Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Prayer

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 29 June 2016..................................................................... 9

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NOMR 01 Rescission of DBI 01 Endorsement of the Delivery Program 2013-17 and Operational Plan 2016-17 including 2016-17 Budget from Council meeting 27 July 2016 69......... 1

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Renbury Farm - No Kill Policy........................................................................ 70......... 2

NOM 02 Removal of Dangerous Tree.......................................................................... 72......... 3

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01 DA-1228/2015 - Construction of two commercial buildings, to be used as food and drink premises with associated site works, signage, landscaping and car parking on Proposed Lot 4 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in DP 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. ........................................................................................................... 75......... 4

IHAP 02 DA-1136/2015 - Construction and operation of a service station with an associated convenience store and fast food restaurant with drive through facility on Proposed Lot 3 in the subdivision of Lot 29 DP 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. 86......... 5

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

NIL

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01 Liverpool City Council Community Strategic Plan 2017-2027 - Community Engagement Strategy 2016-2017........................................................................................ 99......... 6

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01 Local Government NSW Annual Conference.............................................. 114......... 7

CFO 02 Investment Report June 2016...................................................................... 137......... 8

CFO 03 Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy after Public Exhibition 146......... 9

CFO 04 Legal Costs - Moorebank Recyclers Legal Appeal...................................... 168....... 10

City Presentation Report

DCP 01 Waste Pick-up Cycle.................................................................................... 172....... 11

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01 Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in the Liverpool City Centre 175 12

DCC 02 Liverpool City Council Aboriginal Cultural Protocols.................................... 191....... 13

DCC 03 Liverpool Sporting Donations........................................................................ 194....... 14

Economic Development Report

DEE 01 Charitable Collections on Council Controlled Lands Policy.......................... 197....... 15

DEE 02 Hoardings Policy........................................................................................... 204....... 16

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01 2015-2016 Capital Works Carryover of Projects and Funds....................... 206....... 17

DIEN 02 Speaking for the Planet (S4P) Event........................................................... 210....... 18

DIEN 03 Floodplain Management Committee............................................................ 214....... 19

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01 Housing affordability in Liverpool.................................................................. 237....... 20

DPG 02 Response to NOM 01 Malek Fahd Islamic School from Council Meeting 27 April 2016 247....... 21

DPG 03 Liverpool City Centre LEP Review - Response to submissions................... 250....... 22

DPG 04 Liverpool City Centre Contributions Plan Review........................................ 265....... 23

DPG 05 Planning Agreement Policy.......................................................................... 268....... 24

DPG 06 Works in Kind Policy..................................................................................... 271....... 25

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 9 June 2016...... 285....... 26

CTTE 02 Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee held on Thursday 2 June, 2016.................................................................... 290....... 27

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 6 June 2016....... 295....... 28

CTTE 04 Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee meeting held on 5 July 2016 300 29

CTTE 05 Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 7 July 2016.......... 306....... 30

CTTE 06 Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 July 2016 320 31

CTTE 07 Liverpool City Sports Committee Minutes of Meeting 9 June 2016............. 351....... 32

Correspondence Reports

NIL

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Shelton................................................................ 360....... 33

Questions Taken on Notice

Presentations by Councillors

Council in Closed Session

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

CONF 01 Acquisition of part Lot 2 DP 1194117, Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park, for open space purposes

Reason: Item CONF 01 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 02 Proposed road closure and disposal of part Angelina Court, Green Valley

Reason: Item CONF 02 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 03 Proposed reclassification and disposal of part Lot 78 DP 27242, 24 Atkinson Street, Liverpool

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 Proposed road closure and disposal of part Norfolk Serviceway, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 04 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 05 Acquisition of part Lot 17 DP 81842, Lot 2 and 3 DP 229979, and Lot 1 DP 507070 being Tenancy A, 52 Scott Street, Liverpool, for a public purpose

Reason: Item CONF 05 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 06 ST2528 - Provision of Security Services

Reason: Item CONF 06 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 07 DA-1251/2015 Use and Fitout of a shed for a rural industry (servicing of agricultural machinery) at 1212 The Northern Road, Bringelly

Reason: Item CONF 07 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(g) of the Local Government Act because it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

CONF 08 RCL2551– Supply of Library Materials

Reason: Item CONF 08 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

Close

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 29 June 2016

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti (Chair)

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Councillor Waller

Mr Michael Cullen, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Community and Culture & Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Madhu Pudasaini, Acting Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Carole Todd, Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

The meeting commenced at 6.07pm

OPENING <time>

PRAYER The prayer of the Council was read by Pastor Claudio Alosi from Living Grace Christian Church.

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Karnib

APOLOGIES Clr Mamone

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

CONDOLENCES Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Hadid

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 25 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 Waller declared a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following items:

Item CEO 01: Corporate Sponsorships

Reason: The report makes a recommendation for a donation to the Eggtober Foundation, which is a not for profit organisation. Clr Waller is a Board Member and receives no funding and is a volunteer.

Item DCC 01: Grants and Donations Report

Reason: The report makes a recommendation for funds to Meals on Wheels which is a not for profit organisation. Clr Waller is a board member and receives no funding and is a volunteer.

Clr Waller did not leave the Chambers for the duration of the item.

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

Item DCC 01: Grants and Donations Report

Reason: The report makes a recommendation for a donation to the Liverpool and District Historical Society. Clr Shelton is a member of the Society. He does not hold an executive position.

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

Mayor Mannoun declared a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:

Item 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

Reason: The applicant has conducted work for Mayor Mannoun’s family previously.

Mayor Mannoun did not leave the Chambers for the duration of the item.

Clr Ristevski declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

Item DPG 03: Shepherd Street Precinct Planning Proposal

Reason: Clr Ristevski has placed a deposit on a unit off the plan at the site.

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

Public Forum

Representation – Items on agenda

1. Mr Matthew Peet from the Noffs Organisation addressed Council on the following item:

MAYOR 01: Battle Of The Year Competition

2. Dr Maria Hondronicola addressed Council on the following item:

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.

3. Mr Vince Carrabs addressed Council on the following item:

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.

4. Mr Gerrard Turrisi from GAT & Associates addressed Council on the following item:

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

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Harle

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

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

5. Mr David Bonanno addressed Council on the following item:

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

6. Mr Aras Labutis addressed Council on the following item:

DPG 03: Shepherd Street Precinct Planning Proposal

Presentation – Items not on agenda

1. Ms Judith Carter addressed Council on the following matter:

Impending closure of Renbury Farm & Council’s plans to ensure welfare & safety of cats & dogs.

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 9.37pm.

Clr Balloot left the Chambers at 9.38pm.

Clr Balloot returned to the Chambers at 9.39pm.

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 9.41pm.

Clr Balloot left the Chambers at 9.41pm.

Clr Balloot returned to the Chambers at 9.42pm.

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 10.00pm.

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 10.01pm.

Business Improvement Report

ITEM NO: DBI 01

FILE NO: 161844.2016

SUBJECT: Endorsement of the Delivery Program 2013-17 and Operational Plan 2016-17 including 2016-17 Budget

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the 4-year Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget with the changes outlined in the report.

2. Makes the rates and charges for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016 as outlined in the Revenue Pricing Policy and exhibited in the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Budget.

3. Writes to the individuals who provided a submission, thanking them for their submission and provides a response to their feedback and, or comments.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Karnib

A. That Council adopts the four year Delivery Program and 2016-2017 Operational Plan with the changes outlined in the report together with the amendments appended hereto noting that in the event of a perceived conflict the amendments appended hereto shall prevail.

1. The budgetary allocation for Council’s media unit be reduced by 50%.

2. The items relating to the potential outsourcing of current in-house cleaning functions, proposed efficiencies in the depot and ‘market testing’ in relation thereto as contained in the budget and supporting documents be deleted and discontinued (referred to for example as ‘Savings from industrial… efficiencies’ on page 602 of the papers).

3. All interfaith dinner functions are to be discontinued.

4. Funding for the Committee for Liverpool is to be discontinued.

5. Funding for any ongoing involvement by Council with the Future Cities Collaborative / United States Studies Centre / and affiliated programs be discontinued.

6. Funding for the Mens’ Shed program is to be discontinued.

7. Funding for Destination Liverpool program is to be discontinued.

8. Funding for the Night Markets program is to be discontinued.

9. Funding for the CCTV program is to be discontinued.

10. Funding for Starry Sari night is to be discontinued.

B. That Council also makes the rates and charges for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016 as outlined in the Revenue Pricing Policy and exhibited in the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Budget.

Council notes it is anticipated the average bottom line rate payment increase for ratepayers in Liverpool in the 2016-2017 rating year will be approximately two and a half times the rate of inflation (and more where there is an increase in property value). Further, Council notes that even with the aforementioned cutbacks in programs and a bottom line average rate increase being two and a half times the rate of inflation it is still not anticipated the budget will be in surplus (but merely in a more manageable deficit) and therefore further cutbacks in programs should be anticipated.

Last, it is noted the CFO in the business papers for the March 2016 general meeting, page 361, referred to the Council as being in a state of ‘serious budget stress’; and by no means can Council’s budgetary issues be explained solely by referring to the ‘asbestos’ and other harmful materials remediation issues/problems Council currently faces.

C. That Council writes to the individuals who provided a submission, thanking them for their submission and provides a response to their feedback and or comments.

D. That a further report be provided to Council as to the feasibility (to the extent as much is not already covered in the comments on submitters presently contained in the business papers) of implementing:

i. The maintenance items identified by a submitter with respect to Ida Kennedy Reserve, Green Valley;

ii. Addressing the drainage issues in the vicinity of Hoxton Park Road, as identified by a submitter;

iii. The improvements sought with respect to Edenbrook Reserve as identified by a submitter;

iv. The amendments sought by Bike Liverpool; and

v. The landscaping issues raised by a submitter with respect to the Georges Fair area, and identifying ways in which the participation of women and girls in sport might be enhanced as described by a submitter.

Note: Clr Ristevski accused Deputy Mayor Hadchiti of breaching the Code of Meeting Practice.

Note: Mayor Mannoun asked that it be noted that Council is unaware of the financial implications of this motion at the time of voting.

Note: Subsequent to the meeting a notional operational budget surplus of $294,000 is estimated by staff in relation to these changes as well as a potential reduction in capital expenditure of approximately $700,000. However, these figures are notional only and subject to further review. There may also be other as yet unknown, cost implications arising from this resolution that need to be considered. Where relevant these matters will be considered as part of Council’s normal quarterly reporting process.

Foreshadowed Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Balloot

That Council:

1. Adopts the 4-year Delivery Program and 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget with the changes outlined in the report and the additional changes identified below:

a) That any increases to charges for Council’s swimming pools be limited to CPI increases only.

b) That Council cleaning contract be put out for tender and Councillors to consider any recommendations made by Council staff, in a report to Council, as a result of the tender.

2. Makes the rates and charges for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016 as outlined in the Revenue Pricing Policy and exhibited in the draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Budget.

3. Writes to the individuals who provided a submission, thanking them for their submission and provides a response to their feedback and, or comments.

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

Division called (for the motion moved by Mayor Mannoun):

Vote for: Mayor Mannoun

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti (Chair)

Clr Hadid

Vote against: Clr Harle

Clr Karnib

Clr Ristevski

Clr Shelton

Clr Waller

The Chairperson (Clr Hadchiti) called a recess of Council at 10.15pm.

The Chairperson reopened at 10.24pm.

MOTION TO RESUBMIT

Motion: Moved: Clr Waller Seconded: Clr Karnib

That the motion (moved by Clr Shelton) be resubmitted.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Waller to resubmit Clr Shelton’s motion) was declared CARRIED.

On being resubmitted and put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Shelton) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadowed motion (moved by Mayor Mannoun) lapsed.

Division called (for the motion moved by Clr Shelton):

Vote for: Clr Harle

Clr Karnib

Clr Ristevski

Clr Shelton

Clr Waller

Vote against: Mayor Mannoun

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti (Chair)

Clr Hadid

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01

DA-1228/2015 - Construction of two commercial buildings, to be used as food and drink premises with associated site works, signage, landscaping and car parking on Proposed Lot 4 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in DP 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	180577.2016
Report By	Marcus Jennejohn - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

Lot 29 DP 1044841

501 Cowpasture Road

Len Waters Estate

Owner

AMARINO PTY LTD

Applicant

AMARINO PTY LTD

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1228/2015, proposing the construction of two commercial buildings, to be used as food and drink premises with associated site works, signage, landscaping and car parking on Proposed Lot 4 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in DP 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. This application was lodged on 17 December 2015.

This application was referred to the 27 June 2016 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary the minimum building street frontage development standard Clause 7.15(2) of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) which requires a 90 metre minimum frontage for new buildings on land with frontage to a classified road in the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone. The Council Officer’s report recommended approval of the application by way of a deferred commencement. The deferred commencement condition relates to the provision of a legalised right of carriage way over the internal road to be relied upon by the development for access.

Proposed Lot 4 (approved under DA-1106/2014) has an approved frontage to Cowpasture Road of 68.15m and therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Clause 7.15(2). The extent of the variation is 24%.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve Development Application DA-1228/2015 as a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the updated recommended conditions of consent attached.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1228/2015 proposing the construction of two commercial buildings, to be used as food and drink premises with associated site works, signage, landscaping and car parking on Proposed Lot 4 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in DP 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate.

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

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.15(2) of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes a minimum building street frontage of 90 metres in the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone. The proposal includes buildings on Proposed Lot 4 which has a frontage to Cowpasture Road of 68.15m representing a 24% variation.

The Site

The subject site is legally described as Lot 29 DP 1044841 and is located at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. The site is irregular in shape, with a western frontage of approximately 422.89m to Cowpasture Road and a total site area of approximately 5.312 hectares. The site (Proposed Lot 4) is orientated in an east-west direction with vehicular access available via Cowpasture Road.

Proposed Lot 4 is situated within the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone under LLEP 2008.

The site (existing Lot 29) is identified in the following Figure 1.

