Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 23 November 2016

Opening

Prayer

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 October 2016............................................................... 8

ExtraordinaryCouncil Meeting held on 26 October 2016....................................................... 64

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Drug and Alcohol Testing ............................................................................... 68......... 1

NOM 02 Commitment to Multiculturalism .................................................................... 70......... 2

NOM 03 Cooling the Street - Western Sydney............................................................. 73......... 3

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01 DA-1059/2015 - Fitout and use of Unit 3 as a Sex Services Premises at 3/5 Weld Street, Prestons.......................................................................................................... 75......... 4

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

NIL

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01 Draft Strategic Panel Charter......................................................................... 83......... 5

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01 Revocation of Media Representation Policy.................................................. 95......... 6

CFO 02 Further Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy........................ 102......... 7

CFO 03 Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1993............................ 124......... 8

CFO 04 Minor Amendment to the Code of Meeting Practice.................................... 135......... 9

CFO 05 Review of Delegations.................................................................................. 138....... 10

CFO 06 Revocation of Mayor's Policy-Making Functions Between Council Meetings Policy 149 11

CFO 07 Annual Code of Conduct Complaints Report............................................... 155....... 12

CFO 08 Councillor Briefings....................................................................................... 161....... 13

CFO 09 Council Meeting Dates - January to December 2017.................................. 174....... 14

CFO 10 Draft Budget Review Panel Charter............................................................. 177....... 15

CFO 11 Annual Financial Reports 2015/16................................................................ 187....... 16

CFO 12 Investment Report September 2016............................................................ 189....... 17

CFO 13 Budget Review - September 2016............................................................... 197....... 18

CFO 14 Investment Report October 2016................................................................. 222....... 19

City Presentation Report

DCP 01 Transfer Ownership of SES Vehicles........................................................... 230....... 20

DCP 02 Maintenance of Nature Strips....................................................................... 233....... 21

DCP 03 Review of Domestic Waste Management Policy......................................... 243....... 22

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01 Civic Events and Ceremonial Functions Policy........................................... 267....... 23

DCC 02 Strong Children and Communities Project .................................................. 288....... 24

DCC 03 Grants and Donations .................................................................................. 293....... 25

DCC 04 Investigation of in-house management options for Council's Leisure Centres 303 26

Economic Development Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

NIL

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01 Exemption from Tendering Process............................................................. 307....... 27

DPG 02 Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement - DA-582/2016 at 420 Macquarie Street, Liverpool............................................................................................ 311....... 28

DPG 03 Development Applications lodged with an interest declared by Councillors 316....... 29

DPG 04 Post Exhibition Report - Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 60), 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool. ................................................................... 334....... 30

DPG 05 2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget - Proposed new fees and charges - Master Plan Development Application Fee....................................................................... 345....... 31

DPG 06 Warren Serviceway Car Park Proposed Changes to Fees and Charges.... 348....... 32

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2016 352 33

CTTE 02 Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 31 October 2016 356 34

CTTE 03 Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes of 2 November 2016..... 364 35

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Harle................................................................... 370....... 36

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 Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee 2016-2018

Reason: Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

CONF 02 Acquisition of Part Lot 2 DP 1196541, 185 Gurner Avenue, Austral, for open space purposes

Reason: Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(b) of the Local Government Act because it contains matters concerning the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.

CONF 03 Proposed easement for drainage purposes over Lot 737 DP 533701, 219 Memorial Avenue, Liverpool, known as 'Ireland Park'

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 easement for drainage purposes over Lot 312 DP 228323, 88A South Liverpool Road, Heckenberg, known as 'Snowy Park'

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 Compulsory acquisition of Lot 39 DP 1160527 & Lot 39 DP 1167333, Swoffer Avenue, Middleton Grange, for drainage purposes

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 Acquisition of part Lot 7, 7A and 8A DP 29317, 65-75 Rynan Avenue, Edmondson Park, for drainage purposes

Reason: Item CONF 06 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 07 Proposed easement for access over Lot 6 DP 1193300, Lt Cantello Reserve, Hammondville

Reason: Item CONF 07 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 08 Proposed easement for drainage purposes over Lot 62 DP 1036287, 20 Bumbera Street, Prestons

Reason: Item CONF 08 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 09 Proposed easement for transmission line over Lot 201 DP 1194243, Kurrajong Road, Carnes Hill

Reason: Item CONF 09 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 10 Tender WT2579 - Design, Supply and Installation of GPT Unit - Mawson Drive, Cartwright

Reason: Item CONF 10 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 11 ST2567 – VoIP Cloud Contact Centre

Reason: Item CONF 11 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 12 Minutes of Civic Advisory Committee - 2017 Australia Day Awards

Reason: Item CONF 12 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

CONF 13 Acquisition of part Lot 6 DP 1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank, for road purposes

Reason: Item CONF 13 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 14 Proposed disposal of part Copeland Street, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 14 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.

Close

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

ITEM NO: CFO 02

FILE NO: 241360.2016

SUBJECT: Appointment of Councillors to committees and Affiliated Bodies

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the information relating to Council Committees and makes the following changes:

i. Removes the following Committees:

· Budget and Finance Committee

· Building Our New City

· Economic Development and Events Committee

· Master Planning Steering Committee (to sit with the Planning and Development Committee instead)

· No Intermodal Committee

· Street Naming Committee

· Warwick Farm Racing Precinct Steering Committee

ii. Changes the meeting frequency of the following Committees:

· Aboriginal Consultative Committee (from monthly to quarterly)

· Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board (from bi-monthly to quarterly)

· Liverpool Access Committee (from monthly to quarterly)

· Liverpool Sports Committee (from bi-monthly to quarterly)

2. Notes the report on this Council Agenda relating to the establishment of the Liverpool Service Alliance Review Committee as an advisory committee of the Council (all Councillors will be members of this Committee which will meet quarterly).

3. Notes that a further report is to be submitted to Council following the conclusion of the community consultation process regarding the possible establishment of a Floodplain Management Committee.

4. Appoints Councillors as representatives to the following Committees for the period to September 2017:

a. Aboriginal Consultative Committee

b. Audit and Risk Committee

c. Badgerys Creek Taskforce

d. Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board

e. Civic Advisory Committee

f. Environment Advisory Committee

g. Heritage Advisory Committee

h. Liverpool Access Committee

i. Liverpool Sports Committee

j. Multicultural Advisory Committee

k. Planning and Development Committee

l. Youth Council

5. Appoints Councillors as representatives to the following community committees and affiliated bodies and notifies of their representatives for the period to September 2017:

a. Floodplain Management Association

b. Georges River Combined Councils Committee

c. Joint Regional Planning Panel

d. Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre

e. Liverpool Traffic Committee

f. Macarthur Bushfire Management Committee

g. Macarthur Zone Bushfire Liaison Committee

h. Macarthur/Liverpool Community Relations Commission Regional Advisory Council

i. NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association

j. The South West Sydney Academy of Sport

k. Westpool

l. Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Hadid

That Council:

1. Notes the information relating to Council Committees and makes the following changes:

i. Master Planning Steering Committee sit with the Planning and Development Committee.

ii. Changes the meeting frequency of the following Committees:

· Aboriginal Consultative Committee (from monthly to quarterly)

· Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board (from bi-monthly to quarterly)

· Liverpool Access Committee (from monthly to quarterly)

· Liverpool Sports Committee (from bi-monthly to quarterly)

Notes the Committees below remain as per the Charters and Council to appoint representatives to these Committees:

· Budget and Finance Committee

· Building Our New City

· Economic Development and Events Committee

· No Intermodal Committee

· Street Naming Committee

· Warwick Farm Racing Precinct Steering Committee

3. Notes the report on this Council Agenda relating to the establishment of the Liverpool Service Alliance Review Committee as an advisory committee of the Council (all Councillors will be members of this Committee which will meet quarterly).

4. Notes that a further report is to be submitted to Council following the conclusion of the community consultation process regarding the possible establishment of a Floodplain Management Committee.

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

Division:

Vote for: Clr Ayyad

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hadid

Vote against: Mayor Waller

Clr Hagarty

Clr Harle

Clr Kaliyanda

Clr Karnib

Clr Rhodes

Clr Shelton

Clr Rhodes then moved a motion which was discussed and voted on.

Motion: Moved: Clr Rhodes Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1. Notes the information relating to Council Committees and makes the following changes:

i. Master Planning Steering Committee sit with the Planning and Development Committee.

ii. Changes the meeting frequency of the following Committees:

· Aboriginal Consultative Committee (from monthly to quarterly)

· Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board (from bi-monthly to quarterly)

· Liverpool Access Committee (from monthly to quarterly)

· Liverpool Sports Committee (from bi-monthly to quarterly)

Notes the report on this Council Agenda relating to the establishment of the Liverpool Service Alliance Review Committee as an advisory committee of the Council (all Councillors will be members of this Committee which will meet quarterly).

3. Notes that a further report is to be submitted to Council following the conclusion of the community consultation process regarding the possible establishment of a Floodplain Management Committee.

Notes the information relating to Council Committees and makes the following changes:

· Budget and Finance Committee to sit with the Budget Review Panel.

· The Building Our New City Committee to sit with the Strategic Panel.

· The Economic Development and Events Committee to sit with the Strategic Panel.

· The Master Planning Steering Committee to sit with the Planning and Development Committee.

· The Intermodal Committee to sit with the Strategic Panel.

· The Street Naming Committee to sit with the Strategic Panel.

· The Warwick Farm Steering Committee to be integrated into a new Precinct Committee.

Create a new Strategic Panel to be created with the Mayor or Delegate to be the Chair and all Councillors to be members and the Panel to meet quarterly.

Reintroduce Precinct Committees to cover all suburbs of Liverpool to ensure community consultation and promote Council transparency. Council is to provide support and it is to be chaired by selected Councillors and all Councillors to be members.

Charters to emulate the operations of the Strategic Panel, Budget Review Panel and Precinct Committees be created. The Charters of the Panels to include a clause to enable community members to be invited when appropriate who have an interest in the subject matter.

That the Precinct Committees will act as part of our community consultation process and that issues raised by the Precinct Committees will go into the Strategic Panel and Budget Review panel.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Rhodes) was declared CARRIED.

Council then discussed the motions dealing with representatives for the respective Committees.

Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Shelton

That Council:

Appoints the following Councillors as representatives to the following Committees for the period to September 2017:

a. Aboriginal Consultative Committee

Mayor Waller and Clr Shelton

b. Audit and Risk Committee

Clr Karnib and Clr Shelton

c. Badgerys Creek Taskforce

Clr Balloot, Clr Hadchiti, Clr Hagarty, Clr Harle and Clr Rhodes

d. Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board

Mayor Waller and Clr Kaliyanda

e. Civic Advisory Committee

Mayor Waller and Clr Shelton

f. Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee

Mayor and all Councillors

g. Environment Advisory Committee

Clr Harle and Clr Shelton

h. Heritage Advisory Committee

Clr Balloot and Clr Harle

i. Liverpool Access Committee

Mayor Waller

j. Liverpool Sports Committee

Clr Kaliyanda

k. Multicultural Advisory Committee

Clr Balloot, Clr Hagarty and Clr Karnib

l. Planning and Development Committee

Mayor and all Councillors

m. Youth Council

Mayor Waller, Clr Hagarty and Clr Rhodes

Appoints the following Councillors to the following community committees and affiliated bodies and notifies of their representatives for the period to September 2017:

a. Floodplain Management Association

Clr Harle

b. Georges River Combined Councils Committee

Clr Harle and Clr Shelton

c. Joint Regional Planning Panel

Mayor Waller and Clr Hadchiti with Clr Harle and Clr Rhodes as alternates

d. Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre

Clr Hagarty and Clr Karnib

e. Liverpool Traffic Committee

Mayor Waller

f. Macarthur Bushfire Management Committee

Clr Harle

g. Macarthur Zone Bushfire Liaison Committee

Clr Harle

h. Macarthur/Liverpool Community Relations Commission Regional Advisory Council

Clr Balloot

i. NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association

Nil

j. The South West Sydney Academy of Sport

Clr Kaliyanda

k. Westpool

Mayor Waller

l. Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.

