COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

26 July 2017

 

FRANCIS GREENWAY CENTRE

170 GEORGE STREET LIVERPOOL


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby notified that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held at the Francis Greenway Centre, 170 George Street, Liverpool on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 commencing at 6.00pm. Doors to the Francis Greenway Centre will open at 5.50pm.

 

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

 

 

 

 


Kiersten Fishburn

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

 


Order of Business

 

                                                                                                              PAGE     TAB

Opening

Acknowledgement of Country and Prayer

Apologies 

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 June 2017..................................................................... 7

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01          DA-104/2016 - Demolition of two dwellings and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development at 13 Maxwells Avenue and 4 Devlin Street, Ashcroft............. 46......... 1

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01          Erosion and Sediment Control Policy............................................................. 53......... 2

DPG 02          On-Site Sewage Management Systems DCP Amendment.......................... 56......... 3

DPG 03          Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) –

                        Shepherd Street Planning Proposal ……………………………………………74          4

DPG 04           Contaminated Site Remediation Policy...………………………………………92         5

DPG 05          Notification of Development Applications .................................................... 101......... 6

DPG 06          Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study 2017..................................................... 111......... 7

DPG 07          Draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy........................................................ 121......... 8

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01          Electronic voting and recording system....................................................... 151......... 9

CEO 02          Application for Title of Lord Mayor for Mayor of Liverpool.......................... 161....... 10

City Community and Culture Report

DCC 01          Cenotaph Update for Council ...................................................................... 167....... 11

DCC 02          Project Scope for Thomas Moore Sculpture................................................ 171....... 12

 

DCC 03          Grants, Donations, and Corporate Sponsorship........................................... 176....... 13

City Corporate Report

CFO 01           Liverpool Services Alliance Review Committee.......................................... 186....... 14

CFO 02           Review of the Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy..................................... 188....... 15

CFO 03           Investment Report June 2017...................................................................... 210....... 16

City Presentation Report

NIL

City  Infrastructure and Environment Report

DIEN 01          Speaking 4 the Planet (S4P) Event.............................................................. 219....... 17

Committee Reports

CTTE 01         Minutes of the Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 19 June 2017 ............................................................................................................. 223....... 58

CTTE 02         Minutes of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee held on Thursday 1 June 2017.................................................. 231....... 19

CTTE 03         Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council 14 June 2017................................. 238....... 20

CTTE 04         Minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Community Meeting 4 May 2017... 244....... 21

CTTE 05         Liverpool Sports Committee - Minutes of Meeting 1 June 2017.................. 250....... 22

Questions with Notice

QWN 01         Question with Notice - Clr Harle .................................................................. 263....... 23

QWN 02         Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty............................................................... 266....... 24  

Presentations by Councillors

 

Notices of Motion

NOM 01          Problem Gambling........................................................................................ 267....... 25

NOM 02          Multi-faith Council Prayer ............................................................................ 270....... 26  


 

 

 


Order of BuSINESS

 

                                                                                                                      

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   Appointment of Independent Members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Reason:     Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(a) (d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors); AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.  

 

CONF 02.. Intermodal Committee Update

 

Reason:               Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.


 

Close



 

 

 

 

 


                                                                                                                      

THIS IS A BLANK PAGE

 


 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 28 June 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 Chris White, Director City Corporate

Ms Lina Kakish, Acting Director Planning and Growth

Dr Eddie Jackson, Director City Community and Culture

Mr Wayne Carter, Director City Presentation

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economic Development

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

 

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.00pm

 

 

OPENING                                                                    6.00pm

 

ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT OF COUNTRY,              The prayer of the Council was read

PRAYER OF COUNCIL AND                                    by Reverend Phil Hanbury from AFFIRMATION TO BE READ BY                                                                    Southwestern Community Baptist   Church      

APOLOGIES                                                      Nil

CONDOLENCES                                               Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Motion:      Moved: Clr Shelton    Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 31 May 2017 be confirmed as a true
record of that meeting.

 

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

 

Declarations of Interest

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

Item  CONF 01   Legal Affairs Report

Reason               She has used the services of the Australian Consulting Architects in the past, and may do so again in the future.

Clr Ayyad remained in the Chambers for the duration of this item. 

 

Ms Kiersten Fishburn, CEO, declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

Item DPG 02       Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) - Shepherd Street Planning Proposal

Reason:              Ms Fishburn and her partner have put a deposit on an investment property in the Coronation Development on Shepherd Street.

Ms Fishburn left the Chambers and handed over to Chris White to be Acting CEO in her absence for this item.

 

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

Item  DPG 03      Street and Park Naming Proposals

Reason:              There is a proposal to name a park after Judy Pack. Judy Pack was well      known to Clr Shelton for many years. Clr Shelton read the condolence motions for both Judy Pack and her husband David when they passed on Clr Shelton and Judy Pack had been involved in many community groups together.

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

 

Public Forum

Presentation – items not on agenda                     

1.       Mr Ian Bailey addressed Council on the following item:

          Posters, graffiti, chewing gum and butts. The cost to Liverpool.

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded: Clr Hadid

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

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

 

Representation – items on agenda

1.       Mr Adam Coburn from Mecone Pty Ltd addressed Council on the following item:

          DPG 02      Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) - Shepherd Street Planning Proposal    

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

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

 

2.       Mr Aras Labutis from Coronation Property addressed Council on the following item:

          DPG 02      Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) - Shepherd Street Planning Proposal

3.       Ms Kate Woods addressed Council on the following item:

          IHAP 01     DA – 1038/2016 – Construction of a 10 unit boarding house and demolition of existing dwelling at 24 Madang Street, Holsworthy.

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

 

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

 

4.       Mr James Bullard addressed Council on the following item:

          IHAP 01     DA – 1038/2016 – Construction of a 10 unit boarding house and demolition of existing dwelling at 24 Madang Street, Holsworthy.

5.       Mr Samer Khamisy addressed Council on the following item:

          NOM 01     Small Business in Liverpool.

6.       Mr James Tran addressed Council on the following item:

          NOM 01     Small Business in Liverpool.

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

 

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

7.       Mr Sabih Aldoumany addressed Council on the following item:

          NOM 01     Small Business in Liverpool.


13

 

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

ITEM NO:       IHAP 01

FILE NO:        153741.2017

SUBJECT:     DA-1038/2016 - Construction of a 10 unit boarding house and demolition of existing dwelling at 24 Madang Street, Holsworthy

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council refuse Development Application DA-1038/2016 for the following reasons:

1.   The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone in so far as it is not a high quality residential development, and the proposed built form is unlikely to preserve and maintain the residential amenity of adjoining residences, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2.   The proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 30A of Division 3 of Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the design of the proposed development is not compatible with the character of the local area and will have an adverse impact on the physical amenity of the neighbourhood, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

3.   The proposed development does not achieve satisfactory compliance with the relevant controls as stipulated in Liverpool Development Control Plan (DCP) 2008 Chapter 3.6 –regarding sections, 3 Site Planning, Section 9 Landscaping and Fencing and Section 10 Amenity and Environmental Impact, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

4.   The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of Clause 46 of the Public Health Regulation 2012 in that a majority of bedrooms for boarding rooms that occupy two lodgers do not provide a floor area of at least 11 square metres, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5.   The design of the proposed development will not provide an acceptable level of amenity to the future occupants of the boarding house and is likely to result in an adverse impact on the acoustic and visual privacy of the residents of the dwellings to the east and south of the land, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                                  Moved:      Clr Hadchiti        Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

1.    That Council refuse Development Application DA-1038/2016 for the following reasons:

 

i.    The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone in so far as it is not a high quality residential development, and the proposed built form is unlikely to preserve and maintain the residential amenity of adjoining residences, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

ii.   The proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 30A of Division 3 of Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the design of the proposed development is not compatible with the character of the local area and will have an adverse impact on the physical amenity of the neighbourhood, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

iii.  The proposed development does not achieve satisfactory compliance with the relevant controls as stipulated in Liverpool Development Control Plan (DCP) 2008 Chapter 3.6 –regarding sections, 3 Site Planning, Section 9 Landscaping and Fencing and Section 10 Amenity and Environmental Impact, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

iv.  The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of Clause 46 of the Public Health Regulation 2012 in that a majority of bedrooms for boarding rooms that occupy two lodgers do not provide a floor area of at least 11 square metres, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

v.   The design of the proposed development will not provide an acceptable level of amenity to the future occupants of the boarding house and is likely to result in an adverse impact on the acoustic and visual privacy of the residents of the dwellings to the east and south of the land, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2.    Writes to the State Government raising concerns on the lack of car parking spaces required under the affordable housing SEPP.

 

3.    Writes to WSROC and Local Government NSW seeking their support to lobby the government for a review of the boarding house SEPP which was introduced in 2009 under the then state government.

 

4.    Council notes that registration requirements and occupancy principles for registrable boarding houses are set out by the NSW Boarding Houses Act 2012 and the standards that apply to such developments are set out by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

Council notes that under section 30A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Council as the consent authority, take the compatibility of the development to the character of the local area prior to giving consent.

5.    That Council develop controls relating to Section 30A (relating to the development of boarding houses within the Liverpool Local Government area), into the relevant local planning instruments, to provide certainty to the community, developers and the residents that these developments seek to serve.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


15

 

BRING ITEM FORWARD

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Balloot               Seconded Clr Hadchiti

 

That NOM 01 be brought forward and dealt with now.

 

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

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NO:       NOM 01

FILE NO:        165817.2017

SUBJECT:     Small Business in Liverpool

 

This council needs to support small business in Macquarie Mall and Liverpool in general by removing unnecessary red tape which makes the business environment more difficult and costly than it already is. 

 

Small businesses are vital to support families, give individuals independence, to employer local residents and allows competition in the marketplace which keep prices down and more affordable. 

 

Council plays a vital part in supporting small businesses. With our support, they can succeed. Without the support of small businesses, they will inevitably cease to exist as the larger corporations put pressure on them. The small business owners and employees will in turn be unemployed and more reliant on welfare.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Balloot)

 

That Council:

 

1.   Freeze any additional charges for the outdoor seating;  

2.   Conduct an urgent study regarding providing additional chairs and umbrellas for shops that may require to provide more seating for their customers; 

3.   Hold a grand opening for Macquarie mall to assist in informing the public in our LGA that the mall is open for business in order to support struggling small business; and

4.   Officers reports back to Council on how best Liverpool Council may be able to further assist small business.

 

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Balloot               Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council:

 

1.    Freeze any additional charges for the outdoor seating for 12 months;  

2.    Conduct an urgent study regarding providing additional chairs and umbrellas for shops that may require to provide more seating for their customers; 

3.    Hold a grand opening for Macquarie Mall to assist in informing the public in our LGA that the Mall is open for business in order to support struggling small business;

4.    Officers report back to Council on how best Liverpool Council may be able to further assist small business;

5.    Investigate the cost of engaging security presence in the Macquarie Mall during business hours; and

6.    Continue to hold events in consultation and partnership with the Macquarie Mall street businesses to further promote the Mall. 

 

Amendment:                                   Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded Clr Kaliyanda

 

That Council:

 

1.       Freeze any additional charges for the outdoor seating for 12 months;

2.       Conduct an urgent study regarding providing additional chairs and umbrellas for     shops that may require to provide more seating for their customers; 

3.       Officers report back to Council on how best Liverpool Council may be able to         further assist small business; and

 

4.       Council continue to hold events in consultation and partnership with the Macquarie          Mall businesses to further promote the Mall.

 

On being put to the meeting the Amendment (moved by Clr Hagarty) was declared LOST.

 

The motion (moved by Clr Balloot) was then put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.

 

Division called:

Vote for:        Clr Ayyad

                        Clr Balloot

                        Clr Hadchiti

                        Clr Hadid

                        Clr Harle

                        Clr Rhodes

 

Vote against: Mayor Waller

                        Clr Hagarty

                        Clr Kaliyanda

                        Clr Karnib

                        Clr Shelton

   


17

 

Planning and Growth Report

 

ITEM NO:       DPG 01

FILE NO:        098188.2017

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Potential Items Heritage Study

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.       Endorses the recommendations of the Liverpool Potential Items Heritage Study (attached);

2.       Resolves to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008; and

3.       Resolves to undertake a review of existing items in Schedule 5 of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That Council:

1.       Only endorse the recommendations of the Liverpool Potential Items Heritage Study that are in public ownership;

2.       Resolves to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 5 of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008; and

3.       Resolves to undertake a review of existing items in Schedule 5 of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

Vote for:             Clr Ayyad

                             Clr Balloot

                             Clr Hadchiti

                             Clr Hadid

 

Vote against:      Mayor Waller

                             Clr Hagarty

                             Clr Harle

                             Clr Kaliyanda

                             Clr Karnib

                             Clr Rhodes

                             Clr Shelton

 

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

 

Vote for:             Mayor Waller

                             Clr Hagarty

                             Clr Harle

                             Clr Kaliyanda

                             Clr Karnib

                             Clr Rhodes

                             Clr Shelton

 

Vote against:      Clr Ayyad

                             Clr Balloot

                             Clr Hadchiti

                             Clr Hadid


19

Ms Fishburn, Council’s CEO left the Chambers at 7.18pm for duration of the discussion on Items DPG 02 and DPG 04.

Clr Balloot left the Chambers at 7.24pm.

Clr Balloot returned to the Chambers at 7.27pm.

 

NOTE:  DPG 02 and DPG 04 were dealt with concurrently.

ITEM NO:       DPG 02

FILE NO:        113847.2017

SUBJECT:     Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) - Shepherd Street Planning Proposal

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Note the Gateway Determination for draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) and the results of the public exhibition and community consultation.

 

2.       Subject to Item 3 and Item 4, forwards the updated Planning Proposal and supporting documentation to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation.

 

3.       Endorse and places on public exhibition the draft Planning Agreement offered by the proponent in conjunction with the Planning Proposal.

 

4.       Delegate authority to the CEO, or to her delegate, to execute the Planning Agreement following its public exhibition, if no submissions are received with respect to the Planning Agreement.

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:      Clr Ayyad           Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed motion:       Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded Clr Rhodes

That this matter be deferred until Councillors can be fully briefed on the CBD Traffic Study that has been done and see the proposed plans for the intersection upgrades that is intended to mitigate the identified traffic and access issues for this Development, and pending further negotiation by Council with the developer for contributions towards the cost of;

a)    a second traffic access point from the development site along Powerhouse Road with a rail bridge crossing at Casula Station to allow traffic from the development site to access the new growth areas and the possible projected employment in those areas without contributing to the traffic issues in and around the Liverpool CBD, considering there will be no public transport into the airport construction job opportunities eg. Airport.

 

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

 

Vote for:             Nil

 

Vote against:      Mayor Waller

                             Clr Ayyad

                             Clr Balloot

                             Clr Hadchiti

                             Clr Hadid

                             Clr Hagarty

                             Clr Harle

                             Clr Kaliyanda

                             Clr Karnib

                             Clr Shelton

                             Clr Rhodes

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

Mayor Waller called a recess of Council at 7.48pm.

 

The meeting reopened at 7.59pm with the following Councillors present:

 

Mayor Waller (Chair)

Clr Ayyad

Clr Balloot

Clr Hadchiti

Clr Hagarty

Clr Harle

Clr Karnib

Clr Rhodes


21

ITEM NO:       DPG 04

FILE NO:        170045.2017

SUBJECT:     Revised Voluntary Planning Agreement Text - Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider this report and attached draft Voluntary Planning Agreement in company with item DPG 02.

 

This item was dealt with in conjunction with DPG 02

 


23

ITEM NO:       DPG 03

FILE NO:        155137.2017

SUBJECT:     Street and Park Naming Proposals

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.   Adopts the recommendation to support the street and park names noted in this report; and

 

2.   Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer to begin the process of gazettal being:

a)   Public notification for 28 days in the local newspaper; and

b)   State referral agencies to be notified using the GNB’s Online Road Naming System to seek endorsement.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:      Clr Rhodes         Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Note: Clrs Hadid, Kaliyanda and Shelton were not in the Chambers when this item was voted on.


23

Clr Shelton returned to the Chambers at 8.00pm.

Clr Hadid returned to the Chambers at 8.03pm.

Clr Kaliyanda returned to the Chambers at 8.04pm.

 

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 01

FILE NO:        137110.2017

SUBJECT:     Draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 and Budget (including Statement of Revenue)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Adopt the Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018

 

2.   Adopt the Statement of Revenue Policy (fees and charges), and approve additional amendments to fees and charges subject to exhibition for 28 days.

 

3.   In the event there are no submissions received concerning the proposed additional amendments to the fees and charges following the 28 day exhibition period, incorporate those changes into Council’s Statement of Revenue Policy (fees and charges);

 

4.   In the event submissions are received concerning the proposed additional amendments to the fees and charges, bring a report to the August meeting of Council detailing the submissions and including recommendations on how to proceed.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That Council:

 

1.   Adopt the Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018

 

2.   Adopt the Statement of Revenue Policy (fees and charges) with the exception of outdoor seating charges as per the resolution of NOM 01 on page 8-9 of these minutes, and approve additional amendments to fees and charges subject to exhibition for 28 days.

 

3.   In the event there are no submissions received concerning the proposed additional amendments to the fees and charges following the 28 day exhibition period, incorporate those changes into Council’s Statement of Revenue Policy (fees and charges);

 

4.   In the event submissions are received concerning the proposed additional amendments to the fees and charges, bring a report to the August meeting of Council detailing the submissions and including recommendations on how to proceed.

 

5.   The increase to the Mayoral and Councillor allowance for the 2017/2018 period be restricted to an increase of 2.5% to that of 2016/2017 allowance, rather than the maximum allowance determined by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

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


25

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 02

FILE NO:        138519.2017

SUBJECT:     Strategic Panel Minutes 6 June 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives the minutes of the Strategic Panel held on 6 June 2017.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


27

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 03

FILE NO:        154869.2017

SUBJECT:     Amendments to Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the Draft Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter attached to this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Amendment                          Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council adopt the Draft Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter attached to this report subject to the following changes:

·         Clause 7.1 “Councillor Representation” be amended to read;

             Two Councillors, including the Deputy Mayor or their alternates shall be the Council              representatives on the ARIC.  Any alternate delegates must have attended the    necessary training to participate.  All other Councillors are welcome to attend the      meetings, however would not have voting rights.

 

·         Clause 9.1 “Quorum” be amended to read;

             The quorum for a meeting of the ARIC is three members, including two Councillors,     including the Deputy Mayor.  Meetings can be held in person, by telephone or by      video conference. 

 

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

 

The Motion (moved by Clr Kaliyanda) was then put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.


27

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 04

FILE NO:        156005.2017

SUBJECT:     Review of the Enterprise Risk Management Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Adopt the Draft Enterprise Risk Management Policy attached to this report; and

 

2.   Revoke the Enterprise Risk Management Strategy attached to this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


29

 

City Community and Culture Report

 

ITEM NO:       DCC 01

FILE NO:        108067.2017

SUBJECT:     Draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2017 - 2021 Post Exhibition Report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.   Adopt the draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2017-2021; and

2.   Approve minor changes to the draft Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2017-2017 in accordance with further review of the documentation by Council staff.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


29

 

ITEM NO:       DCC 02

FILE NO:        147372.2017

SUBJECT:     Grants, Donations, and Corporate Sponsorship

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Endorses the recommended provision of $15,000 (GST exclusive) under Community Grants Program:

Applicant Name

Project Name

Amount

Liverpool Women’s Health Centre

Liverpool Women's Health Centre Safety Hub

$15,000

2.    Endorses the recommended provision of $4,000 to support the sponsorship request from Vedic Festival Inc.

 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


31

 

ITEM NO:       DCC 03

FILE NO:        155923.2017

SUBJECT:     Draft Cultural Policy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Adopts the Draft Cultural Policy; and

2.       Brings forth a report in September 2017 detailing a Draft Cultural Strategy and Action Plan for public exhibition.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


31

 

City Corporate Report

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 01

FILE NO:        153632.2017

SUBJECT:     Investment Report May 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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


33

 

ITEM NO:       CFO 02

FILE NO:        160439.2017

SUBJECT:     Minutes of Budget Review Panel 25 May 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the minutes of the Budget Review Panel meeting held on 25 May 2017.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That Council adopts the minutes of the Budget Review Panel meeting held on 25 May 2017 subject to the spelling of Clr Tony Hadchiti’s name being corrected on page 2 of the minutes. 

 

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

 


33

 

City Presentation Report

 

ITEM NO:       DCP 01

FILE NO:        162661.2017

SUBJECT:     Big Bag Project Trial

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.   Acknowledges that the cost savings and increased resource recovery outcomes envisaged for the Big Bag Household Waste Collection Service have not been realised by the Big Bag Project Trial - Phase 1;

 

2.   Does not proceed with the Big Bag Project Trial – Phase 2; and

 

3.   Advises the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) of the outcomes of the Big Bag Project Trial – Phase 1.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council:

  1. Acknowledges that the cost savings and increased resource recovery outcomes envisaged for the Big Bag Household Waste Collection Service have not been realised by the Big Bag Project Trial - Phase 1;

 

  1. Does not proceed with the Big Bag Project Trial – Phase 2; and

 

  1. Advises the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) of the outcomes of the Big Bag Project Trial – Phase 1; and

 

  1. Commend staff for their time and effort and the culture of continual improvement and innovation in pursuing this trial.

