COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

14 December 2016

 

FRANCIS GREENWAY CENTRE

170 GEORGE STREET LIVERPOOL


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby notified that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held at the Francis Greenway Centre, 170 George Street, Liverpool on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 commencing at 6.00pm. Doors to the Francis Greenway Centre will open at 5.50pm.

 

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

 

 

 

 


Kiersten Fishburn

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 


Opening

Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer

Apologies 

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 November 2016........................................................... 9

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

NIL

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01          Corporate Sponsorships................................................................................. 74......... 1

CEO 02          Cost Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Internal Ombudsman ....................... 85......... 2

Business Improvement Report

NIL

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01           Investment Report November 2016............................................................... 89......... 3

City Presentation Report

NIL

 

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01          Reconciliation Action Plan 2016 - 2020.......................................................... 97......... 4

DCC 02          Precinct Co-ordination - Carnes Hill and City Centre................................... 119......... 5

Economic Development Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01          Renewal of the netball courts at Woodward Park, Liverpool....................... 126......... 6

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01          Planning Proposal for Leppington Pastoral Company at 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale..................................................................................................... 130......... 7

DPG 02          Planning Proposal for 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (Residential and Business Uses and changes to maximum height, floor space ratio and minimum lot size).......................................................................................... 134......... 8

DPG 03          Planning Proposal for 5-9 Bridges Road Moorebank (Residential and Business Uses and changes to maximum height and floor space ratio and minimum lot size).. 157......... 9

DPG 04          Planning Proposal for 1 Moorebank Avenue and 3 Helles Avenue, Moorebank      182 10

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01         Liverpool Youth Council Meeting Minutes 9 November, 2016..................... 202....... 11

CTTE 02         Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 9 November 2016 209       12

CTTE 03         Minutes of Strategic Panel 30 November 2016........................................... 213....... 13

Questions with Notice

NIL

Presentations by Councillors

NIL

Notices of Motion

NOM 01          Open and Green Spaces Strategy............................................................... 219....... 14

NOM 02          Basketball...................................................................................................... 222....... 15

NOM 03          Children's Parliament ................................................................................... 224....... 16  

 

 

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   Waste Management Audit and Process Review Update

Reason:     Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 

CONF 02   Legal Affairs Report

Reason:     Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) (d ii) (g) 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; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

CONF 03   Tender WT2592 - Supply and Install Automatic Irrigation System - Bigge Park

Reason:     Item CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 

CONF 04   Tender WT2591 - Spa Renewal Works at Whitlam Leisure Centre

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

 

CONF 05   Tender ST2575 – Austral and Leppington North – Design of Water Management Infrastructure

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

 

CONF 06   Acquisition of part of three properties at Edmondson Park for the realignment of Croatia Avenue

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   Acquisition of an easement over part Lot 101 DP 1143458, 306 Macquarie Street, Liverpool

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 road closure and disposal of part Scott and Terminus Street, Liverpool and Newbridge Road, Liverpool

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   Former Council Administration Centre, 1 Hoxton Park Road, Liverpool

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   Floodplain Management Committee Review

Reason:     Item CONF 10 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).  

Close


 

 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK
 

 

 


 

 


THIS PAGE IS BLANK 


 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 23 November 2016

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor Wendy Waller

Councillor Ayyad

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti (arrived at the meeting at 6.25pm)

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Hagarty

Councillor Harle

Councillor Kaliyanda

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Rhodes

Councillor Shelton

Mr Kiersten Fishburn, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Dr Eddie Jackson, Acting Director Community and Culture

Mr Wayne Carter, Director City Presentation

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Madhu Pudasaini, Acting Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Hiba Soueid, Acting Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.00pm.

 

 

OPENING                                6.00pm

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT        The Prayer of the Council was read by Father Anthony    

OF COUNTRY, PRAYER       Morgan from St George and Prince Tadros Coptic Orthodox

OF COUNCIL AND                 Church.

AFFIRMATION TO BE

READ BY

APOLOGIES                           Nil

CONDOLENCES

 

Mr Dave Pack (as read by Clr Shelton)

 

“Regretfully, I advise the Council of the passing of Dave Pack on 10 October 2016 and the subsequent celebration of his life on 24 October 2016 at North Chapel Forrest Lawn Memorial Park, Leppington.

 

I knew Dave Pack through his association with the Liverpool and District Historical Society which organisation was in the words of their President devastated to learn of his passing. The Society itself in its current form goes back to 1959 and he was a long serving member, particularly with respect to its trading table. The President has also described him as a ‘dedicated, hard-working and loyal servant’, and on Australia Day of this year he received a Member of Liverpool Award. As much could not have been more appropriate given that his spouse, Judy Pack, had in turn received Liverpool’s Senior Citizen of the Year Award on Australia Day of 2015. As most people here know she passed on a few days later, and I recall reading a motion of condolence for her before Council at that time.

 

As with most of us Dave and Judy were a migrant family having migrated to Australia from England in 1990. They joined the Historical Society in 1991 and dedicated the rest of their lives not just to the support of the Society but also to various other community groups. He was at times officially Vice-President, Librarian and operator of the trading table and less officially, Mr Fix-it, but his role was much larger than the positions he formally held.

 

He has played no less than the role of Governor Lachlan Macquarie in the 1990s and the 2000s during Council civic functions where he regularly dressed in costume for the occasion. He also maintained an interest in amateur radio.

 

He was 82 when he passed on after a period of declining health, and will be sorely missed.

I humbly extend my condolences to his family members and all who knew him.

May he rest in peace.

 

I also acknowledge the assistance of the current President of the Liverpool and District Historical Society, Mr G. Op Den Brouw in providing background material for these comments.”

 

Motion:                                   Moved: Clr Shelton             Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That Council adopt the usual formality of a minute’s silence.

 

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

 

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Motion:                                   Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 12 October 2016 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 26 October 2016 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting.
record of that meeting.

 

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

 

Declarations of Interest

 

Clr Rhodes declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

 

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

Reason:              The Catholic Club lodged an objection to the application and is an occasional advertiser in a publication she produces.

 

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

 

Clr Ayyad declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

 

Item DPG 03:     Development Applications lodged with an interest declared by Councillors

Reason:              Clr Ayyad and her husband own property which is referred to in the report.

 

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

 

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

 

Item DCC 02:     Strong Children and Communities Project

Reason:              Clr Hagarty’s daughter is in the Children’s Parliament.

 

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

 

 

Public Forum

 

Presentation – Items not on agenda

 

  1. Ms Ellie Robertson addressed Council on the following matter:

 

Lighting and CCTV Cameras at Wattle Grove Lake

 

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 6.10pm.

 

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 6.12pm.

 

Clr Hadid left the Chambers at 6.13pm. 

 

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 6.14pm.

 

Representation – Items on agenda

 

  1. Mr Robert Gizzi from Design Workshop Australia addressed Council on the following item:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Mr Peter Tomasetti on behalf of Mr Giuseppe Calarco addressed Council on the following item:

 

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

 

Motion:                                Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Mr Frank Mosca from Mosca Pserras Architects addressed Council on the following item:

 

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

 

Motion:                                Moved: Clr Balloot               Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

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

 

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

 

Clr Hadchiti arrived to the meeting at 6.25pm.


 

Notices of Motion

 

ITEM NO:      NOM 01

FILE NO:        301470.2016

SUBJECT:     Drug and Alcohol Testing

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That:

 

1.   The Mayor and Councillors be required to undertake mandatory drug and alcohol testing.

 

2.   The Acting CEO report back to Council on the benefits and drawbacks of implementing mandatory drug and alcohol testing for all council staff.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Balloot               Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That this motion be withdrawn.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      NOM 02

FILE NO:        301473.2016

SUBJECT:     Commitment to Multiculturalism

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Reaffirms its commitment to multiculturalism.

 

2.   Acknowledges the positive contribution that migrants, refugees and the indigenous community have made to this city and this nation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council:

 

1.   Reaffirms its commitment to multiculturalism.

 

  1. Acknowledges the positive contribution that migrants, refugees and the indigenous community have made to this city and this nation.

 

  1. Supports initiatives through multiculturalism that unites and does not divide the Australian community.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      NOM 03

FILE NO:        302891.2016

SUBJECT:     Cooling the Street - Western Sydney

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Investigates whether it is possible, formally or informally, to participate in the 'Cool Streets' project (or other projects with similar objectives,

 

2.   Writes to WSROC expressing its interest in this and future projects/applications for funding of a similar nature, and

3.   Where as much is not already programmed to happen in any event reports to councillors as to possible future applications, individual or joint, for 'Building Resistance to Climate Change' funding and more generally participation in future programs of a similar nature as they become available.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council:

 

  1. Investigates whether it is possible, formally or informally, to participate in the 'Cool Streets' project (or other projects with similar objectives,

 

  1. Writes to WSROC expressing its interest in this and future projects/applications for funding of a similar nature, and

 

  1. Where as much is not already programmed to happen in any event reports to Councillors as to possible future applications, individual or joint, for ‘Building Resistance to Climate Change’ funding and more generally participation in future programs of a similar nature as they become available.

 

  1. Notes also the comments of the CEO with respect to this motion (as shown below) and investigates the environmental levy as a funding source in the event there is a shortfall after receipt of grant funding.

 

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

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMMENTS

 

WSROC has established a working which is progressing a range of activities to tackle urban heat in the region. These activities are described below.

 

Urban Heat Working Party

An urban heat working party has been established, currently consisting of Parramatta, Blacktown, Penrith and Canterbury-Bankstown. The four member Councils have implemented a range of actions in their LGAs as follows:

 

WSROC has advised they would welcome Liverpool joining the working party.

Microclimate and Urban Heat Island Mitigation Decision-Support Tool

WSROC has partnered with UNSW on a research project to develop a Microclimate and Urban Heat Island (UHI) Mitigation Decision-Support Tool. The project aims to develop an Urban heat mitigation decision support tool to inform development assessment and planning practices for local government and other stakeholders. It will collate and integrate a whole range of scientific models and mitigation techniques to ultimately develop an UHI mitigation performance index. Other project partners include Swinburne University of Technology, City of Sydney, Greater Sydney Commission, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), UrbanGrowth NSW, BlueScope Steel, AECOM, Stocklands and Parramatta Council.

 

A copy of the project outline is attached to this report for the information of Councillors.

 

Urban greening project – Cooling the Streets-Western Sydney

WSROC has applied for funding for an urban greening project (Cooling the Streets – Western Sydney) under the Building Resilience to Climate Change funding. This project is a partnership between WSROC, Blacktown, City of Parramatta, Canterbury-Bankstown and the three Local Health Districts (West, South-West and Nepean Blue mountains). Cool Streets aims to assist councils with choosing the right green cover to mitigate urban heat and has a strong focus on council staff and community education.

 

The proposed project aims to:

  • Develop a plan for implementing effective street tree canopy cover across Western Sydney
  • Measure economic and social benefits
  • Build community and stakeholder participation and support

 

The project is to be implemented in several stages:

  • Research modelling which quantifies the climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits from retrofitting suburban streets (eight pilot sites).
  • Education and skills-building of key stakeholders (council staff).
  • Community engagement and education.
  • Implementation of street tree planting in eight Western Sydney streets.

The total estimated project cost is $129,720 (excl GST)

 

The maximum funding available through the Building Resilience to Climate change funding is $80,000. Therefore, should the application be successful, WSROC proposes that the balance of $49,720 should be divided evenly among the participating councils. If Liverpool wishes to participate, the cost would be $12,430 per council based on four councils participating. If the funding application is unsuccessful, the cost would be $32,430 per council if four councils participate.

 

There is currently no funding identified in the 2016/17 budget and funds would need to be identified if Council wishes to participate.

 

Conclusion

It is recommended Council write to WSROC to confirm our request to join the working party.  

If Council also wishes to participate in the Cooling the Streets – Western Sydney project, funds would need to be identified in the current budget.

 


Clr Rhodes left the Chambers at 6.32pm.

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

ITEM NO:      IHAP 01

FILE NO:        288322.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Mayor Waller

                                                Clr Ayyad

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hagarty

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Kaliyanda

                                                Clr Shelton

 

Vote against:                         Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Karnib

 

 


Clr Rhodes returned to the Chambers at 6.40pm.

 

Business Improvement Report

 

ITEM NO:      DBI 01

FILE NO:        292968.2016

SUBJECT:     Draft Strategic Panel Charter

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Approves and adopts the Strategic Panel Charter.

 

2.    Notes that the first Strategic Panel meeting will be held on Wednesday 30 November.

 

3.    Removes the street naming function from the Panel, and allows that function to report at Council meetings.

 

4.    That a further report be provided to the December meeting on the Policy and Procedures for determining street names.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That Council:

 

1.      Approves and adopts the Strategic Panel Charter, with a view to the panel meeting monthly, with the following amendments:

 

That the words “and other community oriented bodies” be added to 5.1b so that the clause reads:

 

“Review recommendations from local precinct forums and other community oriented bodies and assess these against Council’s overall strategic direction.”

 

2.    Notes that the first Strategic Panel meeting will be held on Wednesday 30 November.

 

3.    Removes the street naming function from the Panel, and allows that function to report at Council meetings.

 

4.    That a further report be provided to the December meeting on the Policy and Procedures for determining street names.

 

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

 


 

Chief Financial Officer

 

ITEM NO:      CFO 01

FILE NO:        270501.2016

SUBJECT:     Revocation of Media Representation Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Revoke the Media Representation Policy, attached to this report;

 

3.    In future, in place of the previous traditional Mayoral portrait, a group photo of all Councillors, including the Mayor, be displayed in the foyer of the Council Chambers in recognition of their contribution during their term of office.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That:

 

  1. Council receive and note this report;

 

  1. Council revoke the Media Representation Policy, attached to this report;

 

  1. Council, in future, in place of the previous traditional Mayoral portrait, a group photo of all Councillors, including the Mayor, be displayed in the foyer of the Council Chambers in recognition of their contribution during their term of office.

 

  1. The Acting CEO establish whether or not an operational policy or procedure is required in relation to the handling of media enquiries and the use of media by members of council staff.

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 02

FILE NO:        277515.2016

SUBJECT:     Further Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Adopt the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy, as attached to this report, apart from the provisions of clause 4.9.2 of the Policy which requires public notice and a period of 28 days for the making of public submissions; and

 

3.    Receive a further report about the receipt of any public submissions in respect of clause 4.9.2 of the Policy at the first meeting of Council in 2017.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Adopt the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy, as attached to this report, with the amendments below and apart from the provisions of clause 4.9.2 of the Policy which requires public notice and a period of 28 days for the making of public submissions;

 

·         Clause 4.14.1 be changed so that care for pets be included. The clause will then read:

 

“4.14.1 Council endeavours to encourage and facilitate community involvement for persons nominating or holding the position of civic office. Accordingly, this policy allows for fair and reasonable reimbursement of carers’ expenses in relation to attendance at Council and committee meetings, and other official civic functions. This applies to Councillors who are the principal carer of a child or other elderly, disabled and/or sick immediate family member and for the care of pets. Childcare expenses may be claimed for children up until and including the age of 16 years.”

 

·         Clause 4.7.2 be changed so that mobile phone claims can be made within six months. The clause will then read:

 

“4.7.2 As an alternative to clause 4.7.1(a) above, Councillors will have an option to be provided with a mobile phone with email capability by Council with calls limited to a maximum of $75 per month subject to a statement of claim or statutory declaration supplied within six months of payment.”

 

 

3.      Receive a further report about the receipt of any public submissions in respect of clause 4.9.2 of the Policy at the first meeting of Council in 2017.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Division called:

 

Vote for:                       Clr Harle

                                      Clr Rhodes

 

Vote against:               Mayor Waller

                                      Clr Ayyad

                                      Clr Balloot

                                      Clr Hadchiti

                                      Clr Hadid

                                      Clr Hagarty

                                      Clr Kaliyanda

                                      Clr Karnib

                                      Clr Shelton

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 03

FILE NO:        270931.2016

SUBJECT:     Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1993

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 04

FILE NO:        276473.2016

SUBJECT:     Minor Amendment to the Code of Meeting Practice

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Adopt the minor amendments to clause 20 of the Code of Meeting Practice, as attached to this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 05

FILE NO:        280122.2016

SUBJECT:     Review of Delegations

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Note that the Chief Executive Officer exercises the functions, role and delegations of “general manager” under the Local Government Act 1993;

 

3.    Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the delegations set out in the Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer in Attachment 1 to this report;

 

4.    Authorise the Mayor to sign the Instrument of Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer.

 

5.    Confirm Council’s delegations for any functions or powers conferred or imposed on Council by or under any legislation in accordance with section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Note that the Chief Executive Officer exercises the functions, role and delegations of “general manager” under the Local Government Act 1993;

 

3.      Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the delegations set out in the Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer in Attachment 1 to this report subject to the following changes:

 

That clause 3.3.7 be changed so that the limit of the value of tenders that can be accepted by the CEO be changed from $5 million to $1 million. The clause would then read:

 

“3.3.7 Accepting tenders by the Council for a value of $1 million or more.”

 

4.      Authorise the Mayor to sign the Instrument of Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer.

 

5.      Confirm Council’s delegations for any functions or powers conferred or imposed on Council by or under any legislation in accordance with section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 06

FILE NO:        282131.2016

SUBJECT:     Revocation of Mayor's Policy-Making Functions Between Council Meetings Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Revoke the Council’s Mayor’s Policy-Making Functions Between Council Meetings Policy, attached to this report;

 

3.    Whenever the Mayor exercises, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of Council between meetings of the Council, receive a report concerning details of the exercise of such functions for the next Council meeting.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 07

FILE NO:        284258.2016

SUBJECT:     Annual Code of Conduct Complaints Report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note this report and the attached Complaints Statistics Report, prepared for submission to the Office of Local Government.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 08

FILE NO:        284546.2016

SUBJECT:     Councillor Briefings

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report.

 

2.    Decide whether or not to continue Councillor Briefings in their current format.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report.

 

2.    Continue to hold the Councillor Briefing Sessions monthly and in their current format.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 09

FILE NO:        288761.2016

SUBJECT:     Council Meeting Dates - January to December 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Confirms the Council meeting time as 6.00pm and Council meeting dates for the 2017 calendar year as follows:

 

·    1 February 2017

·    22 February 2017

·    29 March 2017

·    26 April 2017

·    31 May 2017

·    28 June 2017

·    26 July 2017

·    30 August 2017

·    27 September 2017

·    25 October 2017

·    22 November 2017

·    13 December 2017

 

2.   Places appropriate notices in the local newspapers advising the community of the dates and commencing times of Council meetings for the 2017 calendar year. 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 10

FILE NO:        292583.2016

SUBJECT:     Draft Budget Review Panel Charter

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report;

 

2.    Approve and adopt the Budget Review Panel Charter.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 11

FILE NO:        294312.2016

SUBJECT:     Annual Financial Reports 2015/16

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes             Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 12

FILE NO:        295489.2016

SUBJECT:     Investment Report September 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 13

FILE NO:        296305.2016

SUBJECT:     Budget Review - September 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes the report;

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That:

 

1.      Council receives and notes the report;

 

2.      Council approves the identified budget variations in accordance with this report.

 

3.      Council, with regard to the item regarding Syrian Refugees Action Plan on page 208 of the Council agenda, notify the State government as to the true cost of this item and that this is another example of cost shifting onto local Council.

 

4.      The Acting CEO review the Capital Expenditure Budget to accommodate the expenditure of $600,000 to undertake the urgently needed upgrade of 16 Woodward Park Netball Courts and report back via the CEO Update on variations to the capital program required to fund this.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      CFO 14

FILE NO:        296465.2016

SUBJECT:     Investment Report October 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

City Presentation Report

 

ITEM NO:      DCP 01

FILE NO:        288650.2016

SUBJECT:     Transfer Ownership of SES Vehicles

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council accept the recommendation of transferring the vehicles for market values.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      DCP 02

FILE NO:        292896.2016

SUBJECT:     Maintenance of Nature Strips

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the conclusion of the report and adopts the footpath mowing policy.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That:

 

1.    A report be brought back to Council on other Councils procedures and costs that they incur to maintain nature strips on all major roads in their local areas.

