COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

29 June 2016

 

FRANCIS GREENWAY CENTRE

170 GEORGE STREET LIVERPOO


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby notified that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held at the Francis Greenway Centre, 170 George Street, Liverpool on Wednesday, 29 June 2016 commencing at 6.00pm. Doors to the Francis Greenway Centre will open at 5.50pm.

 

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

 

 

 

 


Michael Cullen

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

L


 

 

 


Order of Business

 

                                                                                                              PAGE     TAB

Opening

Prayer

Apologies 

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 May 2016..................................................................... 9

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NOMR 01       Rescission of NOM 03 Western Sydney Women from the Council meeting 27 April 2016                                                                                                                         57......... 1

Notices of Motion

NOM 01          New arrivals from Syria.................................................................................. 58......... 2

NOM 02          Notice of Motion not published....................................................................... 60......... 3

Motions of Urgency

NIL

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.................................................................................. 61......... 4

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. ................... 68......... 5

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......................................... 89......... 6

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01          Corporate Sponsorships............................................................................... 108......... 7

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01             Endorsement of the Delivery Program 2013-17 and Operational Plan 2016-17 including 2016-17 Budget (to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01           Proposed Amendment to Code of Meeting Practice................................... 121......... 8

CFO 02           Travel and conference costs........................................................................ 124......... 9

CFO 03           Proposed changes to Council meeting dates............................................... 126....... 10

CFO 04           Investment Report May 2016....................................................................... 128....... 11

CFO 05           Proposed Amendments to Media Representation Policy............................. 136....... 12

CFO 06           Report on Contractual Conditions of Senior Staff - s.339 Local Government Act   145 13

City Presentation Report

NIL

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01          Grants and Donations Report....................................................................... 148....... 14

DCC 02          Liverpool Youth Council Committee, Community Member Nominations for the 2016-2018 term............................................................................................................... 165....... 15

Economic Development Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01          Water Management Policy .......................................................................... 167....... 16

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01          Draft Amendment Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Leppington Pastoral Company...................................................................................................... 178....... 17

DPG 02          Development Applications lodged with an interest declared by Councillors 206....... 18

DPG 03          Shepherd Street Precinct Planning Proposal (to be provided in Addendum Booklet)

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01         Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 6 June 2016....... 212....... 19

CTTE 02         Minutes Liverpool Aboriginal Consultative Committee 3 March  2016  ...... 217....... 20

CTTE 03         Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 9 May 2016     231 21

CTTE 04         Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 18 May 2016...... 238....... 22

CTTE 05         Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 12 May 2016..... 242....... 23

CTTE 06         Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 1 June 2016... 250....... 24

CTTE 07         Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 1 June 2016                                                                                                                       278....... 25

CTTE 08         Minutes of the No Intermodal Committee Meeting held on 14 June 2016... 298....... 26

CTTE 09         Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 1 June 2016................. 303....... 27

CTTE 10         Minutes of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 1 June 2016......... 310....... 28

 

Questions with Notice

NIL

Council in Closed Session

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

 

CONF 01   Response to NOM 04 Balloon and Flag Advertising from Council Meeting 24 February 2016

Reason:     Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) (g) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors); AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

CONF 02   Tender for Environmental Health Regulatory Inspections

Reason:     Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 

CONF 03   WT2447 - Liverpool Civic Place Project

Reason:     Item CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CONF 04   Liverpool City Council Pound Facility

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

 

CONF 05   Approval for Works-In-Kind Tender for DA-582/2014, DA-104/2014, DA-2795/2002 and DA-720/1998

Reason:     Item CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.  

 

CONF 06   Waste Management Audit and Process Review Update (to be provided in Confidential Addendum Booklet)

Reason:      Item CONF 06 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 


CONF 07   Proposed planning agreement for 25-37 Scott Street (to be provided in Confidential Addendum Booklet)

Reason:     Item CONF 07 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) (d ii) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

 

Close

 

 

 

 


 

 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK 

 

 

 

 

 


 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK
 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 25 May 2016

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Mr Michael Cullen, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Dr Eddie Jackson, Acting Director Community and Culture

Mr Wayne Carter, Director City Presentation

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Hiba Soueid, Acting Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.07pm

 

 

OPENING                               6.07pm

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

Motion:                                   Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

APOLOGIES                          Clr Mamone and Clr Waller

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

CONDOLENCES                   Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 27 April 2016 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 4 May 2016 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting.

 

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

Declarations of Interest

 

Clr Hadchiti declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

 

Item:          CONF 01 Tender for Environmental Health Regulatory Inspections

 

Reason:     Clr Hadchiti owns a café which is subject to health inspections

 

Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers for the duration of the item.

Public Forum

(Presentation – items not on agenda)                   

Nil

(Representation – items on agenda)

Clr Ristevski left the Chambers at 6.10pm.

Clr Ristevski returned to the Chambers at 6.13pm.

 

1.      Mr Kevin Figueroa from Allam Homes addressed Council on the following item:

 

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

                                   

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Mayor Mannoun

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to Mr Figueroa.

 

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

 

2.    Ms Fiona Macnaught addressed the Council  on the following item:

 

NOM 07 - Referral of Draft Budget for Public Exhibition

 

3.    Mr Rick Wade addressed Council on the following item:

 

NOM 01 - Wests Tigers

 

Motion:                                            Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Mayor Mannoun

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to Mr Wade.

 

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


11

 

Mayoral Report

 

ITEM NO:      MAYOR 01

FILE NO:        138260.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Domestic Violence Liaison Committee Concert

 

Liverpool Council is fully supporting this year’s White Ribbon Day campaign against domestic violence in our community. At last year’s White Ribbon Day March the Liverpool community and this council pledged their support to opposing domestic violence in any form.

 

The Liverpool Domestic Violence Liaison Committee has played an integral role in ensuring this important issue remains on the local agenda. To support its campaign the Committee is organising a community concert in December to raise awareness and help prevent domestic violence.

 

The Committee is asking council to honour its pledge to oppose domestic violence by helping support the concert for the community. The concert will help create a stronger and more peaceful community and offers the opportunity to re-inforce our message that domestic violence is never acceptable. I encourage all councillors to support this event as a demonstration of solidarity with the White Ribbon movement.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Sponsors the Liverpool Domestic Violence Liaison Committee’s concert scheduled for the 9th December for $5000.

