides a numbers of conditions in terms of use of a rural workers dwellings by the employee. One such condition requires that an employee must vacate the premises within seven (7) days after termination of employment. This provides Council officers some assurance that rural workers dwellings are being used for their intended purpose.

The need to relocate or replace existing rural workers’ dwellings has arisen due to the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth Government for the future Western Sydney Airport. Figure 4 (below) shows the dwellings that are to be retained and dwellings that need to be relocated.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Badgerys Creek Airport identifies a further allotment to be acquired for the airport (Lot 102 in Figure 4). As a result of these land acquisitions, LPC are likely to lose approximately seven rural workers’ dwellings (yellow, white, blue and red circles in Figure 4).

Attachment 2 also shows images of some of the rural workers’ dwellings that need to be replaced.

Figure 4 – Location of Dwellings to be removed or retained

Size of Property, Hypothetical Subdivision & Test of Rural Amenity

It is appropriate to consider the potential for subdivision of the subject properties. This will assist in determining whether the proposed number of dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings (25), is appropriate.

While this is not a definite test of rural amenity, it provides an approximate indication of whether the proposed maximum cap of 25 dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings could be an over-development of the site. LPC could hypothetically subdivide their property into 13 lots:

Size of Property: 530.1 hectares (approximately)

Hypothetical Subdivision: 530.1 ha ÷ 40 ha (current minimum lot size in RU1 zone) = 13.27 = 13 lots.

The number of lots would potentially accommodate a maximum of 26 dwellings in the form of a dwelling and a dual occupancy on each lot under LLEP 2008.

It is proposed that any new rural workers’ dwellings will be located and clustered outside of the noise affected area, i.e. outside of the light yellow contour of ANEF 20 and 25.(shown in Figure 5). It is recommended to cluster of the rural workers’ dwellings for the following reasons:

1. to ensure all new dwellings are located outside of the noise affected areas,

2. to ensure the effective ongoing use of the site as a dairy, and

3. to ensure rural amenity is not lost as a result of the clustering.

Figure 5 – Image illustrating the location of rural workers’ dwellings (blue triangle) outside of the ANEF contour

Justification for Planning Proposal

The LPC is a working dairy that directly employs over 100 people, milking over 2,000 cows and producing approximately 68,500 litres of milk per day. The dairy also rears calves born on nearby LPC properties. Given the scale and nature of the dairy business, LPC has stated they must accommodate the current workers onsite to ensure operational efficiencies are maintained for the overall management and economic viability of the farm. It is also stated in a publication (Prime Fact Bulletin) by NSW Department of Primary Industries that, in some cases for the management of large scale intensive livestock enterprises, additional onsite residences may be required.

On site workers dwellings are important to support the 24 hour operation of the farm to offer cost effective onsite residences as a strategy to recruit and retain farm workers.

To ensure LPC can continue as a sustainable farming operation, it is considered appropriate to consider a new clause in to the LEP (outlined below) which permits 21 dwellings on the site comprising five dwellings and 16 rural workers’ dwellings.

As stated previously in this report, LPC have requested permission for an additional four (4) rural workers’ dwellings to provide them with flexibility if the need arises in the future. Council supports the ongoing operation of this significant rural enterprise which provides local employment and contributes significantly to the local economy. It is considered appropriate to facilitate expansion of the business in the future by allowing potential for additional rural workers’ dwellings.

Accordingly, the request by LPC to allow the replacement of existing residences and future construction of four rural workers’ dwellings on the subject site is supported for the following reasons:

· It is consistent with the objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone;

· It is consistent with the NSW Department of Primary Industries publication (Prime Fact Bulletin) on rural workers’ dwellings;

· The continuing use of the site as a dairy is an ideal use of its rural setting;

· All new dwellings are to be located outside of noise affected areas;

· Rural workers’ dwellings are necessary for the ongoing operation, management and economic viability of the dairy;

· It would help retain and attract employees for the dairy;

· The farm directly employs over 100 people; and

· It is consistent with Action 1.9.1 of A Plan for Growing Sydney by supporting the growth of a priority industry i.e. agriculture and Action 4.2.1 by minimising adverse economic impacts on existing primary industry and productive agriculture and protecting productive agricultural land.

This report recommends Council endorse in principle the Planning Proposal to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008, to allow with consent a maximum of 25 dwellings (dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings) on 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale and forward a copy of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking Gateway Determination.

Risk of Precedent

Council officers are aware that additional dwellings (including rural workers’ dwellings) around the airport could potentially set an undesirable precedent considering that the area around Badgerys Creek has been protected from residential development through New South Wales (NSW) Government planning restrictions, since the 1990s.

However, it is considered that the situation is unique to the LPC farm because of the size of the site, the significance of the rural business, the nature of the rural operations and the loss of land and dwellings as a result of the government acquisition process.