 

2.    Council provide quotations to subcontract the maintenance of nature strips to see if a more cost effective way of delivering this service is available.

 

3.    Council to investigate the possibility of using steam instead of the herbicide Glyphosate.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      DCP 03

FILE NO:        298938.2016

SUBJECT:     Review of Domestic Waste Management Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve and adopt the revised Domestic Waste Management Policy

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

Community and Culture Report

 

ITEM NO:      DCC 01

FILE NO:        032074.2016

SUBJECT:     Civic Events and Ceremonial Functions Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report.

 

2.    Adopt the Civic Events and Ceremonial Functions Policy.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receive and note this report.

 

2.    Adopt the Civic Events and Ceremonial Functions Policy, with the following amendment:

 

Rename the “Mayor and Councillors Community Lunch”, mentioned in Clause 4.1(e) of the Policy to the “Liverpool City Community Lunch”.

 

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

 


Clr Hagarty left the Chambers at 7.39pm.

 

ITEM NO:      DCC 02

FILE NO:        257414.2016

SUBJECT:     Strong Children and Communities Project

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Identify and invite prominent members identified in the report to the Ambassador’s Panel, in consultation with the 2168 Management Committee;

 

2.   Once operational, invite representatives of the Children’s Parliament to make presentations to Council during the public forum at Council meetings on a quarterly basis; and

 

3.   Permit usage of the Council Chambers for the Children’s Parliament sitting. The Parliament sessions are intended to be held quarterly during school hours.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


Clr Hagarty returned to the Chambers at 7.38pm.

 

Mayor Waller called a recess of Council at 7.38pm.

 

Mayor Waller reopened the meeting at 7.51pm with all Councillors present except Clr Kaliyanda.

 

ITEM NO:      DCC 03

FILE NO:        280863.2016

SUBJECT:     Grants and Donations

 

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

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

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

 

3.         That an up to date report be provided to Council on the amount of monies paid to Inspire Community Services historically and the details of each of the amounts of funds.

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      DCC 04

FILE NO:        293446.2016

SUBJECT:     Investigation of in-house management options for Council's Leisure Centres

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Note this report.

 

2.    Require a report on the options for in-house management of Council’s three leisure centres to be reported to Council at its November 2017 meeting.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

Planning and Growth Report

 

ITEM NO:      DPG 01

FILE NO:        278219.2016

SUBJECT:     Exemption from Tendering Process

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council exempt the engagement of planning consultants Cardno Pty Ltd, engaged to provide advice and prepare submissions on behalf of Council in relation to the proposed Moorebank Intermodal project from the tendering requirements pursuant to s.55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, for the following reasons:

 

a.   The Moorebank Intermodal project is a complex and technical proposal, being assessed under the transitional provisions of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and requires specialist planning advice, not otherwise available to Council, to assess and respond to;

 

b.   Upon the initial engagement of the chosen planning consultants, Council staff at the time solicited a number of quotes, and found the chosen consultant to present the best value proposition;

 

c.   The chosen consultant, Cardno Pty Ltd, has now performed a significant volume of detailed work on the project, and in the process, has established an in-depth understanding of the issues to the satisfaction of Council staff; and

 

d.   Changing the consultant at this stage would potentially result in additional cost (for a new consultant reviewing the brief), as well as potential delay, and may jeopardise Council’s ability to provide quality input into the process as a result.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      DPG 02

FILE NO:        294691.2016

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

 

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Clr Ayyad

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Rhodes

 

Vote against:                         Mayor Waller

                                                Clr Hagarty

                                                Clr Kaliyanda

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Shelton


Clr Ayyad left the Chambers at 8.10pm.

 

ITEM NO:      DPG 03

FILE NO:        298800.2016

SUBJECT:     Development Applications lodged with an interest declared by Councillors

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:      DPG 05

FILE NO:        294819.2016

SUBJECT:     2016-17 Operational Plan and Budget - Proposed new fees and charges - Master Plan Development Application Fee

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Approves the Master Plan Development Application fee of $12,000 excluding GST to be placed on public exhibition.

 

2.    Approves the modification to a Master Plan Development Application fee of 50% of the Master Plan DA fee excluding GST.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


Clr Ayyad returned to the Chambers at 8.15pm.

 

ITEM NO:      DPG 04

FILE NO:        299967.2016

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

 

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.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Vote for:                                Clr Ayyad

                                                Clr Balloot

                                                Clr Hadchiti

                                                Clr Hadid

                                                Clr Harle

                                                Clr Rhodes

 

Vote against:                         Mayor Waller

                                                Clr Hagarty

                                                Clr Karnib

                                                Clr Kaliyanda

                                                Clr Shelton

 


 

ITEM NO:      DPG 06

FILE NO:        304981.2016

SUBJECT:     Warren Serviceway Car Park Proposed Changes to Fees and Charges

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve the Warren Serviceway Car Park fees as follows:

 

 

 

Casual Parking           

Proposed Fees

2016/2017

Up to 1 hr

$2.00

>1hr - 2hrs

$4.00

>2hrs - 3hrs

$6.00

>3hrs - 4hrs

$8.00

>4hrs - 5hrs

$10.00

5 hrs +

$14.00

Maximum day rate

$14.00

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Mayor Waller                    Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

Committee Reports

 

ITEM NO:      CTTE 01

FILE NO:        275783.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2016.

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That:

 

1.    Council receives the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2016.

 

2.    Council adopts the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee as noted in this report, with the exception of Item 7: “Nagle Street Liverpool pedestrian crossing”, which Council refers back to the Traffic Committee and expresses its reservations as to the recommendations previously made.

 

  1. The Traffic Committee meeting minutes be amended to note that for Item TD1: “Myall Road, Casula – Request for Traffic Calming Devices”, the Committee recommended installing a pedestrian crossing, with police to monitor speed.

 

  1. The Traffic Committee to review the reasoning behind a “No Parking” sign outside the medical centre on Macquarie Street, next door to the function centre and to investigate the feasibility of implementing a 15 minute parking time limit for the area.

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      CTTE 02

FILE NO:        293074.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 31 October 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee meeting held on 31 October 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


 

ITEM NO:      CTTE 03

FILE NO:        294427.2016

SUBJECT:     Planning and Development Committee Meeting Minutes of 2 November 2016

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and adopts the Minutes of the Planning and Development Meeting held on 2 November 2016.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

Questions with Notice

 

ITEM NO:      QWN 01

FILE NO:        301457.2016

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Harle

 

Please address the following:

 

  1. Does Council have a policy relating to Footpath/Nature Strip Mowing and if so is that currently being applied?

 

  1. At a previous Council meeting it was agreed to write to the state government regarding the maintenance of Nature strips by owners of properties bordering nature strips, has the Government responded? 

 

A response to these questions has been provided with report DCP 02 Maintenance of Nature Strips, from this Agenda. See page 29 of these minutes for the resolution from this item.

 


 

Council In Closed Session

 

ITEM NO:      CONF 01

FILE NO:        249120.2016

SUBJECT:     Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee 2016-2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council re-endorses the applicants outlined in the table below as members of the Liverpool Access Committee for an additional two year period:

 

Name

Suburb

Representation Category

Harley Davidson 

Lurnea

Category 1

Peter Fraser

Liverpool

Category 1

Jim Simpson

Liverpool

Category 1

Andy Watts         

Austral

Category 1

Olilie Lassen

Ashcroft

Category 1

Lyn Bright  

Minto

Category 2

Ellie Robertson

Holsworthy

Category 3

Jane Chigley

Liverpool

Category 3

Sean Langshaw  

Green Valley

Category 3

Rebecca Scirolli

Lurnea

Category 3

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


ITEM NO:      CONF 02

FILE NO:        289494.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Directs, and delegates authority to, the Acting Chief Executive Officer or their delegate to acquire part Lot 2 DP 1196541, 185 Gurner Avenue, Austral, being that part zoned ‘RE1 Public Recreation’, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991;

 

2.    Notes that the relevant land to be acquired is only the land designated for a public purpose for the purposes of Section 21 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and pursuant to Section 23(4) of the Act, Council is not required to acquire more land than it requires for the designated purpose;

 

3.    Directs the Acting Chief Executive Officer or their delegate to commence negotiations with the landowners to acquire part Lot 2 DP 1196541, 185 Gurner Avenue, Austral, being that part zoned ‘RE1 Public Recreation’, for open space purposes;

 

4.    Authorises the Acting Chief Executive Officer or their delegate to enter into a contract for the sale and purchase of land to finalise the acquisition of part Lot 2 DP 1195641, 185 Gurner Avenue, Austral, being that part zoned ‘RE1 Public Recreation’, once a purchase price is agreed;

 

5.    In the event agreement cannot be reached, direct and delegate authority to the Acting Chief Executive Officer or their delegate to:

 

a)   Acquire part Lot 2 DP 1196541, 185 Gurner Avenue, Austral, being that part of the lot zoned ‘RE1 Public Recreation’, by compulsory process under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, for the purposes of a public recreation reserve;

 

b)   Proceed with making the necessary application to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor in accordance with Section 187(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, to obtain approval to give an acquisition notice to the owners of Lot 2 DP 1196541, 185 Gurner Avenue, Austral, and commence compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991;

 

c)   Authorise the execution of any documents required to give effect to the purchase under Power of Attorney;

 

6.    Upon settlement of the acquisition, classifies the land so acquired, being part Lot 2 DP 1196541, as ‘Community’ land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993;

 

7.    Notes that a follow up report will be submitted to Council advising of the agreed purchase price;

 

8.    Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing details of the hardship claim pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the matter deals with the hardship of a resident and ratepayer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 03

FILE NO:        290216.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Grants an easement for drainage purposes over Lot 737 DP 533701, 219 Memorial Avenue, Liverpool, known as ‘Ireland Park’, as outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the compensation amount pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.   Transfers the compensation amount into the General Property Reserve; and

 

4.   Authorises the relevant documentation necessary for the formalization of the easement to be signed under Power of Attorney by Council's delegated officer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 04

FILE NO:        290315.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Grants an easement for drainage purposes over Lot 312 DP 228323, 88A South Liverpool Road, Heckenberg, known as ‘Snowy Park’, as outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.    Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the compensation amount pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.   Transfers the compensation amount into the General Property Reserve; and

 

4.   Authorises the relevant documentation necessary for the formalization of the easement to be signed under Power of Attorney by Council's delegated officer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 05

FILE NO:        292907.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Proceeds with the compulsory acquisition of Lot 39 DP 1160527 & Lot 39 DP 1167333, Swoffer Avenue, Middleton Grange, for a public purpose;

 

2.   Proceeds with making the necessary application to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor in accordance with Section 187(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 to obtain approval to give an acquisition notice to the owners of Lot 39 DP 1160527 & Lot 39 DP 1167333, Swoffer Avenue, Middleton Grange, and commence compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991;

 

3.   Upon settlement of the acquisition, classifies Lot 39 DP 1160527 & Lot 39 DP 1167333, Swoffer Avenue, Middleton Grange, as ‘Community’ land;

 

4.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing details of the acquisition pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; and

 

5.   Authorises its delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney necessary to give effect to this decision.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 06

FILE NO:        293187.2016

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Approves the acquisition of part Lot 7, 7A and 8A DP 29317, 65-75 Rynan Avenue, Edmondson Park, containing an area of approximately 11,700 square metres for the price and terms outlined in the confidential attachment;

 

2.   Upon settlement of the acquisition, classifies the portion of Lot 7, 7A and 8A DP 29317, 65-75 Rynan Avenue, Edmondson Park, being acquired as 'Community' land;

 

3.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the acquisition price pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

4.   Notes that funding for the acquisition will be sourced from the Section 94 Contribution Fund; and

 

5.   Authorises its delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney necessary to give effect to this decision.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 07

FILE NO:        293802.2016

SUBJECT:     Proposed easement for access over Lot 6 DP 1193300, Lt Cantello Reserve, Hammondville

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Grants an easement for access over Lot 6 DP 1193300, Lt Cantello Reserve, Hammondville, on the terms and conditions outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the compensation amount pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.   Transfers the compensation amount into the General Property Reserve; and

 

4.   Authorises the relevant documentation necessary for the formalization of the easement to be signed under Power of Attorney by Council's delegated officer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 08

FILE NO:        293762.2016

SUBJECT:     Proposed easement for drainage purposes over Lot 62 DP 1036287, 20 Bumbera Street, Prestons

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Grants an easement for drainage purposes over Lot 62 DP 1036287, 20 Bumbera Street, Prestons, on the terms outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the compensation amount pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.   Transfers the compensation amount into the General Property Reserve; and

 

4.   Authorises the relevant documentation necessary for the formalization of the easement to be signed under Power of Attorney by Council's delegated officer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 09

FILE NO:        294021.2016

SUBJECT:     Proposed easement for transmission line over Lot 201 DP 1194243, Kurrajong Road, Carnes Hill

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Grants an easement for overhead transmission lines over Lot 201 DP 1194243, Kurrajong Road, Carnes Hill, on the terms and conditions outlined in the confidential report;

 

2.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the compensation amount pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.   Authorises the relevant documentation necessary for the formalization of the easement to be signed under Power of Attorney by Council's delegated officer.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 10

FILE NO:        294119.2016

SUBJECT:     Tender WT2579 - Design, Supply and Installation of GPT Unit - Mawson Drive, Cartwright

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council: 

 

1.   Accepts the Tender from Ecosol Pty Ltd for Tender WT2579 Design, Supply and Installation of a GPT at Mawson Drive, Cartwright for Portion A and Portion B for the

lump sum contract price of $181,450 GST exclusive.

 

2.   Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2579 Design, Supply and Installation of a GPT at Mawson Drive, Cartwright.

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                   Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council: 

 

1.    Accepts the Tender from Ecosol Pty Ltd for Tender WT2579 Design, Supply and Installation of a GPT at Mawson Drive, Cartwright for Portion A and Portion B for the  lump sum contract price of $181,450 GST exclusive.

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding Tender WT2579 Design, Supply and Installation of a GPT at Mawson Drive, Cartwright.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 8.45pm.

 

Clr Hadchiti returned to the Chambers at 8.46pm.

 

ITEM NO:      CONF 11

FILE NO:        294369.2016

SUBJECT:     ST2567 – VoIP Cloud Contact Centre

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 

1.    Accept the Tender from ipScape Pty Ltd for Tender ST2567 – VoIP Cloud Contact Centre at the GST inclusive price of $111,430 for an initial 2 year term with the option of extending the services for 12 months. 

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding tender ST2567 – VoIP Cloud Contact Centre.

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That Council: 

1.    Accept the Tender from ipScape Pty Ltd for Tender ST2567 – VoIP Cloud Contact Centre at the GST inclusive price of $111,430 for an initial 2 year term with the option of extending the services for 12 months. 

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding tender ST2567 – VoIP Cloud Contact Centre.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.


ITEM NO:      CONF 12

FILE NO:        294977.2016

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Civic Advisory Committee - 2017 Australia Day Awards

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Endorse the recommended award recipients as proposed in this report.

 

2.    Keep the report and nominations containing the recommended award recipients confidential, pursuant to the provision of Section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


ITEM NO:      CONF 13

FILE NO:        297427.2016

SUBJECT:     Acquisition of part Lot 6 DP 1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank, for road purposes

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Approves the acquisition of part Lot 6 DP 1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank, and authorises the Chief Executive Officer or her delegate to commence negotiations with the landowners;

 

2.   Proceeds with the compulsory acquisition of part Lot 6 DP 1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank, for road purposes, if negotiations are unsuccessful;

 

3.   Proceeds with making the necessary application to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor in accordance with Section 187(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 to obtain approval to give an acquisition notice to the owners’ of Lot 6 DP 1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank, and commence compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and the Roads Act 1993;

 

4.   Notes that a further report will be submitted to Council if an acquisition price has been agreed to by negotiation;

 

5.   Upon settlement of the acquisition, dedicates part Lot 6 DP 1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank, being acquired as ‘Public Road';

 

6.   Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing details of the proposed acquisition pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; and

 

7.   Authorises its delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney necessary to give effect to this decision.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

 

ITEM NO:      CONF 14

FILE NO:        298344.2016

SUBJECT:     Proposed disposal of part Copeland Street, Liverpool

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Subject to a successful road closure and rezoning, agrees to the sale of part Copeland Street, Liverpool, containing an area of approximately 300 square metres, for the price and terms set out in this confidential report;

 

2.    Keeps confidential the attachment supplied under separate cover containing the purchase price pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

 

3.    Transfers the proceeds of sale into the General Property Reserve; and

 

4.    Authorises its delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney necessary to give effect to this decision.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

  

 Presentations by Councillors

 

Clr Hagarty made a presentation to Council regarding the Annual General Meeting of the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre and tabled the book titled “Courageous Journeys, A Family Portrait”.

 

Clr Kaliyanda made a presentation to Council regarding an award received from Share Care for ongoing support from Council.

 

 

 


 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.51pm.

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Wendy Waller

Title:     Mayor

Date:     14 December 2016

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on  23 November 2016. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

 

 


 

CEO 01

Corporate Sponsorships

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity

Key Policy

Communications Plan

File Ref

311402.2016

Report By

Kieran Oakley - Acting Communications Supervisor

Approved By

Kiersten Fishburn - Acting Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council provides financial assistance to the community through the Corporate Sponsorship program.

 

The Financial Contributions Panel (FCP) recently considered applications from local residents and community groups for Corporate Sponsorship.

 

This report presents the funding recommendations made by the FCP for Council's consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the Financial Contributions Panel’s recommendations for the provision of $1,000 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship Program as summarised in the table below.  

 

Applicant name

Amount

NSW Police Force - Green Valley Local Area Command

$1,000 ex gst

 

 

REPORT

 

This report contains the most recent recommendations by the FCP for Corporate Sponsorship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate Sponsorship

 

Council delivers a Corporate Sponsorship Program for local organisations seeking financial support to deliver events that benefit Liverpool. One application for corporate sponsorship was received by Council. The application met the program criteria and is recommended for funding. The program criteria can be found as an attachment to this report for the reference of Councillors. A summary of the request received and the FCP recommendation are shown in the table below.

                  

APPLICANT

PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT REQUES-TED

AMOUNT RECOMM-ENDED

NSW Police Force - Green Valley Local Area Command

BOX WITH A COP - Boot camp 2017, Feb 6 – April 3 2017, PCYC Miller

 

Box with a Cop Boot Camp will provide an opportunity for the Green Valley and Liverpool Local Area Commands to engage with Intensive English Centre refugee students to promote physical and mental wellbeing and provide positive community engagement.

 

It will consist of a number of workshop sessions.

 

A major aim of this initiative is to breakdown cultural barriers in order to assist refugees in assimilating into Australian culture. It will help police establish positive relationships with young refugees. It will also help them understand the role of police in serving and protecting people within the community.

 

Expected attendees, <1000

 

Funds are being requested for:

·    Transportation hire and fuel

·    Merchandise (Boxing related including gloves, bags, caps, shirts, shorts, skipping ropes and weights)

·    Breakfast items for a period of 10 weeks

·    Special presenters including multilingual service providers.

·    End of program lunch

 

 

Benefits

 

Opportunity to display signage and promotional material at the event, recognition in media releases, speaking opportunity.

 

This event has a strong alignment with the program criteria as it promotes a socially inclusive community and healthy active city. It will also work with local businesses to provide meals for the program. Recommended for funding at the $1000 level.