Mayor Waller, Clr Rhodes and Clr Shelton as an alternate.

Amendment: Moved: Clr Ayyad Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That Council:

Appoints the following Councillors as representatives to the following Committees for the period to September 2017:

a. Aboriginal Consultative Committee

Mayor Waller and Clr Shelton

b. Audit and Risk Committee

Clr Karnib and Clr Shelton

c. Badgerys Creek Taskforce

Clr Balloot, Clr Hadchiti, Clr Hagarty, Clr Harle and Clr Rhodes

d. Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board

Mayor Waller and Clr Kaliyanda

e. Civic Advisory Committee

Mayor Waller and Clr Shelton

f. Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee

Mayor and all Councillors

g. Environment Advisory Committee

Clr Harle and Clr Shelton

h. Heritage Advisory Committee

Clr Balloot and Clr Harle

i. Liverpool Access Committee

Mayor Waller

j. Liverpool Sports Committee

Clr Kaliyanda

k. Multicultural Advisory Committee

Clr Balloot, Clr Hagarty and Clr Karnib

l. Planning and Development Committee

Mayor and all Councillors

m. Youth Council

Clr Ayyad, Clr Kaliyanda and Clr Hagarty

2. Appoints the following Councillors as representatives to the following community committees and affiliated bodies and notifies of their representatives for the period to September 2017:

a. Floodplain Management Association

Clr Harle

b. Georges River Combined Councils Committee

Clr Harle and Clr Shelton

c. Joint Regional Planning Panel

Mayor Waller and Clr Hadchiti with Clr Harle and Clr Rhodes as alternates

d. Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre

Clr Hagarty and Clr Karnib

e. Liverpool Traffic Committee

Mayor Waller

f. Macarthur Bushfire Management Committee

Clr Harle

g. Macarthur Zone Bushfire Liaison Committee

Clr Harle

h. Macarthur/Liverpool Community Relations Commission Regional Advisory Council

Clr Balloot

i. NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association

Nil

j. The South West Sydney Academy of Sport

Clr Kaliyanda

k. Westpool

Mayor Waller

l. Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.

Mayor Waller, Clr Rhodes and Clr Shelton as an alternate.

3. All Charters be altered to allow all Councillors to be involved and have voting rights in Committees.

On being put to the meeting the Amendment (moved by Clr Ayyad) was declared CARRIED and then became the motion.

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

IHAP 01

DA-1059/2015 - Fitout and use of Unit 3 as a Sex Services Premises at 3/5 Weld Street, Prestons

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	288322.2016
Report By	Brad Harris - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	3/5 Weld Street Prestons Lot 3 SP 64023
Owner	Mr I Gavrilidis
Applicant	Dong Win Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a Development Application DA-1059/2015 proposing the fit out and use of an existing industrial unit as a Sex Services Premises at Unit 3, No.5 Weld Street, Prestons. The application was lodged on 30 October 2015.

This application was considered by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) at its meeting on 26 September 2016 as more than 5 submissions were received in respect of the proposal.

The IHAP Panel made the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“The panel is aware that there is a development consent for a place of public worship at 1/93 Jedda Road Prestons (DA1640/2006) that is still in force. The site of this consent is within 150 metres of the development site. The existence of this consent was overlooked by the applicant’s social planner, probably because the unit is currently being used as an electrical wholesale premises.

The existence of this consent is a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of this development application, practically because it is within the 150 metre separation distance under the DCP.

The panel recommends determination be deferred to enable Council officers to request the applicant to provide a supplementary social impact statement addressing the existence of this consent and justify non-compliance with the DCP.

The owner’s corporation has indicated that it can provide council with additional information concerning potential economic and social impact on the strata property as a result of approval of the sex services premise. This information should also be provided and assessed by Council officers.”

The IHAP recommendation was as follows:

That Development Application DA-1059/2015 be deferred pending submission of a supplementary Social Impact Statement (SIS) addressing the existence of development consent DA-1640/2006 for a place of public worship at 1/93 Jedda Road Prestons (see Attachment 1).

The applicant submitted the additional information requested by IHAP and this information has been assessed by Council officers. The recommendation contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 3) to approve the application subject to recommended conditions of consent remains unaltered.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council approve Development Application DA-1059/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent (Attachment 2).

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1059/2015 proposing Fit Out and Use of Unit as a Sex Services Premises at Unit 3, No.5 Weld Street, Prestons.

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 received more than 5 objections.

The Site

The site is identified as Lot 3 in SP 64023 and is located at 5 Weld Street, Prestons. The site is a regular shaped allotment located on the eastern side of Weld Street. The total site area is 2,121sqm.

The subject site contains a factory unit complex consisting of 7 factory units and associated car parking. The subject unit 3 is located centrally within the complex approximately 28m from the front boundary.

The site is situated within the Prestons industrial area and the immediate locality includes a variety of industrial uses within factory unit complexes and purpose built factory buildings.

The site is identified in the following Figure 1.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

details of the proposal

The application seeks consent for the fit out and use of an existing industrial unit for the purposes of a sex services premises. It is proposed to occupy the ground floor of the premises only.

During the assessment of the application it became evident that unauthorised works had been undertaken to extend the approved mezzanine floor. Although the development application, as originally submitted, did not seek approval to use any of the first floor area (other than storage), concerns were raised of a potential for the proposed use to expand into the mezzanine floor thus intensifying the use and affecting car parking requirements. To prevent this, the applicant was advised that the unauthorised floor space would need to be removed or other modifications made to prevent access to the unauthorised floor space. In response, the applicant submitted amended plans that included the removal of a portion of the upper level floor and closing off the door which currently accesses this area.

As the unauthorised floor space cannot be retrospectively approved, an application for a Building Certificate, supported by a BCA report and Engineering Certificate has been submitted to Council to legitimise that part of the unauthorised mezzanine extension that will remain and will form the ceiling to the ground floor sex services premises.

Council’s Building Department has advised that this application needs to be modified to change its description from “mezzanine floor” to “false ceiling” as it will not be useable as floor space. Further amendments will also need to be made to address the increased area of the mezzanine floor to be removed as detailed in the Council Officer’s IHAP report. It is appropriate to note that the Building Certificate will not be determined until such time as a development consent is granted for the proposed ground floor use.

The application proposes two working rooms with two sex workers and a receptionist/manager being on the site at any one time. An entry foyer and waiting room are also proposed.

Both working rooms contain a shower, with Room 1 having disabled bathroom facilities. Two additional toilets are available for use by staff and clients. A waiting room is accessed from the entry foyer through an area designated as a laundry/kitchen.

The proposed hours of operation are 9.00am to Midnight 7 days per week.

The applicant states that the only signage would consist of the address of the premises to enable it to be identified by clients, however no details of signage has been provided and this would need to be addressed by a separate development application.

Two designated carp parking spaces are available for the unit. The Strata Plan shows 14 designated car parking spaces for the overall site (2 per unit), however there are areas of common property not designated as visitor parking but which are used for car parking as demonstrated by aerial photographs. Part of this common property may have been intended as truck turning areas, however, in practical terms there appears to be up to 8 car parking spaces (3 in front of the building and 5 located centrally along the southern boundary) available as visitor parking.

An extract of the proposed floor plans is provided in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Proposed Floor Plan.

Note: Amendments shown in red are proposed to be included as a condition of consent, requiring the removal of a portion of the unauthorised mezzanine floor.

the issues

The key issue identified with the proposal relates to the perceived social and economic impacts of establishing a sex services premises in an existing industrial unit complex.

The objections raised to the proposed use, by property owners within the strata complex and from other nearby uses such as the Liverpool Catholic Club, primarily relate to issues such as the perceived social impacts and ‘stigma’ associated with operation of a sex services premises.

It should be noted that sex services premises are a permitted form of development within industrial zones. To address potential impacts, they are subject to a control within the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 restricting them to locations at least 150m from sensitive land uses such as residential land, places of worship, schools, community facilities, child care centres, hospitals, rail stations, bus stops, taxi stands, licensed premises, or any place regularly frequented by children for recreational or cultural pursuits.

The Council officers IHAP report (Attachment 3) outlines the relationship between the subject site and sensitive land uses within proximity of the site. The report also outlines the Social Impact Statement (SIS) prepared by the applicant’s Social Planner and confirms that Council’s Community Planning Policy Officer is supportive of the application.

Further information has been received from the applicant in response to the recommendation of IHAP. This includes an addendum to the SIS and documentation verifying that insurance premiums for the subject development would not increase as a consequence of any approval issued for the operation of a sex services premises within the strata development. This additional information has been assessed by Council officers and the recommendation contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report remains unaltered.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 26 September 2016, IHAP recommended that DA-1059/2016 for use of an existing industrial unit as a Sex Services Premises at Unit 3, No.5 Weld Street Prestons be deferred to allow submission of a supplementary SIS addressing the existing development consent DA-1640/2006 for a place of public worship at 1/93 Jedda Road Prestons.

post Ihap meeting considerations

Following the IHAP meeting, the applicant was requested to submit a supplementary SIS and the Owner’s Corporation were requested to submit any additional information that might support their claim that the proposed use, if approved, would have an adverse social and/or economic impact.

On 13 October 2016, the applicant submitted additional information in the form of a supplementary Social Impact Statement (SIS) (Attachment 4) from a qualified social planner addressing the existence of an approved use of 1/93 Jedda Road Prestons for a place of public worship (DA1640/2006). It has been confirmed that the church ceased use of the premises in 2012 and has since moved to a larger premises in Hoxton Park. The subject premises is currently used by an electrical wholesaling business. The owner of the unit has provided confirmation that he would agree to the approval for the consent to be revoked if necessary.

The supplementary SIS has been reviewed by Council’s Community Planning Policy Officer who has advised that it is satisfactory as it confirms that the use is currently not operating and in the unlikely event that the use was to recommence it would not be adversely impacted on by the proposed sex services premises.

Also provided by the applicant was a copy of the Invitation to Renew from the current insurer which indicates only a modest increase in premiums (in line with inflation) and a quote from another insurer which is less than the current premium. (Attachment 5)

On 21 October 2016 the Owner’s Corporation’s managing agent provided a letter from a property valuer which provided preliminary advice in relation to the likely impact on property values (Attachment 6). Additional time was requested in which to provide more detailed information in support of claims made at the IHAP meeting that insurance premiums would rise if the use of Unit 3 was approved as a sex services premises. An extension was granted until 28 October 2016, however no further information was received by that date.

Any claims by objectors in relation property values and consequential impacts on insurance premiums, are not relevant considerations under s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Also included in the managing agents submission dated 21 October were further objections to the proposal. These included separate letters from five businesses and a petition with 18 signatories. These objections are included in the confidential attachment booklet. These objections do not raise matters additional to those previously addressed in the Council Officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 3) and considered by IHAP.

It is considered that the matters raised are not of sufficient weight to warrant refusal of the subject Development Application and do not change the recommendation contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report.

Consultation

The development application has been assessed in accordance with statutory requirements and internal Council departments have been consulted during the assessment of the application. The outcome of this consultation is outlined in the Council Officer’s IHAP report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered worthy of support. Although additional submissions have been received in objection to the proposal, the claim made by the strata manager that the proposal would have an economic impact in terms of increased insurance premiums has not been substantiated. Further, the supplementary SIS confirms that the operation of the sex services premises would not have any significant impacts on the locality. On this basis, the application is recommended for approval, as outlined in the Council Officers IHAP report, subject to recommended conditions of consent outlined in Attachment 2 of this report.

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. IHAP Recommendation View (Under separate cover)

2. Recommended Conditions of Consent View (Under separate cover)

3. Council Officer's IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

4. Supplementary Social Impact Statement View (Under separate cover)

5. Additional Information provided by applicant following IHAP meeting View (Under separate cover)

6. Property Valuation provided by Strata Manager View (Under separate cover)

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

8. Additional Objections following IHAP meeting (Under separate cover)View - Confidential

CFO 13

Budget Review - September 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	296305.2016
Report By	Vishwa Nadan - Manager Financial Services
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Executive Summary

In June 2016 Council adopted its 2016/17 operating budget with projected revenue of $246.5m and expenditure of $164.8m. In terms of the net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes, the Council budgeted for a surplus of $1.1million.