Subject site
(Lot 29)

Figure 1 – Site and locality map

Figure 2 – Location of Proposed Lot 4 (Approved Plan under DA-1106/2014)

The subject site (Proposed Lot 4) is currently vacant, so are Proposed Lots 2, 3 & 5 which are subject to separate Development Applicants presently before Council. A McDonald’s fast food restaurant is already under construction on proposed Lot 1.

details of the proposal

The application seeks approval for the following:

· a future food and drink premises with drive-thru facilities (“tenancy A”);

· a restaurant (“tenancy B”);

· 63 car spaces including:

o 53 car spaces (1 disabled); and

o 10 spaces for queuing;

· signage; and

· landscaping.

Vehicular access will be from Lot 5 via a common/shared internal road servicing the entire estate.

The proposal provides the following floor areas:

· Total site 2,899m2

· Food and drink premises - 160m2 (tenancy A)

· Food and drink premises - 350m2 (tenancy B)

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 7.15(2) of the LLEP 2008, which prescribes the minimum building street frontage requires in the B6 zone.

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

Figure 3 – Proposed Tenancies

the issues

The key issue identified with the proposal relates to a variation proposed to the minimum building street frontage development standard under Clause 7.15 of the LLEP 2008.

The building street frontage of Proposed Lot 4 does not comply with the minimum building street frontage required under Clause 7.15 of the LLEP 2008. In accordance with Clause 7.15, the minimum building frontage requirement in the B6 Zone is 90m for a new building with frontage to a classified road. The subject site (Lot 4) has a building street frontage of 68.15m and therefore does not meet the requirement of Clause 7.15, representing a variation of 24%. The variation to Clause 7.15 is discussed in detail further in this report.

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width development standard as prescribed by Clause 7.15(2) LLEP.

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 to the development standard as follows:

Clause 7.15 requires that the development as proposed only be permitted where the development site has building street frontage of ninety (90) metres or more. This proposal involves the development of a future Lot that will have a frontage of 68.15 metres to Cowpasture Road, hence not meeting the requirement of ninety (90) metres. However, the total development site has frontage of 217 metres and limited access to the total site is permitted by way of a signalised intersection and slip lane. There is no direct access to proposed Lot 4 off Cowpasture Road. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Council has recently consented to the subdivision of the site to create development lots with frontages less than 90 metres and recently approved development over future Lot 1 with a frontage less than 90 metres.

The applicant has also provided responses in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment guidelines. The pertinent responses are as follows:

What are the objectives of the zone?

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies all the objectives of the zone. That is, the proposal will promote and support further business along the main road (Cowpasture Road) and has been designed to comply with floor space controls detailed within the LLEP 2008. The limitation of floor space ensures that the scale of retail is restricted, to ensure the continued viability of existing and proposed centres. There is no doubt that this current proposal meets all of the B6 zone objectives.

What is the development standard being varied?

Minimum Building Street Frontage

Under what clause is the development standard listed in the environmental planning instrument?

Part 7, Additional Local Provisions, Clause 7.15 Minimum Street Frontage in Zone B6

What are the objectives of the development standard?

7.15 Minimum building street frontage in Zone B6

(1) The objectives of this clause for the control of building frontage to streets are as follows:

(a) to ensure that acceptable vehicular access arrangements to a classified road are capable of

being achieved,

(b) to ensure that vehicular access is reasonably spaced and separated along roads and lanes,

(c) to ensure suitable business exposure in a visually uncomplicated and ordered environment.

What is the numeric value of the development standard in the environmental planning instrument?

For a site that fronts a Classified Road, the Minimum Building Street Frontage is 90 metres

What is proposed numeric value of the development standard in your development application?

68.15 metres

What is the percentage variation (between your proposal and the environmental planning instrument)?

Frontage proposed is approximately 24% of the standard.

How is strict compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case?

This proposal involves the development of a future Lot with frontage of 68.15 metres to Cowpasture Road, hence not meeting the requirement of ninety (90) metres. However, the total development site has frontage of 217 metres and limited access to the site is permitted by way of signalised intersection. Direct access to proposed Lot 4 off Cowpasture Road is not provided.

Furthermore, when the existing Lot 29 Cowpasture Road is subdivided, lots fronting Cowpasture Road will not meet the 90 metre frontage requirement, but will readily meet the objectives of the control. That is, sufficiently wide street frontage is maintained and access to the site is limited.

Council has issued consent to the subdivision of the site. It is worth noting that the proposed subdivision and final lot frontages including future Lot 4 – the subject of this application:

· were previously supported by Council by previously issuing subdivision consent;

· vehicular access points are limited, supported by RMS; and,

· suitable business exposure in an ordered total site layout is ensured.

The recently supported rezoning clearly indicated possible land uses and subdivision pattern – all supported by Council and RMS.

How would strict compliance hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

The relevant objects are:

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, and,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of

land,

It is argued that strict compliance would not facilitate the proper development of land zoned for the purposes proposed. The proposed development, though not meeting a development standard, does not adversely impact on the natural or built environment. Furthermore, the development of the land is influenced by the intersection alignment and location of slip lane on neighbouring lots. The alignment as required by the Council and RMS necessitates the creation of a development lot that does not meet the development standard. Strict compliance would cause the sterilisation of a significant portion of the site. This would not promote the orderly and economic use and development of land

Is the development standard a performance based control? Give details.

No. The development standard is a numerical control

Would strict compliance with the standard, in your particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary? Why?

It would be unreasonable to insist on strict compliance because the street frontage is dictated by intersection alignment and positioning of slip lane access to the adjoining lot. Furthermore, the Council has recently supported a subdivision of the site to enable the creation of lots facing Cowpasture Road that do not meet the development standard and approved the development of future Lot 1 with frontage less than 90 metres. It is unreasonable to now impose a restriction on the landowner.

It would be unnecessary to insist on strict compliance because the objectives of the standard can readily be achieved in this case as the proportions of the entire site are such that the access to the site can be limited and wide, uncluttered street presentation remains possible - meeting the objectives of the control. This proposal does not alter the approved subdivision and access arrangements.

Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard? Give details.

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a variation to the development standard. In particular as detailed above, a contravention in development standard in this case does not undermine the objectives or reason for the standard. Finally, it is argued that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard as the RMS and Council have consented to the site configuration and access arrangements via several development application determinations and recent rezoning.

Officer’s comments

The following comments are provided in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.15 LLEP:

1) It would be unreasonable to compel compliance with Clause 7.15 of the LLEP 2008, as Proposed Lot 4 has been recently approved by subdivision consent and has been identified as a suitable site for future development due to the parent property being rezoned to B6 – Enterprise Corridor to accommodate business type development on the site.

2) The proposed development has demonstrated compliance with all other relevant LLEP 2008 development standards (i.e. FSR and Height).

3) The proposed development is of an appropriate bulk and scale and has been designed appropriately.

4) The proposed development is consistent with the intended and desired future character of the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone.

5) The development has been designed to achieve safe and efficient vehicular access and egress from the site.

The proposed development has demonstrated compliance with FSR and height controls and is considered to be of an appropriate bulk and scale for the locality. The proposed food and drink premises with drive-thru facilities and the restaurant are considered to be a suitable form of development having regards to the B6 zoning and are considered a form of development that is consistent with the intended and desired future character of the area. Additionally, the reduced frontage does not cause any traffic safety issues and the proposal is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineering Section and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.15 Minimum Building Street Frontage in Zone B6 is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 27 June 2016, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that DA-1228/2015 for the construction of two commercial buildings, to be used as food and drink premises with associated site works, signage, landscaping and car parking on Proposed Lot 4 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in DP 1044841 be approved subject to conditions attached to the Council officer’s report.

The Panel also provided the following recommendations:

IHAP recommendation	Agreed/Not Agreed	Council Officer’s comment
The panel recommends that consideration be given to removing the physical barrier between the car park of the proposed development and the service station site, provided the access arrangements discussed in Item 1 (see DA-1136/2015) are addressed.	Not agreed	The physical barrier (bollards) were introduced to respond to concerns raised by the RMS regarding access to Lot 3 being used to access Lots 2 and 4. RMS confirmed support for the proposed arrangements by letter dated 28 January 2016.
…the panel recommends that a further condition be imposed requiring the right of way to be constructed prior to issue of the occupation certificate for the proposed development.	Agreed.	A new condition (number 86) has been added to address this concern and is outlined below: 86. The Right-Of-Carriageway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic and Transport Manager prior to issue of an occupation certificate for the proposed development.
The panel wish to make a general comment about landscaping opportunities within the estate. There appears to be little thought or consideration given to the general amenity of the overall site. The panel recommends that the proposal for Lot 5 incorporate appropriately scaled vegetation along the proposed right of way and interspersed within the carpark area.	Not agreed.	The landscape plans have been assessed by Council and are considered satisfactory. Landscaping recommendations that relate to Lot 5 will be considered as part of the development assessment of that proposal.

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 by way of a deferred commencement, subject to conditions.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
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 Landowners Details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendations View (Under separate cover)

4. Updated Recommended Conditions of Consent View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 02

DA-1136/2015 - Construction and operation of a service station with an associated convenience store and fast food restaurant with drive through facility on Proposed Lot 3 in the subdivision of Lot 29 DP 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	181034.2016
Report By	Marcus Jennejohn - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

Lot 29 DP 1044841

501 Cowpasture Road

Len Waters Estate

Owner

AMARINO PTY LTD

Applicant

AMARINO PTY LTD

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1136/2015, proposing the construction and operation of a service station with an associated convenience store and fast food restaurant with a drive through facility on Proposed Lot 3 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in Deposited Plan 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. This application was lodged on 20 November 2015.

Proposed Lot 3 (approved under DA-1106/2014) has an approved frontage to Cowpasture Road of 49.50m and therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Clause 7.15(2). The extent of the variation is 45%.

The IHAP recommendation was to defer the development application pending further consultation with RMS and the applicant (See Attached IHAP Recommendation).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve Development Application DA-1136/2015 as a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the updated recommended conditions of consent attached.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1136/2015 proposing the construction and operation of a service station with an associated convenience store and fast food restaurant with a drive through facility on Proposed Lot 3 in the subdivision of Lot 29 in Deposited Plan 1044841 at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.15(2) of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes the minimum building street frontage of 90 metres in the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone. The proposal includes buildings on Proposed Lot 3 which has a frontage to Cowpasture Road of 49.50m representing a 45% variation.

The Site

The subject site is legally described as Lot 29 DP 1044841 and is located at 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. The site is irregular in shape, with a western frontage of approximately 422.89m to Cowpasture Road and a total site area of approximately 5.312 hectares. The site (Proposed Lot 3) is orientated in an east-west direction with vehicular access available via Cowpasture Road.

Proposed Lot 3 is situated within the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone under LLEP 2008.

The site (existing Lot 29) is identified in the following Figure 1.

Subject site
(Lot 29)

Figure 1 – Site and locality map

Figure 2 – Location of Proposed Lot 3 (Approved Plan under DA-1106/2014)

The subject site (Proposed Lot 3) is currently vacant, so are Proposed Lots 2, 4 & 5 which are subject to separate Development Applicants presently before Council. A McDonald’s fast food restaurant is already under construction on proposed Lot 1.

details of the proposal

The application seeks approval for the following:

· Construction of a BP Service Station with approx. 326m2 of floor space with a convenience store, customer and staff amenities, together with an Oporto fast food restaurant with a drive through, kitchen, cool room together with an eight seat eat-in area;

· Installation of fuel pumps, canopies and underground fuel tanks;

· Operation of the BP Service Station, Convenience store and the Oporto fast food outlet will be 24 hours, 7 days a week;

· Shared loading dock area;

· New entry and exit driveways to Cowpasture Road;

· Provision of a garbage area;

· Construction of a 15 space car park and vehicle circulation areas/driveways. These car spaces are wholly within Proposed Lot 3;

· Provision of 8 additional short-term parking spaces with access to the proposed fuel bowsers;

· Signage for each premises together with one 7m high x 2.28m wide pylon sign; and

· Landscaping and embellishment.

· Vehicular access to the development will be via a separate entry/exit driveway off Cowpasture Road.

· Vehicular access can also be gained from Lot 5 via a common/shared internal road servicing the entire estate.

· Two employees proposed for the service station and convenience store.

· The applicant has indicated the estimate of employment generation for the fast food restaurant is in the order of 15-20 employees being a mix of full-time and part time employees working on a roster. The number of employees onsite at any given time will most likely range between 4-6 employees.

The proposal provides the following floor areas:

· Service Station - 150m2

· Fast food restaurant - 150m2 with 8 seats

· Shared amenities area of - 26m2

· Shared loading bay area

The proposed plans and elevations are detailed in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 below:

Figure 3 – Proposed Floor Plan

Figure 4 – Proposed Site Plan

Figure 5 – Proposed Elevations

Figure 6 – Proposed Elevations

the issues

The key issue identified with the proposal relates to a variation proposed to the minimum building street frontage development standard under Clause 7.15 of the LLEP 2008.

The building street frontage of Proposed Lot 3 does not comply with the minimum building street frontage required under Clause 7.15 of the LLEP 2008. In accordance with Clause 7.15 the minimum building frontage requirement in the B6 Zone is 90m for a new building with frontage to a classified road. The subject site (Lot 3) has a building street frontage of 49.50m and therefore does not meet the requirement of Clause 7.15, representing a variation of 45%. The variation to Clause 7.15 is discussed in detail further in this report.

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width control as prescribed by Clause 7.15(2) LLEP.

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:

(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 to the development standard as follows:

Clause 7.15 requires that the development as proposed only be permitted where the development site has building street frontage of ninety (90) meters or more. This proposal involves the development of a future Lot that will have a frontage of 49.50 metres to Cowpasture Road, hence not meeting the requirement of ninety (90) metres. However, the total development site (Future Lots 1-5) has frontage of 217 metres and only two (2) access points to the total site by way of signalised intersection and slip lane to only service the subject site. Access off Cowpasture Road is limited thereby satisfying the objectives of the standard as detailed below. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Council has recently consented to the subdivision of the original development site to create four (4) lots fronting Cowpasture Road with frontages less than 90 metres and recently approved development over future Lot 1 with a frontage of 35.7 metres.

