Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 28 February 2018

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 01

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Draft Amendment 61 (Additional Permitted Uses at The Grove Homemaker Centre)

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Meet the challenges of Liverpool’s growing population
File Ref	186333.2017
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Meeting on 16 December 2015, Council resolved to support an application for a planning proposal by Gazcorp Pty Ltd to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 for land located at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Lot 101 in DP 1043160, otherwise known as The Grove Homemaker Centre. The planning proposal was submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment and received Gateway determination on 18 November 2016.

Draft Amendment 61 seeks to amend Schedule 1 of LLEP 2008 to permit ‘retail shops’ up to a maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 21,000sqm as an additional permitted use on the subject property. The zoning for the site, part B5 Business Development and part B6 Enterprise Corridor, remains unchanged.

This report updates Council on the Gateway determination for Draft Amendment 61 and the results of the public exhibition and community consultation. It is noted that objections to the proposal were received from Fairfield City Council and also from Urbis on behalf of Scentre Group and AMP Limited, who are the co-owners of Westfield Liverpool. These objections are addressed in the body of this report.

This report also updates Council on the details of the draft planning agreement (VPA) submitted by Gazcorp in conjunction with Draft Amendment 61. The VPA proposes monetary contributions and works in kind for the improvement of the local catchment area and upgrades to transport infrastructure to improve access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles and also to mitigate traffic impacts as a result of increased retail floor space on the site.

Draft Amendment 61 would permit development that provides opportunities for increasing local employment in the existing business zones, and improving retail amenities and services for the adjoining residential catchments. When combined with the contributions towards local infrastructure and improvement works offered by the VPA, the amendment to the local environmental plan (LEP) will result in a net benefit for the local community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the Gateway determination for draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 61) and the results of public exhibition and community consultation;

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

3. Delegate authority to the CEO to execute the Planning Agreement following its public exhibition if no submissions are received; and

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

REPORT

Overview

Draft Amendment 61 applies to land located at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Lot 101 DP 1043160, otherwise known as The Grove Homemaker Centre). The site is approximately 1.5km north of the Liverpool City Centre and immediately south of the border with the Fairfield Local Government Area on the Cumberland Hwy. The Grove Homemaker Centre encompasses approximately 29,000sqm of bulky goods retailing, which includes a large at-grade carpark.

The amendment specifically concerns the portion of the site that is zoned B5 – Business Development, under which ‘bulky goods premises’ are permitted, but ‘retails shops’ are not. The proposal will amend Schedule 1 of LLEP 2008 to permit ‘shops’ as an additional permitted use up to a maximum GFA of 21,000sqm. The reason for the amendment is to facilitate the diversification of the retail offering on the site by enabling the transaction of traditional merchandising such as groceries, personal care products, clothing, music, homewares, stationery, electrical goods, and the like, in addition to the exiting merchandising of bulky goods. The intent is to support the viability of The Grove Homemaker Centre.

The proponent’s indicative plans envisage a single-level complex comprising of bulky goods and traditional retailing. The additional uses would include a full-line major supermarket, a mini-major supermarket and a discount department store, co-located with a mix of specialty and ancillary shops.

Strategic Justification

Draft Amendment 61 would provide a net community benefit by meeting the current and future demand within the larger catchment for traditional retailing. At present, there is a shortage of suitable sites within the established local centres, in the eastern part of the Liverpool LGA and the south-eastern part of the Fairfield LGA, to support full-line supermarkets and discount department stores. This type of retail mix requires sites be able to support the large floorplates. The established centres in both LGAs are largely constrained due to the pattern of fine-grain subdivision that exists within those centres.

The subject site would play an important part in meeting the overall regional demand for what is known as ‘traditional’ retailing, but one that is delivered in the format of large floorplates. The subject property, due to its size, is able to accommodate the retail mix of a full-line supermarket, a mini-major supermarket and a discount department store, co-located with a broad range of retail facilities.

The proponents prepared a Sequential Test and Site Suitability Report (refer to attachment 1 of this report) as part of the pre-Gateway assessment which demonstrated that there were no suitable sites to accommodate the proposed development in nearby existing centres, including Liverpool City Centre.

As well as playing a regional retailing role, the site would increase local retail access and amenity for those areas in Warwick Farm and Cabramatta. There are no retail centres in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, and residents must drive to either Liverpool City Centre or Cabramatta to access a supermarket or specialty retail services. The proposal would reduce the distance that they need to travel, and would also improve active transport connectivity to the site by upgrading Homepride Avenue through the proposed planning agreement.

The proposal increases the viability of The Grove Homemaker Centre by providing it the opportunity to develop a similar platform to that of other large format outlets that incorporate a broader retail mix. This approach is also consistent with the Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy 2012, which designated The Grove as a stand-alone centre, and concluded that it was suitable for diversification of uses beyond bulky goods retailing.

The remainder of this report discusses the Gateway requirements received from the Department of Planning and Environment and the actions undertaken to support Draft Amendment 61, including the results of the public exhibition and community consultation undertaken in accordance with the Gateway requirements under s57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Gateway Determination

The Department issued a Gateway determination on 18 November 2016 which allowed the proposal to proceed subject to the conditions (refer to attachment 2 of this report). Actions undertaken in response to the conditions included:

· Amending the planning proposal in consultation with Department before proceeding with public exhibition to correctly reflect the property description of the subject site (refer to attachment 3 of this report for the revised planning proposal);

· Consulting with the Rural Fire Service, who did not raise any concerns regarding the proposal, prior to public exhibition; and

· Undertaking a review to clearly identify potential impacts on established centres, where it was found that the impacts of the proposal would be at an acceptable level on existing regional and sub-regional centres (discussed in more detail below).

Public Exhibition

Draft Amendment 61 was publically exhibited for the period of 1 March 2017 – 7 April 2017. The exhibition comprised notices in the Liverpool Leader and on Council’s website. In addition, there was an article in the Liverpool Champion before the public exhibition commenced outlining the proposal and noting that submissions would be invited from the community.

Only one public submission was received. This was from Urbis on behalf of Scentre Group Limited and AMP Limited, the co-owners of Westfield Liverpool (refer to attachment 4 of this report). The details of this submission are discussed in the following sections.

Public Agency Consultation

The following public authorities were consulted and provided submissions:

· Sydney Water

· Endeavour Energy

· RMS

· Fairfield City Council

· Transport for NSW

Fairfield Council objected to the proposal’s impact on established local and subregional centres (refer to attachment 5 of this report) and RMS raised concerns about the proposal’s traffic impact on the regional road network (refer to attachment 6 of this report). The issues raised in these submissions are discussed in the following sections. The other public authority submissions did not object to the proposal (refer to attachment 7 of this report).

Economic Impacts

Urbis objected to the impacts of Draft Amendment 61 on the Liverpool City Centre, and more specifically on the viability of Westfield Liverpool. Urbis raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact of this amendment together with other planned retail expansions elsewhere within the broader region. Urbis provided its own economic impact assessment, where it concluded that the impact of the Draft Amendment 61 on retail turnover in Liverpool City Centre would be -5.9%, with the cumulative impact along with other planned expansion being -10.5% on the Liverpool City Centre and -14.3% on Westfield Liverpool.

Urbis argued that the future economic development in the Liverpool City Centre would be dependent on retail growth, and so the proposed amendment would undermine Council plans for the renewal of the city centre. For this reason, Urbis claimed that new retail developments should be located in Liverpool City Centre.

Urbis also identified methodological errors in the economic impact assessments (EIAs) provided in support of Draft Amendment 61, to the effect that the proposal overstates the future demand of retail floor space and understates its impacts on existing centres. The inconsistencies noted by Urbis included:

· An overly long analysis time period (2011-2021).

