Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 14 December 2016

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

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

At its meeting on 1 November 2016 the Reserve Bank Board decided not to vary the cash rate. The current 1.5% cash rate is at a historically low level and impacts returns on investment. Returns on Term Deposits and Floating Rate Notes have significantly dropped since the last twelve months. The average market returns on term deposits are:

· Longer term deposits (> 3years maturity) – 2.60% 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 30^th 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 2016 View

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

o Feedback postcard located on-site at all facilities

o 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

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

o 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

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:

o approximately 2,263 apartments;

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

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

· 17,799 m² of retail floor space; and

· 5,235 m²of 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 Guidelines – Sydney 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.

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.

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;

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.

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:

o approximately 2,115 apartments

o approximately 4,758 to 5,815 additional residents;

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

· 19,194 m² of retail floor space; and

· 20,860 m²of commercial floor space.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Community Infrastructure

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.

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

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

· 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.

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.

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.

Industrial Lands Strategic Assessment Checklist

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?

· 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.

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.

Growing Liverpool 2023

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 Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018

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.

Draft Georges River Master Plan

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.

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 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

· 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

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;

REPORT

1. Site location and context

This planning proposal (PP) relates to a 23.9 hectare site in Moorebank, comprising Lot 201 DP1131171 and Lot 211 DP829555 as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Subject site

Source: Planning Proposal, Willow Tree Planning, 2016

The site is basically rectangular in shape, with a frontage of about 720m to the Georges River and widths varying from about 250m at its northern end to 130m at its southern end.

The site is located between Newbridge Road to the north, Moorebank Ave to the east, Georges River to the west and Helles Road to the south. The precinct is located to the south east of the Liverpool CBD, and north of the M5. The site forms the western part of the Moorebank Industrial Estate and comprises large warehouses used for manufacturing, industrial storage, logistics and urban support services.

The land on the opposite side of Moorebank Ave (east of the subject site) is an established low density residential precinct of one and two storey dwellings. The land to the west of the subject site, on the other bank of the Georges River, is also residential but more typically medium density residential flat buildings, with some new high rise developments currently underway including The Paper Mill in Shepherd Street and Skyhaus in Macquarie Street.

Background

On 2 May 2016 an application was lodged with Council on behalf of Goodman Property Services Australia Pty Ltd, relating to the Industrial Estate, Moorebank Avenue. The site forms the western part of the Moorebank Industrial Estate and comprises large warehouses used for manufacturing, industrial storage, logistics and urban support services.

The site comprises two (2) lots and is legally described as Lot 2012 in DP1131171 and Lot 211 in DP829555.

The proposal seeks to amend the rezoning of the 23.9 hectare site to permit redevelopment of the existing industrial/warehouse precinct into a mixed development comprising residential uses, neighbourhood retail, commercial, educational and community uses and open space.

Prior to the lodgement of the Planning Proposal (PP), an initial meeting was held on 26 August 2015 between Council and the proponent to discuss the key considerations of the Planning Proposal. Subsequent written feedback was provided by Council in their preliminary assessment on 9 September 2015 which in summary stated that the proposal did provide for the long-term social and economic sustainability of the community.

The following map and table identify the location and proposed yield of planning proposals and development applications near the subject site.

Figure 2: Context Plan – Recent PPs & Major DAs (over 100 units)

(site identifier numbers in the plan reference the numbers in Table 1)