 

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

 

 


35

 

Economic Development Report

 

ITEM NO:       DEE 01

FILE NO:        153974.2017

SUBJECT:     Smart Hub Feasibility Report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Endorses further investigation on the establishment of a Smart Work Hub or alternative facility in Liverpool; and

 

2.       That a further report on these investigations be bought back to Council in the 2017/18 third quarter

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


35

 

Committee Reports

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 01

FILE NO:        152881.2017

SUBJECT:     Liverpool Youth Council Minutes of meeting held 10 May 2017 and Meeting Notes of meetings held on 12 April 2017 and 8 March 2017.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 10 May 2017 and the meeting notes of the Liverpool Youth Council meetings held on 12 April 2017 and 8 March 2017.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


37

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 02

FILE NO:        155727.2017

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee 19 May 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 May 2017.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


41

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 03

FILE NO:        157532.2017

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 17 May 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the following recommendations in the Minutes as follows:

i)    Item 1 - Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm, road widening - proposed signs and linemarking.

·     Council notes the signs and linemarking scheme required for the proposed traffic signals, as shown in Attachments 1.1 to1.6. 

·     The approval of signs and linemarking scheme as presented, be deferred until the signs and linemarking scheme associated with the Traffic Control Signals has been approved by the Roads and Maritime Services.

·     The signs and linemarking scheme be presented to the Roads and Maritime Services and Police for approval under delegated authority.

·     Council advises the Australian Turf Club of its decision.

ii)   Item 2 - Flowerdale Road and Memorial Avenue intersection, Liverpool proposed signs and linemarking.

 

·     Council notes the signs and linemarking scheme required for the proposed traffic signals, as shown in Attachment 2.1.

 

·     The approval of signs and linemarking scheme as presented, be deferred until the signs and linemarking scheme associated with the Traffic Control Signals has been approved by the Roads and Maritime Services.

 

·     Council undertakes appropriate community consultation prior to installation of the traffic signals, and associated signs and linemarking scheme.

 

·     The signs and linemarking scheme is to be presented to the Roads and Maritime Services and Police for approval under delegated authority.

iii)  Item 3 - Proposed change to bus route 827 and associated bus stops, Cecil Hills

·     Council approves the installation of bus zones at:

a.    Frederick Road near Alice Place on the northern and southern side of the road

b.    Frederick Road in front of Cecil Hills High School on the northern and southern side of the road

c.    Airfield Drive near Aviation Drive

d.    Airfield Drive before and after Big W driveway

·     All stakeholders be informed including notification to local residents.

·     The existing bus stops/zone along Gabriella Street and Spencer Street be decommissioned and the existing bus shelters be relocated.

·     Council advises Transport for NSW of the new bus stop locations and decommissioning of bus shelters.     

iv)  Item 4 - Newbridge Road and Kelso Crescent intersection, Moorebank - proposed no right turn into Newbridge Road.

·     Council approves the installation of a ‘No Right Turn’ restriction from Kelso Crescent into Newbridge Road, subject to the approval of a Traffic Management Plan by the Roads and Maritime Services.

·     Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

v)   Item 5 - Liverpool City Centre - proposed special community event ‘Festival of Chariots’

·     Council classifies the event as a Class 2 Special Event with all associated conditions including:

a.    Submission of a Traffic Management Plan

b.    Police approval and management of the street parade and rolling road closures

c.    Advertisement of event in the local papers

d.    Submission of public liability insurance

e.    Payment of Council fees and charges for occupation of the car park

·     Council notes the closure of the ground floor of Northumberland Street Car Park for the special event between 5.00am and 4:00pm.

·     Council arranges a meeting with the event organisers, Police and Transit Systems to ensure that the impacts of the event are minimised.

·     All stakeholders be notified accordingly.

vi)  Item 6 - Sappho Road, Warwick Farm - proposed marked parking spaces

·     Council approves the signs and linemarking of the unrestricted parallel kerbside parking spaces along Sappho Road, Warwick Farm.

·     Council advises Masterton Homes Display Village of its decision and confirms the arrangement for installation and maintenance of the sign and linemarking at no cost to Council.

 

vii)        Item 7 - Terminus Street and Charles Street, Liverpool - proposed ‘No Right Turn’ restriction.

·     Council approves the installation of ‘No Right Turn’ restriction from Terminus Street into Charles Street, subject to the approval of a Traffic Management Plan by the Roads and Maritime Services.

·     Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

viii)       Item 8 - National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee         (NAIDOC) Street Parade – Liverpool CBD – special community event

·     Council classifies the NAIDOC street parade as a Class 4 Special Event with all associated conditions including:

a)    Submission of a Traffic Management Plan

b)    Police approval and management of the street parade and rolling road closures

c)    Advertisement of event in the local papers

d)    Submission of public liability insurance

e)    Payment of Council fees and charges for occupation of the car park

·            All stakeholders be notified accordingly.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That the recommendation be adopted with an additional point to be added to Item 4, so that in full it reads as follows:

 

iv)  Item 4 - Newbridge Road and Kelso Crescent intersection, Moorebank - proposed no right turn into Newbridge Road.

·                    Council approves the installation of a ‘No Right Turn’ restriction from Kelso Crescent into Newbridge Road, subject to the approval of a Traffic Management Plan by the Roads and Maritime Services.

·                    Council expresses concern that the No Right Turn restriction may create traffic issues down the road at the industrial area and that Council officers provide further information to Councillors on the matter, and if need be, report back to the Traffic Committee.

 

·                    Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

 

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


Clr Balloot left the Chambers at 8.36pm.

Clr Balloot returned to the Chambers at 8.38pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 04

FILE NO:        160847.2017

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 23 May 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council: 

 

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 23 May 2017.

 

2.   Endorses the draft Community Nursery and Environmental Education Centre Options Analysis Report.

 

3.   Establishes a long-term supply contract for the provision of plant and nursery products and services to meet Council’s ongoing requirements.

 

4.   Incorporates an Environmental Education Centre into the planning for a future Community Facility.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved Clr Shelton               Seconded Clr Hagarty

 

That Council: 

 

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 23 May 2017.

 

2.   Endorses the draft Community Nursery and Environmental Education Centre Options Analysis Report and continues to take steps in relation to the implementation of Option 2 thereof. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Division called (on Clr Hadchiti’s motion):

 

Vote for:        Clr Ayyad       

                        Clr Balloot

                        Clr Hadchiti

                        Clr Hadid        

                        Clr Harle

                        Clr Rhodes

 

Vote against: Mayor Waller

                        Clr Hagarty

                        Clr Kaliyanda

                        Clr Karnib

                        Clr Shelton


43

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 05

FILE NO:        163435.2017

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 13 June 2017

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receive and note the Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 June 2017.

 

2.       Endorse the recommendations in the Minutes, with the exception of the following recommendation, and note that a separate report will be submitted to the July 2017 Council meeting on the following recommendation;

 

That the Civic Advisory Committee recommends to Council to proceed with the design of a statue in honour of Thomas Moore and report back to the Committee. Various sites to be examined, with the Committee’s preferred site for the statue being Thomas Moore Park or the Hospital Precinct”. 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


43

 

Questions with Notice

ITEM NO:       QWN 01

FILE NO:        165895.2017

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Harle

 

These questions relate to the current state of the Liverpool CBD.

Visitors to the Liverpool CBD area have expressed concern at the rapidly increasing amounts of black chewing gum ingrained on the pavement including the recently refurbished Mall.

The current state of the pavements detracts from the efforts of Council Staff to maintain areas free from litter. It is also disappointing to see that people are not using rubbish bins within a few metres of where they leave their litter behind.

Please address the following:

·         Is Council aware of the increasing amounts of Chewing Gum in the CBD in general and particularly in the Mall?

·         Has Council abandoned the use of the Special Purpose Chewing Gum Removal Machine purchased at substantial cost of around $80,000?

·         Has Council considered the use of weekend Corrective Services Detention offenders to remove the chewing gum from pavement surfaces in the CBD as proposed some time ago?

·         Does Council have a plan on addressing this issue and littering in the CBD and Mall areas in general?

·         Is it possible to display appropriate warning signs that include the scheduled fines in appropriate areas within the CBD?

·         Has Council considered fining offenders as per the current applicable scheduled fines?

General littering

Littering is subject to a tiered range of fines under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997:

  • $80 for littering small items, such as bottle tops and cigarette butts

·         $250 for general littering,

·         $250 for an individual littering from a vehicle ($500 for corporations)

·         $450 for littering in dangerous circumstances, such as depositing a syringe or a lit cigarette ($900 for corporations).

More information here: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/regulations/2014-564.pdf

A response to these questions will be provided in the July 2017 Business Papers.

 


45

 

PRESENTATIONS BY COUNCILLORS

 

Nil

Confidential Items

ITEM NO:       CONF 01

FILE NO:        163379.2017

SUBJECT:     Legal Affairs Report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the report concerning the Legal Affairs of Council.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved:      Clr Hadid            Seconded: Clr Balloot

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.44pm

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Wendy Waller

Title:     Mayor

Date:     26 July 2017

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on  28 June 2017. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

   


47

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

 

IHAP 01

DA-104/2016 - Demolition of two dwellings and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development at 13 Maxwells Avenue and 4 Devlin Street, Ashcroft

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments

File Ref

180008.2017

Report By

George Nehme - Senior Development Planner

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

Property

13 Maxwells Avenue & 4 Devlin Street, Ashcroft

Owner

Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd

Applicant

Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-104/2016, proposing the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing 7 dwellings above a basement carpark at 13 Maxwells Avenue and 4 Devlin Street, Ashcroft. This application was lodged on 15 February 2016.

 

Due to the application receiving more than five unresolved objections and pursuant to requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the 29 May 2017 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP).

 

The IHAP recommendation was that determination of the application be deferred until the applicant provides the additional information described in the panel minutes. The IHAP advised that if the applicant cannot demonstrate that reasonable offers have been put and rejected for the purchase of the neighbouring site to enable site amalgamations, the panel recommends the application be refused. If a reasonable offer to purchase 11 Maxwells Ave is accepted, the panel recommends that the applicant be requested to withdraw the application as that site should be included in any future development application.

 

Following the IHAP meeting, correspondence was received from the applicant advising the negotiations with the owner of 11 Maxwells Street had failed. However, Council officers have not been provided with evidence that reasonable offers have been put to and rejected by the owners of 11 Maxwell’s Avenue, and as a result, and consistent with the recommendation of the IHAP, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

On 29 May 2017, a request was received from Councillors Rhodes, Harle and Kaliyanda that the application be referred to a future Council meeting for determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council refuse Development Application DA-104/2016 for the following reasons;

 

1.   The development is inconsistent with Part 5(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposed development results in the isolation of the adjoining site and is therefore not orderly development of land;

 

2.   The development is inconsistent with the zoning objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008). The development will not ensure a high level of residential amenity is maintained due to potential site isolation. Therefore, the objective regarding residential amenity within the R3 Medium Density zone cannot be achieved, pursuant to Sections 79C(1)(a)(i), 79C(1)(a)(iii) 79C(1)(b) and 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning  & Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act 1979);

 

3.   The development does not comply with Part 3.6, Section 2 (Subdivision, Frontage and Lot Size) of the LDCP 2008, which stipulates for developments proposed under Section 4 of Part 3.6 a minimum lot width of 18m is required. The proposal does not provide the minimum 18m lot width required for multi-dwelling housing pursuant to Sections 79C(1)(a)(iii), 79C(1)(b), 79C(1)(c) and 79C(1)(d) of the EP & A Act 1979;

 

4.   The subject site is not considered suitable for the development, pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c); and

 

5.   Due to the above reasons, approval of the application is not in the public interest pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the EP & A Act 1979.

 

 

Background

 

Council has received and considered a development application DA-104/2016, proposing the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing 7 dwellings above basement carpark at 13 Maxwells Avenue and 4 Devlin Street, Ashcroft.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP) on two separate occasions. A total of 23 submissions were received objecting to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions relate to over-development of the site, increased density, privacy, site isolation, setbacks, height, overshadowing and insufficient separation between driveways.

 

The Site

 

The site is identified as Lots 81 and 83 in DP 216018 and is located at 13 Maxwells Avenue and 4 Devlin Street Ashcroft. It is an irregularly shaped site with a frontage to Maxwells Avenue of 18.898m, and to Devlin Street of 18.9m. The total site area is 1,256.2m², and has a slope from the western corner to the eastern corner (street frontage) of approximately 1m.

 

Currently, the subject site contains two single storey dwellings and associated outbuildings with the only significant vegetation being a large eucalyptus tree located in the front setback of No.13 Maxwells Avenue. The entirety of the site is identified as being low risk flood prone land.

 

Figure 1: Aerial View of the Subject Site

 

The locality is predominately characterised by existing low density residential development. The site is approximately 120m south-east of the intersection of Maxwells Avenue and Elizabeth Drive. Approximately 60m to the south-east is a large area of public reserve through which flows Cabramatta Creek.

 

Figure 2: Locality Map

 

details of the proposal

 

The proposed development consists of:

 

·    Demolition of two existing dwellings and associated structures;

·    Construction of 7 x 2 storey townhouses (2 x 2-bedroom and 5 x 3-bedroom); and

·    A total of 15 car parking spaces, 9 of which are located in a basement carparking area accessed off Devlin Avenue.

 

Site Layout

 

The proposed site layout results in two (2) dwellings facing Maxwells Avenue and one (1) townhouse fronting Devlin Street. Four (4) dwellings have no direct street access and are provided with basement parking accessed from a driveway off the Devlin Street frontage.

 

Basement

 

The basement carpark provides for nine (9) car parking spaces. The basement is accessed off a 5.9m wide driveway from Devlin Street along the southern side of No. 4 Devlin Street.  Stairs from the basement provide access to Units 3-6 and to Devlin Street. An extract of the proposed site plan and elevations are provided in Figures 3 and 4 below. 

 

Figure 3: Site Plan

 

 

Figure 4: Elevations

 

the issues

 

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008), within which the proposed development is permissible with consent.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to the suitability of the site for the proposed development having regard to the isolation of an adjacent corner lot and non-compliance with Council’s DCP. In addition, there are unresolved objections to the proposal which are discussed in this report

 

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

 

At their meeting on 29 May 2017 the IHAP made the following recommendation:

 

IHAP recommendation

Agreed/Not Agreed

Council Officer’s comment

The panel recommends that determination of the application be deferred until the applicant provides the additional information described in the report. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that reasonable offers have been put and rejected, the panel recommends the application be refused. If the reasonable offer to purchase 11 Maxwells Ave is accepted, the panel recommends that the applicant be requested to withdraw the application.

Agreed

The applicant has not demonstrated that a reasonable offer have been made and rejected, as such it is considered appropriate that the application is refused.

 

Consultation

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP) on two separate occasions. A total of 23 submissions were received objecting to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions relate to over-development of the site, increased density, privacy, site isolation, setbacks, height, overshadowing and insufficient separation between driveways.

 

Council officers have provided detailed comments in response to the submissions which are contained within the attached IHAP report.


 

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposed development is permissible within the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone under LLEP 2008. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 zone and does not provide for an orderly development of land. Therefore the proposal is not considered worthy of support. On this basis, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

Legislative

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

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

2.         IHAP Recommendation (Under separate cover)

3.         Applicant and Land Owner Details (Under separate cover)    


55

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 01

Erosion and Sediment Control Policy

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Create clean and attractive public places for people to engage and connect

File Ref

151297.2017

Report By

Peta Kinnane - Coordinator Planning, Policy and Process

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of the report is to recommend reclassification of the revised Erosion and Sediment Control Policy to a Category 3 Operational Policy.  The policy is designed to guide council staff in developing a consistent and integrated approach to erosion and sediment control in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan.  An operational policy, as outlined in Council’s Standards for Policies and Procedures, is adopted by the CEO under section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.         Adopt and reclassify the revised Erosion and Sediment Control policy included as Attachment 1 to the report as a Category 3 – Council Operational Policy under the Standards for Council policies and procedure; and

 

2.         Include the Erosion and Sediment Control policy on Council’s Policy Register and Council’s website.

 

REPORT

 

Council at its meeting of 25 October 2004 resolved to adopt a new Erosion and Sediment Control Policy.  The policy was established to develop a consistent and integrated approach to erosion and sediment control for development assessment officers, engineers, operations and enforcement officers across Council.

 

It was also designed to provide additional information on erosion prevention and sediment control to support the provisions contained within Council’s Development Control Plan.

 

With this in mind, the revised policy has been reviewed to ensure Council has an updated functioning mechanism in place to enable guidance to Council officers to assess, analyes, and report any disturbance in clearing, leveling, shaping and excavating of the existing soil surface and or vegetation on any site being developed. 

 

As part of this review, various other local government agencies were consulted to obtain an understanding of current best practice processes.  This revised policy, included as Attachment 1, has been developed to implement assessment checklists and example plans associated with erosion and sediment control for council officers ease whilst carrying out the relevant assessments.  This policy was also developed in consultation with Community Standards, Development Assessment, Development Engineering, City Presentation, City Infrastructure and Environment and Governance and Legal Services with City Corporate. 

 

Standard conditions and a template for enforcement have also been introduced into the revised policy.  The policy also includes various fact sheets to assist the community in understanding how to minimise erosion and sediment control within the Liverpool council area.

 

Internal departments within Council were consulted as part of this process including Development Assessment, Development Engineering and Community Standards.

 

As part of council’s adopted standards for policies and procedures, this policy should now be identifyed as a Council Operational Policy (Category 3).

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.

Environment

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution.

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.

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

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

 


Social

Support policies and plans that prevent crime.

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


Civic Leadership

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

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

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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.

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

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Erosion & Sediment Control Policy (Under separate cover)  


57

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 02

On-Site Sewage Management Systems DCP Amendment

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments

File Ref

173959.2017

Report By

Kieran Woolfe - Strategic Planner

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council resolved at its meeting of 22 February 2017 to exhibit Draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP 2008) Amendment 27 relating to on-site sewage management systems (OSMSs). The amendment was publicly exhibited in line with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, and no submissions were received.

 

This report summarises the amendment and the public exhibition process and recommends that the amendment be adopted.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes this report detailing the public exhibition of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Draft Amendment No. 27)

 

2.       Adopt Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Draft Amendment No. 27).

 

REPORT

 

Background

Land in the rural areas of Liverpool is generally not serviced with reticulated sewerage, and occupants must either dispose of sewerage onsite or use pump-out services. Operation and installation of on-site sewerage management systems (OSMSs) requires Council’s approval under s68 of the Local Government Act 1993, and Part 1.15 of Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP 2008) provides controls for development applications relying on or involving an OSMS.

Part 1.15 of LDCP 2008 was reviewed by Council’s environmental health department in 2016, and a draft amendment was developed. This amendment aims to strengthen the current OSMS controls to achieve environmentally and economically sustainable outcomes in development applications where reticulated sewerage is not available and to provide additional information on submission requirements and processes to potential applications.

At its meeting on 22 February 2017 Council resolved:

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);

 

2.   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.

 

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

Draft Amendment 27 (the OSMS DCP amendment) was placed on public exhibition from 15 March 2017 until close of business on 14 April 2017. This report follows that exhibition.

A separate report to Council at its 26 April 2017 meeting provided responses to items 2(i), 2(ii) and 3 of the above resolution. The cost of implementing a pump out assistance scheme to the 74 premises registered with ‘pump-out systems’ within the LGA was reported to be $337,026 - $506,642. Regarding this report, Council resolved:

That Council notes the report and not proceed with a “pump-out assistance scheme” due to high on-going annual costs that would be incurred by Council.

DCP Amendment

Draft Amendment 27 replaces the current LDCP 2008 Part 1.15, and adds three new controls as well as information about Council’s current assessment practices and requirements.

The new controls in the DCP are:

1.   Developments relying on pump-out systems will not be approved by Council.

Comment: This control reflects the heightened risk of unauthorised discharge of effluent into the environment which may result in response to the high cost of operation of pump-out systems. The control conforms to relevant guidelines such as Department of Local Government 1998, On-site Sewage Management for Single Households.

2.   Proposals relying on OSMS will not be approved on land within 75m of a reticulated sewerage system.

 

3.   When a reticulated sewerage service becomes available within 75m of a property, existing OSMS must be decommissioned, removed or re-used in accordance with the relevant regulations.


Comment: These controls seek to ensure that an existing OSMS is not operated or retained after reticulated sewerage is provided.

Draft Amendment 27 also contains information reflecting OSMS applications and Council’s assessment practices. This includes:

·    Requirements for submission of a wastewater report;

·    Details regarding the calculation of wastewater flows for an OSMS;

·    Diagrammatic illustration of subdivision and setback requirements for an OSMS from dwellings and waterways;

·    Standards and guidelines with which an OSMS must comply; and

·    Advice on operating an OSMS, inspections and modification applications.

Applicability of DCP Amendment

It is noted that the DCP provides standards which apply only to development applications. Council approval is required under s68 of the Local Government Act 1993 to install or operate an OSMS, but DCP standards do not compel land owners and occupants to act in any way unless they undertake development which requires development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA 1979). As such, the DCP amendment does not restrict the use of existing OSMSs that are legally operated.

If a new development or use of a site is proposed which requires development consent, then Council assesses the application in line with the EPAA 1979 and any relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plans, including the LDCP 2008. If Draft Amendment 27 is approved, Council could require applicants for development consent not to rely on pump-out systems and to decommission OSMSs and connect to reticulated sewerage if it is available. This would ensure economically and environmentally sustainable outcomes for developments relying on OSMSs.

Public Exhibition

Draft Amendment 27 was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 from 15 March 2017 until 14 April 2017 (31 days). Notices were placed in the local newspaper and on Council’s website.

No submissions were received.

Draft Amendment 27 has been reformatted and reworded in a minor way after public exhibition in order to clarify some controls, and to conform to the format of the newer sections of the DCP. No changes have been made to the meaning or possible outcomes of the Amendment.


CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.

Environment

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution.

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.