Given the above justification, it is considered that allowing the relocation and potentially additional rural workers’ dwellings will ensure the long term sustainability of the dairy as a viable use in this location and that it will not create an undesirable precedent.

Recommended LEP Amendment

The intent of the amendment is to allow for the relocation of existing rural workers’ dwellings on the property and allow (with consent) no more than 25 dwellings total on the site (inclusive of the existing main residences).

Ultimately, this report seeks to gain in principle support from Council in making a Gateway submission to the Department of Planning and Environment to amend the LLEP 2008. As part of this amendment, a key sites map is recommended to be included to indicate where the rural workers’ dwellings can be constructed. The potential area where rural workers’ dwellings could be located is shown in Figure 5. It is proposed that the draft clause (below) be incorporated into LLEP 2008.

7. ## Use of certain land at Greendale in Zone RU1

1. The objectives of this clause are:

(i) to allow the provision of adequate accommodation for employees of agricultural or rural industries operating; and

(ii) to limit the number of dwellings to protect the rural amenity.

2. This clause applies to Lot 100 and 101 in DP 1171843, and Lot 11 DP 1092165 in Zone RU1 at The Northern Road, Greendale, known as the Leppington Pastoral Company.

3. The provision of clause 7.24A does not apply to the land referred in sub-clause (2).

4. A maximum of five (5) dwellings and sixteen (16) rural workers’ dwellings are permitted, with consent on land to which this clause applies.

5. Development for the purpose of rural workers’ dwellings is permitted with consent providing:

- the development will be on the same lot as an existing lawfully erected dwelling house, and

- the development will not impair the use of the land for agricultural or rural industries, and

- all new dwellings are to be located in accordance with the Key Sites Map, and

- the agricultural or rural industry being carried out on the land has a demonstrated economic capacity to support the ongoing employment of rural workers, and

- the development is necessary considering the nature of the agricultural or rural industry land use lawfully occurring on the land or as a result of the remote or isolated location of the land, and

- the gross floor area of the rural workers’ dwelling does not exceed 100 square metres; and

6. Despite subclause 4, an additional four (4) rural workers’ dwellings, are permitted, subject to consent, in accordance with subclause 5, if it can be proven that there has been significant investment and expansion in the operations of the dairy resulting in an increase in the number of rural workers employed on site and that the additional rural workers’ dwellings are necessary to support the expanded operation of the rural use.

It is proposed that the Planning Proposal as submitted, will be modified with the above clause, prior to seeking Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment, with delegation to the Acting CEO.

Internal Referrals

The Planning Proposal was referred to internal departments in September 2015. There were three referrals received in relation to Floodplain Management, Environmental Significant Land and Contamination.

Further supporting documentation will be required in relation to potential contamination. The applicant will be required to prepare a Stage 1- Preliminary Site Investigation for the area proposed for rural workers’ dwellings. These reports can be prepared subject to Council supporting the recommendation.

Conclusion

The need to relocate or replace existing rural workers’ dwellings has resulted from the acquisition of land, by the Commonwealth Government, for the future Western Sydney Airport. It is likely that LPC will need to relocate approximately seven rural workers’ dwellings.

To ensure LPC can continue as a sustainable farming operation:

· it is considered appropriate to allow them to relocate or replace their existing rural workers’ dwellings on their property;

· It is proposed to introduce a new clause in to the LEP (outlined above) to allow 21 dwellings comprising of five main dwellings and 16 rural workers’ dwellings on the property; and

· Allow a maximum of 25 dwellings subject to demonstration that the expansion of the rural enterprise requires additional rural workers’ dwellings.

It is proposed that Council resolves to prepare and exhibit the draft amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008, and forwards a copy of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking Gateway Determination.

It is considered that the amendment will support the continued operation of a significant and sustainable agriculture business use and protect at least 100 rural jobs.

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. Planning Proposal and Background Information View

2. Images of Leppington Pastoral Company View

241

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Committee Reports

CTTE 04

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 18 May 2016

Strategic Direction	Accessible Connected City Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network
Key Policy	Traffic and Transport Plan
File Ref	144911.2016
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 18 May 2016.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 18 May 2016.

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

REPORT

At its meeting on 18 May 2016, the Local Traffic Committee considered eight agenda items and two technical discussion items. Minutes of the meeting are attached.

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

Summary of the Local Traffic Committee recommendations:

Item 1 Dalmeny Drive, Prestons – Proposed traffic calming devices

1. Council approves the installation of the traffic calming devices as shown in Attachment 1.1.

2. Detailed design to be forwarded to the Roads and Maritime Services (for their information).

3. All stakeholders be notified accordingly.

Item 2 Kingsford Smith Avenue, Middleton Grange – Proposed upgrade of Children’s Crossing to Combined Crossing

1. Council approves upgrading of the existing Children’s Crossing to a combined pedestrian crossing with appropriate signs and line marking as shown in Attachment 2.1 together with appropriate flood street lighting.