· Unreasonable assumptions for floor space productivity rates and turnover growth rates.

· Not considering escape expenditure.

· Not considering the effect of online shopping, which will reduce future demand for retail floor space.

· Not determining whether there is a current undersupply or oversupply of retail floor space when discussing future demand.

Urbis considered a 5km buffer around the subject site and concluded that it is already oversupplied with DDS floor space compared with the Greater Sydney average, and that if the proposed development and other proposed developments proceed, the area will be oversupplied with supermarket floor space.

Fairfield City Council also objected to the potential economic impacts of the amendment, particularly the loss of retail turnover in its centres and the implications for its strategies such as the Fairfield City Centres Policy 2015.

Officer Response

A total of five (5) Economic Impact Assessments have been conducted in determining the merits of Draft Amendment 61 and assessing the cumulative impacts of this proposal as well as the impacts on established centres (attached to this report). The sequence of economic impact assessments include:

· Gazcorp, submitted an EIA by Leyshon Consulting with the original planning proposal;

· Gazcorp also submitted with the original planning proposal, a peer review by Deep End Services of Leyshon’s EIA;

· Council, as part the assessment of the planning proposal, commissioned an independent peer review of the proponent’s EIAs undertaken by Essential Economics;

· In response to the Gateway determination, specifically Condition 3, Leyshon Consulting updated their EIA, quantifying the impacts of the proposal on additional regional and sub-regional centres;

· In support of their objection to the proposal, Urbis submitted a peer-review of Leyshon’s EIA, and of the peer reviews by Essential Economics and Deep End Services; and

· In response to the Urbis submission, Gazcorp commissioned Essential Economics, Deep End Services and Hill PDA to review the Urbis peer-review assessment.

Impact Assessment

Leyshon Consulting, Deep End Services, Essential Economics, Urbis and Hill PDA all found that the impact of the proposed development on the retail turnover of the Liverpool City Centre would be between 5 – 5.9%, with an impact of 8% on Bonnyrigg Plaza being the highest impact found on any other established centre. Impacts of less than 10% for established centres are generally considered to be acceptable in a competitive retail context, particularly if the centres are already trading strongly. Westfield Liverpool currently has a relatively high retail turnover and the Liverpool City Centre experiences low retail vacancy rates.

The peer reviews by Deep End Services, Essential Economics and Hill PDA all found the methodology and assumptions used by Leyshon to be reasonable and consistent with best practice. The methodological shortcomings identified by Urbis, such as the future impact of the internet and the consideration of escape expenditure within the trade area, would either generally not form part of the assessment of impacts on existing or planned centres and the retail trade area or not have a substantial impact on the overall results.

The impact of the internet on traditional retailing is a consideration only for the trend in the industry itself. This change in consumer habit would equally influence the marketplace regardless, and therefore impact all forms of traditional retailing. This consideration of trend does not negate the overall demand for retailing within the region as it relates to planning for the area. How and in what form that demand is to be met will ultimately be determined by consumer habit.

With regard to escape expenditure within the trade area, the conclusion reached by Urbis is based on the assumption that the trade area will have leakages and somehow the EIAs have not fully accounted for the escape in that expenditure. However, the reverse is also true, in that the trade area will also attract expenditure inward from consumer catchments elsewhere because of passing trade. Trade areas and consumer catchments are not wholly self-contained entities. They have both inward and outward flows when it comes to expenditure and demand.

Despite Urbis’ concerns, their estimate of the impact of the proposed development from Draft Amendment 61 on the Liverpool City Centre in 2019 (5.8%) does not differ markedly from the findings of the other EIAs (5-5.9%).

The analysis of cumulative impact by Urbis in the Liverpool CBD and Liverpool Westfield also considered developments across a much broader area than the other EIAs, and included expansions and upgrades to planned and established centres at Macarthur, Narallen, Edmondson Park and Wetherill Park. The approach by Urbis overestimates the importance of impacts from other centres which are a considerable distance from Liverpool CBD. Most of these developments will cater for significant growth in population in their immediate trade areas and are likely to capture only some of the resulting growth in retail demand from trade areas serviced by Westfield Liverpool. As such, the actual economic impacts are likely to be far less than estimated by Urbis.

There are a variety of factors which will drive the future growth of Liverpool City Centre, including the continued development of the Liverpool Health and Education Precinct, the development of Western Sydney Airport and high-density residential and commercial development resulting from Draft Amendment 52 (the City Centre LEP). The viability and growth of Liverpool City Centre does not require all retail premises being located within it. Similarly and equally, the claim by Urbis of the proposal’s impact on the viability of Liverpool Westfield is misplaced.

Retail floor space demand

Each EIA identified a substantial increase in the demand for retail floor space in the identified trade area over the modelled period. When considered against the low vacancy rates for retail floor space in the Liverpool CBD, there is a strong argument for zoning suitable land to deliver the retail floor space that is required.

While the creation of a stand-alone centre at Orange Grove would draw business from existing centres in the short-term, the projected increase in population and retail spending within the broader region would offset the estimated impacts on established centres due to the overall increase in retail demand. For this reason each EIA, including Urbis’, found that retail turnover for each centre assessed would grow over the modelled period. In addition, the population projections used in the EIAs do not reflect the substantial growth planned for Liverpool City Centre under Draft Amendment 52 which will create capacity for up to 10,000 additional residential dwellings within the City Centre.

Analysis by Leyshon, Deep End Services and Urbis shows that there will be an under-provision of supermarket floor space in the proposed development’s trade area even if the development occurs. Urbis’ estimation of an oversupply of supermarket floor space is based upon a 5km buffer from the subject site, which includes several shopping centres at the edge of the buffer whose trade areas extend well beyond the buffer. As such, Urbis underestimates the supportable supermarket floor space near the subject site.

While the DDS provision rate in the trade area is currently over the Greater Sydney average, this reflects the increased demand for discount department stores in Sydney’s outer ring. Liverpool LGA has considerably less DDS floor space per resident than some other outer Sydney LGAs. In addition, a detailed review of existing DDS networks by Deep End Services found that the proposal would fill an identifiable gap of a nearby Kmart.

Except for Urbis, each assessment considered there to be a net community benefit to locating additional retailing as proposed by Draft Amendment 61. This is due to an increase of approximately 550 local jobs and an increase in the level of retail access and amenity for residents within the catchment or trade area.

Public Transport

Both Urbis and Fairfield City Council objected to Draft Amendment 61 on the basis that the subject site is an inappropriate location for a retail centre as it does not have access to meaningful public transport.

Officer Response

The site is near Orange Grove Road which is serviced by bus routes 801 (Liverpool-Badgerys Creek) and 819 (Liverpool – Prairiewood). Route 801 runs three times each way on weekdays, and route 819 runs approximately every 30 minutes during peak times. There is no public transport during off-peak or on the weekends. The level and frequency of service do not provide good accessibility to the site by public transport.

While the subject site currently lacks the appropriate public transport connectivity, Gazcorp has submitted a letter from Transit Systems (refer to attachment 8 of this report), the operator of the bus network in the area. This letter indicates that they intend to start a service every 30 minutes throughout the day on weekdays and services on weekends connecting the site, as well as the Fashion Spree outlet centre, with the Liverpool City Centre.

This commitment to providing a higher level of service has not been approved or finalised between the parties concerned. TfNSW has also indicated that they would consider diverting bus services through Viscount Place and Homepride Avenue providing that suitable infrastructure is provided, which would improve public transport accessibility to the proposed development.