Social

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership

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

Legislative

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Local Government Act 1993 – s.68.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft LDCP 2008 Amendment No 27

2.         Exhibited version of Amendment 27 with post-exhibition changes


61

DPG 02

On-Site Sewage Management Systems DCP Amendment

Attachment 1

Draft LDCP 2008 Amendment No 27

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


73

DPG 02

On-Site Sewage Management Systems DCP Amendment

Attachment 2

Exhibited version of Amendment 27 with post-exhibition changes

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


75

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 03

Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) - Shepherd Street Planning Proposal

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Strive for best practice in all Council processes

File Ref

180544.2017

Report By

Ash Chand - Executive Planner

Approved By

Chris White - Director City Corporate

 

Property

20-33 Shepherd Street, Liverpool

Owner

Shepherd Street Developments Pty Limited

Coronation Pty Limited

Shepherd Property Nominee Pty Limited

Applicant

Mecone

 

 

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting on 29 June 2016, Council resolved to support an application to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 for land located at 20, 26, 28, 31, 32 and 33 Shepherd Street, Liverpool, and to submit the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination.

Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 65) seeks to increase the principal development standards of building height (HOB) and floor the space ratio (FSR) across the subject site, from the current 24m HOB and 1.5:1 FSR, to a maximum of 77m HOB and a maximum of 3.7:1 FSR. The R4 High Density Residential zoning for the site remains unchanged. The main objective of the planning proposal is to intensify the existing land use by increasing HOB and FSR to facilitate the development of approximately 1,200 residential units across the subject properties. It is noted the current LEP development standards enable the delivery of approximately 600-800 residential units.

This report details the conditions of the Gateway Determination and the results of the public exhibition and community consultation for draft Amendment 65. This report also updates Council on the details of a draft planning agreement (VPA) submitted by the proponent as an offer of public benefits in conjunction with the draft amendment. The VPA proposes improvements to local infrastructure and mitigation measures to offset the potential impacts as a result of the proposed development and increased density.

Whilst the increased density on the subject site from the amendment to the LEP is likely to have impacts within the local area and its surroundings, the specific components of the public benefits package offered by the proponent as they relate to upgrading public infrastructure, including works proposed to revitalise and activate sections of the Georges River adjacent to the subject site which are in Council ownership, will contribute to the overall improvement of those portions of the Georges River, which will yield a benefit to the local community.

The approach is also in line with Council objectives to revitalise and activate the sections of Georges River which are in proximity to the Liverpool CBD, to provide greater amenity to the local community.

At its meeting on 28 June 2017, Council resolved to defer the matter until further information was provided on the traffic impacts of the proposal. In response to the resolution, Council officers subsequently arranged an extraordinary briefing session on 17 July 2017, with GTA Traffic Consultants in attendance to provide representations and clarify any issues for the councillors.

As a result of the briefing, the recommendations outlined in Council Report DPG02 on 28 June 2017 will remain unchanged. This report, therefore, recommends Council support the making of draft Amendment 65 (Attachment 1) and forward the updated proposal and supporting documentation to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for finalisation, subject to Council resolving to endorse and place on public exhibition the draft VPA (Attachment 2).

This report also recommends that the CEO, or her delegate, be granted delegation to finalise and execute the VPA following its public exhibition, subject to no submissions with respect to the Planning Agreement being received, prior to the gazettal of Amendment 65.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.       Note the Gateway Determination for draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 65) and the results of the public exhibition and community consultation;

 

2.       Subject to Item 3 and Item 4, forwards the updated Planning Proposal and supporting documentation to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalization;

 

3.       Endorse and places on public exhibition the draft Planning Agreement offered by the proponent in conjunction with the Planning Proposal; and

 

4.       Delegate authority to the CEO, or to her delegate, to execute the Planning Agreement following its public exhibition, if no submissions are received with respect to the Planning Agreement.

 

Report

Site Context and Background

Draft Amendment 65, otherwise known as the Shepherd Street Planning Proposal, encompasses 20, 26, 28, 31, 32 and 33 Shepherd Street, Liverpool. The subject site (depicted in Figure 1) is approximately 3.1 hectares in total area. It is located on the eastern edge of Shepherd Street, south of the intersection with Atkinson Street and is bounded by the western bank of the Georges River. To its immediate south is Mill Park and the road which leads to the Casula Powerhouse.

The subject site is of an irregular configuration, located on the narrowing peninsula as it moves south along the river. In walking distance, it is approximately 1.2km south of the Liverpool Train Station and the Liverpool City Centre and 1.8km north of the Casula Powerhouse.

Figure 1: Planning Proposal Site 20, 26, 28, 31, 32 and 33 Shepherd Street, Liverpool

Currently, under LLEP 2008, the subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential. Draft Amendment 65 retains the R4 zoning and instead seeks to permit greater HOB and FSR across the site to facilitate increased density. The changes proposed to LLEP 2008 in relation the subject properties are outlined in the following table.

Property

Existing HOB

Proposed HOB

Existing FSR

Proposed FSR

20 Shepherd Street

24m

29m, 76m

1.5:1

3.3:1

26 Shepherd Street

24m

45m

1.5:1

3.7:1

28 Shepherd Street

24m

20m, 58m, 68m

1.5:1

3.6:1

32 Shepherd Street

24m

56m

1.5:1

3.6:1

33 Shepherd Street

24m

65m

1.5:1

3.5:1

31 Shepherd Street

24m

77m

1.5:1

3.5:1

 

The concept design of the proposed development, in terms of height and massing of the proposed development that may result from draft Amendment 65 across the subject properties, and within the Shepherd Street preicint as a whole, is illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2:  Concept Massing of Development Proposal

The proposed changes to LLEP 2008 Map with regard to the principal development standard of HOB is shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3:  Existing and Proposed Height of Building Maps

The proposed changes to LLEP 2008 Map with regard to the principal development standard of FSR is shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Floor Space Ratio Maps

As noted above, the subject site includes 20 Shepherd Street, which is a local heritage item, listed under Schedule 5 of LLEP 2008. This property, also known as the “Paper Mill,” was a granted development consent in October 2015 (DA-1010/2014) for two residential flat buildings, 9 and 15 storeys, with a total 247 units. The subject site also includes 28 Shepherd Street, which was granted a development consent in January 2017 (DA-612/2015) for two residential flat buildings, 6 and 7 storeys, with a total of 140 units.

With the making of LLEP 2008, the Shepherd Street precinct, south of Atkinson Street, which encompasses the subject site, was zoned from IN1 General Industrial to R4 High Density Residential. The dominant character of the site, as well as the properties on the western side of Shepherd Street, remain largely industrial, notwithstanding the development consent for residential has been granted for 20 Shepherd Street and 28 Shepherd Street. Both these properties are under the same ownership interest, made up of Shepherd Street Developments and Coronation Property respectively.

Planning Proposal

In September 2015, the proponent (Coronation Property) lodged the planning proposal with Council. The initial application was for selected properties which included 20, 28, 31 and 33 Shepherd Street, Liverpool. These properties were either already held by the proponent or were in their commercial interest, as in the case of 31 Shepherd Street which is currently owned by Council.

In response to concerns raised by Council officers in the proponent’s disjointed treatment of isolated properties, significant offsetting on adjacent and adjoining properties and the lack of consent from adjoining landowners, the proponent modified their proposal in March 2016 to also include 26 and 32 Shepherd Street (owned by Shepherd Street Nominee).

At that time, Council officers also emphasised the absence of a comprehensive approach in addressing the constraints presented by the Shepherd Street precinct, in terms of the potential impacts of the proposed development on immediate, and surrounding areas and on the larger catchment, in terms of its capacity to support the increased residential densities and the resultant demand for additional infrastructure that may be required to support the proposed densities.

Council officers assessing the application held some concerns about the scale and scope of the proposed development, as reflected by proponent’s urban design report. The key issues identified at that time were with regard to the potential visual impacts and juxtaposition of the mass of development proposed to its surrounding and its disproportionate character in relation the immediate area and proximity to the Liverpool CBD.

The assessment found the subject site did not possess a strong correlation between density and connectivity. Generally, higher densities are best supported in locations that either function as, contribute towards, or form a part of an activity node or hub. The development potential of a site is based on its capacity to either deliver mixed and higher uses within the site itself, or alternatively its proximity to existing mixed and higher uses, including access to public transport, employment, services, recreational and community facilities, schools, amenities, etc. The redevelopment of a site for higher density should also yield multiple and diverse housing options. This is a straightforward, evidence-based approach to land-use planning and place-making.

As the Shepherd Street precinct is approximately 1.2km from Liverpool CBD and found to be lacking permeability and connectivity to the broader catchment, increasing densities as proposed on the subject site would likely lead to the increased traffic generation within the catchment as well as social impacts due to the inadequate public infrastructure and community facilities in proximity to support the proposed development.

The proposal was subsequently modified by the proponent to reflect some of the concerns raised by Council officers and, through revised studies to assess urban design, transport and mobility, and social impacts it was also proposed by the proponent that an offer of a public benefits would be provided with the intent to mitigate the potential impacts and to provide improvements to existing community assets and to create new assets, subject to Council agreement.

The offer of public benefits through a VPA to support the Shepherd Street Planning Proposal provides opportunities for Council to activate and revitalise a portion of the Georges River, to create new and improved local assets for the community. Furthermore, the offer provides contributions towards the improvement of local and regional road infrastructure and opportunities to provide public and active transport infrastructure which will contribute towards improving the connectivity and permeability of the site to its surroundings, and address concerns raised in the assessment.

On this basis, and on the condition that the proponent revise the planning proposal to provide additional information in support of the proposed development specifically with regard to assessments of urban design, transport and mobility, and social impacts, Council resolved to support the application by Coronation Property and submit the planning proposal to DPE seeking Gateway Determination.

At its Ordinary Meeting on 29 June 2016, it was resolved (Attachment 3):

That Council:

1.   Endorses in principle the modified planning proposal for 20-33 Shepherd Street, Liverpool for increased density on the existing R4 site;

 

2.   Delegates to the A/CEO the authority to finalise the planning proposal and submit to DPE for Gateway Approval, subject to submission of the following:

a.   An urban design analysis;

b.   A transport and mobility study; and

c.   A comprehensive social impact assessment.

 

3.   Notes that the A/CEO will finalise negotiations regarding the proposed voluntary planning agreement and public benefit offer and any other relevant conditions as required to support the proposal, with a report to be presented to a future Council meeting.

In relation to Item 2 of the resolution, those analyses were completed and the planning proposal for Shepherd Street was updated to reflect the studies, which in turn was forwarded to DPE seeking Gateway Determination.

It is noted here that Council commissioned independent peer reviews of both the transport and mobility study, which was undertaken by GTA Consultants on behalf of Council, and the social impact study, which was undertaken by Judith Stubbs and Associates on behalf of Council. Both the peer reviews were completed during the post-Gateway period and informed the key considerations for the VPA and the public benefits package.

As these reports are of substantial volume, the executive summaries of the analyses are attached for the reference of Council and public (Attachment 4). The full reports are publically available on council’s website (e-planning portal), and may also be provided to councillors directly via the Councillor Request system.

Gateway Determination

A Gateway Determination for the planning proposal was issued by DPE on 9 September 2016 (Attachment 5). The Determination required that draft Amendment 65 address a number of conditions. The following sections highlight Gateway conditions, the issues raised and provides a discussion of the actions undertaken by Council to meet those conditions.

Acid Sulfate Soils Study and Contaminated Land Assessment

Condition 1 of the Gateway determination required an acid sulfate soils assessment and contaminated land assessment be prepared prior to the public exhibition of the planning proposal. This was to satisfy the requirements of Section 117 Directions 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils and State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land.

Environmental Investigations Australia, on behalf of the proponent, prepared a statement of environmental effects for acid sulfate soils and potential contamination for the subject site. This was received by Council on 29 September 2016 and forwarded to DPE for review. The assessment of acid sulfate soils noted that the risk posed was considered to be low. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated that the tested soils to depths of up to 5m below fill were unlikely to be affected by actual acid soil sulfate or potential acid sulfate soils.

In terms of contamination, the assessment concluded that the properties were suitable for redevelopment process, providing optimal opportunity for the removal of both primary and secondary sources of contamination, mainly through the excavation process and remediation works.

On 12 October 2016, Council received correspondence that the assessment satisfactorily addressed Condition 1 of the Determination Notice (Attachment 6).

Inconsistency with Section 117 Directions

The Secretary’s delegate noted in the Determination notice that the proposal was inconsistent with the following Section 117 Directions, however found these to be of minor significance:

·    2.1 Environment Protection Zones

·    3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

·    4.3 Flood Prone Land

Community Consultation

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

Draft Amendment 65 was placed on public exhibition from 26 October 2016 to the close of business 25 November 2016, with placement of notifications in the local paper, the Liverpool Leader, notification on Council’s website, and placement of exhibition materials in Council’s Administration Centre at 33 Moore Street.

As a result of the public exhibition, Council received one submission from the community. The main points of the submission (Attachment 7), and the Officer’s response is summarised below.

Public Submission Themes

Officer Response

Car Parking Impacts:

Consideration to be given to car parking for tenants, visitors or industrial estate tenants

 

Car parking provisions under the Liverpool DCP 2008 ensures that any future development will provide sufficient car parking for residents and visitors.

Access to Education:

Where will the children go to school?

 

The Department of Education and Communities did not raise any objection to the planning proposal.

Flooding:

The area has continually been inundated by flooding

 

Council has developed the Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (FRMP) for the Georges River in accordance with the Guideline of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (FDM) 2005.  Flood modelling was undertaken for full range of the floods up to the probable maximum flood (PMF) and flood risk maps were prepared as part of development of FRMP.

The site is located on the low risk flood zone and the corresponding flood planning level (FPL) for residential development is 1%AEP flood + 0.5m freeboard, which is 10.4m AHD.

It should be noted that the adopted FPL for the site is consistent with the State Government’s Flood Policy and Planning Circular dated 31 January 2007 on Section 117 direction & EPA Regulation on Flood Prone Land.

Consequently, the one submission received from the member of the public is not considered significant enough to preclude any change to the draft amendment.

Public Authority Consultation

Public authority consultation was undertaken in accordance with section 56(2)(d) of the Act 1979, and as required under Condition 4 and 5 of the Determination Notice.

Council provided the public authorities with a copy of the draft amendment, and the authorities were given a minimum of 28 days to comments with extensions where required, and late comments were accepted. The draft amendment was forwarded to the relevant public authorities on 26 October 2016 with comments due by close of business on 9 December 2016.

The main points of each of the submissions (refer to Attachment 8), and the Officer’s response is summarised below.

Public Authority

Public Authority Comments

Council Officer Comments

DPI Fisheries

DPI recommended the public pathway along Georges River be constructed above and outside the top of the river bank.

Concerns were raised regarding stability of the bank in relation to floodwaters and the erosion and slumping of banks if the riparian corridor is cleared for the boardwalk.

It was pointed out that Appendix 6 of planning proposal is inaccurate in its consideration of the bank stability issues and land degradation issues as required under the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environment Plan No.2 – Georges River.

As part of the VPA negotiations, the public pathway along the Georges River will be assessed at the application stage by Council under Part 5 of the Act. Appropriate assessment of the subject site and the larger Georges River precinct will be undertaken to determine the bank stability having regard to both flood events and storm water discharge, and with consideration to the rehabilitated vegetated riparian zone (VRZ).

DPI Water

DPI Water raised concerns regarding Vegetated Riparian Zones and the proposed encroachment by the development into the inner 50% of the riparian zone and the requirements for providing offsets. 

DPI Water requested a scaled plan demonstrating an agreed approach to the precinct development in terms of offsets of development within the Vegetated Riparian Zones.

The proposed development of the precinct should be able to demonstrate consistency with the DPI Water Guidelines for Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land (2012).

The proponent has submitted a scaled precinct plan which highlights the proposed development footprint, highest bank, the 40m VRZ plus inner and outer VRZs, and areas of offsets and encroachments for the entire precinct.

DPI Water agreed at the meeting held at the Minister’s office on 3 November 2016 that currently built upon land in the Inner Vegetated Riparian Zone (VRZ) can be used as part of offsetting for development incursions into the Outer 50% VRZ. The proponents scaled precinct plan is considered consistent.

Office Environment & Heritage

Do not object to the draft amendment. However, the authority noted the following items locally listed with Schedule 5 - Environmental Heritage of the draft Liverpool LEP 2008.

 

The matter was addressed in the DA for 20 Shepherd Street. However, in view of increasing the development standards, Council will give further consideration to future DAs with regard to potential adverse impacts due to the development of property within the subject site.

Endeavour Energy

Endeavour Energy has no objections to the planning proposal.

No action required. Future DAs on the subject site will be referred to Endeavour Energy.

Telstra

Noted. Mobile sites will not be adversely affected by the planning proposal.

Noted. No action required.

Sydney Water

No comment on the proposal as it is not located near any of their assets or infrastructure.

Noted. No action required.

Bankstown Airport

Bankstown Airport Limited noted the building height is expected to extend close to the OLS surface pertaining to Bankstown Airport and as such an aviation assessment may be required when the final drawings are available.

Noted. No action required. Future DAs on the subject site will be referred to Bankstown Airport Limited for an aviation assessment.

 

Consultation for Regional Infrastructure Contributions 

Condition 5 of the Determination Notice required Council to consult the public authorities specifically with regard to regional infrastructure contributions as a result of increasing the development standards to facilitate 1,200 dwellings. It is noted the current LEP development standards enable the delivery of approximately 600-800 residential units.

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

State Agency

Public Authority Comments

Council Officer Response

Transport NSW

TfNSW and RMS provided a joint submission requesting the deferral of the planning proposal until such time that the cumulative transport study associated with the Liverpool City Centre LEP (Amendment 52) was gazetted, along with the developer contribution being commensurate with an identified contribution scheme/levy that may be generated for the City Centre planning proposal.

It was also advised that the traffic generation rate should be based on the rate for high density residential development in Metropolitan Sub-Regional Centres referenced in Section 3.3.3 of the Guide to Traffic Generating Development. The Guide specifies a rate of 0.29 trips per hour in the AM and PM peaks for high density residential developments not well serviced by public transport and this rate should be applied to Shepherd Street precinct. 

At a meeting in February 2017, it was agreed that in the absence of a funding mechanism being established for the City Centre Planning Proposal (Amendment 52) (i.e. residential population uplift) the public authorities would consider a monetary contribution in a form of a VPA towards regional road and transport infrastructure.

On 1 May 2017, it was agreed by RMS and TfNSW that a monetary contribution in the order of $10,000 per dwelling (per agreed uplift as a consequence of the LEP amendment) go towards regional road and transport infrastructure, removing the previous objection to this amendment, proceeding to gazettal ahead of Draft LEP Amendment No.52.

An updated traffic report prepared by GTA Consultants was submitted to Council in April 2017. The outcomes of this report will contribute to a revised strategy to manage traffic in the area and, together with conditioned works, the funding proposed through the VPA will be applied to this purpose.

Roads & Maritime Services

Department Education & Communities

Do not consider regional infrastructure contributions or a VPA is appropriate in the circumstances with regard to school facilities.

Noted. No action required.

Ministry of Health

Commented on the proposed overshadowing of the Georges River, setback of the buildings from the river.

 

 

 

 

Noted. No action required. Council at the pre-Gateway Council meeting resolved to support the application as proposed (including the bulk and heights as depicted in the concept plan).

 

Commented that Council should take into consideration the Liverpool Hospital Helicopter Landing Site and Flight Path.

Noted. No action required. Council is in the process of implementing provision to protect the Helicopter Flight Path within the Liverpool CBD (draft Amendment 67).

Office of Environment & Heritage

Comments relating to assessment of flood impacts and consideration of risks to people and property from the Georges River and any potential overland flooding.

The site is not affected by floodway of the Georges River and the proposed development does not involve filling of flood storage area.  Therefore there would be no adverse impact on flood behaviour or flow redistribution.

Council has developed the Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (FRMP) for the Georges River in accordance with the Guideline of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (FDM) 2005.  Flood modelling was undertaken for full range of the floods up to the probable maximum flood (PMF) and flood risk maps were prepared as part of development of FRMP.

The site is located on the low risk flood zone and the corresponding flood planning level (FPL) for residential development is 1%AEP flood + 0.5m freeboard, which is 10.4m AHD.

It should be noted that adopted FPL for the site is consistent with the State Government’s Flood Policy and Planning Circular dated 31 January 2007 on Section 117 direction & EPA Regulation on Flood Prone Land.

State Emergency Services

Comments related to the flood prone nature of the precinct and flood free access, with possible risk to residents and delivery of emergency services. Comments also referred to requiring assessment of flood risk impacts and emergency services.

Noted. No action required. Concerns to be addressed at DA stage.

Fire & Rescue NSW

Acknowledged request, but did not provide comments due to time constraints.

Noted. No action required.

NSW Police

Commented with regard to the future design of the residential development, consideration of the location of mailboxes and access to underground car parking.

Noted. These design matters will be considered at the development application stage.

Sydney Water

Comments relating to the need for upgrades to the reticulation network and wastewater system.

Noted. These matters will be considered at the development application stage.

 

Summary of Key Issues

From the submission received as a result of the public exhibition and community consultation, and with reference to the aforementioned sections of this report, Council officers conclude that the comments received from the community and the public authorities do not require any further modifications to the proposal. These above matters are technical in nature and do not represent in-principle objections to draft Amendment 65.

Consequently, it is recommended that Council support the finalisation of Amendment 65, subject to endorsement of the draft VPA, offered by the proponent in conjunction with the LEP amendment. The following section of this report will summarise the contents of the VPA in terms of public benefits for Council’s consideration.

Draft Planning Agreement

The planning proposal was accompanied by a ‘letter of offer’ to enter into a VPA upon lodgement in September 2015, which was amended prior to being reported to Council on 29 June 2016. 