Site No.	Location / Project	Description / Yield	Application Type
1	3, 36, 38, 40 Hume Highway and 1 Browne Parade	115 units	DA
2	17, 19, 21, 23 Goulburn Street	108 units	DA
3	13, 15 Bigge Street and 2 Lachlan Street	123 units	DA
4	17, 19, 21, 23, 25 Bigge Street	233 units	DA
5	7, 9 Castlereagh Street and 8, 10, 12 Copeland Street	120 units	DA
6	7, 13 Norfolk Street	132 units	DA
7	100 Castlereagh Street	298 units	DA
8	387 Macquarie Street	168 units	DA
9	420-446 Macquarie Street	439 units	DA
10	311 Hume Highway	307 units	DA
11	21 Atkinson Street	143 units	DA
12	20 Shepherd Street	250 units	DA
13	28 Shepherd Street	169 units	DA
14	31, 33 Shepherd Street	203 units	Pre DA
15	38 Railway Street	108 units	Pre DA
16	98, 100 Copeland Street and 3 Bourke Street	105 units	Pre DA
17	7, 9, 11 Goulburn Street	102 units	Pre DA
18	Schweppes (36-42 Orange Grove Rd)	Rezone from IN1 General Industrial to B6 Enterprise Corridor, R4 High Density residential and RE1 Public Recreation Anticipated Units: 2,300	Planning Proposal
19	Warwick Farm (Freeman St)	Rezone from R3 Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential Increase FSR from 0.5 to 2.5 Anticipated Units: 370	Planning Proposal
20	Masters Site (Lot 1 Governor Macquarie Dr)	Rezone from B5 Business Development to R4 High Density Residential Increase FSR from 0.75 to 4.5 Anticipated Units: 1,400	Planning Proposal
21	Peter Warren (Elizabeth St)	Rezone from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use Increase FSR from 2.5, 5 to 10 net Anticipated Units: 1,026	Planning Proposal
22	Abacus (193 Macquarie St)	Rezone from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use Increase FSR from 3 to 6 net Anticipated Units: 134	Planning Proposal
23	Prysmian (3 Bridges Road)	Likely to seek rezoning from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use and R4 High Density Residential Anticipated Units: 8,000	Anticipated Planning Proposal
24	5-9 Bridges Rd	Rezone from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use and R4 High Density Residential Increase FSR to 5 gross Anticipated Units: 2,115	Planning Proposal
25	6, 8, 16 Bridges Rd	Rezone from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, R4 High Density Residential and B6 Enterprise Corridor Increase FSR from 0.75 to 4.5 gross Anticipated Units: 2263	Planning Proposal
26	Goodman (1 Moorebank Ave)	Rezone from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use Increase FSR to 4.5 gross Anticipated Units: 9,188	Planning Proposal
27	Shepherd Street	Rezone from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B4 Mixed Use Increase FSR from 2.5 to 6 net Anticipated Units: 318	Planning Proposal
28	311 Hume Hwy	Increase FSR from 1.5 to 3.3, 3.7 net Anticipated Units: 1,200	Planning Proposal and DA

Table 1: Recent PP’s & Major DA’s (over 100 units) near the Subject Site

(to be read in conjunction with the Context Plan in Figure 2)

2. Intended outcomes and proposed amendment

The PP outlines a vision for the subject site as an opportunity to create a mixed use development including residential, commercial, education, retail, and community land uses. This in turn is intended to galvanise the transformation of the Liverpool CBD by extending it across the Georges River and complement the services and facilities it provides.

In summary, the key elements of the vision (as outlined in section 3.1 of the PP report) include:

· transformation of the Georges River foreshore into a connected publicly accessible parkland environment;

· permeable development along the riverfront with a focus on public recreational activity;

· a new street network for pedestrians and vehicles created around a central boulevard, with a series of three activity “nodes”; and

· building heights and forms responding to varying character and intensity of activity.

To achieve this vision, the PP is seeking the following amendments to the Liverpool LEP 2008:

· change in zoning of the site from IN1 Industrial to B4 Mixed use;

· change in maximum height from 15 metres (which generally equates to 3-4 storeys) to 42 storeys (which is approximately 126 metres); and

· introduction of a gross FSR of 4.5:1 (currently no FSR controls apply to the site).

The PP estimates these changes in planning controls will support the creation of 8,298 jobs and approximately 9,188 apartments, as well as publicly accessible active and passive open space.

A concept master plan prepared by FJMT has been submitted in support of the PP, illustrating one option for delivering the intended built form outcomes, depicting 37 residential towers on mixed use podiums with the total number of storeys varying from 27 to 36.

3. Strategic Merit

Planning Circular PS16-004 (dated 30 August 2016) clearly articulates the considerations for determining whether or not a PP should be submitted for a gateway determination (under section 56 of the EP&A Act). Although this circular is technically directed at a rezoning review undertaken by the relevant Planning Panel, the process outlined provides a useful frame of reference for Council to examine a PP when first submitted.

A PP will meet the strategic merit test if it is:

· consistent with the relevant draft district plan or corridor/precinct plan released for public comment; or

· consistent with a relevant local strategy that has been endorsed by the Department; or

· responding to a change in circumstances, such as the investment in new infrastructure or changing demographic trends that have not been recognised by existing planning controls

The circular notes that a proposal that seeks to amend controls that are less than 5 years old will only be considered where it clearly meets the Strategic Merit Test.