The Sequential Test and Site Suitability Report prepared by Gazcorp indicated that there were no suitable sites for the proposed development in existing centres with access to a train station or a high-frequency bus service. While Urbis argued that an expansion of Westfield Liverpool could accommodate a DDS, Kmart have provided a letter to Council (refer to attachment 9 of this report) indicating that they support the proposed development and that it would offer increased convenience and amenity than an expansion of Westfield.

The proposed development would increase the viability of providing improved public transport connectivity along Orange Grove Road to Liverpool City Centre. This is a major transport corridor which would be suitable for a higher level of bus services. Therefore, the development of the site would increase the likelihood of providing additional bus services in future network reviews.

Traffic Impacts

Draft Amendment 61 would facilitate 21,000sqm of retail shops in addition to the bulky good retailing that already exists on site. This will have a significant impact on traffic generation and the capacity of surrounding local and regional roads. This point was made in submissions by Urbis and Fairfield Council, who noted potential traffic impacts along the Cumberland Highway.

RMS also provided a submission to Council regarding the regional traffic impacts of the proposal. The proponent responded to this submission, and RMS responded to the proponent’s response. These letters are attached to this report, and a summary is provided below.

RMS’s submission:

· Noted that the traffic generated would result in Orange Grove Road being close to capacity during the Thursday evening peak hour.

· Increasing the capacity of Orange Grove Road would require widening of the road and associated land acquisition.

· Recommended that either a floor space cap is imposed until adequate transport infrastructure is provided, or that monetary contributions towards road widening be collected to fund a study and design of the widening of Orange Grove Road.

· Identified road works on Orange Grove Road to be included in a planning agreement.

· Identified other matters concerning traffic movement on the subject site which impact on Orange Grove Road.

In response the proponent stated that:

· The proposed development would only partly contribute to Orange Grove Road being over capacity, in combination with other developments within the broader area.

· Council could apply monetary contributions already identified in their Letter of Offer to enter into a planning agreement towards the upgrade of Orange Grove Road.

· Road works and internal traffic operation matters should be addressed at the DA stage, when further detailed assessment would be required.

In reply, RMS indicated that they remain of the view that there is a connection between this development proceeding and the need to upgrade Orange Grove Road, and so $2.98 million should be provided by the proponent (through a planning agreement) for RMS to fund the potential development of a concept road design for the widening of Orange Grove Road to six lanes between Links Avenue and the Hume Highway.

RMS also consider that identified roadworks at the intersection of Orange Grove Road and Viscount Place and the intersection of Homepride Avenue and Hume Highway should be incorporated into the VPA to provide certainty regarding the delivery of these works.

Officer Response

The proponent has provided Council with three traffic and transport studies (updated progressively over the course of the proposal). The most recent was received in June 2017. This document has been reviewed by both Council’s traffic department, and RMS.

The largest impacts from the proposed development would occur during Thursday evening and on Saturday morning shopping periods. During both of these periods, there is already significant demand on the regional road network. The proposal is not expected to generate substantial traffic during other key periods such as morning or afternoon commuter peak periods.

During the Thursday evening peak, the proposal would generate approximately 284 additional vehicles on Homepride Avenue and 496 additional vehicles on the Hume Highway around Viscount Place. Whether this would place this section of the Cumberland Highway above its mid-block capacity is in dispute.

The proponent’s traffic assessment states that it would not, with intersection upgrades that would improve traffic flow by increasing capacity at the intersection. However, the RMS states the proposed development would place this portion of the Cumberland Highway above its mid-block capacity, especially on Thursday evenings.

Council does not have an endorsed strategy to transition or rezone the broader area along Orange Grove Road in Warwick Farm away from the existing industrial uses, which largely occur south of the subject site. Such a transitioning of land use would necessitate an assessment of infrastructure capacity, and would provide the mechanism for developers and landowners to contribute to the widening of Orange Grove Road.

In the absence of the above, requiring a $2.98 million payment to RMS via the VPA in support of Draft Amendment 61 would not necessarily compel RMS to undertake the proposed road widening study. Therefore then is no certainty for the widening of Orange Grove Road or other infrastructure improvements in the vicinity.

While RMS have stated Council should consider $2.98 million as an appropriate contribution to mitigating impacts on Orange Grove Road, they have not objected to the amendment. The proposed development would only make a contribution to the traffic on Orange Grove Road, and the road would only be potentially above mid-block capacity during the Thursday PM peak. For these reasons, it is considered that it would not be reasonable to require a payment of $2.98 million towards design and modelling investigations for the widening Orange Grove Road on the basis of only this amendment.

If Draft Amendment 61 proceeds without conditioning a payment to RMS in the VPA, RMS will still be able to identify the traffic mitigation measures at the DA stage if the detailed assessments at that stage demonstrate the improvements are required. At the DA stage, Council would also be required under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 to consider any submission by RMS.

The additional traffic generated by the proposal would also cause significant impacts to the following intersections:

· Orange Grove Road/Viscount Place

· Hume Highway/Homepride Avenue

To maintain an acceptable level of service during the Thursday evening peak and Saturday morning, the intersection of Orange Grove Road and Viscount Place would need to be upgraded with two right turn lanes and a left turn slip lane to access Viscount Place. RMS identified these road works to be delivered by the proponent and included in the VPA, along with a lengthened right turn storage bay to access Homepride Avenue from Hume Highway. The proponent has agreed to these works as part of the VPA.

The identified road works would mitigate some impacts of the proposal. It is likely that there would still be traffic impacts, particularly if significant development occurs in Warwick Farm and Liverpool in the future. The remaining impacts should be viewed in the context of the other benefits and impacts of the proposal in order to assess whether it generates a net community benefit.

Consistency with District Plan

Urbis and Fairfield City Council submitted that the proposal would create a new centre which is not included in the Draft South-West District Plan (the SWDP), and that this would be inconsistent with the district plan. Fairfield Council submitted that the proposal would create a “new local town centre”’ with 40,000sqm of retail (includes the factory outlets, Fashion Spree), while Urbis suggested that the proposal was a “precursor to the development of a new District Centre” in close proximity to the Liverpool City Centre.

Officer Response

Since the exhibition of Draft Amendment 61, the revised Draft Western City District Plan (WCDP) has been released, which applies to the Liverpool LGA. All planning proposals must now consider the WCDP. Together with the Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan (GSRP), the WCDP classifies centres into three categories: local centres, strategic centres and metropolitan centres.

Strategic centres are places where the community can access a wide range of goods, services and jobs. All other centres are classified as local centres and the WCDP specifies that management of these places is to be led by Councils.

The proposed additional retail development when combined with the existing Homemaker Centre and Fashion Spree could be considered as a local centre, but would not meet the definition of a strategic centre. Therefore, the potential creation of a local centre by the draft amendment is an issue rightly considered by Council. It is not an issue of district-wide significance which would be expected to be explicitly mentioned in the district plan.

The WCDP contains actions which encourage planning for centres to consider the capacity for places to change, evolve and accommodate diverse activities over time (Action 43), to provide access to jobs, goods and services in centres by diversifying the range of activities in all centres (Action 51), and to create new centres in line with the Principles for Greater Sydney’s Centres (Action 52). These principles are part of the WCDP and specify that existing centres need to grow and new centres need to be established across Greater Sydney to deliver the additional retail floor space needed to support the growing population.

It is considered that the diversification of the retail offering at the subject site would be consistent with the policies in the WCDP to allow the evolution of existing centres and to plan for new centres. It is important to note that this amendment would create a stand-alone centre, and not a local centre which would have higher order uses, including residential uses, which would require more significant social infrastructure.

It is the assessment of Council officers that the subject site is not suited to support a B2 Local Centre zoning, which would allow higher order uses, including residential. The site lacks transport connectivity and social infrastructure needed to support the opportunities and functions of a local centre. The site does however provide opportunities to meet the retail demand within the local catchment and the broader area. Therefore, Draft Amendment 61 maintains specific merit for the additional permitted retail uses proposed.