2. All stakeholders be notified accordingly.

Item 3 Wilson Road and Coronation Drive, Green Valley – Proposed traffic management adjoining Green Valley Islamic College

1. Council approves the installation of a Children’s Crossing in Coronation Drive (subject to the outcome of the required community consultation).

2. Council approves upgrading of the existing Children’s Crossing to a Combined Crossing in Wilson Road, Green Valley.

3. Council approves the sign posting and line marking plans as presented in Attachments 3.1 to 3.4.

4. Council requests RMS to review 40 km/hr school zone in Coronation Drive and undertake required adjustment to the existing sign posting and line marking.

5. Council advises all stakeholders of its decision.

Item 4 Bigge Street, Liverpool – Parking restrictions

1. Council approves changes to the existing No Stopping restrictions and the associated 1P ticket parking along Bigge Street between Elizabeth Street and Dewsbury Serviceway as shown in Attachment 4.1.

2. Appropriate temporary variable message signs be installed to inform motorists of the changes.

3. All stakeholders be advised accordingly of Council’s decision.

Item 5 Dewsbury Serviceway, Liverpool – Parking restrictions

1. Council approves changes to the existing peak period No Stopping restrictions along Dewsbury Serviceway between Warren Serviceway and Bigge Street to No Stopping 3.00pm-6.30pm Monday to Friday.

2. Council approves the Give Way sign at the Dewsbury Serviceway and Warren Serviceway intersection.

3. All stakeholders be advised accordingly of Council’s decision.

Item 6 George Street, Liverpool – Starry Sari Night Special Event

1. Council classifies the event as a Class 2 special event requiring submission of special event traffic management plan to the Roads and Maritime Services.

2. The associated road closure as indicated in Attachment 6.1 be endorsed.

Item 7 Feodore Drive, Cecil Hills – Bus Stop relocation

1. Council approves the proposed bus stop relocations.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 8 Cowpasture Road and Main Street intersection, Carnes Hill – Proposed changes to existing traffic control at the intersection

1. Council approves installation of a Give Way sign on Main Street at its intersection with Main Street in place of the existing Stop sign.

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

Item TD1 Traffic arrangement around Liverpool Westfield

The Committee discussed and noted that:

· The RMS would support the removal of the existing dedicated left turn line marking at the Bathurst Street/Campbell Street intersection, subject to the submission of appropriate traffic counts demonstrating that such a change would not affect the performance of the intersection.

· Council representatives have held a number of meetings with Westfield representatives and a follow-up letter will be sent to Westfield for appropriate investigation (including traffic counts) and implementation of acceptable solutions.

Item TD2 Forbes Street, Liverpool – Proposed pedestrian crossing

The Committee discussed and recommended that:

· Appropriate solution involves installation of a pedestrian fence to direct the pedestrians to cross at a safe location rather than across the driveway.

· Improvement options are to be discussed with Liverpool Boys and Girls High Schools.

Budget Impact of Matters Arising from Minutes

Item	Description	Funding Arrangements
1	Dalmeny Drive, Prestons – Proposed traffic calming devices	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
2	Kingsford Smith Avenue, Middleton Grange – Proposed upgrade of Children’s Crossing to Combined Crossing	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
3	Wilson Road and Coronation Drive, Green Valley – Proposed traffic management adjoining Green Valley Islamic College	Green Valley Islamic College
4	Bigge Street, Liverpool – Parking restrictions	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
5	Dewsbury Serviceway, Liverpool – Parking restrictions	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
6	George Street, Liverpool – Starry Sari Night Special Event	Council Event Program
7	Feodore Drive, Cecil Hills – Bus Stop relocation	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
8	Cowpasture Road and Main Street intersection, Carnes Hill – Proposed changes to existing traffic control at the intersection	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 18 May 2016 View (Under separate cover)

Asset Class	May-16	Jun-15
Senior Debts (FRN’s & *TCD’s)	100.14%	100.49%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	64.73%	66.01%

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 (3.19% against 2.25%).
Annual Income vs. Budget		Council’s investment year to date interest income was above budget as at 31 May 2016 by $8k.