 

2.   Promotes the event on social media.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


13

 

ITEM NO:      MAYOR 02

FILE NO:        138286.2016

SUBJECT:     Welcome University of Wollongong

 

On Monday 2nd May Liverpool City Council welcomed the University of Wollongong to our city for what I’m confident will be a long and successful partnership in educating our local students.

 

The University’s decision to open a campus in Liverpool means an exciting future for generations of scholars to come.

 

The University also brings the prospect of creating new jobs, driving commerce and cutting travelling times for students who were travelling vast distances to complete their tertiary education.

 

When the new campus is built, students will have a world class university on their doorstep.

 

Hours lost in travelling to universities in other areas can now be used more productively for study or recreation.

 

The campus will create massive potential for growth in local education needs and also encourage business investment.

 

Businesses will want to establish themselves around Liverpool because that’s where the best graduates will be.

 

The new campus also re-inforces Liverpool’s status as the educational hub of the Great South West.

 

Liverpool already has some of the brightest and best students in the State. Now we will be able to keep that knowledge where it is most needed – in Liverpool.

 

The significance of the University’s arrival in Liverpool cannot be overstated.

 

I want to congratulate the hard work of council staff, including the former CEO Carl Wulff, the current acting CEO Michael Cullen and Director of Property and Commercial Development John Morgan for their dedication to achieving their goal of getting the University to Liverpool.

 

The arrival of the University of Wollongong is just the beginning of major identities in business and education looking at either re-locating to Liverpool or setting up subsidiaries here.

 

This achievement would never have seen fruition had council not invested back into Liverpool through the Building Our New City Program and the time taken to encourage business investment in the city.

 

The announcement of the new Wollongong University Campus builds on the investment of Western Sydney University and the confidence of new education facilities growing in the city centre.

 

Exciting changes are coming as Liverpool becomes increasingly relevant to Sydney’s future ambitions in the 21st Century.

 

This is the biggest development to Liverpool since Thomas Moore laid the grid work for the city in the 18 hundreds and will be one of the cultural and educational cornerstones of our new city.

 

To repeat the words of NSW Premier Mike Baird at the official launch of the new campus: “Liverpool’s time has come.”

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Congratulates all staff involved in organising the highly successful launch of the University’s arrival especially Acting CEO Michael Cullen, Director of Property and Commercial Development John Morgan and former CEO Carl Wulff.

 

2.   Thanks Premier Mike Baird and other dignitaries who attended the launch

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


15

 

ITEM NO:      MAYOR 03

FILE NO:        138370.2016

SUBJECT:     Carl Casey

 

Liverpool Council has farewelled one of its longest serving and most valued employees after more than a quarter of a century of service.

 

Carl Casey has been working at council for 28 years now with diligence and professionalism in his role as a Subdivision Administrator with the Department of Planning and Growth.

 

He has chosen to retire after his long and very successful career and council wishes him every success for the future.

 

It is always disappointing to lose an individual with such first-hand experience and wealth of knowledge as Mr Casey has acquired in his years with Liverpool Council.

 

Even though we have talented people coming through council ranks under our strategic recruitment programs, replacing someone as dedicated and committed to his job for such a long time will not be easy.

 

Mr Casey leaves with our best wishes and our sincere thanks for his service over nearly three decades and the knowledge he has freely shared with his co-workers.

 

Mr Casey has also been acclaimed by many residents for the understanding and assistance he has offered in too many projects to mention. So I know the community joins this council in offering Mr Casey our sincere thanks for his role in making Liverpool the wonderful place it is to live.

 

As Mr Casey moves into the next chapter of life we hope he will remember fondly his time at council.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Congratulates and thanks Mr Carl Casey for his 28 years of service to the residents of Liverpool.

 

2.   Formally writes to Mr Casey expressing the gratitude of council and encloses a copy of this minute acknowledging his long service to the community.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun

 

 

 

  That Council:

 

1.   Congratulates and thanks Mr Carl Casey for his 28 years of service to the residents of Liverpool.

 

2.   Formally writes to Mr Casey expressing the gratitude of Council and encloses a copy of this minute acknowledging his long service to the community.

 

  1. Acknowledge and congratulate Mr Carl Casey through Council’s social media.

 

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


17

ITEM NO:      MAYOR 04

FILE NO:        138472.2016

SUBJECT:     Go West Awards

 

The Daily Telegraph’s Go West Campaign has been a major supporter of putting Sydney’s Western suburbs back on to the map for development and investment.

 

The improvements and growth we have seen, not only in our own city, but in surrounding areas is a testament to the reach and success of this campaign.

 

On Friday 20th May we celebrated our “Champions of the West” with many luminaries of our area in attendance including former Australian Test Captain, Michael Clark.

 

I would like to acknowledge the success of our local individuals and organisations Dr Ken Silburn, from Casula High School, and Liverpool’s Street University team who both received awards on the night.

 

Dr Silburn was recognised for his exemplary effort encouraging more students to take part in maths and science through his ISTEM program and was given the prestigious “Champion of Champions People’s Choice Award”.

 

Liverpool’s Street University received acclaim for their co-ordination of the Street University Clothing organisation, teaching students skills in graphic design and manufacturing as well as getting their foot in the door for future business careers.

 

They received the Go West 2016 Start Up award.

 

Both Dr Silburn and the Street University were honoured by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Premier of NSW Mike Baird all of whom came to support the opportunities Western Sydney has to offer.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

  1. Congratulates Dr Ken Silburn and the Liverpool Street University for their success at the Go West 2016 Awards Night

 

  1. Acknowledges the success and support that has been achieved by the Daily Telegraph’s Go West campaign.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Mannoun

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


19

MOTION TO BRING ITEMS FORWARD

 

Motion                                   Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That items NOM 07, CONF 05 and IHAP 01 be brought forward and dealt with now and that CONF 05 be dealt with in conjunction with NOM 07.