$5,000 ex GST

$ 1,000 ex GST

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

 

The Corporate Sponsorship budget for 2016/17 is currently in deficit by $63,690.91. This deficit is due to delays in transfers from the reserve to cover previous approved funding for sponsorships. Steps are now being taken to ensure that adequate funding is sourced to cover expenditure that has been approved by Council. New procedures are being put in place to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

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

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


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Policy



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

CEO 02

Cost Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Internal Ombudsman

 

Strategic Direction

Leading Proactive Council

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

Key Policy

Good Governance

File Ref

325206.2016

Report By

Deva Sivapragasm - Head of Internal Audit

Approved By

Kiersten Fishburn - Acting Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following a request from Council’s Audit and Risk Committee, a report was brought to Council on 12 October 2016 recommending that a cost/benefit analysis be prepared to consider whether an internal Ombudsman may be an appropriate model for Liverpool Council.

 

This recommendation was adopted, and Council resolved as follows (at CEO02):

 

That Council analyse the costs and benefit of an Ombudsman model for Liverpool Council and request a report to Council on the findings of this analysis.

 

This report provides information on the analysis undertaken, and makes recommendations around progressing the adoption of an internal ombudsman model.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Delegate authority to the Acting Chief Executive Officer to give effect to the proposed Internal Ombudsman model, as outlined in the staff report.

 

2.   Direct that the question of funding for the position be managed though the quarterly budget review process.

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

At its meeting on 12 October 2016, Council received a report on a proposed Internal Ombudsman model for Council. Council resolved:

 

That Council analyse the costs and benefit of an Ombudsman model for Liverpool City Council and request a report to Council on the findings of this analysis.

 

The Ombudsman model:

 

As outlined by previous reporting to Council, there are various potential ways that an Internal Ombudsman model may function in a local government setting.

 

Tasks:

 

The usual role of an ombudsman in a government setting is to investigate complaints made that involve the public authority within their jurisdiction.  These complaints may consist of both external and internal complaints, and involve a variety of subject-matter.

 

Previous reporting has recommended that the proposed Internal Ombudsman for Council be empowered to manage the full spectrum of complaints involving Council.  This would include:

 

1.        External customer complaints;

 

2.        Code of Conduct complaints (by acting as Council’s Complaints Coordinator for the purposes of cl.3.12 of the Liverpool City Council Code of Conduct Procedures);

 

3.        Public Interest Disclosures (by acting as Council’s Public Interest Disclosures (PID) Coordinator).

 

In addition, this report proposes that the role be empowered to manage the following functions:

 

A.       Acting as Council’s Privacy Officer for the purposes of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, and managing complaints concerning breaches of privacy under that Act;

 

B.       Managing complaints concerning breaches of Copyright under various legislation, including the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);

 

C.       Undertaking internal reviews of decisions to refuse access to documents under Part 5, Division 2 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009;

 

D.       Other complaints management and/or investigatory roles as the CEO deems appropriate from time to time.

 

It is further suggested that the role would be empowered to refer complaints better managed by other bodies to the appropriate authorities.  For example:

 

·           Complaints involving alleged pecuniary interest breaches, or breaches of Part 8 of the Liverpool City Council Code of Conduct (Code), to be referred (via the CEO) to the Office of Local Government under s.460 of the Local Government Act 1993 and cl.8.15 of the Code;

 

·           Complaints involving suspected corrupt conduct, to ICAC (via the CEO, pursuant to s.11(1)(c) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988;

 

·           Complaints involving maladministration and serious public waste to the NSW Ombudsman (pursuant to s.12 of the Ombudsman Act 1974).

 

It is suggested that complaints involving staff conduct be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Internal Ombudsman, unless deemed appropriate by the CEO for investigation.

 

Reporting Line:

 

The reporting line proposed for the Internal Ombudsman is for functional reporting to the Audit and Risk Committee, with day-to-day administrative reporting to the CEO.

 

Costs:

 

Council’s Head of Internal Audit has reviewed costs related to hiring of an Internal Ombudsman.  Current complaints management workload, and the need to review processes and procedures in this area, would suggest that an Internal Ombudsman would best be employed, at least initially, on a part-time basis of three working days per week.

 

The position would require a pro-rata budget for salary and on-costs similar to a Manager position at 0.6FTE.  It is recommended that the question of budget for the position be managed through the quarterly review process.  A budget estimate of around $140,000 per year is likely to be realistic to implement the model.

 

Benefits:

 

The benefits to Council are likely to derive primarily from improved practices in the management of complaints.

 

In particular, deficiencies have been identified in Council’s procedures for the management of external complaints, as well as the management of Public Interest Disclosures.  It is suggested that the implementation of the proposed Internal Ombudsman model will allow Council to review these processes, and improve its responses to complaints from a wide variety of sources.

 

 

 

Efficient responses to complaints will promote the following benefits:

 

1.          Improved response times and response quality to complaints, improving reputational outcomes;

 

2.          Improved tracking of action items arising out of complaints, improving accountabilities and procedural responses to complaints;

 

3.           Greater efficiencies, arising out of the improved response to complaints and the     improved identification of organisational shortcomings through the complaints   management process.

 

There are also likely to be improved outcomes in reducing costs required for external investigation of certain matters, as well as reduced legal cost impacts in some cases.

 

Conclusion:

 

Overall, it is considered that the model has merit and is worthy of further exploration on a trial basis.

 

Should the recommendation be adopted, the intention would be to establish the position and budget in the structure, and progress with an appointment of the position as soon as practicable.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

The budget required for the role of an internal Ombudsman will come from the Chief Executive Officer’s budget and savings from the Business Improvement Directorate.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations, except in as far as an Internal Ombudsman might deal with complaints or issued raised about these matters.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations, except in as far as an Internal Ombudsman might deal with complaints or issued raised about these matters.


Civic Leadership and Governance

An Internal Ombudsman model will impact the Council leadership and governance frameworks.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil   


 

CFO 01

Investment Report November 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

320698.2016

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 30th November 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $181.52million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 2.95 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.12 per cent by 83 basis points for the same period.

 

For five months ended November 2016, returns on investment was $427k higher than budget.

 

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 30th November 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $181.52million. 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 November 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

33,397,354

18.40%

100%

Term Deposit < 1 Year

24,000,000

13.22%

100%

Tradeable Securities

70,405,277

38.79%

100%

Term Deposits 1 to < 3 Years

42,000,000

23.14%

60%

Term Deposits 3 to < 5 Years

9,000,000

4.96%

25%

T-Corp Unit Trust (Cash)

1,009,879

0.56%

100%

Grandfathered Securities

1,711,759

0.94%

N/A

Grand Total

181,524,270

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+

12,416,607

6.84%

25.00%

ANZ Banking Group Ltd

A+

700,217

0.39%

35.00%

Bananacoast Community Credit Union Ltd

Unrated

2,000,000

1.10%

5.00%

Bank of Queensland Ltd

A-

30,510,810

16.81%

25.00%

Bank of Sydney Ltd

Unrated

2,000,000

1.10%

5.00%

Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd

A-

12,007,750

6.61%

25.00%

Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd

AA-

26,007,418

14.33%

35.00%

Credit Suisse Sydney

A

1,999,540

1.10%

25.00%

Credit Union Australia Ltd

BBB+

6,042,540

3.33%

15.00%

Emerald Reverse Mortgage Trust

A

1,711,759

0.94%

25.00%

G&C Mutual Bank Limited

BBB

1,000,000

0.55%

15.00%

Greater Bank Ltd

BBB+

2,000,160

1.10%

15.00%

Heritage Bank Ltd

BBB+

2,995,110

1.65%

15.00%

Macquarie Bank

A

5,033,350

2.77%

25.00%

Maitland Mutual Building Society Ltd

Unrated

1,000,000

0.55%

5.00%

Members Equity Bank Ltd

BBB+

5,026,230

2.77%

15.00%

MyState Bank Ltd

BBB

2,000,000

1.10%

15.00%

National Australia Bank Ltd

AA-

13,027,550

7.18%

35.00%

Newcastle Permanent Building Society Ltd

BBB+

13,983,540

7.70%

15.00%

NSW Treasury Corporation

AA

1,009,879

0.56%

35.00%

P&N Bank Ltd

BBB

11,000,000

6.06%

15.00%

Police Bank Ltd

BBB+

1,000,270

0.55%

15.00%

Police Credit Union SA

Unrated

4,000,000

2.20%

5.00%

Rabobank Australia Ltd

A+

11,000,000

6.06%

25.00%

Suncorp Bank

A+

7,026,100

3.87%

25.00%

Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd

BBB+

2,012,900

1.11%

15.00%

Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd

AA-

3,012,540

1.66%

35.00%

Portfolio Total

 

181,524,270

100.00%

 

 

 

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

 

Credit Rating

Sum of Market Value

% Portfolio

Policy Limit

A Gategory or below

82,406,133

45.40%

60.00%

AA Category

43,057,387

23.72%

100.00%

BBB Category

47,060,750

25.93%

50.00%

Unrated

9,000,000

4.96%

25.00%

Grand Total

181,524,270

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 30th November 2016 was 2.95 per cent which exceeded the benchmark of 2.12 per cent by 83 basis points for the same period. Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower deposit yields on offer. 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 November 2016 exceeded budget by $427k mainly due year to date a higher actual monthly average portfolio holdings as compared to budgeted monthly average portfolio holdings.

 

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

 

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

MCWB01114_0000[1]

The portfolio yield for 5 months to the end of November 2016 is 83 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (2.95% against 2.12%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Council’s investment interest income exceeded budget by $427k as at 30th November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment Policy Compliance

 

Legislative Requirements

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Portfolio Credit Rating Limit

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Institutional Exposure Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant.

Term to Maturity Limits

MCWB01114_0000[1]

Fully Compliant

 

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

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) – 2.60% to 2.75% p.a

·    Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) - 2.5% to 2.60% p.a.

·    Short term deposits rate (less than one year to maturity) – ranges from 2.3% to 2.5% per annum.

·    Cash & Cash At Call accounts range from 1.5% to 2.25%

·    31 Days’ Notice Account 2.35%

 

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 $427k as at 30th November 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 November 2016View  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

DCC 01

Reconciliation Action Plan 2016 - 2020

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement

Key Policy

Community Engagement Policy

File Ref

288995.2016

Report By

Norma Burrows - Community Development Worker (ATSI)

Approved By

Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Reconciliation Action Plan and seek Council approval to place this Plan on public exhibition. This Action Plan is designed to provide Council with a strategic framework to formalise Council’s current commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents in Liverpool.

 

The draft Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) provides a strategic platform to improve the social and economic opportunities for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents within the Local Government Area (LGA). This is a first for Council and the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders to trial a new approach to building on existing relationships and to acknowledge the significant input Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents provide to the community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report;

 

2.       Approves the Draft Reconciliation Action Plan for public exhibition; and

 

3.       Receives a further report following public exhibition seeking to adopt the final Reconciliation Action Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

Historical Background

 

On 10 August 1987 Prime Minister Bob Hawke announced the formation of a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of deaths of Aboriginal people while held in State and Territory jails. The Royal Commission produced a number of reports, including individual reports for each death investigated. The final report, signed on 15 April 1991, made 339 recommendations, mainly concerned with procedures for persons in custody, liaison with Aboriginal groups, police education and improved accessibility to information. One of the recommendations was to implement a formal process of reconciliation which would be managed under the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. 

 

The work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation during the 1990s stimulated heightened awareness among non-Indigenous people of the need for action. But the legacy of the past, which was exacerbated by continuing policy failure, meant that the lives of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continued to be marred by poor health, unemployment, imprisonment, homelessness, substance abuse and family violence.

 

Reconciliation Action Plans (RAP) are practical plans of action built on relationships, respect and opportunities. The aim of these plans is to create social change and economic opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. RAPs have been implemented at a national, state and local government level to provide guidance and purpose.   

 

Why a Reconciliation Action Plan for Council?

 

The draft Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) will provide a strategic framework to work in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. The RAP will aim to improve opportunities for over 2,600 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents living in the Liverpool LGA (2011 Census). This represents 1.5% of the total Liverpool population.

  

The RAP will ensure there is a commitment across Council to actively nurture Aboriginal culture and values, skills and knowledge of all staff and promote values embraced by, and significant to, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees of Council.

 

The Draft Reconciliation Action Plan demonstrates an innovative approach, focused on working with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders to trial new approaches for building relationships, showing respect and improving opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

 

The RAP is divided into three key strategic themes, being Respect, Relationships and Opportunities. Each of these themes has a number of focus areas accompanied by a set of measurable actions. It also includes a focus on raising internal awareness about our organisation’s commitment to reconciliation by providing opportunities for our staff to engage in reconciliation activities.

 

Council is committed to working with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to explore new opportunities, work together and make a difference. The aims of the RAP are as follows:

 

1.   Provide a direction and a set of objectives for Council regarding projects to undertake in partnership with the local Aboriginal community;

 

2.   Increase awareness of current procedures and protocols in order to communicate and work more effectively with the local Aboriginal community;

 

3.   Improve consultation with the local community, Land Councils, local/regional Aboriginal organisations, relevant State and Federal Government bodies and Council staff;

 

4.   Provide relevant information regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for inclusion in the Community Strategic Plan;

 

5.   Improve understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities, cultures, heritage and aspirations within Council;

 

6.   Provide strategic  guidance to Council’s Aboriginal Consultative Committee;  and

 

7.   Continue Council’s commitment to increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees across Council.

 

Public Exhibition

 

If approved, Council will place the draft RAP on public exhibition from Monday 19 December 2016 – Tuesday 28 February 2017 (two and a half months). This will allow for adequate community and stakeholder engagement to be undertake during the holiday period, and will also ensure that the Aboriginal Consultative Committee can provide final comments on the draft RAP at their first meeting in 2017.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.

Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.

 


Social and Cultural

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

Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.

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

Promote community harmony and address discrimination.

Support access and services for people with a disability.

Deliver high quality services for children and their families.


Civic Leadership and Governance

Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media.

Facilitate the development of community leaders.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Liverpool City Council Reconciliation Plan 2016 2020View  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

DCC 02

Precinct Co-ordination - Carnes Hill and City Centre

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities

Key Policy

Recreation Strategy

File Ref

296905.2016

Report By

Mark Egan - Coordinator Community  Planning

Approved By

Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

Julie Scott – Acting Director Economic Development

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting on 26 August 2015, Council approved funding for a dedicated resource to Place Manage the Carnes Hill Community and Recreation Precinct (CHCRP), a $36 million infrastructure asset that was built to meet the needs of the growing community. In approving the Place Manager position as a 12 month pilot program, Council sought to learn and assess what worked best in the role and consider future applications of place management to support successful planning, delivery  and management of community and recreation assets.

 

Key outcomes of the pilot program to date have demonstrated the critical role that the Place Manager played in planning, delivering and building the operational capacity of a complex multi-purpose community facility. Based on the success of the pilot, it is recommended that the position be made permanent with a view to transition out of Carnes Hill to assume responsibility for key initiatives under the forthcoming recreation and community facilities strategies.

 

Further, taking cognisance of the imminent completion of major projects such as Macquarie Mall and Bigge Park, and the associated imperative to secure and to promote a viable city centre, it is recommended that the model be applied also within the CBD.  To that end, it is recommended that a position be created within Economic Development to assume responsibility for a city centre activation program.

 

Both roles would be responsible for the development of core strategies in respective functional and geographic areas; and subject to rigorous measurement and reporting of impacts and outcomes along social, economic and financial variables.  Further performance reports should be brought to Council on an annual basis.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes this report; and

 

2.    Approves the incorporation of two Precinct Co-ordination positions within the Community Planning and Development and Economic Development teams.

 

REPORT

 

Following Council resolution, a dedicated Place Manager for the CHCRP was appointed in February 2016 for a period of 12 months. The purpose of the position was to drive the CHCRP to reach its full potential, activating all components of the facilities and outdoor spaces to maximise the benefits for the community of Liverpool.

 

At the time of appointment, the construction of the CHCRP was in the final stages of completion and the operators for the Recreation Centre and Café had not yet been appointed. At the time of commencement of the position, the priorities for the Place Manager were as follows:

·    Establish an operational management structure;

·    Plan and deliver a community celebration event to open the CHCRP to the public.

·    Develop strategies for precinct activation;

·    Develop programs that support improved social, recreational and economic outcomes;

·    Drive internal and external stakeholder management.

 

The Precinct was opened on Saturday 30 July, attracting over 5,500 visitors. The CHCRP has been operational since August and is generating strong patronage in all areas. The place management model piloted through the CHCRP project has been widely recognised by both internal and external stakeholders as being crucial to the success of the Precinct, promoting cross-council collaboration, and establishing a strong sense of place and civic pride.

 

Outlined below is a summary of the key outcomes achieved through the place management model:

 

 

Key Responsibilities

 

Tasks Completed

 

In Development

Developing  and implementing strategies to activate the CHCRP to its full potential

·    Establishment of project governance

·    Establishment of community engagement strategies (informal/formal)

·    Communications  Plan

·    Quarterly Community Information Sessions

Developing programs that support improved social, recreational and economic outcomes for the Liverpool Community

·    Open Day Event, 30 July 2016

·    Carnes Hill Night Live. Weekly Food Truck activation. Social Meeting Place, 11 August – 24 November 2016.

·    Carnes Hill Skate Plaza – School Holiday Workshops, October 2016

·    Precinct Tours, July – November, 2016

 

·    Carnes Hill Xmas Market, 3 December 2016

·    Carnes Hill Skate Plaza –Safety Video

·    Carnes Hill Skate Plaza – Community Consolation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ensuring the CHCRP is well maintained – both building and outdoor areas

·    Acting as key community contact point

·    On site coordination and reporting of issues to relevant Council officer/department

·    Operational Control Group Coordination

Ongoing.

 

Establish strong collaborative community partnerships

Partnerships established with:

·    Carnes Hill Market Place

·    Green Valley Police

·    Horningsea Park Fire Brigade;

·    Local schools

Emerging partnerships with:

·    Schools

·    Youth Services

·    Community Services

Developing and implementing an evaluation methodology and regularly reporting on the success of the CHCRP against agreed measures

 

·    Weekly Executive Management Team Reports

·    Councillor Briefing – Open Day Event

·    Gathering, interpreting and presenting detailed data on all aspects of the Precinct

·    Evaluation methodology to be carried out after 12 months of operation

Advancing Recommendations

·    Communications

·    Signage

·    WH&S

·    Accessibility

·    Operational Management

·    Community Development

·    Economic Development

·    Carnes Hill Aboriginal Artefacts Display

 

Establishment of a Project Governance Structure

 A project governance structure has been established involving three tiers of management including:

·    A Project Control Group (PCG), comprised of relevant Council Directors and the Precinct Place Manager whose role is to set the strategic direction and ensure joined up decision making within Council;

·    An Operational Control Group (OCG), comprised of key internal stakeholders ensures integrated coordination and implementation of practical working matters; and

·    A Precinct Working Group (PWG), comprised of both internal and external stakeholders providing public accountability and engagement with local users and operators to inform both the OCG and PCG.

 

The structural hierarchy of the PCG, OCG and PWG has developed a holistic approach to planning and implementation aligned to strategic objectives, budgets and timeframes. This has been critical to the Precinct’s success, resulting in effective and timely identification of complex issues and the means by which they can be resolved, within Council and with external stakeholders.

 

Community Engagement Strategies

The development of the following community engagement strategies have been established to underpin and inform program development and precinct operations:

 

·    Liverpool Listens Online Surveys

http://listens.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/help-us-to-program-the-new-carnes-hill-community-and-recreation-precinct

1.   Programming

2.   First 3 months of operation

·    Feedback postcard: Tell us about your Carnes Hill Experience

Feedback postcard located on-site at all facilities

Responses reviewed at OCG and PWG

·    Quarterly Community Information Sessions

An open forum where residents can receive up-to-date information on what is happening at the precinct and how community concerns have been addressed; give feedback; ask questions and share ideas on what they would like to see happen at the precinct.

