Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 February 2017.............................................................. 9

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01 DA-787/2016 - Subdivision of One Lot into Two Torrens Title Lots at 75 Seventh Avenue, Austral ............................................................................................................ 38......... 1

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01 Land Dedication and Works in Kind Policy..................................................... 45......... 2

DPG 02 Review of Council Policies............................................................................. 61......... 3

DPG 03 Liverpool Development Control Plan - Amendment 25.................................. 71......... 4

DPG 04 Draft LLEP 2008 Amendment No. 56 ........................................................... 80......... 5

DPG 05 Withdrawal of Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 50) - 900 Cowpasture Road, Cecil Hills. 92 6

DPG 06 Withdrawal of Planning Proposal for land at 124-144 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (Flower Power site)....................................................................................... 115......... 7

DPG 07 Proposed changes to Naming Function and Introduction of Naming Convention Policy 119......... 8

DPG 08 Draft LLEP 2008 Amendment No. 63 - Middleton Grange Town Centre.... 137......... 9

DPG 09 Planning and Development Committee Meeting.......................................... 146....... 10

DPG 10 Pre-Planning Proposal Meeting Fees........................................................... 149....... 11

Chief Executive Officer Report

NIL

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01 Draft Reconciliation Action Plan 2016-2020 Post Exhibition........................ 152....... 12

Business Improvement Report

NIL

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01 Investment Report February 2017................................................................ 174....... 13

CFO 02 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government.............................. 182....... 14

CFO 03 2017 Australian Local Government Women's Association NSW Branch Conference 195 15

City Presentation Report

DCP 01 Sustainable Strategies for Domestic Waste Disposal ................................. 203....... 16

Economic Development Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

NIL

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Aboriginal Consultative Committee - Minutes of meeting held 2 February 2017 208 17

CTTE 02 Liverpool Youth Council - Minutes of meeting held 8 February 2017.......... 214....... 18

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 February 2017 223 19

CTTE 04 Liverpool Sports Committee - Minutes of meeting 23 February 2017......... 230....... 20

CTTE 05 Audit and Risk Committee Minutes 24 October 2016.................................. 240....... 21

CTTE 06 Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 March 2017..... 251....... 22

CTTE 07 Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 28 February 2017 275 23

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Harle................................................................... 282....... 24

Presentations by Councillors

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Childcare Services - Liverpool CBD ............................................................ 306....... 25

NOM 02 The Value of Trees ...................................................................................... 309....... 26

NOM 03 CCTV Cameras............................................................................................ 311....... 27

NOM 04 Growing the Tourism Economy in Liverpool ............................................... 314....... 28

Council in Closed Session

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

CONF 01 University of Wollongong Equity Scholarship Program

Reason: Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 02 Tender ST2607 - Road Network Condition Survey 2016/2017

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

CONF 03 Tender WT2606 - Supply and Install Sandstone Retaining Wall - Bigge Park, Liverpool

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

CONF 04 Tender WT2506 - Car Park Safety Crash Barriers

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

CONF 05 Proposed Financial Assistance to Cafe Proprietors in Macquarie Mall Liverpool

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

CONF 06 Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Assessment - 245 Devonshire Road, Kemps Creek

Reason: Item CONF 06 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(f) of the Local Government Act because it contains matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property.

CONF 07 Legal Affairs Report

Reason: Item CONF 07 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) (d ii) (g) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Close

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 22 February 2017

PRESENT:

Mayor Wendy Waller

Councillor Ayyad

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Hagarty

Councillor Harle

Councillor Kaliyanda

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Rhodes

Councillor Shelton

Ms Kiersten Fishburn, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Dr Eddie Jackson, Acting Director Community and Culture

Mr Wayne Carter, Director City Presentation

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Kevin Smith, Acting Director Infrastructure and Environment

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

The meeting commenced at 6.00pm.

OPENING 6.00pm

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF The prayer of the Council was read by Reverend Manoj

COUNTRY, PRAYER OF Chacko from Liverpool South Anglican Church.

COUNCIL AND AFFIRMATION

TO BE READ BY

APOLOGIES Nil

CONDOLENCES Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Hadid

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2017 be confirmed as a true
record of that meeting subject to the following change:

That the voting record for IHAP 01 (DA -268/2016 – subdivision of one lot into two Torrens title lots and the construction of a two storey dwelling on the proposed battle- axe lot at 6 Torrens Court, Wattle Grove) (as shown on pages 13 and 14 of those minutes) be corrected to show that Clr Hadchiti had voted for both the motion and the foreshadowed motion.

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

Declarations of Interest

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

Item: CONF 02 Extension of Waste Collection Contract

Reason: Clr Shelton has had dealings with one of the parties referred to in the item.

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

Public Forum

Presentation – items not on agenda

1. Mr Lee Mulvey addressed Council on the following item:

Planning Proposal - 6, 8 and 16 Bridges Road and 361 Newbridge Road, Moorebank; and

Planning Proposal - 5-9 Bridges Road, Moorebank.

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Hadid

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

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

Representation – items on agenda

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

DPG 03 – Planning Proposal Lot 1 Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Harle

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

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

Planning and Growth Report

ITEM NO: DPG 01

FILE NO: 013889.2017

SUBJECT: On-site Sewage Management Systems DCP Amendment

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Exhibits the draft amendment to Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 in relation to Part 1 Section 15 – On-site Sewage Management Systems (OSMS);

2. Notes that a further report will be submitted to Council following public exhibition if any objections are received; and

3. Delegates to the CEO the authority to finalise the DCP if no objections are received.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Harle Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

1. That Council exhibits the draft amendment to Liverpool Development Plan 2008 in relation to Part 1 Section 15 – On-site Sewage Management Systems (OSMS);

Notes that a further report will be submitted to Council following public exhibition; and

i. The report to include the cost of implementing a “pump out assistance scheme” for properties currently on “Pump out Systems” and based on neighbouring Councils;

ii. Council to lobby the State Government for financial assistance to those properties currently on a “pump out system” awaiting connecting to sewer systems promised decades ago;

iii. The report to be presented to Council at its earliest opportunity.

Notification of the numbers of residents affected by the new policy to also be included in the report back to Council.

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

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Clr Hagarty left the Chambers at 7.39pm.

Clr Kaliyanda left the Chambers at 7.41 pm.

Clr Hagarty returned to the Chambers at 7.41pm.

Clr Kaliyanda returned to the Chambers at 7.43pm

Questions with Notice

ITEM NO: QWN 01

FILE NO: 034483.2017

SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Harle and Clr Rhodes

Questions relating to the Safety aspects of the Liverpool CBD.

Background

During the previous term of Council, Council officers in conjunction with Liverpool Police carried out several safety audits of the Liverpool CBD during both normal business hours and after hours. Members of the audit group included Police Officers, Businesses, Councillors, interested community members and Council staff. Council produced safety audit reports that included recommendations for implementation through a multi-stakeholder approach.

Please address the following:

1. In summary, what were those recommendations?

The Liverpool CBD Safety Audits were conducted during the day and at night on 8, 14 and 15 March, 2011 and a report was compiled. The following are the summary of recommendations from the report:

· Improve lighting such as replacement of broken and damaged lighting and install new lighting;

· Improve general maintenance such as reduction of overgrown vegetation and trees, removal of graffiti, regular rubbish pick-ups including removal of drug and alcohol items;

· Install a CCTV system;

· Installation of signage including new ‘Alcohol Free Zones’ signs;

· Installation of fencing around the electrical boxes at Railway S Way (rear); and

· Repair of cracked paths and road ways in Augusta Cullen Park and intersection of Norfolk Serviceway and Memorial Ave.

2. Have any of the recommendations been implemented?

All the recommendations except the fencing around the electrical boxes at Railway S Way have been implemented. The fences around the electrical boxes were not completed as the Endeavour Energy protocol did not support the proposal, however; Endeavour Energy has increased regular maintenance of the electrical boxes since the audit.

3. What is the overall cost of implementing those recommendations?

Historically there is no allocated budget to implement the safety audit recommendations. Therefore, recommendations have been implemented utilising existing resources. For example, the improvement of general maintenance, including rubbish pick up and removal of graffiti, was covered by existing resources within City Presentation. Similarly, maintenance of the street lighting, including replacement and repair of the damaged and broken lights, were addressed by Endeavour Energy through a standing contract between Council and Endeavour Energy.

4. How would the implementation of those recommendations impact on the overall effectiveness of the current CCTV monitoring system?

The implementation of the recommendations has impacted positively on the overall effectiveness of the current CCTV monitoring system. The CCTV cameras in the CBD have been able to capture clear footage due to regular maintenance of overgrown vegetation and trees and the improvement of lighting.

5. What, if any, funding source was suggested to implement any of the recommendations?

There were no identified funding sources recommended at that time of the audit. However, during the period in which the audits were undertaken, Council secured over $600,000 in funding from NSW Department of Justice and the Attorney-General’s Department to implement the CBD safety audit recommendations. Subsequently, work was undertaken that including the installation of new lighting, CCTV system and safety signage, improved car parks and delivering a number of graffiti art projects and community education and awareness programs and activities.

6. What funding source has been used to maintain and operate the CCTV system to date, e.g. general ratepayers’ rates, Federal and State Government Grants and the City Improvement Fund?

The maintenance and operation of the CCTV system has been managed by Council.

7. What is the overall annual maintenance cost of the CCTV camera monitoring system cost to Council?

Council’s annual cost of CCTV is $45,303.50.

8. When does the current funding of the CCTV camera monitoring system cease?

Maintenance is charged as an annual service, with January as the start date and expiring in December of each year. The current system is currently under a support agreement until the end of December 2017

9. Has any of the recordings, captured by the CCTV Cameras, been used in convicting offenders since the system was activated?

Council staff do not possess this information. However, Council’s legal team have advised that criminal convictions invariably depend on a number of sources of evidence, one of which may be CCTV recordings. Council’s Governance team processed 33 requests for CCTV camera footage during 2016 and 4 requests for the period 1 January 2017 – 31 January 2017. Without identifying the nature of particular requests, a number of Police requests have involved footage in connection with the commission of serious criminal offences.

10. How many offences and what type of offences were committed in the Liverpool CBD both prior to, and for the same duration of time after the installation of CCTV cameras?

Council does not possess this information which would have to be supplied by the NSW Police.

11. Do the CCTV cameras assist in any way in apprehending offenders when the crime is being committed?

No. The monitor for the system is now located in Council’s Administration Centre, rather than the Liverpool Police Station. Therefore, Police officers cannot view live camera footage. Council was not in a position to fund the relocation of the monitor to the new Police station. Previously, when the monitor was located in the former Police Station on the ground floor of the Moore Street building, designated Police Officers (as per Memorandum of Understanding) were able to view live footage and, on occasion, apprehend persons alleged to be committing criminal offences.

12. Does Liverpool Police provide a city beat patrol service in the Liverpool CBD and at what times?

The Liverpool Local Area Command (LAC) resources are tasked on an intelligence based needs. This includes foot patrol, mobile patrol and bike Police in the CBD area, in both a covert and overt manner depending on the needs identified.

Mayor Waller called a recess at 7.44pm

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01

DA-787/2016 - Subdivision of One Lot into Two Torrens Title Lots at 75 Seventh Avenue, Austral

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	047910.2017
Report By	Boris Santana - Development Assessment Planner
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Property	75 Seventh Avenue, Austral Lot 975 DP 2475
Owner	Mr P B Boudville and Ms S M Boudville and Mr L A Kirby and Ms T Kirby
Applicant	Mr P B Boudville and Ms S M Boudville and Mr L A Kirby and Ms T Kirby

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-787/2016, proposing the subdivision of one lot into two (2) Torrens title lots at 75 Seventh Avenue, Austral. This application was lodged on 24 August 2016.

This application was referred to the 20 February 2017 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 4.1B of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006 which stipulates that the density of any residential development to which this clause applies is not to be less than 15 dwellings per hectare. The subject site is approximately 1.214 ha in size and is therefore required to accommodate a minimum of 19 dwellings on site. The application proposes two lots and the numerical non-compliance therefore equates to seventeen lots or 89.4%.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to amended recommended conditions of consent (See Attachment 3).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves Development Application DA-787/2016 subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent (Attachment 3).

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-787/2016 proposing the subdivision of one lot into two (2) Torrens title lots at 75 Seventh Avenue, Austral (Lot 975 DP 2475)

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the IHAP for consideration as the proposed development includes a request to vary a development standard in excess of 10%; pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the SEPP (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 4.1B of the SEPP (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006 which prescribes that the density of any residential development at the subject site is not to be less than 15 dwellings per hectare. The subject site is approximately 1.214 ha in size and is therefore required to accommodate a minimum of 19 dwellings on site. The application seeks to create 2 Torrens title lots, representing a numerical non-compliance of 89.4%.

The Site

The site is identified as 75 Seventh Avenue, Austral with legal description of Lot 975 DP 2475. The site has a frontage of approximately 80.46 metres to Seventh Avenue and has a total area of 12,140sqm.

The site is currently occupied by a dual occupancy. The existing dwellings are fully serviced, such that each dwelling has connection to reticulated water, electricity and telecommunication services, with sewerage disposed of onsite.

The lands surrounding the subject site are zoned R2 Low Density Residential on all boundaries and across Seventh Avenue, all of which are currently developed as large residential holdings.