3.1 Consistency with strategic studies or reports^{^[1]}

The draft South West District Plan was released by the Greater Sydney Commission on 21 November 2016^{^[2]}. The draft District Plan sets out the aspirations and proposals for Greater Sydney’s South West District, including the local government area of Liverpool. Whilst the draft District Plan is currently on formal exhibition until the end of March 2017 and will not be finalised until the end of 2017, it is an important document to review as it sets out the vision, priorities and actions for the development of the South West District.

Within the draft District Plan, Liverpool is recognised as a strategic centre with large concentrations of employment and major health and education facilities, civic and justice facilities, heritage assets and access to a range of parks and recreational facilities. Liverpool is to continue to be a major focus for the growth of population-driven services, advanced manufacturing and knowledge intensive jobs and along with the four other established strategic centres, will provide the supporting urban infrastructure, housing and jobs to enable the Western City’s growth. The strategic centres will also be the places where people can access services and lifestyle benefits such as entertainment and recreation areas.

Section 3.5.1 of the draft District Plan notes that consideration is to be given to residential and employment pressures, with an 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 anticipates coordinated activities across state and local government to provide clarity to the private sector.

The draft District Plan specifies that Liverpool has the potential to be a centre of knowledge-intensive jobs, housing diversity, with a health and education super precinct and attractive visitor destinations. It is predicted that the population of the Liverpool local government area will increase by over 130,000 by 2036.

In order to maximise the opportunities for population and employment growth, and to achieve the desired environmental sustainability and liveability outcomes in Liverpool, the draft District Plan clearly sets out that a number of interlinked issues need to be properly integrated. Those relevant to this PP include:

· the high rate of developer interest particularly within the currently industrial riverfront, which is constrained by access, flooding, open space provision and related issues from Moorebank to Warwick Farm;

· the exhibition of the draft Georges River Masterplan;

· pressure to rezone employment and urban services land into residential while requiring adequate land for employment purposes;

· lack of pedestrian connections to the river and ability to access and use the riverfront; and

· understanding building heights and objectives for public areas around the Georges River.

Whilst the draft District Plan encourages residential growth in the South West District, the plan acknowledges that the planned provision of job opportunities should accompany residential growth. The draft plan stresses that the rezoning of new residential release areas needs to be linked to the development of land for employment opportunities.

The draft District Plan stipulates that employment lands need to be efficiently managed and protected across Greater Sydney and within the South West District. Productivity Priority 4 seeks to protect and support employment and urban services land and states that relevant planning authorities should take a precautionary approach to rezoning employment and urban services lands that would hinder their role and function.

The exception to this is where there is a clear direction in the Regional Plan (currently A Plan for Growing Sydney), the District Plan or an alternative strategy endorsed by the relevant planning authority. Any such alternative strategy should be based on a net community benefit assessment (i.e. analysis of the economic, environmental and social implications) taking into account a Districtwide perspective. Action P22 identifies the need to develop a better understanding of the value and operation of employment and urban services land.

The draft District Plan’s focus on creating a liveable and sustainable city has implications for this PP in terms of:

· improving housing diversity and affordability (including Liveability Priority 3 which introduces a proposed 5-10% affordable rental housing target for delivery through planning proposals in new urban renewal or greenfield areas);

· Creating great places and cohesive communities;

· Responding to the need for services (including Action L9 which identifies the need to coordinate infrastructure planning and delivery for growing communities).

· 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, many of which are not accounted for in the current 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.

There are no other corridor/precinct plans applicable to the subject site.

3.2 Relevant local strategy

The subject site is within the area covered by the draft Georges River Master Plan. This document is a Structure Plan prepared by GroupGSA and MacroPlan Dimasi on behalf of Liverpool City Council and was authorised for public exhibition by Council at its meeting of 31 August 2016. The draft Master Plan is being exhibited between 5 October and 5 December 2016 and has not yet been considered (or endorsed) by the Department of Planning & Environment.

The draft Master Plan defines a high level urban renewal framework for the transformation (over the long term) of the Moorebank industrial area into a mixed use precinct. Working in conjunction with the CBD, the strategic intent is to establish Liverpool as the “River City” of South West Sydney.