·    Dedicated Website

http://www.buildingournewcity.com.au/beyond-the-city-centre/carneshill

A portal to all areas of the Precinct including quick links to related services.

Includes frequently asked questions, key contacts, related references and resources

 

Future Precinct Development Focus

The next six months would see the Precinct Development function continuing to refine the governance structures that are currently in place, and working to establish a model that will no longer require a dedicated lead position in Carnes Hill.  During this period the focus will be on continuing to activate the precinct through programming and the development of partnerships.

 

It is anticipated that the requirement for a dedicated resource to work exclusively at Carnes Hill will be required for a further six months.  At that stage, planned projects under the forthcoming recreation and community facilities strategies will be set to advance and a timely transition could be effected. 

 

Given the level of population growth across the local government area, the increasing and changing demands of new and existing residents, and the complexity of project partnerships required to deliver innovative social infrastructure it is imperative that Council adopts a pro-active approach to the planning, management and delivery of initiatives under the recreation and community facilities strategies.  The experience of the Carnes Hill model demonstrates clearly that a dedicated resource is necessary to achieve integrated planning, coordinated delivery and enhanced organizational performance around major infrastructural projects.  Moreover, the role has connected the local community and all of the external stakeholders with Council in pursuit of shared goals.

 

City Centre Activation Program

 

The application of the precinct development model applies equally to the economic development area.  The imperative to create and secure a viable city centre has given rise to major regenerative projects including Macquarie Mall and Bigge Park, within an attempt to create the conditions that instils investment confidence and promote social cohesion. Taken together, the learning from the Carnes Hill pilot and the imminent re-opening of Macquarie Mall and Bigge Park afford an opportunity to introduce an innovative model of management and activation in the CBD that should maximize Council’s return on its significant investment, whilst at the same time, achieving substantive community outcomes and improvement to quality of life.

 

Total funds of up to $10m were allocated for these two projects over 2015/16 and 2016/17.  A $10m loan supported by a Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme interest rate subsidy allowed this work to be undertaken over two financial years, with interest payments over 10 years supported from Council’s City Development Fund (CDF) (rising from $850,000 in 2016/17 to $1.15m in 2024/25).

 

The CDF raises funds of approximately $1.5m per annum from commercial property owners in the CDF area. Funds from the CDF can be applied to a range of infrastructure, activation and promotion talks related to the city centre (copy of CDF policy attached).

 

Both the Macquarie Mall and Bigge Park assets were identified as key precincts that needed substantial upgrading to encourage the development of a well-integrated and thriving city centre. These public domain improvements were seen as critical to attracting private investment as well as allowing residents, workers and visitors to make maximum use of the city, both during the day and throughout the evening and on weekends.

 

To manage its major assets professionally a place based strategy represents an important investment in ensuring these assets are used optimally. International research (OECD, 2015) indicates that where infrastructure projects are not developed in conjunction with local stakeholders or aligned to the strategic priorities of different sectors of the economy and community, the full potential of the development fails to be realised.  Done well, however, such processes can lead to local communities being empowered, willing to participate in organisations and projects, connected with Council and working towards shared goals.  This potential has been recognised by the University of Wollongong and Western Sydney University both bringing facilities to Liverpool by 2017.

 

In effect, developing and maintaining key infrastructure acts as the catalyst for building a sense of place, linked to a strong sense of local ownership and influence.  A professional precinct co-ordination approach is also fundamental to holding accountable those involved in the complex relationships related to planning, delivering and managing major projects.

 

The refurbishment of both Macquarie Mall and Bigge Park and the planned development of Civic Place, represent flagship projects for Council reflecting community aspirations that were identified as key priorities in Council’s Growing 2023 Plan.

 

The model proposed includes a precinct development (City Centre) position for key areas which will manage a recurrent annual city centre activation program. Similar models are used in Parramatta, Wollongong and Fairfield Councils.  The proposed model for the Liverpool City Centre would be a similar precinct co-ordination role with a recurrent activation program fund that would allow for:

·    Co-ordination of business and community events and activities to showcase the assets

·    Co-ordination of council-wide regulatory requirements including permits and licences

·    Liaison with business and community representatives on issues impacting service delivery

·    Facilities management including bookings and maintenance issues

 

The role is likely to change in nature after the first two years as the assets mature and their use evolves.

 

Given the new role and the activation program services the city centre, funding can be sourced from the City Development Fund (CDF).  The CDF is a special rate on all commercial use properties within the identified City Development boundary to be spent only on projects within that boundary which improve all or any of the following aspects of the CBD; image, role, urban design, safety, recreation, public art, heritage, economic development and general amenity.

 

It is recommended that recurrent annual funding of $200,000 be approved by Council to create a dedicated precinct development position and activation program to commence 1 February, 2017. Both roles would operate under a shared framework of strategy development and management reporting around core objectives and targets.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

The additional cost to approve the Carnes Hill precinct co-ordination role on a permanent basis (including on-costs and anticipated award increases) and funding programs of associated activities and events is estimated at $170,000 per annum.

Similarly, a precinct development officer and activation programs will ensure public domain improvements are fully utilized within the CBD.  $200,000 per annum will be required to ensure a position and implementation program. 

Environmental and Sustainability

Sustainability and environmental needs have been factored in to construction of the assets.


Social and Cultural

CHCRP is Council’s premier community and recreation precinct, and the first fully-realised example of a community hub in the Liverpool area. It is also the first application of the place making model in working towards ensuring the success of social and recreational infrastructure. Investing in the precinct development position will have a direct social benefit through programming and activation of precincts across the LGA.

Macquarie Mall and Bigge Park are important assets in promoting Liverpool’s diversity, heritage and social cohesion.


Civic Leadership and Governance

In both instances, the model of precinct management for major assets represents best practice in ensuring full utilisation of facilities and a focus on responding to evolving community needs.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil   


 

DIEN 01

Renewal of the netball courts at Woodward Park, Liverpool

 

Strategic Direction

Healthy Inclusive  City

Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community

Key Policy

Recreation Strategy

File Ref

319387.2016

Report By

Kevin Smith - Manager Infrastructure Delivery

Approved By

Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure and Environment

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council, at its meeting held on 23 November 2016, resolved to ask the Acting CEO to review the capital expenditure budget to accommodate the expenditure of $605,000 to undertake the urgently needed upgrade of 16 of the Woodward Park netball courts and report back via the CEO Update on variations to the capital program required to fund this. A memo was provided to all councillors via the CEO Update on 1 December 2016 on this matter.

 

This report outlines a proposed funding strategy for Council’s consideration should they wish to change the capital program to accommodate these works. The proposed funding strategy will have no additional impact to the approved capital works program budget.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Defers the construction of the Dewsbury Serviceway and allocates $450,000 from this project towards the reconstruction of the netball courts on the upper level at Woodward Park;

 

2.       Allocates $155,000 from the minor renewal works at the Michael Wendon Centre towards the reconstruction of the netball courts on the upper level at Woodward Park;

 

3.       Allocates $30,000 from the refurbishment of the toddler’s pool at the Michael Wendon Centre to prepare a masterplan for the centre;

 

4.       Pursues grant funds to undertake renewal works to the remaining 16 courts on the lower level of the park.

 

 

REPORT

 

Council, at its meeting held on 23 November 2016, resolved to review the Capital Expenditure Budget to accommodate $600,000 to undertake upgrade works to 16 netball courts at Woodward Park, Liverpool and to report back on the variations required to the capital program to fund this work. A memo was provided to all councillors on 2 December 2016 on this matter.

 

The Liverpool City Netball Association has been successful in gaining the State Age Championships for 2017 and 2018 which are proposed to be held at Woodward Park in Liverpool. The grounds are perfectly located for this event. This is also an opportunity for Liverpool to host a significant sporting event and accrue the community and business benefit that comes from large sporting events.

 

Woodward Park consists of 32 netball courts all together. Council undertook some repair works to the courts in May 2015, however a recent inspection has revealed that significant renewal works are essential to ensure the courts are safe for users.

 

Council has been advised that the Championships can be held over 16 courts. It is proposed to renew the upper level of the park (see attached plan) to facilitate the Championships.

 

One of the 16 courts on the upper level of the park was reconstructed in 2013 by profiling out 75mm of pavement and replacing it with a membrane and two layers of hotmix. This process has been proved to be successful and is proposed for the other 15 courts. There is also an issue in the far south western corner where part of one court is affected due to the poor compaction of fill. This will be rectified as part of the renewal works. In addition, new court rings and line marking will also be installed.

 

The cost of the works is estimated to be $605,000 based on the existing WSROC contract rates in place. However the cost estimate may vary depending on the contractor available.

 

Council officers undertook a review of the 2016/17 Capital Works Program and identified that the Dewsbury Serviceway project can be deferred. Construction of the Dewsbury Serviceway was planned to start in February 2017. Considering we are waiting on the City Centre Traffic Study, undertaking these works may be premature. Deferring the construction of Dewsbury Serviceway to 2017/18 to start in July 2017 will allow Council to allocate $450,000 towards the netball courts at Woodward Park.

 

Council officers undertook a further review of the program and found that some of the funds from the project for minor works at Michael Wendon Centre could be reallocated. The total budget for this project is $185,000. It is considered important to first develop a masterplan for the centre to guide any major capital investment. Therefore, master planning of the centre is proposed in 2016/17 at a cost of $30,000. The remaining $155,000 can be transferred to meet the shortfall necessary to renew the netball courts.

 

 

 

In addition, it is also proposed that Council pursues grant funds to undertake renewal works to the remaining 16 courts on the lower level of the park.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

A breakdown of the proposed funding is outlined below (all prices are GST exclusive):

 

Funds allocated from Dewsbury Serviceway                       $450,000

Funds allocation from Michael Wendon Centre                    $155,000

 

Total Funds                                                                          $605,000

 

The total cost estimate to fund the reconstruction works is $605,000.

 

The proposed funding strategy will have no additional impact to the approved Capital Works Program.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.

Promote local businesses and support economic activities.

Environmental and Sustainability

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social and Cultural

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

Promote community harmony and sporting activities.

Deliver high quality services for children and their families.

 


Civic Leadership and Governance

Deliver services that are customer focused.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Aerial Image - Woodwark Park


PDF Creator

 


 

DPG 01

Planning Proposal for Leppington Pastoral Company at 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

322595.2016

Report By

Kieran Woolfe - Strategic Planner

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council resolved at its meeting of 29 June 2016 to endorse a planning proposal to amend Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008) to allow relocation of rural workers’ dwellings at 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale, and to allow, with development consent, an increase in the number of rural workers’ dwellings by four.

The planning proposal was exhibited and referred to public authorities in line with the gateway determination. Public authorities did not object to the proposal, and no submissions were received from the public.

This report outlines the outcomes of exhibition of the planning proposal, and recommends that the planning proposal proceed in order to allow the continued operation of a significant agricultural business.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Supports amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 as detailed in the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1).

2.   Delegates to the A/CEO the authority to finalise the planning proposal subject to receipt of a Stage 1 – Preliminary Site Investigation contamination study applying to the site, and to submit the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation pursuant to s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

 

REPORT

 

Background

On 1 September 2015 Council received a planning proposal from the Leppington Pastoral Company Pty Limited (LPC) to amend Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008).  This proposal applies to land at 1675 The Northern Road, Greendale, identified as Lot 100 and 101 in DP 1171843 and Lot 11 DP 1092165.

The Planning Proposal seeks to allow for the construction of 5 dwellings and 20 rural workers’ dwellings on the subject site.  This would allow for the relocation of a number of the existing rural workers’ dwellings, some of which will be lost due to land acquisition for the proposed Western Sydney Airport and some of which would, in the future, be subject to severe noise impacts.  The Planning Proposal also allows for an additional 4 dwellings. 

The site is one of the largest in the Liverpool LGA.  It could, if it were subdivided into the minimum permitted lot size for that site under LLEP 2008, contain 26 dwellings. 

The site is occupied by a working dairy which employs over 100 people.  It already has workers’ dwellings on site to support the 24 hour operation of the farm.  These dwellings assist with recruiting and retaining of farm workers.  The additional four rural workers’ on site dwellings referred to above would give LPC more flexibility if it needed additional dwellings in the future.  These would be subject to development consent.

In April 2016 rural workers’ dwellings were made a permissible use in the RU1 Primary Production and RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zones with a limit of one rural worker’s dwelling per lot and a limit on the size of the dwelling.  This Planning Proposal is a variation of this standard.  However as noted in the report to Council on 29 June 2016 this was considered reasonable as it involved an existing rural industry, which is a significant employer and which will be affected by the new airport.  As such it would not be considered an undesirable precedent.

The site, which is located to the south west of the future airport, is under a future flight path and much of the site will in the future be subject to high levels of aircraft noise.  The Planning Proposal would limit the new rural workers’ dwellings to an area in the south-east part of the site.  This area of the site is outside of the current ANEF 20-25 noise contour (the area in which dwellings may be allowed, subject to noise mitigation measures).  The area in which the dwellings would be permitted would not require noise mitigation measures at present.

At its meeting on 29 June 2016 Council endorsed the Planning Proposal in principle and delegated to the A/CEO the authority to finalise the Planning Proposal and submit it to the Department of Planning and Environment for gateway determination.  Council received the gateway determination on 15 August 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions from public authorities

The gateway determination required Council to refer the Planning Proposal to the following public authorities.  Authorities were given a period of at least 21 days to comment, and late comments were accepted. Responses are detailed as follows:

Government Agency:

Response:

Transport for NSW

Does not object to the proposal, but recommends that the proponent consults with TfNSW regarding the Outer Sydney Orbital Corridor prior to any future development applications on the site.

NSW Rural Fire Service

Does not object to the proposal.

NSW Department of Primary Industries - Agriculture

Supports the proposal.

Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Does not object to the proposal.

Public exhibition

Subsequent to referral to public authorities, the Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited in accordance with the gateway determination as follows:

·    Publicly exhibited in local newspaper from 2 November 2016 to 2 December 2016 (30 days);

·    Notification by mail of property owners adjoining the part of the site in which additional dwellings may be constructed; and

·    Public notice placed on council’s website and at Council’s customer service centre.

No submissions were received.

 

Contamination Study

Further supporting documentation regarding potential contamination will be required prior to submission of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation. This is pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land.  The applicant will be required to prepare a Stage 1 – Preliminary Site Investigation for the area proposed for rural workers’ dwellings.  The proposal can be forwarded to the Department of Planning subject to this investigation showing no contamination of the area proposed for dwellings or detailing sufficient remediation work.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment No 64) seeks to allow the relocation of rural workers’ dwellings that will be affected by the Western Sydney Airport.  Subsequent to receiving a gateway determination, the Planning Proposal was referred to the relevant public authorities and was publicly exhibited for a period of 30 days.  No objections to the draft amendment were received.

The proposed amendment to LLEP 2008 is considered appropriate in order to support the continued operation of a sustainable and significant agricultural business in Liverpool, which employs over 100 people.  It is recommended that the amendment be supported and subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Stage 1 – Preliminary Site Investigation contamination report, the Planning Proposal be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation and gazettal.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Facilitate economic development.

Environmental and Sustainability

Retain viable opportunities for local food production while managing land use to meet urban growth.


Social and Cultural

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership and Governance

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Planning Proposal Post Council Report July 2016 LLEP 2008 Amendment 64View (Under separate cover)

2.         Signed Gateway and Letter - Planning Proposal for 1675 The Northern Road GreendaleView (Under separate cover)  


 

DPG 02

Planning Proposal for 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (Residential and Business Uses and changes to maximum height, floor space ratio and minimum lot size)

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

323163.2016

Report By

Bruce Macnee - Manager Strategic Planning

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report assesses a planning proposal by Coronation Property Pty Ltd for 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road, Moorebank. The planning proposal seeks to rezone land from industrial to high density residential and businesses uses, increase height and floor space ratios and reduce minimum lot sizes. The planning proposal seeks to make the changes by amending the applicable maps in Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

 

The overall conclusion is that the merits of the proposal are uncertain at this time as the strategic planning context is undergoing substantial change. While the proposal may be generally consistent with housing and employment strategies, it is inconsistent with the current State and Council strategies seeking to preserve and enhance industrial lands in western Moorebank. This will remain the case until a State or Council strategy is adopted which priortises western Moorebank for non-industrial uses.

 

A secondary conclusion is that the proposal’s site specific merit is also uncertain. Based on the area’s current use and character, the proposal does not have site specific merit and there would be conflict with existing industrial uses. However, it may be compatible with the area’s planned future character, depending on the form dictated by future strategies, such as a finalised Georges River Master Plan. There are also uncertainties about the adequacy of current public transportation, the local road network and community infrastructure.

 

Consequently, the proposal’s strategic and site specific merit cannot be conclusively determined at this time. Council is currently progressing its Draft Georges River Master Plan (GRMP) and the draft South West District Plan has just been released. The proposal is reasonably consistent with the draft Master Plan and draft District Plan.

As such, it is recommended that Council defer its determination of the proposal until an assessment can be undertaken against the final Master Plan and District Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes the planning proposal for land owned by Coronation Property Pty Ltd comprising Lot 10 DP 875626, Lot 111 DP1133744, Lot 1 DP329572 and Lot 101 DP827141 to enable the creation of a mixed use urban renewal precinct;

 

2.       Defers consideration of the Planning Proposal in order to enter into a collaborative working relationship with the proponent to determine the appropriate controls, including height and FSR, to apply to the precinct in the context of the draft South West District Plan and draft Georges River Master Plan;

 

3.       Seeks further information in relation to the type and delivery framework for appropriate non-residential land uses; urban design analysis to identify appropriate height and massing outcomes; housing choice and affordable housing opportunities; traffic impact, infrastructure requirements, delivery mechanisms and staging; and the sequencing of development across the site; and

 

4.       Notes that a further report will be prepared following the submission and assessment of a revised planning proposal, informed by additional studies and plans, including the Georges River Master Plan and the South West District Plan and incorporating the changes recommended by this report.

 

 

REPORT

 

The Planning Proposal

Planning proposal process

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) contains development controls for the Liverpool Local Government Area (Liverpool). The LLEP may be amended through the planning proposal process, subject to the provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 and policies set out by the Department of Planning and Environment (Department).

 

The process allows for a planning proposal to be submitted to Council requesting an amendment to the LLEP. Planning proposals are assessed against their strategic and site specific merits and reported to Council for consideration. If Council endorses a planning proposal, it is forwarded to the Department for consideration. Otherwise, the proponent may appeal to the Department for a pre-Gateway review. If appealed, the Sydney South West Planning Panel (SWPP) will consider the merits of the planning proposal and determine if it should be forwarded to the Department for consideration.

 

If the Department supports an endorsed or successfully appealed planning proposal, it will issue conditions for further tasks through a Gateway determination. The Gateway determination may require community consultation, referrals to public authorities, additional reports or amendments to the planning proposal. The Department also decides if Council or the SWPP will be responsible for undertaking the tasks and the final consideration of the planning proposal. If the planning proposal is successful, LLEP is then amended in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department.

 

Planning proposal details

On 5 June 2015, Coronation Property Pty Ltd (the proponent) lodged a planning proposal with Council. At that time, the planning proposal only applied to 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road. On 16 September 2015, Council provided a detailed response identifying various key issues that required detailed consideration.

 

On 23 December 2015, the proponent lodged an amended planning proposal seeking to address Council’s concerns. The planning proposal expanded the subject area to include 361 Newbridge Road and included various amendments and additional supporting information.

 

The planning proposal is now for 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (subject site), as identified in Figure 1, and is comprised of the following parcels of land:

·  Lot 10 DP 875626;

·  Lot 111 DP 1133744;

·  Lot 1 DP 329572; and

·  Lot 101 DP 827141.

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed site controls

The subject site is subject to the provisions of LLEP. Table 1 describes the relevant current and proposed controls.