An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

An extract of the SEPP (SRGC) 2006 zoning map is provided in Figure 2 below.

Figure 1 - Site and locality map (Source: GeoCortex)

Figure 2 – Zoning Map (Source: GeoCortex)

details of the proposal

The proposal seeks consent for the two-lot Torrens title subdivision of Lot 975 in DP 2475, known as 75 Seventh Avenue, Austral. The two resulting lots are proposed to be Lot 1, and Lot 2, each of which will have a lot size of 6,070sqm.

Proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 are both rectangular in shape each with an approximate frontage of 40m to Seventh Avenue.

A plan of the proposed subdivision is shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – Subdivision Plan

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6, to vary Clause 4.1B of the SEPP (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006, which prescribes the minimum density requirements for residential development.

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the Clause 4.6 variation to the minimum residential density development standard under Clause 4.1B of the SEPP (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2008.

Clause 4.1B(3) of the SEPP (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006 states;

(3) The density of any residential development to which this clause applies is not to be less than the density shown on the Residential Density Map in relation to that land.

The Residential Density Map identifies the density of any residential development at the subject site is not to be less than 15 dwellings per hectare. The subject site is approximately 1.214 ha in size and is therefore required to accommodate a minimum of 19 dwellings on site. The application seeks to create 2 Torrens title lots, representing a numerical non-compliance of 89.4%.

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum residential density as prescribed by Clause 4.1B(3) of SEPP (Sydney Regional Growth Centres) 2006.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the SEPP are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6 (3) prescribes:

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard as follows:

· The subdivision is consistent with the applicable objectives for both the Residential Density and R2 zoning. The subdivision is therefore in the public interest by meeting the relevant objectives that support the SEPP controls.

· The numeric non-compliance with the residential density in undertaking a 2 lot subdivision at this time does not compromise the intent for development, or the further development of the properties in the future, in accordance with the minimum density requirements.

· Compliance with the residential density standard at this time is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

· The subdivision creates no environmental impacts or additional, unnecessary demand on reticulated infrastructure in the neighbourhood.

· Each allotment will retain an existing dwelling and ancillary improvement areas, such that there will be no change to the bulk, scale, density or streetscape within and around the site. The developed nature of the new lots will further reduce the possibility of residential development impacting on future subdivision potential of the remainder of the land.

· Any future development within either of the new allotments would be subject to a development application where matters related to residential density may be further considered.

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought:

1. As communicated by the applicant the property does not benefit from reticulated sewer infrastructure, and the site would be better developed in the future when such services are readily available. The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing dual occupancy into two lots until such time that the site is suitable for redevelopment.

2. The precinct is characterised by large single dwelling allotments. The development proposes to subdivide an existing dual occupancy into two lots, such that there will be no change to the bulk, scale, density or streetscape within and around the site.

3. The existing dwellings are fully serviced, such that each lot will have connection to reticulated water, stormwater disposal, electricity and telecommunication services, with sewerage disposed of onsite. The subdivision is not likely to create any adverse environmental impacts or additional, unnecessary demand on reticulated infrastructure in the neighbourhood.

4. A concept plan has been submitted by the applicant which details how the site can be developed in the future to meet the provisions of the SEPP. The plan shows the required density for each lot and the DCP road network is still achievable, subject to the demolition of the existing dwelling houses on each lot.

The development proposes to subdivide an existing dual occupancy into two lots, such that there will be no change to the housing stock. While the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum residential density targets, the applicant notes the proposed subdivision does not compromise the future development of resulting lots. A concept plan has been submitted by the applicant which shows that each lot is still able to meet the required residential density to provide for the housing needs of the community. Despite the numeric non-compliance with the residential density, it is considered that the proposed subdivision is in the public interest by meeting the relevant objectives of the particular development standard, and also with the objectives of the zone in which the development is proposed. Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 4.1B is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 20 February 2017, IHAP made the following recommendation:

IHAP recommendation	Agreed/Not Agreed	Council Officers comment
The Panel recommends that DA-787/2016 for a two lot Torrens title subdivision at Lot 975 DP 2475 be approved subject to conditions attached to the Council officer’s report,	Agreed	The panel recommendation is noted
The panel understand that a State Infrastructure Contribution may be required as a condition of development consent. The panel recommends council officers investigate whether such a condition should be imposed.	Agreed	A SIC levy has been imposed as a condition of consent and is attached to the amended recommended conditions of consent (Attachment 3).

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is worthy of support. On this basis, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the amended recommended conditions of consent.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

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

2. IHAP recommendation View (Under separate cover)

3. Amended Recommended Conditions of Consent View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Land Dedication and Works in Kind Policy

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Property Strategy
File Ref	037485.2017
Report By	Barry Millwood - Executive Planner
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Executive Summary

It is proposed to amend the Works in Kind Policy to include procedures for dedication of land identified for acquisition in a contributions plan. The intent is to inform prospective developers of the procedures for dedicating land in exchange for an offset against development contributions. This will help streamline the land development process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the Revised Land Dedication and Works in Kind Policy attached to this report.

REPORT

Background

Council currently has a Works in Kind Policy (WIK) whereby a developer may offer to provide works identified in a contributions plan in exchange for an offset against development contributions payable for that development. This policy has worked successfully to facilitate the timely implementation of development and the provision of infrastructure.

In many cases a development site might also have land, part of which has been identified for acquisition by Council, funded by the applicable contributions plan. Council staff have received many requests for information on the procedure for dedicating land and obtaining an offset against development contributions payable for that development.

Where a parcel of land is wholly identified for acquisition by Council it would usually be acquired at some stage by Council through negotiation. The WIK Policy would not apply unless the parcel was part of a larger land holding, which is being developed. In some cases Council will seek to acquire part of a parcel before subdivision of land takes place on the balance of the land depending on the importance of obtaining the land. An example would be land required for drainage.

Amendments to Works in Kind Policy

The intent of the proposed amendments are to inform prospective developers of the procedures for dedicating land in exchange for an offset against development contributions, thereby streamlining the process. In particular the proposed amendments aim to alert developers to initiate the process for dedicating land early in the land development process so that it is completed by the time that the land subdivision is ready to be registered.

The highlights of the amendments (shown in red on the attached draft policy) are as follows:

· Land to be dedicated to Council must be identified in the contributions plan that applies to the site.

· Council may accept dedication of land not identified in the relevant contributions plan but no offset against contributions will be given.

· An application must be made to Council providing:

o A detailed description of the land;

o A plan prepared by a registered surveyor to a standard satisfactory for submission to the NSW Land Titles Office;

o Details of any works to be carried out on the land;

o Details of works that are in accordance with the contributions plan that applies to the site;

o A land contamination report, prepared by a suitably qualified person; and

o A valuation from a registered land valuer, providing evidence of the value of land that is being sought as a land dedication.

· Council will consider the following matters:

o The monetary value of the proposed land dedication and the proposed offset;

o The design of any proposed works in conjunction the proposed land dedication;

o The overall benefit of the proposed land dedication to the development in the area;

o The timing of the proposed land dedication as a WIK;

o If works are proposed on the land to be dedicated as a WIK, the feasibility of constructing those works within amounts budgeted in the contributions plan that applies to the site; and

o Financial implications for Council in accepting the land dedication, including any effects on the implementation of Council’s adopted works programs, ongoing management and maintenance of the land dedication.

· The final decision on the acquisition of land will be made by Council;

· Formatting changes and changes to a number of clauses to clarify meaning.

The procedure for determining of the value of land generally involves Council obtaining the advice of an independent land valuer as a basis for making an offer to the developer. Through negotiation with the developer, a price is eventually agreed upon. This differs from the process for dedication of works whereby, depending on the scale of works, the value is determined by quotes or tenders from quantity surveyors and submitted by the developer.

The acceptance of land dedication, pursuant to S377 of the Local Government Act 1993, is a matter for Council and cannot be delegated to staff.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Manage the environmental health of waterways.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Developer Contributions Works in Kind Policy

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 03

Liverpool Development Control Plan - Amendment 25

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	052180.2017
Report By	Ian Dencker - Senior Strategic Planner, Strategic Planning
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

Executive Summary

To develop Liverpool City Centre in accordance with Council’s vision, policy changes to planning and design controls have been prepared. Such changes include amendments to both the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008, and the Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP). The two documents work in conjunction, and amendments to each (Amendment 52 and 25 respectively) have been prepared to ensure continuity of policy and design controls.

This report outlines the background to the LLEP and LDCP amendments, however ultimately seeks a resolution on Amendment 25. Amendment 25 has been recently exhibited, and discussed at the Design Excellence Panel (DEP). As a result of this exhibition process, a number of actions are required to ensure that the LDCP is ready to be employed once Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 is gazetted.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Considers the contents of this report and approves the proposed changes to the exhibited Draft Liverpool Development Control Plan, Part 1 – General Controls for all Development and Part 4 Liverpool City Centre (Amendment No. 25) as outlined in Attachments 1 and 2.

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to finalise Amendment No. 25 including any further minor technical changes which may be required including those recommended by the Liverpool Design Excellence Panel.

3. Adopts Draft Liverpool Development Control Plan - Part 4 Liverpool City Centre as a policy of Council to be used in the assessment of development applications lodged pursuant to Planning Proposal – Amendment 52.

4. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer - upon notification that Planning Proposal Amendment No. 52 has been approved by the Minister for Planning – to bring into effect Draft Liverpool Development Control Plan, Part 1 – General Controls for all Development and Part 4 Liverpool City Centre (Amendment No. 25) in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation.

REPORT

Background:

A Councillor workshop held on 29 November 2014 developed a vision for the future of Liverpool City. The vision included such aspirations as a diverse and interesting City Centre; an 18-hour city in which people could work, live and enjoy; and a well-connected, workable and walkable city. It was agreed that this vision would be delivered a number of ways, notably through amendments to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) and the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP).

The LDCP is a detailed Council guideline that supports the planning controls in the LLEP. The LDCP is designed to be read in conjunction with the LLEP as it guides, in more detail, the expected planning and design outcomes of the Liverpool local government area.

In response to the vision developed for the Liverpool City Centre, broad changes to planning controls for the Centre are underway. Specifically, Draft LLEP Amendment 52 seeks to rezone part of the City Centre to B4 Mixed Use, and amends development controls and standards on some sites. Given the importance of the LDCP as a support document, an amendment to this was also required to ensure the consistency of Liverpool’s planning controls and policies. As a result, Amendment 25 was prepared to align the LDCP with Amendment 52. A copy of the exhibited documents are included as Attachments 1 and 2 with proposed tracked changes (blue = added text and red = deleted text).

LLEP 2008 - Amendment 52

LLEP 2008 Amendment 52 seeks to:

· Rezone part of Liverpool City Centre Commercial Core from B3 Commercial to B4 Mixed Use;

· Define legible character precincts and create distinct urban forms for each precinct;

· Allow permissible development controls on Liverpool Hospital Campus site and some existing B4 Mixed Use zones adjoining the city centre; and

· Amend development standards corresponding to the proposed changes in land use and built form.

The Planning Proposal was prepared by Council and received a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment (‘the Department’) on 22 September 2015.

Following the public exhibition of Amendment 52, Council resolved on 27 July 2016 to submit the proposal to the Department for finalisation pursuant to Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The amendment is currently with the Department for review.

DCP - Amendment 25

On 12 October 2016, Council resolved to place on exhibition the draft amendments to the LDCP (Parts 1 and 4). The proposed amendments to the LDCP were made to ensure that the following desired outcomes could be implemented:

· Three new precincts (Fine-Grain, Mid-Rise and Long Term Civic) in the City Centre, based on existing site characteristics, ownership, and subdivision patterns.

· Prescribed building envelopes for each precinct.

· Stipulation of minimum and maximum floor-space ratios (FSR) for Fine-Grain and Mid-Rise sites.

· Refinement of LLEP height limits by mandating the total number of storeys, height of the street frontage, and upper storey setback requirements.

· Additional criteria and desired outcomes for development of “Opportunity Sites”.

· Strengthening of controls to ensure high amenity outcomes and quality public spaces including specification of building setbacks, minimum requirements for through-site links and car parking contributions.

In addition to the above, Amendment 25 also sought to consolidate duplicated controls between Part 1 and Part 4.

Exhibition:

Amendment 25 was publically exhibited for eight weeks in November and December 2016. Throughout the exhibition period, a wide range of methods to engage the community in discussion were employed. These included public information sessions, information stalls, online notices and forums, mail outs, and newspaper notices.

Submissions:

As a result of the exhibition process, 22 formal submissions were received. Of these:

· 14 were from Liverpool residents;

· Five were on behalf of developers or property owners; and

· Three were from other stakeholders (namely South Western Sydney Local Health District, Endeavour Energy, and Liverpool Bike Users Group).

A response to these submissions has been prepared, which summarises the issues raised and outlines recommended actions to be taken as a result (see Attachment 3).

Overall, the broad range of considerations contained in the responses received can be grouped into the categories of: Scale of Development, Traffic, Public Open Space, Business, and Urban Design as summarized below:

Scale of Development:

Comments on the scale of development varied between either a strong dislike for higher developments, or an encouragement of quality taller buildings. Those who advocated against more bulk and scale argued that such development would lead to an oversupply of apartments, blandness of urban form and excessive overshadowing. Those advocating for more bulk and scale highlighted the economic and social benefits that such new development would bring to the Liverpool Centre.