Council at that meeting resolved inter alia, that it:

Notes that the A/CEO will finalise negotiations regarding the proposed voluntary planning agreement and public benefit offer and any other relevant conditions as required to support the proposal, with a report to be presented to a future Council meeting.

There have been subsequent negotiations between Council and the applicant for the proposal regarding various aspects of the VPA, which are now largely finalised for consideration by Council, though some further negotiation and amendment of the structure and form of the final VPA may still be required (subject to legal advice). The VPA has been drafted in accordance with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy.

Planning agreements generally involve an agreement between a developer and the planning authority, in this case, Council, whereby the developer, when undertaking a development, agrees to provide a public purpose such as:

·    Land dedicated for a community benefit;

·    Works associated with the delivery of infrastructure or a community benefit;

·    Monetary contributions to Council for the provision of land and works (usually not on the site of the development); and

·    Payment towards temporary recurrent costs of public facilities.

It should be noted that the letter of offer covers only some of the properties identified in the draft VPA.  The draft VPA cannot be finalised until all of the owners of land identified in the VPA have signed it. 

The VPA will operate in the following manner:

·    It will be a legal document whereby the owners of land identified in it will agree to provide works or pay a monetary contribution in conjunction with the development of their properties; 

·    The signatories to it will be the owners of land identified in the PA and Council;

·    It will be tied to specific land parcels in Shepherd Street and, under the EP&A Act 1979, will apply to the existing and future land owners;

·    It will have a list of works to be provided and a list of monetary contributions to be paid (listed below);

·    As it is expected there will be a number of developments, there will be a number of stages in the provision of works and the payment of monetary contributions;

·    It will specify thresholds which will require a land owner to have undertaken works or provide monetary contributions before an occupation certificate is issued for a development;

·    It will contain securities in the form of payment of bonds to ensure that works are adequately funded if the land owners are unable to deliver works for whatever reason;

·    It will contain various clauses to cover dispute matters etc.

As well as the proposed works and contributions, the technical and legal aspects of the draft VPA and schedules have been agreed between the parties (Attachment 2). The draft VPA has is in line with the Addendum Report DPG 04 which was reported to Council on 28 June 2017.

Overview of Contributions

Infrastructure funding from the development of sites subject to the PA will be received in the following ways:

·    S94A contribution in accordance with the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2007 (Liverpool City Centre);

·    Infrastructure costs directly related to a development such as footpaths, street tree planting, local road works (S80A of the EP&A Act);

·    Works or monetary contributions in the VPA to minimise the impact of development; and

·    Works or monetary contributions in the VPA to provide a public benefit.

The following is the scope of works in the draft VPA. 

Item

Reason for item

Provision of a free shuttle bus service linking the Shepherd Street development to the Liverpool City Centre for a period of 5 years, providing  an adequate level of service at suitable intervals in both the AM and the PM peak periods 

Assist with minimising traffic generation from the additional developments

It is envisaged that the additional growth to be experienced within the Shepherd Street precinct and the City Centre will eventually necessitate two-way connections from the City Centre to the Precinct on a larger scale and more frequent basis, which will create a demand for a more comprehensive public service to be provided within the locality. Further, it is noted the GTA Traffic Study concludes that the current public bus services within the City Centre could be expanded to provide a service to the Shepherd Street Precinct.

Provision of bike share pods at Shepherd Street, Liverpool Railway Station and Casula Railway Station

Assist with minimising traffic generation from the additional developments

Line marking of car parking spaces in Shepherd Street for 3 to 4 cars used in car sharing arrangements, located near new retail area within the Paper Mill

Assist with minimising traffic generation from the additional developments

Re-opening of the Woodbrook Road Railway underpass for pedestrians and cyclists

Partial public benefit (est. 50% of contribution value)to provide access to the Georges River Parklands from areas in Casula

Monetary contribution towards local traffic infrastructure

Assist with provision of local road works to accommodate traffic generated by the additional development

Monetary contribution towards regional traffic infrastructure

Assist with provision of regional transport works to accommodate traffic generated by the additional development, to satisfy the requirements of RMS / TfNSW.

Provision of a pedestrian and cycle river walk along the riparian zone between the developments and the Georges River, including stabilisation of the existing river bank which is currently unstable

Partial public benefit (est. 50% of contribution value) to provide access to the Georges River foreshore for residents of the developments and for the public

Construction of an upgrade to the existing path way along the riparian zone north of the Development through Lighthorse Park to Newbridge Road

Partial public benefit (est. 50% of contribution value) to improve access to Lighthorse Park  access for residents of the developments and for the public

Rehabilitation of the riparian zone along the river adjacent to the Development and north to Lighthorse Park, including replanting where relevant

Partial public benefit (est. 50% of contribution value) to improve the Georges River foreshore to Lighthorse Park for residents of the developments and for the public

Monetary contribution for public open space within the City Centre and public domain works to be determined by Council

Partial public benefit (est. 50% of contribution value) to improve for residents of the developments and for the public

 

The value of the works to be provided through the VPA is estimated at approximately $25,300,000.  It should be noted that the cost of works includes a substantial contingency for the cost of the stabilisation of the riverbank (referred to above) due to the uncertainties in relation to its eventual cost.

Exhibition

If Council supports the recommendations of this report, the draft VPA will be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days with delegation to the CEO, or her delegate, to execute the VPA if no submissions are received in relation to it. 

If any submissions are received as a result of the public exhibition, these will then be reported back to Council for its consideration.

At this point it is proposed that the draft Amendment 65 can then be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation and gazettal.  The Planning Agreement could be conditioned to enable it to come into force when the LEP is gazetted.

Conclusion

At its Ordinary Meeting on the 28 June 2017, Council resolved that:

“this matter be deferred until Councillors can be fully briefed on the CBD Traffic Study that has been done and see the proposed plans for the intersection upgrades that is intended to mitigate the identified traffic and access issues for this Development, and pending further negotiation by Council with the developer for contributions towards the cost of;

a)   A second traffic access point from the development site along Powerhouse Road with a rail bridge crossing at Casula Station to allow traffic from the development site to access the new growth areas and the possible projected employment in those areas without contributing to the traffic issues in and around the Liverpool CBD, considering there will be no public transport into the airport construction job opportunities e.g. Airport.”

In response to the concerns raised, Council officers arranged a briefing session to provide clarification on the traffic infrastructure and mitigation measures to offset the potential impacts of the proposed increased density in the precinct as a result of Draft Amendment 65. GTA Traffic Consultants also provided representation against the assessment of the proposal at the councillor briefing. The options and recommendations for mitigating traffic impacts have informed the scope of works within the Draft VPA.

Additionally, the response by Fire and Rescue NSW has been circulated to assist Council’s decision on this matter. It should be emphasised that within the response, Fire and Rescue NSW considered this planning proposal to be of a lower priority, given their statutory and regulatory obligations. As a result, Fire and Rescue NSW did not request an extension and overlooked the submissions period.

With regard to the question of a second crossing at Casula Station, the developer was asked whether they would be prepared to provide such a crossing, and they replied that they would not.  The reasons for this relate to cost, practicality, and the unwillingness of State Rail and associates to provide consent to the construction of such a crossing.

It should also be noted that the Draft VPA has been updated and amended in line with the Addendum Report DPG04 June 2017.

Consequently, Council officers recommendations outlined in report DPG02 on Council meeting 28 June 2017 remain the same.  It is the recommendation of this report that Council resolve to support the making of draft Amendment 65 (Shepherd Street Planning Proposal) and submit the proposal to the DPE for finalisation, subject to endorsement and public exhibition of the VPA offered by Coronation Property in support of the draft amendment.

It is also the recommendation of this report to delegate authority to the CEO, or to her delegate, to execute the VPA.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic

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

Environment

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


 


Social

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

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

Legislative

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Attachment 1 - Planning Proposal without Appendices (Under separate cover)

2.         Attachment 2 - Final Draft VPA  (as of 23 June 2017) (Under separate cover)

3.         Attachment 3 - June 2016 Council Resolution and Report (Under separate cover)

4.         Attachment 4 - Executive Summaries (Under separate cover)

5.         Attachment 5 - Gateway Determination - Amendment 65 (Under separate cover)

6.         Attachment 6 - Letter from DP&E (Under separate cover)

7.         Attachment 7 - Community Consultation (Under separate cover)

8.         Attachment 8 - Public Agency Submissions (Under separate cover)

9.         Attachment 9 - Applicant and Land Owner Details (Under separate cover)  


95

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 04

Contaminated Site Remediation Policy

 

Strategic Direction

Liveable Safe City

Create clean and attractive public places for people to engage and connect

File Ref

180729.2017

Report By

Nada Mardini - Manager Community Standards

Peta Kinnane - Coordinator Planning, Policy and Process

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

 

EXEcutive Summary

 

A Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Shelton at the Council meeting of 31 May 2017, detailed a number of requests regarding contaminated site remediation policy and legislation as follows:

 

“That Council:

 

1.       Provides a briefing session to Councillors as to whether there is utility in Council producing a contaminated site remediation policy or document to similar effect either as a stand-alone policy or as an adjunct to the Asbestos Policy (noting asbestos in its various forms is not necessarily the only contaminant which may be an issue) which briefing may, if thought useful, include consideration of a draft of such a policy;

 

2.       Also at the same time updates Councillors on the present relation in this area between Council and SEPP 55 and the EPA given particularly the latter instrument is said to be evolving; and

 

3.       Updates Councillors on any other matter thought to be related to the foregoing.”

 

 

This report provides a response to each of the points raised in relation to current procedures used by Council officers with respect to contaminated land remediation. It also outlines the regulatory responsibilities and jurisdiction of Council and the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), as well as the requirements of State Environment Planning Policy 55 (SEPP 55). 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the information provided in the report.

 

REPORT

 

The questions raised within the Notice of Motion and the responses offered by Council Officers are detailed below:

 

That Council:

 

1.   Provides a briefing session to Councillors as to whether there is utility in Council producing a contaminated site remediation policy or document to similar effect either as a stand-alone policy or as an adjunct to the Asbestos Policy (noting asbestos in its various forms is not necessarily the only contaminant which may be an issue) which briefing may, if thought useful, include consideration of a draft of such a policy;

 

For the purpose of assessing applications received by Council, officers have recently developed internal guide notes which have been designed to achieve consistency on best practice outcomes, to enable Council officers and the community to be well-informed when considering different site remediation options. The guide notes provides succinct information and guidance on how to assess contamination and remediation in accordance with the relevant legislative framework (refer to attachment).  In effect, the notes read with the legislation act as guidance in the way a formal policy would.

 

With respect to compliance and enforcement matters, Council officers undertake regulatory action through procedures prepared by NSW EPA “Guide notes – Issuing notices under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997”.

 

2.      Also at the same time updates Councillors on the present relation in this area between Council and SEPP 55 and the EPA given particularly the latter instrument is said to be evolving;

 

Council shares regulatory responsibility for contamination matters with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The EPA has the authority to regulate sites deemed to pose as a significant risk of harm (as identified under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997) and contain more than 200 cubic metres of contaminated waste on a property. Council is required to notify the EPA where it suspects a site poses a significant risk of harm and assist the EPA during the investigation and remediation process. All other contamination matters are managed by Council pursuant to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 


 

With respect to SEPP 55, Council is required to consider the potential of contamination on the site as part of the assessment process and prior to consent being provided. Council is required to adhere to the EPA’s “Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP 55–Remediation of Land” during the assessment process.  When assessing the potential of land contamination, reports from a contaminated site consultant detailing the suitability of the site will be provided to Council. Further, Council may also be provided with a detailed report on how the site will be remediated to render it suitable for its intended use. This is dependent on the outcome of the initial report which would detail the findings of the investigation into whether a site is actually contaminated.

 

3.    Updates Councillors on any other matter thought to be related to the foregoing.

 

The EPA have introduced a new contaminated land consultant certification scheme requiring all contaminated site consultants to be certified by an accredited industry body from 1 July 2017. Council welcomes this new initiative as the scheme has been developed to ensure that consultants dealing with contaminated sites have the necessary competencies to carry out the work, which provides greater integrity in the contaminated site assessment process. The NSW EPA are allowing a 24 month transition period to ensure contaminated land consultants are certified.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution.

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.

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


Social

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

Deliver high quality services for children and their families.


Civic Leadership

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

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.

Legislative

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Environment & Health Guide Notes - Contamination Site Remediation Policy


99

DPG 04

Contaminated Site Remediation Policy

Attachment 1

Environment & Health Guide Notes - Contamination Site Remediation Policy

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


101

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 05

Notification of Development Applications

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments

File Ref

183797.2017

Report By

David Smith - Acting Manager Development Assessment

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its Ordinary meeting of 29 March 2017, Council resolved following a Question with Notice from Councillor Harle that:

 

Council investigate and report back to Council on the possible updating of the Council’s current Notifications of DA’s Policies based on distances, and consider possibly changing the policy to be measured in the number of people contacted, to ensure in all circumstances the number of residents that have been notified about an impending development, is in accordance with Council’s consultation obligations and the IHAP Objection criteria, noting that the IHAP criteria was recently changed from a minimum of 3 to a minimum of 5 people.

 

A report to the 31 May 2017 Council meeting was prepared following a review of Council’s Notification Policy for Development Applications. During discussion on this report, a number of questions were taken on notice and a future report back to Council requested. A response to those questions taken on notice as well as a comparison of Council’s Notification of Development Applications Policy with neighbouring councils policies is provided in this report.

 

Following the review of the notification policy it is recommended that residential flat buildings and mixed use development in the Liverpool City Centre are publicly exhibited due to the increasing height, scale and potential impacts of these types of development. In addition, landscaping material supplies applications should be exhibited and notified to adjoining residents as these uses may give rise to impacts on the community.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Directs the CEO to amend the Liverpool Development Control Plan Chapter 18 Notification of Development Applications to:

a.   require all mixed use and residential flat buildings in the Liverpool City Centre to be publicly exhibited

b.   Require landscaping materials supplies to be publicly exhibited and be notified to properties within 500m (for a rural zone) and 250m (for other zones)

 

2.   Place the amended Liverpool Development Control Plan Chapter 18 on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days in accordance with Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

3.   Delegates to the CEO the finalisation of the amended Liverpool Development Control Plan Chapter 18 should no submissions be received; or reports back to Council the details of the submissions upon conclusion of the exhibition period.

 

 

REPORT

 

Council’s Notification of Development Applications Policy is contained within Part 1, Chapter 18 of the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (LDCP 2008).

 

The policy provides guidance to Development Assessment staff, the development industry and the general community on the notification and exhibition requirements for Development Applications lodged with Liverpool City Council.

 

The objectives of Council’s Notification Policy, as outlined in the LDCP are:

 

a)    To provide the opportunity for the community to view and have input into the assessment process prior to Council or its delegate, making a decision to determine the application.

 

b)    To provide a reasonable time for inspection of plans and the preparation of submissions on applications, while recognising the obligations of the Council to determine applications within the prescribed periods as set by the relevant legislation.

 

c)    To match notification and exhibition standards to the complexity of the application and development risk.

 

There are four (4) levels of public consultation that a development application may be subject to under the notification policy. These are:

 

1.    Notified Development – this is where Council notifies adjoining property owners and occupants in writing advising of the lodgement of a development application and invites submissions within 14 days. The minimum number of properties notified is eight (8) (refer to Figure 1);

 

2.    Advertised Development – this is where Council, in addition to notification, places an advertisement on the Council’s website and in a local newspaper and a sign on the subject land advising of the lodgement of a development application. The exhibition period is usually 14 days, except for Nominated Integrated Development and Designated Development under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Regulations which requires the period of advertising to be 30 days;

 

3.    No consultation – this only applies to certain development applications where no notification or advertising is necessary in circumstances where the likely impacts of the development are considered insignificant and/or is consistent with the zoning applying to the land; and

 

4.    Development not defined – this is where development is not defined in Table 10 of the Notification Policy. In these instances, notification or advertising is not necessary, unless the assessment officer considers otherwise by using the discretionary notification provisions within the notification policy.

 

Table 10 of the Notification policy outlines the level of notification required for specific types of development. Certain low intensity and low impact development applications require notification only to opposite and adjoining properties, whereas other development proposals require wider notification due to their potential impacts. The notification distances in these instances range from 50m to 1km from the development site, with significantly larger notification distances for rural zones than other zones. This is outlined in Table 11 to the Liverpool Notification Policy (extract provided below).

 

Development Type

Distance from subject land**

Rural Zones

Other Zones

Advertisements

N/A

75m

Advertising structure

N/A

75m

Agricultural produce industry

200m

N/A

Airport

1000m

500m

Airstrip

1000m

500m

Amusement centre

500m

200m

Animal boarding or training establishments

500m

75m

Aquaculture

200m

N/A

Backpackers accommodation

N/A

50m

Boarding house

N/A

100m

Caravan Parks

N/A

50m

Cemetery

1000m

200m

Child care centres

N/A

75m

Crematorium

1000m

200m

Dams

500m

N/A

Depot

N/A

100m

Educational establishments / Schools

500m

200m

Entertainment facilities

500m

200m

Extractive Industries

1000m

200m

Flood mitigation works

1000m

200m

Freight transport facility

N/A

100m

Funeral home

1000m

200m

Hazardous industries

N/A

500m

Hazardous storage establishments

1000m

200m

Heavy Industry

N/A

200m

Helipad/ Heliport

200m

100m

Hospital

200m

100m

Hotel or motel accommodation

N/A

75m

Intensive livestock agriculture

500m

N/A

Liquid fuel depot

500m

200m

Livestock processing industry

200m

200m

Marinas

N/A

200m

Market

N/A

100m

Medical centre

200m

75m

Mines

1000m

N/A

Mixed use development

N/A

75m

Mortuary

1000m

200m

Multi dwelling housing

N/A

75m

Offensive industries

N/A

200m

Offensive storage establishments

500m

200m

Open cut mine

1000m

N/A

Passenger transport terminal

N/A

200m

Place of public worship

1000m

200m

Pubs

N/A

200m

Recreation facilities (major)

N/A

200m

Recreation facility (outdoor)

500m

100m

Registered club

500m

200m

Residential flat buildings (outside the Liverpool City Centre)

N/A

75m

Resource recovery facility

N/A

200m

Restricted premises

N/A

200m

 

Service stations / Liquid fuel depot

500m

200m

Sewerage Treatment works

500m

200m

Sex services premises

N/A

200m

Stock and sale yards

500m

200m

Take away food or drink premises / food and drink premise (outside the Liverpool City Centre)

N/A

100m

Telecommunication facilities

1000m

300m

Transport depot

N/A

200m

Tourist and Visitor accommodation

200m

75m

Truck depot

N/A

200m

Vehicle body repair

N/A

100m

Vehicle repair station

N/A

100m

Vehicle sales and hire premises

N/A

100m

Warehouse and distribution centres

N/A

100m

Waste or resource management facility

1000m

200m

Waste or resource transfer station

1000m

200m

Waterbody (artificial)

500m

50m

Table 1: Notification Distances – Liverpool Notification Policy

 

Comparison of Notification Requirements with neighbouring Councils

 

Council requested that a comparison be undertaken between the Liverpool Notification Policy and that of other neighbouring Councils. Table 2 below identifies key development types in urban areas and Table 3 identifies key development types in rural areas and their notification requirements. 

 

Liverpool City Council Notification Requirements (excluding rural areas)

 

Land Use

Notification requirements

Public Advertising

Dwelling

No

No

Multi Dwelling housing

Yes – 75m

No

Attached dwellings

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Semi detached dwellings

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Secondary dwellings (granny flat)

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Flat Building (City Centre)

No

No

Flat Building (outside City centre)

Yes – 75m

No

Mixed Use Development

Yes – 75m

No

Boarding Housing

Yes – 100m

Yes

Child care centres

Yes – 75m

No

Resource Recovery Facility

Yes- 200m

Yes

Warehouse / Distribution Centre

Yes – 100m

Yes

Subdivision (lots less than 300m2)

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Table 2: Urban area notification and distance requirements

 


 

Liverpool City Council Notification Requirements Rural Areas

Land Use

Notification requirements

Public Advertising

Animal Boarding establishment

Yes – 500m

No

Cemetery

Yes – 1,000m

Yes

Dams

Yes – 500m

No

Schools

Yes – opposite & adjacent

Yes

Extractive Industries

Yes – 1,000m

Yes

Place of public worship

Yes – 1,000m

Yes

Service Stations

Yes – 500m

Yes

Telecommunications facility

Yes – 1,000m

Yes

Table 3: Rural area notification and distance requirements

 

*There is discretion in the Policy to notify or advertise developments if it is considered to be in the public interest

 

Camden Council Notification Requirements

Land Use

Notification requirements

Public Advertising

Dwelling (two storey only)

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Multi Dwelling housing

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Flat Building

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Child care centres

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Major commercial & industrial building

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Educational establishments

Yes – opposite & adjacent

Yes

Subdivision

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Telecommunications facility

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

·    Camden Council enables discretion to be applied to notify or advertise developments if it is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Campbelltown City Council Notification Requirements

Land Use

Notification requirements

Public Advertising

Dwelling (two storey only)

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Secondary dwelling (granny flat)

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Dual occupancies

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Semi detached dwellings

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Attached dwellings

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Multi Dwelling housing

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Boarding houses

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Child care centres

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Educational establishments

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

Flat Building

Yes – opposite & adjacent

Yes

Mixed Use Developments >2 storey

Yes – opposite & adjacent

Yes

Commercial / Industrial Development with major impacts

Yes – opposite & adjacent

Yes

Subdivision of more than 5 lots

Yes – opposite & adjacent

No

·    Campbelltown City Council enables discretion to be applied to notify or advertise developments if it is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Fairfield City Council Notification Requirements

 

Land Use

Notification requirements

Public Advertising

Dwelling in rural area and/or two storey

Yes – 30m

No

Dual occupancies

Yes – 50m

No

Semi detached dwellings

Yes – 50m

No

Attached dwellings

Yes – 50m

No

Multi Dwelling housing

Yes – 50m

Yes

Boarding houses

Yes – 50m

Yes

Child care centres

Yes – 50m

Yes

Educational establishments

Yes – 50m

Yes

Flat Building

Yes – 50m

Yes

Industries

Yes – 20m (only before commencement of works)

No

·    Fairfield City Council enables discretion to be applied to notify or advertise developments if it is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Comments on Comparison

 

Liverpool and Fairfield City Council’s both use distance for notification purposes while Camden Council and Campbelltown City Council both notify development applications to opposite and adjoining neighbours only. The notification requirements of all Councils are similar for significant developments with the exception of residential flat buildings. Liverpool City Council notifies residential flat buildings to all properties within 75m of the development site, but only in areas outside of the City Centre.