 

Table 1: Current and proposed site controls

LLEP Control

Current

Proposed

Land Zone

IN2 Light Industrial

R4 High Density Residential

B4 Mixed Use

B6 Business Corridor

Height of Building

15 metres

115 metres

Floor Space Ratio

0.75:1

4.5:1

Minimum Lot Size

2,000 m2

1,000 m2

 

Anticipated development outcomes

The proponent estimates that the planning proposal, if approved in its current form, would have the following development outcomes:

·    removal of existing industrial uses;

·    181,026 m2of residential floor space resulting in:

approximately 2,263 apartments;

approximately 5,092 to 6,223 additional residents; and

onsite residential density of 1,049 to 1,282 persons per hectare (ha);

·    17,799 m2 of retail floor space; and

·    5,235 m2 of commercial floor space.

 

As part of the planning proposal, a concept plan of future development on the site has been submitted. It is noted that the concept plan only indicates the form of future potential development. The actual location and arrangement of buildings roads and open space would be sought by a development control plan and/or DA plans, both of which would be subject to separate and additional approvals.

 

Voluntary planning agreement offer

As part of the original planning proposal, the proponent included an offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) with Council. Council’s Planning Agreements Policy describes the process for negotiation and assessment of VPAs. The letter offered the following public benefits:

·    delivery of a new pedestrian and cycling bridge across the Georges River, connecting the subject site to the Liverpool City Centre across the former Liverpool Railway Bridge (valued at $8,899,414); and

·    remediation of an asbestos containment cell on 8 Bridges Road (valued at $2,898,350) to facilitate dedication of the existing private road at 8 Bridges Road to Council.

The proponent has not provided evidence demonstrating that the connecting bridge would be technically feasible. There is no indication that the affected land owners or the owner of the existing bridge pylons have provided in principle support for the proposed use. There is also uncertainty as to whether the pylons are structurally sound due to long term exposure of structural elements. As such, it cannot be assumed that the connecting bridge will be made available as a result of the VPA.  Note also the pylons are state heritage listed.

 

In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the VPA would provide other additional public benefits. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 55 would require remediation works as a condition of consent on land affected by the proposal and Council would require road and pedestrian upgrade works for development of the scale proposed through normal consent processes. Such works may include upgrade works similar to those offered in the VPA.

 

As Council has not yet accepted the VPA offer, the provisions of the VPA may be further negotiated. The negotiations would be subject to Council’s Planning Agreements Policy in order to secure planning benefits to the wider community beyond the proposed development. Negotiated works must also be outlined in a schedule in a contributions plan. Without precluding any future decision of Council or creation of a contributions plan, the benefits may include:

·    demonstrably feasible pedestrian and cycling connections to Liverpool City Centre;

·    open space amenity improvements; and

·    traffic improvement measures providing a net improvement in traffic conditions after accounting for impacts from proposed development.

 

Relationship to other planning proposals

Council is currently considering two additional planning proposals in proximity to the subject site at 5-9 Bridges Road and at 1 Moorebank Avenue and 1 Helles Avenue. Each planning proposal is being considered on its own merits, as are the potential cumulative impacts.

 

This report takes into account the substantial increases in residential densities that are proposed by all three proposals.

 

Site Specific Merits

 

Local context

The subject site occupies approximately 4.9 ha and contains the following:

·  light industrial uses (warehouse and engineering firm);

·  bulky goods retailers (furniture retailer);

·  private road; and

·  vacant land.

 

The subject site is located in north-west Moorebank, adjacent to Lake Moore to the north and in close proximity to Georges River to the north and west. The primary access is via Bridges Road and Newbridge Road.

 

Surrounding land uses are industrial to the west and north-west, and a mix of light industrial and commercial uses to the south and south-east. Aside from a cluster of low density residential land approximately 300 m south of the subject site, the mix of industrial, light industrial and commercial uses is characteristic of western Moorebank. The Moorebank Intermodal Terminal will extend these uses south of the M5 Motorway, further promoting these uses between Georges River and Anzac Creek.

 

Eastern Moorebank contains residential uses and supporting services, but is separated by from the subject site by Anzac Creek, with Newbridge Road providing primary access. Services include retail clusters, Newbridge Heights and Nuwarra Public Schools, Moorebank High School and playing fields at Ernie Smith Reserve. These services are expected to be put under increasing pressure as residential subdivisions at Brighton Lakes and Georges Fair and Georges Cove come online.

 

The Liverpool City Centre is located approximately 1 kilometre west of the subject site, across the Georges River. The City Centre is designated in A Plan for Growing Sydney as a Regional Centre and provides services for south-west Sydney. These services include Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney TAFE, State Services (Centrelink and Medicare), regional shopping options, Liverpool Railway Station and Council services. Access to the City Centre from the subject site is limited to Newbridge Road, both for vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Assessment of impacts

An assessment of potential impacts has been undertaken to determine the proposal’s site specific merits.

 

Public Transport

The closest access to public transport is a bus stop on Newbridge Road, near the intersection of Bridge Road and Newbridge Road, approximately 150 m south of the subject site. This stop includes the M90 service from Liverpool to Burwood as well as a local service route. The M90 service generally operates every 10 to 30 minutes from 5 AM to 10 PM and does not provide night time operations.

 

Liverpool Railway Station is approximately 800 m to the west of the subject site. It provides access to the Greater Sydney rail network with services to the Sydney CBD, Blacktown, Leppington and Campbelltown. Due to a current lack of direct access, the walking distance is between 1 and 1.5 km, depending on the location within the subject site. As noted above, the proponent’s VPA includes a new connecting bridge that would shorten this distance.

 

Integrated Public Transport Service Planning GuidelinesSydney Metropolitan Area (Transport for NSW, 2013) is the relevant guideline for provision of public transport for new residential developments. The guideline describes the catchment for rail services as being within 800 m of a railway station. Given the physical barriers between the subject site and the railway station, the guideline is not met.

 

As the M90 service is the only easily accessible regional public transportation option, supporting information is required to demonstrate that the service is sufficient to meet demand of new residents. Until the sufficiency of the M90 service or certainty of a pedestrian link to the rail station is demonstrated, it cannot be assumed that sufficient public transport access for the site currently exists.

 

Traffic

The proponent has submitted a transport assessment in support of the planning proposal. The transport assessment makes the following assumptions regarding available infrastructure:

·    construction of a pedestrian bridge between the subject site and the railway station; and

·    new signalised intersection between the subject site and Newbridge Road at 361 Newbridge Road.

 

The assessment has used ‘high density’ trip generation rates from Guide to Traffic Generating Developments – Updated traffic surveys (Roads and Maritime Services, 2013) to estimate traffic impacts. The rates assume that development is close to public transport, resulting in lower traffic generation per dwelling than low or medium density dwellings. As noted above, the railway station is not considered to be easily accessible from the subject site and bus services are limited. Further evidence is required to justify the lower generation rates used in the proponent’s traffic assessment.

 

The transport assessment states that the proposed signalized intersection at Newbridge Road has been assessed under Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) guidelines and that future traffic levels would be near the requirements for a signalised intersection.

 

However, no supporting document for the RMS is provided and, as such, there is no evidence that the RMS will agree with the current traffic assessment and that a signalised intersection will be built. The proposal relies on the signalised intersection to support its conclusions that future traffic operation would be acceptable.

 

The transport assessment includes an estimate of the increase in vehicles associated with the proposed development. However, the current status of roads and intersections affected by the proposal has not been addressed. As such, the traffic assessment does not demonstrate that the estimated traffic increase can be accommodated without adversely affected local traffic flows.

 

The proponent should demonstrate how traffic generated by the proposed development will access Newbridge Road, with in principle support from the RMS prior to Gateway review. A more thorough assessment of current traffic conditions should also be completed with a detailed traffic report demonstrating the cummulative impact of the surrounding planning proposal should be submitted.

 

 

 

 

 

Height Impacts

The planning proposal proposes a maximum height of of 115 m, which would allow for towers of approximately 34 stories. It is also noted that the planning proposals on nearby sites request similar increases in maximum height. However, the requested height greatly exceeds the existing height in the surrounding area of 15 to 18 m.

 

Environmental impacts from the proposed height, such as overshadowing and privacy, are not addressed by the planning proposal. Instead, SEPP 65 is noted as the standard for compliance for future development.

An additional urban design report discusses the merits and impacts of development within the subject site. However, minimal information is provided that would give an indication of height impacts on neighbouring sites. Further information is required to demonstrate environmental impacts relating to height to neighbouring sites.

 

The planning proposal acknowledges that the subject site is approximately 5 km west of Bankstown Airport. This is within the controlled airspace of the airport, as prescribed by the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996.

 

The Regulations define controls for obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) and the Procedures for Air Navigation Service – Airport Operations (PANS-OPS). These controls are effectively height controls to ensure that flights to and from airports are not obstructed. The OLS for the subject site is approximately 73 m and the PANS-OPS is approximately 115 m. The height controls are not fixed standards and flexibility is provided allowing variations where warranted, both during construction or permanently. Approval for such variations is required from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

 

There is no indication that any discussions with the airport or regulatory agencies have occurred. As such, it cannot be assumed that the requested 115 m height limit is achievable. Until in principle support for the proposed maximum height limit is secured from the Commonwealth, it cannot be assumed that the maximum height on the subject site is achievable.

 

Floor Space Ratios

The planning proposal proposes a maximum floor space ratio of 4.5:1, effectively allowing a built form containing a floor space of up to 22 ha across the 4.9 ha site. The concept design suggests that the floorspace will be distributed across podiums between 2 and 5 stories and towers between 8 and 34 stories.

 

As discussed above, it cannot be assumed that the requested 115 m height limit is achievable. If the height limit is lowered, reducing floorspace in the 34 story towers, additional floorspace will likely be added elsewhere on the subject site. This would either take the form of taller podiums or bulkier towers.

 

In order to achieve an acceptable built form outcome on the subject site, the requested FSR should be revisited with the potential of further controls such as site coverage or more detailed height controls across the subject site.

 

Community Infrastructure

The proponent has submitted a social impact assessment (SIA), responding to Council’s SIA Policy. The SIA reviews the planning proposal’s likely impact on Council assets. Council has not yet adopted a strategy for the provision of community infrastructure at the scale required by the proposed development. As such, the SIA has been used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development.

 

The SIA’s analysis of children’s services found that there was no capacity for childcare in the area. While the planning proposal notes a contribution towards childcare places, this has not been offered through the proponent’s offer for a VPA.

 

Further, the SIA found that local schools may have sufficient capacity to accommodate children associated with the proposed development, but would not have capacity to service other future development within the schools’ catchment areas, which would jeopdarise already planned for development.

 

The SIA notes that spare capacity exists in local community halls and parks, but with significant upgrades being needed to meet the demands of additional residents. An analysis of sporting fields shows an undersupply in the local area, with opportunities to provide multipurpose courts near the subject site. The SIA also notes that amenity for pedestrians in the local area is low. Specifically, pedestrian access south of Newbridge Road is difficult, as is access west towards the Liverpool City Centre across the George River.

 

The planning proposal proposes edge parks and embellishments to Haigh Park, including a possible multipurpose court. However, the VPA offer does not include funding for these works and Council is not currently planning to undertake the upgrades.

 

The SIA’s analysis of local community infrastructure demonstrates that the services and facilities currently available in the locality do not have sufficient capacity to provide for the proposed development. In addition, analysis of the cumulative impact of this and other residential development, and a comprehensive approach for provision of community assets, is required prior to approval of any high density residential development or zoning.

 

Land Use Conflict

The planning proposal notes that surrounding development is primarily industrial, with the broader area transitioning towards mixed use development. However, the subject site is significantly isolated from identified mixed use developments by both the Georges River and the railway line. Mixed use developments are located on the northern, western and southern fringes of the Liverpool City Centre and are fundamentally different environments than the subject site.

 

The local area is currently occupied by industrial uses, including the land surrounding the subject site, and these uses will be reinforced by the opening of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. It is likely that the close proximity between the uses will result in conflict between new residents and existing businesses. These conflicts are likely to arise from noise, smell and visual amenity originating from the industrial uses.

 

As noted above, two additional planning proposals have been lodged seeking to rezone land from industrial uses to mixed use and residential uses. A piecemeal approach to the application of residential zoning may further exacerbate land use conflict and use isolation issues. A more coordinated approach to any future transition in uses will help mitigate those impacts through strategic and economic analysis, prioritisation and staging.

 

Flooding

The proponent has submitted a Stormwater and Flooding report. The report shows that the subject site is affected by 100-year flood events. A primary evacuation route is identified via a proposed road through 361 Newbridge Road, with a possible secondary route through a neighbouring shared path. This may be a suitable option when considering development solely on the subject site. However, it is likely that future development to the north-west will rely on the same evacuation routes. It is unclear if the cumulative risks for the precinct would be acceptable.

 

Conclusion

The planning proposal and proposed development have the potential to lead to significant issues for the subject site and the surrounding area. These include impacts related transport and traffic networks, local character and built form, community infrastructure, land use conflict and evacuation during floods. While the planning proposal suggests that these can be addressed through a VPA or other contributions, resolution of the issues is not guaranteed. On balance, the planning proposal does not meet the site specific merit test at this time, although this may change depending upon the provisions of the future strategies for the area.

 

Strategic Merit

The planning proposal process includes an analysis of State and Council planning strategies. A review of the planning proposal’s compatibility with relevant strategies is given below.

 

A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metro Plan) is the relevant NSW Government regional strategy for the Sydney area. It includes general goals and directions applicable across the Greater Sydney area and more localised subregional strategies

 

Goals and Directions

Goals and directions relevant to the planning proposal, along with a summary of the proponent and Council’s responses are described in Table 2.

 

 

 

Table 2: Goals and Directions Analysis

Item

Proponent’s Response

Assessment Response

Goal 1: A competitive economy with world class services and transport

Direction 1.7

Grow Strategic Centres – providing more jobs closer to home

Proposal will increase jobs and housing adjacent to the Liverpool Strategic Centre

The subject site is adjacent to the Liverpool Regional Centre, but is not well connected to it due to poor links across the Georges River. It is not a logical extension of the regional centre without significant improvements in linkages and without urban renewal occurring on the neighbouring site (the Pirelli Site).

 

The subject site provides employment for local residents under existing controls. Removal of employment opportunities would require local residents to find employment in other industrial areas that may be further from home.

Direction 1.11

Deliver infrastructure

Proposal will result in public domain improvements, including a new bridge to the Liverpool City Centre.

Additional pedestrian and cycling improvements can improve local amenity.

There is no guarantee that the planning proposal will deliver infrastructure for the following reasons:

·  the feasibility of the proposed connecting bridge to Liverpool City Centre has not been demonstrated;

·  the proponent’s VPA offer does not include pedestrian or cycling improvements, apart from the proposed connecting bridge; and

·  even if the proposed connecting bridge is provided, other infrastructure will be affected and no overall infrastructure upgrading plan has been provided. Furthermore, Council does not have a plan for infrastructure in the area to guide contribution funds at the levels required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goal 2: A city of housing choice, with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles

 

Direction 2.1: Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

Proposal will increase housing and housing choice close to jobs and public transport.

The direction seeks to accelerate new housing within Priority Precincts and under UrbanGrowth NSW programs. The subject site is neither.

 

However, it is agreed that the proposed development would increase housing supply and choice within Liverpool.

Direction 2.2:

Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs

Proposal will increase housing and housing choice close to jobs and public transport.

The actions associated with the direction seek to empower council-led urban infill and along transport corridors around strategic centres.

 

While Council has started this process through the draft Georges River Master Plan (draft Master Plan), this is not an adopted Council strategy.

 

The proposed development would provide housing close to jobs, but it may also jeopardise the viability of the employment land where the jobs are located. Again, the draft Master Plan, if adopted, may help resolve these issues.

Direction 2.3: Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles.

The proposal will improve housing choice by providing a range of housing types for different life stages.

The actions associated with the direction seek to promote housing strategies, subdivision of existing housing into medium density housing and to deliver affordable housing.

 

The planning proposal may lead to the provision of additional housing supply and choice within Liverpool, showing general consistency with the direction. However, the location of the housing is not consistent with Council’s housing strategy. Further, the planning proposal contains no provisions for affordable housing, a key aspect of the direction.

 

Goal 3: A great place to live with communities that are strong, healthy and well connected

 

Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs

The development will deliver high quality infrastructure.

The proposal may deliver some new and valuable infrastructure (eg the proposed connecting bridge to Liverpool City Centre), but this is not guaranteed.

 

The locality is an important employment area, not a “suburb”. The proposal would cause land use incompatibility, not “revitalization”, unless part of a larger adopted strategy for the area.

Direction 3.4: Promote Sydney’s heritage, arts and culture

Historical items, such as the Liverpool railway bridge and Pirelli sheds will be preserved and repurposed.

It is not guaranteed that the proposal will successfully repurpose the Liverpool railway bridge.

Further analysis is required to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed repurposing.

 

The Pirelli sheds are outside the subject site and not part of the planning proposal.

 

Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city that protects the natural environment and has a balanced approach to the use of land and resources

Direction 4.1: Protect our natural environment and biodiversity

The proposal will protect and enhance the surrounding conservation land.

The proposal would have a largely neutral affect on the natural environment, but would lead to remediation of some heavily contaminated land. This outcome would be beneficial.

 

South West Subregion

The Metro Plan identifies a number of priorities for subregions across Greater Sydney. Liverpool is identified as part of the South West Subregion. The priorities for the subregion seek to balance the need for additional housing, preservation and expansion of employment lands and environmental concerns.

 

Taken as a whole, the priorities direct Council to take a systematic and strategic approach that is consistent with the Master Plan. Any significant rezoning should only occur following appropriate investigations into:

·    value of current industrial land;

·    land uses that may be suitable, other than industrial land;

·    potential infrastructure upgrades providing connections to the Liverpool City Centre;

·    impacts of development on the Liverpool City Centre commercial core; and

·    provision of positive environmental, recreation and tourism outcomes along the Georges River.

 

The proponent’s economic impact assessment (economic assessment) identifies a healthy market for high quality industrial land. Council has not adopted strategies that identify other uses for the subject site or appropriate infrastructure to support residential uses.

 

Council is fulfilling its obligations under the priorities by investigating uses in the draft Master Plan, discussed below. Until this or another strategy identifies the subject site for non-industrial uses, the priorities direct Council to maintain the industrial uses.

 

Draft South West District Plan

The Greater Sydney Commission published the draft South West District Plan (District Plan) on 21 November 2016 for public exhibition. The draft District Plan sets out visions, priorities and actions for the development of the South West District of Greater Sydney. The Department’s Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals states that the draft District Plan is a consideration for determining the strategic merit of a planning proposal.

As the draft District Plan was not published when the planning proposal was lodged, the proponent has not addressed the draft District Plan in the planning proposal. A limited review of the draft District Plan has shown that the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal is an important employment and economic generator. The industrial riverfront, of which the subject area is part of, is specifically mentioned as an area where employment, residential and environmental land pressures must be reconciled.

 

Section 3.5.1 of the draft District Plan notes that consideration is to be given to residential and employment pressures, with and understanding of building heights and objectives for public areas around the Georges River guiding the planning proposal process. The draft Master Plan is specifically mentioned as a consideration for the area. Action P13 designates the wider Liverpool City Centre as a Collaboration Area in order to maximize investment, productive and jobs outcomes. This is foreshadowed to be undertaken through coordinated activities across state and local government to provide clarity to the private sector.

 

It is also noted in sections 3.5.1 and 3.6.1 of the draft District Plan that the Liverpool City Centre will be promoted for business innovation and health and education excellence. Increasing mixed use development in the area around Liverpool Hospital will help achieve this goal. However, more direct connections are required to capitalise on proximity benefits. As noted above, the planning proposal is not guaranteed to lead to these connections.