Response: The response to submissions highlights the importance of Liverpool’s Design Excellence Panel as well as the application of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Apartment Design Guidelines throughout the development assessment process. It is important to note that Amendment 25 seeks to strengthen the use of both of these mechanisms. Amendment 25 seeks to achieve the housing targets set by the State Government within this part of the LGA. It should also be noted that residential apartments currently form a relatively low percentage of total landuse within the Liverpool City Centre.

Traffic:

A number of submissions argued that the current levels of traffic in the Liverpool City Centre are excessive, and that parking does not adequately meet demand. Additionally, the lack of dedicated bicycle lanes was raised as an issue a number of times. Most submissions drew a parallel between an increase in the bulk and scale of development and increased traffic.

Response: Council is currently working with Transport for NSW as well as the NSW Roads and Maritime Services to identify and address any required traffic related infrastructure improvements which may be required as the Liverpool City Centre develops. It is also worth noting that the comprehensive traffic study commissioned by Council in relation to the Liverpool City Centre is – amongst other considerations – reviewing opportunities to increase public transport use and better manage parking demand within the Liverpool City Centre.

Public Open Space:

The need for more green spaces, play areas and vibrant streets was highlighted by a number of submitters, while some outlined concerns with current levels of perceived safety.

Response: The “Master-Planned” approach to major new development outlined in Amendment 25 as well as the requirement for “Opportunity Sites” to deliver a range of public benefits is expected to improve the quality and quantity of public space within the City Centre. The continued application of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) principles as part of Council’s development application process will address safety considerations as part of any proposed new development. It should also be noted that the Council’s draft recreation and open space study which will soon be presented to Council will help inform the “Master Plan” process in terms of identifying where additional public open space may be required.

Business:

The proposed size of commercial floor plates was identified as an issue within the Liverpool City Centre, particularly with consideration to the requirements of possible commercial tenants

Response: The comments raised are considered valid and a further investigation of commercial floorplate size is recommended. This issue is subject to further commentary later in this report.

Urban Design:

Various submissions questioned some of the proposed LDCP controls including street and side setbacks.

Response: The proposed street and side setbacks will assist in improving urban design within the Liverpool City Centre as well as the amenity of pedestrians. Where any inconsistency between the LDCP Part 4 and the Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG) is identified the ADG prevails.

One further late submission was received by Council on 8 March 2017 from a private individual raising a query as to why the smaller parcels of land in the block bounded by Bathurst Street, Norfolk Street, Castlereagh Street and Memorial Avenue do not benefit from the Opportunity Site provisions. This report notes the submission, however reiterates that “Opportunity Sites” must be a minimum of 1500m² in size. The land referred to in the submission may be amalgamated in order to satisfy this size criteria.

Liverpool Design Excellence Panel

Pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, Council must not approve a draft DCP containing residential apartment provisions unless it has been referred it to the Liverpool Design Excellence Panel (LDEP) and has taken into consideration any comments made by the Panel.

Accordingly Council has referred the draft LDCP Part 4 to the LDEP and has received the following draft comments from the panel:

Liverpool Design Excellence Panel - Detailed Overarching Comments

• Improved relationship between zoning changes in LLEP e.g. height + FSR and amended LDCP;

• Support objectives for the city centre e.g. urban places that have a human fine grain scale;

• The proposed built form objectives and controls e.g. height 6-8 storeys are considered appropriate and will assist in achieving better outcomes;

• Support ADG to take precedence for apartment design;

• Support proposed public domain objectives;

• Support the proposed range and scope of fine grain, mid-rise and opportunity (tower + podium) sites;

• Note the importance of opportunity sites in delivering public benefit;

• Street activation should be maximised;

• Strongly recommend inclusion of a comprehensive street planting map/program; and

• Use diagrams wherever possible to support text on built form controls.

The comments of the Panel have assisted Council in a technical sense to finalise Amendment 25. A copy of the comments of the LDEP is included in Attachment 4.

Commercial Floorplates

A number of submissions raised questions regarding the proposed 1000m² maximum gross floor area (GFA) for commercial towers. It was generally considered by these submissions that maximum commercial GFA’s should be increased to at least 1300m² - and possibly 2000m² - on “Opportunity Sites”.

Whilst the proposed GFA commercial floorplate controls derive in part from changes to the LLEP 2008 during the preparation of Amendment 52, the suggestion of larger commercial floorplates has now come to the fore during the public exhibition of the LDCP Part 4.

Given the demonstrated interest in larger commercial floorplates, the suggested approach to address this is through the insertion of an “exceptions clause” into the LCDP Part 4 where for sites greater than 2000m² in size, a proportionally larger GFA for commercial towers may be considered.

Opportunity Sites

One of the main considerations to come out of the public exhibition process is the importance of clearly identifying the requirements a site/development must meet to be classified as an ‘Opportunity Site’. The key LDCP Part 4 requirements are summarised below:

1. The site must exceed 1500m²in size and have multiple street or laneway/serviceway frontages.

2. As indicated in Amendment No. 52 the site must be located in “Area 8” or “on a lot zoned B3 – Commercial Core”.

3. The site must have a “Master Plan” approved under Section 83B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requiring the applicant to lodge a “staged” development application with Council with “Stage 1” constituting the “Master Plan”.

4. The applicant agrees to provide a “public benefit” to Council under Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Planning agreements). As stipulated in the draft LDCP these public benefits may include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Additional car parking that is in an acceptable location and is of the appropriate quantity and quality to be dedicated to Council at no cost.

· Dedication of land for public open space at no cost to Council.

· Embellishment of public open space.

· Provision of through-site links, arcades, laneways or the extension of serviceways or streets that are required by Council.

· Provision of affordable housing.

· Provision of community facilities.

· Provision of public art.

· Provision of facilities that encourage and facilitate a modal shift in transport options i.e. car and bike share facilities (new post-exhibition initiative).

· Preservation and/or restoration of heritage items (new post-exhibition initiative).

· A higher ratio of commercial/retail floorspace than prescribed in Amendment 52 to encourage job creation (new post-exhibition initiative).

The draft LDCP further states that a “public benefit” does not include:

· Additional car parking that is not required by Council.

· Through-site links, arcades, laneways or the extension of lanes/serviceways or streets that are not required by Council.

· Street, lane/serviceway and other mandatory setbacks.

· Public domain improvements such as paving, landscaping where they are an ex-pected part of a development.

Consultation and Recommended Changes

As discussed earlier in this report, Amendment 25 was publically exhibited at the end of 2016, and a number of formal submissions were made. In addition Council’s technical staff have also:

· Met and presented to the Liverpool Design Excellence Panel;

· Carried out internal consultation with other sections and teams within Council including development assessment, traffic engineering as well as community and culture; and

· Consulted with and reviewed the planning controls of other similar sized councils with the Sydney metropolitan area.

As a result of this consultation a number of key changes are recommended to the exhibited version of the draft LDCP Part 4 as summarised below:

“Master Plans” and “Opportunity Sites”

The process in relation to “Master Plans” and “Opportunity Sites” is to be clarified and reinforced with reference to the existing “Master Plan” provisions available to all applicants under Section 83B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Staged development applications). Any public benefits provided will need to be formalised via a Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Planning agreements).

Gross Floor Area (GFA) for Commercial Floorplates

The GFA for commercial floorplates has been reassessed with revised larger commercial footprints for “Opportunity Sites” with a site area of greater than 2000m2.

End of Trip Facilities

Council’s existing LDCP Part 4 (Clause 4.3.12) contains provisions relating to end of trip facilities which are to be carried forward to the new LDCP Part 4.

Minor Technical Changes

Minor technical changes including such matters as:

· Correcting small typographical errors in some of the text and figures in the draft LDCP Parts 1 and 4 (Amendment 25).

The above considerations have been discussed throughout the report and the required changes have been made to LDCP Part 4 and indicated in Attachment 1 to this report.

Conclusion

This report has detailed the planning control changes sought by Amendment 25, and the relationship this has to Amendment 52. These amendments are limited in their extent, and will only affect the Liverpool City Centre. The two amendments in their entirety reflect Council’s vision to deliver a diverse and interesting City Centre, an 18-hour city in which people could work, live and enjoy, and a well-connected, workable and walkable city.

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). Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	Minimise household and commercial waste. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Support policies and plans that prevent crime. 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	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft LDCP Part 1 - General Controls for all Development (exhibited version with tracked changes)View (Under separate cover)

2. Draft LDCP Part 4 - City Centre Controls (exhibited version with tracked changes)View (Under separate cover)

3. Summary and response to submissions View (Under separate cover)

4. Liverpool Design Excellence Panel - Draft Comments View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 04

Draft LLEP 2008 Amendment No. 56

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	053882.2017
Report By	Amy van den Nieuwenhof - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Executive Summary

On 20 June 2014, Council received an application from Abacus Funds Management Ltd to rezone the land and amend the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and Height of Building (HOB) controls at 77-83 Moore Street and 165 and 193 Macquarie Street. This application is generally referred to as the ‘Abacus’ development.

Following receipt of the application, Council requested further information regarding the proposal. Information was received over a period of time between August 2014 and July 2015. The proposal itself was modified in this time, including the land to which it applied.

Council lodged the proposal with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) on 20 November 2015 and received a Gateway determination on 28 June 2016. Council has addressed the conditions of the determination, which included the preparation of a Heritage Impact study, and public exhibition of the proposal.

This report details the actions undertaken by Council as directed by the Gateway conditions, and the outcomes of public exhibition. Consideration has also been given to the relationship between this Amendment (56) and Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) Amendment 25 and Liverpool Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 Amendment 52.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft Amendment 56).

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

REPORT

Introduction

A planning proposal for 77-83 Moore Street and 193 and 165 Macquarie Street was received by Council on 20 June 2014. It sought a rezoning of all lots, and an amendment to the FSR and HOB controls on 77-83 and 193 Macquarie Street (see Figure 1 below for a map for the subject site, and surrounding landmarks). Council requested, and later received, further information regarding the proposal, andsome modifications were also made to the original proposal by the proponent. At its Ordinary Meeting on 29 July 2015, it was resolved:

That Council:

1. Endorses in principle, the proposal to rezone 77-83 Moore and 193 and 165 Macquarie Streets Liverpool from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use.

2. Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the final Planning Proposal to administer this rezoning for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

On 20 November 2015, the finalised planning proposal was lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) seeking a Gateway determination to:

· Rezone 77-83 Moore Street, and 165 and 193 Macquarie Street Liverpool from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed;

· Increase the Height of Building control at 77-83 Moore Street and 193 Macquarie Street only from 18 metres to 100 metres; and

· Amend the text of LLEP 2008 by adding a new clause (7.37 Minimum non-residential floor space ratio control at 77-83 Moore Street and 193 Macquarie Street, Liverpool).

On 28 June 2016, after discussion with the DPE, a revised planning proposal for Amendment 56 was submitted to the DPE. This revision was submitted to excise 77-83 Moore Street and 193 Macquarie Street from the concurrent Amendment 52 to the LLEP 2008 (also affecting the City Centre). The revision retained 165-191 Macquarie Street in Amendment 52. The decision to excise 77-83 Moore and 193 Macquarie Streets was based on the fact that the proposed planning controls in Amendment 52 would not accommodate the Abacus proposal. It was thought that, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal was not consistent with the outcomes sought by Amendment 52, the proposal would be a positive catalyst for mixed use development in the City Centre, particularly because of its intention to provide serviced apartments.

A Gateway determination was received by Council on 28 July 2016 (Attachment 1), which provided consent for the proposal to proceed, subject to meeting the Gateway conditions. An outline of the actions taken to meet the Gateway Conditions are detailed below.

Figure 1: Location of development site and surrounding landmarks

Condition 1: Heritage Impact Study

The Gateway determination required that a Heritage Impact Study (HIS) be prepared before exhibition of the proposal.

An HIS was subsequently prepared by Urbis on behalf of the proponent and was received by Council on 5 August 2016. The HIS then formed part of the public consultation documentation. One authority consulted was the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). They noted in their first submission to Council that the HIS should be revised to incorporate a visual analysis to clearly depict the proposal’s impact on key view lines and streetscape amenity in light of the proposed amendment to the HOB control from 18m to 100m. In particular, the visual analysis would be able to illustrate the impacts of the development on surrounding heritage items, notably St. Luke’s Church, the Corner Pub, and the Plan of Town of Liverpool (street grid).

In response to the OEH comments, a revised HIS (Attachment 2), was received by Council on 19 October 2016 which included a visual analysis of the proposal. Council then commissioned a peer review to be undertaken by Ashley Built Heritage (Attachment 3). The revised HIS and the peer review were sent to the OEH for additional comments.

The proponent submitted a letter of response to the peer review (Attachment 4) and a further revision of the HIS (Attachment 5), received by Council on 17 February 2016. Revised comments from the OEH were received on 21 February 2017 (Attachment 6).

A more comprehensive discussion of the issues considered by the above documentation is set out below:

Impacts on the Corner Pub

The Corner Pub (the pub) is located directly opposite the Abacus site, on the south-east corner of the Moore Street/ Macquarie Street intersection.

The revised HIS considered that the lower story podium element envisaged by the proponent, coupled with a minimal setback to the tower, and the physical separation (approximately 37 metres) from the pub would adequately minimise its visual and contextual impact on the heritage item. It submitted that the proposed tower would not obstruct key public views to the pub, and that the pub would remain as a prominent local landmark. The revised HIS also acknowledged that the planning proposal would cast a shadow on the pub in the afternoon of June 21 (winter solstice), however it did not consider this to be a significant heritage impact.