The plan recommends development that integrates with – and complements – the growth of the existing CBD. A key tenet of the plan is to open up the Georges River to extend the heart of public life in the Liverpool CBD to the river.

The draft Master Plan was based on a high level economic analysis undertaken by MacroPlan Dimasi. This assessed the precinct’s strategic potential to transition from an industrial estate into a mixed use precinct. The analysis identified that a long term transition from industrial to mixed use, including significant residential development, would be appropriate for the precinct.

The existing Moorebank area is an important employment precinct that currently employs over 7,500 workers, representing almost 10% of the total number of jobs within the Liverpool LGA. Given the significance of this existing employment use, the study also recognised the importance of retaining and increasing employment generating uses within the precinct. This is reflected in the draft Precinct Plan.

The table below summarises the key strategies identified in the draft Georges River Master Plan (GRMP). It also provides a high level commentary on the degree to which the FJMT concept master plan supporting the PP is consistent with the strategies:

Precinct Plan Strategies	Commentary
Strategy 1 – Street Network: Establish a permeable street network that improves connectivity within the precinct, as well as to surrounding areas. A more efficient street network will support a greater intensity of land use, while the design of the streets contribute to the creation of an attractive sense of place.	· The permeability of the proposed street network in the PP concept GRMP is generally consistent with the draft Master Plan, as is having a street interface facing the river. · The termination of the central boulevard at the northern end requires further design resolution. · Re-alignment of certain east-west roads so that they align with existing laneways in the residential area to the east could be explored in order to better integrate the site with its context. · The proposed road network should ultimately be incorporated into a DCP, subject to a demonstration of its efficacy supported by the detailed traffic assessment recommended in this Planning Proposal report.
Strategy 2 – Flood Mitigation: Improve the flood resilience of the precinct and reduce the amount of flood-affected riverfront land in key locations to unlock more developable land by the riverfront.	· The high level flood study undertaken for the draft Plan identifies that the northern end of the site is flood-affected. It is noted that the PP concept masterplan locates development in this area which would require mitigation measures. · The draft GRMP identifies, on a conceptual level, a precinct-wide approach to flood mitigation. The identified approach has implications for riverfront lands along the site boundary. The flood mitigation strategy will need to be further developed based on more detailed flood modelling. Any future design development of the PP concept masterplan should be coordinated with the precinct-wide flood mitigation strategy.
Strategy 3 – Public Waterfront: Rehabilitate and transform the riverfront into an inclusive public space to benefit the wider community and make the river synonymous with Liverpool’s identity.	· The objective of enhancing the amenity of riverfront lands in the PP concept master plan is consistent with the draft GRMP. · A VPA could be considered as a mechanism to contribute to the funding of the rehabilitation of remnant River Flat Eucalypt Forest along the river banks adjoining the site, as well as other schemes to enhance the riverfront.
Strategy 4 – Land Use: Establish a balanced mix of residential, retail, employment and community uses that can regenerate the industrial area. The distribution of land uses is determined by factors such as proximity to the CBD and access to public transport and open space.	· At a strategic level, the proposed mix of land uses in the PP concept master plan is consistent with the draft GRMP. · Further study will be required to justify the quantum of floor space allowed for in the PP concept masterplan, and staging for the delivery of this floor space.
Strategy 5 – Density: Intensify land uses in areas best placed to accommodate greater densities to open up, to as many people as possible, the benefits of living by a riparian parkland, in areas with convenient access to the CBD and public transport.	· The draft GRMP supports higher densities on the site on the proviso that these can be justified from the perspective of urban design, traffic, amenity and market feasibility. · The PP concept master plan as it is currently presented does not adequately demonstrate this justification. · The draft GRMP presents a rationale for transitions in density that are tied to connectivity and access to amenity. The distribution of density in the PP concept master plan is presently too uniform. The size of the site means that the suitability of locating higher densities vary across the site. This is not demonstrated in the PP concept masterplan.
Strategy 6 – Multi-Modal Transport: Provide a network of interlinked transport choices to support the intensification and diversification of land use within the precinct and manage future congestion. Intensification of the precinct is also intended to spur expansion in the levels of public transport provision. This includes providing a more compelling justification for extending the mooted Southwest Metro line extension to Liverpool	· The PP concept master plan identifies opportunities for multi-modal transport choice that are consistent with the intent of the draft GRMP. · Consideration should be given to establishing additional river crossings to improve the integration of the two river banks.
Strategy 7 – Open Space: Establish a connected network of diverse and multi-functional open space to create a highly liveable precinct. Existing and new riverfront open space will be linked together and connected to other open space within the interior of the precinct.	· The draft GRMP adopts a precinct-wide approach to the provision of connected open space to validate rates of open space provision that are lower than typical greenfield rates. · The adopted rate reflects the amenity of proximity to the riverfront, and the desired future urban (rather than greenfield) character of the precinct. · The open space and landscape response of the PP concept master plan is consistent with the draft GRMP intent, and its provision of a central park is supported. · It is noted that reduced rates of open space provision should be dependent upon the delivery of new and enhanced open spaces and links elsewhere in the precinct, beyond the site. · It is also noted that the PP concept master plan is misleading in its quantification of the total amount of open space provided as it includes streets, and possibly what appears to be private communal space above ground on podium roofs. · A detailed analysis should be submitted to demonstrate the adequate provision of open space.
Strategy 8 – Community Infrastructure: Provide a broad range of community uses to sustain the future community envisioned for the precinct.	· Further study and detail will be required as to the appropriate levels of community facilities provision including the need for schools, and where these should be provided.