The proposed budget changes will decrease budgeted net operating result before grants and contributions for capital purposes to a surplus of $0.349m for the year ending 30 June 2017.

Fit For the Future net operating results will also change from a surplus of $0.061m to $0.908m deficit (Ref attachment 1 – Note H).

The proposed budget still assumes that labour related efficiency savings will be realised by June 2017. The uptake of efficiency savings for the September quarter is currently below budget and Council will be advised of any variations in next quarter review.

The first quarter budget review for 2016/17 has also resulted in a net increase of $2.601m (Ref attachment 1 – Note F) increase of Council’s capital expenditure program.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the report;

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

REPORT

Legislative Requirements

Clause 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires the Responsible Accounting Officer to provide a quarterly budget review not later than two months after each quarter's end. This report provides an overview of the results on the financial review for the quarter ended 30 September 2016.

Commentary

Operating Budget

From July to September 2016 the Council approved budget variations through resolutions which unfavourably impacted on the net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes by $15k as shown in Attachment 2.

A comprehensive budget review conducted at 30 September 2016 has resulted in further budget adjustments, as detailed in Attachment 2. As part of the Budget Review, managers have conducted a review of their programs with a view to providing a revised forecast for the financial year ended 30 June 2017. Managers take into consideration events that have occurred to date and/or information that has become available since the adoption of the original budget and the impact of which provides the basis for the budget adjustments.

The review has resulted in $1.181m (Ref attachment 1 – Note A) increase in total revenue mainly in grants & contributions for capital purposes. Total expenditure is also projected to increase by net $0.792m (Ref attachment 1 – Note B), mainly comprising increase in expected legal costs relating to Moorebak Recyclers and consultancy relating to review of Liverpool’s LEP. Other significant budget adjustments include a favourable expense reduction of $1.425m provided for asbestos waste remediation as an accrual of $2.645m was included in the 2015/16 financial results and reinstatement of $1.200m employee related expenditure in City Presentation Directorate relating to industrial reforms and $0.295m relating to staffing of Carnes Hill library.

The proposed budget changes will decrease net operating result before grants and contributions for capital purposes to a surplus of $0.349m for the year ending 30 June 2017 (Ref attachment 1 – Note G) and a net operating result before grants & contributions for capital purposes for Fit For the Future at a deficit of $0.908m (Ref attachment 1 – Note H).

Council is invited to take note that the proposed budget still assumes that labour related efficiency savings will be realised by June 2017. The uptake of efficiency savings for the September quarter is currently below budget. Budget performance will be closely monitored and Council will be advised of any variations in next quarter review.

Capital Budget

In June 2016, Council approved its $115.8m capital works program for 2016/17. Council subsequently approved carry over of projects valued $9.6m that were planned but not completed in 2015/16.

The first quarter review for 2016/17 has resulted in a further net adjustment of $2.6m (Ref attachment 1 – Note F) to Council’s capital expenditure program.

At 30 September 2016, Council has a capital expenditure program of $128.050m as detailed in Attachment 3. Note, 30 September 2016 YTD capital expenditure was $16.460m.

The Table 1 below provides summary of the budget results:

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

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

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

2. Changes following Quarter 1 budget review

3. The proposed budget for 2016/17 financial year

4. The capital expenditure broken down into new and renewal assets.

Attachments 2 – This report provides details of operating budget adjustments

Attachments 3 – This report provides details of capital budget adjustments

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

Attachment 6 - Cash and Investments Statement: Providing a reconciliation of restricted and unrestricted funds to the level of Cash and Investments held as at 30 September 2016

Attachment 7 - Key Performance Indicators

Attachment 8 - 9 Contracts and Other Expenses Statement.

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

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

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The budgeted net operating result before Grants and Contributions for Capital Purposes following Quarter 1 Budget Review and Council resolutions to September 2016 will be a deficit of $0.644m
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. QBRS - Consolidated Budget Analysis View

2. Operating Budget Adjustments View

3. Capital Budget Adjustments View

4. Grants Status Report - Applications View

5. Grants Status Report - Received View

6. Reserve Movement Report View

7. Key Performance Indicators View

8. Consultancy & Legal Expenses Budget Review Statement View

9. Contracts Budget Review Statement

CFO 14

Investment Report October 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	296465.2016
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 31^st October 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $174million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.23 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.15 per cent by 108 basis points for the same period.

For four months ended October 2016, returns on investment was $373k higher than budget and is projected to come on budget at year end.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report

REPORT

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

Council’s Portfolio

At 31st October 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $174million. 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 end of October 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.

Term To maturity	Total	% Holdings	Term To maturity Policy Limit
Cash & Cash at Call	33,715,205	19.37%	100%
Term Deposit < 1 Year	26,000,000	14.94%	100%
Tradeable Securities	62,559,080	35.95%	100%
Term Deposits 1 to < 3 Years	37,000,000	21.26%	60%
Term Deposits 3 to < 5 Years	12,000,000	6.90%	25%
T-Corp Unit Trust (Cash)	1,009,879	0.58%	100%
Grandfathered Securities	1,744,305	1.00%	N/A
Grand Total	174,028,469	100.00%

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

Issuer	Security Rating	Market Value	% Total Value	Institutional Policy Limit
AMP Bank Ltd	A+	12,397,721	7.12%	25.00%
ANZ Banking Group Ltd	A+	699,790	0.40%	25.00%
Bananacoast Community Credit Union Ltd	Unrated	2,000,000	1.15%	5.00%
Bank of Queensland Ltd	A-	30,539,650	17.55%	25.00%
Bank of Sydney Ltd	Unrated	2,000,000	1.15%	5.00%
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd	A-	10,066,020	5.78%	25.00%
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd	AA-	26,345,504	15.14%	35.00%
Credit Suisse Sydney	A	2,009,800	1.15%	25.00%
Credit Union Australia Ltd	BBB+	6,030,180	3.47%	15.00%
Emerald Reverse Mortgage Trust	A	1,744,305	1.00%	25.00%
G&C Mutual Bank Limited	BBB	1,000,000	0.57%	15.00%
Heritage Bank Ltd	BBB+	3,012,840	1.73%	15.00%
Macquarie Bank	A	5,026,700	2.89%	25.00%
Maitland Mutual Building Society Ltd	Unrated	1,000,000	0.57%	5.00%
Members Equity Bank Ltd	BBB+	1,003,480	0.58%	15.00%
MyState Bank Ltd	BBB	2,000,000	1.15%	15.00%
National Australia Bank Ltd	AA-	13,066,400	7.51%	35.00%
Newcastle Permanent Building Society Ltd	BBB+	14,014,500	8.05%	15.00%
NSW Treasury Corporation	AA	1,009,879	0.58%	35.00%
P&N Bank Ltd	BBB	11,000,000	6.32%	15.00%
Police Bank Ltd	BBB+	1,005,080	0.58%	15.00%
Police Credit Union SA	Unrated	4,000,000	2.30%	5.00%
Rabobank Australia Ltd	A+	11,000,000	6.32%	25.00%
Suncorp Bank	A+	7,033,540	4.04%	25.00%
Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd	BBB+	2,009,060	1.15%	15.00%
Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd	AA-	3,014,020	1.73%	35.00%
Portfolio Total		174,028,469	100.00%

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Credit Rating	Sum of Market Value	% Portfolio	Policy Limit
A Gategory or below	80,517,526	46.27%	60.00%
AA Category	43,435,803	24.96%	100.00%
BBB Category	41,075,140	23.60%	50.00%
Unrated	9,000,000	5.17%	25.00%
Grand Total	174,028,469	100.00%

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 as at 31st October 2016 was 3.23 per cent which exceeded the benchmark of 2.15 per cent by 108 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:

Performance of Portfolio Returns against Budget

Council’s investment income year to date to October 2016 exceeded budget by $373k and is currently projected to perform to budget at year end.

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance vs. 90 day Bank Bill index over the 12 month period.		The portfolio yield for 3 month to the end of October 2016 is 108 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.23% against 2.15%).
Annual Income vs. Budget		Council’s investment interest income exceeded budget by $373k as at 31^st October 2016

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

At its meeting on 1 November 2016 the Reserve Bank Board decided not to vary the cash rate. The current 1.5% cash rate is at a historically low level and 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) – 2.85% to 3.0% p.a

· Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) - 2.7% to 2.85% 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 from 1.5% 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 interest income exceeded budget by $373k as at 31st October 2016
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment portfolio details as at 31 October 2016 View

DCC 03

Grants and Donations

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Foster social inclusion, strengthen the local community and increase opportunities for people who may experience barriers
Key Policy	Donations Policy
File Ref	280863.2016
Report By	Daniel Collins - Community Development Worker (Funding and Support)
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

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

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

(a) Community Grants (2 rounds per year)

(b) Quick Response Grants: General, Youth, and School (open for applications all year)

(d) Sporting Donations (open for applications all year)

(e) Matching Grants (2 rounds per year)

(f) Community Facilities Fee Reductions (open for applications all year)

This report presents the funding recommendations for applications received through the Quick Response Grants (School) and Matching Grants Programs for September and October 2016 for Council's consideration. The criteria for both programs can be found as attachments to this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the following recommendations:

1. For the provision of $300 (GST exclusive) under Quick Response Grants (School) for a student who has excelled in citizenship, academic studies, artistic endeavours, or sporting proficiency.

Applicant	Project	Amount
Hoxton Park High School	Student award donation	$100
Lurnea High School	Student award donation	$100
William Carey Christian School	Student award donation	$100

2. For the provision of $61,764 (GST exclusive) under Matching Grants.

Applicant	Project	Amount
Kultour	The Gathering	$15,000
Inspire Community Services	Sadlier Social Inclusion Zone	$15,000
Ted Noffs Foundation	Training Pathways Liverpool Street University	$14,400
City of Liverpool Meals on Wheels Inc	Freezer Replacement	$ 6,964
Guntawang Aboriginal Resources Inc	Working together as One	$ 6,900
Moorebank Heritage Group Inc	Exhibition - Liverpool to Holsworthy Military Railway Line	$ 2,500
Language Festival Association	Liverpool Language Festival 2017	$ 1,000

REPORT

Quick Response Grants (School) Program

The Quick Response Grants program supports a range of small-scale initiatives for local residents and organisations. Applicants are eligible to receive one grant per year. Donations to schools are to be given as a prize to a student who has excelled in citizenship, academic studies, artistic endeavours, or sporting performance.

Three applications for the Quick Response Grants (School) program were received this quarter, all met the program criteria and are recommended for funding.

Applicant Details	Project Description	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Hoxton Park High School	Donation awarded to a student who has excelled in citizenship, academic studies, artistic endeavours, or sporting proficiency	$100	$100
Lurnea High School	Donation awarded to a student who has excelled in citizenship, academic studies, artistic endeavours, or sporting proficiency	$100	$100
William Carey Christian School	Donation awarded to a student who has excelled in citizenship, academic studies, artistic endeavours, or sporting proficiency	$100	$100

Matching Grants Program

The Community Matching Grants program provides financial support to projects and activities that build or strengthen communities within Liverpool. These projects focus on developing and implementing capacity building activities, maintaining community assets, and providing opportunities for a broader cross section of residents to be involved in community activities.

Eleven applications were received for round one of Matching Grants. Seven met the criteria and are recommended for funding. One application was withdrawn and the remaining three applications have been advised Council requires additional approvals prior to a funding decision being made.