The applicant has also provided responses in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment guidelines. The pertinent responses are as follows:

What are the objectives of the zone?

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies all the objectives of the zone. That is, the proposal will promote and support further business along the main road (Cowpasture Road). In fact, this proposal, being a service station operation is highway/main road orientated development. Furthermore, this proposal has been designed to comply with Council’s other relevant development standards and controls including floor space controls. Such compliance ensures that the scale of retail is restricted, to ensure the continued viability of existing and proposed centres. There is no doubt that this current proposal meets all of the B6 zone objectives.

What is the development standard being varied?

Minimum Building Street Frontage

Under what clause is the development standard listed in the environmental planning instrument?

Part 7, Additional Local Provisions, Clause 7.15 Minimum Street Frontage in Zone B6

What are the objectives of the development standard?

7.15 Minimum building street frontage in Zone B6

(1) The objectives of this clause for the control of building frontage to streets are as follows:

(a) to ensure that acceptable vehicular access arrangements to a classified road are capable of

being achieved,

(b) to ensure that vehicular access is reasonably spaced and separated along roads and lanes,

(c) to ensure suitable business exposure in a visually uncomplicated and ordered environment.

What is the numeric value of the development standard in the environmental planning instrument?

For a site that fronts a Classified Road, the Minimum Building Street Frontage is 90 metres

What is proposed numeric value of the development standard in your development application?

49.50 metres

What is the percentage variation (between your proposal and the environmental planning instrument)?

Frontage proposed is approximately 55% of the standard.

How is strict compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case?

This proposal involves the development of future Lot 3 with frontage of 49.50 metres to Cowpasture Road, hence not meeting the requirement of ninety (90) metres. However, the total development site (Lots 1-5) has frontage of 217 metres and limited access to the site is permitted by way of signalised intersection and direct access to proposed Lot 3 off Cowpasture Road by way of slip lane.

Furthermore, when the existing Lot 29 Cowpasture Road is subdivided as approved by Council, all lots fronting Cowpasture Road will not meet the 90 metre frontage requirement, but will readily meet the objectives of the control. That is, sufficiently wide street frontage is maintained and access to the site is limited. Council has issued consent to the subdivision of the site.

It is worth noting that the proposed subdivision and final lot frontages including future Lot 3 – the subject of this application:

· were previously supported by Council by the issuing of subdivision consent;

· vehicular access points are limited, supported by the Roads and Maritime Services; and,

· suitable business exposure is ensured in an ordered total site layout.

The recently supported rezoning clearly indicated possible land uses and subdivision pattern – all supported by Council and Roads and Maritime Services.

How would strict compliance hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

The relevant objects are:

(a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources,

including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, and,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

Furthermore, the development of the land is influenced by the intersection alignment and location of slip lane to service the subject site. The alignment as required by the Council and RMS necessitates the creation of a development lot that does not meet the development standard.

Is the development standard a performance based control? Give details.

No. The development standard is a numerical control.

Would strict compliance with the standard, in your particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary? Why?

It would be unreasonable to insist on strict compliance because the street frontage is dictated by intersection alignment and positioning of slip lane access to the subject site. Furthermore, the Council has recently supported a subdivision of the site to enable the creation of lots facing Cowpasture Road that do not meet the development standard and approved the development of future Lot 1 with frontage of only 35.70 metres. It is unreasonable to now seek to impose a restriction on the landowner.

It would be unnecessary to insist on strict compliance because the objectives of standard can readily be achieved in this case as the proportions of the entire site are such that the access to the site can be limited and wide, uncluttered street presentation remains possible - meeting the objectives of the control. This proposal does not alter the approved subdivision and access arrangements.

Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard? Give details.

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a variation of development standard. In particular, as detailed above, a contravention in development standard in this case does not undermine the objectives or reason for the standard.

Finally, it is argued that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard as the RMS and Council have consented to the site configuration and access arrangements via several development application determinations and recent rezoning.

Officer’s comments

The following comments are considered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.15:

1) It would be unreasonable to compel compliance with Clause 7.15 of LLEP 2008, as the subject Proposed Lot 3 has been recently approved by subdivision consent and has been identified as a suitable site for future development due to the parent property being rezoned to B6 – Enterprise Corridor to accommodate business type development on the site.

2) The proposed development has demonstrated compliance with all other relevant LLEP 2008 development standards (i.e. FSR and Height).

3) The proposed development is of an appropriate bulk and scale and has been designed appropriately.

4) The proposed development is consistent with the intended and desired future character of the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone.

5) The development has been designed to achieve safe and efficient vehicular access and egress from the site.

The proposed development has demonstrated compliance with FSR and height controls and is considered to be of an appropriate bulk and scale for the locality. The proposed service station with a convenience store and fast food restaurant with a drive through facility are considered to be a suitable form of development, having regards to the B6 zoning and is considered a form of development that is consistent with the intended and desired future character of the area. Additionally, the reduced frontage does not cause any traffic safety issues and the proposal is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineering Section and the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.15 Minimum Building Street Frontage in Zone B6 is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 27 June 2016, IHAP made the following recommendation:

That development application DA-1136/2015 be deferred pending further consultation with RMS and the applicant as described above.

The Panel also provided the following recommendations:

IHAP recommendation	Agreed/Not Agreed	Council Officer’s comment
The panel is specifically concerned that the proposed exit from the service station to Cowpasture Road will create conflict due to its location on the deceleration lane entering the M7. There is also potential conflict arising from vehicles exiting the site, crossing the deceleration lane and seeking to travel southbound along Cowpasture Road and seeking to cross Cowpasture Road to access the M7 on-ramp.	Not agreed	The application was referred to the RMS for concurrence as required by SEPP (Infrastructure). The RMS raised no objection with the proposal including the proposed access arrangements.
….vehicles from proposed lots 2, 4 (and for that matter 5) can gain access to the service station site via the proposed right of way. This arrangement will create conflict within the service station site and also add to the conflict identified above arising from vehicles exiting the service station site into Cowpasture Road.	Not agreed.	Physical barriers (bollards) were introduced to respond to concerns raised by the RMS regarding access to Lot 3 being used to access Lots 2 and 4. RMS confirmed support for the proposed arrangements by letter dated 28 January 2016.
The panel recommends that council officers re-consult with RMS and the applicant so as to specifically address the issue of uncontrolled access from the internal road to the service station site and exit from service station site to Cowpasture Road…. the panel suggests that consideration be given to ingress only to the service station site from Cowpasture Road so that all exit movements from the service station and the development on Lot 4 (and for that matter Lots 2 and 5) be via the internal road and signalised intersection.	Not agreed.	As discussed above, RMS has given their concurrence to this application as required by SEPP (Infrastructure). As a result, it is not considered necessary to refer the application back to the RMS for a further review. In addition, Council Traffic and Transport section have reviewed the application and raise no objections.
The panel recommends that a further condition be imposed requiring the right of way to be constructed prior to issue of the occupation certificate for the proposed development.	Agreed	A new condition 91 has been added to address this concern and is provided below: 91. The Right-Of-Carriageway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic and Transport Manager prior to issue of an occupation certificate for the proposed development.
The panel recommends that the landscape plan be amended to incorporate appropriate shrubs and small trees to achieve an amenity commensurate with the site’s prominent position on Cowpasture Road. An amended landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect is to be submitted with the construction certificate.	Not Agreed	The landscape plans have been assessed by Council and are considered satisfactory. Landscaping related to the larger Lot 5 will be considered as part of the development assessment of that proposal.

Conclusion

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
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 Landowner Details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendations View (Under separate cover)

4. Updated Recommended Conditions of Consent View (Under separate cover)

141

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 02

Investment Report June 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	180471.2016
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 30^th June 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $158 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.13 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.24 per cent by 89 basis points for the same period.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

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

Council’s Portfolio

At 30^th June 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $158 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 June 2016, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

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

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

Portfolio Maturity Profile

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

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

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Portfolio Performance against Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW)

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

Council’s investment portfolio yield for the 12 months ended 30 June 2016 was 3.13 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.24 per cent by 89 basis points for the same period. Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower deposit yields on offer. Council’s ongoing out performance has been boosted by a handful of longer term investments yielding above 4% and maturing out to 2019. Return on investments is expected to slowly decrease as old investments in Council’s portfolio mature and replaced with investments yielding lower returns.

Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance vs. 90 day Bank Bill index over the 12 month period.		The portfolio yield for 12 month ended is 89 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.13% against 2.24%).
Annual Income vs. Budget		Council’s investment year to date interest income was slightly below budget as at 30 June 2016 by $22k.

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank Board meets eleven times each year, on the first Tuesday of each month, except in January. At its meeting on 6^th of July 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 slightly below budget as at 30 June 2016 by $22k.
nvironmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment Portfolio June 2016 View

2. Performance Graphs Actual to Budget June 2016 View

167

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 04

Legal Costs - Moorebank Recyclers Legal Appeal

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	182916.2016
Report By	Chris White - Manager Governance & Legal
Approved By	Michael Cullen - Acting Chief Executive Officer

Executive Summary

On 30 September 2015, Council directed staff to take legal action to oppose the Planning and Assessment Commission’s approval of a concrete recycling facility off Newbridge Road, Moorebank.

The appeal is well underway, and is listed for hearing over three (3) weeks in the Land and Environment Court (running from 10 October to 28 October, 2016).

The costs in the proceedings have been substantial, owing to the complexity of the issues, the need to obtain experts across a wide range of disciplines, and the time that has been dedicated to addressing the concerns of the significant number of objectors.

As such, Council’s current legal budget will not be able to accommodate the costs. A further budget allocation is sought to ensure that the matter can proceed and the costs are met.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the commitment of a further $378,500 in funding to Council’s Planning and Development legal budget, to cover expected expenses arising from the hearing of the Class 1 appeal relating to the proposed concrete recycling facility at Newbridge Road, Moorebank.

2. Direct the CEO to address the question of a source for these funds through the quarterly budget review process.

REPORT

On 30 September 2015, Council directed staff to take legal action to oppose the Planning and Assessment Commission’s approval of a concrete recycling facility off Newbridge Road, Moorebank. Council resolved (at MM37):

That Council:

1. Write to the NSW Planning Minister to express our disappointment to the decision by the PAC to approve this facility and inform him that we will oppose the decision in the Land and Environment Court.

2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to commence legal proceedings against any and all relevant parties in relation to Planning Assessment Commission determination D356/15 and Part 3A application 05-0157, concerning the approval of a waste recycling facility in Moorebank.

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to explore all avenues including the potential of a land swap and site testing to stop the proposed development proceeding, should legal action be unsuccessful; and

4. Write to the affected residents to advise them of Liverpool Council’s planned course of action, and continue to update them periodically on the progress of our legal challenge.

5. Notes the confidential legal advice received by Liverpool Council in regards to a legal challenge.

The appeal is well underway, and is listed for hearing over three (3) weeks in the Land and Environment Court (running from 10 October to 28 October, 2016).

Council has engaged panel law firm Swaab Attorneys to conduct the appeal. Specialist Senior Counsel, Mr Craig Leggat, SC, has been engaged to provide detailed advice and to present Council’s case before the Court at hearing.

Council has also engaged consultant experts in the areas of planning, urban design, traffic management, stormwater/flooding, air quality/dust, noise and acoustics, Aboriginal heritage, waste management, flora and fauna, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, contaminated land, and geotechnical engineering.

As such, Council’s current legal budget will not be able to accommodate the costs. A further budget allocation is sought to ensure that the matter can proceed and the costs are met.

At present, estimates provided by Council’s lawyers and the numerous experts engaged to assist in the proceedings suggest that a further $378,500 will be required to fund the proceedings through to completion.

Council’s entire annual legal budget for planning and development matters is $454,000 (which represents a reduction of 42% from the 2015-16 budget position). This funding is already largely committed to other matters, such as the defence of the appeal by the owners of the Casula Hotel site (467 Hume Highway), defence of an appeal concerning a sex services premises in the Liverpool CBD, and a series of ongoing prosecutions relating to breaches of environmental legislation and planning laws. Furthermore, Council must maintain reserves for inevitable future matters that will arise throughout the remainder of the financial year.

As such, a further allocation is sought to cover the shortfall that is likely to arise from the ongoing conduct of this appeal.

At present, a preferred source for the funding is not apparent. It is recommended that the question of a source for this funding be referred to the first quarter budget review process.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries.
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. Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. 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.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

177

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01

Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in the Liverpool City Centre

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Improve the community’s sense of safety in Liverpool
Key Policy	Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy
File Ref	173470.2016
Report By	Kamrun Rahman - Community Development Worker (Community Safety)
Approved By	Julie Scott - Acting Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 16 December 2015, Council resolved that a further report be presented to Council in six months providing a review of the Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Program (the Program) in the Liverpool City Centre, including a review of the Code of Practice.

This report provides a summary of the outcomes of the review of the Program in the City Centre, including the operation, management and financials relating to the crime prevention program. The Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Code of Practice has been reviewed (and renamed) and is attached to this report for adoption by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report; and

2. Adopts the Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Policy, attached to this report.

REPORT

Council resolved at its meeting on 16 December 2015 to receive a further report on the review of the Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Program and the Code of Practice in six months. This report has been prepared in accordance with that resolution.

CCTV cameras were installed at a number of “hotspot locations” in the City Centre in December 2013. The CCTV system has been in operation since April 2014. The Program aims to reduce crime, improve perceptions of safety by the public and assist the Police with the detection and prosecution of offenders in the City Centre. Council is responsible for the development, implementation, monitoring and auditing of the CCTV system as part of its broader community safety program.

Operation of the Program

Liverpool Police and Council staff members have worked closely to implement and administer the Program effectively since it commenced in 2014. A total of 24 cameras (20 cameras under the Attorney General’s Department Safe Streets Programme and four cameras under the Safer Suburbs Taxi Security Scheme) were installed at a number of “hotspot locations” identified by Liverpool Police. In accordance with legal requirements, Council staff installed signage at each CCTV camera location to inform the community about the operation of the CCTV cameras.