Table 2: Comparative Assessment of PP against the Draft Georges River Master Plan Strategies

The draft GRMP identifies the subject site as a key component in delivering the renewal objectives for the wider precinct. The GRMP recognises the site’s riverfront location as an opportunity to achieve the following:

· introduce residential development, supported by a mix of retail, commercial and community uses that can benefit from the amenity of the riverfront and the nearby CBD;

· open up continuous public access to the riverfront;

· deliver new riverfront public space;

· rehabilitate riparian vegetation; and

· create new river crossings to integrate the two banks of the river.

The northern part of the site in particular is within a theoretical 10 minute walking band of the train station and bus interchange. Better connectivity across the river will expand the extent of the site that is within an actual 10 minute walking distance of the station. This establishes a rationale for higher density development on the northern part of the site in particular.

The subject site is also an opportunity to mediate a transition in development scale and character between future riverfront development, and the existing low density residential area to the east of Moorebank Avenue and the industrial land to the south. The PP concept master plan as submitted does not adequately demonstrate this transition. However, it is considered that this could be appropriately achieved with some modification of the built form and massing.

The intent of the PP in establishing a mixed use precinct by the river and the CBD is supported by the draft GRMP. However, the proposed outcome presented in the PP concept masterplan is not consistent with the context and its constraints.

3.3 Changing circumstances, investment and/or demographic trends

This element of the strategic merit test is relevant in the Liverpool LGA as there is significant population growth anticipated in the foreseeable future.

The South West District Demographic & Economic Characteristics (Department of Planning & Environment, 2016) released by the Greater Sydney Commission illustrates the enormity of the anticipated population growth in the Liverpool LGA in the period to 2031. Additional housing supply, as well as diversity, will be required to support this population growth and changing patterns of household formation.

Figure 3: Historical and Projected population for LGAs in the South West District, 1991-2031
Source: DP&E, 2016^{^[3]}

There is a significant pipeline of dwelling capacity through development applications and rezoning proposals in the Liverpool LGA (refer to Table 1), including the proposed 7,000 additional dwellings in the city centre. Historically there is a gap between dwellings approvals and commencements, although it is acknowledged that dwelling completions have increased significantly in Liverpool LGA over the last 3 years.

Detached houses have generally been the dominant dwelling type constructed. Greater focus is required on housing diversity, particularly to meet the needs of the projected increasing number of lone person households. As at the 2011 Census, lone person households in the Liverpool LGA increased to 8,597 from 7,884 (an increase of 9%) and this is expected to continue to grow.

When compared to other demographic groups such as couples without children, who increased by 527 during the same period, there is a clear distinction demarcating a requirement for more appropriately sized dwelling types to cater for lone person households.

However, the dwelling types required by lone person households are not being provided at the rate required to provide an adequate supply. In the 2015-2016 financial year, out of 2,609 building approvals, only 964 were approved for dwelling types other than that of a “house”. That is, only 36% or approvals were for dwelling sizes preferred by a lone person/owner occupier household.