 

It is therefore recommended that residential flat buildings and mixed use developments in the Liverpool City Centre are publicly exhibited due their increasing height and scale and the community interest in these large developments. This would be consistent with most other Councils. It is proposed that neighbouring properties not be directly notified as this would involve potential hundreds of letters to both landowners and tenants given the high residential density of the City Centre. Instead, it is proposed that a sign be required on the development site and an advertisement placed in the paper and on the eplanning portal (Council’s website) advising of the development proposal.  

 

Minimum number of properties to be notified

 

At the 31 May 2017 Council meeting, there was discussion on amending the notification policy to require a minimum of 8 properties to be notified of a development application in all circumstances.

 

It is considered that the most appropriate notification policy is based on distance from the development site, rather than a minimum number of properties to be notified. Notification should be directly related to the potential impacts of a development on surrounding properties.

 

In urban areas, most development is either notified to opposite and adjoining properties or to properties within a certain distance of the development site depending of the development proposed. For notification to opposite and adjoining sites, a minimum of eight properties are notified, and significantly more properties are notified if using distance from the development site requirement.

 

In rural areas, certain development applications are notified to opposite and adjoining properties or to properties based on distance from the development site depending on the development proposed. The distance based notification requirements are significantly greater in the rural areas than the urban areas as shown in Table 1 and 3. This is considered appropriate considering development proposals in rural areas may have larger impacts on the environment.

 

Engagement via the eplanning portal

 

Council’s eplanning portal also allows the community to access all development applications lodged with the Council, including documentation such as plans and reports. This tool allows the community to review applications that may be of interest and to lodge a submission with Council. The planning page on Council’s website also links with the eplanning portal and lists development applications that are on public exhibition with a link to Council’s online submission form and contains details of how to lodge a submission online, by email, or via post.

 

Council is continually investigating ways to further our engagement and provision of information to our community.  In an endeavour to ensure the community is appropriately informed of development occurring within their communities, Council is investigating the creation of an email subscription service that would provide information on applications lodged within each suburb.

 

It is anticipated that a community member will be able to register for a weekly email newsletter for any suburb in the local government area. They will then receive an email that provides an overview of the development applications lodged with Council in that suburb.  The purpose of these notifications is to provide information to the community, rather than to formally seek comment.  As necessary, development applications will be subject to notification and exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the notification policy.

 

Council officers are exploring the technical requirements for this initiative and will seek to implement this initiative as soon as practicable.  This communication tool will complement other mediums, including newspaper notifications, signs on properties, letter notifications and social media posts ensuring our community is informed of development occurring within their local area.


 

 

CONSULTATION

 

The Strategic Planning and Development Assessment departments have been consulted during the preparation of this report.

 

The Strategic Planning Department has provided the following comments:

 

Residential flat buildings and mixed use development located within the City Centre

 

The report recommends that residential flat buildings and mixed used development in the Liverpool City Centre be publicly exhibited due to increasing height, scale and potential impacts of these types of developments. In the existing Notification Policy, Liverpool City Council notifies residential flat buildings to all properties within 75m of the development site, but only in areas outside of the City Centre. There is no requirement for notification or advertisement for the development of a residential flat building if it is located within the City Centre.

 

Considering the scale and potential impact of such developments, it is reasonable to include residential flat buildings and mixed use developments that are located within the City Centre into the current notification policy. This can also be supported due to the fact that this change will be consistent with the notification policy requirement for such development outside of the City Centre and the notification policy of the neighbouring local Councils.

 

Minimum number of properties to be notified

 

The report considers that the most appropriate notification policy is based on distance from the development site, rather than a minimum number of properties to be notified.  The rationale behind this policy is supported as notification should be based on the scale of the relevant potential impact of the development and the distance within which this impact is thought to be ensued. Distance based notification is more appropriate than establishing a standard of a minimum eight (8) properties to be notified in any circumstance. 

 

Other recommendations

 

Landscaping materials supplies do not currently require advertising or notification. For consistency with other similar uses that do require notification and/or advertising, it is recommended that these applications be advertised and notified to the community. 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

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


Social

Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.


Civic Leadership

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.

Legislative

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations

Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


111

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 06

Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study 2017

 

Strategic Direction

Generating Opportunity

Advocate for, and develop, transport networks to create an accessible city

File Ref

186198.2017

Report By

Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council, at its meeting of 28 June 2017 considered a report on the planning proposal for Shepherd Street (Draft LLEP Amendment No.65) and resolved that:

 

This matter be deferred until Councillors can be fully briefed on the CBD Traffic Study that has been done and see the proposed plans for the intersection upgrades that is intended to mitigate the identified traffic and access issues for this Development, and pending further negotiation by Council with the developer for contributions towards the cost of:

 

a)      a second traffic access point from the development site along Powerhouse Road with a rail bridge crossing at Casula Station to allow traffic from the development site to access the new growth areas and the possible projected employment in those areas without contributing to the traffic issues in and around the Liverpool CBD, considering there will be no public transport into the airport construction job opportunities e.g. Airport.


This report:

·        Provides an update on the Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study including identified regional and local transport improvements, to mitigate traffic impacts of the potential additional developments in the City Centre (including the Shepherd Street Precinct);

·        Outlines intersection upgrades identified to mitigate traffic impacts of maximum allowable developments in the Shepherd Street Precinct; and

·        Provides information about the feasibility of a second access point from the Shepherd Street Precinct along Powerhouse Road, across the railway at Casula Station and a summary of the outcome of discussions with the developer regarding the crossing.

 

In a joint Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) submission, Council was requested to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of maximum allowable development under the Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) Amendment Nos.52 and 65. In response, Council engaged GTA Consultants to carry out the required Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study.

 

The Study has identified a number of possible improvements, including regional and local transport improvements, public transport infrastructure and services, active transport facilities and car parks which are required to maintain acceptable future conditions.

 

The study findings regarding regional traffic and transport impacts, and associated funding mechanisms, have been discussed and agreed with the RMS and TfNSW. The recommended strategies are being reviewed and a further future report will be provided to Council on an implementation plan.

 

A previous level crossing across the railway at Casula Station was closed in September 2012, as part of the construction of the Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). A crossing of the railway line would require a bridge approximately 150m long at an estimated cost of $35m.  The developer has indicated this is not cost effective when apportioned to the scale of the proposed development and in light of other contributions being offered.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the VPA for the planning proposal includes funding for a shared path under the railway link between Woodbrook and Powerhouse Roads. An option for a link road at Woodbrook Road has also been investigated (in consultation with Council) but at this stage, Sydney Trains does not support such a link due to safety concerns.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Notes the Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study findings and recommendations contained in this report;

2.   Receives a further report on implementation plans of the recommended car parking, local roads and transport improvement strategies; and

 

3.   Directs the CEO to continue representations to the Minister for Roads and Ports and the Minister for Transport, for improvements to regional transport infrastructure and services in and around the city centre.

 

REPORT

 

At its meeting on 28 June 2017, Council considered a report on the planning proposal for Shepherd Street and resolved that:

 

This matter be deferred until Councillors can be fully briefed on the CBD Traffic Study that has been done and see the proposed plans for the intersection upgrades that is intended to mitigate the identified traffic and access issues for this Development, and pending further negotiation by Council with the developer for contributions towards the cost of; -

 

b)      a second traffic access point from the development site along Powerhouse Road with a rail bridge crossing at Casula Station to allow traffic from the development site to access the new growth areas and the possible projected employment in those areas without contributing to the traffic issues in and around the Liverpool CBD, considering there will be no public transport into the airport construction job opportunities e.g. Airport.

 

City Centre Traffic Study Update

 

In response to a joint request from TfNSW and the RMS for a cumulative transport impact assessment of maximum allowable developments in the Liverpool City Centre under Draft LLEP Amendments No.52 (City Centre) and No.65 (Shepherd Street Precinct), Council engaged GTA Consultants to carry out a Liverpool City Centre Traffic and Transport Study.  The study has been carried out with three components - Traffic, Public & Active Transport, and Car Parking.

 

The consultants have completed the study and submitted a draft final Integrated Transport Strategy and an associated Traffic Modelling report. The study report has been submitted to the Department of Planning & Environment, TfNSW and RMS for consideration. TfNSW and RMS have both agreed to the study findings and associated funding mechanism (see Attachment 1).

 

Study Objectives

 

The study aimed to achieve the following objectives:

·        Address TfNSW and the RMS requirements for Draft LLEP 2008 Amendments No.52 and No.65;

·        Identify existing and future traffic conditions, parking demand/provision, and public transport issues within the city centre;

·        Recommend staged implementation strategies to improve traffic efficiency on the state road network including sections of the Hume Highway, Newbridge Road, Elizabeth Drive and Hoxton Park Road, providing access to the city centre; and

·        Recommend staged implementation strategies to improve the local road network, cycle and pedestrian facilities, increased car parking provision, and public and active transport facilities and services, in and around the city centre.

 

Study area and approach

 

The study area is bound by the Southern Railway Line to the east, Hume Highway to the north and west, and Shepherd Street Precinct to the south. The study does not include Georges River Precinct, which would require a separate assessment.

 

 

 

The study was carried out with the following three components:

 

1.       Traffic Study

 

This involved an assessment of existing and future traffic conditions, intersection performance analysis and deficiencies in the existing traffic system, and identification of staged traffic management improvements to accommodate future traffic conditions. This assessment involved traffic modelling using the RMS-developed traffic mesoscopic model (AINSUM model) for the Liverpool Local Government Area.

 

2.       Public & Active Transport Study

 

This involved an assessment of existing public transport infrastructure and services, existing active transport facilities, estimation of future public transport demand, and recommendation of future public and active transport improvements strategies.

 

3.       Car Parking Study

 

This involved an assessment of existing car parking demand and provisions, estimation of future car parking demand, and recommendation for a future Car Parking Provision Strategy.

 

Study Findings

 

1.   Traffic Study

A traffic model has been used to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the Liverpool City Centre and anticipated additional developments under the Draft Amendment No.52 which could deliver up to a maximum of 7,000 dwellings within the city centre and 1,500 dwellings within the Shepherd Street precinct.

 

The traffic modelling has identified that without the proposed additional developments, the existing capacity constraints and consequential delays along sections of the Hume Highway and Newbridge Road providing access to the city centre would worsen.

 

Congested road sections and delays are anticipated along the Hume Highway at its intersection with Hoxton Park Road/Terminus Street, and Elizabeth Drive and Memorial Avenue.  Congestion and delays are also expected along Newbridge Road at its intersections with Heathcote Road, Moorebank Avenue, and Speed Street. In addition, delays are expected along sections of Bigge Street, Speed Street, Bathurst Street and Memorial Avenue within the city centre.


 

 

2.   Public & Active Transport Study

 

a)         Train Services

The city centre’s two railway stations - Liverpool and Warwick Farm, are serviced by three railway lines - T2 Airport, Inner West & South Line, T3 Bankstown Line and T5 Cumberland Line.

 

The current Liverpool train service does not provide fast and efficient services to central Sydney, limiting public transport use. Advocacy for improved services such as an extension of the Metro Service is recommended.

 

b)         Bus Services

The city centre has 57 arrival and 60 departure services within the 2 hour AM and PM commuter peak periods. These services are provided by Interline Bus Services, Transdev and Transit Systems.

 

The bus services use different bus routes which affects through-traffic along several roads. To address this concern, a bus boulevard along Moore Street is recommended. In addition, the bus stop facility along Moore Street is substandard and a bus boulevard would provide the opportunity for an appropriate bus shelter to be installed.

 

The study has also identified that the existing Council shuttle bus service could be extended to provide services to Shepherd Street and the southern city precinct.

 

c)         Active Transport

The city centre footpath network is in a reasonable condition at present. However, some footpath sections are relatively narrow and localised widenings are recommended. The bicycle network in the city centre is incomplete and requires improvements. In addition, inadequate wayfinding signage for active and public transport requires review and upgrading.

 

The study has identified a lack of cycle storage facilities and inadequate pedestrian facilities along Bigge Street from the railway station to locations including the TAFE, the Hospital, and Westfield. Improvements to the existing pedestrian/cycleway signage is also recommended.

 

3.   Car Parking Study

 

The city centre has over 2,450 on-street car parking spaces and 6,260 public and private off street spaces. Existing on-street parking demand in the city centre is high with an occupancy of over 85%.  Motorists are therefore finding it difficult to locate vacant spaces.

 

Council’s off-street public car parks, namely Warren Serviceway, Northumberland Street Bathurst Street (North), Collimore Park and 52 Scott Street, are also operating near or at capacity.

 

The study has therefore recommended the need for:

·        Additional on-street parking and strategies for increased turnover of existing spaces with a suggestion to restrict parking in the city centre to less than 3P and extend short term parking to 4P north of the city centre; and

·        Additional commuter car parking spaces outside the city centre.

 

List of traffic and transport improvement works

 

The study findings have been used to identify a list of potential transport improvement works to be rolled out over the next 20-30 years. 

 

Each individual item requires investigation, strategic concept design, Local Traffic Committee support, Council and TfNSW/RMS endorsement. They need to be prioritised and reviewed every five years, taking into account changes to legislation and technology.

 

The recommended strategies are being reviewed and further future reports will be provided to Council on implementation plans, commencing with a Car Parking Strategy.

 

The recommended short, medium and long term works, to minimise the impact of the anticipated additional developments in and around the Liverpool City Centre include (but are not being limited to) the following:

 

State Road Improvements

·        Hume Highway – intersection improvements at Hoxton Park Road/Macquarie Street, Memorial Avenue and Elizabeth Drive

·        Corridor study and road widening of Terminus Street

·        Newbridge Road/Terminus Street and Speed Street intersection upgrade

·        Eastbound off-ramp from M5 to Hume Highway

·        Upgrade of Newbridge Road /Heathcote Road /Moorebank Avenue Intersections

·        Brickmakers Creek Bypass (long term project)


Local Road Improvements

·        Bathurst Street extension and required widening of Terminus/Pirie Streets intersection to facilitate redevelopment of adjoining properties.

·        Bigge Street Improvements

·        South City Centre Improvements

The identified improvement works have been modelled. The modelling results indicate that these works will result in significant improvements on the City Centre network performance with: 

·        Average network speed increased between 11%-17% over the 5-hour AM and PM model periods

·        Network delay reduction between 23%-29% over the 5-hour AM and PM model periods

 

Public Transport Improvements

·        Moore Street Transit Boulevard

·        Continue representation for Liverpool to Bankstown metro

·        Work with TfNSW to increase bus/train services to Liverpool Centre

 

Funding Strategy

 

TfNSW and RMS have advised that to facilitate the anticipated additional developments envisaged by the LLEP Amendments, a developer contribution for regional transport infrastructure improvements of $10,000 per additional dwelling is required.  In addition, the identified works requires a developer contribution of $6,000 per additional dwelling for local transport infrastructure.  A copy of the TfNSW and RMS advice is included as Attachment 2.

 

This level of regional developer contribution is forecast to generate approximately 10.6% of the required transport infrastructure improvement. Council will therefore need to continue representations to the Minister for Roads and Ports and the Minister for Transport for additional funding and improvement works.

 

TfNSW and RMS have advised that the State Government’s commitment to regional infrastructure works is subject to the submission and endorsement of a detailed business case, including a cost benefit analysis and funding availability, which is limited and allocated on a state-wide priority basis. The proposed regional infrastructure works might change in the future with alternative improvement works being determined by TfNSW and RMS.

 

Impact of the Shepherd Street Planning Proposal

The Shepherd Street Precinct (east and west of Shepherd Street) has land use zoning which could permit development of approximately 1,133 dwellings including approximately 800 on the western side which applies to Draft Amendment No.65.  The Shepherd Street planning proposal is seeking to increase the permissible development yield east of the street by approximately 360 dwellings.

 

It is noted that the number of dwellings identified as part of the traffic and transport study are based on the current and proposed controls and does not take into account the densities which may be approved at the Development Application stage.

 

As indicated above, the city centre traffic modelling has identified that the anticipated additional 8,500 dwellings (including 1,500 dwellings in the Shepherd Street precinct) would have significant impacts along sections of the principal road links in and around the city centre, and developer contribution towards regional and local transport improvements are required.

 

Once completed and occupied, the Shepherd Street precinct development would be expected to generate noticeable traffic impacts on the access roads to the precinct, including Shepherd Street, Newbridge Road/Terminus Street and Bigge Street.  Along these road links, the noticeable impact will be expected at the following intersections:

·     Newbridge Road/Terminus Street/Speed Street intersection

·     Bigge Street/Speed Street/Pirie Street intersection

·     Shepherd Street/Speed Street intersection

·     Shepherd Street/ Atkinson Street intersection

 

It is noted that the completion and occupancy of the Shepherd Street precinct will be progressive over a number of years, and as such, these impacts will be cumulative over time, in company with natural traffic growth generated from other development and increased activation of the CBD.

 

The Newbridge Road/Terminus Street/Speed Street intersection is on the regional road network, and its performance will be affected by additional developments in the Shepherd Street precincts, as well as the other parts of the city centre.  The required improvement to achieve acceptable traffic condition involves localised road widening and kerb adjustment along Newbridge Road, to permit left turn into Speed Street and right turn into Newbridge Road concurrently. This work could be funded from the regional contributions collected from the Shepherd Street planning proposal.

 

In addition, as part of the assessment of the planning proposal and future development applications, Council’s staff and consultants have identified the following other intersection works which will be imposed as traffic related conditions/works on any future development applications (to be paid for by the developer) and are not included in the draft VPA, to maintain road safety and traffic efficiency:

·        Bigge Street/Speed St/Pirie St intersection -  Localised road widening of the existing signalised intersection to increase the capacity of the north/south bound approaches along Speed Street

·        Shepherd Street/Speed St intersection -  Single lane roundabout

·        Shepherd Street/ Atkinson St intersection - Single lane roundabout (to maintain road safety)

 

Intersection performance at the above intersections as measured by the concept of Level of Service (LoS A – Very good traffic conditions to LoS F- congested and unacceptable traffic conditions) are as follows:

 


 

 

 

2031 AM Peak hour

2031 PM Peak hour

Intersection

With no works

With works

With no works

With works

Newbridge Rd/Terminus St/Speed St intersection

LoS C

LoS B

LoS B

LoS B

Bigge Street/Speed St/Pirie St intersection

LoS E

LoS A

LoS F

LoS D

Shepherd Street/Speed St intersection

LoS A

LoS A

LoS F

LoS A

 

Based on the findings, the improvements to the intersections as shown above with the increased development yield would result in acceptable traffic conditions. Layouts of the proposed intersection improvements are detailed in Attachment 3.

 

Second access from development site

 

A previous level crossing across the railway at Casula Station was closed in September 2012, as part of the construction of the Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC).  A crossing of the railway line would require a bridge approximately 150 m long at an estimated cost of $35m.  The developer has indicated this is not cost effective. 

 

Notwithstanding this, the VPA for the planning proposal includes funding for a shared path under the railway link between Woodbrook Road and the Powerhouse Road. An option for a link road at Woodbrook Road has also been investigated (in consultation with Council) but at this stage, Sydney Trains does not support such a link due to safety concerns.

 

It is noted that the majority of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed Shepherd Street precinct developments would be heading north to the areas of Liverpool City Centre (e.g. Westfield and Liverpool Hospital), Bankstown, Parramatta and beyond.

 

 A road link crossing the railway line near the Casula Station would result in additional traffic through the existing residential precinct, west of the railway line and create negative impacts on the precinct’s residential amenity.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study has identified the following:

·        Without the Draft LLEP Amendment Nos.52 and 65, sections of the Hume Highway, along the city centre and the Newbridge Road/Terminus Street corridor from Heathcote Road to Hume Highway, would be operating close to or at capacity and require significant improvements.

·        The existing rail services, particularly to Sydney CBD, require significant improvements for the provision of fast and efficient train services.  

·        The proposed Draft LLEP Amendments Nos.52 and 65 will increase traffic volume on the arterial road links into/out of the city centre.

·        Developer contributions towards regional and local improvements are required to accommodate traffic and transport impacts of the Draft LLEP Amendments Nos.52 and 65.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

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

 

Environment

Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service.

Support the delivery of a range of transport options.


Social

Improve traffic pedestrian safety.


Civic Leadership

The recommendation provides opportunity to advocate for the local community.

The recommendations are required in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Legislative

NSW Roads Act 1993 and NSW Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Liverpool City Centre Traffic Study Report (Under separate cover)

2.         TfNSW and RMS Submission to Draft LLEP Amendment No.65 (Under separate cover)

3.         Proposed Intersection Treatment (Under separate cover)  


121

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Planning and Growth Report

 

DPG 07

Draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy

 

Strategic Direction

Creating Connection

Create a dynamic, inclusive environment, including programs to support healthy living

File Ref

186735.2017

Report By

Allan Campling - Executive Planner

Approved By

Lina Kakish - Acting Director Planning and Growth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 22 February 2017 Council considered a report on the Planning Proposal for Lot 1 Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm (the “Masters Site”) to rezone the land from B5 Business Development Zone to R4 High Density Residential Zone. Council resolved to defer consideration of the Planning Proposal until it has adopted a broader precinct-wide strategy for Warwick Farm and a report is brought back to Council in July 2017.