Council staff presented a workshop on the Program to Liverpool Police in September 2014. The workshop sought to inform the Police about operational aspects of the Program, highlighting how the Program might assist them in law enforcement, including prosecutions for criminal activities. The Police received further training in November 2014 to assist them in reviewing CCTV footage by using the monitor.

Since the Program commenced in April 2014, Council has received and processed a total of 41 requests from the Police to view footage to assist them in detecting and prosecuting criminal offences. These requests have all been processed with high priority by Council’s IT and Governance teams.

Meetings between Council staff and the Police involved with the Program have taken place twice annually since 2014 to identify and address issues and concerns related to the operation of the Program. Council is responsible for the maintenance and the management of the CCTV network.

A crime analysis of the City Centre, provided by Liverpool Police in June this year, has shown that, although this area had previously been a “hotspot location” for crimes such as assaults, stealing from motor vehicles, stealing from persons, malicious damage and robbery, the rate of each of these crimes has decreased or remained stable since the CCTV Program has been in operation. The reduction in crime in the City Centre may be attributed to a combination of situational crime prevention strategies together with the installation of the CCTV system.

Currently, three cameras in the Macquarie Mall are not in operation. These cameras were removed in order to allow upgrade works in the Mall to occur. They will be reinstalled when the upgrade works are completed by the end of 2016.

As a result of the recent move by the Police to a new Police station, the server and the monitor for the camera system have been relocated within the Council administration building. Arrangements have been made to ensure that Police can still have access to the monitor.

Management of the Program

The Program is managed in accordance with the Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Code of Practice, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Council and the Police.

Minor changes have been made by Council’s Governance Coordinator to the Code of Practice which has been renamed, for the sake of consistency with other Council policies, as the Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Policy. Minor changes have been made to the Policy, which are highlighted in red type in the attached document.

In accordance with the MOU, the SOPs are confidential. The SOPs will be reviewed and approved by the CEO (under delegation) after the adoption of the Policy by Council.

No changes are required to the MOU.

Financials of the CCTV Program

The table below sets out details of total expenditure on the CCTV program to date:

Item Description	Amount
System design for ring 1 and ring 2	$36,960
Hardware for rings 1 and 2, including CCTV	$568,392
Installation of rings 1and 2	$66,000
ISP core router	$33,000
First year maintenance	$31,460
Balance of installation completion from ring 1 and ring 2	$88,000
Microwave link equipment hardware for ring 3,4,5 including 6 links	$99,000
Equipment for ring 3,4,5	$138,034
Ring 5 equipment to Ring 2 + Ring 3 installation	$57,332
Year 2 Maintenance	$31,460
Year 3 Maintenance	$31,460
Total	$1,181,098

Council obtained a grant of $300,000 from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, through the Safer Streets Programme, in September 2014, to assist with the implementation of the CCTV Program in the Liverpool City Centre. Council received an initial payment of $150,000 from the Department in September 2014. Council has recently submitted a progress report to the Department together with a payment claim for the balance of the grant sum ($150,000). The balance of the grant sum, when received, will be used in accordance with the signed funding agreement.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Support policies and plans that prevent crime.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Public Safety Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Policy

213

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 02

Speaking for the Planet (S4P) Event

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	183034.2016
Report By	Madhu Pudasaini - Manager Technical Support
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

Executive Summary

Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) is a public speaking and drama competition that recognises and celebrates World Environment Day (WED). S4P invites local high school students to participate by preparing speeches and performances related to the WED theme “Go Wild for Life”.

This is the second year that Liverpool Council has supported and assisted in facilitating an S4P event in Liverpool. The event was held at Liverpool Boys High School on 10 June 2016 and was opened by Mayor Ned Mannoun. Six high schools participated this year in three speech categories.

The winners of the prepared and impromptu speech have been invited to this Council meeting to deliver their winning speeches.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council writes to each winner and congratulates them on their success.

REPORT

Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) is a public speaking and drama competition that recognises and celebrates World Environment Day (WED). S4P invites local High School students to participate by preparing speeches and performances related to the WED theme.

World Environment Day 2016

World Environment Day is celebrated each year on 5 June. It is an internationally recognised day endorsed and supported by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). It is designed to raise global awareness of the need to take positive environmental action. Each year, it designates a theme for special attention and action. This year’s theme “Go Wild for Life” revolves around the illegal wildlife trade and encourages people to celebrate all those species under threat and inspires them to take action to help safeguard wildlife for future generations.

The booming illegal trade in wildlife products is eroding Earth's precious biodiversity, robbing us of our natural heritage and pushing whole species towards extinction. This includes both animals or plants that are threatened within the local area as well as at a national or global level as many local extinctions will eventually add up to a global extinction.

According to the information provided by UNEP, efforts to counter the illicit trade, including stronger policies, awareness campaigns and investments in community conservation and law enforcement, have scored some great successes. However, many species remain at risk and it will take a dedicated and sustained effort by each and every one of us to turn the tide.

For this, more people need to understand the damage this illicit trade has caused to our environment, livelihoods, communities and security. We must change our habits and behaviour so that the demand for illegal wildlife products declines. More community and actions will put pressure on the governments and relevant international organisations to introduce and enforce legal instruments to combat this trade.

The S4P Event

This year, Sutherland Shire Environment Centre along with event organiser Phil Smith from Know Hands Consultancy invited Liverpool Council to once again support this year’s S4P event in Liverpool. Each S4P event is registered on the UN’s World Environment Day website. In conjunction with Council, Liverpool Boys High School hosted the 2016 event.

The students participating in the event delivered speeches and performances based on the WED theme. They were asked to think creatively about how problems are identified, defined and solved. They were invited to present quirky ideas as they challenge the audience to think differently.

There were three sections of the competition, each based on the UN’s theme. There were prizes for each section and all participants received a gift. The three sections were:

· Prepared speech - One student from each school delivered a five minute speech on a sustainability topic linked to WED theme. Students for this section were drawn from the school’s environmental group.

· Impromptu speech - One student from each participating school delivered a three minute impromptu talk on a topic given to them on the day. Students were given at least 30 minutes to prepare their talks. Students for this section were drawn from the school’s public speaking or debating teams.

· Impromptu Eco-drama - Drama students (up to five) from each school performed a short piece that expressed a point of view on the UN’s theme. Students had 30 minutes to prepare.

Council’s Support

As mentioned earlier, Liverpool Council was a proud supporter of this year’s S4P event. As an important stakeholder, Council supported the event by:

· Sending a Mayoral Letter to all Liverpool High Schools inviting them to participate in the event;

· Providing an information pack from Council to all schools including event information, a teacher support booklet developed by Know Hands Consultancy, and flyers and brochures regarding protection of our local flora, fauna and vegetation communities;

· The Mayor opening the event at Liverpool Boys High School on the 10 June 2016;

· Inviting the prepared and impromptu speech winners of the S4P event to the July Council meeting to present their winning speeches; and

· Inviting the winners from all categories to present their winning speeches and drama performance at the annual Environment Volunteer Recognition Event on 13 December 2016.

The Event Outcome

Six high schools from within the LGA accepted the offer to participate in this year’s Liverpool Speaking 4 the Planet Event, including Liverpool Boys High School (event hosts and winners of two categories at the 2015 event), Casula High School, Liverpool Girls High School, James Busby High School, Unity Grammar College and Malek Fahd Islamic School Hoxton Park.

Each high school provided entrants in multiple event categories and proceeded to deliver their speeches in front of participants, teachers, guests and a panel of three judges. Through careful deliberation and assessment using event judging criteria, judges awarded the following winners of the three categories:

· Prepared Speech Winner – Sidrah Asad Mahboob, Malek Fahd Islamic School Hoxton Park;

· Impromptu Speech Winner – Marilyn Tek, Liverpool Girls High School; and

· Impromptu Eco-Drama – Liverpool Girls High School (five students).

The three category winners, participating schools, teachers and participants were awarded their prizes. The winners of the prepared and impromptu speeches were invited to attend this Council meeting to deliver their winning speeches.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

217

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 03

Floodplain Management Committee

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Enhance and protect natural corridors, waterways and bushland
Key Policy	Floodplain Risk Management Plans
File Ref	185743.2016
Report By	Madhu Pudasaini - Manager Technical Support
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

Executive Summary

In view of recent major flooding events and the impacts on the community, Council, at its meeting held on 29 June 2016 resolved to generate a report re-evaluating the need for a Floodplain Management Committee (FMC). This report provides a review of the roles of the FMC and recommends options for Council to consider to deal with floodplain related issues.

The FMC is an advisory Committee that predominantly assists Council in the development of floodplain risk management plans and studies as required by the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Management Policy. The FMC in Liverpool was initially established in 1994 and was active until March 2014 when Council resolved to disband it.

The committee was disbanded in view of a lack of interest from the community at that time after completion of necessary Floodplain Management Plans were developed and adopted for all rivers and creek systems within the LGA. Council has progressively implemented recommended actions as per the adopted management plans.

Council currently has an active Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). The purpose of the EAC is to consider key environmental issues facing Liverpool and make recommendations to Council.

After a preliminary review for the need for a FMC, including the review of the charters of the EAC and disbanded FMC and the recently adopted Water Management Policy, the following two options are presented to Council for consideration:

Option A: With the understanding that Council has already developed necessary Floodplain Management Studies and Plans, Council should further investigate public interest and willingness to participate in a FMC. The decision to form a FMC will be made after analysing the outcome of this investigation.

Option B: Council review the current EAC charter and revise the charter to provide necessary advice to Council on floodplain related matters.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Investigate public interest and the feasibility of forming a Floodplain Management Committee and provide a further report to Council on the outcome of the investigations (option A); or

2. Review the Environmental Advisory Committee charter to extend its advisory role to include floodplain management related matters and revise the charter as outlined below (option B):

· Section 4 of the charter be revised to read “…to consider and provide input to Council’s environment and water management programs by making recommendations to Council”;

· An additional clause to be included in Section 5 to read “…consider key floodplain management issues facing Liverpool and make recommendations to Council”; and

· Clause 6(b) be revised to read “…provide input to Council with respect to the development of environmental and water related policies for Liverpool.”

REPORT

Background

The FMC is an advisory Committee that was initially established in 1994. Council, at its meeting held on 28 November 2012, adopted a revised charter for the FMC that requires six community representatives to be appointed to the committee. A copy of this charter is provided as attachment 1.

Following Council elections in 2012, Council commenced the process of reconvening the FMC for the current term of Council. Expressions of interest for the FMC were sought via newspaper advertisements in local newspapers, letters to former community representatives of the FMC and phone calls to all previous FMC community representatives. Unfortunately, only two applications were received.

In addition, Council previously resolved to reserve two of the six community representative positions for residents from the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment area to ensure representation of this substantial portion of the catchment area. Following the above advertisement process, no applications were received from the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment area.

In view of the above, Council, at its meeting on 26 March 2014, resolved to disband the FMC. Council also resolved to continue to engage with the community to ensure that members of the community could continue to have input in the management of Council's floodplains.

Please note that the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual recommends that once the Committee has completed its prime task of developing floodplain management plans and the Council has adopted these, the Committee can be disbanded.

Role of the Floodplain Management Committee

The purpose of the FMC is predominantly to assist Council in the development of floodplain management studies and plans. The Committee makes recommendations to Council concerning the development and implementation of floodplain management plans in accordance with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy. Liverpool Council is at a stage where Floodplain Management Plans have been developed and adopted for all rivers and creek systems within the LGA and Council is progressively implementing the adopted Management Plans.

Following the development and adoption of these plans, the role of FMC in the floodplain management process is significantly reduced. Implementation of the plans is predominantly limited to technical investigation, design and construction of flood mitigation works. These activities require a high level of technical input and is overseen by Council’s technical staff in consultation with adjoining councils and the relevant state agencies. This is consistent with the recommendation of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual.

Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)

The purpose of the EAC is to consider the key environmental issues facing Liverpool and make recommendations to Council. The Committee provides input to Council with respect to the development of environmental programs and works in partnership with Council in terms of various environmental initiatives. The EAC provides opportunities for meaningful community participation and the committee charter requires representation from the community.

Water management issues, water quality management in particular, are often discussed as a significant component of the environmental issues. Council’s recently adopted Water Management Policy also integrates all water aspects managed by Council to be dealt with by an overarching water management policy. In this context, the current charter of EAC can be amended to include water management issues (including floodplain management issues) to be considered by the EAC and make appropriate recommendation to Council.

A copy of the Environmental Advisory Committee charter is provided as attachment 2.

Options for Consideration

Based on a review of the FMC charter, EAC charter, the status of floodplain management plans, records of committee attendance and current flooding impact on the community, the following options are presented for Council for consideration:

Option B: Council review the Environmental Advisory Committee charter to extend its advisory role to include floodplain management related matters and revise the charter as outlined below:

· Section 4 of the charter be revised to read “…to consider and provide input to Council’s environment and water management programs by making recommendations to Council”;

· Additional clause to be included in Section 5 to read “…consider key floodplain management issues facing Liverpool and make recommendations to Council”; and

· Clause 6(b) be revised to read “…provide input to Council with respect to the development of environmental and water related policies for Liverpool.”

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The economic issues in relation to flooding will continue to be considered during the implementation of the Floodplain Management Plans.
Environmental and Sustainability	Environmental and sustainability objectives and targets will continue to be considered under Water Management Policy and implementation of the Floodplain Management Plans.
Social and Cultural	The social and cultural issues relating to flooding will continue to be considered during the implementation of the Floodplain Management Plans.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Floodplain Management Committee Charter - November 2012 View

2. Environment Advisory Committee Charter - June 2015 View

235

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Housing Affordability in Liverpool

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Facilitate diverse and more affordable housing options
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	154627.2016
Report By	Graham Matthews - Strategic PlannerCharlotte Dare - Trainee Town Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Rapidly rising housing costs have combined with slow wages growth to make housing less affordable in Liverpool. For Key Workers, working in growth industries like health, education and retail, this has led to an increase in housing stress.