Applicant Details	Project Description	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Kultour	Creation of a two-day forum at Casula Powerhouse which will address barriers and pose strategies for greater participation and inclusion by CALD artists in the arts sector.	$15,000	$15,000
Inspire Community Services	Construction of new deck, outdoor area, and additional kitchen facilities at existing Sadlier kitchen.	$15,000	$15,000
Ted Noffs Foundation	Training Pathways is a vocational and educational development program designed to engage with marginalised youth in the local area.	$14,400	$14,400
City of Liverpool Meals on Wheels Inc.	Purchase of a replacement freezer to ensure meals are being stored in accordance with NSW Food Safety Regulations.	$6,964	$6,964
Guntawang Aboriginal Resources Incorporated	Provide opportunities through coordinated arts and craft activities for Liverpool’s culturally diverse Community to come together and network.	$6,900	$6,900
Moorebank Heritage Group Inc.	Raise awareness of the history and significance of the former Liverpool Field Training Area via a travelling exhibition, using 10 of the graphic panels on the Liverpool to Holsworthy Military Railway Line constructed in 1917-1918.	$2,500	$2,500
Language Festival Association	Cultural and educational event devoted to celebrate language diversity.	$1,000	$1,000
Hume Community Housing Association Inc (Hume)	Strengthen community cohesion by increasing knowledge of Hume clients of the Liverpool City Council's landmarks and key community services through organised bus tours.	$13,800	Application has been withdrawn as project will now form part of Council’s Refugee Localised Action Plan

The following three applications require additional approvals (outlined below). A funding decision by the assessment panel has been deferred until confirmation of required approvals has been provided by the applicant.

Applicant Details	Project Description	Amount Requested	Approval Required
Liverpool Women's Health Centre Inc	Creation of a childcare room, kitchen upgrade, and dining area within the centre for women and children accessing this service.	$15,000	A complying development certificate for building changes.
Inspire Community	Kitchen fit-out of the Memorial Ave Youth Centre Café, a social enterprise and training project designed within a recycled shipping container.	$15,000	A building certificate is required for construction activity.
Chipping Norton Football Club	Installation of new goal posts and picnic seating at the South Park Precinct.	$3,000	Site needs to be assessed by City Presentation (Parks Coordination).

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There is currently $79,943.18 remaining in the Grants and Donations budget. If the recommended amount of $300 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $79,643.18. There is currently $200,000 remaining in the Matching Grants budget. If the recommended amount of $61,764 is endorsed the remaining balance will be $138,236.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Matching Grants Criteria View

2. Quick Response Grants Criteria

DPG 02

Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement - DA-582/2016 at 420 Macquarie Street, Liverpool

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	294691.2016
Report By	David Smith - Coordinator Development Assessment
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council has received a Development Application DA-582/2016 for the construction of new residential floor space and alterations to the existing buildings approved under DA-578/2014 at 420 Macquarie Street, Liverpool. This application was lodged with Council on 28 June 2016 and was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy between 7 July 2016 and 23 July 2016. No submissions were received. The application is currently under assessment by Council.

DA-578/2014 was approved by the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel on 23 January 2015 for the construction of a mixed use development consisting of three buildings. Construction of buildings A and B commenced in February 2016 whilst site preparation works are underway for building C.

DA-582/2016 is lodged in accordance with the current Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP), however the application has provided an assessment against Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 as required by Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, being the provisions of any draft Environmental Planning Instrument.

If Council accepts the offer to enter in a planning agreement, the agreement will be prepared by Council and publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days. If following public exhibition there are no changes to the proposed planning agreement necessary, the planning agreement will be confirmed and the development application DA-582/2016 will then be reported to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel as required by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Charter and following their recommendations, will be determined by Council.

As part of the assessment of DA-582/2016, the application considers primarily its consistency with the current planning controls applying to the site, but also addresses the proposed controls under Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008. This is a requirement under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the consent authority to have regard to any draft environmental planning instruments.

Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 applies to land within the Liverpool City Centre and seeks to rezone land from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use and to amend the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards for identified land with the City Centre. The site is identified under Amendment 52 of LLEP 2008 for additional height and floor space provisions as the site is classed as an “Opportunity Site” under proposed Clause 7.5B of the LLEP 2008. The site area is 6,158m2.

The development application is accompanied by an offer to enter into a planning agreement for the provision of a “public benefit”. The main item of offer contained within the agreement is for a monetary contribution to be paid to Council towards restoration works at Collingwood House, which is a heritage listed item under the LLEP 2008. Alternatively, the developer has advised that the contribution could be directed towards an alternative community project, should Council prefer.

This report was considered by Council at its meeting of 12 October 2016. There was no resolution of this matter at this Council meeting and the matter was subsequently discussed at the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 2 November 2016 where it was resolved that this report should be considered by Council at its meeting of 23 November 2016.

It is also recommended that if the offer to enter into a Planning Agreement is accepted, to contribute towards works at Collingwood House, that a reserve for any funds collected be established with these funds quarantined until sufficient budget becomes available to undertake the upgrade works to Collingwood House.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Accepts in principle the proposed offer to enter into a planning agreement for a monetary contribution for restoration works to Collingwood House as a public benefit and directs the CEO to prepare a planning agreement and explanatory note and to publicly exhibit the documents for a period of 28 days.

2. Delegates authority to the CEO, subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition, to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor alterations.

3. Notes that if changes other than minor changes arise from the public exhibition process these will be reported back to Council.

4. Notes that this delegation is within the powers that can be delegated under Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993.

5. Notes that any planning agreement will be subject to approval of development application DA-582/2016.

6. Notes that in accepting the proposed offer to enter into a planning agreement, Council retains full discretion to determine development application DA-582/2016 on its merits in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

7. Creates a reserve for any funds collected with these funds quarantined until sufficient budget becomes available to undertake the upgrade works to Collingwood House.

REPORT

A planning agreement can be made under Section 93F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and is a voluntary agreement between Council and the developer, under which the developer is required to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution or provide other material public benefit, or any combination of these, to be used towards a public purpose. In this instance, the proposed planning agreement provides for an “other material public benefit”.

The Act specifies that a public purpose includes the provision of public amenities or public services, the provision of affordable housing, the provision of transport or other infrastructure relating to the land, the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to any of these, the monitoring of the planning impacts of a development and the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment. In this instance the proposed planning agreement provides for “… public amenities”

An offer has been made by the land owners to enter into a planning agreement in connection with DA-582/2016 that is currently under assessment by Council. This application proposes additional height and floor space compared with the development approved under DA-578/2014. This application is required to be assessed under the current LLEP 2008 development standards as Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 has not been gazetted as yet. However, it is important to note that Amendment 52 has received Gateway approval from the Department of Planning and Environment and has been publicly exhibited. Therefore, the application must consider any draft Environment Planning Agreements applying to the site. Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 is therefore a relevant draft Environmental Planning Instrument in accordance with Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and should be afforded significant weight in the assessment of the current development application.

Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 provides for development of “opportunity sites” in the Liverpool City Centre that can accommodate mixed use and commercial tower development. These sites are required to be master planned and are anticipated to allow for buildings with significant floor space ratios and heights. Whilst DA-582/2016 is not accompanied by a masterplan in the manner anticipated by Amendment 52, the development has been planned in a holistic manner under DA-578/2014 and the current DA-582/2016 and is consistent with what would be expected of a masterplan if the application was lodged once Amendment 52 was gazetted.

An extract from Amendment 52 states:

The maximum floor space of a building on a lot in “Area 8” identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map may exceed 3.0:1 if the lot size exceeds 1500 square metres and:

(a) The site has multiple street or laneway/serviceway frontages

(b) The site can accommodate tower floorspace of up to 700 square metres gross floor area for residential uses or 1000 square metres gross floor area for commercial uses

(c) The site can accommodate tall buildings without significant impact on the adjacent public domain, heritage items or neighbouring sites, and

(d) The applicant agrees to provide a public benefit, to the satisfaction of Council, which may include the following:

(e) The proposal includes additional public car parking located in key locations in Liverpool City Centre to be dedicated to Council at no cost;

(f) The proposal will, extend lanes and/or provide through-site links; or

(g) Any other public benefit as defined by Council policy.

This development meets the above criteria as the site has four street frontages, provides for significant tower floor space, can accommodate tall buildings and the applicant is proposing to enter into a planning agreement with Council to provide a public benefit in the form of a monetary payment for upgrade works to Collingwood House.

During the assessment of DA-582/2016, Council officers consider that the proposal is consistent with the development standards proposed under Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008.

It is noted that DA-582/2016 is required to be considered by Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and determined by Council, rather than under delegated authority, as the application proposes variations to some of the current LLEP 2008 development standards, namely height and floor space ratio.

While a draft copy of the voluntary planning agreement has not yet been completed, in summary, the terms of the agreement as outlined in the formal offer from the developer specify:

A total monetary contribution of $230,000 payable to Council for restoration works to Collingwood House as a public benefit arising from the development.

Collingwood House is located at 13 Birkdale Crescent, Liverpool and is one of the few remaining dwellings from the Colonial period and is highly significant in the history of Liverpool. The Collingwood precinct has been a place of importance to Aboriginal and non-indigenous people of Liverpool and parts of the precinct are registered as a declared Aboriginal Place on the register of Aboriginal Places.

Conclusion

An offer to enter into a Planning Agreement in connection with Development Application DA-582/2016 for restoration works at Collingwood House has been received. Alternatively, the developer has advised that the contribution could be directed towards an alternative project should Council prefer.

It is considered that the proposed planning agreement has both planning and public benefit. It is recommended that the terms of the offer as outlined above, be endorsed in principle by Council and exhibited in accordance with the regulations and that Council delegates to the CEO, subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition, to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor alterations. It is important to note that any planning agreement will be subject to the approval of the associated development application DA-582/2016 currently under assessment.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Landowners Details View (Under separate cover)

2. Planning Agreement Offer View (Under separate cover)

DPG 03

Development Applications lodged with an interest declared by Councillors

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	298800.2016
Report By	David Smith - Coordinator Development Assessment
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting of 29 June 2016 Council considered a report provided in response to Part 1 of NOM 05 which was included in the 25 May 2016 Council agenda requiring…a public report to come back to the next Council meeting identifying all DAs lodged/approved during this Council term by Councillors or entities they have both a direct/indirect interest in, including items approved under delegation by staff which haven't come to council.

In response to the report Council resolved as follows:

1. Council receive and note the memo from the CEO.

2. That the DAs lodged by this Mayor during this Council term be assessed by an external consultant for its bona fides with a report to come back to Council within three months. This is in line with the new policy that was adopted in May 2016.

Whilst the resolution addresses only DAs that were lodged within the specified time period, the initial request addressed all DAs lodged or approved during this period. As such this report addresses both applications lodged and those determined within this time period. There were five relevant applications, each of which has had the assessment process and recommendation reviewed by an independent planning consultant.

Council engaged Kerry Gordon Planning Services to undertake the required review. The results of this review are contained in this report. In summary, the review concludes that two of the applications (DA-5/2012/A and DA-1214/2015) were assessed in a robust manner and the recommendations were supported by the consultant planner. The review did identify some issues with the assessment reports for DA-1286/2012, DA-1286/2012/A and DA-1286/2012/B.

In summary, it was concluded that the assessment reports for DA-1286/2012 and DA-1286/2012/A were inadequate and as a result, the applications could not be peer reviewed. Therefore, the consultant was required to undertake a full assessment of these applications to determine if the applications were worthy of support.

This was undertaken, and following the assessment, it was the consultant planners view that the proposed developments were of a nature that would have warranted a recommendation for approval. It was concluded “that notwithstanding the poor level of assessment undertaken, the result of a recommendation for approval is a reasonable planning outcome”.

The assessment report for DA-1286/2012/B was considered to be appropriately thorough and addressed the relevant statutory controls. The review did note that the assessment report did not contain the delegated officer’s signature block, however the consultant planner noted that the Notice of Determination was signed by the then Manager Statutory Planning.

It is important to note that there has been significant reform of the Development Assessment Department and the development assessment process since these applications were determined in 2012 and 2013.

In 2014, Council introduced an ePlanning and DA Reform team within Planning & Growth to lead planning reform at Liverpool City Council. This, combined with a new management team in the Development Assessment Department has resulted in increased transparency of the development assessment process including online tracking of applications, online lodgement of submissions, new and improved assessment report templates and conditions and formal peer review processes for all development applications. It is also noted that Council now has a policy in place where applications lodged by Councillors or Council staff are assessed by an independent planning consultant.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report

REPORT

In response to the report Council resolved as follows:

· Council receive and note the memo from the CEO.