Broader Strategic Framework

Both Fairfield City Council and Urbis addressed the issue of a broader strategic planning framework in their submissions. Fairfield Council objected to the proposal because of the lack of a strategic study for the surrounding precinct. Urbis questioned the purpose of the proposal and stated that it represented a tipping point to further development, necessitating a broader strategic assessment of the site in relation to the Liverpool City Centre.

Officer Response

While Urbis claim that this proposal is a precursor to future redevelopment, the planning proposal was assessed on its strategic merit. It should not be considered on the basis of the site’s suitability of any potential uses which are not made explicit. While the proposal was submitted with a masterplan for the surrounding area which suggested a broader redevelopment, this only illustrated a possible future outcome for the area which would be compatible with the planning proposal. The proposal itself does not include residential development or other services which a larger town centre would include.

It is considered that allowing traditional retail development in a bulky goods centre is a reasonable outcome which is aligned with the objectives of the business zone. It would not necessarily dictate the future creation of a large town centre with higher order uses through redevelopment of the surrounding industrial zoned land.

While the proposal does not follow from a specific masterplan for the industrial precinct in the western part of Warwick Farm, it is consistent with Council’s strategic planning documents. The Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy Review 2012 classifies Orange Grove as a ‘stand-alone shopping centre’ where in the medium term (2019-2026) a diversification of the retail offering away from only bulky goods may be appropriate if the impact on Liverpool City Centre is acceptable.

The Review also found that a DDS and full-line supermarkets on the site could be supported and that these uses would best be accommodated by an ‘additional permitted use’ under the LEP for the subject site, as is made specific by Draft Amendment 61.

Environmental Impacts

Fairfield Council’s submission expressed concerns about the impacts of the proposed development on vegetation along Cabramatta Creek, and about cumulative impacts on the creek catchment.

Officer Response

Almost all of the site is already cleared of vegetation, with the majority occupied by the Homemaker Centre, including a large at-grade carpark. There is sufficient space for the proposed development to occur without substantial impacts on vegetation or the Cabramatta Creek. The treatment of stormwater and impacts on the creek catchment would be more appropriately addressed as part of the assessment of a development application.

Planning Agreement

An offer to enter into a VPA was submitted to Council on 21/12/2015, with the agreement to require:

· A cash contribution to Council of 3% of the capital investment value;

· Upgrading pedestrian access to Homepride Avenue; and

· Roadworks at the intersection of Orange Grove Road and Viscount Place.

Council resolved on 3/2/2016 that it:

Delegates to the CEO to negotiate with the applicant regarding the proposed VPA subject to traffic modelling and improved pedestrian connectivity, with a separate report to be presented to Council for consideration.

Since then, negotiations have been held between the proponent and Council, and a draft planning agreement has been finalised for Council’s consideration (refer to attachment 10 of this report).

The VPA involves an agreement between a developer and the planning authority, in this case Council, in which the developer or landowner agrees to provide a public benefit when undertaking a particular development.

This agreement between Council and Gazcorp will operate in the following manner:

· It will be a legal document whereby Gazcorp will agree to provide works and a monetary contribution to Council.

· It will be tied to the subject land parcel and will apply to the existing and future land owners under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

· It will have a list of works to be provided at the developer’s expense and will specify monetary contributions which must be paid to Council.

· It will require the provision of security to Council which may be called on in the event of a breach of the agreement or the insolvency of the developer.

· It will contain various clauses to cover disputes.

The agreement will require the following contributions and works:

· A cash contribution be paid to Council of 3% of the capital investment value of the proposal, with the development excluded from any local contributions plan;

· A payment to Council to cover expenses incurred in the acquisition of Homepride Avenue; and

· The delivery by the proponent of road works to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposal including:

o Rehabilitation and upgrade of the road surface on Homepride Avenue to allow bus services.

o Construction of pedestrian access along Homepride Avenue.

o Upgrades to the Orange Grove Road/Viscount Place intersection including a slip lane on the northern approach and dual right turn lanes on the southern approach.

o Upgrades to the Hume Highway/Homepride Avenue intersection to extend the right run bay from Hume Highway into Homepride Avenue.

The identified roadworks would mitigate some of the traffic impacts of the proposal on the regional road network.

The rehabilitation of Homepride Avenue and its acquisition will also generate a public benefit by improving public access to The Grove and Dwyer Oval on what is currently a private road. It will allow buses from Liverpool to be routed through Homepride Avenue, The Grove and the Fashion Spree Outlet Centre to Orange Grove Road, which would improve public transport access to the existing and future retail development. The construction of a footpath along Homepride Avenue would increase pedestrian access to the retail facilities on the subject site.

VPA Exhibition

If Council resolves to support the recommendations of this report, the draft planning agreement will be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days with delegation to the CEO to execute the agreement if no submissions are received in relation to it. If any submissions are received as a result of the public exhibition, these will be reported back to Council for its consideration.

After public exhibition of the VPA and Council’s consideration of any issues raised in any submissions received and reported, the agreement can be executed and Draft Amendment 61 submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation.

Conclusion

Submissions on Draft Amendment 61 raised concerns with its impacts on the retail turnover of Westfield Liverpool and the Liverpool City Centre, as well as other established centres in the Fairfield LGA, and also regional traffic impacts on Orange Grove Road and the Hume Highway. While there would be some economic impacts on established centres within the region in the short term, these are considered to be marginal and at an acceptable level. The impacts on regional traffic on Orange Grove Road should be considered in the context of the benefits of the draft amendment. These include:

· Increased access to local retail facilities for the populations of Warwick Farm, southern Cabramatta, and parts of Liverpool;

· Provision of additional supermarket and discount department store floor space in an area currently undersupplied with these;

· The creation of approximately 550 local jobs; and

· The rehabilitation of Homepride Avenue.

As the impact of Draft Amendment 61 on Westfield Liverpool and the Liverpool City Centre would be within acceptable bounds and the proponent would undertake roadworks at intersections on Orange Grove Road and Hume Highway to mitigate transport impacts, it is considered that the amendment would have a net community benefit.

It is recommended that Council resolve to support the making of Draft Amendment 61, subject to endorsement and public exhibition of the VPA offered by Gazcorp in support of the amendment.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development.
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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Sequential test and site suitability report ⇨ (Under separate cover)

2. Gateway determination ⇨ (Under separate cover)

3. Revised Planning Proposal ⇨ (Under separate cover)

4. Urbis objection ⇨ (Under separate cover)

5. Fairfield Council objection ⇨ (Under separate cover)

6. RMS correspondence and proponent response ⇨ (Under separate cover)

7. Other public agency submissions ⇨ (Under separate cover)

8. Letter from Transit Systems ⇨ (Under separate cover)

9. Letter of support from Kmart ⇨ (Under separate cover)

10. Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement ⇨ (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 02

Proposed amendment to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 - Additional Permitted Use for centre based child care on B6 zoned land at 525 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	331205.2017
Report By	Louis Chen - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Property	525 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate (Lot 5 DP1238339)
Owner	Amarino Pty Ltd
Applicant	Amarino Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received an application for a planning proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) to include a ‘centre-based child care facility’ as an additional permitted land use at 525 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate (Lot 5 DP1238339). The site is currently zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor and the proposed land use is prohibited under the LLEP.

The planning proposal lacks strategic and site specific merit. The proposal to amend the LLEP is inconsistent with Section 117 Ministerial Directions and the NSW Child Care Planning Guideline for the development of child care centres.