This report seeks to provide a picture of housing affordability in Liverpool, to explore existing planning controls that help ensure housing choice, and to recommend concrete action that Council may take to improve housing affordability. The report also reviews what remedies have been applied in other jurisdictions, with a view to defining best practice.

The report notes that greater detail on housing affordability will be provided by studies commissioned for the review of LLEP 2008. It recommends that a further report be presented for Council’s consideration on an Affordable Housing Policy at a meeting later in the year, incorporating the information provided by these studies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the information presented in this report.

2. Endorses the preparation of an Affordable Housing Policy and notes that a further report will be presented to Council in November 2016.

3. Notes that a cost benefit and feasibility analysis will be undertaken to determine appropriate affordable housing percentages in large developments as part of future VPAs.

REPORT

Background

There is a national discussion taking place about affordable housing. The Commonwealth and NSW governments have committed themselves to making housing more affordable. It is generally acknowledged that all tiers of government have a responsibility to work towards the provision of more affordable housing using the means at their disposal.

Liverpool Council has made a number of commitments to housing affordability, including:

· Growing Liverpool 2023, Council’s Strategic Community Plan: Strategy 2.4 commits Council to ‘facilitate affordable and diverse housing options.’

· Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 includes the aim ‘to encourage a range of housing, employment, recreation and services to meet the needs of existing and future residents of Liverpool’.

· Council’s Homelessness Strategy and Action Plan: adopted by Council on 25 November 2015, Priority 1.5 exhorts Council to develop an Affordable Housing Policy.

The purpose of this report is to begin the process of developing an Affordable Housing Policy. This report aims to provide a clear definition of affordable housing, to review the planning controls that Council already has in place to facilitate housing affordability, and to recommend options for proceeding to develop an Affordable Housing Policy for Liverpool. In addition, this report recommends amending Council’s Planning Agreement Policy to include a provision to facilitate more affordable housing as a percentage of dwellings delivered in large developments.

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 review

Council has commissioned three studies into housing in the LGA which will underpin the review of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 currently underway. Once the studies are finalised and assessed by Council staff, the data will provide information on housing affordability which will establish an important evidence base. The three studies tackle different parts of the residential development equation in Liverpool:

· The Liverpool Housing Typologies and Standards Study will analyse current planning controls and standards for subdivision and for the development of single and multi-dwelling housing and identify potential density per hectare outcomes under current controls. It will also analyse options to amend development standards for subdivision and for single and multi-dwelling housing typologies in the established areas (not including release areas) to meet demand and housing preference in the LGA;

· The Liverpool Housing Market Needs Analysis will undertake a review of economic and financial trends and likely implications for residential demand and supply for all dwelling types in the Liverpool LGA. The study will provide a snapshot of the socio-demographic profile of the LGA, identify existing housing typologies and distribution and identify constraints to housing supply. The examination is to include affordable housing and housing for an aging population; and,

· The Liverpool Medium and High Density Residential Development Analysis will analyse how Liverpool’s planning controls affect the financial feasibility of medium and high density housing development. The controls to be examined include building height, floor space ratio, minimum site area, car parking, setbacks and landscape area.

The housing studies will enrich Council’s understanding of the issues pertaining to development patterns in Liverpool and will identify potential changes to Council’s planning controls, to enable the development of more affordable housing. Council staff will draft an Affordable Housing Policy based on the evidence provided by the studies.

How affordable is housing in Liverpool?

Contrary to the perception that Liverpool is an affordable region, the area has a high proportion of very low to moderate income earners experiencing housing stress. At the 2011 Census 16.2% of residents were experiencing housing stress, 17.9% of people purchasing homes were experiencing mortgage stress and 31.2% renters were experiencing rental stress.

Households on very low to moderate incomes, classified as between 50% and 120% of Sydney’s median income, are considered to be in housing stress if they are paying more than 30% of the gross household income on housing costs. A single person earning between $24,000 and $57,500 per year or a household earning between $40,600 and $97,400 is classified as having a very low to moderate income and is at risk of experiencing housing stress (Household Median Incomes 2015-2016, Housing NSW). This income range may include people working in occupations such as retail, manufacturing, child care, teaching or nursing, particularly if they are in the early stages of their careers.

SGS Economics & Planning classified Liverpool as having 'moderately unaffordable' rents while Housing NSW ranks Liverpool as having a ‘high need for affordable rental housing’, along with other LGAs including Parramatta, Ryde and City of Sydney. This means that a growing number of Key Workers and families will face unaffordable rents and be unable to access housing in Liverpool and Greater Sydney generally (SGS Economics & Planning, Community Sector Banking & Shelter Australia , ‘Rental Affordability Index, RAI Release Report’, 2015; Housing NSW, ‘Where do we need affordable housing?’).

Housing affordability is an issue which has consequences for the whole community. Towards a National Housing Strategy identified housing unaffordability as having negative impacts on city functionality, labour mobility, economic participation, employment rates and urban congestion rates (Compass Housing, 2016).

Mortgage stress and rental stress

The median sales price in Liverpool (suburb not LGA) in the last year was $740,000 for houses and $415,000 for units, which represents an increase of 90% (13.7% annual compound growth rate) and 61% (10% annual compound growth rate) respectively, compared to the same period five years ago (realestate.com.au). This high growth rate compares to wages growth which has not exceeded 4% annually since 2012 and has declined to an average of 2.1% nationally over the last 12 months (ABS/Sydney Morning Herald).

The increase in housing prices has far outstripped the increase in wages. The result has been a generalised decline in housing affordability as the ratio of dwelling prices against incomes in Liverpool continues to increase.

A report on the South West Growth Centre published in 2015 estimated that the affordable price point for households in the South West Growth Centre was $350,000. The median house price at the time in that area was in excess of $500,000. Council’s housing studies commissioned as part of the LEP review will provide clearer evidence on affordability in the LGA as a whole.

In its briefing paper entitled House prices, ownership and affordability: trends in New South Wales, the NSW Parliamentary Research Service traces the decline in housing affordability back to the late 1980s. According to the paper, investors accounted for only 13% of total housing finance in Australia in 1985. By November 2013, investor finance accounted for 38.5% of total housing finance. At the same time, first home buyers accounted for only 7% of all owner-occupier finance in NSW. As investors generally have greater access to funds the result can be a ‘crowding out’ of first-home buyers from the market.

This trend is reflected in Liverpool. For example, a report on South West Growth Centre Housing Market Needs Analysis found that around 70% of purchasers in Edmondson Park were investors (AEC Group, 2015).

Key Workers

Key Workers are workers who are performing a range of essential services and who earn very low to moderate incomes. These workers perform essential services such as health care, education, child care, aged care, emergency services, community services, retail and hospitality. Key Workers form a large proportion of the population at risk of housing stress but are generally on incomes which preclude them from accessing other types of housing support.

Key worker households have traditionally been able to afford housing costs but are increasingly finding themselves in housing stress. Wages have not increased at the pace of rising housing prices, resulting in households spending a greater proportion of their income on housing, leaving little money left over for other costs such as food, bills and emergencies (Anglicare ‘Rental Affordability Snapshot 2016’).

Key Workers made up approximately 19% of Liverpool’s workforce in 2011 and this is predicted to increase. The Growing Liverpool 2023 community strategic plan predicts that the growth industries for Liverpool will be the medical, health and community, education, construction, property and business service industries. Key Workers in these industries are at risk of housing stress. Provision of affordable housing helps to ensure this growing section of the community has access to housing that is located close to employment centres and public transport.

Housing affordability also affects a wide range of other households. Making provision for people at all stages of life and on different incomes can help people to stay in their community. Young workers at the start of their careers, people starting families or older people who wish to downsize their homes are at particular risk of being outpriced and forced to leave. “Without a mix of appropriate and affordable housing, communities cannot accommodate the range of people needed to maintain social cohesion, support the functioning of local economies, or sustain local services and businesses.” (Housing NSW)

What is affordable housing?

Affordable housing is housing that is appropriate for the needs of very low to moderate income households, and priced so that these households are also able to meet other basic living costs such as food, clothing, transport, medical care and education. Housing is usually considered affordable if it costs less than 30 percent of gross household income. Affordable housing must also be of an acceptable standard and quality.

In the broadest sense, affordable housing can refer to any housing where the cost does not place very low to moderate income earners into housing stress. However, the term is usually used to refer to housing facilitated or developed with some level of government assistance.

Affordable rental housing may be owned by a council, a not for profit organisation or a private owner. It must be rented as affordable housing for at least 10 years and must be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP).The CHPs which manage these properties operate in a similar way to real estate agents, but do not operate for profit. Vacancies are usually advertised, with prospective tenants submitting applications as they would if they were applying for a property in the private rental market. There are restrictions on how much rent a CHP may charge for an affordable housing dwelling, usually up to 75% of market value.

Affordable housing for purchase is housing which is sold at an affordable price point. When it is provided through a government policy the purchase of this housing is generally confined to people who meet certain conditions, such as residing in the local area, planning to use the property as their primary residence and with household income falling within prescribed parameters. Affordable purchase housing generally includes conditions on the resale of the property. These may include a minimum period the person is required to live in the property prior to sale, or a covenant on the title requiring that a proportion of any capital gain be shared with the sponsor.

One option for Council to consider is an amendment to the Planning Agreement Policy to include a provision whereby a developer would provide a percentage of the total dwellings would be agreed to be marketed at a price point below the median price for that form of dwelling. The VPA would be applicable to larger developments that receive value uplift from rezoning. The public purpose served would be the provision of more affordable housing in Liverpool. A cost benefit analysis and feasibility testing should be undertaken to ascertain the appropriate percentages.

Should Council resolve to pursue this affordable housing purchase option, it is recommended that consideration be given to appropriate constraints and restrictions. It is important to ensure that affordable dwellings provided as a public benefit are used to alleviate housing stress, and not for private windfall profits for investors.

Affordable Housing is not Social Housing

‘Affordable housing’ is not equivalent to ‘social housing’, although the two are often confused. Social housing is rental housing provided by government or not-for-profit organisations, to assist people who are unable to access suitable accommodation in the private rental market. Social housing includes public, Aboriginal and community housing.

Affordable housing, by contrast, is open to a broader range of households, enabling households to earn higher levels of income and still be eligible. Affordable housing is intended to target working households, in particular Key Worker households, on low to moderate incomes that experience housing stress due to escalating housing prices.

Affordable housing and greater housing choice

Direction 2.3 of A Plan for Growing Sydney, seeks to “improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles”. The Plan seeks to increase the diversity of housing typologies in Sydney, particularly in more urban areas, to take advantage of public transport, jobs and services.

In Liverpool, according to 2011 Census figures, more than 45% of households were couples with children, while an extra 14% were single parent families. At the same time, almost 74% of dwellings in Liverpool were detached houses (compared to less than 59% in greater Sydney); while fewer than 11% of dwellings were high density compared with almost 21% for Sydney as a whole.

Liverpool has large areas of land zoned for high-density residential development in appropriate well-serviced locations. The LEP housing studies will provide evidence as to whether there are any obstacles to the redevelopment of this land. The studies will also recommend whether Liverpool’s planning controls and development standards should be amended to help facilitate this denser housing form and increase housing choice. Council’s City Centre LEP Review also seeks to increase high-density housing in the centre of the city, where such dwellings would be well serviced with jobs, facilities and public transport.

Existing planning incentives and controls

Council’s existing planning controls also seek to incentivise denser housing on smaller lots in accessible areas, in an attempt to facilitate more affordable housing. For example:

The LLEP 2008 contains clauses which permit greater flexibility in minimum lot size and FSR for semi-detached and attached dwellings depending on the accessibility of the area and whether the lot is serviced by a rear or side lane.

The LDCP 2008 contains a number of provisions which allow for the reduction of the minimum lot width in certain circumstances. For example, multi-dwelling housing can be developed on narrower lots if at least two of the dwellings have a maximum floor space of 80sqm and a carport rather than a garage. The LDCP also contains controls which aim to ensure a mix of apartment types and sizes in the City Centre by requiring at least 10% of units developed are one bedroom or studio units and at least 10% are three or more bedroom units.

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Growth Centres) 2006, which applies to the release areas of Austral, North Leppington and East Leppington, seeks to incentivise smaller lot housing by allowing a reduction of the minimum lot size depending on the location of the site, the permissible density and the dwelling typology.

The Apartment Design Guide recommends that the residential flat building apartment mix considers the location of the building, market demands, an analysis of demographic factors and the demand for affordable housing.

These policies all aspire to the provision of more affordable dwellings in accessible areas of the Liverpool LGA. Based on the results of the LEP housing studies, further amendments to planning controls to help facilitate additional affordable housing may be considered.

Housing affordability – an all of Government Issue

Housing affordability is a national issue and each level of government must contribute to addressing housing affordability in order to achieve an effective solution (Towards a National Housing Strategy, Compass Housing; A City for All, Committee for Sydney). The Commonwealth Government, State Governments and numerous local governments have policies addressing it. Councils are in a unique position to use knowledge of the local housing needs and regional conditions, in conjunction with state and federal policies, to implement effective and workable solutions.

Rental affordability is targeted by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and SEPP No 70 - Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes). However, these policies are only applicable in a small number of circumstances. A number of councils, including Parramatta, City of Sydney and Ryde, also have Affordable Rental Policies to address this issue.

Purchase affordability requires a continued increase in supply and changes to how market incentives are applied to housing purchases, which are best addressed by the NSW and Commonwealth governments. Local councils can also influence housing prices by ensuring that planning controls are flexible enough to allow for more affordable dwellings and efficient enough to quickly respond to market demand. Councils are well placed to implement policies which can increase supply for affordable rental housing and, to a more limited extent, increase the affordability of house purchase prices.

Best Practice

Increase Supply

Purchase affordability is typically addressed by increasing the supply of housing through increased land release. However, while supply does underpin housing affordability, addressing supply alone does not guarantee affordable prices. Industry practices, such as land banking, high numbers of investors and inflation, contribute to high purchase prices.