 

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

 

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 07

FILE NO:        130683.2016

SUBJECT:     Referral of Draft Budget for Public Exhibition

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council:

 

  1. Refer for exhibition the budget proposing an $864,000 deficit as shown on page 806 of the Agenda as presented to Council at its ordinary meeting 27 April 2016 with the following changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

  1. Hold a briefing session with Councillors to receive advice given by external experts. If Councillors are not happy with the advice received the matter is to be brought back to Council.

 

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

 

Clr Karnib and Clr Shelton asked that they be recorded as voting against the motion.

 

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 05

FILE NO:        122504.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report of staff concerning the resolution passed by Council in item CEO 01 on 4 May 2016, and take whatever action it considers necessary in response to the advice provided.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Note: This item was dealt with in conjunction with NOM 07 Referral of Draft Budget for Public Exhibition, included on page 10 of these minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 


19

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

ITEM NO:      IHAP 01

FILE NO:        108960.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

 

Vote against:                         Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

 

Note: The motion was carried on the Mayor’s casting vote.

 

 


21

 

Notices of Motion

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 01

FILE NO:        119656.2016

SUBJECT:     Wests Tigers

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

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

 

·    Wendy Waller

·    Peter Harle

·    Peter Ristevski

 

COUNCIL DECISION

                       

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council establish a taskforce to work with the Wests Tigers board in finding training/facilities suitable to keep the Magpies in Liverpool. The Council representatives on the taskforce to be made up all Councillors.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

1.    That this matter be referred to the Sports Committee for their input.

 

2.    That the CEO and the Mayor host a meeting with the Wests Tigers to discuss the needs of the club.

 

3.    The Mayor and the CEO brief the Councillors with the requirements once the meeting has taken place and provide an options paper.

 

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

 

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

 


21

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 02

FILE NO:        119773.2016

SUBJECT:     Federal Election – Werriwa

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That:

 

1.    Council note the Local Government Act 1993 is clear on Councillors using Council resources for electioneering purposes.

 

2.    All Councillor and Mayoral columns cease immediately, until after the Council elections.

 

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

 

Mayor Mannoun asked that it be noted that no rescission motion has been lodged regarding the NOM 03 Western Sydney Women, from the Council meeting 27 April 2016.

 


23

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 03

FILE NO:        120095.2016

SUBJECT:     Community Q & A

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.   The CEO is the Chair of the meeting.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council receive and note NOM 03. 

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That:

 

1.   The Francis Greenway Centre be reserved on Wednesday 17th August 2016 at 6pm for a Community Q&A.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.   The CEO is the Chair of the meeting.

 

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

 


23

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 04

FILE NO:        120771.2016

SUBJECT:     Universities In Liverpool

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

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

 


25

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 05

FILE NO:        122423.2016

SUBJECT:     Development Applications Lodged By Councillors & Their Associates

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


27

Mayor Mannoun called a recess of Council at 8.03pm.

 

Mayor Mannoun reopened the meeting reopened at 8.24pm

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 06

FILE NO:        129334.2016

SUBJECT:     Overseas Travel

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadid                Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council:

 

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

 

  1. Include in the above report costs incurred by Council due to Councillors who register to attend conferences and other such events and then choose to not attend.

 

  1. Require Councillors to pay for their own costs of overseas flights.

 

  1. Requires Councillors to pay non-refundable costs for not attending conferences and other such events where they are unable to prove unforeseeable mitigating circumstance (e.g. sickness, bereavement etc.).

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Mayor Mannoun

 

That Council:

 

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

 

  1. Include in the above report costs incurred by Council due to Councillors who register to attend conferences and other such events and then choose to not attend.

 

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

 

  1. Requires Councillors to pay non-refundable costs for not attending conferences and other such events where they are unable to prove unforeseeable mitigating circumstance (e.g. sickness, bereavement etc.).

 

  1. A report to come back to the next council meeting to outline how much has been spent on overseas travel for each Councillor, including the Mayor. The report to include all expenses relating to overseas travel including airfares, accommodation, meals etc.

 

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

 

 

MOTION TO BRING ITEM FORWARD

 

Motion                                   Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That item CONF 07 be brought forward and dealt with now.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CONF 07

FILE NO:        132593.2016

SUBJECT:     Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 11 May 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 11 May 2016.

 

2.   Receive a further report with all findings from the independent external forensic audit performed on the Liverpool Service Alliance (LSA) contract as per 7.1 of the attached minutes; and

 

3.   Keeps confidential the minutes attached containing information pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it contains information that would if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 11 May 2016, with the minutes to be corrected so that the words “Criminal or” are removed from the preamble to the motion relating to Item 7.2, so that the relevant sentence reads:

 

“He wanted to know whether any working with children checks are conducted on successful candidates prior to giving employment as he is concerned that people who work at parks should be checked for this as they could possibly be in contact with  children.”

 

2.    Delegate to the CEO to ensure the terms of resolutions in the ARC minutes are carried out.

 

3.    Keeps confidential the minutes attached containing information pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it contains information that would if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

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

 


29

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

ITEM NO:      CEO 01

FILE NO:        097147.2016

SUBJECT:     Corporate Sponsorships

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the Financial Contributions Panel’s recommendations for the provision of $22,200 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $22,200 is endorsed, the Corporate Sponsorship budget will be in deficit $65,973.04. This deficit will be adjusted at the Quarterly Budget Review.

 

Applicant name

Amount

Sydney Ice Dogs

$2,500 ex gst

South West Metro Waratahs Aboriginal Football Club

$2,500 ex gst

Congolese Youth Soccer Team

$2,500 ex gst

Share Care Inc

$5,000 ex gst

Hoxton Park Public  School

$1,200 ex gst

Friends of India Australia

$3,000 ex gst

Pakistan Multicultural Services of Australia

$3,000 ex gst

Samoan Council Sydney

$2,500 ex gst

NSW Bocce Federation

$1,000 ex gst

P.A.C Fest

$3,000 ex gst

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Ristevski          Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That Council endorses for the provision of $35,700 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below. If the recommended amount of $35,700 is endorsed, the Corporate Sponsorship budget will be in deficit $79,473.04. This deficit will be adjusted at the Quarterly Budget Review.