The site is not appropriate for a centre based child care facility. It is poorly located, has limited access, is constrained by environmental hazards, lacks public amenity, has limited options for active and public transport, and lacks an identifiable catchment to support the proposed land use.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Not support the planning proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 to include ‘centre-based child care facility’ as an additional permitted use at 525 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate (Lot 5 DP1238339); and

2. Write to the applicant advising of Council’s decision.

Report

Background

On 20 June 2017, Council received an application for a planning proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) to include centre-based child care facility as an additional permitted use on the site (Lot 5 DP1238339, 525 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate).

Staff have completed a preliminary assessment to determine the merits of the proposal and conclude the application cannot be supported (for the reasons outlined in this report). On 25 September 2017, the proponents were informed that the planning proposal was not supported by staff and were offered to withdraw the proposal with a partial refund of the fees paid. On 10 October 2017, the proponents informed staff that they would not withdraw the proposal and wished the proposal to be reported to Council for a formal decision.

Site context

This planning proposal is site specific and relates to land at Lot 5 DP 1238339 (formerly Lot 1 DP1210012, which was subdivided from Lot 29 DP1044841) and known as 525 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate. The site is outlined in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Site location outlined in red.

The site is only accessible via Cowpasture Road on its southern approach to the M7 Motorway. The location of the proposed child care facility is less than 100m from the interchange with the M7 Motorway. Opposite the site on Cowpasture Road are bulky goods and logistics operations. To the immediate south is vacant land owned by the Roads and Maritime Service, and Hinchinbrook Creek runs approximately 100m east of the site.

Rezoning History

The site was previously subject to two (2) amendments to the LLEP, Amendment No 2 and Amendment No 34.

· LLEP 2008 Amendment 2

On 24 December 2009, former Lot 29 DP1044841 (encompassing the site) was rezoned from RU1 Primary Production to IN2 Light Industrial and RE1 Public Recreation. Due to the closure of Hoxton Park Aerodrome, the intended outcome was to respond to the shortage of industrial land in the sub-region by taking advantage of the connectivity to the regional road network for employment intensive uses. On 19 December 2012, deferred commencement consent was granted for DA-894/2011 in accordance with the amendment, however no development occurred.

· LLEP 2008 Amendment 34

On 8 August 2014, former Part Lot 29 DP1044841 (encompassing the site) was rezoned from IN2 Light Industrial to B6 Business Enterprise. The intended outcome was to accommodate a greater quantity of highway retailing and takeaway premises. Development for the purpose of residential was not proposed at this stage.

Development Applications

There are a number of development approvals on the site and neighbouring sites for predominantly highway retailing with some shop-top housing, including for a number of fast food restaurants, a service station, and a supermarket.

· DA-1229/2015

On 24 February 2017, development consent was granted by the Land and Environment Court for the construction of a mixed-used development for the construction of a five (5) storey shop top housing development including 63 apartments and associated car parking, and a supermarket (Aldi), restaurant and commercial premises. Shop top housing is permissible with consent in the B6 zone.

· DA-1025/2015

On 12 October 2016, a deferred commencement consent was granted for the construction of a six tenancy food, drink and retail premise of approx. 500sqm and construction of a 40 space car park.

· DA-1228/2015

On 23 August 2016, a deferred commencement consent was granted for the construction of two food and drink premises including drive through facilities, with associated site works, signage, landscaping and car parking.

· DA-1136/2015

On 8 August 2016, deferred commencement consent was granted for the construction and operation of a service station (with an associated convenience store and fast food restaurant with drive through facility (BP and Oporto). The approved hours of operation are 24 hours, 7 days a week.

· DA-1162/2014

On 28 October 2015, development consent was granted for the construction of a food and drink premises for the purpose of a McDonald’s Restaurant with 24 hour operation.

Figure 2: Site plan with approved uses granted through the above DAs.

Assessment of Proposal

The objective of the planning proposal is to facilitate the development of a child care centre on the site. This is proposed to be achieved through an amending clause to Schedule 1 of the LLEP and an amending ‘key sites’ map for the additional permitted use.

Under the LLEP, sensitive uses such as a child care centre are prohibited on land zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor. This is because the B6 zoned land largely exists along classified roads. Sites along classified roads have poor amenity due to impacts from traffic noise and reduced air quality. The primary objective of the B6 zone is to facilitate a variety of employment uses that do not necessarily require higher amenity and have greater tolerance for impacts from these busy roads.

Draft Western City District Plan

Action 8 of the Draft Western City District Plan states that Councils should “deliver social infrastructure to reflect the needs of the community now and in the future”.

Twelve (12) existing dwellings and 68 proposed apartments would be within an 800m catchment of the site. However, due to the competing highway retailing, takeaway food outlets, bulky goods, and transport and logistics operations surrounding the site, it is unlikely this number will increase. Of the 68 apartments, 27 are one-bedroom apartments. These are unlikely to accommodate many households with children. For the existing dwellings, a child care centre already exists on Tenterfield Avenue, Hinchinbrook, which is closer, provides safer access, has better amenity, and is within an identifiable catchment.

A child care centre on this site does not reflect the social infrastructure demands of the area and is inconsistent with the Draft Western City District Plan.

Ministerial Directions (Section 117)

The objective of Ministerial Direction 3.4 – Integrated land use and transport is to improve public and active transport connectivity and accessibility and reduce car dependency.

The site being located next to the M7 Motorway and Cowpasture Road does not provide for safe pedestrian movements and presents significant traffic-related hazards, especially for small children. Site accessibility by public transport is limited, with the closest bus stop being 500m away, across Cowpasture Road.

The lack of public transport, pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure connecting the site to the nearest residential areas increases dependency on car travel. Therefore the proposal does not address appropriately the integrated land use and transport objectives, and therefore is inconsistent with Direction 3.4.

Development of a child care centre on the site is inconsistent with Ministerial Direction 1.1 – Business and industrial zones as the sensitive use would conflict with and impede future employment uses, especially for those activities that have the potential to generate environmental impacts such as noise and traffic.

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

The site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor under the LLEP. Centre-based child care facilities are not permitted under this zoning. The primary objective of the B6 zone is to promote highway retailing and employment generating businesses along major roads.

The planning proposal does not align with the B6 objectives. Sensitive land uses are generally incompatible with activities and impacts associated with major roads. Due to the sites close proximity to classified roads, the proposed use would be exposed to high traffic volumes on Cowpasture Road and the M7 Motorway and their resulting impacts including noise, vibration and reduced air quality. A child care centre on the site is inappropriate.

Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008

The planning proposal refers to a proposed site-specific development control plan (DCP) for the site. The proponents state that the current Liverpool DCP 2008 does not properly consider the size and location of the site in limiting the number of children per centre. Regardless, controls for child care centres in Councils DCP are redundant as the Child Care Planning Guideline takes precedent over DCPs when assessing centre-based child care centres.

SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (the “SEPP”) and the associated Child Care Planning Guideline provide a framework to assess the development of centre-based child care facilities. The Guideline takes precedent over any planning provisions within the LDCP 2008. The proposal is inconsistent with the Guideline due to inappropriate siting and environmental factors, as discussed below.

· Catchment for Child Care Centre

There is a lack of a discernible catchment for the proposed child care centre. The site is isolated from residential areas by Cowpasture Road, the M7 Motorway, and Hinchinbrook Creek.

In the Review of Environmental Effects for LLEP 2008 Amendment 2 for this site, it is stated that “the subject land is isolated from other sections of the (Hoxton Park) Release Area by the two major roads and Hinchinbrook Creek to the extent that it is no longer suitable for residential use” and the intent of Amendment 34 to rezone to B6 was not to accommodate residential uses.