· That the DAs lodged by this Mayor during this Council term be assessed by an external consultant for its bona fides with a report to come back to Council within three months. This is in line with the new policy that was adopted in May 2016.

During the Council term, the following development applications (or modification applications) were lodged on properties owned or part owned by a Councillor:

Development Application No.	Property Address	Proposed Development	Decision
DA-5/2012/A Lodged 26/3/15	127-129 Hill Rd Lurnea	Section 96(1) modification application to development consent for demolition, alterations of existing dwelling on Lot 192 and the subdivision of Lots 192 and 193 into four lots. Modification sought to delete condition No. 39	Approved under delegation 15/4/15
DA-1214/2015 Lodged 17/12/15	127A Hill Rd Lurnea	Double storey dwelling	Approved under delegation 15/4/16
DA-1286/2012/A Lodged 18/1/2013	280 Epsom Rd Chipping Norton	Section 96(1) modification application to development consent for two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision, erection of a dwelling house on each lot and construction of a swimming pool on proposed Lot 1. Modification sought to relocate condition No 14 to prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate	Approved under delegation 19/2/13
DA-1286/2012/B Lodged 7/8/13	280 Epsom Rd Chipping Norton	Section 96(1A) modification application to development consent for two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision, erection of a dwelling house on each lot and construction of a swimming pool on proposed Lot 1. The modifications include: - Enclosure of the courtyard in proposed Lot 1 on both the ground and first floors, thereby increasing the floor area by 16.8m². - Internal layout of the ground and first floors modified to suit.	Approved under delegation 27/9/13

During the current Council term, the following development application was determined on a property owned or part owned by a Councillor, however it was lodged prior to the commencement of the Council term:

Development Application No.

Property Address

Proposed Development

Decision

1. DA-1286/2012

Lodged 3/7/12

280 Epsom Rd Chipping Norton

Development application for two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision, erection of a dwelling house on each lot and construction of a swimming pool on proposed Lot 1.

Approved under delegation 6/12/12

Each of the above listed five relevant applications has been peer reviewed with the review considering the appropriateness of the assessment process and recommendation.

peer review DA-5/2012/A

DA-5/2012 granted consent for the demolition of existing structures, alterations to the existing dwelling on Lot 192 and the subdivision of Lots 192 and 193 into four lots. This application was lodged and determined prior to the period under review and as such is not peer reviewed.

DA-5/2012/A was lodged on 26 March 2015 and was a Section 96(1) modification application seeking to delete condition No. 39, as follows, of development consent DA-5/2012.

39. A restriction shall be placed on the title of proposed Lots 50 & 52 stating that any future development on these lots shall be single storey only, in accordance with the provisions of the Liverpool Development Control Plan.

Review of Process

A review of the file revealed the following:

· The application lodged was appropriately accompanied by a Political Donations and Gifts Disclosure Statement.

· The Allocation DA Checklist appropriately identified the type of development, permissibility, provision of owner’s consent and that notification was not required.

· A delegated assessment report was prepared by a development assessment planner, signed by the Manager Development Assessment and approved under delegation by the Director Planning and Growth on 15 April 2015.

The above process is considered appropriate for a minor modification application.

Review of Assessment/Recommendation

The assessment report prepared is considered to be an appropriately thorough report which clearly identifies the modification proposed and the background of development on the site. The report identifies the requirements of s96(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and assesses correctly that the modified development is substantially the same as the development granted consent.

The report correctly confirms that notification is not required under LDCP 2008. The report appropriately assesses that the modification application does not change the assessment of the development against the provisions of GMREP No. 2 and LLEP 2008.

In its assessment against the relevant provisions of LDCP 2008, the report appropriately identifies that Amendment No. 10 of LDCP 2008, which was adopted on 19 February 2013, deleted the requirement for development on battle-axe allotments to be of single storey construction. It would appear that the condition of consent requiring the placement of a restriction on the title requiring that development only be single storey was related to the previous, now deleted, requirement of LDCP 2008. Given the change to provisions contained in LDCP 2008, it is considered appropriate that the report recommended deletion of the condition.

As such, it is considered that the assessment and recommendation of this application were appropriate having regard to the suite of planning controls applicable at the time of assessment of the application.

peer review DA-1214/2015

DA-1214/2015 was lodged on 17 December 2015 and was an application for construction of a two storey dwelling on one of the battle-axe allotments created by the subdivision approved in DA-5/2012, and amended by DA-5/2012/A, which has been discussed above.

Review of Process

A review of the file revealed the following:

· The application lodged was appropriately accompanied by a Political Donations and Gifts Disclosure Statement.

· The application was referred to the Development Engineer who raised concerns with the stormwater plans submitted and required a series of amendments to the plans in relation to OSD and overland flow. The applicant was informed of the concerns by letter and amended stormwater plans were provided which satisfied the Development Engineer who subsequently issued recommended conditions of consent.

· The application was not notified as it involved a single dwelling house and LDCP 2008 does not require notification for dwelling houses subject to compliance with the height, FSR and first floor balcony requirements. The proposed development complies with these requirements.

· A delegated assessment report was prepared by a Team Leader Development Assessment and approved under delegation by the Acting Chief Executive Officer on 15 April 2016.

· A review of the recommended conditions of consent confirms all appropriate standard conditions and the condition addressing the retention of the two trees were included. One engineering condition that was recommended was not included, however a review of the condition confirms it was not appropriate to include the condition and it appears to have been erroneously requested by the engineer as it is supposed to only be included for applications involving major filling/earthworks, which the application does not.

The above process is considered appropriate for the type of development application.

Review of Assessment/Recommendation

The assessment report prepared is considered to be an appropriately thorough report which clearly identifies the development proposed and the background of development on the site. The report correctly identifies the zoning of the site and that the proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

The report correctly confirms that notification is not required under LDCP 2008. The report appropriately assesses the application against the provisions of GMREP No. 2, SEPP (BASIX) and SEPP 55.

The assessment against the provisions of LLEP 2008 correctly identifies that the proposal satisfies the height and FSR development standards and satisfies the objectives of the zone. An appropriate assessment is made of the proposal to retain two trees on the site and a condition recommended in this regard.

In its assessment against the relevant provisions of LDCP 2008, the report appropriately addresses all relevant provisions and correctly identifies the proposal is compliant with the provisions of LDCP 2008 with the exception of two controls.

The proposed variation sought in relation to the setback requirement for living room doors was correctly identified and assessed against the objectives of the controls. It is noted that the LDCP contains an inbuilt variation provision which indicates that “building encroachments may only occur if it is seen as beneficial for open space, solar access and the internal layout of the dwelling”. The assessment indicates the proposal is consistent with the objectives notwithstanding the breach of the control and particularly indicates that the requirement to set dwellings back from each other to provide visual and acoustic privacy is satisfied in this instance due to the large rear setback of the adjoining dwelling to the rear of the site. Such an approach is considered to be reasonable planning practice.

Finally, the proposed variation sought in relation to the extent of fill was correctly identified and the suitability of the variation was considered in detail. The variation was supported due to the allotment characteristics, which LDCP 2008 indicates may be used to justify such variation.

In this case the site characteristic of slope resulted in the supporting of the variation after consideration in the report of the objectives of the control. Such an approach is considered to be reasonable planning practice.

peer review DA-1286/2012

DA-1286/2012 was lodged on 3 July 2012 and was an application for a two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision, erection of a dwelling house on each proposed lot and construction of a swimming pool on proposed Lot 1.

Review of Process

A review of the file revealed the following:

· The Allocation DA Checklist appropriately identified the type of development, permissibility, provision of owner’s consent and that notification was required.

· The application was referred to the Development Engineer who raised concerns with the stormwater plans failing to provide OSD. The applicant was informed of the concerns by letter and amended stormwater plans were provided. The Development Engineer again raised concerns, this time with clarification of calculations, which were provided by the applicant and satisfied the Development Engineer who subsequently issued recommended conditions of consent.

· The application was referred to the Building Surveyor who raised concerns with the side setbacks, inconsistencies in the plans and inadequate information in relation to the swimming pool. The applicant was informed of the concerns by letter and amended plans were provided which satisfied the Building Surveyor who subsequently issued recommended conditions of consent.

· The application was referred to the Landscape Architect who raised no objections subject to conditions of consent.

· The application was notified between 25 July and 8 August 2012 and one submission was received raising concerns with privacy from the first floor windows looking down into the ground floor living room. The applicant was advised of the concern by letter and provided amended plans which detailed the bathroom windows as having frosted glazing and changing other windows to highlight windows. The objector was notified of the amendment by letter.

· S94 calculations were prepared and checked by the Assets & Infrastructure Accountant.

· A memo to the General Manager was prepared by the Manager Statutory Planning advising that the application was one where a Councillor had a pecuniary interest and recommending the application be determined under delegated authority as the application was otherwise one that would result in that level of delegation. The memo requested advice be provided if the matter should be reported to the IHAP.

· No record of a response to the memo by the General Manager exists on the file.

· A delegated assessment report was prepared by a Development Assessment Planner.

· A Development Assessment Panel report was prepared and considered at the DAP meeting of 6 December 2012 where the application was approved by the Panel.

· A review of the recommended conditions of consent could not be undertaken as the standard condition numbers have been changed and there was no access to the previous standard condition set.

The above process is considered appropriate for the type of development application.

Review of Assessment/Recommendation

The delegated assessment report prepared is considered to be an inadequate report, failing to provide a written assessment of the application against LDCP 2008 or an adequate assessment against LLEP 2008. The report clearly identifies the development proposed on the site. The report correctly identifies the zoning of the site and that the proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

The report fails to identify the applicability of SEPP 55, SEPP (BASIX) and GMREP No. 2 and hence fails to address them.

In the assessment of the application against the provisions of LLEP 2008, the report correctly identifies that a minimum lot size applies but fails to indicate compliance with the control and fails to address controls related to height and FSR.

The report indicates an assessment against the provisions of Parts 1.1, 1.2 and 3.5 of LDCP 2008 has occurred and indicates the proposal is “generally compliant”, referring to an attached assessment/checklist. No such assessment/checklist could be found.

The report appropriately identified that a submission had been received, raised privacy concerns and had been resolved by amended plans.

The report to the Development Assessment Panel provided an executive summary which only addressed permissibility and identified the key issues were privacy impacts upon the neighbouring property and consistency with the BCA. The Statutory Compliance section addressed only permissibility and compliance with the zone objectives in relation to LLEP 2008 and indicated the proposal “generally satisfies the requirements and controls of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008”. Finally, the report indicates that amendments to the plans address the BCA concerns raised by the Building Surveyor.

Again, it is not considered that this report provides adequate information for the Development Assessment Panel to have made an appropriately informed decision.

Given the inadequacy of the assessment report, it cannot be peer reviewed. Subsequently, the following assessment of the application’s compliance with the provisions of the relevant planning controls has been prepared.

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

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

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (BASIX)

· State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of land

· Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

· Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River Catchment (Deemed SEPP)

The subject land is located within the Georges River Catchments and as such The Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Georges River applies to the application. The following tables assess the relevant controls.

Clause 8 General Principles	Comment
(a) the aims, objectives and planning principles of this plan,	The plan aims generally to maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries. The proposal has no unacceptable impacts in this regard.
(b) the likely effect of the proposed plan, development or activity on adjacent or downstream local government areas,	Stormwater concept plan reviewed by Council’s Engineers - satisfactory.
(c) the cumulative impact of the proposed development or activity on the Georges River or its tributaries,	A Stormwater concept plan submitted and reviewed by Council’s development engineers - satisfactory.
(d) any relevant plans of management including any River and Water Management Plans approved by the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and best practice guidelines approved by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (all of which are available from the respective offices of those Departments),	The site is located within an area covered by the Liverpool District Stormwater Management Plan, as outlined within Liverpool City Council Water Strategy 2004.
(e) the Georges River Catchment Regional Planning Strategy (prepared by, and available from the offices of, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning),	Consistent with the strategy.
(f) all relevant State Government policies, manuals and guidelines of which the council, consent authority, public authority or person has notice,	Not required to be referred.
(g) whether there are any feasible alternatives to the development or other proposal concerned.	The site is located in an area nominated for residential development.
When this Part applies the following must be taken into account:	Planning principles are to be applied when a consent authority determines a development application.