 

Applicant name

Amount

Sydney Ice Dogs

$5,000 ex gst

South West Metro Waratahs Aboriginal Football Club

$2,500 ex gst

Congolese Youth Soccer Team

$2,500 ex gst

Share Care Inc

$5,000 ex gst

Hoxton Park Public  School

$1,200 ex gst

Friends of India Australia

$10,000 ex gst

Pakistan Multicultural Services of Australia

$3,000 ex gst

Samoan Council Sydney

$2,500 ex gst

NSW Bocce Federation

$1,000 ex gst      

P.A.C Fest

$3,000 ex gst

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachments

1     Memo 1 to Mayor and Councillors - Amendment to CEO 01 Corporate Sponsorship Report

2     Memo 2 to Mayor and Councillors - Amendment to CEO 01 Corporate Sponsorship Report

 


31

 

Chief Financial Officer

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 01

FILE NO:        113713.2016

SUBJECT:     Investment Report April 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadid                Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


31

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 02

FILE NO:        114394.2016

SUBJECT:     Review of Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


33

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 03

FILE NO:        116092.2016

SUBJECT:     Privacy Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Adopt the Privacy Policy attached to this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


33

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 04

FILE NO:        128330.2016

SUBJECT:     Budget Review - March 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receives and notes the report;

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadchiti            Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


35

 

Community and Culture Report

 

ITEM NO:      DCC 01

FILE NO:        122685.2016

SUBJECT:     Liverpool City Council Sporting Grants Program 2015/2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Adopts the following recommendations for the allocation of the $30,000 sporting grants funding, as determined by the Liverpool Sports Committee grants assessment panel:

 

Club

Project Description

Proposed Grant Amount

Liverpool City Little Athletics Club

Sporting Equipment -Athletics timing equipment

$5,000

Chipping Norton Baseball Club

Sporting Equipment - Baseball equipment

$2,645

South West Tigers Junior AFL

Sporting Equipment - protective post pads

$3,600

Liverpool BMX Club

Sporting Equipment - Shade Marquees

$3,000

Chipping Norton Netball Club

Sporting Equipment - First Aid and Netball items

$2,645

Special Needs Ability Program Providers

Sports Development - Disability Coaching program

$3,590

Moorebank Sports Netball Club

Sports Education - Coaching and Umpiring Courses

$1,875

Southern Districts Softball Association Inc.

Ground Maintenance - Mowing Equipment

$5,000

Bringelly Netball Club

Sports Development and Equipment

$2,645

Total

$30,000

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ristevski           Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That Council adopts the following recommendations for the allocation of the $35,000 sporting grants funding:

 

 

 

 

Club

Project Description

Proposed Grant Amount

Liverpool City Little Athletics Club

Sporting Equipment -Athletics timing equipment

$5,000

Chipping Norton Baseball Club

Sporting Equipment - Baseball equipment

$2,645

South West Tigers Junior AFL

Sporting Equipment - protective post pads

$3,600

Liverpool BMX Club

Sporting Equipment - Shade Marquees

$3,000

Chipping Norton Netball Club

Sporting Equipment - First Aid and Netball items

$2,645

Special Needs Ability Program Providers

Sports Development - Disability Coaching program

$3,590

Moorebank Sports Netball Club

Sports Education - Coaching and Umpiring Courses

$1,875

Southern Districts Softball Association Inc.

Ground Maintenance - Mowing Equipment

$5,000

Bringelly Netball Club

Sports Development and Equipment

$2,645

Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club

Ground Maintenance - line marking equipment and Sports Development – League Development Program (subject to provision of proof of expenditure to Council)

$5,000

Total

$35,000

 

Amendment:                         Moved: Clr Balloot               Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That:

 

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

 

Club

Project Description

Proposed Grant Amount

Liverpool City Little Athletics Club

Sporting Equipment -Athletics timing equipment

$5,000

Chipping Norton Baseball Club

Sporting Equipment - Baseball equipment

$2,645

South West Tigers Junior AFL

Sporting Equipment - protective post pads

$3,600

Liverpool BMX Club

Sporting Equipment - Shade Marquees

$3,000

Chipping Norton Netball Club

Sporting Equipment - First Aid and Netball items

$2,645

Special Needs Ability Program Providers

Sports Development - Disability Coaching program

$3,590

Moorebank Sports Netball Club

Sports Education - Coaching and Umpiring Courses

$1,875

Southern Districts Softball Association Inc.

Ground Maintenance - Mowing Equipment

$5,000

Bringelly Netball Club

Sports Development and Equipment

$2,645

Total

$30,000

 

  1. The clubs not successful for grants be requested to resubmit for the next round of grants for consideration.

 

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

 

The amendment (moved by Clr Balloot) then became the motion and on being put to the meeting was declared CARRIED

 

Division called:

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

 

Vote against:                         Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Ristevski

                                                Clr Shelton

 

Note: The motion was carried on the Mayor’s casting vote.

 

 


37

Mayor Mannoun left the Chambers at 9.32pm and the Deputy Mayor, Clr Hadchiti took the Chair.

 

Planning and Growth Report

 

ITEM NO:      DPG 01

FILE NO:        072595.2016

SUBJECT:     Parking of trucks on rural properties

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


39

Mayor Mannoun returned to the Chambers at 9.33pm.

 

Clr Balloot left the Chambers at 9.34pm. 

 

Clr Balloot returned to the Chambers at 9.36pm.

 

ITEM NO:      DPG 02

FILE NO:        100671.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Staff identify a future Metro Station in the Miller area and indicate this as part of the master plan.

 

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

 


41

 

Committee Reports

 

ITEM NO:      CTTE 01

FILE NO:        128729.2016

SUBJECT:     Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes of 4 May 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee Meeting held on 4 May 2016.

 

2.    Adopts the Committee’s recommendations.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadid                Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


41

 

ITEM NO:      CTTE 02

FILE NO:        113679.2016

SUBJECT:     Recommendations of the Street Naming Committee Meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the officer recommendations as follows:

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

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

(c)  The naming of Salvatore Street in Austral;

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

(e)  The naming of Tropea Street in Austral.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadid                Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


43

 

ITEM NO:      CTTE 03

FILE NO:        127914.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Building Our New City Committee meeting held 4 May 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes the Minutes of the Building our New City Committee Meeting held on 4 May 2016.