Notwithstanding, shop-top housing has been approved for the site consisting of 27 one-bedroom apartments and 36 two-bedroom apartments. This dwelling mix is unlikely to support a large number of households with children who require child care facilities.

Excluding these apartments, there are only twelve (12) residential dwellings within 800m (accessible by road) of the site and none within 400m. To access the site from these 12 dwellings, it is necessary to traverse the M7 Interchange.

A child care centre exists on Tenterfield Avenue, Hinchinbrook, which is closer and has greater pedestrian accessibility for these dwellings. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with the Guideline Objective – to ensure that sites for child care facilities are appropriately located.

Figure 3: The subject site is isolated from the surrounding residential areas. Residential dwellings within 800m of the subject site are outlined in yellow.

· Adjoining Land Use Conflicts

As noted earlier in this report, in addition to the approval for the service station which would be adjacent to the child care centre, development consents have also been granted for a number of fast food restaurants. From a land use perspective, this environment is not conducive to a child care centre. The proposal is inconsistent with the Guideline Objectives – To ensure that the site selected for a proposed child care facility is suitable for the use and to ensure that sites for child care facilities do not incur risks from environmental, health or safety hazards.

While shop-top housing has been also approved for the site, the residential component as a part of the overall development is minor. The shop top housing development was approved by the Land and Environment Court and not Council.

· Traffic Impacts

The proposal is inconsistent with Guideline as the site does not “provide a safe and connected environment for pedestrians both on and around the site”.

There are significant traffic related effects due to the site’s location within 250m of the interchange of Cowpasture Road and the M7 Motorway, which does not allow for safe pedestrian movements. Moreover, the proposed child care facility would be subject to air and noise pollution caused by the large traffic volumes. There will be heavy vehicle movements to and from the approved BP service station and Aldi supermarket, in addition to the traffic generated by the fast-food outlets.

· Noise Impacts

The Guideline states that applications for child care centres should “ensure that outside noise levels on the facility are minimised to acceptable levels”. The significant noise generating potential of the M7 Motorway and Cowpasture Road suggests that the location is inappropriate for noise sensitive uses. This is a key reason why the site is zoned B6. An acoustic report has not been provided to demonstrate that noise issues would not impact on the proposed child care centre.

· Air Quality Impacts

Consideration 27 of the Guideline states that child care centres should be located “on sites which avoid or minimise the potential impact of external sources of air pollution such as major roads and industrial development”. The sites location adjacent to the M7 Motorway, Cowpasture Road, and service stations result in reduced air quality and air pollution. Heavy vehicles associated within the Len Waters Estate industrial precinct would exacerbate this issue. An air quality assessment has not been provided to demonstrate that air quality issues would not impact on the proposed child care centre.

· Unencumbered Outdoor Space Requirement

A minimum of 7sqm of unencumbered outdoor space is required for every child in accordance with Regulation 108 of the Education and Care Services National Regulations.

The proposed child care centre would be located on the first floor. It has not been demonstrated how unencumbered outdoor space will be accommodated in this setting, especially given the noise, air quality and amenity issues, and the potential visual impacts from the M7, Cowpasture Road, the carpark, service station, or the range of fast food outlets.

While it is recognised that simulated outdoor environments can be provided in lieu of outdoor space in exceptional circumstances, the proposal has not justified that this is such a case. Considering the above assessment, the lack of a residential catchment in the area, and therefore lack of demand, it is considered that this is not an exceptional circumstance.

Consultation

This report has been prepared following extensive consultation with Council’s Community Development and Planning, and Environment and Health Departments. Both departments cannot support the proposal for the reasons outlined in this report.

Conclusion

The planning proposal lacks strategic and site–specific merit and it is recommended that Council not support the proposal.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Ensure the viability of appropriate employment uses.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Deliver high quality services for children and their families in appropriate locations.
Civic Leadership	Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

ATTACHMENTS

1. Request for Planning Proposal - 501 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate ⇨ (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 03

Draft Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	014785.2018
Report By	Ian Stendara - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

Council, in consultation with various stakeholders, has prepared the Draft Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022 (the Bike Plan) which will apply to the urban areas and release areas of Liverpool. The new Bike Plan is an update of the Liverpool Bike Plan 2009.

The Bike Plan identifies the existing situation of cycling in the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA) and methods to enhance the local cycling environment. By improving local cycle routes, wayfinding signage, and outlining potential bicycle promotion strategies, the Bike Plan seeks to encourage increased participation in cycling and to reaffirm cycling as a valid and equal first choice mode of transport.

It is also proposed that an amendment is made to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008, to provide for safe and secure bicycle parking as well as end-of-trip facilities (e.g. lockers and showers) for new employment premises in the Liverpool LGA.

The report highlights the key objectives and strategies of the Bike Plan and recommends exhibition of the Draft Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022 and the draft DCP for a period of 60 days.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Places the draft Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022 on public exhibition for a period of 60 days, inviting public comment and submissions;

2. Places the draft Liverpool Development Control Plan on public exhibition for a period of 60 days, inviting public comment and submissions;

3. Receives a further report following the public exhibition period on the integration of any changes to the Bike Plan or draft Development Control Plan if any feedback is received; and

4. Delegates to the CEO the authority to finalise the draft Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022 and draft Development Control Plan if no objections are received.

REPORT

Background

The current bike plan was developed in 2009 and was essentially an update of previous Bike Plans before it (1996 and 1985). Incrementally, the study area of each bike plan has increased to cover the expanded urban footprint of Liverpool. The latest bike plan recognises the new release areas of Austral and Leppington.

Scope of Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022

The draft Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022 (the Bike Plan) is a high level planning document which outlines the provision of bicycle related infrastructure; it is also a communication strategy designed to promote and increase the rates of cycling in Liverpool.

The Bike Plan includes new maps which outline the existing and proposed bicycle network from Council’s boundary with Bankstown in the east to the suburb of Austral in the west. The Bike Plan recognises key challenges and opportunities in the Liverpool LGA, such as the arrival of two new university campuses, a large number of recently completed shared paths along key arterial roads, poor connectivity within the Liverpool city centre, a number of missing links, and poor wayfinding signage.

Objectives of Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022

The Bike Plan covers the urban and identified growth areas of the Liverpool LGA. The key objectives of the Liverpool Bike Plan are listed as follows:

· To provide strategic direction and a plan of action for the provision of cycle ways, bicycle facilities and the promotion of cycling within Liverpool. It will serve as a reference document and planning tool for all bicycle related facilities and activities within the Liverpool LGA;

· To identify both existing and proposed cycleway routes in the context of key trip generators, neighbourhood attractions and recreational opportunities;

· To establish a safe, well connected, easy to use cycling environment through the delivery of infrastructure and facilities within the five-year timeframe of this plan and beyond;

· Encourage members of the community to utilise both recreational and commuter trails through awareness and education programs in an effort to improve health outcomes for the community; and

· Implement the strategies and concepts contained within various Commonwealth and State government cycling strategies and work with other stakeholders to encourage cycling and provide new cycling infrastructure.

Existing cycleways and facilities

A number of new shared paths have been constructed in the Liverpool LGA since the 2009 plan; the following lists some of the more prominent new paths:

· Cowpasture Road (between the suburb of Carnes Hill and Camden Valley Way)

· Camden Valley Way (between Bernera Road and Denham Court Road, and onto Narellan),

· Kurrajong Road (most of the route between Cowpasture Road and the Hume Highway),

· Bernera Road (between Camden Valley Way and Kurrajong Road),

· Several paths in the Western Sydney Parklands (not provided by Council, but acknowledged in the new plan),

· Liverpool to Glenfield Rail Trail (largely via the Georges River foreshore),

· Hoxton Park Road (between the T-way near Flowerdale Road to the Hume Highway),

· Elizabeth Street/Drive (between Bathurst Street and the M7),

· Newbridge Road between Rickard Road and Pat Delvin Close),

· Hume Highway (various sections in Warwick Farm and Casula), and

· Brickmakers Drive (between Nuwarra Road and Newbridge Road).