 

More generally, section 3.8.4 of the draft District Plan states that the Greater Sydney Commission will take a precautionary approach to the conversion of employment and urban services lands. Productivity Priority 4 states that this precautionary approach should be taken at the planning proposal stage unless the Metro Plan or an endorsed strategy proposes another use. Even then, a net community benefit assessment is required to show how the endorsed strategy will provide benefits across economic, environmental and social dimensions.

 

The proposed development may aid Council in meeting residential and employment targets for the South West District. However, the draft District Plan highlights several issues affecting the Georges River and Moorebank areas to be integrated and resolved. Further, the draft District Plan implements a target of 5% to 10% of new floorspace for affordable rental housing, which is not accounted for in the planning proposal.

 

Given the implications of the planning proposal on the wider Liverpool City Centre area, the implications of the draft District Plan should be considered prior to Gateway review. The planning proposal should ensure that the wider issues of western Moorebank are addressed in an appropriate and consistent manner.

 

Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist

The Metro Plan requires planning proposals affecting industrial land to be assessed against an Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist. The checklist fosters evidence-based decisions that will prevent alienation of important industrial sites. The proposal’s compatibility with the criteria in the checklist has been assessed and is provided below. The proponent’s response is contained within the planning proposal.

 

Is the proposed rezoning consistent with State and/or council strategies on the future role of industrial lands?

As noted above, it is not considered that the planning proposal is fully consistent with Metro Plan or its priorities for the South West Subregion. As noted above, the draft District Plan advises a precautionary principle to rezoning industrial lands, requiring an endorsed strategy prior to rezoning to other uses. As neither Council nor the Department has an endorsed strategy at this time, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the draft District Plan’s views on the future role of industrial lands.

 

Is the site:

·    Near or within direct access to key economic infrastructure?

The subject site is within 2 km of the future Moorebank Intermodal terminal, which will increase the importance and viability of industrial uses. It is within 5 km of Bankstown Airport, which generates the need for speciality and supporting industrial uses and 20 km of the future Badgerys Creek airport.

 

·    Contributing to a significant industry cluster?

The subject site is not currently contributing to a significant industry cluster. However, the proponent’s economic assessment has found that there is strong demand for high quality industrial space in the Moorebank area.

 

How would the proposed rezoning impact the industrial land stocks in the subregion or region and the ability to meet future demand for industrial land activity?

The planning proposal would have a relatively small direct impact on the industrial stock in the area, as it is largely undeveloped. However, introduction of residential uses may threaten the viability of nearby industrial land by introducing land use conflict between new residents and existing industrial uses.

 

Council has identified a very low vacancy rate in industrial land. Further reduction in stock may cause additional shortages in the future. This, in turn, has the potential to increase leasing prices for existing stock and thus reduce the commercial competitive position of this industrial area.

 

How would the proposed rezoning impact on the achievement of the subregion / region and LGA employment capacity targets and employment objectives?

The planning proposal suggests that future development will provide 2.3 ha of commercial land use. The proponent’s economic assessment suggests that the future development could accommodate up to 963 full-time equivalent positions on the subject site, primarily in retail trade.

 

However, it is noted that the land is not currently used to its full capacity of 3.7 ha of industrial floorspace (4.9 ha with an FSR or 0.75:1), which would increase the full time equivalent positions on the subject site.

 

Is there a compelling argument that the industrial land cannot be used for an industrial purpose now or in the foreseeable future and what opportunities may exist to redevelop the land to support new forms of industrial land uses such as high-tech or creative industries?

The planning proposal mentions an attempt to subdivide the subject site for the provision of industrial uses that resulted in failure. The proponent’s economic assessment states that there is a demand for high quality industrial space, which is currently restricted in supply. This suggests that there is an opportunity to redevelop the land for industrial land uses.

 

There are no compelling arguments indicating that the land cannot continue to be used for industrial purposes.

 

Is the site critical to meeting the need for land for an alternative purpose identified in other NSW Government or endorsed council planning strategies?

The subject site is not specifically identified in an endorsed Council planning strategy (eg Growth Centre or Priority Precinct).

 

As noted above, the subject site is located within the Liverpool City Centre Collaboration Area within the draft District Plan. The draft District Plan notes the potential for alternative purposes, with further investigation required by Council and State agencies.

 

Growing Liverpool 2023

Growing Liverpool 2023 is the relevant local strategic plan for Liverpool. It provides seven strategic directions that are relevant to the planning proposal. Table 3 identifies the relevant directions and comments on the planning proposal’s impact on those directions.

 

 

 

Table 3: Growing Liverpool 2023 Analysis

Strategic Direction

Comment

Vibrant Prosperous City

The planning proposal may attract additional business and investment in the area. However, future development may threaten existing businesses by encroaching on industrial land.

Livable Safe City

The planning proposal may lead to additional housing stock, which may reduce the price of apartments. However, there are no affordable housing provisions included in the planning proposal. The planning proposal does not include provisions for the embellishment of public spaces, but would probably have a neutral effect in regard to this direction.

Healthy Inclusive City

As noted above, the subject site is outside of the walking catchment of the Liverpool railway station, which may reduce possible pedestrian activity for new residents. While the planning proposal mentions extension and improvement of pedestrian and cycling links, it does not include a mechanism to guarantee those works.

Natural Sustainable City

The planning proposal would improve access to the Georges River and restore some reparation corridors. The proposal is therefore compatible with this direction.

Accessible Connected City

As noted above, the subject site is not considered to be well connected to public transport. While the proponent’s transport assessment indicates that an access road through 361 Newbridge Road is possible, the RMS’s support for the proposed signalised intersection has not been demonstrated.

 

Liverpool Residential Development Strategy (2008)

Liverpool Residential Development Strategy (RDS) is the relevant housing strategy for Liverpool. It is designed as a 25 year strategy to aid in the modernisation of LLEP (1997) and to meet housing targets for the area.

 

The RDS stresses the importance of meeting housing needs while minimising housing stress. The RDS suggests that this can be done, in part, by increasing the portion of one and two bedroom units. In this way, the proposed development will aid in increasing housing diversity as recommended by the RDS.

 

The RDS does not envision transformation of industrial land to residential uses. Instead, the availability of local industrial land is identified as a key determinant for possible densification of residential land. The RDS identifies several investigation areas across Liverpool for possible increased residential density based on analysis of this and other determinants. The subject site is not included in the investigation areas.

Access to the industrial employment precincts at Prestons and Moorebank is specifically noted as criteria for areas to be included in investigation areas. As noted above, the subject site is not suitably close to the Liverpool City Centre or railway station, and as such, does not meet the objectives of the RDS.

 

The planning proposal would help address the larger issues of mixed densities and housing diversity identified by the RDS. However, justification is required to demonstrate how the area around the subject site meets the requirements to be considered as an investigation area under the RDS. Further, the planning proposal should demonstrate how new jobs generated by the proposed development will be accessible by other investigation areas and provide a net reduction in commute times to and from the investigation areas.

 

Liverpool Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018

Liverpool Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018 (EDS) is the relevant economic strategy for Liverpool. It identifies strategies and associated actions and targets to ensure positive economic outcomes are achieved.

 

The EDS focuses on supporting existing businesses while providing opportunities for new businesses to develop. Strategy 4 targets the ‘City Centre’ for business development, establishing specialty precincts and promoting site consolidation to promote development. The subject site is not considered to be within the City Centre. As the subject site is significantly disconnected from the City Centre, the provision of over 23,000 m2 of retail and commercial space may undermine the strategy, rather than complement it.

 

The proponent has suggested that the planning proposal will aid in the delivery of Strategy 5, which seeks to improve employment opportunities for youth, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. However, no evidence is provided that supports this.

 

Draft Georges River Master Plan

The draft Master Plan establishes a high level framework for the potential regeneration of the Moorebank Precinct, where the subject site is located. It is envisioned that the Moorebank Precinct will transition away from being primarily industrial land to mixed use, residential and more flexible industrial uses.

 

The draft Master Plan originates from a 29 April 2015 Council meeting where Council resolved to:

 

1.    Investigate the Moorebank Georges River area as an urban renewal precinct; and

 

2. Develop a Master Plan for the Moorebank Georges River mixed use precinct to          provide opportunities for housing and employment, with access to transport and           infrastructure.

 

In September 2015, Council engaged a team of consultants to provide the draft Master Plan and supporting studies. The draft Master Plan was delivered to Council in June 2016 after considerable effort by the consultants and Council staff. It was then reported to Council at its meeting on 21 August 2016, where Council resolved to authorise it for public exhibition, which concluded on 5 December 2016.

 

 

 

The draft Master Plan has not been adopted by Council and does not represent the strategic direction of Council at this time. The Department’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals only gives weight to local strategies that have been endorsed by the Department Secretary. However, Council has demonstrated consistent progress and dedication of resources to the draft Master Plan. Further, the origin of the draft Master Plan predates the lodgment of the planning proposal. On balance, it provides useful guidance for the planning proposal.

 

The draft Master Plan and the 21 August 2016 Council report note the need for additional detailed study to inform the final Master Plan. These include:

 

·    traffic and transport studies;

·    flood modelling;

·    community infrastructure demands; and

·    urban form studies.

 

The draft Master Plan suggests that the subject site be zoned as Mixed Use. The proposed development is generally consistent with the draft Master Plan, as a portion of the subject site is proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Use.

 

The draft Master Plan does not provide specific controls for heights or densities. However, it does identify the area around the subject site as having potential for a higher height limit than the rest of the Moorebank Precinct. This is balanced by highlighting a potential need for caps on density, requiring additional precinct-level studies. This suggests that heights and densities, such as those in the planning proposal, may not be acceptable on the subject site.

As noted in the site merit assessment, serious issues have been identified regarding traffic, flooding and community infrastructure that limit the potential of the subject site being developed without a strategy such as the draft Master Plan. It is possible that future studies related to the draft Master Plan would help address these issues and provide guidance on appropriate controls. As such, the planning proposal is not fully supported by the draft Master Plan, as it is premature and possibly threatens the viability the draft Master Plan, should Council adopt it in the future.

 

Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Directions

The proponent has provided a statement of consistency with relevant SEPPs. It does not appear that the planning proposal itself is inconsistent with any SEPP. However, prior to implementing amendments to LLEP, the proponent should demonstrate that the proposal can comply with the following SEPPs:

·    SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land

·    SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

·    Greater Metropolitan REP No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

 

There is some information suggesting that the requirements of SEPP 55 can be met, but insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the other two SEPPs. A more comprehensive consideration considering the cumulative benefits of the planning proposal and other planning proposals in the area could help demonstrate compliance.

Table 4 provides a summary of the proposal’s consistency with relevant Section 117 Directions. The proponent’s response is included in the planning proposal.

 

Table 4: Consistency with Section 117 Directions

Section 117 Direction

Summary of objectives or provisions

Response

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

·   Encourage employment growth in suitable locations

·   Protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and

·   Support the viability of identified strategic centres

The planning proposal will replace light industrial land with mixed use and high density residential land. This will further jeopardise neighbouring industrial zones via land use conflict.

 

Further, the proposal includes approximately 2.3 ha of commercial land use. This is less than the current 3.7ha of potential industrial land use available under current controls.

 

The subject site is also substantially disconnected from Liverpool City Centre and would provide large areas of retail and commercial space. Rather than reinforcing the Liverpool City Centre, the proposal would compete with it and possibly diminish its subregional role.

 

This proposal is generally inconsistent with this direction.

 

3.1 Residential Zones

·   Encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs

·   Make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services

·   Minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands.

The planning proposal would provide additional high density residential development and thus broaden housing choice. The housing type, being largely 1 and 2 bedroom units is supported by the RDS.

 

The proposal provides some supporting infrastructure and would take advantage of existing roads, water, sewerage and other urban infrastructure.

 

However, additional transport infrastructure and a wide range of social infrastructure would be required, and the proposal does not make adequate provision for this.

 

The proposal would have a beneficial effect on identified environment and resource lands and enable improvement for the Georges River foreshore, when combined with the effects of other planning proposals surrounding the subject site.

 

Overall, the proposal is generally consistent with this direction.

4.3 Flood Prone Land

A planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

(a)    permit development in          floodway areas,

(b)     permit development that will           result in significant flood           impacts to other properties,

(c)     permit a significant increase           in the development of that           land,

(d)     are likely to result in a           substantially increased           requirement for government           spending on flood mitigation           measures, infrastructure or           services, or

(e)     permit development to be           carried out without           development consent except           for the purposes of           agriculture (not including           dams, drainage canals,           levees, buildings or           structures in floodways or           high hazard areas), roads or           exempt development

The subject site is within an area that is known to be flood affected. While the planning proposal has suggested a number of flood impact mitigation measures, it remains that there is likely to be a single egress for the subject site and neighbouring sites.

 

The planning proposal suggests that the draft Master Plan will address flooding and stormwater management for the area. This would place a heavy burden on Council and surrounding landowners.

 

This proposal is inconsistent with the direction, at least in the absence of a resolved regional flood strategy

 

 

 

Conclusion

This assessment has considered both the strategic and site specific merits of the planning proposal. The proposal is consistent with some strategic directions in that it would increase housing supply, enable localised environmental improvements by remediation of some contaminated land and improvements to a section of Georges River foreshore. Also, the proposal may enable some local improvements in transport infrastructure and improve the subject site’s connectivity with Liverpool City Centre.

 

Conversely, the proposal is clearly inconsistent with other strategic directions, particularly those seeking protection of zoned industrial lands and the Council’s residential and economic development strategies. On balance, the proposal is not seen to have strategic merit at this time. However, as Council is currently progressing its Master Plan, this may change in the future.

 

The proposal does not have site specific merit, judged against the area’s current use and character. Its height and scale are well beyond those that could reasonably be seen to be characteristic of the area in the foreseeable future without a substantial change in strategic direction. The proposal would also give rise to conflicts with nearby industrial uses. Finally, the provision of necessary transport and social infrastructure is not guaranteed nor is compliance with flood protection and evacuation requirements.

 

Given the status and potential impact of the draft GRMP and the draft South West District Plan, it is recommended that Council defer a decision on the planning proposal until an assessment against the final versions of these plans is possible. This is supported by the draft District Plan’s position on the protection of industrial lands generally and the specific action of creating a Collaboration Area for the Liverpool City Centre. Council will also need to consider this and other similar planning proposals for nearby sites once the strategic planning context is settled.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.

Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways.

Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital, health and medical precinct (of the City Centre).

Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.

Facilitate economic development.

Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries.

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environmental and Sustainability

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.

Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.

Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service.

Support the delivery of a range of transport options.


Social and Cultural

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

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media.

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

DPG 03

Planning Proposal for 5-9 Bridges Road Moorebank (Residential and Business Uses and changes to maximum height and floor space ratio and minimum lot size)

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

323207.2016

Report By

Bruce Macnee - Manager Strategic Planning

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report assesses a planning proposal by Bridges Road (Joyce) Developments Pty Ltd for 5-9 Bridges Road, Moorebank. The proposal seeks to rezone land from industrial to high density residential and businesses uses, increase height and floor space ratios and reduce minimum lot sizes. The planning proposal seeks to make the changes by amending the applicable maps in Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. The planning proposal follows a similar proposal directly to the south-east at 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road, Moorebank and relies on infrastructure proposed at that site.

 

The overall conclusion is that the merits of the proposal are uncertain at this time as the strategic planning context is undergoing substantial change. While the proposal may be generally consistent with housing and employment strategies, it is inconsistent with the current State and Council strategies seeking to preserve and enhance industrial lands in western Moorebank. This will remain the case until a State or Council strategy is adopted which prioritises western Moorebank for non-industrial uses.

 

A secondary conclusion is that the proposal’s site specific merit is also uncertain at this time. It may be compatible with the area’s planned future character, depending on the form dictated by future strategies, such as a finalised Georges River Master Plan. There are also uncertainties about the adequacy of current public transportation, the local road network and community infrastructure. A voluntary planning agreement offered by the proponent may help offset the impacts on the infrastructure. However, it is premature to finalise that agreement until Council has properly planned for infrastructure provision in the area.

 

Consequently, the proposal’s strategic and site specific merit cannot be conclusively determined at this time. Council is currently progressing the draft Georges River Master Plan (GRMP) and the draft South West District Plan has just been released. It is recommended that Council defer its determination of the proposal until an assessment can be undertaken against the final Master Plan and District Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes the planning proposal for land at Lot 100 DP775780 owned by Joyce Developments to enable the creation of a mixed use urban renewal precinct;

 

2.       Defers consideration of the Planning Proposal in order to enter into a collaborative working relationship with the proponent to determine the appropriate controls, including height and FSR, to apply to the precinct in the context of the draft South West District Plan and draft Georges River Master Plan;

 

3.       Seeks further information in relation to the type and delivery framework for appropriate non-residential land uses; urban design analysis to identify appropriate height and massing outcomes; housing choice and affordable housing opportunities; traffic impact, infrastructure requirements, delivery mechanisms and staging; and the sequencing of development across the site; and

 

4.       Notes that a further report will be prepared following the submission and assessment of a revised planning proposal, informed by additional studies and plans, including the Georges River Master Plan and the South West District Plan and incorporating the changes recommended by this report.

 

 

REPORT

 

The Planning Proposal

 

Planning proposal process

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) contains development controls for the Liverpool Local Government Area (Liverpool). LLEP may be amended through the planning proposal process, subject to the provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 and policies set out by the Department of Planning and Environment (Department).

 

The process allows for a planning proposal to be submitted to Council requesting an amendment to LLEP. Planning proposals are assessed against their strategic and site specific merits and reported to Council for consideration. If Council endorses a planning proposal, it is forwarded to the Department for consideration. Otherwise, the proponent may appeal to the Department for a pre-Gateway review. If appealed, the Sydney South West Planning Panel (SWPP) will consider the merits of the planning proposal and determine if it should be forwarded to the Department for consideration.

 

If the Department supports an endorsed or successfully appealed planning proposal, it will issue conditions for further tasks through a Gateway determination. The Gateway determination may require community consultation, referrals to public authorities, additional reports or amendments to the planning proposal.

 

The Department also decides if Council or the SWPP will be responsible for undertaking the tasks and the final consideration of the planning proposal. If the planning proposal is successful, LLEP is then amended in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department.

 

Planning proposal details

On 17 June 2016, Bridges Road (Joyce) Developments Pty Ltd (the proponent) lodged a planning proposal with Council. This follows the lodgment of a related planning proposal for 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road (Coronation Planning Proposal) lodged on 23 December 2015. That planning proposal is discussed as a separate planning proposal.

 

The planning proposal is for 5-9 Bridges Road, Moorebank (subject site), as identified in Figure 1, and is comprised of Lot 100 DP 775780.

 

The planning proposal has identified the owner as the proponent.

 

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

Proposed site controls

The subject site is subject to the provisions of LLEP. Table 1 describes the relevant current and proposed controls.

 

 

 

Table 1: Current and proposed site controls

LLEP Control

Current

Proposed

Land Zone

IN2 Light Industrial

R4 High Density Residential

B4 Mixed Use

Height of Building

15 metres

115 metres

Floor Space Ratio

0.75:1

5:1

Minimum Lot Size

2,000 m2

1,000 m2

 

Anticipated development outcomes

The proponent estimates that the planning proposal, if approved in its current form, would have the following development outcomes:

·    removal of existing industrial uses;

·    169,175 m2of residential floor space resulting in:

approximately 2,115 apartments

approximately 4,758 to 5,815 additional residents;

onsite residential density of 1,137 to 1,390 persons per hectare (ha);

·    19,194 m2 of retail floor space; and

·    20,860 m2 of commercial floor space.

 

As part of the planning proposal, a concept plan of future development on the site has been submitted. It is noted that the concept plan only indicates the form of future potential development. The actual location and arrangement of buildings roads and open space would be sought by a development control plan and/or DA plans, both of which would be subject to separate and additional approvals.