 

2.    Notes that the Committee supported the option for Council to take on the Bigge Park revitalisation works in-house and approved implementation of the project on that basis.

 

3.    Approves the existing outdoor dining fee structure for Macquarie Mall to remain in place for 2016/17 and that any changes to charges beyond 2016/17 be phased in over a number of years to allow owners adequate transition time.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadid                Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


43

 

Questions with Notice

 

ITEM NO:      QWN 01

FILE NO:        099899.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Stanley

 

Please address the following:

 

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

 

When is this likely to happen?

 

In July 2015, Wests Tigers had determined that Carnes Hill North was the preferred site for their proposed Centre of Excellence.


Wests Tigers and Liverpool City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to progress the project.


In March 2016, Wests Tigers informed Council that their existing facilities, at Concord Oval, were now unaffected by WestConnex project and that they were now pursuing Concord Oval as the priority site for the proposed Centre of Excellence.


As a result of this decision, Wests Tigers requested terminating the MOU for a Centre of Excellence at Carnes Hill, while noting their willingness to continue a strategic relationship with Council.


Council is currently progressing with other recreational options for the Carnes Hill North site.


45

 

ITEM NO:      QWN 02

FILE NO:        099963.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Shelton

 

Please address the following:

 

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

 

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

April 2016

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Table 1

Growth in Number of Certificates Issued

 Apr 13

 Apr 14

 Apr 15

 Apr 16

Number of Certificates

358

493

486

764

Average Turnaround Time (Days)

2.6

4.0

7.8

19.8

Using 2013 April As Base (%)

38%

36%

113%

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

   

 


47

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 05

FILE NO:        136165.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Approves the Emergency Budget.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadchiti                     Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That this report be received and noted given that the motion passed in item NOM 07 Referral of Draft Budget for Public Exhibition (on page 10 of these minutes) moved that the budget be put on exhibition.

 

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

 


49

Clr Hadchiti declared a pecuniary interest in this item and left the Chambers for the duration of the item at 9.45pm.

Council In Closed Session

 

ITEM NO:      CONF 01

FILE NO:        113725.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender for Environmental Health Regulatory Inspections

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Accept the Tender from Food Safety Management Solutions – Option B for Tender ST2541 – Environmental Health Regulatory Inspections for an initial 3 year contract term with the option of extending the contract by 12 months + 12 months at the GST inclusive price of $110,488.88 per annum.

2.    Makes public its decision regarding tender ST2541 – Environmental Health Regulatory Inspections.

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

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

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Ristevski

 

That this item be deferred to the next Council meeting for further information.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

Note: Clr Hadchiti was not in the Chamber when this item was voted on.

 

 


Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 9.53pm.

 

ITEM NO:      CONF 02

FILE NO:        114609.2016

SUBJECT:     ST2450 Provision of Lift Maintenance Services

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 

1.       Accept the Tender from Otis Elevator Company Pty Ltd for Tender ST2450Provision of Lift Maintenance for an initial three (3) year contract term with the option of extending 2 x 12 months at the GST inclusive price of $58,360.50 for the initial three year term.

2.       Makes public its decision regarding tender ST2450Provision of Lift Maintenance.

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

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

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


51

ITEM NO:      CONF 03

FILE NO:        128329.2016

SUBJECT:     ST2518– Off Site Records Storage and Management Services

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council: 

 

1.       Accept the Tender from Grace Records Management (Australia) Pty Ltd for Tender ST2518– Off Site Records Storage and Management Services Portion A for an initial five years contract term with the option of two x three years extension option.

 

2.       Makes public its decision regarding tender ST2518 – Off Site Records Storage and Management Services - Portion A.

 

3.       Decline to accept any tenders for Portion B and in accordance with Section 178(3)(f) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 carry out the requirements of Portion B itself.

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:  Clr Hadid                Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That Council: 

 

1.    Accept the Tender from Grace Records Management (Australia) Pty Ltd for Tender ST2518– Off Site Records Storage and Management Services Portion A for an initial five years contract term with the option of two x three years extension option.

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding tender ST2518 – Off Site Records Storage and Management Services - Portion A.

 

3.    Decline to accept any tenders for Portion B and in accordance with Section 178(3)(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 carry out the requirements of Portion B itself.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Vote for:                                 Mayor Mannoun

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Shelton

                                               

Vote against:                         Clr Ristevski


53

ITEM NO:      CONF 04

FILE NO:        112528.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Accept the tender WIK proposal by the developer subject to capping the WIK credit to the amounts indicated on the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2009.

2.    Notes that the Director Planning and Growth will finalise and sign a WIK agreement in accordance with the delegated authority.

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

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


 

ITEM NO:      CONF 06

FILE NO:        130541.2016

SUBJECT:     Update on CEO 01 and CFO 01 from the Extraordinary Council meeting 4 May 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information be received and noted.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CONF 08

FILE NO:        126255.2016

SUBJECT:     Macquarie Street Mall - Shop Owners' Requests for Compensation

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note the report of staff concerning the requests for compensation from shop owners and/or proprietors in the Macquarie Street Mall.

 

2.    Consider the following options:

 

a.    No compensation.

 

b.    Provide compensation to affected Macquarie Street Mall Outdoor dining retailers.

 

c.    If b, above, delegate the CEO to assess options, scheme and potential budget source.

 

3.    Note, any payment to the affected shop owners/proprietors would need to be publicly exhibited.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note the report of staff concerning the requests for compensation from shop owners and/or proprietors in the Macquarie Street Mall.

 

2.    Provide compensation to affected Macquarie Street Mall Outdoor dining retailers and delegate the CEO to assess options, scheme and potential budget source.