Clause 9 Specific Principles	Comment
(1) Acid sulfate soils	The land is identified as Class 5 on LLEP 2008 Acid Sulfate Soil mapping but includes minimal excavation and as such an ASS report is not required.
(2) Bank disturbance	No bank disturbance.
(3) Flooding	Site not identified as flood prone.
(4) Industrial discharges	Not applicable.
(5) Land degradation	An erosion and sediment control plan aims to manage salinity and minimise erosion and sediment loss and can be conditioned to be required prior to CC.
(6) On-site sewage management	Not applicable.
(7) River-related uses	Not applicable.
(8) Sewer overflows	Not applicable.
(9) Urban/stormwater runoff	Stormwater Concept Plan submitted – satisfactory.
(10) Urban development areas	Not in an urban development area.
(11) Vegetated buffer areas	Not applicable
(12) Water quality and river flows	Erosion and sediment control to be implemented in construction, subject to condition.
(13) Wetlands	Not applicable.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (BASIX)

BASIX Certificates were submitted for each dwelling which is considered satisfactory.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of land

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

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008)

Development Provision	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size	Min 300m²	Lot 1- 368m² Lot 2- 355m²	Yes Yes
4.3 Height of Buildings	Max Height 8.5m	Lot 1- 8.6m Lot 2- 8.5	No Yes
4.4 Floor Space Ratio	Max 0.5:1	Lot 1- 183m² or 185m² 0.497:1 or 0.503:1 (see later comments) Lot 2- 172m² or 174m² 0.48:1 or 0.49:1	Unknown Yes
5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation	Provides when consent is required to be granted subject to the provision of this clause to remove trees or vegetation	The site contained no trees	N/A
6.5 Public Utilitiy Infrastructure	Public utility infrastructure must be available	The site was a residential allotment and as such appropriate public infrastructure was available.	Yes
7.7 Acid sulfate soils	Class 1 2, 3 4 or 5	The land is identified as Class 5 on LLEP 2008 Acid Sulfate Soil mapping but includes minimal excavation and as such an ASS report is not required.	Yes
7.13 Minimum Lot Wdith in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4	Min width 10m N/A if the buildings are proposed as part of the subdivision	The subdivision includes a dwelling on each proposed vacant lot.	N/A
7.31 Earthworks	Council to consider matters listed (a)-(g)	No significant earthwork proposed.	Yes

Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008

The following key controls are discussed in the following table:

Part 1 General Controls for all Development
Control	Requirement	Proposed	Comment
Section 2 – Tree Preservation	Consider impact of development on existing vegetation	No trees onsite.	N/A
Section 3 – Landscaping and Incorporation of Existing Trees	Incorporation of existing trees into development where appropriate	See above comments	See above comments
Section 5 – Bushfire Risk	Land on or adjacent to bushfire prone land to comply with RFS requirements	The site is not identified as bushfire prone.	N/A
Section 6 – Water Cycle Management	Consideration of stormwater and drainage	Stormwater plans reviewed by Council’s Land Development Engineers	Complies
Section 8 – Erosion and Sediment Control	Sediment Control Plan or Soil and Water Management Plan required	Sediment control can be conditioned.	Complies
Section 9 – Flooding Risk	Flood affectation of property to considered	The site is not identified as flood prone.	Complies
Section 10 – Contaminated Land Risk	Previous use to be considered in assessing risk	Residential use	Complies
Section 11 – Salinity Risk	Salinity Management response required for affected properties	To comply with BCA requirements	Complies
Section 12 – Acid Sulfate Soils Risk	Affected properties to consider impact of development on soils	The land is identified as Class 5 on LLEP 2008 Acid Sulfate Soil mapping but includes minimal excavation and as such an ASS report is not required.	Complies
Section 13 - Weeds	Noxious weeds to be removed as part of development where applicable	Can be conditioned	Complies
Section 14 – Demolition of Existing Development	Appropriate measures proposed	No demolition proposed	N/A
Section 15 – Onsite Sewage Disposal	S68 Application required where connection to sewer not available	Connection to sewer proposed.	N/A
Section 16 & 17 – Aboriginal Archaeology	AHIA required where items of aboriginal archaeology exist	The site is not heritage listed and is not in the vicinity of a heritage item. Aboriginal relics not likely to be found on site.	N/A
Section 18 – Notification	Notification required due to lot size	Application notified in accordance with DCP requirements.	Complies
Section 20 – Car parking and access	2 spaces dwelling houses	Lot 1- 2 spaces Lot 2- 2 spaces	Complies Complies
Section 21 – subdivision of land buildings	Min width allowed in: R1, R2, R3 300sqm (Area 2) 8m	Minimum widths all in excess of 8m.	Complies
Section 22 & 23 – Water & Energy Conservation	Compliance with BASIX	BASIX certificates provided for new dwellings.	Complies
Section 24 - Landfill	Requires use of VENM	Can be conditioned.	Complies

Part 3.5 Dwelling Houses on Lots Less Than 400sqm
Control	Requirement	Proposed	Comment
Site Planning	Direct link from living area to POS	Lot 1- Appropriate link provided Lots 2 Appropriate link provided.	Complies Complies
	Design must respond to attributes of site including slope and existing vegetation.	Lot 1- Flat site Lots 2 – Flat site	Complies Complies
	Minimise overlooking from first floor windows to POS of neighbours.	Lot 1- Side windows frosted or highlight Lot 2 Side windows frosted or highlight.	Complies Complies
	Stormwater drained satisfactorily	Stormwater engineer satisfied with proposal.	Complies
Setbacks	Front setback 4.5m ground, 5.5m first floor	Lot 1 - 5.5m ground and first floor Lot 2 – 5.5m ground and first floor	Complies
	Garages to be setback minimum 1m behind main façade of dwelling.	Lot 1 – 1.5m Lot 2 – 800mm	Complies Doesn’t comply but satisfactory given projecting porch and balcony above
	Side 0.9m single storey 0.9m two storeys 4m Living room doors	Lot 1 – 0.9m other than garage Lot 2 - 0.9m	Complies Complies
	Rear 4m single storey 7m two storey 4m Living room doors	Lot 1 – 10.5 ground 14m first floor 10.5m living room Lot 2 – 10.5m ground 13m first floor 10.5m living room	Complies Complies
Landscaped Area and Private Open Space	Min 25% site to be landscaped Required Lot 1 92m² Lot 2 88.75m²	Lot 1 – 107m² 29.1% Lot 2 – 150m² 42.3%	Complies Complies
	Min 50% of front setback area to be landscaped	Lot 1 – >50% Lot 2 - <50%	Complies Breaches by small amount but appropriate landscape setting provided.
	4 x 5m area at rear	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 – Provided	Complies Complies
	3 x 3m area in front setback	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 - Provided	Complies Complies
Private Open Space	Min 60m² for lots > 400m²(minimum dimension 2.5m)	Lot 1 – 122m² Lot 2 – 123m²	Complies Complies
	50% of principle area to receive 3 hours sunlight	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 –Provided	Complies Complies
	Principal area of 4m x 6m directly accessible from main living area.	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 – Provided	Complies Complies
Cut and Fill, Building Design, Streetscape and Layout	Max cut 600mm	Lot 1 – Complies Lot 2 – Complies	Complies Complies
	Dwelling to be oriented to the street and pedestrian access visible from street	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 - Provided	Complies Complies
	Building facades articulated and roof form varied.	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 - Provided	Complies Complies
	Balcony above garage encouraged, but no balconies to side/rear of dwelling on first floor.	Lot 1- Provided above garage, side balcony provided above nil setback garage Lot 2 – Provided above garage only	Complies for garage. Side balcony satisfactory as adjoins blank wall and narrow (900mm) Complies
	Maximum width of garage doors 50% of building frontage.	Lot 1 – Complies Lot 2 – Complies	Complies Complies
	Provision of casual surveillance of street	Lot 1 – Provided Lot 2 Provided	Complies Complies
Landscaping	Plan to include canopy trees with mature height 8m	No information provided.	Unknown
	Principally comprise of native species	No information provided	Unknown
Fencing	Front fence max height 1.2mto be mini 30% transparent	No information provided	Unknown
Car Parking	2 spaces per dwelling	Lot 1 – 2 spaces Lot 2 – 2 spaces	Complies Complies
Overshadowing	Adjoining properties receive 3 hours sunlight to 50% of POS and living area	No shadow diagrams provided	Unknown, however orientation would suggest compliance with solar access to rear yard. No significant impact to rear facing (ie south-eastern living spaces)

It is noted that the FSR of the development could not be checked as there were no plans that could be scaled (plans were scanned and stored electronically such that when printed they would not scale accurately).

The floor space identified by the architect on the plans was unclear as the area proposed was given as a total and for each level of each dwelling but unfortunately the figures given did not correspond when the floor area of each level was added (discrepancies of 1-2m²).

The only assessment that can now be made is that either both dwellings complied or one complied and the other one exceeded the control by a maximum of 1m². Whilst such a variation is minor and would have been acceptable, if it occurred it would have needed a Clause 4.6 variation request and none was provided.

Based on the above assessment of the application against the relevant planning controls the development is of a nature that would have warranted a recommendation for approval, potentially after consideration of additional shadow information and submission of a Clause 4.6 variation request to the height control on Lot 1 and potentially a Clause 4.6 variation request to the FSR control on Lot 1.

Therefore, notwithstanding the poor level of assessment undertaken, the result of a recommendation for approval is a reasonable planning outcome.

peer review DA-1286/2012/A

DA-1286/2012 granted consent for a two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision, erection of a dwelling house on each proposed lot and construction of a swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 as has been discussed above.

DA-1286/2012/A was lodged on 18 January 2013 and was a Section 96(1) modification application seeking to amend condition No. 14, as follows, of development consent DA-1286/2012.

Land Consolidation/Registration

14. The proposed lots must be registered. The applicant shall provide evidence that the linen plan, for the required lot registration, endorsed by Council, has been registered with the LPI Service. This is to be provided to Council prior to the release of any CC.

The amendment sought to delay the requirement to register the subdivision until prior to the release of any Occupation Certificate.

Review of Process

A review of the file revealed the following:

· The application was referred to the Development Engineer to review the change to the condition and no objection was raised by the Development Engineer.

· A delegated assessment report in the form of a memo to the Manager Statutory Planning was prepared by a development assessment planner.

· A Notice of Determination amending the consent was issued, signed by the Manager Statutory Planning on 19 February 2013.

The above process is considered appropriate for a minor modification application. It is noted that the electronic record system does not include a signed version of the assessment report and as such there is no official “paper trail” of the approval under delegation. However, as the Notice of Determination has been signed by the Manager Statutory Planning it can be assumed that the report’s recommendation was approved under delegation.

Review of Assessment/Recommendation

The assessment report prepared is considered to be a less than thorough report. The report clearly identifies the modification proposed but provides no background of the approved development on the site. The report identifies the requirements of s96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and assesses correctly that the modified development is substantially the same as the development granted consent. The report also correctly confirms that the modification would not have any environmental impact.

The report is silent as to whether notification is required for the application and as such does not appropriately address the requirements of Section 96(1A)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It is noted that the provisions of LDCP 2008 are such that notification is not required for such an application. The report also fails to address the relevant planning controls or the reasonableness of the amendment to the condition, simply concluding that as the modification has no environmental impact and is for substantially the same development and that it is “worthy of support”.