A significant proportion of these were provided by the RMS, or by Council during the upgrading of various arterial and sub-arterial roads. There are, however, significant links that have not yet been provided in other parts of Liverpool. The Liverpool Bike Plan 2017-2022 seeks to expand on the works already provided, and to complete key bicycle routes with naming and signposting.

Strategy of Liverpool Bike Plan 2017

The strategy of the Bike Plan is to construct a network of bikeways that link residential areas with the major trip generating land uses such as shopping centres and schools. These links form a grid across the existing and future urban areas of Liverpool. It involves:

· Construction of shared paths along various arterial roads.

· Construction of missing links.

· Sign posting of "on road routes" along quieter streets.

· Construction of paths through parkland and along creek corridors.

· Installation of way-finding signage to direct members of the community to local destinations which are accessible by bicycle.

A key strategy of the new Bike Plan is to create key east-west and north south routes, which can be signposted and will become the spine of Liverpool’s bicycle network. A number of these key routes are already largely constructed and would only need the installation of wayfinding signage to cement themselves as Liverpool’s bicycle spines. The key routes are shown (bolded and coloured) in Figure 1 below, with other local routes also shown.

Consultation during preparation of Liverpool Bike Plan 2017

The Bike Plan was prepared in consultation with local stakeholders including the Liverpool Bicycle User Group and the Sydney South West Area Health Service (amongst others). The RMS is also a major stakeholder involved in the development of the bike plan, by outlining regionally important routes, and their significant construction contribution.

Amendment to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008

An important aspect of encouraging cycling and promoting cycling as an equal first choice in transport is providing adequate facilities such as lockers, showers and change rooms for people arriving by bicycle. Sufficient bicycle parking (bike racks and lockers) that are safe and secure are fundamental aspects in making the city more bicycle friendly. An amendment to Part 1 of the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 has been drafted to include the requirement of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities for some forms of development in the Liverpool LGA. The draft amendment also facilitates the construction of shared paths (where identified by the bike plan) for new developments which would otherwise have to provide a footpath. The draft controls have been formulated to provide an adequate amount of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities without overburdening any form of development with regards to costs.

Figure 1: Liverpool’s proposed strategic bicycle network

Public Consultation

To ensure the Liverpool community is effectively consulted on the draft plan, Council will place the draft plan on public exhibition for a period of 60 days.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The works identified in the Bike Plan, which will be funded by Council, will be provided as part of Council's Capital Works Program and works will be staged to suit annual funding levels. This will include upgrading standard footpaths to shared paths if the paving is both: at the end of its life, and the alignment is identified as an off-road bike route. The Bike Plan does not propose or seek any additional funding than what is currently allocated under Council’s operational plan.

Many shared paths will be provided at a 50:50 funding split between Council and the RMS. The RMS requires Council to have an up-to-date Bike Plan in order to release funds for the construction of local bike paths. Failure to provide an updated bike plan could result in Council loosing financial support from the RMS.

Many bike paths in release areas such as Austral and Edmondson Park will be provided concurrently with roads and infrastructure when properties are subdivided; this will have no impact on Council’s finances. Some older release areas also have developer contributions collected for the purpose of providing cycleways, which will be managed in those areas accordingly. Any paths wholly within the Western Sydney Parklands are shown for planning and completeness of information purposes only; they will be funded by the Western Sydney Parklands Trust.

Consultation

Council’s Strategic Planning and Infrastructure and Environment teams, in conjunction with GTA consultants prepared the Bike Plan and DCP amendment. The Bike Plan was circulated internally for comments; feedback was received from the Economic Development, Community Planning and Traffic and Transport Departments. In preparing the plan, Council officers also met with, and received feedback from, the Liverpool Bicycle Users Group, and Sydney South West Local Health District. Public consultation and State agency consultation is recommended as the next step.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways.
Environment	Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	Exhibition of Draft DCPs in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Liverpool Bike Plan ⇨ (Under separate cover)

2. Draft Liverpool DCP 2008 Bike Plan Amendment ⇨ (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01

Consultation on the proposed Councillor Induction and Professional Development Guidelines

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
File Ref	018777.2018
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

Executive Summary

Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 allow regulations to be made for induction and other professional development for Mayors and Councillors.

The Office of Local Government (OLG) has prepared guidelines to assist Councils to develop and deliver induction and ongoing professional development activities for their Mayor and Councillors in compliance with the proposed regulations.

The OLG is inviting submissions from Councils on the proposed guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note the information and consider whether it wishes to make a submission on the proposed Guidelines; and

2. Receive a further report when the proposed Guidelines are finalised and Regulation comes into effect presenting a professional development program for Councillors.

REPORT

Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 by the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 in August 2016 saw the inclusion in the prescribed role of councillors under section 232 a responsibility “to make all reasonable efforts to acquire and maintain the skills necessary to perform the role of a councillor”.

In support of this, the amendments allow regulations to be made for induction and other professional development for mayors and councillors. The proposed regulations are described in the attachment to the OLG circular (attached to this report and copied at the end of this report).

The OLG has prepared guidelines to assist councils to develop and deliver induction and ongoing professional development activities for their mayor and councillors in compliance with the proposed regulation. These will be issued under s23A of the Act.

The OLG has issued a consultation draft of the proposed guidelines for comment prior to them being finalised.

Under the guidelines, councils’ induction and professional development programs are to consist of three elements:

- Pre-election candidate sessions – there are to ensure prospective candidates are aware of what will be expected of them if elected (these are not mandatory but are encouraged);

- Induction program – this aims to equip mayors and councillors with the information they need to perform their role effectively over the first few months and has a particular focus on building positive, collaborative relationships between councillors and with staff; and

- Professional development program – this is to be developed in consultation with all councillors and delivered over the term of the council to build the skills, knowledge and personal attributes necessary to be an effective mayor or councillors.

The proposed regulations as included in the attachment to the OLG circular are shown below:

- The General Manager/Chief Executive Officer is to ensure an induction program is delivered for newly elected and returning councillors and a specialised supplementary induction program for the mayor within six months of their elections;

- The General Manager/Chief Executive Officer is to ensure an ongoing professional development program is delivered for the mayor and each councillor over the term of the council for the purposes of assisting them to acquire and maintain the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their roles;

- The content of the ongoing professional development program to be delivered to the mayor and councillors is to be determined in consultation with the mayor and each councillor and is to have regard to the specific knowledge and skills required by the mayor, each individual councillor and the governing body as a whole to perform their roles;

- Mayors and councillors must make all reasonable efforts to participate in the activities offered to them as part of an induction or ongoing professional development program;

- The general manager/chief executive officer is to report to the first council meeting held following the completion of the delivery of the induction program identifying the activities offered to the mayor and each councillor as part of the induction program, and whether or not the mayor and each councillor participated in the activities offered to them;

- The general manager/chief executive officer is to report to the first council meeting following 30 June in each year identifying the ongoing professional development activities offered to the mayor and each councillor in the year to 30 June as part of the professional development program, and whether or not the mayor and each councillor participated in the activities offered to them under the program;

- The general manager/chief executive officer is to ensure these reports are published on the council’s website; and

- The Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government may, at the request of a general manager/chief executive officer, exempt the council from the requirement to publish details of induction and ongoing professional development activities offered to the mayor or an individual councillor where he or she is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.