A study on the South West Growth Centre, which includes parts of Liverpool, demonstrates this. The study highlighted that dwellings on small lots (<350sqm) have the most affordable price point for people wishing to buy. After building construction and other costs, the total cost for these more affordable dwellings was approximately $500,000 - $550,000, while two bedroom units were shown to sell for between $450,000 and $500,000. The study found that 81% of households in the area could not afford the new dwelling price without falling into housing stress. A household on a median income ($1310pw) could afford to purchase a dwelling for around $350,000 (Priority Growth Areas: SWGC, AEC Group).

Increasing supply is a vital component of any plan to address housing affordability. However, used alone it is not an effective solution; it must be supported by other strategies.

Planning Controls

Planning controls can help to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing and a mix of dwelling types are produced in appropriate locations. Inflexible planning controls can place restrictions on the affordability of housing. A number of councils allow flexibility on certain planning controls in certain circumstances or include controls to incentivise the provision of affordable rental housing. For example, Randwick Council does not require a car space to be provided for studio dwelling units which are smaller than 40sqm while Willoughby Council excludes floor space dedicated to affordable housing from FSR calculations under certain conditions.

Ryde’s Draft Affordable Housing Policy (2016) indicates that they will undertake a review of their planning controls to identify barriers to the creation of affordable housing. The studies commissioned for the review of the Liverpool LEP 2008 will provide such a review for Liverpool.

Housing Sponsorship & Joint Ownership Schemes

Housing sponsorship and joint ownership schemes are usually implemented by State and Commonwealth governments. These involve a sponsor sharing the cost of housing, or making a provision whereby housing is offered for sale at a subsidised rate. These programs have strict eligibility criteria including income and asset caps and the requirement that the house must be used as the primary dwelling.

The Western Australian Government runs a Shared Home Ownership Program where the government shares the purchase cost of the dwelling, up to the value of 30%. The purchaser owns the house, but if they sell it a share of any increase in value is returned to the state. South Australia runs an Affordable Homes Program, where homes are offered for sale to eligible households, for a limited period, before they are offered for sale to the general public.

Although these programs are not within the scope of local government, Council may investigate using similar strategies on a smaller scale or implementing some of the ideas.

Inclusionary Zoning

Inclusionary zoning is a mechanism used to ensure affordable housing is developed in particular locations. Contributions are required from developers, either in the form of affordable housing units or an equivalent monetary amount, as a condition of development consent. Development incentives such as density bonuses are sometimes implemented to offset the cost.

Revisiting the Economics of Inclusionary Zoning, a report by SGS Economics and Planning, suggests that “modest inclusionary zoning schemes would have negligible effects on the housing market and are likely to generate substantial net community benefit.” Provisions for inclusionary zoning would require the concurrence of the Department of Planning and Environment.

Value Capture/planning agreements

Rezoning land for higher uses (for instance, from industrial to residential uses) increases its value, often substantially. The underlying idea of value capture is that the windfall increase in land value achieved by rezoning should be shared. Land owners, developers and, crucially, the community at large should all receive part of the increased value.

Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 empowers councils to enter into voluntary planning agreements (VPAs) with developers, whereby developers are required to dedicate land, pay money or provide other material public benefit to be used towards a public purposes, including the provision of affordable housing.

Council’s Draft Planning Agreement Policy envisages Council negotiating contributions from developers for affordable housing in situations where:

o The rezoning has generated a value uplift;

o The proposed rezoning creates a demonstrated demand for affordable housing; and

o The proposed housing is to be provided on or in the vicinity of the subject site.

A VPA could require that a developer make provision for affordable housing for purchase or affordable rental housing. Should Council decide to proceed with an affordable rental housing scheme, dwellings (or the cash equivalent) provided for affordable rental housing would be managed by a CHP according to best practice.

Local council examples

City of Sydney

The City of Sydney has a target of 7.5% affordable housing by 2030. As well as working with CHPs to develop affordable housing and utilising flexibility in planning controls, City of Sydney uses inclusionary zoning and VPAs to ensure affordable housing is distributed throughout the city. For example, the council negotiated with Harold Park developers to provide 80 affordable rental properties, and within Green Square 3% of residential floor area must be affordable housing and a 1% levy is imposed on development in the Ultimo and Pyrmont areas (Affordable Housing and Development Contributions, City of Sydney).

Parramatta

Parramatta is in a similar position to Liverpool, with a growing risk of Key Workers being priced out of the housing market. Parramatta has a three-pronged approach to acquiring affordable housing:

· VPAs to acquire affordable housing units under council ownership;

· Partnerships with community organisations using council land; and

· Lobbying for affordable housing in major developments.

Parramatta strives to ensure all developers are aware of their affordable rental housing obligations. The council has developed an ‘Uplift Calculator’ which determines the increase in value created when land is rezoned or bonuses such as increased FSR are negotiated. Use of the calculator ensures transparency in these negotiations.

City of Ryde

Ryde Council is currently finalising its Draft Affordable Housing Policy (2016). This comprehensive policy covers a wide range of goals and objectives. Ryde is exploring the mandatory inclusion of affordable housing throughout residential areas, including; a 4% inclusion when a development involves a planning proposal or rezoning, a 2% inclusion on all residential developments over a certain size, and a precinct based density bonus scheme.

Role and Importance of Community Housing Providers (CHPs)

Affordable housing dwellings acquired with some level of government assistance are generally required to be managed by a CHP. CHPs are not-for-profit organisations which provide housing assistance to eligible people. They work with a range or organisations to develop, deliver and manage affordable housing products. CHPs work regularly with councils to manage their affordable housing stock. For example, Canada Bay owns 26 affordable housing units which are managed by a CHP while Waverly Council has 28. Some larger CHPs develop their own housing stock as well as manage stock and tenancies for private entities.

CHPs are in a unique position to help governments address the housing affordability issue. They have a proven track record of providing efficient and effective housing services, with a positive tenant experience (Compass Housing).

In relation to council affordable housing policies, CHPs generally play two key roles:

· Acting as the property managers, leasing and managing the upkeep of council owned affordable housing units on behalf of council; and

· Developing their own stock of affordable housing within the local government area.

Developing relationships with CHPs allows councils to work towards the increased provision of affordable housing on a cost-neutral basis. Councils may facilitate CHPs developing affordable housing by providing development bonuses for affordable housing. For example, councils may provide increased height or FSR, or reduced development contributions for affordable housing developments which are sponsored by CHPs.

Next steps

Pending Council support, Council planning staff will assess the data provided by the LEP review housing studies and make a clearer determination of the level of housing affordability in Liverpool. On the basis of this information, staff will prepare a further report presenting options for actions that Council may take to improve housing affordability in Liverpool, to be reported to Council at its November 2016 meeting, with a view to drafting an affordable housing policy in line with the actions required by Council’s Homelessness Action Plan.

It is proposed to undertake a cost benefit and feasibility analysis to determine appropriate affordable housing percentages to be required in large developments as part of future VPAs.

This could be by way of an amendment to the Planning Agreement Policy to include a provision requiring a percentage of the total dwellings proposed (for example, 5%) to be designated to be sold at a price point below the median price for that form of dwelling in the suburb in question (for example, 10% below). The VPA would be applicable to developments greater than 250 dwellings. The public purpose served is provision of more affordable housing in Liverpool.

Conclusion

Liverpool is an area of growing need for affordable housing. Key Workers make up a large proportion of Liverpool’s workforce and, with wages not keeping pace with increasing housing costs, the proportion of workers experiencing housing stress is expected to rise.

Housing affordability is a complex issue. Providing greater housing affordability requires an all of government commitment. Nevertheless, action by councils throughout Sydney provides best-practice examples of the steps that Council may consider. Housing studies commissioned as part of the review of LLEP 2008 will provide an evidence base for Council’s deliberation on which path it wishes to pursue. Council planning staff will prepare options for Council’s consideration.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.
Environmental and Sustainability	Adequate supply of affordable housing is a prerequisite to creating a resilient city.
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	Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

249

Ordinary Meeting 27 July 2016

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 03

Liverpool City Centre LEP Review - Response to submissions

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	169937.2016
Report By	Graham Matthews - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	33 Moore Street, Liverpool
Owner	Liverpool City Council
Applicant	Liverpool City Council

Executive Summary

This report details the progress of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan Review that was initiated by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 29 April 2015. The report considers the modifications made to the proposal in response to the Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment, considers the results of the required Acid Sulfate Soils Study, and responds to submissions made during public authority consultation and public exhibition. The report proposes and justifies a number of amendments to the planning proposal in response to submissions.

The report proposes that Council endorses the rezoning of the majority of land in Liverpool City Centre from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use, recognising that the introduction of residential development into Liverpool City Centre will provide the catalyst to reinvigorate development in the City Centre. The report acknowledges that a City Centre Traffic and Transport Study, required by Transport for NSW, is currently in progress and recommends that the finalisation of the planning proposal be delegated to the A/CEO to be completed on receipt of that study.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and note this report.

2. Supports the proposal to rezone approximately 25ha of land in Liverpool City Centre from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use.

3. Supports the retention of approximately 12ha of land zoned B3 – Commercial Core in Liverpool City Centre.

4. Supports amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 as detailed in the planning proposal (Attachment 1).

5. Adopts the recommendations of the Acid Sulfate Soils Study of Liverpool City Centre outlined in the report.

6. Delegates to the A/CEO the authority to finalise the planning proposal on receipt of the Liverpool City Centre Traffic and Transport Study and to submit the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation pursuant to s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Report

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting of 29 April 2015, Council received a report on the Liverpool City Centre LEP Review which proposed to rezone all land within the Liverpool City Centre from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed use. In addition, the report proposed to increase the development potential in parts of the existing B4 Mixed Use zones, vary development standards to correspond to the proposed future land use, and allow for greater floorspace and increased heights on ‘opportunity sites’ that satisfy a range of criteria and are able to make an acceptable contribution to the public benefit. The objective of the review was to facilitate the development of Liverpool City Centre so as to create an 18 hour city characterised by activity and intensity both day and night, a true river city and a well-connected workable, walkable city.

In addition to the rezoning of all existing B3 – Commercial Core zoned land to B4 – Mixed Use, the LEP Review also sought to designate three distinct precincts covering much of the B4 – Mixed Use zoned land in Liverpool City Centre, consisting of both existing B4 – Mixed Use zoned land and that land to be rezoned to B4 – Mixed Use. The three precincts were called ‘Fine Grain Precinct’, Mid Rise Precinct’ and ‘Long Term Civic Sites’. Each precinct included a preferred built form, as discussed below. Council resolved to give in-principle support to the proposal, and to delegate to the CEO responsibility for finalising the planning proposal and forwarding it to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for Gateway Review

A planning proposal seeking the changes to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 discussed in the report was submitted to DP&E on 29 May 2015.

At its Ordinary Meeting of 17 June 2015, Council resolved to amend the planning proposal to include the Liverpool Hospital Precinct as a Long Term Civic Site. A revised planning proposal was submitted to DP&E on 22 June 2015.

A Gateway Determination for the LEP Review was issued by DP&E on 24 September 2015. The Gateway Determination provided conditional consent to Council proceeding with the proposal, but recommended that Council considers amending it to ensure retention of a smaller commercial core based on government and civic sites in the east of the City Centre.

At its Ordinary Meeting of 28 October 2015, Council resolved to amend the planning proposal for Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 52) – the Liverpool City Centre LEP Review – by retaining approximately 121,000sqm of land as being zoned B3 – Commercial Core. An amended planning proposal was submitted to DP&E on 30 October 2015 with a request for a revised Gateway Determination.

On 16 November 2015 DP&E issued a revised Gateway Determination which supported Council’s proposal to retain approximately 121,000sqm of land zoned B3 – Commercial Core. The revised Gateway Determination also agreed that the proposal’s inconsistency with Ministerial Direction 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils was of minor significance and permitted Council to conduct a required Acid Sulfate Soils Study concurrently with the public exhibition of the proposal.

The proposal was publicly exhibited between 18 November and 29 January 2016. As part of the public exhibition, all affected landowners received a letter notifying them of the proposed changes, inviting them to make a submission or contact Council, and inviting them to attend one of two briefing sessions on the proposed LEP amendments. In addition to land owners, all business owners were advised of the details of the proposal by a letterbox drop, along with the invitation to attend one of the two briefing sessions. The briefing sessions were also advertised in the LCC News column and prominently displayed on Council’s website. The results of the public exhibition are discussed below.

Council organised two briefing sessions on 7 December 2015 (one in the morning and the other in the evening) where a full briefing of the proposed amendment to the LEP was given by Council’s City Architect. Over 20 landowners and other interested parties attended each session.

Council also conducted public authority consultation with 14 authorities, as required by the Gateway Determination. This consultation ran from 19 November 2015 until 18 December 2015. It is noted, however, that the submission from Transport for NSW (TfNSW), also submitted on behalf of the Roads and Maritime Authority (RMS) and Sydney Trains, was received by Council on 26 April 2016. The results of the public authority consultation are explored below.

A further amendment to the planning proposal was made to reduce a potential conflict between Amendment 52 and proposed Amendment 56, which also seeks to rezone land in Liverpool City Centre from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed use. DP&E were concerned that the rezoning duplicated the rezoning intended by Amendment 52, but in addition, that the proposed development of the site contradicted its designation as being within the Fine Grain Precinct established by Amendment 52.

As a result, the A/CEO under delegation resolved to excise the subject site from Amendment 52. A revised planning proposal was submitted to DP&E on 29 June 2016.

Figure 1 below, taken from the final planning proposal for Amendment 52 – the City Centre LEP Review – shows the extent of land to be rezoned from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use and illustrates the land to be retained as B3 – Commercial Core. The heavy black outline shows the extent of the existing commercial core prior to this amendment coming into effect.

Figure 1: land to be rezoned to B4 – Mixed Use and land to be retained as B3 – Commercial Core

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the actions taken by staff since the issuing of the revised Gateway Determination by DP&E. Specifically, this report will detail the results of the required Acid Sulfate Soils Study (ASSS), outline Council planning officers’ response to submissions received as a result of public authority consultation and public exhibition, and explain and justify further amendments to the proposal in response to submissions. Lastly, this report will make recommendations for proceeding to the finalisation of the Amendment by DP&E.