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

131
CFO 04	Investment Report May 2016
Attachment 1	Investment Register May 2016

133
CFO 04	Investment Report May 2016
Attachment 2	Performance Graph Actual To Budget ytd May 2016

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Good Governance
File Ref	148887.2016
Report By	David Maguire - Governance Coordinator
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Provide business excellence and financial sustainability to deliver services that meet community expectations
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	154457.2016
Report By	Christian Hope - Senior Financial Accountant
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

137
CFO 05	Proposed Amendments to Media Representation Policy
Attachment 1	Draft Media Representation Policy

Position	Incumbent	Expiry Date
Acting Chief Executive Officer	Michael Cullen	(Acting)
Director Corporate Services	Gary Grantham	26/10/2019
Director Infrastructure Services	Raj Autar	28/04/2020
Director City Presentation	Wayne Carter*	(Acting)
Director Community and Culture	Kiersten Fishburn**	28/04/2020**
Director Planning and Growth	Toni Averay	14/07/2021
Director Economy and Engagement	Michael Cullen***	28/04/2020***
Director Business Improvement	Carole Todd	28/02/2020
Director Property & Commercial Development	John Morgan	30/09/2020

157
DCC 01	Grants and Donations Report
Attachment 3	Community Grants Criteria

159
DCC 01	Grants and Donations Report
Attachment 4	Quick Response Grants Criteria

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	154793.2016
Report By	Derek Tweed - Community Development Worker (Youth)
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

Economic and Financial	Funding for the Liverpool Youth Council is allocated within the Community and Culture budget.
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	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.

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Enhance and protect natural corridors, waterways and bushland
Key Policy	Integrated Environmental Sustainability Action Plan
File Ref	119158.2016
Report By	Madhu Pudasaini - Manager Technical Support
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

Economic and Financial	Financial benefits arising from increased recycling and reuse of water.
Environmental and Sustainability	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution.
Social and Cultural	Promote community education and awareness as key element to manage water quality.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community.

171
DIEN 01	Water Management Policy
Attachment 1	Water Management Framework

Development Application No.	Property Address	Proposed Development	Decision
1.DA-1214/2015	127A Hill Rd Lurnea	Double storey dwelling	Approved under delegation
2. DA-5/2012/A	127-129 Hill Rd Lurnea	Section 96(1) modification application to an approved development which granted consent for demolition, alterations of existing dwelling on Lot 192 and the subdivision of Lots 192 and 193 into four lots. Modification seeks to delete condition No. 39	Approved under delegation
3. DA-1286/2012/A	280 Epsom Rd Chipping Norton	Section 96(1) modification application to an approved development which granted consent for Two (2) Lot Torrens Title Subdivision Of Lot 12 DP 732426 And Erection Of A Dwelling House On Proposed Lots 1 And 2 And Construction Of A Swimming Pool On Proposed Lot 1. Modification seeks to relocate condition No 14 to prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate	Approved under delegation
4. DA-1286/2012/B	280 Epsom Rd Chipping Norton	Section 96(1) modification application to an approved development which granted consent for Two (2) Lot Torrens Title Subdivision Of Lot 12 DP 732426 And Erection Of A Dwelling House On Proposed Lots 1 And 2 And Construction Of A Swimming Pool On Proposed Lot 1. The modifications include: - Enclosure of the courtyard in proposed Lot 1 on both the ground and first floors, thereby increasing the floor area by 16.8m2. - Internal layout of the ground and first floors modified to suit.	Approved under delegation

205
DPG 02	Development Applications lodged with an interest declared by Councillors
Attachment 1	Declarations of interest 2012-2016

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history
Key Policy	Heritage Strategy
File Ref	144088.2016
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

215
CTTE 01	Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 6 June 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of meeting

215
CTTE 02	Minutes Liverpool Aboriginal Consultative Committee 3 March 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of Liverpool Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting 3 March 2016

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	144478.2016
Report By	Madhu Pudasaini - Manager Technical Support
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

229
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 9 May 2016
Attachment 1	EAC Minutes of meeting held on 9 May 2016

249
CTTE 05	Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 12 May 2016
Attachment 1	Access Committee Minutes - May 2016

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	151695.2016
Report By	Nicole Voorhout - Personal Assistant to the Director Economic Development
Approved By	Julie Scott - Acting Director Economic Development

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.

253
CTTE 06	Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 1 June 2016
Attachment 1	MINUTES Building Our New City Committee 1 June 2016 FINAL

277
CTTE 06	Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 1 June 2016
Attachment 5	REPORT and INVITATION Future Cities Collaborative 2015_16 Financial Year May 2016

283
CTTE 07	Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 1 June 2016
Attachment 1	MINUTES Economic Development and Events Committee 1 June 2016 FINAL

Economic and Financial	The costs of the barbeque can be funded from the existing budget.
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

297
CTTE 08	Minutes of the No Intermodal Committee Meeting held on 14 June 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of No Intermodal Committee Meeting held on 14 June 2016

305
CTTE 09	Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 1 June 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of Planning and Development Committee Meeting 1 June 2016

309
CTTE 10	Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 1 June 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of Budget and Finance Committee 1 June 2016