 

3.      Note, any payment to the affected shop owners/proprietors would need to be publicly exhibited.

 

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

 


 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 10.07pm

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title:     Mayor

Date:     29 June 2016

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on  25 May 2016. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 


57

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

 

NOMR 01

Rescission of NOM 03 Western Sydney Women from the Council meeting 27 April 2016

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

Lead partnerships and collaboration with community, business and governments

Key Policy

Workforce Management Plan

File Ref

143752.2016

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION OF RESCISSION

 

That Council rescinds the resolution relating to NOM 03 and Western Sydney Women from the Council Meeting 27 April 2016, as shown below:

 

“That Council:

 

1.   Notes that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Signed:

 

Clr Peter Ristevski

Clr Geoff Shelton

Clr Wendy Waller  


59

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 01

New arrivals from Syria

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

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

Key Policy

Multicultural Action Plan

File Ref

163290.2016

Author

Geoff Shelton - Councillor

 

 

Background

 

On 23 May 2016 Liverpool Council hosted a forum lead by Professor Shergold, the Chancellor of Western Sydney University and also the NSW Co-ordinator General for Refugee Resettlement, as to preparations for the arrival of the foreshadowed additional refugee intake from Syria. It is anticipated a large proportion of these new arrivals will be resettled within the local Government areas of LIVERPOOL and FAIRFIELD. One of the suggestions to emerge from these discussions was that a roundtable task force be set up between the two councils consisting of one third government representation, one third community representation and one third business representation.  It is suggested that this proposal be further explored.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council invites comment from Fairfield City Council and otherwise investigates the establishment of a roundtable taskforce consisting of one third government representation, one third community representation and one third business representation, or something similar, charged with the responsibility of considering ways in which assistance can be given to the resettlement of the additional Syrian refugee intake and to make recommendations accordingly.  

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.

Social and Cultural

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

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

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

Promote community harmony and address discrimination.

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.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


59

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Notices of Motion

 

NOM 02

Notice of Motion not published

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

NA

File Ref

163231.2016

 

 

Background

 

A Notice of Motion was received for the Council meeting 29 June 2016, however has not been included on this Agenda as it contravenes Clause 8.12 of Council’s Code of Conduct. It may be included in the Council Addendum of this meeting if the wording used is altered.

 

Clause 8.12 of Council’s Code of Conduct states:

 

“You must not make allegations of suspected breaches of this Code at Council meetings or in other public forums.”

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil   


61

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

 

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.

 

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:

 

Subject Site

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 DetailsView (Under separate cover)

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

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


87

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)    35m2 in the case of a bedsitter or studio, or

(ii)   50m2 in the case of a dwelling having 1 bedroom, or

(iii)  70m2 in the case of a dwelling having 2 bedrooms, or

(iv)  95m2 in 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 -75.51m2 per 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 450m2.

·      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 m2  - 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
 

 


                   

Subject Site
Bringelly Public School
 

 

 

 


                  

 

 

 

Figure 1 Aerial Map - Locality
1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly
Source: EVIEW
 

 


 


             

 

 

 

Lot 6
DP 712840
Location of Bringelly Public School
Figure 2 Zoning Map – RU4 Primary Production Small Lots
1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly
Source: EVIEW
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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: 

Monday to Friday              7am to 5.30pm

Saturday:                           7am to 1.30pm

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.

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.  

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 DetailsView

2.         Proposed Architectural Plans


101

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

Attachment 1

Applicant and Owner Details

 


107

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

Attachment 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


111

CEO 01

Corporate Sponsorships

Attachment 1

Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Policy

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


119

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 01

Proposed Amendment to Code of Meeting Practice

 

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

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Clause 7 of NOM 02, adopted by Council on 30 March 2016, required that Mayoral minutes adhere to  the OLG Practice Note 16 dated August 2009, details of which are set out in clause 2 of the Recommendation to this report.

 

Clause 8 of NOM 02 required that any proposed changes to policies as a result of this motion be placed on public exhibition for comment.

 

A notice of motion seeking to rescind NOM 02 was defeated at the Council meeting on 27 April 2016. As a result of the defeat of the rescission motion, the proposed amendment, set out in clause 7 of NOM 02, involving an amendment to clause 18.4 of the Code of Meeting Practice (the Code), was then placed on public exhibition in accordance with clause 8 of NOM 02. One submission against the proposed amendment was received.

 

It is considered that the proposed amendment not only restores a similar pre-existing clause in the Code prior to 31 July 2013 but also represents best practice, as set out in the Office of Local Government Practice Note16 dated August 2009.

 

It is recommended that Council receive and note this report and adopt the recommended amendment to the Code.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report.

 

2.    Amend the Code of Meeting Practice by adding the following subclauses at the end of clause 18.4:

 

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

 

18.6   Mayoral minutes must adhere to the Office of Local Government Practice Note16 dated August 2009.

 

REPORT

 

Clauses 7 and 8 of NOM 02, adopted by Council on 30 March 2016, state:

 

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

 

2.7 Mayoral Minutes

 

2.7.1 What is a mayoral minute?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.7.2 Can mayoral minutes be introduced at council committee meetings?

 

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

 

2.7.3 Can a mayoral minute be amended?

 

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

 

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

 

A notice of motion seeking to rescind NOM 02 was defeated at the Council meeting on 27 April 2016. As a result of the defeat of the rescission motion, the proposed amendment, set out in clause 7 of NOM 02, involving an amendment to clause 18.4 of the Code, was then placed on public exhibition, as required under sections 361 and 363 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act).

 

One submission against the proposed amendment was received. This submission asserted that the proposed amendment was unnecessary, vaguely worded and prohibited the Mayor from undertaking his duties. It is considered that the assertions made in this submission are incorrect, given that the proposed amendment would seek to restore the position in the Code regarding Mayoral minutes prior to 31 July 2013.

 

It should be noted that a report to Council on 14 February 2014, concerning the same matter, cited advice from the then Division of Local Government to the effect that “the  Division is pleased that the Council is now contemplating restoring these better practice elements of the Code of Meeting Practice”. At that time, Council decided not to proceed with amending the Code to restore the position relating to Mayoral minutes prior to 31 July 2013.

 

The proposed amendment to the Code demonstrates best practice, as represented in the Office of Local Government Practice Note16 dated August 2009, and, therefore, it should be adopted by Council.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Code of Meeting Practice for public exhibitionView (Under separate cover)  


125

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 02

Travel and conference costs

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Long-Term Financial Plan

File Ref

151222.2016

Report By

George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

To report back on information regarding travel and conference costs which was requested by Council at the May 2016 Council meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information be received and noted.

 

REPORT

 

Council at its meeting on 25 May 2016 considered a Notice of Motion on “Overseas Travel” and resolved:

 

That Council:

 

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

 

2.   Include in the above report costs incurred by Council due to Councillors who register to attend conferences and other such events and then choose to not attend.