 

Council officers have undertaken extensive non-statutory consultation, focused predominantly on the land south of the Hume Highway and have commissioned specialist studies regarding flooding and economic analysis.  In the intervening period, senior officers have been involved in the initial meetings with state government agencies and the GSC aimed at removing barriers to sustainable growth in the City Centre and neighbouring suburbs (the Collaboration Area). 

 

The draft Strategy, attached, explores the numerous constraints in the area, including road capacity, flooding and odour and adopts a precautionary approach to loss of jobs in the area, as required by the draft District Plan.  It examines opportunities for the future planning of Warwick Farm and makes recommendations regarding current Planning Proposals, including for the Masters Site.  The recommendations seek to balance the pressure to rezone land to high density residential with the urgent need to preserve and expand employment land and create opportunities for future jobs and to provide affordable homes for our key workers.

 

The draft Strategy concludes the following conclusions:

●    There is an urgent need to retain the industrial sub-precincts at Orange Grove Road and Priddle/Scrivener Street;

●    There is no certainty that the valuable equine activities can or will relocate to the racecourse nor that high density development is the best and highest use to replace them, considering the significant constraints - flooding, amenity and reverse-amenity;

●    It is not desirable for the Masters Site alone to transition to high density residential;

●    The area comprising the Munday Street Precinct, Priddle/Scrivener Street Precinct and the Masters site constitutes a distinctive and contained precinct that provides opportunities to collectively deliver employment land through a master planned outcome that capitalises on synergies with the Health and Education Precinct;

●    There is strategic merit in rezoning part at least of the residential precinct north-west of the Warwick Farm railway station to R4 High Density Residential, subject to a thorough master planning exercise; and

●    The Planning Proposal for the Masters Site and the Planning Proposal for 36-42 Orange Grove Road (Schweppes Site) do not have strategic merit.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Endorses the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy to be placed on public exhibition, with a report back to Council in October 2017 advising on any submissions received in response;

 

2.   Acknowledges that the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy provides discussion on the strategic merit of Planning Proposal RZ-18/2015 for Lot 1 Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm (Masters Site) to rezone the land from B5 Business Development Zone to R4 High Density Residential Zone and requests that a further report be submitted to Council in August 2017;

 

3.   Acknowledges that the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy provides discussion on the strategic merit of Planning Proposal RZ-4/2016 (36-42 Orange Grove Road) (Schweppes Site), and requests that a further report be submitted to Council in August 2017; and

 

4.   Resolves that there is strategic merit in rezoning land located north-west of the Warwick Farm railway station, as referred to in the Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy, to higher density residential and requests that the CEO undertake a review of the development controls to facilitate the delivery of diverse and affordable housing in the area.

 

REPORT

 

Background

On 22 February 2017 Council considered a report on the Planning Proposal for Lot 1 Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm (the “Masters Site”) to rezone the land from B5 Business Development Zone to R4 High Density Residential Zone. The report asserts that there is widespread support for the proposal, citing a petition signed by residents of the area. The report identified numerous constraints to the proposed rezoning, including traffic conflicts and capacity limits; flooding; odour; and potential job losses but anticipated that these would be resolved via a broader strategic study. The Council Report (Attachment 1).

Council adopted the following motion:

“That Council defer consideration of the Planning Proposal until Council has adopted a broader precinct-wide strategy for Warwick Farm and a report be brought back to Council in July 2017.”

Accordingly, the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy has been prepared by Council officers. The draft Strategy examines opportunities for the future planning of the area, including any possible changes to zoning and planning controls. In this context, the draft Precinct Strategy reviews the current Planning Proposals for the area, including for the Masters Site. This report draws out key issues and conclusions raised in the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy and makes recommendations for the precinct and Planning Proposals.

The Warwick Farm Precinct generally incorporates the entire suburb stretching from the Georges River to the east and south, Cabramatta Creek to the north and Orange Grove Road to the west. It incorporates the Warwick Farm Racecourse, horse stabling area and industrial area to the south, the residential area north west of the railway station as well as Orange Grove. (Figure 1 shows the Precinct and sub precincts that are separately addressed in this report).

 

Figure 1: Warwick Farm Precinct and Sub Precincts

The Precinct Strategy provides a brief history of the area that demonstrates a long association with the horse racing industry in the eastern half of the precinct, and a deliberate attempt to provide an affordable and liveable housing solution in the western portion. Council undertook a strategic review in 2012 (Strategic Review of the Warwick Farm Horse Training Precinct) that explored the complex issues surrounding the existing uses and the future development of part of the area. The study concluded, in part, that:

Investment in the horse training precinct and investment in racecourse indicate that the industry is functioning and operating. Council is commitment to continue to provide the opportunity for the equine industry to operate in Warwick Farm in association with the racecourse.

Rezoning of the site is not considered an appropriate option, especially given the wide variety of zones currently applicable in the area – further fragmenting the zone areas would result in even more conflicting land uses in the precinct. Furthermore constraints such as flooding, acid sulphate soils, existing traffic and car parking issues and land use conflicts all contribute to the conclusion that a rezoning of the site is not appropriate.

 

Council is currently undertaking detailed investigations of a bypass road for the Munday Street area, aimed at resolving some of the traffic conflicts.

There have been recent approvals for major proposals in the area, including a $100 million redevelopment adjacent to Warwick Farm Racecourse by Inglis comprising up to 1000 thoroughbred stalls, a selling centre and 145-room hotel, as well as the redevelopment of the Coopers Paddock site by Stockland for 52,000 sqm of industrial and warehouse space.

The Australian Turf Club is also investigating the feasibility of additional on-course stabling at Warwick Farm Racecourse. If feasible, this may allow for the consolidation of off-course training infrastructure within the boundaries of the racecourse.

A number of other planning proposals within the precinct are under consideration at present.  These will be considered also in this report.

Environmental Considerations

The Draft Precinct Strategy considered a range of environmental considerations, including threatened ecological communities. The analysis identified that two key issues have direct implications for future land use decisions: flooding and odour. These are discussed below.  

Flooding

The flood study was restricted to the eastern half of the precinct that is located within the Georges River floodplain. Consequently flooding is an important consideration for land use assessment in the precinct and presents a potential constraint on redevelopment within the Munday Street area.

Council commissioned FloodMit Pty Ltd to prepare a preliminary flood assessment for land at Warwick Farm south of Governor Macquarie Drive. The study area was divided into two separate areas: Area 1, the land north of Priddle Street and Area 2, the land south of Priddle Street.

The extent of inundation for various flood events is illustrated on Figure 2.

Figure2: Flood Inundation Extents - FloodMit

The conclusions of the Preliminary Flood Assessment are summarised as follows:

●    Both areas 1 and 2 area are affected by flooding from the Georges River, and are located within a flood storage area. Both areas are mostly free from inundation in the 20-year flood, but would be inundated in larger events. The 100-year flood would inundate 89% of Area 1 with an average inundation depth of 0.58m, and would inundate 30% of Area 2 with an average inundation depth of 0.46m.

●    The two areas would need to be filled to at least the 100-year flood level, and preferably the flood planning level (100 year flood plus 0.5m freeboard) to reduce their flood liability. The loss in flood storage in a 100 year flood has been estimated at 107,000m3 (Area 1) and 42,600m3 (Area 2). Compensatory excavation of a similar volume would be required to ensure that there is no impact on flood levels and for compliance with requirements in Council’s DCP. It is unlikely that off-site excavation from the nearby floodplain would provide sufficient volume, and consequently compensatory excavation would need to be provided from within the development area.

●    It is unlikely that the full extent of Area 1 could be rezoned for higher density residential development. It has therefore been divided into four components from preferred (Area 1a) to least preferred (Area 1d), (as shown on Figure 3). This division is based on:

i)          The loss in flood storage;

ii)         Proximity to higher level road access to the Hume Highway;

iii)        Avoidance of areas subject to deeper inundation and that could potentially interfere with the flow of floodwater leading to Governor Macquarie Drive;

iv)        Avoidance of areas that could be isolated from higher level road access; and

v)         The likely impact on stormwater drainage when areas are filled.

●   Detailed flood modelling is recommended once rezoning boundaries are refined and as development proposals are prepared to confirm that there is no detrimental impact on flood behaviour.

Figure 3 – preliminary flood assessment sub precincts - FloodMit

The potential loss in flood storage in Area 1 resulting from medium density residential development is shown in Table 1. It is noted that the potential loss in flood storage due to high density residential development is anticipated to be similar, or less than, the loss in storage for medium density residential development.

Location in order of preference (refer to Fig 10)

Total Area (m2)

Area Inundated

Loss in Storage

 

 

(m2)

(%)

Volume (m3)

Av Depth m)

Area 1a (preferred)

69,290

48,820

70

24,000

0.49

Area 1b

37,210

36,180

97%

19,000

0.53

Area 1c

49,860

49,150

99%

31,000

0.63

Area 1d

(least preferred)

51,440

50,400

98%

33,000

0.66

TOTAL

207,800

184,550

89%

107,000

0.58

Table 1: Potential Loss in Flood Storage – Area 1 Sub-areas – Medium Density Residential development - FloodMit

 

It is noted that the Section 117 Direction. 4.3 – Flood Prone Land – deals specifically with flood prone land and restricts rezoning of Recreation zoned land within the flood planning areas. This Direction applies to part of Area 1d, which includes land owned by the ATC.

 

In summary, it will not be possible to develop all of the R2 land below Munday Street for high density residential, because a significant area of land will have to be sacrificed to compensatory cut and flood attenuation.  This would be difficult to achieve, given the fragmented nature of ownership, probably requiring compulsory acquisitions.

 

Odour

Parts of the Warwick Farm Precinct are subject to odour from the Liverpool Treatment Plant, which present a potential constraint on development.

Sydney Water has stated that the Plant is essential to support infill growth across the LGA, as well as in the South West Priority Growth Area. Figure 4 indicates the odour buffer zone established by Sydney Water around the plant. Sydney Water has advised Council of its objection to residential and other non-compatible land uses within this buffer. However, a reduction in odour buffer may be possible in the future as a result of upgrades to the Plant that would be required to be funded by developer contribution.

The buffer includes part of the Munday Street precinct which is currently zoned R2.

Figure 4: Odour buffer area

 

Draft South-West District Plan

The draft South West District Plan (DDP) was released by the Greater Sydney Commission in November 2017, and sets the strategic direction for the South West District of Sydney, including Liverpool. The Plan is intended to provide a connection between local planning and longer-term metropolitan strategic planning for Greater Sydney. It is anticipated that the DDP will be finalised in 2018.

The DDP sets out the following criteria against which a change in land use or intensity in Warwick Farm must be measured to demonstrate strategic compatibility with the document:

●    Support Liverpool City Centre and not contribute to ‘out of centre’ development detracting from the City Centre;

●    Support the future Liverpool Health and Education Super-precinct, and the potential role of Liverpool as a major strategic centre in the Western City and aerotropolis;

●    Be in accordance with the aims of the collaboration area;

●    Take a precautionary approach to rezoning employment services land;

●    Support the delivery of diverse and affordable housing;

●    Deliver development with high quality urban design recognising the existing characteristics of Warwick Farm;

●    Protect the natural environment, health of the Georges River and efficiency of the District; and

●    Align with the GSC’s vision for the Green Grid around the Georges River and Cabramatta Creek.

 

Collaboration Area

Liverpool is designated in the DDP as a “collaboration area”. This area includes the Liverpool City Centre, Georges River Precinct, Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, and Warwick Farm. The collaboration area is defined as a “place where a significant productivity, liveability or sustainability outcomes can be better achieved through the collaboration of different levels of government and in some cases the private sector or landowners.” Planning for this area involves meetings between the GSC, Liverpool Council, and other agencies and aims to:

●    Increase housing diversity and affordability;

●    Improve and coordinate transport and other infrastructure links and accessibility to support job growth;

●    Enhance smart job growth around the health and education super precinct;

●    Improve the night-time economy, connectivity and mixed use in the centre;

●    Improve urban amenity and the sense of place; and

●    Improve environmental outcomes around the Georges River.

 

Apart from these aims, the collaboration area does not provide an explicit direction for the future planning of Liverpool or Warwick Farm. However, it does provide an opportunity to integrate the views and expertise of Council and other agencies while planning for the area, and to overcome barriers to long-term planning which might result from a lack of alignment between the priorities of different government bodies.

It is noted that the process of collaboration has only recently commenced and that it will take some time to achieve these goals.  It is a concern that, in light of this worthwhile process, Council decisions on individual proposals may pre-empt achievement of these aims.

As the Warwick Farm Precinct is included in the “collaboration area” it is suggested that the Greater Sydney Commission be advised of Council’s strategic direction for the precinct, following consideration of this report.

Open Space / Recreational

 

Warwick Farm currently has over 64 hectares of open space. The majority of this open space is concentrated to the north of the suburb and borders Cabramatta Creek, however there are a number of smaller parks and sportsgrounds dotted throughout the suburb.

With consideration to future potential growth in Warwick Farm, the existing quantity of space is considered sufficient to service a larger resident population, however the type and quality of these spaces will not be adequate.

In response to any future growth in Warwick Farm, a nuanced approach to open space provision would be required to be prioritised over the maintenance of existing large-scale areas that are inaccessible and disconnected. Possible future opportunities for open space in Warwick Farm could include:

1.   Re-purposing of some sporting grounds to local parks;

 

2.   Upgrading existing sporting facilities and local parks to consolidate and improve usability; 

 

3.   Introduction of ‘pocket parks’ throughout the suburb that connect in a linear fashion to the larger area of open space to the north;

 

4.   Improving connectivity between, and access to, open spaces by re-aligning the road network to create physical and visual links;

 

5.   Improving the safety of open spaces by ensuring adequate lighting and passive surveillance;

 

6.   Embellishment of local parks through the provision of soft and hard landscaping. Particular emphasis should be given to community needs, and consideration given to ongoing maintenance costs. Embellishments could include (but is not limited to) seating, picnic areas, decorational gardens, community gardens, basketball courts, skate parks, children’s playgrounds, and water features;

 

7.   Development of a walking and cycling track that follows Cabramatta Creek and/or the Georges River and connects to Chipping Norton Lakes; and

 

8.   Upgrading the existing walking/cycling connection between Warwick Farm Station and Cabramatta Station.

 

Sydney Water has recently advised that it is willing to negotiate access to the Georges River foreshore along the frontage of the water treatment plant. This may be coordinated with a broader strategy to provide river access on public authority lands.

 

Community Consultation

Council undertook preliminary community consultation between 22 May 2017 and 5 June 2017. This consultation focused on the Munday Street Sub Precinct and the South Industrial Sub Precinct and consisted of letterboxed surveys. The survey provided an update for the consultation undertaken in 2012 Strategic Review of the Warwick Farm Horse Training Precinct. Formal consultation, in accordance with planning legislation, would be required to be undertaken should the draft Precinct Strategy progress to a proposal to amend the LEP or DCP.

 

Council received 25 valid responses from the Munday Street Sub Precinct. Respondents viewed the accessibility of the area favourably, with 52% ranking proximity to the railway station as a positive for the neighbourhood. Despite this, public transport usage in the suburb is low. Similarly, proximity to the Liverpool CBD, including the shops and hospital, were highly regarded. Other often mentioned praises for the neighbourhood include the open space and the tight-knit community.

 

Contrariwise, the high level of industrial traffic created noise and traffic issues for residents. Almost a quarter of residents urged Council to redirect the industrial traffic and 20% called for the relocation of horses to on-track stabling in order to reduce modal conflict between horses and trucks. The installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Governor Macquarie Drive and Munday St was also a suggested improvement.

 

Safety was considered to be major issue, largely due traffic conflicts. Eighty-four percent (84%) of respondents believed there to be a conflict between horses and trucks in the neighbourhood, and 88% believed that trucks should not drive through the area, with 80% of residents claiming they had been or nearly been in a collision with a truck. Several horse trainers had been unable to train due to safety concerns. Respondents supported the implementation of the Manning Street Bypass Road.

 

The respondents were unanimous with regards to the importance of stabling close to the Racecourse, if not on the Racecourse, with safety and elimination of traffic conflicts the main reasons provided. Similarly, there is universal agreement that trainers would leave Warwick Farm if stabling were relocated further away from the Racecourse, citing transport logistics costs.

 

Regarding rezoning land, 16% of residents (4 out of 25) were in support of high-rise development in the neighbourhood, provided that stabling can be accommodated on the Racecourse. It is noted that only 12% of residents (3 out of 25) supported rezoning to residential. The facilitation of shops and restaurants in Warwick Farm was also suggested to uplift the community.

 

Council received only 6 valid responses from the Industrial Precinct. Owners all had positive feelings about working in Warwick Farm; however, there were issues raised that could be improved, including additional access routes out of the Industrial Precinct, more stringent parking infringement monitoring, and traffic calming measures for trucks. On the other hand, road widening to better accommodate trucks was also recommended.

 

Council and Public Authority Consultation

 

Council sections including Community Development and Planning, Economic Development, Development Engineering and Infrastructure and Environment were consulted during the preparation of the Precinct Plan.

Economic Development provided the following comments previously in response to the Planning Proposal for the Masters Site:

 

Previous proposals have included a Masters Hardware or bulky goods use (permissible in the zone) and then a more recent re-zoning request to facilitate a residential development of approximately 1400 dwellings. The current proposal seeks the re-zoning of the land for a reduced residential development of 950 units.

 

There is some mention in the report of retail and “non-residential uses” of 3810 sqm and a supermarket area that is undesignated. The proponent suggests 25 jobs per 1000 sqm of retail would be created. As well as a number of jobs in construction.

 

However the ongoing sustainability of the development is questionable in relation to jobs and employment. And the current zoning of B5 (bulky goods) is more conducive to ongoing employment creation. So it is quite difficult to support such a proposal currently on strategic grounds. There are ample opportunity sites closer to the Liverpool CBD where this development could occur. However being located next to the Warwick Farm station has some merit in this regard.

 

In conclusion, and recognising that Council is considering major proposals and developments in Moorebank (Georges River Study), with potential Warwick Farm implications, it is premature for this proposal to be considered in isolation from this strategic study which is already underway.

 

In our view then, the proponent should be invited to re-consider an application, addressing the issues identified, once council has completed, or is close to completing, the above.

 

Council officers also met with Sydney Water and the Roads and Maritime Authority (RMS). RMS reiterated its previous advice in response to the Planning Proposal for the Masters Site, that the planning proposal may set a planning precedent for this precinct with associated cumulative traffic and transport impacts on the regional road network and public transport infrastructure. Further, that Council may wish to give consideration to the need to undertake a high level strategic land use and transport assessment for the precinct to identify cumulative transport impacts, infrastructure requirements and funding mechanisms for any preferred land uses.

 

The RMS agreed with Council’s approach - the preparation and investigation of strategic land use options for a wider Warwick Farm Precinct, and advised that it would facilitate a strategic road capacity analysis, to identify regional transport infrastructure required to accommodate the land use options.

 

Employment Lands

There are 6 distinct employment areas within the Warwick Farm Precinct, as shown in Figure 5.

 

Figure 5: Warwick Farm Employment Areas

Priddle/Scrivener Street

This light industrial area is located in proximity to Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool City Centre and Warwick Farm Station. In fact a part of the hospital complex is located on the south-western edge of the sub precinct and is connected to it by a vehicular and a pedestrian bridge.  The area is vibrant with low vacancy rates and sustains significant local employment opportunities. The Liverpool Employment Lands Study (2016) stated that the existing stock of ageing secondary industrial facilities will likely require investment within the next 5 to 10 years to remain compatible with market demand and needs. Occupiers in the transport and freight industries are likely to be attracted to larger hubs in Prestons and Eastern Creek. Smaller industries, serving the local population, such as automotive repairers and construction industries would be attracted to this location, given its proximity to an established population and nearby construction activity.

The Precinct Strategy concluded that it is important that these lands are preserved for employment uses, and that the land-uses allow for the changing nature of employment and industrial activity in the area.

Sappho Road

The Sappho Road area is relatively close to Warwick Farm Station. The land-uses in this area are generally inconsistent with the IN1 (General Industrial) zone, being home to car sales and display yards, bulky goods centres and a display home exhibition village. The current uses are arguably better suited to a B5 zone and would complement any B5 activities on the Masters Site - this was acknowledged as a factor in support of the B5 zone when rezoning was approved in 2011.

The Precinct Strategy concluded that it is important that this area is preserved for employment uses, and that the land-uses allow for the changing nature of employment and industrial activity in the area.

Orange Grove Industrial

The Orange Grove Industrial area is strategically located at the intersection of the Hume and Cumberland Highways. It has bus connections but poorer walkability to railway stations (greater than 1.5kms). The larger landholdings are largely under-utilized, including the vacant Schweppes site. However, many of the smaller factory units remain occupied/vibrant and provide jobs and services close to the residential catchment.

The Precinct Strategy concluded that It is important that this area is preserved for employment uses, and that the land-uses allow for the changing nature of employment and industrial activity in the area.

Orange Grove Bulky Goods Retail

The Orange Grove bulky goods centre consists of factory outlet retailers to the south (Fashion Spree), and large floor plate homeware goods to the north (The Grove). A handful of fast-food outlets adjoin Orange Grove Road and Viscount Place. A liquor store and office supplies retailer also front Orange Grove Road. Employment in this area would primarily consist of retailing, and some management professions. Given the nature of these uses, alternative land uses in the short to medium term have are not considered in this report. However, any future land use strategies should include the adjoining residential area to the east.