An assessment against the relevant planning controls shows that the amendment to the condition’s timing would not impact the original assessment that the proposed development was satisfactory. The assessment of the appropriateness of the change in timing to the registration of the subdivision is that the change can be supported as the enforcement of registration of the subdivision is necessary prior to the use being commenced, which occurs after the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

As such, notwithstanding the less than thorough report prepared for the assessment of this application, the recommendation is concurred with.

peer review DA-1286/2012/B

DA-1286/2012, as modified, granted consent for a two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision, erection of a dwelling house on each proposed lot and construction of a swimming pool on proposed Lot 1 as has been discussed above.

DA-1286/2012/B was lodged on 7 August 2013 and was a Section 96(1A) modification application seeking to amend the design of the dwelling on Proposed Lot 1 by deleting the internal courtyard and increasing the floor space by 16.8m².

Review of Process

A review of the file revealed the following:

· The Allocating Notes for the Assessing Officer appropriately identified the application breached the FSR control under LEP 2008 and that a clause 4.6 variation request was not necessary. The notes indicated that notification should occur to adjoining properties.

· The application was referred to the Development Engineer to review the change to the plans and no objection was raised by the Development Engineer, with no changes required to the original conditions.

· The application was referred to the Building Surveyor to review the change to the plans and no objection was raised by the Building Surveyor.

· As the application was on land with a financial interest by a Councillor, the application was referred to an independent planning consultant for assessment.

· An assessment report was prepared by an independent planning consultant.

· No record exists in Council’s hard or electronic files of the assessment report being approved under delegation or otherwise.

· A Notice of Determination amending the consent was issued, signed by the Manager Statutory Planning on 27 September 2013.

The above process is considered appropriate for the modification application. It is noted that the electronic record system does not include the assessment report which was approved under delegation and as such there is no official “paper trail” of the approval under delegation. However, as the Notice of Determination has been signed by the Manager Statutory Planning is can be assumed that the report’s recommendation was approved under delegation.

Review of Assessment/Recommendation

The assessment report prepared is considered to be an appropriately thorough report and it is noted that the application was assessed as a s96(2), rather than s96(1A), application as was sought, which is appropriate given the scale of the changes. The report clearly identifies the modification proposed and the background of development on the site. The report identifies the requirements of s96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and assesses correctly that the modified development is substantially the same as the development granted consent.

The report correctly confirms that notification was carried out under LDCP 2008 and that no submissions were received. The report appropriately assesses that the modification application does not change the assessment of the development against the provisions of the applicable SEPPs.

In its assessment against the provisions of LLEP 2008 appropriate consideration is given to permissibility, height and FSR controls. The variation proposed to the maximum FSR controls was appropriately specified and reasons were given as to why a variation of the control should be supported on the site, including the small numerical variation, the lack of impact and the compliance with LDCP 2008 provisions.

In its assessment against the relevant provisions of LDCP 2008, the report appropriately considers the provisions that may be impacted by the change to the floor space, including landscaped area and private open space, both of which remain compliant.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

DPG 04

Post Exhibition Report - Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 60), 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	299967.2016
Report By	Ian Stendara - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

311 Hume Highway, Liverpool

Lot 71 DP 1004792

Owner

Hume Developments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Hume Developments Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council, at its meeting on 30 September 2015 resolved to support a planning proposal to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008) for land at 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool, (Lot 71, DP 1004792), and to submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) for Gateway Determination.

The report is to inform Council about the results of the public authority consultation and public submissions for Draft Amendment 60. Accordingly the purpose of this report is to assess the comments received from the public authorities and members of the public, not to assess the merits of the proposal itself. The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the subject site from B6 – Enterprise Corridor to B4 – Mixed Use. The draft amendment will amend the LLEP 2008 as follows:

· Amend the maximum building heights for the land, from 45m and 24m to 100m and 25m;

· Increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the land from 2.5:1 to 6:1;

· Remove the green border surrounding the land from the Key Sites maps, which refers to clause 7.22 of the LLEP 2008 (Development in Zone B6); and

· Amend clause 1.8A to allow any outstanding DA applying to the site to be assessed against the draft development standards, provided they are adopted.

The draft amendment would permit the site to be developed in a manner which relates to the Skyhaus development opposite, to provide a consistency of built form on this key intersection.

It is recommended that the draft amendment should proceed unchanged, and should be submitted to the Department for finalisation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft Amendment 60).

2. Forwards a copy of the attached draft amendment and supporting documentation to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation.

Report

Site Context and Background

The subject site is currently vacant, characterised only by a deep excavation after buildings were demolished as part of a previous development consent. The site has been subject to numerous historic development applications. These applications have typically consisted of mixed use residential development with ground-level retail. The most recent consent (DA-434/2008/A) permits 93 residential units, 3,600sqm of retail space (including a full-line supermarket) and 2,500sqm of commercial floor-space in a built-to-boundary development.

The proposed rezoning of the subject site was recommended by Council officers following a formal meeting held on 19 November 2014 (PL-71/2014). Council officers were concerned about the outcomes of the existing DA (DA-434/2008/A), which embodies multiple inconsistencies with the LLEP 2008, particularly with regard to land-use, building height, and FSR. Further, the DA is not considered sympathetic to the Collingwood Hotel (the adjacent heritage item).

A planning proposal was lodged on 15 January 2015 by SJB Planning, on behalf of Hume Developments Pty Ltd, for the site, identified in Figure 1 below. The application was subsequently amended prior to the exhibition period, as detailed in this report.

The site includes three street frontages: the Hume Highway to the east, Hoxton Park Road to the north and Gillespie Street to the west. The site has the shape of two joined rectangles as shown in Figure 2 below. The site is next to a heritage item, being the Collingwood Hotel and Woodward Park lies across Hoxton Park Road to the north.

The proposed amendment seeks planning controls which would allow the site to be developed in a manner that is commensurate with the site opposite (Skyhaus). This includes increasing building height controls, increasing FSR controls, rezoning the site from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B4 Mixed Use, and removing application of clause 7.22 to the site (Development in zone B6).

Figure 1: Site context, zoning and aerial identification map (site indicated and shown in yellow).

Gateway Determination, and pre-exhibition amendment to the Planning Proposal

Council received gateway for the planning proposal on 5 April 2016 (attached). The gateway determination required:

1. Council was to further assess the loss in start-up business opportunities within the vicinity of the city centre;

2. Change the mechanism through which the LEP would require ground level retail;

3. Consultation with public authorities; and

4. Public exhibition.

Council complied with the first two conditions, and sent a revised planning proposal to the Department. The Department sent a letter to Council on 8 July 2016 acknowledging that the first two conditions had been fulfilled. Following this, a copy of the planning proposal was sent to the relevant public authorities on 20 July, with a period of 21 days to provide comment. After receiving comments from public authorities, the planning proposal and development application was placed on public exhibition from 7 September until 7 October 2016.

Prior to public exhibition, an amendment to clause 1.8A of the LLEP 2008 was included, to ensure that the DA, which has been lodged by the applicant, could be assessed against these new LEP provisions.

Publically exhibited amendment to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008

The following proposed amendments to the LLEP 2008 were publically exhibited:

· Amendment of the Zoning Maps to rezone the site from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B4 Mixed Use;

· Inclusion of clause 7.36 applying to the site to allow residential dwellings to be provided on the ground floor subject to the provision of non-residential floor space and an active street frontage;

· Amendment of the maximum building height(s) for the site, varying between 100 metres for a section fronting the Hume Highway and to 25 metres for the rest of the site;

· Amendment of the maximum floor space ratio for the site from 2.5:1 to 6:1;

· Removal of the green border surrounding the site from the Key Sites maps, which refers to clause 7.22 of the LLEP 2008 (Development in Zone B6); and

· Amendment of Clause 1.8A to allow for any outstanding Development Applications applying to the site to be assessed against the proposed controls.

The proposed changes to the LLEP Maps are shown in Figures 2 - 5 below. The amended building height and floor-space ratio controls will allow for the building form to be consistent with the development opposite.

Clause 7.36 would be inserted as follows:

7.36 Active street frontages for land at 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool

(1) The objective of this clause is to:

(a) Promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic on the ground floor street frontage facing the Hume Highway, and

(b) Provide employment opportunities, and

(c) Protect residents from noise and poor amenity in proximity to the Hume Highway at 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool.

(2) Clause 7.16 does not apply to the land described in (1) above.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development on the land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that any part of a building within 30m of the Hume Highway has an active street frontage addressing any street.

(4) Despite subclause (3), an active street frontage is not required for any part of a building that is used for any of the following:

(a) entrances and lobbies (including as part of mixed use development),

(b) access for fire services,

(c) vehicular access,

(5) In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building are for non-residential uses (excluding areas for car parking) and building(s) provide passive surveillance and access to the adjoining street.

Clause 7.36 would ensure that buildings which face the Hume Highway will consists of small shop-fronts, rather than blank walls, services, or other features which would detract from the streetscape. Having residential uses facing the Hume Highway would create an unacceptable amenity outcome for future residents. It is considered that small shopfronts on Hoxton Park Road and Gillespie Street would be less viable because of lower passing foot traffic volumes on these roads. This clause is consistent with the active street frontage maps in LLEP 2008 (Amendment 52).

Clause 1.8A requires an amendment to ensure that a development application lodged for the site, can be assessed against the provisions of this amendment. Currently, the savings provision clause requires that any development application be assessed as if the amendment had not commenced. The decision to include Clause 1.8A (2) comes as a result of the decision of Craig J in De Angelis v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1.

1.8A Savings provision relating to pending development approvals

(1) If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had been exhibited but had not commenced.

(2) To avoid doubt, Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment No 60) applies to the determination of a development application made (but not finally determined) before the commencement of that Plan.

Figure 2: Current and Proposed Land Use Zone Maps (site bordered in heavy black lines)

Figure 3: Current and Proposed Floor Space Ratio Maps (site bordered in heavy black lines)

Figure 4: Current and Proposed Maximum Building Height Maps (Area ‘AC’ is a rectangle with a depth of 30m from the Hume Highway) (site bordered in heavy black lines)

Figure 5: Current and Proposed Key Sites Maps (Changes in Bold; change involves removing application of clause 7.22 to the site only)

CONSULTATION

Comments from Public Authorities

The Gateway determination (PP_2015_LPOOL_007_00) required Council to provide the public authorities, below, with a copy of the draft amendment. Authorities were given a period of at least 21 days to comment, and late comments were accepted. Responses are detailed below:

State Agency:	Response:
Department of Education	No comments received.
Endeavour Energy	No comments received.
Transport for NSW	No comments received.
Department of Health	No comments received.
NSW Police Force	Do not object to the draft amendment, but made comment with regards to details of the Development Application.
Roads and Maritime Service	Do not object to the draft amendment, provided that any future DA provides access from Gillespie Street, and that the development does not impact upon RMS operated land. Turn-movements at the intersection of Hoxton Park Road and Gillespie Street will be restricted to left-in left-out only. For any development application, the applicant shall undertake a noise attenuation assessment and remedial measures which take into account a future grade separation of the Hume Highway and Hoxton Park Road.
Sydney Water:	Do not object to the draft amendment; however, any development may require wastewater amplification works.
Telstra	Do not object to the draft amendment.
Sydney Metro Airport	Do not object to the draft amendment as the maximum building height will be beneath the Obstacle Limitation Surface and PANS/OPS. Any construction cranes which may breach the surface will be subject to a separate approval process.

Council officers concluded that the comments received from public authorities did not require any changes to the draft amendment.

Public Submissions

The draft amendment was subject to public exhibition for a period of 30 days. In total, four complete submissions were made to Council for both the DA and the draft amendment, all of which opposed the development (details of submissions attached). In addition to the four complete submissions, a letter was received detailing that a late submission would be sent. Council has not received this submission and it has been more than a month since the exhibition period. Submissions involved a number of themes and are summarised below:

Submitter Themes

Officer Response

A1 Traffic: Cumulative Impacts.

Has Council considered the cumulative impacts of traffic as part of this proposal?

The proposed B4 scenario along with the proposed DA has been modelled and it is concluded that it will generate less traffic than the existing B6 scenario and the existing consent. In these circumstances, it is considered inappropriate to demand a cumulative traffic study of Liverpool, as this is beyond the scope of this draft amendment.