Acid Sulfate Soils Study

In addition to requirements for public authority consultation and public exhibition, the Gateway Determination for Amendment 52 required that Council commission an ASSS on that land to be rezoned by the proposal which had a risk of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) (see Figure 2 below). Cardno, who were chosen via Council’s procurement process as the successful consultant, produced a final report for Council on 9 December 2015.

The report found that the likelihood of ASS is greater nearer the Georges River and that any development proposed on the eastern part of the city, on land shown as Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils (they indicate east of BH8, BH10 and BH21, which is marked with an orange line on Figure 3 below), should be required to prepare an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan (ASSMP) according to the requirements of the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual.

The report further found that one additional site, BH29 (see Figure 3 below), located between George and Moore Streets, in the outer area of land designated Class 5 by LLEP 2008, showed results that would require the preparation of an ASSMP according to the Manual.

The report raised no objection to the intensification of uses entailed by rezoning the subject area from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use. It did, nevertheless, make the following recommendations:

· Consistent with Clause 7.7 of LLEP 2008, an ASMP be prepared prior to any construction on a site in close proximity to the Georges River. The ASMP should include:

o Controls and management strategies to be undertaken during construction works;

o Contingency measures to be followed in the event of a failure of control measures;

o Project specific training requirements;

o Consultation processes;

o Monitoring and auditing requirements;

o Communication and reporting procedures relating to ASS management;

o A summary of key responsibilities for the implementation of ASSMP; and

o A summary of the resources required to effectively implement the ASSMP;

· In areas further from the Georges River (indicatively west of BH8/BH10/BH21), an ASSMP may not be required, if it can be demonstrated that ASS would not be disturbed as part of the proposed development;

· That future civil and construction works undertaken on the site are in accordance with an approved Construction Environmental management Plan, to mitigate broader environmental impacts; and

· That any future works involving demolition and soil disturbance should incorporate an unexpected finds protocol to assist earthworks staff identify and manage previously undocumented ASS (if present).

It is recommended that, should Council support the finalisation of Amendment 52, the recommendations of the Acid Sulfate Soils Study should also be adopted. A copy of the Acid Sulfate Soils Study was submitted to DP&E in satisfaction of the requirements of Ministerial Direction 4.1 and the revised Gateway Determination on 24 December 2015.

Figure 2: Lots potentially impacted by Acid Sulfate Soils

in Liverpool City Centre

Figure 3: Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment – boreholes. Development east of a line between BH8 and BH21 must have an Acid Sulfate Soils management Plan

Public Authority Consultation

The Gateway Determination received for Amendment 52 required Council to consult with:

· Office of Environment and Heritage;

· Family and Community Services – Housing NSW;

· Department of Trade and Investment;

· Department of Health;

· Department of Education and Communities;

· NSW Police Force;

· Transport for NSW;

· Transport for NSW – Sydney Trains;

· Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Service;

· Sydney Water;

· Telstra;

· University of Western Sydney;

· Sydney Metro Airports (Bankstown Airport); and

· The Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD).

Council sent letters to all public authorities on 19 November 2015, requesting that any comments on the proposal be provided no later than close of business on 18 December 2015. As noted in the submission schedule (Attachment 3), Council received submissions from the following public authorities:

· NSW Police;

· Education NSW;

· Sydney Water;

· DIRD; and

· Health NSW.

In addition, Council received a very late submission (dated 16 April 2016) from TfNSW as discussed above.

NSW Police, Sydney Water and DIRD raised no objection to the proposal. Their comments are fully addressed in the submissions schedule. Health NSW, and more particularly the Sydney South West Area Health Service submitted a Health Impact Assessment of the proposal which is largely supportive. Matters raised in the Health NSW submission are adequately dealt with in the submissions schedule. Education NSW focused their submission on the Liverpool Public School site, and requires closer consideration.

Liverpool Public School

Education NSW acknowledge in their submission that the rezoning of much of Liverpool City Centre for mixed use development will bring many new residents into the City Centre, including school-age children. They indicate that they would prefer flexible planning controls that would permit them a range of options to meet future enrollment demands, and that as a result they would like the site rezoned from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use. The submission acknowledges that Council’s decision to retain the site as B3 – Commercial Core was in response to DP&E concerns regarding retention of the commercial core, but asserts that other sites could be found to be retained as B3, if required.

Council staff acknowledge the redevelopment potential of the Liverpool Public School site and agree that the site could be developed in the future as a one-off commercial site of significance, taking advantage of opportunity site controls. Alternatively, were Education NSW to present a plan for the mixed-use development of the site in the future, which incorporated retention of the school in some form, this could be used as the basis for a rezoning of the site at that time.

Noting the likely growth in student numbers in the City Centre as a result of the rezoning, and considering the central and accessible location of the school, Council staff would envisage a public primary school remaining at the current site in the longer term, albeit possibly in a different form. In addition, Council officers note the imperative from DP&E to retain a commercial core within Liverpool City Centre based on government and civic sites in the east of the City Centre. Staff are unable to identify any site of a similar size to the Liverpool Public School site that might be retained as B3 – Commercial Core.

After assessing the evidence presented, and considering the available options, Council staff recommend that the Liverpool Public School retain its B3 – Commercial Core zoning.

Transport for NSW

Transport for NSW (TfNSW), in a joint submission with RMS requested that Council conducts a comprehensive transport study for Liverpool City Centre to assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed rezoning on existing and planned public transport infrastructure (including the proposed extension of the Sydney Metro from Bankstown to Liverpool) and the regional road network. It further requested that the comprehensive study should include identification of feasible infrastructure improvements, funding responsibilities and associated funding mechanisms (i.e. Section 94 levies, voluntary planning agreements or other mechanisms), and that this be done in consultation with DP&E.

The TfNSW submission goes on to request that the proposed rezoning of the transport interchange site be considered as part of the required transport study, and that Sydney Trains be consulted on any future proposals or redevelopment of the transport interchange site. Council has responded to the TfNSW submission by commissioning three studies – a Traffic and Transport Study, an Active and Public Transport Study and a Parking Study.

Traffic and Transport Study

The Traffic and Transport Study is to involve strategic modelling to assess and recommend traffic and transport strategies to accommodate additional developments in the Liverpool City Centre precinct. The objectives of the Study are to:

· Identify deficiencies in the existing traffic and transport system;

· Assess the impact of land-use changes on the future traffic and transport system;

· Recommend strategies to meet the future traffic challenges associated with proposed land use developments in and around the City Centre; and

· Recommend staged implementation of costed improvement strategies.

The scale of land use change and the evolving character of the City Centre will have an impact on the local and regional transport system. An assessment of these impacts is required to understand the suitability of the planning proposal. The study will therefore include the following tasks:

· Liaison with TfNSW to undertake strategic transport modelling according to their metropolitan traffic models;

· Determine access impacts on the road network through appropriate modelling;

· Provide results of an intersection analysis performed on key intersections in and around the City Centre;

· Development of an initial infrastructure project schedule for TfNSW and RMS consideration; and

· Development, calibration and validation of a micro-simulation model covering the City Centre and nearby areas according to RMS requirements.

The key deliverables of the study are to be a strategic model to incorporate future traffic conditions in 2021, 2026 and 2031, and a micro simulation model calibrated for existing conditions. The study is expected to be finalised by 31 August 2016.

Active and Public Transport Study

The purpose of the Active Public Transport Study is to conduct a comprehensive review and prepare an active and public transport strategy for the City Centre. The objectives of the study are as follows:

· Review the operation and efficiency of public transport servicing the City Centre and provide a strategic plan to improve it;

· Review the operation and efficiency of ‘active transport networks’ (i.e. walking and cycling) in the City Centre and develop a strategy for improvement;

· Define a clear permeable and accessible network of cycling and walking links;

· Provide a strategy to improve the operation of the existing Liverpool bus interchange, transitway and other bus routes through the City Centre; and

· Review existing taxi parking areas and provide a strategic plan for future taxi services.

The Active and Public Transport Study is expected to be received by Council by 30 September 2016.

Parking Study

The purpose of the Parking Study is to undertake a comprehensive parking review and to prepare a comprehensive parking strategy for the City Centre. The objectives of the parking study are as follows:

· Review the adequacy, operation and efficiency of existing public off-street car parks;

· Review the operational efficiency of existing on-street parking (including loading bays);

· Review any proposed Council amendments to off or on-street parking;

· Provide a comprehensive car parking strategy;

· Review parking enforcement issues and provide a strategy for improving efficiency; and

· Provide a strategic plan to improve car parking signage.

The Parking Study is expected to be received by Council by 30 September 2016.

Completion of the three reports, primarily the Traffic and Transport Study, will satisfy the requirements of the TfNSW submission. It is therefore proposed to delegate to the A/CEO authority to finalise and submit the planning proposal to DP&E for finalisation, as soon as practical after the receipt of the final Traffic and Transport Study.

Public Exhibition

As noted above, the proposal was publicly exhibited from 18 November 2015 until 29 January 2016 in accordance with the requirements of Section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Gateway Determination. A total of 17 submissions were received.

Council officers have made a response to each submission in the attached response to submissions document. Nevertheless, some of the issues raised in the submissions received require more detailed discussion. In certain cases, Council staff believe there is merit in varying the planning proposal in response to submissions. The most significant issues raised are as follows:

Opposition to reduction of FSR from 3.0:1 to 2.5:1 in the Fine Grain Precinct and concern that the formula proposed to determine FSR is too complex is too complex.

Submissions 13 and 19 objected to the reduction of the base FSR on fine grain sites from 3.0:1 to 2.5:1. Submissions 17 and 19 argue that the use of a formula to describe the potential for bonus floor space for Fine Grain and Mid Rise sites is too complex.

Amendment 52 seeks to reduce the base FSR of fine grain sites from 3.0:1 to 2.5:1. However, where sites are developed using a block edge typology and in a way that is compatible with the Fine Grain Precinct in terms of building form, draft clause 4.4(2B) provides for bonus floor space.

In the original iteration of the proposal, the bonus for complying buildings in the Fine Grain (and Mid Rise) precincts was expressed using a complex formula. On the basis of submissions suggesting that this formula was too complex, it has been replaced with a simple increase to the floor space ratio, as discussed below. In the case of the Fine Grain Precinct, the bonus permits the FSR to increase to a maximum of 4.0:1. In the case of the Mid Rise Precinct, FSR may increase to a maximum of 5:1, depending on the development being of perimeter block typology and meeting future character requirements.

The FSR of Mid Rise sites should be increased to at least 5.0:1

Submissions 18, 19 and 22 argued that the available FSR for Mid Rise sites should be increased from 3.0:1 to at least 5.0:1. However, where sites are developed using a perimeter block typology and in a way that is compatible with the Mid Rise Precinct in terms of building form, draft clause 4.4(2C) provides for bonus floor space, which would permit an increase in FSR to 5.0:1.

As noted above, although the bonus was initially described using a formula, following consideration of submissions received, that formula has been replaced. In the case of development in the Mid Rise Precinct, the clause states that FSR may exceed 3.0:1 “if the consent authority is satisfied that the development will be of perimeter block typology and compatible with the desired future character of the Mid Rise Precinct in terms of building form and appropriate uses. The FSR of the site may not exceed 5.0:1.”

Reconsider reductions in building height

Submissions 9 and 17 request that reductions in the Height of Building development standard as it applies to the Mid Rise Precinct be reconsidered. The proposal reduces the height of building control applying to sites in the Mid Rise Precinct to 28m.

Council staff point out that generous Height of Building controls have applied throughout much of the Liverpool City Centre since the gazettal of LLEP 2008 in August 2008. In many cases building heights of between 80-100m have been permitted.

Over those eight years, however, only one development has sought to meet or exceed those building height controls. In addition, the FSR and height of building controls applying to many sites throughout the City Centre are in conflict (FSR 2.5 and building height 80m, for instance). A site with an FSR of 2.5 has no prospect of developing a building of 80m in height. FSR bonuses for very large sites (i.e. 2500sqm and larger) could facilitate buildings up to 80m in height, however, few sites are able to take advantage of this bonus. By reducing available building height to 28m, Amendment 52 has sought to bring building heights into proportion with available FSR, and provide a pathway for all sites to develop independently.

For larger, more advantaged sites, however, Amendment 52 has provision for Opportunity Sites. For sites larger than 1500sqm, with at least two street frontages, draft clause 7.5B permits development to substantially exceed 28m in height where the applicant can meet the defined criteria. The opportunity site provision also permits an increase in FSR up to 10:1. The opportunity site provision ensures that larger developments may still be completed where appropriate in Liverpool City Centre.

Approved master plan requirement

A number of submissions (14, 15, and 17) raise questions regarding the requirement for an approved master plan for proposed Opportunity Site development pursuant to draft clause 7.5B.

The requirement for an approved master plan for Opportunity Site development allows Council to clearly assess whether the proposal meets the criteria as specified in draft clause 7.5B. Landowners have a number of options for site development pursuant to Amendment 52, and are not required to pursue opportunity site development.

In response to submissions, Council staff have also updated the planning proposal to add a clear definition of Master Plan and Approved Master Plan in the Dictionary of LLEP 2008. The definition is based on that applying in South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998.

Parking provisions

Submissions 14, 15 and 17 raise questions and express concerns regarding the changes to parking provisions proposed as part of Amendment 52. Submissions 14 and 15 request further information as to what quantity of parking would constitute a public benefit with regard to the provision of opportunity sites. Submission 17 objects to the proposed amendments to clause 7.3 of LLEP 2008, which restrict the total amount of car parking that may be provided in basement car parking, unless it is dedicated to Council as part of an Opportunity Site development.

With respect to what parking would constitute a public benefit, draft clause 7.5B specifies that such parking would be in key locations in Liverpool City Centre and dedicated to Council at no cost. The onus will be on the applicant to convince the consent authority that the quantity and location of the parking provided will lead to a substantial public benefit. Other options to provide a public benefit are available, should the provision of public parking not be possible.