 

3.   Require Councillors to pay for their own costs of overseas flights.

 

4.   Requires Councillors to pay non-refundable costs for not attending conferences and other such events where they are unable to prove unforeseeable mitigating circumstances (e.g. sickness, bereavement etc.).  

 

Points 3 and 4 above is being dealt with in a separate report which proposes amendments to Council’s Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy (in line with the above resolution) regarding these matters.

 

This report deals with points 1 and 2 of the above resolution and responses are provided below: 

 

1.    There are no Councillors who have outstanding costs for overseas travel for themselves or any person that they have selected to join them.

 

2.    Council officers have checked the records for the past 12 months since May 2016 and provide the following details:

 

·      Councillors Mamone and Ristevski were registered to attend the Annual Floodplain Management Conference in Brisbane in May 2015 but did not attend.

Total costs incurred were: $4,368.

 

·      Councillor Karnib was registered to attend the Local Government NSW Annual Conference in Rosehill, Sydney in October 2016 but did not attend.

Total costs incurred were: $959.50.

 

·      Councillor Harle was registered to attend the Annual Floodplain Management Conference in Nowra, NSW in May 2016 but did not attend.

Total costs incurred were: $1,480.

Note: Councillor Harle was in hospital at the time and contacted Council staff to advise that he would be unable to make it. Council staff attempted to contact the hotel to cancel the accommodation, however no refund was able to be provided due to the late cancellation. 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


127

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 03

Proposed changes to Council meeting dates

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Long-Term Financial Plan

File Ref

151323.2016

Report By

George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

To propose changes to the Council meetings currently scheduled for September, October and November 2016 due to the local government election being on Saturday 10 September 2016.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Approve the following changes to the Council meeting cycle for September – November 2016:

 

·      No Council meeting to be held in September 2016

·      Council meeting currently scheduled for 26 October 2016, be changed to Wednesday 12 October 2016

·      Council meeting currently scheduled for 30 November 2016, be changed to Wednesday 23 November 2016.

 

2.    Places appropriate notices in the local newspaper and on Council’s social media advising the community of the change of meeting dates.

 

REPORT

 

Liverpool City Council will be holding the election for its Mayor and Councillors on Saturday 10 September 2016. The declaration of appointed members is usually made approximately one week after the election.

 

Councillor Induction Sessions will be held as soon as possible immediately after the declaration of appointed members.

 

In line with the timing schedule after the 2012 Council elections, it is recommended that there be no Council meetings in September and the meeting originally proposed for 28 September 2016 not be held and that the first meeting of the new Council be held on Wednesday 12 October 2016. To space out the remaining meetings for the year, changes to the meeting dates for the meetings scheduled for 26 October and 30 November are also proposed.

 

Below is a summary of the changes proposed from September – November 2016:

 

·    No Council meeting to be held in September 2016

 

·    Council meeting currently scheduled for 26 October 2016, be changed to Wednesday 12 October 2016 (ie. 6 weeks after the August meeting)

 

·    Council meeting currently scheduled for 30 November 2016, be changed to Wednesday 23 November 2016 (ie. 6 weeks after the 12 October meeting)   

 

No change is recommended to the December meeting (this will be held on Wednesday 14 December 2016).

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


131

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 04

Investment Report May 2016

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Long-Term Financial Plan

File Ref

154457.2016

Report By

Christian  Hope - Senior Financial Accountant

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report details Council’s Investment portfolio.

 

At 31st May 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $162.5 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.19 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.25 per cent by 94 basis points for the same period.

 

Council’s investments and reporting obligations fully comply with the requirements of Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

REPORT

 

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer must provide Council with a written report setting out details of all money that Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

At 31st May 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $162.5 million. Council’s investment register detailing all its investments is provided as an attachment to this report.

 

 

In summary, Council’s portfolio consisted of investments in:

 

 

As at the end of May 2016, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

 

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%

* A TCD stands for Transferrable Certificate of Deposit; it is a security issued with the same characteristics as a   Term Deposit however it can be sold back (transferred) in to the market prior to maturity. A floating TCD pays a coupon linked to a variable benchmark (90 days BBSW).

 

Council is fully compliant with the requirements of the Ministerial Investment Order including the grand fathering provision in regards to its investment portfolio holdings. The grand fathering provision states that Council continues to hold to maturity, redeem or sell investments that comply with previous Ministerial Investment Orders. Any new investments must comply with the most recent Order. Council continues to closely monitor the investments in its portfolio to ensure continued compliance and minimal exposure to risk.

 

Portfolio Maturity Profile

 

The table below shows the percentage of funds invested at different durations to maturity.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portfolio Performance against Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW)

 

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

 

Council’s investment portfolio yield for the 12 months ended 31 May 2016 was 3.19 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.25 per cent by 94 basis points for the same period. Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower deposit yields on offer. Council’s ongoing out performance has been boosted by a handful of longer term investments yielding above 4% and maturing out to 2019. Return on investments is expected to slowly decrease as old investments in Council’s portfolio mature and replaced with investments yielding lower returns.

 

Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

 

 

 

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

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

MCWB01114_0000[1]

The portfolio yield for 12 month ended is 93 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.19% against 2.25%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Council’s investment year to date interest income was above budget as at 31 May 2016 by $8k.

 

Investment Policy Compliance

Legislative Requirements

 

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Portfolio Credit Rating Limit

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

 

Institutional Exposure Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Term to Maturity Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant

 

 

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank Board meets eleven times each year, on the first Tuesday of each month, except in January. At its meeting on 7th of June the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.75 per cent.  This historically low cash rate impacts returns on investment. Returns on Term Deposits and Floating Rate Notes have significantly dropped since the last twelve months. The average market returns on term deposits are:

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

·    Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) - 2.7 % to 3.0 % p.a.

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

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

·    31 Days’ Notice Account 2.45%

 

Certificate of Responsible Accounting Officer

 

The Chief Financial Officer, as Responsible Accounting Officer certifies that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Councils Investment Policies at the time of their placement. The previous investments are covered by the “grandfather” clauses of the current investment guidelines issued by the Minister for Local Government.