The peer review raised some concern about the overshadowing impact and suggested that the large difference in scale between the proposal and the pub would have notable impacts on the pub’s heritage integrity. The revised submission from the OEH recommended that Council takes into consideration the proposal’s impact on the pub’s solar access, heritage significance, contextual setting, and streetscape.

The proposal and above documentation has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Officer, who indicated that design elements to mitigate potential solar impacts can be dealt with at the development application stage.

Impacts on St Luke’s Church

St Luke’s Church is a State heritage listed item, located to the north of the subject site. The church block borders Northumberland Street to the west, Elizabeth Street to the north and Macquarie Street to the east, and is approximately 100m from the subject site.

The revised HIS considered that the subject site is both visually and physically separated from the church, meaning that proposed tower would be viewed as a backdrop element, rather than a dominating visual intrusion. The peer review generally agreed with the revised HIS that the planning proposal would not ‘loom’ over St Luke’s church due to the ‘breathing space’ provided by the surrounding garden and the physical distance between the sites. Both documents noted that the proposal would not impact on any primary view lines to the church from the north, east or west.

Revised comments from the OEH generally agreed with this view, however suggested that a sympathetic design and appropriate materials and finishes be used so to ensure an appropriate backdrop to the church. Such details can be negotiated and finalised at the development application stage.

Impacts on the Plan of Town of Liverpool (Street Grid)

Liverpool’s street grid was laid out by Sir. Robert Hoddle in 1827, and both Moore and Macquarie Streets form part of this local heritage item.

While not covered extensively in the revised HIS, the peer review suggests that the eventual height and scale of the tower should respect the historical layout of the town and give consideration to scale, building height and architectural form. The City Centre is likely to undergo significant change in the future, which gives the proponent the opportunity to design a building that respects the historic street grid pattern while making use of contemporary building designs and materials.

As noted above, a building design that addresses these heritage considerations can be addressed at the development application stage.

Archaeological Potential of the Site

The revised HIS notes the potential for archaeological remains on the subject site, identifying that the former post office may have some remains or relics available for uncovering. Comments from the OEH recommended that the proponent undertake an archaeological assessment of the site to fully explore the potential heritage impacts of the proposal.

Council’s Heritage Advisor considers that the submission of an Historic Archaeological Assessment (completed by a fully qualified archaeologist) as part of the development application is acceptable.

Conditions 2 & 3: Community and Public Authority Consultation

The above conditions in the Gateway Determination required Council to undertake community consultation in accordance with Sections 56(2)(c) and 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Council received one submission as a result of the community consultation. The main points to the submissions, and the Officer’s response is summarised below.

Comments

Officer Response

Private submission

The submission objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

· Inappropriate height of the proposal;

· Lack of strategic justification;

· Outstanding heritage concerns;

· Outstanding traffic and parking issues; and

· An over-emphasis on residential use and not enough focus on commercial/retail uses; and

· Poor amenity outcomes.

Council considers that the height of the proposal is in keeping with the future direction of Liverpool City Centre. It is noted that other sites in the City Centre may be able achieve heights above the HOB control if they are classified as an ‘Opportunity Site’ through Amendment 52.

This planning proposal has been excised from Amendment 52 because it is considered that the proposal will be a positive catalyst to development in the Liverpool City Centre. It is therefore considered that the proposal has strategic merit in light of the changes proposed to the City Centre.

This report notes that any outstanding heritage concerns can be addressed at the development application stage. It is not considered that this approach will result in any negative heritage outcomes.

Traffic and parking issues are addressed in more detail in the following table, as part of the Officer’s response to RMS comments.

The report considers that the planning proposal will result in an optimal mix of residential and commercial/retail uses. The amendment include a new clause to the LLEP 2008 which will ensure that the site has a minimum of 37.5% commercial floorspace.

The proposal will undergo a separate development application assessment, which will consider the application in terms of its amenity impacts (both on the public domain, and amenity within the building itself).

Section 56(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the public authorities that were consulted were:

· The Office of Environment and Heritage;

· Roads and Maritime Services;

· Sydney Water;

· Telstra;

· Sydney Metro Airport;

· The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; and

· Endeavour Energy.

A summary of each is detailed in the table below, as well as considerations for Council arising from the submissions.

Authority	Authority Comments	Officer Response
Office of Environment and Heritage	There are three items of heritage in the vicinity of the proposal. The proposal is not likely to have an impact on St Luke’s Church, but it is recommended that sympathetic design be incorporated to ensure an appropriate backdrop. There has been an inadequate consideration given to the archaeological potential of the site, and as such the proponent should carry out and archaeological assessment (by a fully qualified archaeologist) to fully understand the possible impact on heritage, prior to the lodgement of a development application. Council should consider the impact of overshadowing on the Corner Pub, and the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance, setting and streetscape of the Moore and Macquarie Streets.	Council should consider requesting a completed archaeological study to be submitted to Council prior to the lodgement of a development application. Council should consider developing a schedule of materials to be approved at the Development Application stage.
Roads and Maritime Services	RMS considered that: Liverpool City Council should take into review the cumulative transport implications of this planning proposal (and other similar scale developments as a result of Amendment 52). Site specific planning proposal are not optimal to determining cumulative traffic and transport effects, and the mitigation measures required. RMS understands that Council is in the process of preparing a comprehensive transport study and traffic modelling to identify cumulative impacts.	Council has engaged consultants to prepare a draft traffic and transport study, and this is being discussed with RMS. Additionally, discussions with RMS have indicated that a VPA agreement must be entered into for all new developments. The VPA must agree to providing a contribution figure to regional traffic improvements that is agreed to by RMS. Additionally, an agreed amount to local road upgrades must also form part of the VPA. An amended traffic report prepared by GTA was submitted to Council in June 2015. Council’s Traffic Department Commented on this, and noted that: · The applicant is to upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing at the frontage of the Liverpool Plaza to traffic signal control; and · The applicant is to enter into a VPA with Council for the development of regional or local roads within the LGA.
Sydney Water	No response.	N/A
Telstra	A number of Telstra Base Stations are located in the area. These are located at No. 1 Elizabeth Street, Liverpool, 40 Terminus Street, Liverpool, and 4 Homepride Avenue, Warwick Farm. Buildings over three stories will affect coverage as signals do not penetrate solid structures. Telstra has no objections at this time.	No action required.
Sydney Metro Airport	The proposal will extend close to the obstacle limitation service (OLS). An aviation assessment will be required when final drawings are available. Construction cranes as a result of the development will require a separate assessment.	Council must refer any DA applications as a result of the proposal to Sydney Metro Airport for an aviation assessment.
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development	The building is below the OLS. Construction cranes may be required to operate at heights higher than the building height, and would therefore require prior assessment. Council may wish to consider any relevant NASF guidelines with regards to the development application, including relation to noise.	Council must refer any application for use of cranes to the DIRD. Council should require that a suitably qualified professional be engaged (at the proponent’s expense) to review any development application to consider its effect on wind shear, and any impact on the development as a result of aircraft noise.
Endeavour Energy	Significant low and high voltage electricity is located over and in the vicinity of the site. Electricity substations cannot be removed. The applicant will need to submit an application for connection of load. Supply will be provided from Speed Street or Homepride Parade substations. There is feeder capacity at the eastern side of Anderson Street. Endeavour Energy does not reserve capacity, and therefore augmentation works may be required. If assets are required to be relocated, advice can be obtained from Endeavour Energy.	No action required. Should the proposal proceed to a development application, the proponent may need to seek advice from Endeavour Energy.

Further Considerations

The relationship between Amendment 52 and 56

The relationship between Amendments 52 and 56 is of some significance to this proposal. Since 2015, Liverpool City Council has been preparing Amendments 25 (LDCP) and 52 (LLEP 2008) as part of the ‘Building Our New City’ program which aims to revitalise the City Centre. These amendments are in the later stages of finalisiation, and it is expected that these controls will come into effect later in 2017. As a suite of controls, Amendment 25 and 52 seek to rezone land, alter height and FSR controls, and bring in a variety of design guidelines to facilitate development in-line with Council’s future vision of the City Centre.

The key differences between Amendment 52 and Amendment 56 are that:

· Amendment 56 seeks to increase the HOB from 18m to 100m. If the Abacus site had been included in Amendment 52, the HOB control would have been amended to 28m.

· Amendment 56 seeks to introduce a new clause to the LLEP 2008, requiring a minimum of 37.5% of the total floorspace of the development to be used for commercial uses.

· Amendment 56 does not seek a change to the FSR control, and so will retain its current FSR control of 5:1. If the site had been included in Amendment 52, the FSR control would have been amended to 3:1.

The points above highlight the main differences between Amendments 52 and 56. While it may appear to be an anomaly, this report draws attention to the Opportunity Sites provisions detailed in Amendment 52 (Clause 7.5B). This Clause has been designed to facilitate taller buildings in the City Centre on larger sites, above what is envisaged by the amended planning controls in Amendment 52. In light of this, Amendment 56 can be viewed as a positive catalyst to future development in the City Centre that aligns with Council’s future vision of the City Centre, rather than an incongruous development.

As noted above, the Abacus site sits outside the purview of Amendment 52 to allow for optimum development potential. It is therefore worth considering the policy outcomes if Amendment 56 is not made. These are detailed below:

· The site would retain its current planning controls (i.e. B3 – Commercial Core zoning, FSR of 5:1 and a HOB of 18 metres).

· As a result of the retention of B3 zoning, and given the fact that the site exceeds 1500m² and meets a range of other criteria, the Abacus site would benefit from the Opportunity Sites provision in Draft Clause 7.5B (subject to gazettal of Amendment 52). Please note that while the Abacus site is not included in Amendment 52, it will nonetheless be subject to the amended LLEP 2008 when made. The Opportunity Site provisions would allow a proposal on the site to pursue a development with a height above 28 meters, and potential maximum FSR of 10:1, provided that a masterplan is approved by Council.

· If Amendment 25 is approved, the development of the site would also be guided by the ‘Opportunity Site’ provisions as detailed in the draft LDCP (Part 4 – Liverpool City Centre), which applies to the entirety of the City Centre. If Amendment 25 does not proceed, the provisions the current LDCP Part 4 will apply.

Conclusion

By addressing the conditions of the Gateway Determination, Council has been able to fully assess the potential impacts of the proposal. It is considered that the site has strategic merit within the context of broader changes occurring in the City Centre. This report concludes that Amendment 56 is a planning proposal that is consistent with Council’s aspirations for the City Centre.

Following receipt of the Gateway Determination, Council undertook all required actions to meet the Gateway conditions. This included requesting a Heritage Impact Study from the proponent, (which was then peer reviewed), and consulting with the community and required public authorities. It is considered that detailed heritage and traffic considerations can be addressed at the development application stage.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital, health and medical precinct (of the City Centre). Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. Facilitate economic development. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Gateway Determination View (Under separate cover)

2. Revised HIS (October 2016)View (Under separate cover)

3. Peer Review of Revised HIS (January 2017)View (Under separate cover)

4. Letter of Response by proponent to peer review (February 2017)View (Under separate cover)

5. Updated HIS (February 2017)View (Under separate cover)

6. Revised OEH Response (February 2017)View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 05

Withdrawal of Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 50) - 900 Cowpasture Road, Cecil Hills.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	054699.2017
Report By	Peter Pham - Strategic Planning
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Property	900 Cowpasture Road, Cecil Hills
Owner	Sydney Water Corporation
Applicant	Sydney Water Corporation

Executive Summary

This report is to inform Council of Sydney Water Corporation’s decision to withdraw the planning proposal for land located at 900 Cowpasture Road (part of Lot 5 DP 1044168 and part of Lot 2 DP 1134646), Cecil Hills. This report recommends Council writes to the Minister pursuant to Section 58(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requesting that draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 (Amendment 50) not proceed.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the request by the proponent, Sydney Water Corporation, to withdraw the planning proposal for land located at 900 Cowpasture Road, Cecil Hills.

2. Writes to the Minister pursuant to Section 58(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requesting that the matter not proceed.

Report

At its ordinary meeting on 26 November 2014, Council considered a report which proposed to rezone a portion of land owned by Sydney Water at 900 Cowpasture Road, Cecil Hills (part of Lot 5 DP 1044168 and part of Lot 2 DP 1134646) from SP2 Infrastructure and RE1 Public Recreation to R2 Low Density Residential (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

At that meeting, Council resolved the following (refer to Attachment 1):

1. Endorses the Planning Proposal (Amendment No. 50) to forward to NSW Planning and Environment seeking Gateway determination

2. Endorses the indicative submission layout on the basis that the minimum Lot size along the boundary with existing lots in the future subdivision will be 450 square metres.

3. Subject to Gateway approval, proceeds with public authority consultation and public exhibition in accordance with the determination

4. Notes that the outcomes of public authority consultation and public exhibition will be reported to Council in the future.

Gateway determination for the planning proposal was issued on 16 April 2015. Subsequently, an extension was granted until 16 April 2017 to complete the requirements of the Gateway conditions. However, Sydney Water recently informed Council that the subject site forms part of a strategic review currently being undertaken due to the site’s proximity to a potential future growth area and the planned Badgerys Creek Airport.