 

Voluntary planning agreement offer

As part of the planning proposal, the proponent included an offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) with Council. Council’s Planning Agreements Policy describes the process for negotiation and assessment of VPAs. The letter offers a contribution of $10,000 for each proposed unit, amounting to $21,150,000. The following projects are listed to be provided as works in kind, with costs subtracted from the contribution:

·    Pedestrian bridge linking to Liverpool Hospital;

·    Upgrades to Haigh Park and the Lake Moore foreshore, including the Haigh Park sea wall, and walk and cycle paths

·    Swimming or other recreational opportunities along the Georges River and

·    Road upgrades, as required to improve access to the area.

 

The proposed projects are likely to complement the proposed development and offset a portion of impacts associated with increased residential populations. However, the proponent has not provided evidence demonstrating the costs or technical feasibility of the projects listed above. There is no indication that the affected land owners have provided in principle support for the proposed uses.

 

As Council has not yet accepted the VPA offer, the provisions of the VPA may be further negotiated. The negotiations would be subject to Council’s Planning Agreements Policy in order to secure planning benefits to the wider community beyond the proposed development. Negotiated works must also be outlined in a schedule in a contributions plan.

 

Relationship to other planning proposals

Council is currently considering two additional planning proposals in proximity to the subject site: the Coronation Planning Proposal so named because of the different proponents for the two related properties and a planning proposal for land at 1 Moorebank Avenue and 1 Helles Avenue. Each planning proposal is being considered on its own merits, as are the potential cumulative impacts.

 

The planning proposal relies heavily on studies developed as part of the Coronation Planning Proposal, as well as associated infrastructure. Where appropriate, this report summarises the findings of the report on the Coronation Planning Proposal.

 

This report takes into account the substantial increases in residential density that are proposed by all three proposals.

 

Site Specific Merits

 

Local context

The subject site occupies approximately 4.1 ha and contains industrial buildings associated with Joyce Foam Products.

 

The subject site is located in north-west Moorebank, adjacent to Lake Moore to the east and in close proximity to Georges River to the north and west. The subject site is also adjacent to Haigh Park to the north-east. The site is only accessible via Bridges Road.

 

Surrounding land uses are industrial to the west and a mix of light industrial and commercial uses to the south and south-east. Aside from a cluster of low density residential land approximately 350 m south of the subject site, the mix of industrial, light industrial and commercial uses is characteristic of western Moorebank. The Moorebank Intermodal Terminal will extend these uses south of the M5 Motorway, further promoting these uses between Georges River and Anzac Creek.

 

Eastern Moorebank contains residential uses and supporting services, but is separated by from the subject site by Anzac Creek, with Newbridge Road providing primary access. Services include retail clusters, Newbridge Heights and Nuwarra Public Schools, Moorebank High School and playing fields at Ernie Smith Reserve. These services are expected to be put under increasing pressure as residential subdivisions at Brighton Lakes and Georges Fair and Georges Cove come online.

 

The Liverpool City Centre is located approximately 750 m west of the subject site, across the Georges River. The City Centre is designated in A Plan for Growing Sydney as a Regional Centre and provides services for south-west Sydney. These services include Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney TAFE, State Services (Centrelink and Medicare), regional shopping options, Liverpool Railway Station and Council services. Access to the City Centre from the subject site is limited to Newbridge Road, both for vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Assessment of impacts

An assessment of potential impacts has been undertaken to determine the proposal’s site specific merits.

 

Public Transport

The closest access to public transport is a bus stop on Newbridge Road, near the intersection of Bridge Road and Newbridge Road, approximately 300 m south of the centre of the subject site. This stop includes the M90 service from Liverpool to Burwood as well as a local service route. The M90 service generally operates every 10 to 30 minutes from 5 AM to 10 PM and does not provide night time operations.

 

Liverpool Railway Station is approximately 500 m to the west of the subject site. It provides access to the Greater Sydney rail network with services to the Sydney CBD, Blacktown, Leppington and Campbelltown. Due to a current lack of direct access, the walking distance is between 1 and 1.5 km, depending on the location within the subject site. The planning proposal suggests that a connecting bridge will be provided through a VPA associated with the Coronation Planning Proposal. The connecting bridge is discussed in detail in the Council report for the planning proposal. In short, it has not been demonstrated that the connecting bridge can be made available.

 

Integrated Public Transport Service Planning GuidelinesSydney Metropolitan Area (Transport for NSW, 2013) is the relevant guideline for provision of public transport for new residential developments. The guideline describes the catchment for rail services as being within 800 m of a railway station. Given the physical barriers between the subject site and the railway station, the guideline is not met.

 

As the M90 service is the only easily accessible regional public transportation option, supporting information is required to demonstrate that the service is sufficient to meet demand of new residents. Until the sufficiency of the M90 service or certainty of a pedestrian link to the rail station is demonstrated, it cannot be assumed that sufficient public transport access for the site currently exists.

 

Traffic

The proponent has submitted a transport assessment in support of the planning proposal. The transport assessment makes the following assumptions regarding available infrastructure:

·    construction of a pedestrian bridge between the subject site and the railway station;

·    new road across 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road; and

·    new signalised intersection between the subject site and Newbridge Road at 361 Newbridge Road.

 

The transport assessment has used ‘high density’ trip generation rates from Guide to Traffic Generating Developments – Updated traffic surveys (Roads and Maritime Services, 2013) to estimate traffic impacts. The rates assume that development is close to public transport, resulting in lower traffic generation per dwelling than low or medium density dwellings. As noted above, the railway station is not considered to be easily accessible from the subject site and bus services are limited. Further evidence is required to justify the lower generation rates used in the proponent’s traffic assessment.

 

The subject of a new signalised intersection with Newbridge road at 361 Newbridge Road is discussed in detail in the report the Coronation Planning Proposal. The proponent has not demonstrated that the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) has provided in principal support for the signalised intersection and it is not guaranteed that the subdivision, development and road dedication associated with that proposal can be achieved.

 

The transport assessment also notes that the RMS indicated to the proponent that Bridges Road could be extended across the Georges River to connect to Elizabeth Drive, with realignment of Newbridge Road, Moorebank Avenue and Heathcote Road intersection. The RMS has not suggested that this is government policy or funded. The suggested new infrastructure would require extensive investigation by the RMS, Council and other stakeholders.

 

The transport assessment includes an estimate of the increase in vehicles associated with the proposed development. However, the current status of roads and intersections affected by the proposal has not been addressed. As such, the traffic assessment does not demonstrate that the estimated traffic increase can be accommodated without adversely affected local traffic flows.

 

Given the reliance on access that is proposed to be provided as a result of the Coronation Planning Proposal, the proponent should secure in principle support of relevant land owners and the RMS for that access prior to Gateway review. A more thorough assessment of current traffic conditions should also be completed, with a detailed traffic report, demonstrating the cumulative traffic impact of the planning proposals should be submitted.

 

Height Impacts

The planning proposal proposes a maximum height of of 115 m, which would allow for towers of approximately 34 stories. It is also noted that the planning proposals on nearby sites request similar increases in maximum height. However, the requested height greatly exceeds the existing height in the surrounding area of 15 to 18 m.

 

An initial analysis of overshadowing and solar access suggests that development on the site is capable of acceptable impacts to existing and future development and the public domain. However, as the proposed height control is uniform across the subject site, it is not known what the ultimate environmental impacts from the proposed height will be. Future development will need to comply with State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65, which provides guidelines for the design of residential flat buildings, such as those proposed on the subject site.

 

An additional urban design report discusses the merits and impacts of development within the subject site. However, minimal information is provided that would give an indication of height impacts on neighbouring sites. Further information is required to demonstrate environmental impacts relating to height to neighbouring sites.

 

The planning proposal acknowledges that the subject site is approximately 5 km west of Bankstown Airport. This is within the controlled airspace of the airport, as prescribed by the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996.

 

The Regulations define controls for obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) and the Procedures for Air Navigation Service – Airport Operations (PANS-OPS). These controls are effectively height controls to ensure that flights to and from airports are not obstructed. The OLS for the subject site is approximately 73 m and the PANS-OPS is likely to be between 110 m and 130 m. The height controls are not fixed standards and flexibility is provided allowing variations where warranted, both during construction or permanently. Approval for such variations is required from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

 

There is no indication that any discussions with the airport or regulatory agencies have occurred. As such, it cannot be assumed that the requested 115 m height limit is achievable. Until in principle support for the proposed maximum height limit is secured from the Commonwealth, it cannot be assumed that the maximum height on the subject site can be achieved.

 

Floor Space Ratios

The planning proposal proposes a maximum floor space ratio of 5:1, effectively allowing a built form containing a floor space of up to 20.5 ha across the 4.1 ha site. The concept design suggests that the floorspace will be distributed across podiums of 1 and 8 stories and 32 and 34 stories.

 

As discussed above, it cannot be assumed that the requested 115 m height limit is achievable. If the height limit is lowered, reducing floorspace in the 34 story towers, additional floorspace will likely be added elsewhere on the subject site. This would either take the form of taller podiums or bulkier towers.

 

In order to achieve an acceptable built form outcome on the subject site, the requested FSR should be revisited with the potential of further controls such as site coverage or more detailed height controls across the subject site.

 

Community Infrastructure

The proponent has submitted a social impact assessment (SIA), responding to Council’s SIA Policy. The SIA reviews the planning proposal’s likely impact on Council assets. Council has not yet adopted a strategy for the provision of community infrastructure at the scale required by the proposed development. As such, the SIA has been used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development.

 

The SIA’s analysis of children’s services found that there was no capacity for childcare in the area. While the planning proposal notes a contribution towards childcare places, this has not been offered through the proponent’s VPA offer. Further, the SIA found that local schools may have sufficient capacity to accommodate children associated with the proposed development, but would not have capacity to service other future development within the schools’ catchment areas, which would jeopdarise already planned for development.

 

The SIA notes that spare capacity exists in local community halls and parks, but with significant upgrades being needed to meet the demands of additional residents. An analysis of sporting fields shows an undersupply in the local area. Establishment and embellishment of these assets are within the scope of the VPA offer. However, until further investigations into the cumulative need for new Council assets are completed, it is not guaranteed that the VPA offer will result in the most appropriate use of contributions.

 

The planning proposal proposes pocket parks and embellishments to existing parks, and accompanying urban design report shows provision of a “wetland park” and communal open space. The wetland park is not mentioned within the planning proposal and may be a proposed private amenity, as the proposed land zoning is B4 Mixed Use. Further, communal open spaces are above street level and public access is not guaranteed.

 

The SIA also notes that amenity for pedestrians in the local area is low. Specifically, pedestrian access south of Newbridge Road is difficult, as is access west towards the Liverpool City Centre across the George River. While amenity may be increased within the site, streetscape upgrades connecting to supporting community assets outside of the immediate Lake More area is not addressed by the planning proposal. This has the potential of isolating the site and effectively privitising access to public assets.

 

The analysis of local community infrastructure demonstrates that the services and facilities currently available in the locality do not have sufficient capacity to provide for the proposed development. Where design drawings indicate on-site assets, access may be limited to exclude the general public and should not be considered as a public benefit. In addition, analysis of the cumulative impact of this and other residential development, and a comprehensive approach for provision of community assets, is required prior to approval of any high density residential development or zoning.

 

Land Use Conflict

The planning proposal notes that surrounding development is primarily industrial, with the broader area transitioning towards mixed use development. However, the subject site is significantly isolated from identified mixed use developments by the Georges River, and the railway line and the adjoining industrial site (Pirelli Site). Mixed use developments are located on the northern, western and southern fringes of the Liverpool City Centre and are fundamentally different environments than the subject site.

 

The local area is currently occupied by industrial uses, including the land surrounding the subject site, and these uses will be reinforced by the opening of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. It is likely that the close proximity between the uses will result in conflict between new residents and existing businesses. These conflicts are likely to arise from noise, smell and visual amenity originating from the industrial uses.

 

As noted above, two additional planning proposals have been lodged seeking to rezone land from industrial uses to mixed use and residential uses. A piecemeal approach to the application of residential zoning may further exacerbate land use conflict and use isolation issues. A more coordinated approach to any future transition in uses will help mitigate those impacts through strategic and economic analysis, prioritisation and staging.

 

Flooding

The proponent has submitted a flood and stormwater report and flood study. The report shows that the subject site is affected by 100-year flood events. Mitigation of onsite impacts is proposed via raising the surface the subject site by approximately 900mm, enhancing stormwater conveyance measures on and around the subject site, and linking to the south-east with a pedestrian bridge. The flood and stormwater report acknowledges that Bridges Road will be flooded after 15 hours of a flood event, requiring sheltering in place or pedestrian evacuation after that point.

 

The proposed measures may be suitable to ensure that development on the site does not worsen flooding impacts on or around the site. However, an assessment of the cumulative impacts of flooding on the subject site and at the Coronation Planning Proposal site is required to ensure that the cumulative risks for the precinct would be acceptable.

 

Environmental Hazard and Contamination

The proponent has provided supporting studies regarding contamination on the subject site. The studies highlight the potential sources of contamination and the known extent of contamination. Several historical studies are referenced, but not included for review. These studies should be provided and peer reviewed to ensure that the site is suitable for residential uses. Further studies are required to determine the current extent of contamination and likely remediation requirements, as some studies are over ten years old.

 

While contamination does not preclude residential and business uses on the subject site, a more detailed assessment should be completed as a Gateway condition.

 

Conclusion

The planning proposal and proposed development have the potential to lead to significant issues for the subject site and the surrounding area. These include impacts related to transport and traffic networks, local character and built form, community infrastructure, land use conflict and evacuation during floods. While the proponent’s VPA offer may reduce the impact of these issues and provide positive outcomes for the community, the VPA offer has not been finalised and is not guaranteed.

 

Further, the planning proposal relies heavily on the Coronation Planning Proposal to provide connecting infrastructure for vehicles to Newbridge Road and for pedestrians and cyclists to Liverpool City Centre. As Council has not made a decision on the Coronation Planning Proposal, the required connections cannot be guaranteed.

 

On balance, the planning proposal does not meet the site specific merit test at this time, although this may change depending upon the provisions of the future strategies for the area and the status of the Coronation Planning Proposal.

 

Strategic Merit

The planning proposal process includes an analysis of State and Council planning strategies. A review of the planning proposal’s compatibility with relevant strategies is given below.

 

A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metro Plan) is the relevant NSW Government regional strategy for the Sydney area. It includes general goals and directions applicable across the Greater Sydney area and more localised subregional strategies

 

Goals and Directions

Goals and directions relevant to the planning proposal, along with a summary of the proponent and Council’s responses are described in Table 2.

 

Table 2: Goals and Directions Analysis

Item

Proponent’s Response

Assessment Response

Goal 1: A competitive economy with world class services and transport

Direction 1.7

Grow Strategic Centres – providing more jobs closer to home

Proposal will increase jobs and housing adjacent to the Liverpool Strategic Centre

The subject site is adjacent to the Liverpool Regional Centre and is identified within the Liverpool City Centre in Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP).

 

LDCP identifies possible business and residential uses on the subject site, with the caveat that development should link to the City Centre across the Georges River. As noted above, the subject site is not well connected to it due to poor links across the Georges River.

 

The subject site provides many jobs for local residents under existing controls. Removal of the jobs would require employees to find employment in other industrial areas that may be further from home.

 

Direction 1.11

Deliver infrastructure

VPA offer may be used to deliver key public infrastructure for the site, such as open space, walking and cycling infrastructure.

The cumulative impacts of the planning proposals lodged in the area around the subject site are not known at this time. As such, Council has not been able to undertake a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure needs in the area.

 

While it may be possible that the VPA offer will be able to provide appropriate supporting infrastructure, new infrastructure should be planned in a way as to provide suitable public benefit.

 

Goal 2: A city of housing choice, with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles

Direction 2.1: Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

Proposal will increase housing and housing choice close to jobs and public transport.

The direction seeks to accelerate new housing within Priority Precincts and under UrbanGrowth NSW programs. The subject site is neither.

 

However, it is agreed that the proposed development would increase housing supply and choice within Liverpool.

Direction 2.2:

Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs

Proposal will increase housing and housing choice close to jobs and public transport.

The actions associated with the direction seek to empower council-led urban infill and along transport corridors around strategic centres.

 

The subject site is not in an area endorsed by Council for urban renewal by an adopted strategy. However, LDCP identifies the possibility of residential and businesses uses on the subject site.

 

In addition, Council has started the renewal process through the draft Georges River Master Plan (draft Master Plan). However, this is not an adopted Council strategy.

 

The proposed development would provide housing close to jobs, but it may also jeopardise the viability of the employment land where the jobs are located.

 

Direction 2.3: Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles.

The proposal will improve housing choice by providing a range of housing types for different life stages.

The actions associated with the direction seek to promote housing strategies, subdivision of existing housing into medium density housing and to deliver affordable housing.

 

The planning proposal may lead to the provision of additional housing supply and choice within Liverpool, showing general consistency with the direction. However, the location of the housing is not consistent with Council’s housing strategy. Further, the planning proposal contains no provisions for affordable housing, a key aspect of the direction.

 

Goal 3: A great place to live with communities that are strong, healthy and well connected

Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs

The development will deliver high quality infrastructure, including pedestrian and cycling links.

The proposal may deliver some new and valuable infrastructure through the VPA offer, but the substance of the offer has not been negotiated to comply with Council’s VPA policy.

 

The locality is an important employment area, not a “suburb”. The proposal would cause land use incompatibility, not “revitalization”, unless part of a larger adopted strategy for the area.

Direction 3.4: Promote Sydney’s heritage, arts and culture

Historical items, such as the Liverpool Railway Bridge and Pirelli sheds will be preserved and repurposed.

The merits of the Liverpool Railway Bridge are discussed in the assessment of the Coronation Planning Proposal. That assessment concludes that it is not guaranteed that the proposal will successfully repurpose the Liverpool railway bridge.

 

The Pirelli sheds are outside the subject site and not part of the planning proposal.

Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city that protects the natural environment and has a balanced approach to the use of land and resources

Direction 4.1: Protect our natural environment and biodiversity

The proposal will protect and enhance the surrounding conservation land, including high quality landscaping.

The proposal would have a largely neutral affect on the natural environment, but would lead to remediation and enhanced access to the Georges River Foreshore. This outcome would be beneficial.

 

South West Subregion

The Metro Plan identifies a number of priorities for subregions across Greater Sydney. Liverpool is identified as part of the South West Subregion. The priorities for the subregion seek to balance the need for additional housing, preservation and expansion of employment lands and environmental concerns.

 

Taken as a whole, the priorities direct Council to take a systematic and strategic approach that is consistent with the Master Plan. Any significant rezoning should only occur following appropriate investigations into:

·    value of current industrial land;

·    land uses that may be suitable, other than industrial land;

·    potential infrastructure upgrades providing connections to the Liverpool City Centre;

·    impacts of development on the Liverpool City Centre commercial core; and

·    provision of positive environmental, recreation and tourism outcomes along the Georges River.

 

The proponent’s economic impact assessment (economic assessment) identifies a healthy market for high quality industrial land. Council has not adopted strategies that identify other uses for the subject site or appropriate infrastructure to support residential uses.

 

Council is fulfilling its obligations under the priorities by investigating uses in the draft Georges River Precinct Master Plan (draft Master Plan), discussed below. Until this or another strategy identifies the subject site for non-industrial uses, the priorities direct Council to maintain the industrial uses.

 

Draft South West District Plan

The Greater Sydney Commission published the draft South West District Plan (District Plan) on 21 November 2016 for public exhibition. The draft District Plan sets out visions, priorities and actions for the development of the South West District of Greater Sydney, which includes Liverpool. The Department’s Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals states that the draft District Plan is a consideration for determining the strategic merit of a planning proposal.