 .

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Council’s investment year to date interest income was above budget as at 31st May 2016 by $8k.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Investment Register May 2016View

2.         Performance Graph Actual To Budget ytd May 2016View  


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

 


137

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 05

Proposed Amendments to Media Representation Policy

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Good Governance

File Ref

154822.2016

Report By

David Maguire - Governance Coordinator

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Clauses 1, 2 and 5 of NOM 02 adopted by Council on 30 March 2016 required changes to the Media Representation Policy.

 

Clause 8 of NOM 02 required that any proposed changes to policies as a result of this motion must be placed on public exhibition for comment.

 

A notice of motion seeking to rescind NOM 02 was defeated at the Council meeting on 27 April 2016. As a result of the defeat of the rescission motion, the proposed amendments, set out in clauses 1, 2 and 5 of NOM 02, involving amendments to clauses 4.4, 4.5 and 4.21 of the Media Representation Policy, were then placed on public exhibition in accordance with clause 8 of NOM 02. Three submissions against the proposed amendments were received.

 

It is recommended that Council receive and note this report, adopt the proposed amendment to clause 4.21, reject the proposed amendments to clause 4.4 and 4.5 of the policy and adopt a further amendment to the policy regarding media comments and the use of newspaper columns for a period of three months before Council elections.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report.

 

2.    Adopt the proposed amendment to clause 4.21 of the Media Representation Policy.

 

3.    Reject the proposed amendments to clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of the Media Representation Policy.

 

 

4.    Adopt the following amendment as clause 4.22 of the Media Representation Policy (renumbering subsequent clauses):

 

Local government election period and the media

 

4.22   Prior to Council elections for the period as stated in Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy (section 4.5.1 (d), Council will refrain from:

 

a)    Publishing any Mayoral or Councillor columns and/ or messages in local newspapers or in electronic media;

b)    Publishing any media statements by the Mayor and/ or Councillors without the advice and consent of the Chief Executive Officer.

 

REPORT

 

Clauses 1, 5 and 8 of NOM 02, adopted by Council on 30 March 2016 state:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Please note, clause 1 relates to sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the Media Representation policy. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 6 of NOM 02 do not require amendments to the Media Representation Policy.

 

A notice of motion seeking to rescind NOM 02 was defeated at the Council meeting on 27 April 2016. As a result of the defeat of the rescission motion, the proposed amendments, set out in clauses 1 and 5 of NOM 02, involving amendments to clauses 4.4, 4.5 and 4.21 of the Media Representation Policy, were then placed on public exhibition in accordance with clause 8 of NOM 02.

 

Three submissions against the proposed amendments were received. These three submissions basically asserted that the Mayor had been popularly elected and thus the Mayor should be able to deal with the media as spokesperson on behalf of Council.

 

Councillors need to be aware that, while the Mayor is also a Councillor, section 226 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that the Mayor has other specific functions:

 

·    to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council

·    to exercise such other functions of the council as the council determines

·    to preside at meetings of the council

·    to carry out the civic and ceremonial functions of the mayoral office.

In this regard, the Councillor Handbook, issued by the then Division of Local Government in September 2012, states:

 

A good working relationship between councillors, the mayor, the general manager and other council staff is fundamental to an effective council. Councillors must also have an understanding of how to manage external relationships, with the community, the media, and other organisations including State Agencies.

 

For the reasons set out in the previous paragraphs, it is recommended that the proposed amendments to clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of the Media Representation Policy be rejected.

 

Given that Council elections are imminent, it may be appropriate to include a recommended  draft clause 4.22 in the Media Representation Policy to deal with how media matters can be handled appropriately during the period before Council elections so as to avoid any perception that the Mayor or any Councillor, in making media comments or statements, is using Council resources for the purpose of assisting their election campaign in contravention of clauses 7.15 and 7.16 of the Code of Conduct.

 

Local government election period and the media

 

          4.22   Prior to Council elections for the period as stated in Civic Expenses and Facilities

                   Policy (section 4.5.1 (d), Council will refrain from:

 

a)   Publishing any Mayoral or Councillor columns and/ or messages in local newspapers or in electronic media;

b)   Publishing any media statements by the Mayor and/ or Councillors without the advice and consent of the Chief Executive Officer.

 

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.         Draft Media Representation Policy


137

CFO 05

Proposed Amendments to Media Representation Policy

Attachment 1

Draft Media Representation Policy

 


 


 


 


 


 


143

Ordinary Meeting 29 June 2016

Chief Financial Officer

 

CFO 06

Report on Contractual Conditions of Senior Staff - s.339 Local Government Act

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Workforce Management Plan

File Ref

162397.2016

Report By

Chris White - Manager Governance & Legal

Brett Goodridge - Manager Workforce Management

Approved By

Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that the Chief Executive Officer must report to Council on the contractual conditions of designated senior staff positions on an annual basis.

 

This report outlines the number of designated senior staff positions currently in Council's organisational structure for the previous 12 months and the contractual conditions of each senior staff position, as required by Section 338 of the Local Government Act 1993. It is recommended that Council receives and notes the report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report of staff concerning the contractual conditions of senior staff.

 

REPORT

 

Pursuant to Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”), the Chief Executive Officer must report to Council on the contractual conditions of designated senior staff positions on an annual basis.

 

Section 338 of the Act states relevantly:

 

(1)  The general manager and other senior staff of a council are to be employed under contracts that are performance-based.

(2)  The term of a contract must not be less than 12 months or more than 5 years (including any option for renewal). A term that is less than 12 months is taken to be for 12 months and a term for more than 5 years is taken to be limited to 5 years.

 

As per the Act, all of Council’s designated senior staff are employed under a contract of employment that has a performance-based component.

 

All senior positions are based on the standard contract that is issued by the Office of Local Government. The contractual arrangements for the designated senior staff appointed in those positions are outlined below.

 

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

 

(*) Note – Wayne Carter is a Temporary Appointment effective to 03/02/2017.

 

(**) Note – Eddie Jackson acting during Ms. Fishburn’s maternity leave period.

 

(***) Note – Julie Scott acting during Mr. Cullen’s period as Acting Chief Executive Officer.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

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

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

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil   


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

(c)  Sporting 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