In its correspondence to Council dated 27 February 2017, Sydney Water has advised that the proposed rezoning of this land is now uncertain and requests that the planning proposal be withdrawn (refer to Attachment 2).

This report therefore recommends that Council write to the Minister pursuant to Section 58(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requesting that draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 50) not proceed.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Council Resolution and Report for Liverpool LEP (AM 50) 900 Cowpasture Road Cecil Hills Sydney Water Site 28 November 2014 View

2. Attachment 2 - Letter to Withdraw Planning Proposal

115

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 06

Withdrawal of Planning Proposal for land at 124-144 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (Flower Power site)

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	054984.2017
Report By	Peter Pham - Strategic Planning
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Property	124-144 Newbridge Road, Moorebank
Owner	GOLDEN RIVER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT P/L
Applicant	LJB Urban Planning P/L (Flower Power)

Executive Summary

This report is to inform Council of the decision by the applicant, Flower Power P/L, to withdraw the planning proposal for land at 124-144 Newbridge Road (Lot 2 DP 602988), Moorebank.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the request by the applicant, Flower Power P/L, to withdraw the planning proposal for land at 124-144 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (Lot 2 DP 602988).

Report

On 22 August 2012, Council received an application for a rezoning of land located at 124-144 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (Lot 2 DP 602988). The proposal sought to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 as follows (Refer Figure 1 below):

· Rezone part of the subject site from part RE2 Private Recreation B6 Enterprise Corridor to R3 Medium Density Residential.

· Amend the Minimum Lot Size, Maximum Building Height and Maximum Floor Space Ratio.

· Amend Schedule 1 ‘Additional Permitted Uses.

Figure 1: Proposed rezoning

Council raised a number of significant concerns with the proposal regarding its site-specific merit and the suitability of the land to be developed for residential purposes. Concerns were also raised regarding its strategic merit. The proponent submitted a number of modifications to the proposal in an attempt to address those concerns. To date, Council officers have not been satisfied with the remedies suggested. The major site specific issues associated with the planning proposal include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Rezoning land, classified as high flood risk category for residential purposes;

· The lack of flood-free access to the site;

· The large volume of cut and fill and associated earthworks to support residential development (noting that Council approved filling the site DA-309/2011);

· Severe physical and environmental constraints of the subject site, including site contamination, riverbank stability, flora and fauna, riparian and coastal sensitivity;

· Lack of site permeability and connectivity, including options for intersection and traffic management; and

· The proximity of the proposed residential uses to land zoned IN3 Heavy Industrial.

The applicant has not yet addressed outstanding matters raised by Council. On 19 December 2016, Council received a letter from the proponent requesting to withdraw the planning proposal (refer to Attachment 1).

It is also noted that Flower Power P/L has recently sold the subject property. The current owners are considering their options for another potential rezoning application for the subject site.

Note: Flood risk proposed to be addressed by the applicant by filling, approved separately by Council. These works have not yet been undertaken.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Letter to withdraw application

119

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 07

Proposed changes to Naming Function and Introduction of Naming Convention Policy

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	055170.2017
Report By	Peter Pham - Strategic Planning
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Executive Summary

At its 23 November 2016 meeting, Council resolved to remove the Street Naming function from the Strategic Panel and allow the function to be reported to Council meetings. As a result, Council officers have developed a draft Naming Convention Policy (Attachment 1) for determining naming requests, in accordance with legislative requirements and naming guidelines set out by the NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB). The policy will provide a standardised, streamlined and fast-track procedure to enable Council to easily and transparently determine place names, including those for streets, parks, places, objects and geographical features. The approach would enable street naming processes to be carried out more efficiently and effectively, whilst still offering the opportunity for the community to provide input to Council.

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the Draft Naming Convention Policy and recommend that Council resolves to support the policy as outlined, giving delegation to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The updated policy will improve the naming process to allow efficient naming procedures for new areas/streets to accommodate the rapid growth that the Liverpool Government Area is currently experiencing. The updated policy will supersede the current Street Naming Committee Charter.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report.

2. Adopts the Naming Convention Policy to take effect immediately.

3. Rescinds the Street Naming Committee Charter.

Background/history

The Street Naming Committee came under scrutiny in 2015, because a number of meetings did not achieve a quorum, resulting in lengthy delays. At its 16 December 2015 meeting, Council resolved to hold all Street Naming Committee meetings electronically (email communication), to improve the process. In spite of repeated attempts to communicate with Street Naming Committee members utilising email, Council officers did not receive responses from the Committee members. This resulted in further delays.

Moreover, advice from Council’s Governance and Legal Services in May 2016, indicated that the December 2015 meeting resolution was considered inconsistent with Clause 4.1 of the Division of Local Government (DLG) Meetings Practice Note, which states that a Councillor must be physically present at a meeting, which occurs at a specific date and time. Email communication was considered not to satisfy the legal requirements of a “meeting”.

As a result, it was considered appropriate to bring the Officer recommendations to the Council meeting in order to progress various items regarding street and park naming proposals.

At Council’s November 2016 meeting (Attachment 3), the following was resolved:

Council:

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

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

Accordingly, Council officers have developed a draft Naming Convention Policy for determining street names. The draft policy identifies the guidelines and procedures under which naming requests are to be managed by Council.

REPORT

The Draft Naming Convention Policy has been developed in accordance with legislative requirements and naming guidelines set out by the NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB). In preparing this policy, Council officers reviewed the Street Naming Policies of Parramatta, Campbelltown and Camden.

The purpose of the policy is to provide the standards and conditions for the naming of streets, parks, facilities and geographical features within the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA). The document also identifies the processes in which naming requests are managed including:

· The types of naming requests that the GNB and Council will consider;

· The criteria set by the GNB for assessing naming requests; and

· The process and actions Council will undertake when dealing with naming request.

The Draft Naming Convention Policy introduces a 6 step fast-track process to determine all naming requests. The naming procedure is outlined in Appendix 1 of the Draft Naming Convention Policy. All street, park and suburb naming requests will be assessed using naming guidelines and in consultation with the GNB. All other naming requests such as facilities and buildings are not required to be consulted with the GNB and will be evaluated using the naming guidelines.

Previously, all proposed street naming request for Greenfield development sites were submitted to the Street Naming Committee but were not publicly advertised for community input. The new process will advertise all street naming request to create transparency and provide opportunities for the community to provide input.

Council officers will provide a themes list for new suburbs, when the need arises. These themes will follow procedure as outlined below. A list of themes will be provided at the next Council meeting for Austral.

Process

Council will maintain oversight of the process and control over the decision making function, while ensuring community input. The following steps and actions will apply:

Steps	Actions
1. Request	All proposed street naming, park naming, suburb naming, renaming or naming of a place or object must be submitted in writing to Council using the Naming Request Form (Appendix 2). The request must provide enough information to enable the location to be clearly identified, and must include a reason for the request. The form must be completed in full providing the contact name and address details of the applicant.
2. Selection of Name	All street, park and suburb naming will be assessed using the naming guidelines and in consultation with the GNB. The names will be checked for duplication using the GNB’s Online Road Naming System. All other naming request will be evaluated using the naming guidelines. These requests are not required to be referred to the GNB. If a selected name is of Aboriginal origin, the naming request will be referred to Council’s Aboriginal Consultative Committee for review. If the naming request does not provide sufficient information, Council will request additional information. The applicant will be advised in writing when names do not comply with the Naming Convention Policy and the Geographical Names Board NSW Address Policy 2015.

3. Reporting to Council	Suitable names will be referred to Council with a recommendation to begin the process of gazettal, with delegation to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate).
4. Advertise Naming Request (excluding Park Naming)	If Council approves the recommendation, the request (excluding park naming) will be placed on public notification for 28 days in the local newspaper: i. For street naming requests, the GNB and other relevant state agencies (Australia Post, NSW Ambulance, Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW State Emergency Service, NSW Volunteer Rescue Association, Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police Force) will be notified using the GNB’s Online Road Naming System to seek endorsement; ii. For park naming requests, the GNB undertakes all community consultation and state agencies referrals (Australia Post, NSW Ambulance, Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW State Emergency Service, NSW Volunteer Rescue Association, Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police Force) on behalf of Council. The GNB will notify Council once the park name has been gazetted; If Council does not approve the recommendation, the applicant will be notified of the decision in writing.
5. Review Submissions	Council officers will consider all submissions during the public notification period. The three potential scenarios are as follows: a) If there are objections from the relevant state agencies, Council will not proceed with the naming request. The applicant will be notified of the outcome. A report to Council will be prepared for the next available meeting outlining the reason for rejection; b) If there are no objections, the naming request will proceed to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) for gazettal under the delegation of the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate); c) Any submissions from the community during the public notification period will be considered. i. If there is strong community opposition, or reason to reconsider the proposal, a report will be prepared for the next available Council Meeting recommending withdrawal of the naming proposal. ii. If Council decides to support the proposal, the naming request will proceed to the PCO for gazettal under the delegation of the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate). iii. If Council decides not to adopt the naming proposal, then the applicant will be notified in writing outlining the reason for rejection.
6. Gazettal	If supported, the naming request will be forwarded to the PCO to be placed in the NSW Government Gazette. The name is then legal, once published in the gazette.

Further information about Council’s role and responsibilities in responding to naming requests is set out in the Draft Naming Convention Policy which is attached to this report.

It must be acknowledged that while Council can approve recommendations, the GNB’s decision and endorsement will take precedence for all street, park and suburb naming requests, apart from Council owned facilities and buildings.

Conclusion

The draft Naming Convention Policy will provide a streamlined process by which Council can respond to naming requests. This process eliminates the need for the Street Naming Committee function, while providing a collaborative and consultative approach. This approach improve and strengthen the naming process to accommodate the rapid development that Liverpool Local Government Area is experiencing. It is therefore recommended that the Naming Convention Policy be adopted.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Naming Convention Policy 2017 View

137

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 08

Draft LLEP 2008 Amendment No. 63 - Middleton Grange Town Centre

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Position Liverpool as the destination of choice to attract business and investment in South Western Sydney
Key Policy	Economic Development Strategy
File Ref	056921.2017
Report By	Amy van den Nieuwenhof - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Executive Summary

The Middleton Grange Planning Proposal (Amendment 63) was lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) in June 2016. Gateway determination was issued in August 2016, with a number of Gateway conditions needing to be addressed for the proposal to be progressed.

To date, the proponent has not met the Gateway conditions and has not provided Council with sufficient information to resubmit the proposal to the DPE for review in order to progress the planning proposal to the public exhibition stage (Condition 4).

This report provides Council with two options for consideration regarding this planning proposal:

Option 1

Allow the proponent a further two months from the date of this Council meeting to provide the outstanding matters (flood study, urban design analysis addressing the transitions of heights, including overshadowing and visual impacts, and the rationalisation of the uses in areas zoned for residential purposes), and any other information required by Council and the public authorities, and request a further report be submitted for consideration to the Council meeting in July; or

Option 2

Withdraw support for the planning proposal and notify the Department of Planning and Environment that Council no longer seeks to proceed with draft Amendment 63 to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the information provided in this report and the options presented for the Middleton Grange planning proposal, and determine which option is most appropriate for adoption.

REPORT

Background

In May 2015, Council received an application for a Planning Proposal to rezone land at 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange. The subject site forms the core of the planned town centre for the catchment of Middleton Grange. There were a number of concerns with the original proposal raised by Council officers, and following discussions with the proponent regarding modifications to the plan, it was resolved at the Ordinary Meeting on 16 December 2015 that Council:

1. Endorses in principle, the Planning Proposal to rezone land at 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange.

2. Delegates to the CEO to negotiate with the proponent regarding increased open space to support the increased residential density, including the completion of a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment.

3. Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the final Planning Proposal to administer this rezoning, for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway.

A modified planning proposal was lodged with the DPE on 28 June 2016, and Gateway determination was issued on 15 August 2016 (Attachment 1). The Gateway determination outlined six conditions required to be addressed by the proposal.

Gateway Conditions

Following receipt of the Gateway determination, a meeting was held with the proponents on 29 August 2016 to discuss the revisions and additional documentation required to the planning proposal in order to meet Conditions 1 and 2. Specifically, this included:

· The provision of a flood study, and an associated flood planning area map (Condition 1a and 1b);

· Revision of the planning proposal to address the transition of heights to existing neighbouring zones, and overshadowing and visual impacts (Condition 2a); and

· Revision of the planning proposal to provide additional information on the business uses within the residential zones (Condition 2b).

Concurrently, Council officers undertook consultation with public authorities (as required by Condition 3). As per the Gateway conditions, the following public authorities were sent referral letters on 2 September 2016 requesting formal comments:

· State Emergency Service (SES)

· Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH);

· Roads and Maritime Services (RMS);

· Transport for NSW (TfNSW);

· Sydney Water (SW);

· Department of Education (DoE).

In accordance with Condition 3, all public authorities were provided with a minimum of 21 days to respond, and all authorities provided Council with a formal response. The issues raised are summarised below and are required to be addressed by the planning proposal:

Transport and Traffic (RMS and TfNSW)

· The proposal requires a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA). The transport study provided in support of the proposal is preliminary in nature and does not adequately address the cumulative traffic impacts.

· The traffic generation rates used by the proponent do not adequately address the context of the site which lacks public transport connectivity.