In summary, there is a strong demand for new dwellings across the LGA and need to ensure greater diversity of product. However, the analysis of recent major DAs and PPs in the City Centre demonstrates a generous supply of houses and apartments in the pipeline for the City Centre at present. Also it is noted that residential studies, recently commissioned by Council, have identified that the current supply of high and medium density land in the LGA is very generous: 255.9Ha of R4 and 827.5Ha of R3. Conversely the studies commissioned to assess the supply of industrial land in the city concluded that there are only 2.8 years of serviced land available for industrial development.

3.4 Strategic Merit - Summary

The proposal does demonstrate consistency with some components of the draft District Plan but there are significant aspects which are not consistent. Notably the plan seeks to protect existing employment lands and adopt a precautionary approach to any urban renewal of these lands. It is considered that the proposal has not adequately tested the assumptions it makes regarding the provision of sustainable employment, nor has it adequately addressed the impact of the proposed loss of industrial land. Also the planning proposal does not achieve the affordability targets and diversity of housing which the plan aspires to.

Whilst the general concept of rezoning the subject site to permit mixed use development to achieve elevated residential densities is consistent with the GRMP, the proposed sequencing and relative densities are not and the proposal does not guarantee housing diversity or affordability. Moreover, the GRMP is a draft only and is not endorsed by Council or the state and it does not provide specific guidance regarding actual heights or densities.

With regard to changing circumstances, there is no doubt that the demand in Liverpool for dwellings is strong but there is no shortage of serviced land available in the City Centre and its surroundings to satisfy the demand and a strong development pipeline is responding to current demand.

Overall, although the proposal has the potential to meet the strategic merit test, the strategic planning context is undergoing substantial change at present and there are a range of matters that require further resolution before it is ready to be progressed to Gateway.

4. Site specific assessment

Planning Circular PS16-004 specifies that a PP must also pass a site-specific merit test regarding:

· the natural environment;

· existing uses, approved uses and likely future uses of the land; and

· the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision.

4.1 Environmental considerations

There are no site specific environmental considerations identified in the PP and supporting material that would preclude further consideration of the proposed urban renewal.

The site has been substantially cleared and developed for urban purposes with associated landscape treatments. The natural vegetation corridor that exists along the along the banks of the Georges River is worthy of retention and regeneration. An arborist report and ecological assessment have been submitted as part of the planning proposal.

The site is within the Georges River flood plain. A Flood Investigation by Mott McDonald has been submitted with the PP. Additional specialist reports have been submitted in relation to bushfire risk, geotechnical and contamination issues.

A Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by Artefact Heritage Consultants and submitted with the PP. There are no heritage items identified on the site, however there are European and indigenous items located in the vicinity.

4.2 Existing and likely future land uses

The size and location of the subject site provides significant potential to support the success of Liverpool by creating an environment that responds to the challenges of a modern city. The precinct has the potential to offer a relatively affordable urbane lifestyle with a diversity of housing, close to employment opportunities (including those in the CBD), open space and recreation, and key transport, health and education infrastructure. This PP represents an opportunity for Council to partner with the development industry to capitalize on the Greater Sydney Commission’s vision for a 30 minute city, where “people can realistically achieve the goal of being able to live within 30 minutes of where they work, study and play.” ^{^[4]}

Economic & employment considerations

When undertaking plan making functions, Council (as the relevant planning authority) must take into consideration a range of Directions issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 117(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. Of particular relevance to this PP is Direction 1.1 regarding business and industrial zones.

Where a PP affects land with an existing industrial zone, Direction 1.1 specifies it must:

(a) give effect to the objectives of this direction, which are to:

(i) encourage employment growth in suitable locations;

(ii) protect employment land in business and industrial zones; and

(iii) support the viability of identified strategic centres.

(b) retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones; and

A PP may only be inconsistent with these terms if the Department of Planning & Environment is satisfied it can be justified by a strategy or study that considers the objectives.

The Moorebank Market Assessment, undertaken by MacroPlan Dimasi (May 2016) on behalf of Liverpool Council concludes that while the Moorebank Industrial Estate “contributes not insubstantially to the LGA’s employment base… the precinct is able to be redeveloped in a manner that provides opportunity to meet its increasingly diverse housing needs and also contributes to the local economy.”

The Moorebank Market Assessment notes that “transitioning from an industrial base to a modern mixed use precinct is challenging and will require delicate caretaking and exploration of commercial opportunities to secure the precinct’s ongoing employment value”.