A2 Traffic: Local Impacts

There will be the risk of additional accidents at the intersection of Gillespie Street and the Hume Highway with a large number of units proposed.

Right turn movements from Gillespie Street to Hoxton Park Road and vice versa will be banned. This will reduce the number of conflict points at the intersection and improve safety.

A3 Traffic: Alternative transport options.

Has Council considered pedestrian & cyclist access?

Will Council improve pedestrian connectivity across the Hume Highway?

Has Council given thought to adding bus lanes?

The site is within walking distance of the Liverpool City Centre. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure exists in proximity to the site, which could be improved. The Liverpool Bike Plan 2009 proposes a new shared path to link the site to the Liverpool City Centre.

Council officers are of the opinion that increased densities should require a pedestrian crossing on the southern side of the Hume Highway intersection.

The Hume Highway and Hoxton Park Road are both classified roads and managed by the RMS.

A4 Traffic: Parking Impacts

Additional vehicles will most likely utilise the Collingwood Hotel for Parking.

The development will offer adequate secure parking for residents and on-site parking for retail customers/workers.

B1 Community Consultation:

The draft amendment is not easily found on Council’s website.

A local landowner commented that they were not informed of the draft amendment.

Letters sent out to residents and the advertisement in the newspaper provided a direct link to the relevant documentation.

Council sent letters to any property owners within 150m of the site.

B2 Community Consultation: Committees.

This draft amendment was not mentioned at the Heritage Advisory Committee

Council is not required to notify Committees under the EP&A Act 1979.

C Heritage Impact.

The site may contain archaeological artefacts.

The buildings should be setback to maintain view lines to Collingwood Hotel.

The site has been previously disturbed by excavation, and any excavation on-site will need to be assessed at the DA stage.

Whilst this is a DA issue, Council officers have provided input into the DA to advocate that buildings are setback, and landscaping allows for view lines to the hotel from the intersection of Hume Highway and Hoxton Park Road.

D1 Overshadowing of Collingwood Hotel:

The proposed development and building heights will significantly overshadow the heritage listed Collingwood Hotel.

The proposed design will have significant overshadowing on its own open space, and on adjoining land.

The proposed building heights applying to the site will indeed result in overshadowing of the Collingwood Hotel. However, the current maximum building height (45m) would also overshadow the hotel and beer garden.

The site’s orientation makes it difficult to provide solar access into such spaces. As above, any development would create over-shadowing.

D2 Scale:

The scale of buildings at 311 Hume Highway is much higher than that of adjoining sites.

The desired building form at 311 Hume Highway is designed to provide consistent building heights for towers at this gateway intersection. The building height would match the Skyhaus development.

E Access to Education:

Where will children from this, and other high rise developments go to school?

Council forwarded a copy of the draft amendment to the NSW Department of Education and Communities. No objection was received.

F Access to jobs:

There are not enough jobs in Liverpool to support additional development, leading to more congested roads/public transport.

Future residents may indeed travel to other areas for work, but Liverpool is set to be a major employment centre within the Sydney metropolitan area.

G Density:

It is inappropriate to increase population density within Liverpool to that of densely populated cities.

It is important to redevelop inner established area that benefit from existing infrastructure and services, including multiple transport options, as this will provide some relief to urban expansion.

H Context and Impact on Surrounding Land:

Land in surrounding lots will be isolated, and land uses may be incompatible if the amendment were to proceed.

It is acknowledged that the land use on adjoining sites would be significantly different. Therefore, it is suggested that land-uses on adjoining sites are also investigated at a later stage. Council officers should liaise with the owner of the adjoining site to consider amending land uses applying to their site.

I Consistent Building Form:

The draft amendment includes a concept plans which cannot be realised on adjoining sites.

Council officers are aware that planning controls applying to adjoining sites may need to be reviewed.

J1 Design Matters: Setbacks

J2 Design Matters: Landscaping

J3 Design Matters: Visual Appearance

J4 Design Matters: Open Space

These are matters which relate to the development application lodged for the site. The draft amendment does not consider design issues.

Summary of issues

Some of the issues raised in the exhibition are not unique to this site, and are applicable to any development in Liverpool more broadly, such as access to jobs and education, traffic, density, and exhibition requirements. Some aspects are beyond the scope of the draft amendment, and are better suited as comments to the DA, such as the building design and party walls. Concerns surrounding scale, impact on the Collingwood Hotel, overshadowing and parking have been considered, and it is deemed that the draft amendment will have an acceptable level of impact. The proposed development would result in a built form superior to that which the current approved DA would achieve. For example, the building setbacks will allow for view lines to the Collingwood Hotel from the Hume Highway intersection. It is noted that overshadowing of the beer garden would occur as a result of any development regardless of this amendment.

Finally, the question regarding the zoning and development standards for 4-8 Hoxton Park Road, although unresolved, is considered to be beyond the scope of this proposal. This issue, regarding inconsistent land use and opportunities on neighbouring sites, is acknowledged and dialogue with the owner(s) is recommended.

Conclusion

As outlined above, Council received 4 submissions which objected to the draft amendment. Issues raised include: traffic impact (including local and cumulative issues), the exhibition procedure, heritage impact, overshadowing, scale, access to education, access to employment, density, context (surrounding land-uses and impacts on adjoining sites), building form, and building design matters. In its assessment, Council officers are of the opinion that the negative effects of the draft amendment are outweighed by the opportunities presented.

The draft amendment will allow for a development on the site which is commensurate with the development opposite (Skyhaus). Landowners at 4-8 Hoxton Park Road, Liverpool will be able to lodge a draft amendment for their site, in which development standards could be addressed.

Council Officers recommend that the draft amendment should be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation, unchanged.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate development which will create additional demand for commercial and retail services in the Liverpool CBD.
Environmental and Sustainability	Encourage urban renewal and redevelopment of brownfield land.
Social and Cultural	Encourage a mix of housing choices that responds to different population groups.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Summary of Submissions - Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 (Amendment 60), 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool View (Under separate cover)

2. Amended Planning Proposal (November 2016) for LLEP 2008 Amendment No.60 (311 Hume Highway, Liverpool)View (Under separate cover)

3. Gateway Determination Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 (Amendment 60), 311 Hume Highway, Liverpool View (Under separate cover)

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Celebrate and respect Liverpool’s rich cultural and social diversity and embrace the opportunities it provides
Key Policy	Multicultural Action Plan
File Ref	301473.2016
Author	Nathan Hagarty - Councillor

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Reduce adverse environment impacts for present and future generations
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	302891.2016
Author	Geoff Shelton - Councillor

Meeting date	Comments
1 February 2017	First meeting after January break to deal with accumulated business.
22 February 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
29 March 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
26 April 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
31 May 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
28 June 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
26 July 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
30 August 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
27 September 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
25 October 2017	Last Wednesday of the month.
22 November 2017	Fourth Wednesday of the month.
13 December 2017	Second Wednesday of the month.

Registration	Description	Cost (excl GST)		Accumulated Depreciation	Written Down Value	Purchase Date
Registration	Description	SES Contribution	Council Contribution	Accumulated Depreciation	Written Down Value	Purchase Date
BG95WO	Nissan Navara 2.5L	$28,948.50	$28,948.50	$57,897	$0.00	Jul-10
BG94WO	Nissan Navara 2.5L	$28,948.50	$28,948.50	$57,897	$0.00	Jul-10
BN08VK	Isuzu NPR30	$60,000.00	$56,082.00	$84,879.51	$31,202.49	Feb-12
AO20DZ	Subaru Forester 2.5L	$8,500.00	$20,693.00	$29,193	$0.00	2007

Registration	Current resale value (Estimated)	Resale value - Council's share
BG95WO	$22,000	$11,000
BG94WO	$22,000	$11,000
BN08VK	$40,000	$20,000
AO20DZ	$5,000	$3,500

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Lead partnerships and collaboration with community, business and governments
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	292968.2016
Report By	Alana Marshall - Senior Corporate Planner
Approved By	Hiba Soueid - Acting Director Business Improvement

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial center that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The Strategic Panel will allow a coordinated and integrated approach to addressing key community issues.

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Good governance
File Ref	270501.2016
Report By	David Maguire - Governance Coordinator
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Economic and Financial	Cost to Council of dealing with complaints
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Economic and Financial	The purpose of this panel will be to review the budget in order for Council to ensure budget is accountable and transparent.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Economic and Financial	The audited financial results for the year ended 30 June 2016 are contained and presented within the report.
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.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Improve the community’s sense of safety in Liverpool
Key Policy	Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy
File Ref	288650.2016
Report By	Jeya Jeyananthan - Maintenance Planning and Reports Coordinator
Approved By	Wayne Carter - Director City Presentation

Economic and Financial	There are economic and financial considerations. It is estimated a loss of $43K from sales, however a $10K savings per annum is anticipated from not having to manage the SES vehicles.
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.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Create clean and attractive public places for people to engage and connect
Key Policy	Strategic Maintenance Plan
File Ref	292896.2016
Report By	Jeya Jeyananthan - Maintenance Planning and Reports Coordinator
Approved By	Wayne Carter - Director City Presentation

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices
Key Policy	Domestic Waste Management Policy
File Ref	298938.2016
Report By	Rebecca Scarpin - Waste Management Coordinator
Approved By	Wayne Carter - Director City Presentation

Economic and Financial	The proposed changes to the policy have positive financial impacts however these impacts are insignificant to the domestic waste budget.
Environmental and Sustainability	Minimise household and commercial waste going to landfill. Improve recycling and recovery rates. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. 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. Improve community reputation and standing. Support policies and plans that prevent illegal dumping. Supports Disability and Inclusion Plan
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Deliver services that are customer focused.

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity
Key Policy	Events Strategy
File Ref	032074.2016
Report By	Vi Girgis - Acting Policy and Projects Officer
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

Economic and Financial	Monitor, analyse and review Council expenditure to achieve the best value outcomes for the community.
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.

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
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	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes.

Strategic Direction	Accessible Connected City Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network
Key Policy	Traffic and Transport Plan
File Ref	304981.2016
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Casual Parking	Previous Fees 2015/2016	New Fees 2016/2017
0-1 hrs	$2.00	$2.10
1-2 hrs	$3.00	$4.20
2-3 hrs	$6.00	$6.30
3-4 hrs	$8.00	$8.40
4-5 hrs	$9.00	$10.50
5 hrs +	$13.00	$14.00
Maximum day rate	$13.00	$14.00

Casual Parking	Fees 2015/2016	Current Fees 2016/2017	Proposed Fees 2016/2017	% Fee Decrease from current 2016/2017
*Up to 1 hour*	$2.00	$2.10	$2.00	5%
*>1 - 2 hrs*	$3.00	$4.20	$4.00	5%
*>2 - 3 hrs*	$6.00	$6.30	$6.00	5%
*>3 - 4 hrs*	$8.00	$8.40	$8.00	5%
*>4 - 5 hrs*	$9.00	$10.50	$10.00	5%
*5 hrs +*	$13.00	$14.00	$14.00	0%
*Maximum day rate*	$13.00	$14.00	$14.00	0%

Economic and Financial	Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environmental and Sustainability	Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The recommendation provides opportunity to advocate for the local community. The recommendations are required in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Item	Description	Funding Arrangements
1	Ingham Drive, Casula – Request for Pedestrian Refuge	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
2	Croatia Avenue, Edmondson Park – Sign Posting and Line Marking DHA Site	Developer
3	Wilson Road, Hinchinbrook – Central Median	Developer
4	Kurrajong Road, Carnes Hill – Mid-block Traffic Signals	No impact on Council’s budget.
5	Braidwood Drive / Wroxham Street, Prestons – Request for Pedestrian Facilities	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
6	South West Community Transport – Request for designated drop-off and pick-up points in the Liverpool City Centre	RMS Block Grant
7	Nagle Street, Liverpool – Pedestrian Crossing	No impact on Council’s budget.

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement
Key Policy	Events Strategy
File Ref	293074.2016
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Economic and Financial	There are some financial implications which can be funded from existing budgets.
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.