· The assessment of traffic needs to address the cumulative impacts of the proposal on the local as well as the regional network, and identify feasible infrastructure improvements required to support future developments.

Urban Design (DoE)

· Design features as shown in the urban design report prepared by Urbis (26 November 2015) to ensure that height impacts on the adjacent school are minimised, including overshadowing, loss of privacy and glare from reflective materials.

Flooding (SES)

· Consultation with the State Emergency Service (SES) was completed at a later date to the above, as Council first required the proponent to provide a Flood Study (in accordance with Condition 1).

· Following the receipt of a flood study from the proponent (dated 2004), the SES was sent all required documentation on 10 October 2014. The response received from the SES on 10 February 2017 noted the following:

- The subject site may be in an area that is significantly impacted by flooding.

- There is insufficient information to assess the flood risk for the site and potential impacts on the adjoining areas.

- The proposal requires an updated assessment of the flood risk for the area as a result of the proposed development.

- The provision of an updated assessment of flood risk will ensure that the planning proposal can be fully considered against the relevant Ministerial Section 117 Directions, including 4.3 – Flood Prone Land (as per Condition 1 of the Gateway Determination).

During the public authority consultations, all responses received by Council were forwarded to the proponent in the interest of transparency and clarity.

Current Status

The proposal is required to be updated to address the aforementioned conditions and then resubmitted to DPE for review before it can proceed to public exhibition. A further meeting was held with the proponent on 18 January 2017 to discuss various outstanding matters, with the view to amending the proposal. A follow up email was sent to the proponent on 20 January 2017. The proponent was reminded in this email that the planning proposal will need to be submitted to the DPE (following completion of Conditions 1-3) for review and approval, prior to public exhibition.

Traffic Assessment and DCP Road Layout

On the same day, the proponent submitted two revised TIAs to Council. These were reviewed by both the Strategic Planning and Traffic Engineering sections. Comments by Strategic Planning were sent to the proponent expressing concern that an incorrect apartment yield was used in the assessment of impacts and that the traffic generation rate used did not accurately reflect the location of the proposal which does not provide public transport options. Strategic Planning highlighted to the proponent that the traffic study must be based on the maximum possible yield for the proposal to ensure the assessment accurately reflects the development outcome consistent with the planning proposal.

A follow-up meeting was held with the proponent on 9 February 2017 to discuss potential changes to the road network for Middleton Grange to accommodate the proposed development. The changes would require amendment of the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2009 for Middleton Grange. The outstanding issues were again raised with the proponent at this meeting.

On 27 February 2017, a meeting with RMS and the proponent was held to discuss the TIA reports. It is noted that TfNSW were invited but could not attend this meeting. Issues raised by the RMS included a concern with the trip generation rates used, and the required modelling of traffic on a catchment scale. There was also discussion of regional scale infrastructure and upgrades required to support the proposed development. There was no agreement as to how these might be funded. Furthermore, consent from landowners has not been confirmed for the discussed changes to the road network within the catchment, and it is noted that it would result in some impact on the current subdivision pattern for the area. It is also noted that the changes to the road network proposed in the 9 February meeting were not supported by the RMS.

Conclusion

Since the receipt of the Gateway determination, there has not been a clear commitment from the proponent to address the Conditions (notably Conditions 1 and 2). There has, however, been a more engaged effort to clarify traffic impacts and road layout. Deadlines for the provision of information were given to the proponent in December 2016, and these were extended in early 2017 (to 1 March 2017).

In light of the fact that Council does not yet have a full understanding of the impacts of the planning proposal, and that there are outstanding Gateway conditions to be addressed before the proposal can be finalised. There are two options for Council’s consideration as follows:

a) Allow the proponent a further two months from the date of this Council meeting to provide the outstanding matters (flood study, urban design analysis addressing the transitions of heights, including overshadowing and visual impacts, and the rationalisation of the uses in areas zoned for residential purposes), and any other information required by Council and the public authorities, and request a further report be submitted for consideration to the Council meeting in July; or

b) Withdraw support for the planning proposal and notify the Department of Planning and Environment that Council no longer seeks to proceed with draft Amendment 63 to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

It is recommended Council consider these options and resolve accordingly.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Gateway Determination View

147

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 09

Planning and Development Committee Meeting

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	061336.2017
Report By	Sheela Naidu - Personal Assistant to Director Planning & Growth
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis - Acting Director Planning and Growth

Executive Summary

The Planning and Development Committee was established in April 2015. The purpose of the Committee was to provide a forum for discussion and consideration of planning matters including strategic direction associated with the high growth and strong development interest being experienced in Liverpool and to promote informed discussion and consideration of planning and development.

Since the election of the new Council, a new Committee called the Strategic Panel was established in November 2016. The purpose of the Strategic Panel is to provide advice and recommendations to Council relating to the long term strategic direction of Liverpool City, in particular in the areas of economic, social and planning outcomes and projects which impact Liverpool City.

The purpose and objectives of the Planning and Development Committee meeting overlap and align with the newly established Strategic Panel. This contributes to inefficient duplication and creates confusion about the appropriate forum for consideration of major strategic issues involving development.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council dissolves the Planning and Development Committee and revokes the charter.

REPORT

Background

The Planning and Development Committee was established in April 2015. The purpose of the Committee was to:

a) Make recommendations to Council on planning and development matters;

b) Provide a forum for discussion and consideration of planning matters associated with the high growth and strong development interest being experienced in Liverpool;

c) Promote an integrated strategic approach to land use planning for Liverpool LGA to ensure the delivery of sustainable development and growth outcomes;

d) Promote informed discussion and consideration of planning, traffic and infrastructure, environmental, heritage, employment and community issues associated with development.

Since the election of the new Council, a new Committee called the Strategic Panel was established in November 2016. The purpose of this panel is as follows:

a) The long-term strategic direction of Liverpool city, in particular in the areas of economic and social development as articulated in Liverpool’s Community Strategic Plan;

b) The development and delivery of range of city centre revitalisation initiatives, projects and events;

c) Development which impacts Liverpool city, including the proposed intermodal at Moorebank and the Badgerys Creek Airport.

It is evident from the above mentioned purposes of the Planning and Development Committee and Strategic Panel that the basic objectives and overall functionality of both the Committees are similar.

Reasons for dissolution of the Planning and Development Committee

Agenda Items

Since the commencement of the Strategic Panel Committee, agenda items which were included for discussion at the Planning and Development Committee have been moved to the Strategic Panel on the basis that the items are better suited to be discussed by the Strategic Panel. As a result, the Planning and Development Committee meeting scheduled for February 2017 was cancelled due to lack of agenda items.

Many agenda items relating to major developments previously referred to the Planning and Development Committee involve discussions on infrastructure, economy and planning. It would be more effective for these items to be discussed under one Committee to allow for an informed and integrated discussion and approach.

Major reports to Council are also discussed at the Councillor Briefing sessions as well contributing to duplication of items.

Scheduling of Meetings

Planning and Development Committee meetings are scheduled during work hours from 3pm to 5pm. This has impacted on the attendance of some Councillors who are unable to attend during normal business hours. The Strategic Panel is held after hours and has enabled attendance from Councilors who have not been able to attend the Planning and Development Committee meetings in the past due to their work commitments during office hours.

Efficiency and Staff Resources

Currently Council officers are required to prepare meeting papers and presentations for both the Committees leading to inefficient utilisation of staff resources and time. Dissolution of the Planning and Development Committee will enable items previously discussed under the Planning and Development Committee to be referred to the newly established Strategic Panel, allowing Council officers to efficiently utilise their time and resources and focus on the one meeting rather than two.

There are no direct financial implications for Council in the recommendation of this report. Instead, this will contribute to efficiency in resource and time management.

CONSIDERATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

149

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 10

Pre-Planning Proposal Meeting Fees

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Lead partnerships and collaboration with community, business and governments
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	061397.2017
Report By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

Executive Summary

Currently, Council officers are approached regularly to meet with proponents in the early concept stages of their planning proposal, often regarding very complex issues. These meetings involve a number of senior professional staff. Currently there is no fee to cover the cost to Council of officer preparation and meeting time. Often several meetings are held as applicants develop detailed plans and prepare technical and planning studies to support a proposal.

While pre-planning proposal meetings are valuable in encouraging early discussion and identification of issues and challenges, the number and scope of such meetings is imposing a significant resource burden on Council officers without any commensurate revenue source when no planning proposal is lodged, or when the lodgement of a planning proposal does not occur for months or years as has often been the case.

Accordingly it is recommended a new fee be introduced in the 2017/18 budget for pre-planning proposal meetings.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Support the introduction of a new pre-planning proposal fee in the 2017/18 budget as follows:

· Minor planning proposals (Proposals with a CIV<$1.5m)

Ø First meeting - $760

Ø Second and subsequent meetings - $250

· Major planning proposals (Proposals with a CIV >$1.5m)

Ø First meeting - $1,500

Ø Second and subsequent meetings - $450

REPORT

BACKGROUND

It is proposed to introduce a pre-planning proposal fee to cover the cost of Council’s professional assistance and technical advice provided to developers and land owners seeking preliminary advice regarding planning proposals

These meetings are valuable for applicants as they are able to structure their proposals to address key issues and any concerns identified by Council officers, and progress the relevant supporting studies.

It is considered appropriate to continue to offer this service, but a fee should apply in order to maintain consistency across Council services. Currently, Council charges a fee for pre-lodgment meetings with applicants regarding proposed development applications. The proposed fee will better streamline Council’s fee structure.

Council previously considered a report recommending the introduction of pre-planning meeting fees on 17 June 2016. Council resolved not to adopt pre-planning meeting fees at that time. However, it is recommended Council reconsider this issue given the resourcing that is being applied to pre-planning proposal meetings. Often, multiple meetings are held involving many senior and professional officers, without a planning proposal being lodged. For example, Council has received only $70,000 in revenue for rezonings to date in the 2016/17 financial year, yet Council officers have held many meetings regarding proposals that have still not been lodged. Additionally, the planning proposal lodgement fees (currently $35,000 for minor proposal and $70,000 for major proposals) are designed to cover the cost of the planning proposal assessment processes, not preliminary meetings scoping out the proposal.

BENCHMARKING

A number of other Councils charge for pre-planning proposal meetings as follows (2016/17 fees per meeting):

Kuringai Council

Major LEP amendments - $1,025

Minor LEP amendments - $512

Former Warringah Council (now Northern Beaches)

Meeting facilitated by senior officer - $825

Meeting facilitated by Team Leader - $1,250

Parramatta Council

Planning proposal pre-lodgement consultation* - $2,000

Planning proposal pre-lodgement consultation (second meeting only)* - $1,500

(*fee will be deducted from planning proposal fee if planning proposal is subsequently lodged)

Inner West

Minor LEP amendments - $2,000

Major LEP amendments - $4,000

Complex LEP amendments - $6,000

Additional meetings – 25% of original fee

PROPOSED NEW FEES FOR 2017/18 BUDGET

Following is the proposed new fee structure for pre-planning proposal meetings:

Item

Proposed Fee

Minor planning proposals (Proposal with a CIV <$1.5m)

First meeting - $760

Second and subsequent meetings - $250

Major planning proposals (Proposal with a CIV >$1.5m)

First meeting - $1,500

Second and subsequent meetings - $450

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Facilitate economic development.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

153

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01

Draft Reconciliation Action Plan 2016-2020 Post Exhibition

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Local Government Act 1993
File Ref	057601.2017
Report By	Norma Burrows - Community Development Worker (ATSI)
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 14 December 2016, Council resolved that the draft Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) 2016–2020 be placed on public exhibition, with a further report to be provided to Council following public exhibition.

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

Public exhibition was undertaken between Wednesday 11 January 2017 and Wednesday 8 March 2017, with one submission received. The submission was against the Reconciliation Action Plan with the main concern being about the Aboriginal flag. The resident has been informed that the flying and use of the Aboriginal flag meets the requirements of the Australian National Flag Protocols.

The draft Reconciliation Action Plan is presented to Council with this report for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the draft Reconciliation Action Plan 2016–2020; and

2. Approves minor changes to the draft Reconciliation Action Plan 2016–2020 in accordance with further review of the documentation by Council staff.

REPORT

At its meeting on 16 December 2016, Council resolved that the draft Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) 2016–2020 be placed on public exhibition, with a further report to be provided to Council following public exhibition.

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

The RAP will ensure there is a commitment across Council to actively nurture Aboriginal culture and values, skills and knowledge of all staff, and promote values embraced by, and significant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees of Council. It has an overall aim to improve opportunities for over 2,600 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents living in the Liverpool LGA (2011 Census). This represents 1.5% of the total Liverpool population.

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

Public exhibition was undertaken between Wednesday 11 January 2017 and Wednesday 8 March 2017, with one submission received. Exhibition took place using various methods including placement of copies of the draft Plan in Council libraries and customer service centre, advertising in the local papers, providing information regarding the exhibition through Council’s community networks and on Council’s website. Separate to the public exhibition, local service providers with vested interests in the plan were invited to provide written comment on the draft documentation.

Public exhibition feedback

Council staff have evaluated the feedback received during the public exhibition period and not made any changes to the content relating to the flying of the Aboriginal flag as it meets the requirements of the Australian National Flag Protocols.