The Moorebank Industrial Estate, of which the subject site forms a part, accommodates a broad range of industrial uses from large logistics operations, to manufacturing and smaller scale industrial and automotive services. MacroPlan Dimasi have identified the majority (66.8%) of these business employ between 1-4 people.

An Economic Impact Assessment has been prepared by Hill PDA (April 2016) to support the PP. It anticipates approximately 8,200 jobs will be created on-site through the proposed retail and commercial floor space, representing an increase of around 7,800 jobs above the current employment yield of 492 jobs. In addition, construction would directly generate around 1,245 jobs per annum during the construction period.

The issue of achieving genuine employment outcomes in mixed use environments is currently topical, for example in Macquarie Park^{^[5]}. Given the importance of this issue to the local economy, if the PP is to proceed further assessment should be undertaken to clarify:

- the amount and type of non-residential uses desired;

- the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome within a mixed use zone; and

- the appropriateness of this to be accommodated in mixed use buildings.

Surrounding land use context

The land use context surrounding the subject site is varied and changing^{^[6]}. The site is directly adjacent to low density residential development to the east of Moorebank Avenue and industrial uses to the south. Further to the west of the site, across the Georges River there is significant urban transformation currently underway.

The urban design concept plan shows indicative connections through the existing residential area to the east that potentially implies the need for significant acquisition of residential land. This could be minimised if the Concept Plan was aligned with the existing alignment of laneways through this residential enclave.

Further consideration should be given to the implications of potential future redevelopment of the land directly to the south and the east of the subject site. The Concept & Structure Plan (section 6 in the Urban Design Report) relates to the entire area zoned IN1 between M5 and Newbridge Road and therefore it could be assumed that redevelopment of this broader precinct may occur in the future. If this were to occur, there would be implications for the broader precinct as well as on the development on the subject site.

Urban design / built form considerations

The planning proposal seeks numerous buildings of significant height. This has implications for the ability of future development to be able to successfully satisfy the SEPP 65 / Apartment Design Guide solar access and building separation requirements and to deliver an attractive urban environment. In addition, it creates a lack of transition to the adjoining low density residential area to the east and remaining industrial land to the south.

It is noted that the proposed density (net density is estimated to be 1,600 persons per hectare) would be approximately four times the density of Jacksons Landing Pyrmont, which is currently the highest density development in New South Wales. Jacksons Landing is situated very close to the CBD and the journey to work statistics reveal a very low car use.

It is recommended that further urban design analysis should be undertaken to identify appropriate height and massing outcomes varying across the site. This urban design analysis should start with a review of the context’s existing and potential future urban form in order to demonstrate an understanding of the urban context within which the subject site sits.

The existing predominant urban form in Liverpool is low to medium rise development. A building height / massing strategy that proposes taller built form should demonstrate:

· an appropriate transition to Liverpool’s predominant urban form and character. This is particularly pertinent with respect to the relationship between the site and the existing low density residential suburb to the east;

· an understanding of how the proposed urban form contributes to the legibility of the wider urban form. For example, how the proposed form relates and complements the Liverpool CBD;

· how taller form meets the ground level, whether it be streets, lanes, pedestrian paths, open space, or the riverfront lands. Built form should establish a ground level interface that respects pedestrian scale and amenity;

· a diversity of built form and massing that contributes to the legibility of development within the site, and to avoid monolithic urban design outcomes;

· an assessment of visual impact from a variety of viewpoints within a reasonable distance of the site;

· that ADG requirements (such as solar access, building separation) can be met, both within the site and with regards to existing residential areas; and

· the agglomeration of taller form in locations with good access to high quality amenities such as public transport, open space, community services, recreation / entertainment and retail.

Justifications for proposed urban form should be supported with 3D modelling, sections and plans as appropriate. These should extend to the surrounding context to illustrate how the site relates to the CBD and other surrounding areas.

Consideration should be given to the introduction of a statutory requirement (local clause) in relation to the preparation of a site specific DCP and/or concept DA; and opportunities to embed design excellence in the redevelopment of the precinct.

4.3 Services and infrastructure

Traffic & Transport

The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Traffix (April 2016) acknowledges that analysis of the traffic implications of this PP have been done in isolation of the surrounding area. In order to gain a network wide understanding of the potential impacts of the proposed development outcomes and necessary scope and costs of works required to accommodate this, the traffic implications should be modelled holistically with other future development in the area (such as the proposed city centre rezoning, planning proposals lodged on neighbouring sites and intermodal terminal) and a comprehensive traffic impact assessment undertaken.