Proposed clause 7.3(6) does propose to limit the amount of carparking that may be provided for private use in a basement carpark. It states that, “Development consent must not be granted for development where underground carparking is provided in excess to that provided in subclause (2) above unless such excess parking is made available to Council for public purposes”.

Development of Liverpool City Centre is constrained by limited vehicular access. At the same time, the City Centre has excellent access to public transport, including Liverpool train station and bus interchange, with the potential of the extension of the Sydney Metro to Liverpool also under consideration.

In an effort to reduce congestion in and around the City Centre, Council is committed to trying to increase the mode share of trips taken by public transport. In this environment, Council staff have sought to maximise the potential for public parking, while limiting private parking accordingly. For these reasons it is proposed to retain the parking provision as advertised.

Active Street Frontage

Two submissions, 17 and 18, have raised concerns regarding the Amendment 52 proposal for active street frontages, including on serviceways. Submission 17 argues that provisions should be more flexible, while submission 18 argues that active uses should not be applied to serviceways, which should be reserved for deliveries, garbage removal and other ‘back of house’ activities.

Draft clause 7.4A Active Street frontages in Liverpool City Centre does require that active uses be developed on streets and lanes throughout the City Centre. However, 7.4A(4) provides significant exceptions, including where entrances and lobbies are to be sited (including as part of mixed-use development), where access for fire services is required or where vehicular access (including a loading zone) is required. It is also important to note, however, that uses change over time and that it is important to balance requirements for servicing development and the need for active uses.

Flexibility of Uses

A number of submissions (18, 19 and 22) raise concerns regarding the requirement for Mid Rise development to incorporate a minimum of one floor for commercial uses in addition to a ground floor retail/commercial use. In the original iteration of the planning proposal, the additional floor used for commercial purposes was a requirement to receiving the available floor space bonus. The submissions argue that not all sites will develop in the same way, and that commercial activity is likely to be ‘clustered’ in strategic parts of the City Centre and not evenly distributed.

In response to submissions, Council staff have amended the planning proposal to remove the requirement for the development of an additional floor of commercial floorspace on a Mid Rise site in order to receive the bonus FSR. Nevertheless, the redraft of Part 4 of Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008 pertaining to the City Centre, will require that an additional floor of a Mid Rise building be developed so that it is adaptable for commercial purposes, so as to provide for the possibility of increased commercial demand in the future. This may require that at least one additional floor is developed with a floor to ceiling height of 3.0m, for instance (rather than the 2.7m applicable to residential development), regardless of its intended use.

Bonuses for commercial development are constraints for residential

Submissions 19 and 22 express a concern that incentives for commercial development provided in the planning proposal will become constraints on residential development and risk undermining the intent of Amendment 52 to encourage mixed-use development in the City Centre. The submissions are referring to the original draft of the planning proposal, which provided floor space bonuses based on a formula which has been superseded.

The original draft of the planning proposal provided that commercial development could occupy up to 80% of the building envelope, while residential development could only occupy 75%. Rather than being a disincentive for residential development, however, this is merely a recognition that commercial development is not required to provide balconies (which do not count towards FSR) within the building envelope, while residential development generally must. This allows commercial buildings to occupy more of the building envelope than residential buildings of a similar scale.

Fine Grain/Solar access to the Macquarie Street Mall

Submissions 18 and 21 question why sites fronting the Macquarie Street Mall that are in common ownership across the block joining Macquarie Street and George Street, or that have the potential to be incorporated into larger lots with a through-block ownership, are part of the Fine Grain precinct (see Figure 4 below). The submissions challenge why these lots should not be designated part of the Mid Rise Precinct. Were these lots incorporated into the Mid Rise Precinct, they would have the potential of being incorporated into opportunity sites spanning the width of the entire block (from Macquarie Street to George Street).

Council staff have conducted a review of development controls relating to the sites included in the Fine Grain Precinct fronting the Macquarie Street Mall. The review has focused on improvements to development potential and considered the possible impacts on the Mall from increased building heights, particularly shadowing.

Council staff recommend that, where sites fronting the Macquarie Street Mall have the potential to be incorporated into a through-site lot, they should be included in the Mid Rise Precinct. Where the lots do not have the potential to be incorporated into a through-site lot, they should be retained within the Fine Grain Precinct. The result is displayed in Figure 5 below.

Figure 4: Existing Fine Grain in Figure 5: Sites in Macquarie Street Mall

Macquarie Street Mall to be retained as Fine Grain shaded grey

shown as Area 7

It must be noted that, for sites without the potential for incorporation into an Opportunity Site, remaining in the Fine Grain Precinct has advantages. Inclusion in the Fine Grain Precinct would allow smaller sites to develop independently, without the need for site amalgamation, and would also permit development without carparking where a payment in lieu is made. The Fine Grain Precinct also permits development with only one level of commercial (i.e. ground floor retail), offering small sites maximum flexibility of uses.

Solar access to the Macquarie Street Mall was also a key consideration for Council staff in reviewing the extent of the Fine Grain Precinct in Macquarie Street Mall. Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008 requires that any proposal for a new/altered building to be erected in Liverpool City Centre must exhibit design excellence. Clause 7.5(3)(d) states that, in considering design excellence, the consent authority must have regard to “whether the proposed development detrimentally overshadows Bigge Park, Liverpool Pioneer’s Memorial Park, Apex Park, St Luke’s Church Grounds and Macquarie Street Mall (between Elizabeth Street and Memorial Avenue)”. In addition, draft Clause 7.5b(2)(c) Opportunity Sites requires that, for a site to be designated as an Opportunity Site, “The site can accommodate tall buildings without significant impact on the adjacent public domain, heritage items or neighbouring sites.”

LLEP 2008 does not give a clear indication of the extent of overshadowing of the Macquarie Street Mall which would be considered “detrimental” with regard to design excellence, this is a matter for merit assessment. Nevertheless, Clause 7.2 Sun Access in Liverpool City Centre, currently specifies a maximum street wall height of 15m for lots fronting the Macquarie Street Mall between Elizabeth Street and Memorial Avenue. Any further height must be setback at least 9m from the edge of the Mall.

Council staff have modelled the potential overshadowing impacts from an increase in street wall height and a reduction in the setback along Macquarie Street Mall (see Attachment 2) and find that Clause 7.2 should be retained as it applies to Macquarie Street Mall, but in a modified form. It is recommended that the street wall height along Macquarie Street Mall be increased to 21 metres (permitting a street wall height of six stories where appropriate) and setback by 4m, allowing the development of the preferred Mid Rise built form along the Macquarie Street Mall, where appropriate. Clause 7.2(3) relating to sun access in the Macquarie Street Mall would then read as follows:

Despite clause 4.3, development on land to which this clause applies is prohibited if the development results in any part of a building on land specified in Column 1 of the Table to this clause projecting above the specified height in Column 2 of the Table.

Column 1 Column 2

…

Land within 4m of the public right of way on either 21m

side of Macquarie Street, between Elizabeth Street

and Memorial Avenue (except the most southern 60m)

The revised street wall height control for the Macquarie Street Mall, in concert with design excellence provisions and site requirements for opportunity sites will provide for adequate solar access to the Macquarie Street Mall. It is recommended that these amendments to the proposal be incorporated to the planning proposal as a response to submissions.

Proposed amendments to planning proposal

Council staff recommend that the following amendments be made to the planning proposal for Amendment 52 as a response to submissions received:

· Add a definition of “master plan” and “approved master plan” to the Dictionary of LLEP 2008;

· Clarify public benefit requirements for an Opportunity Site in draft clause 7.5B(2) of LLEP 2008;

· Clarify the basis of the floor space bonus pertaining to development in the Fine Grain and Mid Rise Precincts and eliminating the use of formulas; and

· Reduce the area of the Fine Grain Precinct in the Macquarie Street mall and modifying clause 7.2 Sun access in Liverpool City Centre to permit buildings with a street wall height of 21m along the Macquarie Street Mall, where appropriate.

In addition, it is recommended that the following amendments be made to the planning proposal to eliminate anomalies and for compliance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG):

· Modify clause 7.14 Minimum building street frontage, so that it does not apply to the Fine Grain or Mid Rise Precincts. This will allow narrow sites in the Fine Grain and Mid Rise Precincts to develop independently, as envisaged by the proposal;

· Modify clause 7.5B to allow the provision of opportunity sites to apply to sites zoned B3 – Commercial Core, to allow larger, advantaged sites in the Commercial Core to use opportunity site provisions where appropriate; and

· Reduce the permitted floorspace for residential towers, facilitated under Opportunity Site provisions, from 750sqm to 700sqm to meet the requirements of the ADG.

These changes have been incorporated into a revised planning proposal, which is attached to this report.

City Centre DCP

Pending Council’s support for these changes to the City Centre LEP Review, (Amendment 52), Council staff will prepare a revised development control plan for the Liverpool City Centre which will facilitate development specified in the LEP Review. It is intended that the redraft of Part 4 of LDCP 2008 will be presented to a Council meeting later this year for consideration.

Finalisation of Amendment 52

Should Council support the recommendation to support the amended planning proposal for Amendment 52, it is recommended that the A/CEO be delegated authority to finalise the planning proposal after the receipt of the City Centre Traffic Study, and submit it to the DP&E requesting finalisation in accordance with the requirements of s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As noted above, it is not anticipated that the results of the traffic study will require significant variation to the proposal.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised planning proposal View (Under separate cover)

2. Shadow diagrams for Macquarie Street Mall 21 June View (Under separate cover)

3. Submissions schedule View (Under separate cover)

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities
Key Policy	Animal Management Policy
File Ref	191715.2016
Author	Peter Ristevski - Councillor

101
DBI 01	Liverpool City Council Community Strategic Plan 2017-2027 - Community Engagement Strategy 2016-2017
Attachment 1	Community Engagement Strategy 2016-17

115
CFO 01	Local Government NSW Annual Conference
Attachment 1	LGNSW Conference information

129
CFO 01	Local Government NSW Annual Conference
Attachment 2	Letter from Local Government NSW

Councillor		Mayor*
Minimum Annual Fee	Maximum Annual Fee	Minimum Annual Fee	Maximum Annual Fee
$12,830	$23,950	$27,260	$63,640
* NOTE: This fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the Mayor and Councillors as per section 249(2) of the Act.

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	174709.2016
Report By	Claudia Wood - Corporate Planner
Approved By	Carole Todd - Director Business Improvement

Economic and Financial	The costs of implementing the Community Engagement Strategy will be covered by Council’s existing operational budget.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Economic and Financial	Costs will be in the order of $2,500 per delegate for registration, travel, accommodation and meals.
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

167
CFO 03	Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy after Public Exhibition
Attachment 1	Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy After Public Exhibition With Minor Amendments

Economic and Financial	There are economic and financial considerations. Increased annual costs of up to $3.4 million could be incurred.
Environmental and Sustainability	Minimise household and commercial waste. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues. There are environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	177636.2016
Report By	Norma Burrows - Community Development Worker (ATSI)
Approved By	Julie Scott - Acting Director Community & Culture

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community
Key Policy	Recreation Strategy
File Ref	183230.2016
Report By	Mark Westley - Sports Development Officer
Approved By	Julie Scott - Acting Director Community & Culture

Economic and Financial	A budget allocation of $15,000 for the Sporting Donations Program was adopted by Council in its 2016/2017 Operational Plan. If the recommended amount of $700 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $14,300. The recommendations within this report for sporting donations will be funded from the Sporting Donations Program.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

195
DCC 03	Liverpool Sporting Donations
Attachment 1	Liverpool Sporting Donations Program Criteria

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance consideration.

197
DEE 01	Charitable Collections on Council Controlled Lands Policy
Attachment 1	Draft Charitable Collections on Council Controlled Lands Policy

Economic and Financial	Deliver and maintain a range of public infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways, drainage and community and recreational facilities. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Promote active lifestyle by providing relevant public infrastructure. Provide safe and accessible transport facilities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

207
DIEN 01	2015-2016 Capital Works Carryover of Projects and Funds
Attachment 1	List of 2015-2016 projects and funds required to be carried over

Economic and Financial	Deliver a high quality standard of processes for the administration of WIK and to ensure Council has no financial obligations as result of substandard development and prolonged works in the Liverpool LGA.
Environmental and Sustainability	Support the delivery of a high quality of standard of Council assets and infrastructure.
Social and Cultural	Improved amenities in the public domain areas within existing and new residential areas in the Liverpool LGA.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

271
DPG 06	Works in Kind Policy
Attachment 1	Draft Works In Kind Policy

285
CTTE 01	Minutes of Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 9 June 2016
Attachment 1	Liverpool Access Committee Minutes 9 June 2016 - final

293
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee held on Thursday 2 June, 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee meeting held on 2 June 2016

297
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of 6 June 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of meeting

305
CTTE 04	Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee meeting held on 5 July 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee meeting held on 5 July 2016

Economic and Financial	There are financial implications in the order of $16,731 for the flag pole and solar lighting.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

319
CTTE 05	Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 7 July 2016
Attachment 1	Civic Advisory Committee Minutes from 7 July 2016

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Position Liverpool as the destination of choice to attract business and investment in South Western Sydney
Key Policy	Economic Development Strategy
File Ref	182063.2016
Report By	Tracey Lee - Economic Development Assistant
Approved By	Julie Scott - Acting Director Community & Culture

Economic and Financial	The activities of the Committee support Council’s efforts to facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Environmental and sustainability considerations will be factored into economic development activities.
Social and Cultural	Economic development will boost demand for cultural and arts activities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The Committee provides guidance for Council’s economic development projects and initiatives.

325
CTTE 06	Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 July 2016
Attachment 1	MINUTES Economic Development and Events Committee 1 July 2016 FINAL

343
CTTE 06	Minutes of Economic Development and Events Committee meeting held 6 July 2016
Attachment 3	PRESENTATION - LIVERPOOL WESTFIELDS UPDATE

357
CTTE 07	Liverpool City Sports Committee Minutes of Meeting 9 June 2016
Attachment 1	Sports Committee Meeting Minutes 9 June 2016