Additional changes

Minor changes to the draft RAP 2016-2020 as identified by Council staff following a further review are as follows:

· Change the date range of the Action Plan to 2017-2020

· Amendments to grammar and spelling

· Updated formatting

· Inclusion of the disclaimer that the document may contain images of deceased Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people

· Wording to accompany the reporting section of the action plan

The draft Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) 2017–2020 is attached for the reference of Councillors.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. 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.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Reconciliation Action Plan 2017-2020 (Post exhibition)View

179

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01

Investment Report February 2017

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	056912.2017
Report By	Christian Hope - Senior Financial Accountant
Approved By	Chris White - Acting Director Corporate Services

Executive Summary

This report details Council’s Investment portfolio.

At 28^thFebruary 2017, Council held investments with a market value of $185.8 million.

The portfolio yield to the end of February 2017 is 98 basis points above the AusBond Bank Bill index and 108 basis points above the BBSW benchmark for the same period.

	AusBond Bank Bill Index	BBSW
Benchmark	2.00%	1.90%
Portfolio yield	2.98%	2.98%
Performance above benchmarks	0.98%	1.08%

Return on investment year to date was $785k 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 28^thFebruary 2017, Council held investments with a market value of $185.8 million. Council’s investment register detailing all its investments is provided as an attachment to this report.

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

As at end of February 2017, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

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

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

Portfolio Maturity Profile

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

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

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Portfolio Performance against relevant market benchmarks

The AusBond Bank Bill Index (ABBI) and Bank Bill Swap Rates (BBSW) are two key benchmarks used in Australia to measure return on investment on cash and fixed interest securities. The ABBI represents average daily yield of a parcel of bank bills and the BBSW represents daily lending rates between the banks. There is also a notable correlation between changes in the cash rate and impact on both these benchmarks. For reporting and benchmarking purposes, Council is using annualised average ABBI and a 90-day average BBSW.

The portfolio yield to 28 February 2017 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 98 basis points (2.98% against 2.0%).

The portfolio yield to 28 February 2017 exceeded the Bank Bill Swap Rate by 103 basis points (2.98% against 1.90%).

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 are 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 February 2017 exceeded budget by $785k mainly due to higher actual monthly average portfolio holdings compared to budgeted monthly average portfolio holdings for the year.

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance

The portfolio yield to 28 February 2017 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 98 basis points (2.98% against 2.0%)

The portfolio yield to 28 February 2017 exceeded the Bank Bill Swap Rate by 108 basis points (2.98% against 1.90%)

Annual Income vs. Budget

Council’s investment interest income exceeded budget by $785k as at 28 February 2017 mainly due to higher actual monthly average portfolio holdings compared to budgeted monthly average portfolio holdings for the year

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank has left the official cash rate on hold at 1.5 per cent in its 7^th of March 2017 meeting. The current 1.5 per cent 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) – 3% to 3.5% p.a.

· Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) – 2.5% to 3% 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%

· 28 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 $785k as at 28 February 2017
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 February 2017 View

183

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 02

2017 National General Assembly of Local Government

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	057932.2017
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Chris White - Acting Director Corporate Services

Executive Summary

The 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) will be held in Canberra from Sunday 18 June – Wednesday 21 June 2017.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Nominates delegates to attend the 2017 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from Sunday 18 June – Wednesday 21 June 2017.

2. Resolves to raise the following motions, concerning the theme of “Building Tomorrow’s Communities”, for debate at the National General Assembly:

(a)

(b)

REPORT

The National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) is a key event on the local government calendar. It is convened by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) for local councils across Australia and is an opportunity for Councils to identify and discuss national issues of priority for the sector and to agree on possible steps which could be taken to address these issues.

The ALGA is the national peak advocacy body for local government. ALGA’s work includes but is not limited to the establishment of national policy and extensive liaison and lobbying with departments, Ministers and other parliamentarians at the Commonwealth level to achieve better outcomes for local councils.

The 2017 NGA will be held in Canberra from Sunday 18 June to Wednesday 21 June 2017. A copy of the program is attached. Registration, accommodation, meals and travel costs will be incurred. Council is entitled to one vote at the NGA but is not limited on the number of Councillors who can attend.

The ALGA Board is calling for motions for the 2017 NGA under the theme of ‘Building Tomorrow’s Communities’.

This year, the NGA will focus debate on motions that address how Councils can work in partnership with the Australian Government in particular to meet the current and future needs of local communities.

To assist Councils to identify motions that address the theme of the NGA, the ALGA Secretariat has prepared a discussion paper (attached to this report). Motions can address one or all of the issues identified in the discussion paper.

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, motions must meet the following criteria:

1. Be relevant to the work of local government nationally;

2. Be consistent with the themes of the NGA;

3. Complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government association;

4. Be from a Council which is a financial member of their state or territory local government association;

5. Propose a clear action and outcome; and

6. Not be advanced on behalf of external third parties which may seek to use the NGA to apply pressure to Board members or to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, local government.

A copy of the NGA call for motions Discussion Paper is attached.

At the time of preparing this report, the program had not been received from the ALGA. Once received, it will be forwarded to Councillors.

The deadline for motions is 21 April 2017 and all motions submitted must be adopted by Council.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The costs associated with attending the 2017 NGA are included in the 2016/2017 budget and the costs per delegate are: - Registration: $929 per person - Accommodation: $355 per night - Meals: $230 (buffet dinner on 19 June and conference dinner on 20 June 2017) - Travel via Council vehicle
Environmental and Sustainability	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2017 National General Assembly Letter of Invitation and Call for Motions

203

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

City Presentation Report

DCP 01

Sustainable Strategies for Domestic Waste Disposal

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices
Key Policy	Domestic Waste Management Policy
File Ref	057683.2017
Report By	Rebecca Scarpin - Waste Management Coordinator
Approved By	Wayne Carter - Director City Presentation

Executive Summary

Liverpool City Council has a contract with SUEZ (initially SITA Australia) Contract ST948 – Waste Acceptance, Treatment and Disposal. The contract is due to expire in 2019. The contract under clause 4.2 provides the option of a 5 year extension. By exercising the extension option of the existing contract, Council will access the current arrangements of Waste Acceptance, Treatment and Disposal through to 2024.

Under the current arrangements Council accesses the Kemps Creek SAWT which is a mechanical / biological treatment facility which separates and treats putrescible waste resulting in a diversion rate of 60% - 70% of waste from landfill. This is consistent with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) target for waste diversion from landfill by 2021/22. In addition the existing contract price is significantly less than the current market price for waste disposal in metropolitan Sydney.

Should Council decide to exercise the extension option, it then provides sufficient time for Council to initiate discussions with other interested councils in WSROC and MACROC to participate in a regional waste disposal contract. By cooperating with adjoining councils, a regional waste disposal contract is likely to provide sufficient tonnage and income to the waste industry to invest in future infrastructure.

The purpose of this report is to recommend the exercising of the Contract Extension Clause (Clause 4.2) of Contract ST948 – Waste Acceptance, Treatment and Disposal and to seek interest in neighbouring councils to participate in a regional waste disposal contract.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Exercise the provision to extend Contract ST948 – Waste Acceptance, treatment and Disposal under Clause 4.2 of the contract for a further 5 years (through to 2024); and

2. Authorise the CEO to seek interest from neighbouring Councils in participating in a regional waste disposal contract.

REPORT

In 2006 Liverpool City Council commenced a forward thinking and sustainable initiative in preparing and processing a Waste Acceptance, Treatment and Disposal Contract (Contract No ST948) which required a significant annual diversion rate (the % of waste diverted from landfill). Council was addressing the waste diversion target that was set by the EPA at that time. The contract was awarded to SITA Australia Pty Ltd in 2007 with a start time frame of 1 February 2009. The winning tender required the design and construction of a mechanical/biological treatment facility and resulted in the establishment of Kemps Creek SAWT located at 1725 Elizabeth Drive Kemps Creek. This facility met the required diversion rate under the contract.

The Kemps Creek SAWT diverts 60% to 70% of the waste from landfill by producing a low quality compost by-product. The SAWT has a capacity of 100,000 tonnes per annum and currently services waste received from Liverpool City Council, Penrith City Council and the City of Sydney. The Kemps Creek SAWT is now operated by SUEZ.

Liverpool City Council generated 47,152 tonnes of waste in 2015/2016 which was processed by the Kemps Creek SAWT. With the current urbanisation and growth of Liverpool the volume of waste is increasing by 3,600 tonnes per annum.

The Contract expires in 2019 but does include a 5 year Extension Clause. It is recommended that this provision should be exercised given the fact that Council has access to the SAWT for a further 5 years and the current contract price per tonne is significantly below the current market price. Thus a new contract for Waste Acceptance, Treatment and Disposal will need to be in place to commence in February 2024.

In real terms this time frame allows for Council to identify alternate options for waste disposal into the future. This issue was discussed at the Strategic Planning Panel Meeting held on 13 February, 2017.

The Draft South West District Plan identifies the need to develop Waste Management Infrastructure to support the growth in population and economic activity in the South West. Within the plan, Sustainability Action S11 states Identify land for future waste reuse and recycling and lists the lead agencies as being the Environment Planning Authority (EPA) and the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) with the local Councils as partners. Section 5.8.1 of the plan notes that Waste Management Infrastructure is largely managed and owned by the Private Sector.

In reality the District Plan understates the existing problem with waste management in the South West District and West Central District today let alone with future accelerated growth in population and economic activity in the future. The Spring Farm Landfill at Camden closed in 2016. The Eastern Creek Landfill is programmed to close in July 2017 and the DPE has not been supportive of proposals to construct new waste management infrastructure on the Eastern Creek site. The Western Sydney mechanical/biological treatment Facilities (MBT) at Eastern Creek and Kemps Creek are at full capacity. The disposal of putrescible waste (waste generated in the household red bin) is now at a critical level in terms of available capacity.

In 2015 WSROC commissioned KMH Environmental to undertake a Waste and Recycling Infrastructure Needs Assessment for the Western Sydney Region. The report identified the shortfall in waste disposal options available to not only WSROC and MACROC councils but all councils in Metropolitan Sydney. The report strongly recommended a regional or sub-regional approach to service delivery in order to encourage the waste industry to invest in the development of new waste management infrastructure. In 2008 a number of SSROC councils joined together to progress a waste disposal contract requiring a 70% diversion of residual waste from landfill. In 2011 a number of NSROC councils joined together to progress a waste disposal contract. Both were successful and resulted in an improvement in their individual council waste diversion rates.

The Sydney Metropolitan Market for processing and disposal of putrescible waste is virtually a duopoly with the main private sector suppliers being SUEZ and VEOLIA. Most metropolitan councils collect the waste from the red bin in compactor trucks (council operated or by private sector contractors) and transport the waste to waste transfer stations or directly to putrescible landfill sites or mechanical/biological treatment sites. A summary of available infrastructure is detailed below:

· Waste Transfer Stations

o Artarmon operated by SUEZ

o Auburn operated by SUEZ

o Belrose operated by SUEZ

o Chullora operated by SUEZ

o Rockdale operated by SUEZ

o Ryde operated by SUEZ

o Seven Hills operated by SUEZ

o Wetherill Park operated by SUEZ

o Banksmeadow (Rail) operated by Veolia

o Clyde (Rail) operated by Veolia

· Putrescible Landfill Sites

o Eastern Creek operated by SUEZ (closing July 2017)

o Lucas Heights operated by SUEZ

o Spring Farm operated by SUEZ (landfill closed 2016)

o Woodlawn Bio-Reactor operated by Veolia

· Mechanical/Biological Treatment facilities

o Eastern Creek UR3R Plant operated by GR/SUEZ

o Kemps Creek SAWT operated by SUEZ

o Woodlawn MBT to be operated by Veolia (2017/2018)

SUEZ has indicated that investigations have progressed in terms of development of additional MBTs at Lucas Heights and duplication of the UR3R Plant at Eastern Creek but any development would be dependent on the guarantee of long term contracts. Veolia has indicated interest in working with councils in Western Sydney to identify a local solution to waste treatment and disposal.

In order for the waste industry to be able to invest in waste management infrastructure there needs to be service delivery contracts that provide sufficient volumes of waste to process and a sufficient contract term to capitalise the investment (normally a 15 year term). Local government can influence the investment decisions by the waste industry if they collaborate together by entering into regional or sub-regional waste disposal contracts.

The process for progressing a regional contract that involves the design and construction of new waste management infrastructure is reasonably well established but it does take time- at least 2 years to process Council agreements and Ministerial / ACCC approvals and 5 years for planning approval and construction. It has been proven that the benefits are worth the effort.

In December 2016 a meeting was held involving the WSROC and MACROC Waste Managers/Coordinators and part of the agenda was set aside to discuss the opportunity of entering into a regional waste disposal contract. As a consequence to the discussion the following council representatives expressed initial interest in investigating the opportunity with Liverpool City Council:

· Parramatta City Council

· Cumberland City Council

· Campbelltown City Council

It is proposed that Council initiate preliminary discussions with interested councils in WSROC and MACROC with a view to progressing a future regional waste disposal contract.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	The extension has significant financial benefits to Council that have been included in the report. This will have a positive impact on the domestic waste reserve.
Environmental and Sustainability	Minimise household waste going to landfill. Improve recycling and recovery rates. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Improve community reputation and standing. Supports Disability and Inclusion Plan
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Deliver services that are customer focused.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

223

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Committee Reports

CTTE 03

Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 February 2017

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history
Key Policy	Heritage Strategy
File Ref	049405.2017
Report By	Thomas Wheeler - Heritage Officer
Approved By	Stephen Joannidis – Acting Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 14 February 2017.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 14 February 2017.