The Draft Interim Transport Management and Accessibility Plan Guidelines (by RMS/TfNSW) provide a framework for this form of assessment and provide a way to meaningfully engage with the RMS.

Social considerations

A Social Impact Assessment prepared by Hill PDA (April 2016) has been submitted with the PP. The SIA indicates that the demand generated by the proposed development warrants substantial investment in additional library services, community centres, meeting spaces, child care services, preschools and playgrounds. The opportunity exists to provide a range of community services as part of the design and development of the subject site.

Staging / sequencing

The proposed delivery mechanisms and sequencing of infrastructure provision is not explored in detail in the PP. These components are fundamental to achieving the objectives of the PP.

Accordingly, before the PP progresses, further consideration should be given to:

· Preparation of a development staging plan (that is not based on tenancy commitments) to support redevelopment in a logical sequence commencing at the northern end of the site, closest to the CBD;

· Closer alignment between the proposed development staging plan and the delivery of infrastructure (new and upgraded) required to support growth in the precinct and surrounding areas, such as the widening of Moorebank Avenue; and

· Specific delivery mechanisms to ensure the timely provision of infrastructure to support the precinct’s growth.

5. Conclusion

The subject site is a critical piece in reorienting the city of Liverpool to focus on the river. The proponent’s proposal would have the benefit of opening up the riverfront for the community to enjoy. There are also environmental benefits in the form of opportunities for rehabilitation of riparian land, and the removal of industrial uses from the riverfront. The contention is how this is achieved and to what density.

This report concludes that the proposal demonstrates alignment at a high level with the objectives of the draft South West District Plan and Georges River Master Plan. However, to ensure we can create the best possible outcome for the community there are significant issues that need to be further examined and resolved prior to seeking a gateway determination.

This report has identified a range of additional studies that should be prepared, specifically in relation to: the desired built form and massing across the site; the cumulative infrastructure requirements, traffic assessment, delivery mechanisms and staging required to support redevelopment of the precinct; and the timing and sequencing of development across the subject site. It is also noted that the proponent will need to have regard to Council’s ongoing precinct planning process, which is anticipated to involve more detailed land use and infrastructure planning in consultation with State agencies.

Opportunities to support future employment initiatives based on health, education and innovation on the subject site should be further explored in the PP, especially given the likely decline, over the long term, of traditional industries such as manufacturing. In addition, opportunities to incorporate significant affordable housing outcomes are also considered to be critical.

To ensure transparency and a clear understanding of the likely intended development outcomes, the planning proposal should be deferred to allow submission of a revised planning proposal for Council consideration prior to it being progressed for a Gateway Determination.

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.
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. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Proposal: 1 Moorebank Avenue and 3 Helles Avenue, Moorebank View (Under separate cover)

[1] It is noted that in metropolitan Sydney, the basis for the strategic merit test is the relevant district plan (including draft versions released for public comment) rather than APfGS.

[2] In the timeframe available prior to completion of this report a comprehensive assessment of the implications of the draft District Plan has not been undertaken.

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.

Item	Description	Funding Arrangements
1	Myall Road, Casula – Request for traffic calming devices	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
2	Hoxton Park Road Service Lane Intersection, Cartwright – Request for speeding and parking restrictions	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
3	First Avenue, Hoxton Park – Proposed pedestrian refuge	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program
4	Croatia Avenue (Kibby Road) and Hartlepool Road intersection, Edmondson Park – Proposed intersection treatment	Developer
5	Cartwright Avenue and Willan Drive intersection, Cartwright – Proposed roundabout	Federal Black Spot Funding
6	Proposed Local Traffic Committee Meeting dates for 2017	N/A
7	Wilson Road, Hinchinbrook – Proposed Access Arrangement	Developer

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community
Key Policy	Youth Strategy
File Ref	326361.2016
Author	Geoff Shelton - Councillor

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Strategic Direction	Accessible Connected City Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network
Key Policy	Traffic and Transport Plan
File Ref	319647.2016
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

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

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Create clean and attractive public places for people to engage and connect
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	326131.2016
Author	Charishma Kaliyanda - Councillor