Coopers Paddock

Given the recent rezoning and development approvals, this site is not further addressed. 

Masters Site

This site is addressed in detail elsewhere in this report.

The Precinct Strategy takes into consideration the findings of the Liverpool Industrial Lands Study (2016) that the nature of industrial uses within employment lands in the inner and middle ring areas of Sydney is changing, with some areas moving away from traditional manufacturing formats and transitioning to “new industries”, including knowledge based industries. It is anticipated that over time these changes will begin to influence the way industrial land is uses in Liverpool LGA, particularly the areas in proximity to the Liverpool Health and Education Precinct and City Centre.

 

Residential Land

The zoning of the residential land within Warwick Farm Precinct is shown in Figure 7.

The majority of land within the North West Residential sub-precinct is zoned R3 with a small area of land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre on the corner of Lawrence Hargrave Road and Mannix Parade. An area of land is zoned R4 surrounding Mannix Parade and a section between the Hume Highway and Hinkler Avenue. This land is predominantly in the ownership of the Land and Housing Corporation.

To the east of Warwick Farm station, there is an existing group of multi-dwelling housing zoned R3; with the remainder of the Munday Street area being zoned R2.  It is noted that the LEP contains special provisions permitting stabling on R2 land in this sub precinct.

FSR and height controls are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: FSR and height controls

Residential Uplift Analysis

For the purpose of identifying any potential residential uplift, a 400m catchment was drawn around Warwick Farm Station, as shown in Figure 7, noting that this could potentially be extended to 800m.

To analyse potential uplift of this precinct, a number of broad assumptions have been made. The strategic analysis is aimed at identifying infrastructure demands and impacts, such as traffic generation, and would be refined as part of the detailed through a master planning exercise or preparation of any amendment to the LEP or DCP.

Figure 7: 400m catchment distance from Warwick Farm Station

For the purpose of analysing residential uplift, three scenarios were considered. The scenarios are shown in Table 2. All three up-lift scenarios assume that the area will be rezoned to R4. An FSR of 1.5:1 is modelled for the low yield scenario; 2.0:1, for mid-yield uplift and 2.5:1 for high yield. The result of the mid-yield uplift is shown in Figure 8.

 

R4 Zone

R3 (West)

R3 (East)

B5

R2

Total

Current Controls

698

179

24

0

50

950

Low-yield

698

686

93

488

1,373

3,334

Mid-yield

930

915

123

651

1,830

4,446

High-yield

1,163

1,144

154

814

2,288

5,557

Table 2: Comparison of dwelling yield based on existing, low, medium and high FSR scenarios

Figure 8: Approximate dwelling capacity under a mid-yield scenario

Traffic and Transport Analysis

The three residential uplift scenarios for the Warwick Farm Precinct were assessed by Council’s Traffic Section, which provided high-level strategic advice. The advice also considered traffic issues arising from an employment lands (business park) use of the Munday Street Precinct and Masters Site.


 

The potential traffic generated as a result of the potential residential uplift and employment lands scenarios is shown in Table 3.

Traffic generations from different options (vehicles/peak hour)

Options

R4 Zone

R3 (West)

R3 (East)

B5

R2

Total traffic volume (vph)

Additional traffic volume (vph)

Current controls

202

52

7

0

43

276

 

Low-yield

202

199

27

142

398

968

692

 (FSR 1.5:1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mid-yield

270

265

36

189

531

1,290

1,014

 (FSR 2.0:1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High-yield

337

332

45

236

664

1,613

1,337

(FSR 2.5:1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Business park option

 

 

25

186

634

820

544

Table 3 Traffic Generation

As shown in the Table 3, the proposed residential use (R4 zones) on the existing R2, R3 and B5 sites with FSRs (1.5:1- 2.5:1) will generate traffic volume of approximately 970 vehicles per hour -1,610 vehicles per hour.

The business park zone (B7) will generate similar or slightly higher traffic volume (approximately 90 vehicles per hour) compared to R4 zones applied to those lands with FSR 2.0:1.


 

Traffic impact assessment and the required infrastructure upgrades

Governor Macquarie Drive (GMD), with its current 2-lane road configuration, is operating close to or at its capacity. The GMD is required to be widened to a four-lane road to accommodate additional traffic that will be generated by background growth and future developments.

The ATC is currently widening a 750 m section of GMD between the ATC car park access and the William Long Bridge into a four-lane road. The remaining two lanes section between Hume Highway and the ATC car park access will need to be widened as a result of developments on R3 (East), B5 and R2 lands.

Impact on nearby intersections likely to be affected by the proposed developments

The proposed land use options will have impacts on the following intersections:

●    Hume Highway/Mannix Parade intersection;

●    Hume Highway/Governor Macquarie Drive intersection;

●    Governor Macquarie Drive/Newbridge Road intersection;

●    Hume Highway/Home Pride Avenue intersection;

 

As such, these intersections will need to be improved to mitigate its impacts. Detailed required intersection improvements will be determined after the preferred land use option is confirmed. In particular, Hume Highway/Governor Macquarie Drive intersection will need to be upgraded for any developments within Warwick Farm Precinct (both north and south).

Impacts on local road network

Munday Street is a main access road to serve industrial area as well as R3 (East), B5 and R2 lands. Safety concerns have been raised with regard to conflicts between increasing pedestrian movements as a result of residential developments and heavy vehicle movements.

To mitigate the impacts, the developments on the southern side of Hume Highway will be required to provide a Manning bypass and associated traffic signals at GMD and Shore Street intersection to separate access(s) to residential developments and industrial area.

Active and public transport

There is an existing pedestrian underpass crossing Hume Highway that provides a connection between the northern precinct areas to Warwick Farm Station. It is currently under used due to poor conditions such as inadequate lighting and security concerns. Cyclists are required to dismount to use the underpass.

Improvements, including lighting and cameras, will be required to the existing pedestrian underpass with potential widening to cater for cyclists due to increasing pedestrian and cyclist demands as a result of the proposed residential developments.

 

In addition, a free shuttle bus service between the precinct and Liverpool/Warwick Farm stations will be required.


 

Other cumulative traffic and transport improvements

 

To identify cumulative impacts appropriately, traffic modelling along with funding strategy will be required once the preferred land use option is identified.

 

Detailed modelling will be carried out in consultation with RMS/TfNSW.

Development options

Improvement works

Comments

Low-yield

●      Hume Highway/Mannix Parade intersection upgrade;

●      Improvements to pedestrian underpass

●      New traffic signals at Governor Macquarie Drive/Shore Street intersection;

●      Left in/left out at GMD/Munday Street intersection;

●      Hume Highway/Governor Macquarie Drive intersection upgrade;

●      GMD between Hume Highway and the ATC car park access is to be widened to a four-lane road;

Traffic generations from low-yield option can be accommodated if the improvement works are provided.

Medium-yield

●      Hume Highway/Mannix Parade intersection upgrade;

●      Improvements to pedestrian underpass

●      Free shuttle bus service between the precinct and Liverpool station

●      New traffic signals at Governor Macquarie Drive/Shore Street intersection;

●      Left in/left out at GMD/Munday Street intersection;

●      Hume Highway/Governor Macquarie Drive intersection upgrade;

●      GMD between Hume Highway and the ATC car park access is to widened to a four-lane road;

●      Governor Macquarie Drive/Newbridge Road intersection;

●      Contributions towards Hume Highway/Home Pride Avenue intersection upgrade;

Traffic generations from medium-yield option can be accommodated if the improvement works are provided.

 

Business park option (similar to the medium-yield option)

●      Hume Highway/Mannix Parade intersection upgrade;

●      Improvements to pedestrian underpass

●      Free shuttle bus service between the precinct and Liverpool station

●      New traffic signals at Governor Macquarie Drive/Shore Street intersection;

●      Left in/left out at GMD/Munday Street intersection;

●      Hume Highway/Governor Macquarie Drive intersection upgrade;

●      GMD between Hume Highway and the ATC car park access is to widened to a four-lane road;

●      Governor Macquarie Drive/Newbridge Road intersection;

●      Contributions towards Hume Highway/Home Pride Avenue intersection upgrade;

Traffic generations from business park option can be accommodated if the improvement works are provided.

 

High-yield

Detailed analysis and intersection modelling are required to test whether high-yield development option is feasible or not as site constraints (building and utilities) might prevent any further road improvement works.

Not supported until detailed investigation is undertaken to demonstrate that the high-yield option can be accommodated with possible improvement options.

Table 4 Transport infrastructure upgrade to support Warwick Farm Precinct options

As a result of the above, the initial traffic assessment advice includes the following:

 

●    Low-yield, mid-yield and business park options can be supported on traffic ground subject to improvement works being provided. Details of the required infrastructure upgrades to support various land use options are shown in Table 4;

 

●    Developers will be required to enter into Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) with Council for the proposed improvement works;

 

●    All the regional road upgrades or contributions will require TfNSW/RMS approval.

 

In regard to the capacity of the local road network to absorb additional traffic, it is noted that there may be opportunities to provide all residential uplift in the north west residential precinct due to the areas greater accessibility and potential for good residential amenity.

 

Economic and Market Assessment

Council commissioned the AEC Group (AEC) to provide economics and land economics advice to help inform the precinct planning for the Warwick Farm Precinct. The key findings by AEC are summarised below:

Munday Street Precinct

ATC are understood to have plans to construct a new stabling facility on the racecourse site. Whilst the Munday Street Precinct is currently operating as a defacto stabling precinct, this function could potentially shift to the racecourse in the future on completion of new stabling facilities.

Survey findings from businesses, landowners and trainers in the Precinct indicate there is a highly favourable sentiment in the neighbourhood for rezoning the Precinct for alternative uses so long as suitable alternatives for horse stabling and related activity in close proximity to the Warwick Farm Racecourse is available.

The provision of this new stabling area on the racecourse would enable the economic contribution of the Munday Street Precinct to be retained in the Liverpool LGA, while also allowing for the Munday Street Precinct to be redeveloped for higher value land uses.

 

Economic modelling indicates the contribution Munday Street Precinct makes to the Liverpool LGA is significant - supporting 238 jobs (direct and indirect) and approximately $20.3m in Gross Regional Product each year, and paying $11.9m in wages and salaries.

 

Masters Site

 

Large format retailers and commercial uses require certain features in order to be competitive and sustainable in the long term. Large format retailers require large sites which allow numerous retailers to co-locate and cluster. Office precincts require critical mass in order to facilitate the clustering of services amenity and transport access (public transport). The Site is challenged on all of the above-mentioned fronts. As a B5 zoned site, due to its modest scale and relative isolation, unless commitment from an anchor tenant can be found the Site will likely struggle to be competitive.

Generic feasibility analysis demonstrates that should the Masters Site be rezoned to R4 High Density Residential, a minimum FSR of 1:1 is required for feasible residential unit development. The FSR is less compared to that which the Planning Proposal lodged for the Site proposes (FSR 3.5:1).

 

Priddle/Scrivener Street Precinct

 

The Priddle/Scrivener Street Precinct is generally well occupied, catering to a local service need. While manufacturing activity declined over the 2006-2011 period, the Precinct experienced growth in transport logistics and local service-based businesses.

Market investigations demonstrate the Precinct generally enjoys good market appeal. That said, the difficulty of access to and from the Precinct detracts from its central location within Liverpool and the South West region. If the issue of road access is left unaddressed, it is conceivable that market interest will decline over time as other locations that offer better vehicle access are available.

 

Potential Planning Interventions and Scenarios

 

AEC undertook an analysis of potential planning interventions which is discussed below.

 

Owing to the important role played by the Priddle/Scrivener Street industrial precinct, all the AEC planning scenarios envisage retention of the area for general industrial uses (i.e. retaining the IN1 General Industrial zone). Various planning interventions are considered for Munday Street Precinct and the Masters Site.

 

Residential Uses

 

A rezoning of Munday Street Precinct and Masters Site to permit a mix of residential densities should be predicated on the ability of the horse stabling function to be relocated and accommodated on the Racecourse. This is important for three key reasons:

 

●     A relocation of horse stabling to the racecourse would allow the economic contribution of Munday Street Precinct to be retained within the Liverpool LGA.

●     Should the Munday Street Precinct be rezoned independent of the delivery of new horse stabling facility at the racecourse, there is a risk that utilisation rates at the racecourse will decline, thereby resulting in severe economic loss for the Liverpool LGA.

●     Many respondents to the survey indicated that availability of horse stabling facilities in close proximity to the racecourse is essential in their decision to continue training and racing at Warwick Farm.

 

Residential and industrial uses do not mix. In order for both precincts to be viable and have market appeal, there needs to be provision for separate access and unimpeded access to the industrial precinct.

 

A rezoning to permit higher densities accompanies an opportunity for Council to require contributions to public benefit as part of a planning proposal. Contributions could include amenity and infrastructure items for the new residential precinct as well as to fund the Manning Street bypass.

 

Employment Uses

 

A rezoning to facilitate employment uses at Munday Street Precinct to be sandwiched between two employment zoned areas – Masters Site (zoned B5) and Priddle/Scrivener Street Precinct (zoned IN1) is a logical land use scenario. Similar to the residential scenario, this scenario is predicated on the relocation of Munday Street Precinct’s horse stabling function to the racecourse.

 

A rezoning to employment uses would effectively eliminate any land use conflicts between the existing industrial, residential and horse stabling activities. There would accordingly be a less compelling case to progress and implement the Manning Street bypass.

 

In practical terms, this scenario is unlikely to result in meaningful outcomes on-ground as existing-uses (low density residential) are generally more valuable than potential B5 or IN1 lands. In the main, it is conceivable that most properties will remain in their existing use (potentially even retaining horse stabling), there being little incentive for landowners to change or redevelop. As a consequence, land use conflicts will arguably still present between existing residential uses and industrial uses at Priddle/Scrivener Street Precinct.

 

The future of the Masters Site is inextricably linked to the future of Munday Street Precinct. Should the horse stabling functions of Munday Street Precinct be successfully and viably relocated to the racecourse, opportunities arise for Munday Street Precinct and Lot 1 to collectively deliver a master planned outcome incorporating a range of housing formats, required urban amenity and commercial support services, as well as meet social/community infrastructure need.

 

North West residential area

 

AEC concluded that the medium density area is not economically viable to be redeveloped, given the current planning controls. Whilst residential redevelopment would become feasible if the FSR were increased to at least 1.2:1 and the zoning were changed to R4, market demands would require additional infrastructure and services to be made available in the precinct to support the higher density. AEC also noted that transport links, services and urban amenity are not as accessible in the North West residential area compared to land south of Hume Highway.

 

Conclusions of draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy

 

On 22 February 2017 Council resolved to defer consideration of the Planning Proposal for the Masters Site until Council has adopted a broader precinct-wide strategy for Warwick Farm. In response, Council officers have prepared a Draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy. The draft Strategy investigates opportunities and constraints for the Warwick Farm precinct and reviews the current Planning Proposals applying to the area, including the proposal for the Masters Site. The followings conclusions have been drawn:

 

Precinct Area South of Governor Macquarie Drive

 

The draft South West District Plan establishes a number of strategic directions, including the requirement to take a precautionary approach to rezoning employment services land. In light of the documented shortage of industrial land in Liverpool and the important role played by the Priddle/Scrivener Street industrial precinct and its economic viability, there is no strategic merit in removing its current industrial zoning.

 

This raises issues regarding the compatibility of this industrial zone with residential and particularly high density residential uses in the adjacent Munday Street Precinct.  Long-standing conflicts between industrial trucks, horses and pedestrians have plagued this area since the 1970’s, requiring restrictions on the movement of trucks.  There are plans to create a bypass road to avoid some of these conflicts, however, there is a risk that conflicts will persist and may escalate if greater residential density is permitted, for the following reasons:

 

·    It may take a considerable time for the horse stables to leave the area, noting that many properties may not be suitable for high density because of the many constraints described in this report and noting the lukewarm response to the survey regarding residential rezoning; 

 

·    At present there is no certainty that the stables can or will move to the racecourse, noting that the racecourse is constrained by flooding and heritage issues and that there has not been an application for this proposal.  Failure to secure a viable, timely and certain transition of stabling facilities from the precinct to the racecourse could negatively impact on the racecourse itself, risking “severe economic loss for the Liverpool LGA”;

 

·    Some of the industries operate 24 hours a day.  Heavy vehicle movements in the middle of the night are likely to attract complaints even if they are restricted to the bypass road.  Moreover, it is unlikely that restrictions can be enforced on light vehicles.  Continual complaints may impact on the viability of the industrial precinct, risking valuable jobs close to the City Centre; and

 

·    Taller residential towers will overlook the industrial area, roads and the railway lines creating the potential for noise complaints to persist, particularly in light of the inevitable increase in rail freight movements.

 

In addition to the above, the area in question lacks many of the attributes required to establish a successful high density neighbourhood:  it is isolated from the City Centre, surrounded by industrial activities (including a sewerage treatment works) and by high order roads and a freight line and it lacks community and recreational services and facilities (density without amenity).  Moreover, there is a generous supply of residential high density land to satisfy the demand for many years to come and it is considered that there are more suitable locations within the precinct to locate additional R4 uses.

Council officers are of the view that the appropriate land use for the Munday Street Precinct is for employment activities, and in particular uses that support the future Liverpool Health and Education Super-precinct, and the potential role of Liverpool as a major strategic centre in the Western City and aerotropolis.

 

The area comprising the Munday Street and Priddle/Scrivener Street precincts and the Masters site constitutes a distinctive and contained precinct that provides opportunities to collectively deliver a master planned outcome to capitalise on synergies with the Health and Education Precinct and access to the Georges River foreshore.

 

Consequently, it is considered appropriate that the entire precinct south of Governor Macquarie Drive be zoned for employment purposes that provide land use flexibility to support business park and technology businesses. This would encourage a transit-oriented development that assists the tidal flow use of Warwick Farm station, and supports the “thirty minute city” concept. Further, the built form of industrial/employment development is less problematic than residential development in addressing flood and odour impacts and minimises traffic conflicts created by incompatible land uses. 

 

It is considered appropriate, however, to defer a decision regarding future zoning for the area until the collaboration area working groups, including one for health and education matters and one for infrastructure, have considered solutions for challenges across a much broader area.  For example, solutions for traffic congestion in the Georges River Precinct may impact on the Warwick Farm Precinct and vice versa.

 

 

 

North West Residential Area

 

The investigation undertaken for the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy indicates that there is strategic merit in rezoning land in the North West Residential Area, located within the 400m catchment of the Warwick Farm Railway station, to R4 High Density Residential and to review the development controls for the remaining R3 land in the sub precinct. This includes the area the subject of the Planning Proposal as well as land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation.

 

Whilst there is in excess of 250 hectares of land zoned R4 in the LGA there has been minimal take up in the established areas with high density residential development being predominantly limited to the fringes of the Liverpool City Centre. Whilst, the 5 year dwelling supply target proposed by the Greater Sydney Commission is consistent with the current and proposed residential approvals in the LGA there is a need to address supply of affordable housing. The redevelopment of the North West Residential Area provides an opportunity to provide approximately 2000 dwellings with potential to support the delivery of diverse and affordable housing in coordination with the Land and Housing Corporation.

 

The area has significant open space provision and local school capacity with other social and road infrastructure potentially being able to be addressed through a VPA and contributions. A necessary infrastructure upgrade includes the provision of grade separated pedestrian and cycle access across the Hume Highway to provide access to the Warwick Farm Railway Station and the Liverpool City Centre, as well as facilitating access for residents in the City Centre precinct to the open space network along Cabramatta Creek.  This would not only connect the Warwick Farm community to the City Centre, but also connect the residents of the apartment buildings located south of the Hume Highway to open space, schools and recreational facilities – a clear public benefit. 

 

The area constitutes a distinctive and contained precinct that provides opportunities to deliver a master planned outcome in cooperation with the local community and Land and Housing Corporation. This will involve undertaking detailed studies to address cumulative impacts on traffic and transport, social infrastructure, retail needs, built form and open space planning.

 

Sappho Road

 

The investigation undertaken for the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy indicates that the area should be retained for employment purposes that allow for the changing nature of employment and industrial activity and recognizing it proximity to the Health and Education Precinct and Liverpool City Centre.

 

Strategic Outcomes for Current Planning Proposals

 

The Planning Proposals currently applying to the Warwick Farm Precinct have been reviewed in the context of the findings of the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

Amendment 61, RZ-5/2015 (Orange Grove Megacentre)

 

Figure 9 Extent of Planning Proposal RZ-5/2015 (Amendment 61) and existing zones

 

In November 2015, Council received Gateway Determination to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool LEP to permit ‘shops’ to a maximum Gross Floor Area of 21,000sqm at 10 Orange Grove Road.

 

As Draft Amendment 61 has recently completed public authority and public exhibition and will likely be reported to Council in late 2017, the proposal is not further addressed in this report.

 

RZ-4/2016 (36-42 Orange Grove Road) (Schweppes Site)


Figure 10 existing zoning map showing extent of planning proposal RZ-4/2016

 

A Planning Proposal was lodged with Council in August 2016 to rezone 80,803sqm of land at Orange Grove from IN1 – General Industrial to R4 – High Density Residential, B6 – Enterprise Corridor and RE1 – Public Recreation.

 

In October 2016, Council wrote to the proponent advising that the Planning Proposal lacked strategic merit. Council’s assessment was based on a number of grounds, including non-compliance with the objectives of Section 117 Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones, as it did not encourage employment growth or preserve employment land.

 

The Liverpool Employment Lands Study (2016) identified the possibility of only 2.8 years of serviced industrial land supply remaining and that projected demand in the LGA from key industrial sectors indicates a requirement for an additional 427 ha of industrial zoned land by 2031.