2. Writes to all previous members of the committee thanking them for their involvement with the committee over the last two years.

3. Writes to Vicki Andrews thanking her for her continual commitment and involvement in the Heritage Advisory Committee and her dedication to the promotion and protection of Liverpool’s history.

REPORT

1. The Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee held on 14 February 2017 are attached for the information of Council.

2. The Heritage Advisory Committee was dissolved and expressions of interest for new members advertised from 27 February 2017 to 24 March 2017. A further report will be prepared following the closing date, seeking Council endorsement of the recommended committee members.

3. The Minutes identify a number of actions that require actions by Council staff. These have been summarised and discussed below:

Motion 1 – The Heritage Officer to provide an update on the Pioneer Memorial Park Master plan and an overview of funding allocated to heritage matters in Council’s Budget at the next Heritage Advisory Committee meeting.

The master plan for Pioneer Memorial Park is currently in its early stages of development. The master plan will be required to take into account the heritage context of the park and the varied stories/histories associated with the park. Council’s Heritage Officer will be involved in the development of the master plan and the Heritage Advisory Committee will be consulted during the development of the master plan.

An initial briefing will be provided to the Heritage Advisory Committee in relation to the Master plan at the first meeting of the new committee in May. A further more detailed presentation will be sought from the project team at a later date.

Council’s Heritage Officer will provide a further briefing to the committee in relation to a breakdown of the funding allocated to heritage matters. This will include funding allocated to strategic planning, as well as maintenance, conservation and restoration. This will be tabled to the new committee in May.

Action: No action from Council required.

Motion 2 – Sincere thanks were extended to Vicki Andrews for her efforts and contribution to the committee and the community.

Vicki Andrews, a longtime member of the Heritage Advisory Committee and a dedicated community member involved with the Moorebank Heritage Group and previously the Liverpool and District Historical Society, announced that she will not be standing for another term with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

Ms. Andrews has demonstrated, for over 15 years, a strong commitment to the promotion, preservation and protection of the heritage and history of Liverpool. Ms. Andrews’ involvement in numerous local heritage projects, including the successful nominations to the NSW State Heritage Register of the Collingwood Estate, Former Liverpool State Hospital and the Collingwood Estate Aboriginal Place is testament to her dedication to the Liverpool area and its history.

Action: The Council, via the Mayor, to write to Ms. Vicki Andrews congratulating and thanking her for her dedication to the heritage and history of the Liverpool area and her service to the Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee.

Motion 3 – That Council cease all work on the obelisk until such time an investigation into restoration is conducted by the Heritage Officer and considered by the committee.

Council’s Heritage Officer, in conjunction with the Acting Director Infrastructure and Environment, has investigated the Obelisk. A memo was provided to the Councillors, dated 22 February 2017, outlining the information collected as a result of the investigation and the future course of action.

The current program of works for the Obelisk is based on the technical advice and support provided by Jasper Swann - heritage stonemason consultant, Clive Lucas Stapleton - heritage architect and the contracted stonemasons from Rookwood Cemetery. There are no doubts or concerns in relation to the quality of the information provided by the consultants and the heritage outcomes which will be achieved as a result of the works currently being undertaken.

The works were included as a part of the development application for the improvement works at Bigge Park. The proposal included the deconstruction, restoration and relocation of the Obelisk to Discovery Park. These issues were considered by Council’s former Heritage Advisor at the time and supported, based on the anticipated positive heritage outcomes.

Investigations have determined that there is no justification for ceasing the works as long as they are consistent with the specifications and technical advice of the contracted specialists.

Action: No action required from Council.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes 14 February 2017 View

307

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Notices of Motion

NOM 01

Childcare Services - Liverpool CBD

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities
Key Policy	Children’s Services Strategy
File Ref	066662.2017
Author	Mazhar Hadid - Councillor

Background

I am pleased to be associated with a council that recognises that the early childhood education industry is an important contribution to the economy as well as a critical piece of social infrastructure that supports children's development and facilitates parents employment. Research and recent studies demonstrate that there is a responsibility under the Local Government Act (1993) for local government involvement in delivering early childhood education and care. In addition recent research findings and results for the National Quality Assessment indicate that local government authorities deliver services to a higher degree of quality, and in addition provide greater access to early childhood programs to most vulnerable children and families in their communities.

Liverpool City Council has been a longstanding supporter of early childhood programs across our LGA. Currently Liverpool City Council maintains responsibility for the direct provision of six early education and care services and one preschool service catering for a total of 345 long day care places and 27 preschool places. It is also responsible for an inclusion support program and child and family support programs inclusive of two supported playgroups and several transition to school programs.

All childcare services are assessed under the National Quality Standards, as part of the new child care quality improvement laws which were implemented across all centres in Australia in December 2013, to ensure quality education and care is provided to children. The whole organisation was very pleased that all 7 centres have been assessed under the new National Standards and have received the result of Exceeding National Standards. This confirms Council’s strength as a provider of childcare in Liverpool, and a leading agency in the delivery of education and care for children. It also supports the ongoing hard work of staff, who work towards improving their work practices and maintain a high level of quality on a daily basis and the continual quality improvement process undertaken at our centres to maintain a quality service.

The centres have also been recognised as a leading training provider in the early childhood sector attracting visitors and delivering training on quality practises across NSW, and have received awards for the exemplary leadership in the field.

I understand that currently there are approximately (year to date) 1231 children across the services on the internal waitlist to receive a placement in the existing services. Occupancy levels are running at full capacity in many areas at or above 95%. In the Liverpool CBD there are over 2000 children between the ages of 0-4 years in need of quality early education and care. There is a real opportunity and responsibility for council to look at how we can meet this demand.

In addition, Council staff returning to work from maternity leave or with young children requiring care facilities would greatly benefit from an additional facility close to their workplace.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council:

1. Investigate options for the delivery of a city based service in the Liverpool CBD, which would be primarily for Council staff in the first instance and then the general public as required.

2. Identify potential sites

3. Present a report to Council on a proposal for the adoption of a city based service to include capital costing for establishment of service, operational costs on the delivery of service, and future return on investment.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

311

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Notices of Motion

NOM 03

CCTV Cameras

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Improve the community’s sense of safety in Liverpool
Key Policy	Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy
File Ref	069223.2017
Author	Karress Rhodes - Councillor

Background

An existing MoU between Liverpool Council and the NSW Police was signed on the 22^nd October 2014 and forms the framework to the co-operation between Council and the NSW Police operation of the Council’s CCTV Program.

The MoU needs to address that the Police Station has moved and that the Monitor is no longer housed in the Police Station. The paragraphs that contain reference to the monitor being in the Police Station and that it is the financial responsibility of Council to install the Monitor in the Police Station are;

4.1 Council as the owner and the license holder in respect of all the relevant hardware and software associated with the program is solely responsible for the installation, management, maintenance, repair and operation of all CCTV cameras, cables, connecting and monitoring equipment to be used in respect of the program, including the monitoring equipment installed by Council within the Police Station.

4.3 Council is responsible for fully financing the Program, including cost of producing the copies of the CCTV footage, and the payment of any software license fees applicable in respect of provision of the functioning monitoring equipment installed by the Liverpool Council within the Liverpool Police Station.

5.1 The MoU contains reference to the Monitor (installed within the Liverpool Police Station)

5.2 Responses by the Police to incidents identified on CCTV is the sole and unfettered discretion of the Liverpool Local Command.

5.8 The Police are not required to provide any financial assistance to the Council for the CCTV Program.

The Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2013 – 2017 ends this year and needs to be updated to continue to serve the Community.

It also refers to the Monitor being in the Police Station

3.1.1 Council is the owner of the CCTV Program. Council is responsible for the development, implementation, monitoring and auditing of the program ...

4.3.6 ….monitoring screen located on Police premises...

Costs estimates already provided by Council

Estimated cost to Council of $200,000 to move the monitor from Moore Street to the New Police Station plus $1000 per month to lease the connecting underground cables on a 36 month contract.

Considerations already provided by Council

Council has or is intending to combine in-house cameras of its own internal premises into the existing system, which questions the viability of the monitoring being on police Premises.

As the current documents are inaccurate and soon to be out of date, it is necessary that all Councillors be briefed in order to make decisions about the continuing service of the CCTV Program.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council provide a briefing opportunity for Councillors that includes the NSW Police and Independent technical internet service provision advice on;

a) the current cost and means of delivery of footage captured on Council owned CCTV cameras and delivery to Council Monitor, retrieval and storage of footage;

b) the cost of moving the Monitor from Moore Street Council premises to Police Station;

c) The cost of moving the monitor to the Civic Centre when Council moves from Moore Street;

d) The opportunity to engage a new MoU base on a cost sharing with the NSW Police.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Costs to be provided to Councillors at a Councillors Briefing Session.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Support policies and plans that prevent crime.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Deliver services that are customer focused.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

315

Ordinary Meeting 29 March 2017

Notices of Motion

NOM 04

Growing the Tourism Economy in Liverpool

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	Marketing and Promotion Strategy
File Ref	069255.2017
Author	Peter Harle - Councillor

Background

Liverpool and or the South West Sydney Region currently have no co-ordinated approach to tourism promotion for Liverpool or the South West Sydney Region “as a whole”.

Current statistics for the Liverpool / Fairfield area indicate that we have a growing healthy mix of National and International Tourists and Visitors into our areas.

The statistics reveal an enormous increase from 20,000 per year to 200,000 per year in International Tourists arrivals per year over the past 3 to 4 years into Liverpool and Fairfield.

Liverpool has the customers, but has nothing to on-sell to this new market. On-selling to this existing market would maximise the visitor spend in our Local Economy.

I am aware that a not-for-profit organisation called South West Sydney Tourism Taskforce Inc. NSW, representing stakeholders in the Tourism and Visitation Industry has been initiated in our area.

I am also aware that they are currently lobbying for the South West Sydney Area to be identified as a distinct Region that is open for consideration for the Regional Government Grants Program.

Liverpool is currently recognised as a part of The Western Sydney Region and is currently not open for consideration for this Grants Program.

Through the Regional Government Grants Program, grants are made available up to $13 million in regional tourism funding, between 2016 and 2019, to support the regional tourism industry in NSW.

Up to $4 million is available in 2016 – 2017 and $4.5 million will be available during 2017 – 2018 and 2018 - 2019. Any funds unallocated during 2016 – 2017 will be rolled into the following year’s program.

As we are fully aware that Tourism and Visitation is not currently on Council’s Strategic Agenda due to budgetary restraints, hence I propose the following motion.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council endorse at “no cost to Council”, the “not-for-profit” South West Sydney Tourism Taskforce Inc. NSW (SWSTT), to assist in;

a) the Collaborative lobbying for official recognition of the “South West Sydney Area,” as defined by the Greater Sydney Commission, South West District, as a Distinct Region that is open to the Regional Grants Program;

b) the collaborative efforts to secure the opportunity to obtain Regional Grants through the NSW Regional Grants Program to advance the tourism economy in our LGA;

c) the identification and collaboration of any low-cost needs in tourism, (pending grants) that could advance tourism in Liverpool.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Deliver services that are customer focused. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

59
DPG 01	Land Dedication and Works in Kind Policy
Attachment 1	Draft Developer Contributions Works in Kind Policy

63
DPG 02	Review of Council Policies
Attachment 1	The Use of Public Address (PA) Systems on Council Owned Properties Policy

69
DPG 02	Review of Council Policies
Attachment 2	Signage on Council Land Policy

197
CFO 03	2017 Australian Local Government Women's Association NSW Branch Conference
Attachment 1	2017 ALGWA NSW Conference - Program

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	031165.2017
Report By	Norma Burrows - Community Development Worker (ATSI)
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

213
CTTE 01	Aboriginal Consultative Committee - Minutes of meeting held 2 February 2017
Attachment 1	Minutes of Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held on 2 February 2017

221
CTTE 02	Liverpool Youth Council - Minutes of meeting held 8 February 2017
Attachment 1	Minutes Liverpool Youth Council 8 February 2017

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Improve health and wellbeing and encourage a happy, active community
Key Policy	Recreation Strategy
File Ref	057991.2017
Report By	Mark Westley - Sports Development Officer
Approved By	Eddie Jackson - Acting Director Community & Culture

Economic and Financial	A budget allocation of $15,000 for the Sporting Donations Program was adopted by Council in its 2016/2017 Operational Plan. If the recommended amount of $1,000 is endorsed, the remaining balance will be $8,300.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

233
CTTE 04	Liverpool Sports Committee - Minutes of meeting 23 February 2017
Attachment 1	Liverpool Sports Committee Minutes 23 February 2017

249
CTTE 05	Audit and Risk Committee Minutes 24 October 2016
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee dated 24 October 2016

253
CTTE 06	Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 March 2017
Attachment 1	Civic Advisory Committee Minutes from 15 March 2017

277
CTTE 07	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 28 February 2017
Attachment 1	EAC Minutes of meeting held on 28 February 2017

287
QWN 01	Question with Notice - Clr Harle
Attachment 1	LDCP Level of Notification or Advertising

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Reduce adverse environment impacts for present and future generations
Key Policy	Environment Restoration Plan
File Ref	069124.2017
Author	Karress Rhodes - Councillor