 

As the draft District Plan was not published when the planning proposal was lodged, the proponent has not addressed the draft District Plan in the planning proposal. A limited review of the draft District Plan has shown that the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal is an important employment and economic generator. The industrial riverfront, of which the subject area is part of, is specifically mentioned as an area where employment, residential and environmental land pressures must be reconciled.

 

Section 3.5.1 of the draft District Plan notes that consideration is to be given to residential and employment pressures, with and understanding of building heights and objectives for public areas around the Georges River guiding the planning proposal process. The draft Master Plan is specifically mentioned as a consideration for the area. Action P13 designates the wider Liverpool City Centre as a Collaboration Area in order to maximize investment, productive and jobs outcomes. This is foreshadowed to be undertaken through coordinated activities across state and local government to provide clarity to the private sector.

 

It is also noted in sections 3.5.1 and 3.6.1 of the draft District Plan that the Liverpool City Centre will be promoted for business innovation and health and education excellence.

Increasing mixed use development in the area around Liverpool Hospital will help achieve this goal. However, more direct connections are required to capitalise on proximity benefits. As noted above, the planning proposal is not guaranteed to lead to these connections.

 

More generally, section 3.8.4 of the draft District Plan states that the Greater Sydney Commission will take a precautionary approach to the conversion of employment and urban services lands. Productivity Priority 4 states that this precautionary approach should be taken at the planning proposal stage unless the Metro Plan or an endorsed strategy proposes another use. Even then, a net community benefit assessment is required to show how the endorsed strategy will provide benefits across economic, environmental and social dimensions.

 

The proposed development may aid Council in meeting residential and employment targets for the South West District. However, the draft District Plan highlights several issues affecting the Georges River and Moorebank areas to be integrated and resolved. Further, the draft District Plan implements a target of 5% to 10% of new floorspace for affordable rental housing, which is not accounted for in the planning proposal.

 

Given the implications of the planning proposal on the wider Liverpool City Centre area, the implications of the draft District Plan should be considered prior to Gateway review. The planning proposal should ensure that the wider issues of western Moorebank are addressed in an appropriate and consistent manner.

 

Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist

The Metro Plan requires planning proposals affecting industrial land to be assessed against an Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist. The checklist fosters evidence-based decisions that will prevent alienation of important industrial sites. The proposal’s compatibility with the criteria in the checklist has been assessed and is provided below. The proponent’s response is contained within the planning proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

Is the proposed rezoning consistent with State and/or council strategies on the future role of industrial lands?

As noted above, it is not considered that the planning proposal is fully consistent with Metro Plan or its priorities for the South West Subregion. The draft District Plan advises a precautionary principle to rezoning industrial lands, requiring an endorsed strategy prior to rezoning to other uses. As neither Council nor the Department has an endorsed strategy at this time, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the draft District Plan’s views on the future role of industrial lands.

 

Is the site:

·    Near or within direct access to key economic infrastructure?

The subject site is within 2 km of the future Moorebank Intermodal terminal, which will increase the importance and viability of industrial uses. It is within 5 km of Bankstown Airport, which generates the need for speciality and supporting industrial uses and 20 km of the future Badgerys Creek airport.

 

·    Contributing to a significant industry cluster?

The subject site is currently contributing to a significant industry cluster through Joyce Foam Products, however, it is acknowledged that the development is likely nearing the end of its lifespan. The proponent’s economic assessment has found that there is strong demand for high quality industrial space in the Moorebank area, leading to the possibility of redevelopment within the industrial use.

 

How would the proposed rezoning impact the industrial land stocks in the subregion or region and the ability to meet future demand for industrial land activity?

The planning proposal would reduce the existing industrial stock in the area by removing a developed industrial site.

 

The site is surrounded by industrial uses. Introduction of isolated residential uses, without parallel residential development on neighbouring sites would threaten the viability of nearby industrial land by introducing land use conflict between new residents and existing industrial uses.

 

Council has identified a very low vacancy rate in industrial land. Further reduction in stock may cause additional shortages. This, in turn, has the potential to increase leasing prices for existing stock and thus reduce the commercial competitive position of this industrial area.

 

How would the proposed rezoning impact on the achievement of the subregion / region and LGA employment capacity targets and employment objectives?

The planning proposal suggests that future development will provide 4 ha of commercial land use. The proponent’s economic assessment suggests that the future development could accommodate up to 1,876 full-time equivalent positions on the subject site over the long term. The jobs would be primarily in the retail trade and health care/social assistance sectors.

 

The proposed development would exceed the current capacity of 3.1 ha of industrial floorspace (4.1 ha with an FSR or 0.75:1). If the final development outcome reaches this potential, the proposal would aid in reaching employment capacity targets for the subject site. However, the development would threaten the industrial uses on adjacent sites, putting those jobs at risk.

 

Is there a compelling argument that the industrial land cannot be used for an industrial purpose now or in the foreseeable future and what opportunities may exist to redevelop the land to support new forms of industrial land uses such as high-tech or creative industries?

The subject site is currently being used for industrial purposes.

 

The planning proposal mentions an attempt to subdivide land on a neighbouring property for the provision of industrial uses that resulted in failure. The proponent’s economic assessment states that there is a demand for high quality industrial space, which is currently restricted in supply. This suggests that there is an opportunity to redevelop the land for industrial land uses.

 

There are no compelling arguments indicating that the land cannot continue to be used for industrial purposes.

 

Is the site critical to meeting the need for land for an alternative purpose identified in other NSW Government or endorsed council planning strategies?

The subject site is not specifically identified in an endorsed Council planning strategy (eg Growth Centre or Priority Precinct). However, the site is identified for possible residential and business uses, amongst other uses in LDCP as well as the draft Master Plan, discussed below.

 

As noted above, the subject site is located within the Liverpool City Centre Collaboration Area within the draft District Plan. The draft District Plan notes the potential for alternative purposes, with further investigation required by Council and State agencies.

 

Growing Liverpool 2023

Growing Liverpool 2023 is the relevant local strategic plan for Liverpool. It provides seven strategic directions that are relevant to the planning proposal. Table 3 identifies the relevant directions and comments on the planning proposal’s impact on those directions.

 

Table 3: Growing Liverpool 2023 Analysis

Strategic Direction

Comment

Vibrant Prosperous City

The planning proposal may attract additional business and investment in the area. However, the subject site is surrounded by industrial uses, and non-industrial development may threaten existing businesses by encroaching on and isolating industrial land.

 

 

Livable Safe City

The planning proposal may lead to additional housing stock, which may reduce the price of apartments. However, there are no affordable housing provisions included in the planning proposal. The planning proposal does not offer on site public open space and the proposed development may have an effect of effectively privitising existing public open space. However, the VPA offer may lead to embellishment of public open space and new public assets. The planning proposal would probably have a small net benefit in this regard, assuming the VPA offer leads to high quality assets with good access.

Healthy Inclusive City

As noted above, the subject site is outside of the walking catchment of the Liverpool Railway Station, which may reduce possible pedestrian activity for new residents. The VPA offer may be used for extension and improvement of pedestrian and cycling links. However, the contributions are not tied to those works and no feasibility analysis has been provided. As such, it is not guaranteed that those works will be provided.

Natural Sustainable City

The planning proposal would improve access to the Georges River and restore some reparation corridors.

The proposal is therefore compatible with this direction.

Accessible Connected City

As noted above, the subject site is not considered to be well connected to public transport. The transport assessment assumes that a new signalised intersection will be taken advantage of as part of another planning proposal and associated development. As discussed in the report for that proposal, the provision of the signalised intersection is not guaranteed.

 

Liverpool Residential Development Strategy (2008)

Liverpool Residential Development Strategy (RDS) is the relevant housing strategy for Liverpool. It is designed as a 25 year strategy to aid in the modernisation of LLEP (1997) and to meet housing targets for the area.

 

The RDS stresses the importance of meeting housing needs while minimising housing stress. The RDS suggests that this can be done, in part, by increasing the portion of one and two bedroom units. In this way, the proposed development will aid in increasing housing diversity as recommended by the RDS.

 

The RDS does not envision transformation of industrial land to residential uses. Instead, the availability of local industrial land is identified as a key determinant for possible densification of residential land. The RDS identifies several investigation areas across Liverpool for possible increased residential density based on analysis of this and other determinants. The subject site is not included in the investigation areas.

 

 

Access to the industrial employment precincts at Prestons and Moorebank is specifically noted as criteria for areas to be included in investigation areas. As noted above, the subject site is not suitably close to the Liverpool City Centre or railway station, and as such, does not meet the objectives of the RDS.

 

The planning proposal would help address the larger issues of mixed densities and housing diversity identified by the RDS. However, justification is required to demonstrate how the area around the subject site meets the requirements to be considered as an investigation area under the RDS. Further, the planning proposal should demonstrate how new jobs generated by the proposed development will be accessible by other investigation areas and provide a net reduction in commute times to and from the investigation areas.

 

Liverpool Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018

Liverpool Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018 (EDS) is the relevant economic strategy for Liverpool. It identifies strategies and associated actions and targets to ensure positive economic outcomes are achieved.

 

The EDS focuses on supporting existing businesses while providing opportunities for new businesses to develop. Strategy 4 targets the ‘City Centre’ for business development, establishing specialty precincts and promoting site consolidation to promote development. While LDCP includes the subject site within the outer bounds of the City Centre,
it does not meet the criteria of being well connected. As the subject site is significantly disconnected from the City Centre, the provision of approximately 40,000 m2 of retail and commercial space may undermine the strategy, rather than complement it.

 

The proponent has suggested that the planning proposal will aid in the delivery of Strategy 5, which seeks to improve employment opportunities for youth, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. However, no evidence is provided that supports this.

 

Draft Georges River Master Plan

The draft Master Plan establishes a high level framework for the potential regeneration of the Moorebank Precinct, where the subject site is located. It is envisioned that the Moorebank Precinct will transition away from being primarily industrial land to mixed use, residential and more flexible industrial uses.

 

The draft Master Plan originates from a 29 April 2015 Council meeting where Council resolved to:

 

1.   Investigate the Moorebank Georges River area as an urban renewal precinct; and

 

2.    Develop a Master Plan for the Moorebank Georges River mixed use precinct to provide opportunities for housing and employment, with access to transport and infrastructure.

 

 

In September 2015, Council engaged a team of consultants to provide the draft Master Plan and supporting studies. The draft Master Plan was delivered to Council in June 2016 after considerable effort by the consultants and Council staff. It was then reported to Council at its meeting on 21 August 2016, where Council resolved to authorise it for public exhibition, which concluded on 5 December 2016.

 

The draft Master Plan has not been adopted by Council and does not represent the strategic direction of Council at this time. The Department’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals only gives weight to local strategies that have been endorsed by the Department Secretary. However, Council has demonstrated consistent progress and dedication of resources to the draft Master Plan. Further, the origin of the draft Master Plan predates the lodgment of the planning proposal. As such, it provides useful guidance for the planning proposal.

 

The draft Master Plan and the 21 August 2016 Council report note the need for additional detailed study to inform the final Master Plan. These include:

·    traffic and transport studies;

·    flood modelling;

·    community infrastructure demands; and

·    urban form studies.

 

The draft Master Plan suggests that the subject site be zoned as Mixed Use. The proposed development is generally consistent with the draft Master Plan, as a portion of the subject site is proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Use.

 

The draft Master Plan does not suggest specific controls for heights or densities. However, it does identify the area around the subject site as having potential for a higher height limit than the rest of the Moorebank Precinct. This is balanced by highlighting a potential need for caps on density, requiring additional precinct-level studies. This suggests that heights and densities, such as those in the planning proposal, may not be acceptable on the subject site.

 

As noted in the site merit assessment, issues have been identified regarding traffic, flooding and community infrastructure that limit the potential of the subject site being developed without a strategy such as the draft Master Plan. It is possible that future studies related to the draft Master Plan would help address these issues and provide guidance on appropriate controls. As such, the planning proposal is not fully supported by the draft Master Plan, as it is premature and possibly threatens the viability the draft Master Plan, should Council adopt it in the future.

 

Compliance with State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Directions

The proponent has provided a statement of consistency with relevant SEPPs. It does not appear that the planning proposal itself is inconsistent with any SEPP. However, prior to implementing amendments to LLEP, the proponent should demonstrate that the proposal can comply with the following SEPPs:

·    SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land

·    SEPP No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

·    Greater Metropolitan REP No. 2 – Georges River Catchment

 

There is some information suggesting that the requirements of SEPP 55 can be met. However, given the history of site contamination that is noted in supporting studied, additional environmental studies should be required as part of a future Gateway condition.

 

SEPP 65 and REP 2 require a more comprehensive consideration considering the cumulative benefits of the planning proposal and other planning proposals in the area could help demonstrate compliance. For instance, the urban design report cited by the planning proposal focuses on the ability to meet the requirements of SEPP 65 on the subject site, but does not sufficiently address impacts on surrounding sites.

 

Table 4 provides a summary of the proposal’s consistency with relevant Section 117 Directions. The proponent’s response is included in the planning proposal.

 

Table 4: Consistency with Section 117 Directions

Section 117 Direction

Summary of objectives or provisions

Response

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

·   Encourage employment growth in suitable locations

·   Protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and

·   Support the viability of identified strategic centres

The planning proposal will replace light industrial land with mixed use and high density residential land. This will further jeopardise neighbouring industrial zones via land use conflict.

 

The subject site is also substantially disconnected from Liverpool City Centre and would provide large areas of retail and commercial space. Rather than reinforcing the Liverpool City Centre, the proposal would compete with it and possibly diminish its subregional role.

 

The planning proposal suggests that more jobs will be provided on the subject site as a result of the proposed land uses over the long term. This may result in employment growth. However, without connections, the suitable location requirement has not been met.

 

This proposal is both consistent and inconsistent with this direction.

 

2.3

·   Conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

The subject site is in close proximity to a number of heritage items. The proponent has identified the potential Aboriginal heritage at the subject site due to the proximity to the Georges River. This should be more fully investigated as a Gateway condition.

3.1 Residential Zones

·   Encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs

·   Make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services

·   Minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands.

The planning proposal would provide additional high density residential development and thus broaden housing choice. The housing type, being largely 1 and 2 bedroom units is supported by the RDS.

 

The proposal provides supporting infrastructure and would take advantage of existing roads, water, sewerage and other urban infrastructure. However, additional transport infrastructure and a wide range of social infrastructure would be required.

 

The VPA offer will allow for the provision of some works, but has not been finalised. There has not been a strategic review of the infrastructure required to accommodate this and other planning proposals in the area. These activities should be completed to ensure that the proposal will adequately address the requirement for infrastructure.

 

The proposal would have a beneficial effect on identified environment and resource lands and enable improvement for the Georges River foreshore, when combined with the effects of other planning proposals surrounding the subject site.

 

Overall, the proposal is generally consistent with this direction.

4.3 Flood Prone Land

A planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which:

a)   permit development in floodway areas,

b)   permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties,

c)   permit a significant increase in the development of that land,

d)   are likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or

e)   permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development

The subject site is within an area that is known to be flood affected.

 

The planning proposal has suggested a number of flood impact mitigation measures that will result in the subject and adjacent land to be no more flood affected than the current state.

 

However, it remains that the primary egress route will be cut off by flooding after 15 hours of an event and significant development would occur on development in a floodway.

 

The planning proposal suggests that the draft Master Plan and other future development will address flooding and stormwater management for the area. This would place an undue burden on Council and surrounding landowners.

 

This proposal is inconsistent with the direction.

 

Conclusion

This assessment has considered both the strategic and site specific merits of the planning proposal. The proposal is consistent with some strategic directions in that it would increase housing supply, enable localised environmental improvements by remediation of some contaminated land and improvements to a section of Georges River foreshore. Also, the proposal may enable some local improvements in transport infrastructure and improve the subject site’s connectivity with Liverpool City Centre.

 

Conversely, the proposal is clearly inconsistent with elements of other strategic directions, particularly those seeking protection of zoned industrial lands and the Council’s residential and economic development strategies. While LDCP does identify the subject site as having potential for residential and business uses, those are contingent on strong connections across the Georges River, which are not guaranteed. On balance, the proposal is not seen to have strategic merit at this time. However, as Council is currently progressing the Georges River Master Plan, this may change in the future.

 

The proposal does not have site specific merit, judged against the area’s current use and character. Its height and scale are well beyond those that could reasonably be seen to be characteristic of the area in the foreseeable future without a substantial change in strategic direction. The proposal would also give rise to conflicts with nearby industrial uses and the provision of necessary transport and social infrastructure is not guaranteed nor is compliance with flood protection and evacuation requirements. Finally, the reliance on infrastructure related to this current Planning Proposal limits the development potential of the subject site if that planning proposal is not also approved.

 

Given the status and potential impact of the draft GRMP and draft South West District Plan, it is recommended that Council defer a decision on the planning proposal until an assessment against the final versions of these plans is possible. This is supported by the draft District Plan’s position on the protection of industrial lands generally and the specific action of creating a Collaboration Area for the Liverpool City Centre. Council will also need to consider this and other similar planning proposals, including the Coronation Planning Proposal once the strategic planning context is settled.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic and Financial

Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.

Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways.

Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital, health and medical precinct (of the City Centre).

Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.

Facilitate economic development.

Environmental and Sustainability

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.

Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service.

Support the delivery of a range of transport options.


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

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


 

DPG 04

Planning Proposal for 1 Moorebank Avenue and 3 Helles Avenue, Moorebank

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

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

Key Policy

Urban Development Plans

File Ref

323313.2016

Report By

Bruce Macnee - Manager Strategic Planning

Approved By

Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This planning proposal seeks to amend the zoning of 23.9ha of land adjacent to the Georges River in Moorebank to permit redevelopment of the existing industrial/warehouse precinct into a mixed use development comprising residential uses, neighbourhood retail, commercial, educational and community uses and open space.

 

This report concludes that a planning proposal on the subject site for mixed use development could potentially demonstrate strategic merit. The fundamental characteristics of the site - being a large, relatively flat site with river frontage, in single ownership and in close proximity to the Liverpool CBD as well as rail and road access - offer the opportunity to create a rejuvenated urban environment, generally consistent with the draft Georges River Master Plan and the draft District Plan.

 

However, there are a range of matters that require further resolution before Council decides whether to submit the proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment for a gateway determination. Accordingly, this report recommends that Council defers the planning proposal in order to:

 

1.   Undertake ongoing liaison with the proponent to identify:

-     opportunities to provide housing choice and affordable housing;

-     opportunities to ensure an appropriate quantity and variety of employment is provided on the site to support the needs of the local and district community;

-     the appropriate scale and built form of development recognising the local context;

-     necessary upgrades to the capacity of the surrounding infrastructure network, particularly transport, education and social services, to sustain the level of growth proposed; and

-     the appropriate staging / sequencing of development to ensure  economic viability.

 

2.   Enable Council to complete the broader precinct and infrastructure planning and constraints analysis for the Georges River precinct and to endorse the GRMP.

 

3.   Enable the Sydney Commission to finalise the South West District Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes the planning proposal for land owned by Goodman Pty Ltd comprising Lot 201 DP 1131171 and Lot 211 DP 829555, to enable the creation of a mixed use urban renewal precinct;

 

2.       Defers consideration of the Planning Proposal in order to enter into a collaborative working relationship with the proponent to determine the appropriate controls, including height and FSR, to apply to the precinct in the context of the draft South West District Plan and draft Georges River Master Plan;

 

3.       Seeks further information in relation to the type and delivery framework for appropriate non-residential land uses; urban design analysis to identify appropriate height and massing outcomes; housing choice and affordable housing opportunities; traffic impact, infrastructure requirements, delivery mechanisms and staging; and the sequencing of development across the site; and

 

4.       Notes that a further report will be prepared following the submission and assessment of a revised planning proposal, informed by additional studies and plans, including the Georges River Master Plan and the South West District Plan and incorporating the changes recommended by this report.

 

 

 

REPORT

<