 

The investigation undertaken for the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy reinforces Council officers’ conclusion that the planning proposal lacks strategic merit and that they site should be retained for employment purposes. It is recognised that in the medium term that the nature of industrial uses on the site may transition to a more flexible format that supports the Liverpool City Centre and Health and Education Precinct.

 

RZ-1/2016 (Freeman Street, Warwick Farm)


Figure 11 Extent of Planning Proposal RZ-1/2016 and existing zones

 

In February 2016, Council received a Planning Proposal to rezone land bounded by Freeman Street, Nicholls Street and Station Street, Warwick Farm. The planning proposal sought to rezone the site from R3 Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and increase the Floor Space Ratio from 0.5:1 to 2.5:1 to facilitate approximately 525 residential units.

 

As mentioned above, Council officers are of the view that that there is strategic merit in rezoning land in the North West Residential Area, located within the 400m catchment of the Warwick Farm Railway station, to R4 High Density Residential and to review the development controls for the remaining R3 land in the sub precinct. This includes the area the subject of the Planning Proposal RZ-1/2016.

 

Consequently, the Freeman Street area can be incorporated into land use outcomes identified through a master planning exercise for the broader precinct, in cooperation with the local community and Land and Housing Corporation and the GSC working groups for the collaboration area. The Planning Proposal, when consistent with a master plan, could then be separately progressed.

 

RZ-18/2015 (Lot 1 Governor Macquarie Drive) (‘Masters Site’)

 

Figure 12 Map showing existing zoning and extend of planning proposal RZ-18/2015

 

The Masters Site, is a 2.93 ha triangular-shaped site bound by Governor Macquarie Drive, Munday Street, Manning Street, Hume Highway, and Warwick Street.

 

The site was rezoned from RE2 Private Recreation and R2 Low Density Housing to B5 Business Development in December 2011 (Amendment 18, RZ-3/2011). Council considered B5 to be the most appropriate use for the site, considering the land use conflicts in the area. Council was satisfied that there was sufficient demand for bulky goods retailing within the regional catchment and that the site was adequately connected to the regional road network, providing access for the consumer catchment and the enterprise corridors along Hume Highway and Cumberland Highway. Additionally, the Council was satisfied that the subject property could provide an adequate floor plate for bulky goods retailing.  It is noted that the Large Format Retail sector has expanded over the last two years, on the back of steady residential growth.

 

Following the LEP amendment, development approval was granted in February 2013 (DA-1321/2011) for a home improvement centre (a Masters development). This DA has not been realised.

 

In November 2015, a new planning proposal was lodged with Council seeking to rezone the site to R4 High Density Residential (FSR of 4.5:1 and heights to 100m, yielding 1,400 dwellings and 2,500sqm of retail). In February 2016, Council officers wrote to the proponent, advising that the proposal could not be supported. In October 2016, following extensive discussions with Council, the proposal was revised to part R4 High Density Residential and part B4 Mixed Use. The proposal sought a FSR of 3.5:1 (to facilitate approx. 950 residential units); and an additional use provision allowing up to 5,000 sqm of retail floorspace. The applicant subsequently had discussions with Council officers regarding submission of a modified proposal having a maximum FSR of 2:1, which equates to approximately 500 residential dwelling units.

 

On 22 February 2017, Council considered a report on the matter. The report cited the petition submitted to Council as evidence of widespread community support for the proposal and predicted that the identified conflicts and constraints would be easily resolved by a broader strategic review.  Council however resolved to defer consideration of the Planning Proposal until Council has adopted a broader precinct-wide strategy for Warwick Farm. 

 

The strategic review has determined that there is no certainty that the long-running conflicts will disappear and that, in fact they may get worse.  The studies commissioned have clarified the significant constraints affecting the precinct and the risks that the proposed rezoning introduces to existing industrial uses, to horse training activities in the Munday Street precinct and to the racecourse itself. The precautionary principle dictates that this proposal should not be supported because it would put existing and future jobs at risk.

 

Moreover, the community consultation undertaken indicates a lukewarm response at best.  In the meantime the GSC collaboration area workshops have just commenced, promising a process that will find solutions to entrenched problems, like congestion and economic growth through collaboration across government agencies.

 

Having regard to the investigations undertaken for the draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy, Council officers have made the following conclusions regarding the Masters Planning Proposal:

 

·    The future of the Masters Site is inextricably linked to the future of the Munday Street Precinct. Consequently the zoning of the Masters Site should be compatible with the preferred future land uses of the Munday Street Precinct. It is inappropriate to rezone the site in isolation as it would exacerbate existing conflicts and result in poor amenity outcomes for existing homes and new residents of the site;

 

·    There is no compelling need for residential high density on the site and nor is there a convincing argument that the current zone is not viable;

 

·    The road network capacity limits the number of dwellings that can be constructed across the broader precinct, making it important to choose the most suitable location for further residential development.  The strategy indicates that the residential sub precinct north of the Hume Highway is better suited to absorb the capacity;

 

·    The Munday Street sub precinct does not offer sufficient amenity or services to support high density residential development as it is surrounded by industrial activities and heavy transport routes, it is isolated from the City Centre and lacks necessary social infrastructure; 

 

·    There is a risk that future residents would negatively impact on existing viable industries in the southern industrial area;

 

·    There is no certainty that the stables would transition to the racecourse, risking existing jobs and impacting on the viability of the racecourse itself; and

 

·    Flooding and odour are significant constraints to residential development in the area.

 

It is considered that the appropriate land use for the Munday Street Precinct is employment activities and any future rezoning should be focused on opportunities associated with health and education. Consequently, it is considered that the Planning Proposal to rezone the Masters Site to R4 lacks strategic merit.  It is recommended that a further report be submitted to Council explaining fully why the proposal should not be supported.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.

Facilitate economic development.

Environment

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

Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service.


Social

Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.


Civic Leadership

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

Legislative

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Report to Council meeting of 22nd February 2017 (Under separate cover)

2.         Draft Warwick Farm Precinct Strategy (Under separate cover)   


155

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

CEO 01

Electronic voting and recording system

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Strive for best practice in all Council processes

File Ref

181855.2017

Report By

George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services  and

Eric Benedicic – A/Manager Information Technology

Approved By

Chris White - Director City Corporate  and

Kiersten Fishburn – Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides a review of the audio visual system equipment used in the Council Chambers. An option for a new microphone system with a built-in voting option is recommended at a cost of $60,000. The report also addresses the issue of streaming of meetings, and a further report on that matter will be submitted to Council should Council wish staff to look into it further. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Endorse the implementation of a replacement solution to the audio visual system equipment used in the Council Chambers as per Option 2 of this report at a cost of $60,000;

 

2.       Note that funds of $20,000 are included in the 2017/18 budget and the additional $40,000 required will need to be approved at the next budget review; and 

 

3.       Receive a further report from officers on the options relating to streaming of Council meetings and associated costs.

 

 

REPORT

 

At the 31 May 2017 Council meeting, Council considered a Notice of Motion from Councillor Harle relating to Electronic Voting and Recording System.  

 

 

The background to Councillor Harle’s Notice of Motion was;

 

·     At General Council Meetings, it is often difficult for the Chairperson to accurately determine the order and timing of Councillor voting by means of a show of hands or a verbal response.

·     Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and Code of Conduct states that Councillors should have mutual respect, however the current system does not promote that principle as well as it could by ensuring accurate procedures and results are recorded.

·     The current system of Movers and Seconders of Motions and subsequent recording of votes is subjective and does not necessarily reflect the actual and timely responses by Councillors at Council Meetings.

·     For the above stated reasons, an Electronic Voting Systems was implemented in the 2008-12 term of Council. At the previous Council Administration Centre at 1 Hoxton Park Road.  The Electronic voting and recording system addressed the main problems that may contribute to doubt and transparency on some aspects of Council Meetings.

 

Council at that meeting resolved that Council note the comments of the CEO (as shown below); 

 

“As part of an external review of the microphone system installed in the Council Chamber, staff have already commissioned a review of possible electronic voting options for Council.  This review is currently underway, and it is expected that recommendations will be available from the consultant by the end of June, 2017.

 

Staff are happy to report the outcomes of that process to a future meeting of Council for debate.

 

It is noted that at present, there is no specific budget set aside for either new microphones or electronic voting systems.  Any progress on these initiatives would need to be funded through a future quarterly budget review process”.

 

Review of system and options

 

Council’s IT department initiated a review of the current microphone system used in the Council Chambers and sought options for a microphone system which would also include a built-in voting option.

 

An additional aspect looked at in this report is that of digital streaming, which was also the subject of a report to the previous term of Council in September 2014.

 

The original vendor of the current system and a competitor were invited to offer a quote for their solutions. Both vendors confirmed the current system to be outdated and could not provide any support or guarantee of on-going system operation.  Both vendors could provide a solution which replaced most hardware, including microphones, controllers, wireless infrastructure and the additional provision of voting and recording capabilities.

 

Below are the major findings and recommendations:

 

·    The current wireless system is obsolete, and recent chamber refurbishments have affected the quality of the signal and microphone operation.

The new system would utilise an entirely new wireless network for microphone connectivity.

·    Most hardware of the current system is obsolete and would be replaced.

·    A clean-up of all cabling and video switching would be included.

·    Suppliers have provided the following options to upgrade the equipment with 25 microphone units:

1.   Simple implementation without voting, battery operated $24K

2.   Standard implementation, with voting and powered microphones $60K

3.   Microphones with touchscreen interfaces, voting, battery operated $75K

 

The other option would be to not spend any money on this project and continue with the existing technology. This is not recommended however as the current system is failing and will only deteriorate further over time.

 

The second option is the preferred. This evaluation is based on the following:

-     Cheaper option of the similar graded offering

-     Voting capabilities included

-     Microphones have both battery and mains power

-     Microphone design better suited for application

 

A brochure on the preferred microphone solution is attached.

 

Staff confirm that a budget of $20,000 for Council Chamber technology improvements was advanced in the 2017/18 budget.  It is apparent that this amount will not meet the cost of an upgraded system.  As a consequence, whilst staff recommend progressing with the project, this funding shortfall will need to be addressed at a future budget review process, and will either require delaying other expenditure, or adding to Council’s underlying deficit for the 2017/18 financial year.

 

Digital Streaming Capability:

 

To provision digital streaming of Council meetings, consideration was to leverage Council’s recent implementation of Microsoft’s collaboration tool ‘Skype for Business’, providing multimedia streaming capabilities. Feasibility of this solution was confirmed with the vendor, however confirmation of system requirements to integrate with the intended Chamber equipment could not be obtained at the time. This solution is cloud-based and would have the capability to stream to internal and external audiences.

 

Due to recent restructures in the Information Technology department, further research and review of these solutions would need to be performed to ensure the correct solution is recommended and that the solution is accurately costed. Indicative figures based on 2014 investigations, when the matter of web-streaming of Council meetings was previously reported to Council, showed that costs to implement were in the order of $16,000 and then recurring costs of $16,800 per annum.

 

In addition, two options could be considered. One would be to stream meetings for the general public to view and listen, the other would be to restrict the function as a starting point to Council staff only.

 

The question of webcasting/streaming meetings was considered by Council in September 2014.  At that time, and after considering the legal and budget implications of the issue, the Council decided not to webcast meetings.

 

Unlike state and federal representatives debating in parliament, local Councillors do not enjoy any form of parliamentary privilege protection.  Furthermore, Council meetings provide a platform for members of the public to address the Council and the audience directly (via public forum).  The risks of unexpected or inadvertent defamatory statements, privacy breaches, or other statements that may expose Council, staff, residents or Councillors to liability must be considered. Webcasting/streaming exposes meetings to potentially huge numbers of viewers, and also allows third-party recording and re-transmission of elements of the meeting or debate.  This could massively increase the impact of any misstatements in a meeting.  Staff believe it was these concerns which influenced the Council’s decision in 2014.

 

Little has changed in the legal or technical landscape since 2014.  Whilst there are clear transparency, probity and access benefits associated with webcasting meetings, the risks also remain.  It is apparent that some other councils have decided to accept these risks, but at present, Liverpool has taken more of a risk management approach to the issue.

 

As part of the investigation into the issue of streaming of meetings in 2014, the following information was reported to Council at the time:

 

Council’s Manager Information Management and Lead Operations Coordinator visited Wollongong City Council on 31st of July 2014 to meet the IT/Governance Section to discuss the Wollongong City Council experience in the implementation and operating of web streaming of Council meetings. To gather more information and understanding of the possible technical aspects of the implementation better, Councils Manager Information Management also held discussions with the provider of web streaming solution for Wollongong City Council.

 

Below are some of the main features required, forecasted costs and implementation timeframe:

·    Live streaming will be via the provider’s website. This means that Liverpool City Council’s own internet capacity is not affected.

 

·    The provider to offer a managed service solution, which includes not only streaming through their website, but also training, support, post streaming editing service, web agenda, archiving, etc.

 

·    Cameras are controlled by a Touch Screen monitor - very easy to use, reducing the need for an IT specialist’s presence. The solution implemented at Wollongong City Council is managed by governance officers who run the meeting administration.

 

·    A three cameras solution as implemented at Wollongong City Council (approximated upfront cost is $16,000) which also includes training of appropriate Council staff.  Recurring costs cost per month is estimated to be around $1,400.

 

·    The solution does allow zoom in and out, movement of cameras, document sharing. The use of these capabilities increases the complexity of operating the system during meeting and would require additional Council staff to attend the meetings. It should be noted that solution implemented at Wollongong has cameras in fixed positions which results in a more simplified operation of the meeting process.

 

·    Agenda / items listing with the current agenda item being viewable on the screen as the meeting takes place and is updated as the meeting progresses.

 

·    Meeting Commences (Banner display). Opening screen banner, stating date and starting time of meeting this is used before most meetings.

 

·    Closed Sessions (Banner display). Closed session is initiated by pressing the stop button – very easy and safe to administer. During close sessions a banner will come up on the screen indicating that the media stream is temporally closed.

 

·    Out of Sessions (Banner display). A standard out of session banner will be displayed on the media streaming link while the council meetings are out of session.

 

·    Archival Service is part of the solution with all Council meetings being archived within 48 hours or two business days of the meeting. The Archived vision can be viewed at any time and will be stored for 4 years or as requested. Each session would have an individual link, also Included in this archive service is functionality for the service provider to edit/delete no vision sections (Closed sessions, Out of Sessions etc).The archived data storage infrastructure will reside within Australia. Each media file/link will contain a standard header and trailer introducing and closing the council meetings together with chapter points to make search and review functions easy to use.

 

·    This solution will allow streaming into mobile devices including, laptops, tablets and smartphones.

 

 

·    Streaming will occur with a 60 second delay.

·    Once solution provided is selected the implementation process is expected to take approximately eight to ten weeks.

    

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

An amount of $20,000 has been included in Council’s 2017/18 budget for technological improvements to the Council Chambers.

An additional $40,000 will need to be added to the 2017/18 budget if Council wish to proceed with technology improvements as recommended (being Option 2 of this report). 

The issue of streaming would bring additional separate costs, and would be the subject of a further report, if Council wished to investigate this further.

Environment

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership

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

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.

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Brochure on preferred microphone solution (Chairperson unit and standard delegate unit)  


159

CEO 01

Electronic voting and recording system

Attachment 1

Brochure on preferred microphone solution (Chairperson unit and standard delegate unit)

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


163

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

CEO 02

Application for Title of Lord Mayor for Mayor of Liverpool

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Strive for best practice in all Council processes

File Ref

182766.2017

Report By

George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services

Approved By

Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The report seeks to make application to the NSW Premier to apply to have the status of Lord Mayor bestowed upon the Mayor of Liverpool.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the attached correspondence to be sent to the Premier of NSW seeking to have the status of Lord Mayor bestowed upon the Mayor of Liverpool.

 

REPORT

 

In Australia, Lord Mayor is a special status granted by the Monarch to Mayors of major cities. Australian cities with Lord Mayors are Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Newcastle, Parramatta, Perth, Sydney and Wollongong. It has long been an aspiration of Council to have our Mayor designated Lord Mayor.

 

Following our recent reclassification by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal to a “Metropolitan large” category, and given the history of Liverpool, being the nation’s fourth oldest town after Sydney, Parramatta and Hobart, and its significant growth over the next decade, it is considered an opportune time to actively apply to have the title of Lord Mayor bestowed upon the Mayor of Liverpool. 

 

On the issue of the process to apply for Lord Mayor status, the Office of Local Government has advised that;

 

“The title of Lord Mayor is bestowed on the Office of the Mayor of a local government areas by Letters Patent in the exercise of the Royal prerogative. Although there is no specific qualifications required for such bestowal, it appears that the local government area would need to have a very special significance in the history and geography of the State. There is no reference in the legislation to a particular process to be followed, nor has the Department released any guidelines on this issue”.

 

In contacting Wollongong and Parramatta Councils regarding the process they followed, they have advised;

 

-     Wollongong

 

Lord Mayoralty was granted to the City of Wollongong by Queen Elizabeth II on 10 April 1970 (in person, during a tour of the City) following a community campaign led by the Council of the time. The first approach Council made to seek the Lord Mayoral title was to the then King in 1951, then again in 1956, 1959, 1964, 1965 and finally (and successfully) in 1969.

 

The request was made in writing to the Minister for Local Government, following a resolution of the Council to do so.

 

-     Parramatta

 

Alderman Hyam was the last Mayor of Parramatta and the first Lord Mayor. He was elevated to the position on December 12th, 1988. The message from Buckingham Palace read as follows:

 

“It is established practice in the UK that the mayor of an important city is raised to a Lord Mayor only to mark some very special national or local event. The City of Parramatta’s own bicentennial, in Australia’s own bicentennial year, seems to meet that criterion most aptly, so the Queen is happy to approve the Premier’s recommendation that the Mayor of Parramatta should be raised to the dignity of Lord Mayor.”

 

Making an application by way of letter to the State Government is the recommended approach to seeking to apply for Lord Mayor status.

 

A draft letter to the NSW Premier which outlines our case for the status of Lord Mayor for the Mayor of Liverpool is attached. The letter emphasises our historical significance (Aboriginal and Colonial) and regional, national and international significance.  

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

Facilitate economic development.

Environment

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership

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.

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Proposed letter to NSW Premier


163

CEO 02

Application for Title of Lord Mayor for Mayor of Liverpool

Attachment 1

Proposed letter to NSW Premier

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


169

Ordinary Meeting 26 July 2017

City Community and Culture Report

 

DCC 01

Cenotaph Update for Council

 

Strategic Direction

Proud Engaged City

Protect and preserve Liverpool’s heritage, including its rural landscape and cultural history

File Ref

155913.2017

Report By

Craig Donarski - Director Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre 

Approved By

Eddie Jackson - Director City Community & Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report is in response to Council’s request for an update on resources required for the successful delivery of the Rededication of The Cenotaph, which was previously located in Macquarie Mall. In March 2016 Council endorsed a preliminary budget of $80,000 towards the Cenotaph’s relocation.

 

Unfortunately this budget has proven to be inadequate given the complexities of the project. Following research into the agreed site (Berryman Reserve), due diligence and substantiated quotation processes, it is now apparent that a budget of $260,000 (ex GST) is required.

 

The successful delivery of this project will be celebrated through a Rededication Ceremony scheduled at a date to be agreed with key stakeholders.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approves a budget allocation of $260,000 (ex GST), for completion of the Rededication of The Cenotaph project (provision for which has been made within the 2017/18 capital works budget).

 

 

REPORT

 

The Cenotaph is a War Memorial created by artist Lisa Anderson in consultation with the local community, who also contributed to the aesthetics. It was dedicated in 1994 upon installation in Macquarie Mall. Due to the recent upgrade of Macquarie Mall it was de-installed and put into storage at Council’s Depot.

 

Memorials remind constituents of the intangible past that informs their contemporary identity and infuses the public environment with a sense of history and civic pride. The Cenotaph formally recognizes the significance of our local people who gave their lives in service to Australia. The Cenotaph, therefore, is significant to the civic, cultural and political life of Liverpool City, and as the local community was part of its creation, it provides a strong connection to place.

 

Since its de-installation, the Cenotaph’s fate has been the source of much interest from concerned community members, the local media and key stakeholders including The Civic Advisory Committee and Liverpool RSL - Sub Branch, all of whom have advocated for it to be successfully restored to the esteem and gravitas that it deserves.

 

In a Council Meeting of 29 April 2015, it was resolved that Council commits the necessary funds to move the War Memorial to a suitable site; and the funds for the relocation should be allocated from the budget for the upgrade to the Mall.

 

In a Memo to Councillors 16 February 2016, a preliminary indication of costs advised that the relocation budget would be $80,000. However, a comprehensive budget forecast amounts to $260,000 (excluding GST). The table below itemises the resources required for the successful delivery of the Rededication of The Cenotaph.

 

Significant increases have arisen from a number of variables, including the preferred site for relocation being a heritage listed site which in turn required the commissioning of preparatory reports, including a Heritage Impact Statement and Statement of Environmental Effects. Associated works, including extensive landscaping and infrastructural works, the removal of eleven trees, and the supply of water to the site have also proven to be necessary, as has the commissioning of a Preservation Needs Assessment relating to the conservation work that needs to be done on the artwork to have it restored for public viewing. Alone, the latter amounts to $39,000.

 

Important lessons have been learned from this process, particularly those relating to contractual conditions, the ongoing requirement for regular and planned conservation and preservation of such works, and the complexities associated with substantive landscaping and infrastructural works.

 

Financial provision for the relocation of The Cenotaph will be drawn from the 2017/18 capital works budget.

 

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

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

A budget allocation of $260,000 (ex GST) is required for the completion of this p