The OLG is inviting submissions from councils and other stakeholders on the consultation draft of the Councillor Induction and Professional Development Guidelines. The Guidelines are attached to this report and the deadline for submissions is Friday 16 March 2018.

The information and Guidelines were also included in the CEO update on 14 December 2017.

What Liverpool City Council currently does

Liverpool City Council’s current approach to Councillor Induction and Professional Development Program is outlined below:

- Pre-election seminar held (run by LGNSW) for prospective candidates;

- Comprehensive induction package delivered to the mayor and councillors and a number of inductions sessions held within the first three months of a new council; and

- Various training courses undertaken and offered to councillors.

A more detailed program will need to be developed and information reported to Council and posted on Council’s website if the guidelines as attached are finalised and come into effect.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Funds for Councillors training is included in Council’s budget each year.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Section 232 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the proposed regulation to be issued under s23A of the Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Office of Local Government Circular and proposed amendments to Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 ⇩

2. Councillor Induction and Professional Development Guidelines (Consultation Draft) ⇨ (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 02

Consultation on the draft Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
File Ref	019665.2018
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

Executive Summary

Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 provide for a model Code of Meeting Practice to be prescribed by Regulation. The Office of Local Government, in consultation with Councils, has prepared a consultation draft of the proposed Model Meeting Code. Once this is finalised, it will replace the meeting rules currently in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. Council will then be given 6 months to adopt a Code of Meeting Practice based on the Model Meeting Code.

The Office of Local Government is inviting submissions from Councils and other stakeholders on the consultation draft of the Model Meeting Code. The deadline for submissions is 16 March 2018. Council staff have reviewed the draft Code and propose a number of responses to be included in our submission.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council make a submission on the Consultation Draft of the Model Code of Meeting Practice to the Office of Local Government on the following:

- Amending the non-mandatory Clause 4 regarding Public Forums to allow for the Public Forums session to be held during the Council Meeting;

- Amending Clause 5.18 regarding the Webcasting of Meetings to become a non-mandatory provision;

- Provides Council’s support to the inclusion of the mandatory provisions in Clauses 10.2 – 10.4 regarding Notice of Motions; and

- Deletion of the non-mandatory provisions (Clauses 11.10 and 20.23) regarding recording the voting of all members for all motions and amendments in the minutes of Council and Committee meetings.

REPORT

Amendments made to the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) in August 2016 by the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 provide for a model code of meeting practice (Model Meeting Code) to be prescribed by regulation.

The Office of Local Government (OLG), in consultation with councils, has prepared a consultation draft of the proposed Model Meeting Code. Once this is finalised, it will replace the meeting rules currently prescribed in the Local Government (General) Meeting Regulation 2005 (the Regulation). Once the Model Meeting Code is finalised, councils will be given a period of 6 months in which to adopt a code of meeting practice based on the Model Meeting Code.

The Office of Local Government is inviting submissions from councils and other stakeholders on the consultation draft of the Model Meeting Code. The deadline for submissions is Friday 16 March 2018.

The Model Meeting Code has two elements:

- It contains mandatory provisions (indicated in black font) that reflect the existing meetings provisions of the Act and adapt those currently contained in the Regulation. The existing meetings provisions of the Regulation have been updated and supplemented to reflect contemporary meetings practice by councils and to address ambiguities and areas of confusion in the existing provisions based on feedback from councils;

- It contains non-mandatory provisions (indicated in red font) that cover areas of meetings practice that are common to most councils but where there may be a need for some variation in practice between councils based on local circumstances. The non-mandatory provisions will also operate to set a benchmark based on what OLG sees as being best practice for the relevant area of practice.

In making submissions on the draft Model Meeting Code, OLG would welcome feedback from councils on whether any of the proposed non-mandatory provisions should be mandated. If there is a sufficient body of support for these from councils, these may be made mandatory in the final version of the Model Meeting Code.

The information and Consultation Draft Model Code of Meeting Practice was also included in the CEO update on 14 December 2017.

Comments/recommendations from Council staff on the Consultation Draft

- Clause 4 of the Consultation Draft deals with Public Forums and Clause 4.1 contains the following non-mandatory provision:

“The Council will hold a public forum prior to each ordinary meeting of the council for the purpose of hearing oral submissions from members of the public on items of business to be considered at the meeting. Public forums may also be held prior to extraordinary council meetings and meetings of committees and the council”.

Council staff do not support this non-mandatory provision and recommend Council’s current practice of holding the Public Forum Session as part of the meeting, prior to discussion of Agenda items, rather than being held prior to each Council meeting.

People requesting to address the Council meeting are required to register by 5pm the day prior to the meeting. The number of requests vary from meeting to meeting, so therefore the time to be allocated to the Public Forum section would differ each time. It is considered prudent to continue Council’s current practice of holding the Public Forum Session as part of the meeting, prior to discussion of Agenda items, rather than being held prior to each Council meeting. This would be more beneficial both for members of the public wishing to address the meeting, and Councillors, staff and the general public who attend the meeting, so that everyone attending is aware of the start time and would eliminate the risk of having unnecessary delays by allocating too much time for the Public Forum and having everyone wait to start the meeting at the advertised start time.

- Clause 5.18 deals with the Webcasting of Meetings and contains the following mandatory provision:

“All meetings of the council and committees of the council are to be webcast”.

Council staff do not support this being a mandatory provision due to the increased risk of defamation action against Councillors, and potentially increased legal costs to Council, even where the Council is not a party to any proceedings. If it’s to be included at all, it is recommended that it be made a non-mandatory provision.

The issue of webcasting of Council meetings was considered by the previous term of Council (in September 2014) and Council decided not to proceed and instead to “Receive and note the report”.

Research has indicated mixed responses from other Councils on this provision.

- Clauses 10.2 – 10.4 deals with Notice of Motions and clause 10.2 contains the following mandatory provision:

“A councillor who has submitted a notice of motion is to move the motion the subject of the notice of motion at the meeting at which it is to be considered”.

The moving of Notice of Motions has generated some debate during this term of Council, and staff support the mandatory provision.

- Clauses 11.4 – 11.10 deal with Voting at Council Meeting and clause 11.10 contains the following non-mandatory provision:

“All voting at council meetings must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting with the name of councilors who voted for or against a motion or amendment being recorded as if a division had been called”.

A similar non-mandatory provision is contained in clause 20.23 in relation to Minutes of Committee Meetings which states:

“All voting at meetings of committees of the council must be recorded in the minutes of the meetings with the names of councilors who voted for or against a motion or amendment being recorded as if a division has been called”.

Council staff do not support these two non-mandatory provisions and prefer to only record voting on planning matters, tenders or where a division has been called (as per the current practice). Council staff believe that recording the voting for each and every motion or amendment will unnecessarily delay Council meetings. It is noted that Councillors already have the option of calling for a Division if they wish a vote on any item to be recorded in the minutes.

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	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.
Legislative	Section 360 of the Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Office of Local Government Circular - Consultation on the draft Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW ⇩

2. Model Code of Meeting Practice (Consultation Draft)⇨ (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Community and Culture Report

COM 01

The Mandaean Community in Liverpool - Baptismal Area on the banks of the Georges River

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Provide community facilities which are accessible to all
File Ref	036147.2018
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

Executive Summary

At the 31 May 2017 meeting the following resolution was made by Council:

Site 3 Haigh Park to be the most suitable site and that a further report be brought to the Council within six months addressing the risk to the public, identified in this report; the real-time monitoring of water for indicator organisms is in place; and until such time sufficient evidence is available to confirm the adequacy of water quality in the Georges River for primary contact recreational activities.

Water quality monitoring commenced in five locations across the Georges River in October 2017, which included Casula Powerhouse (site 1), Lighthorse Bridge (site 2) and the subject site, Haigh Park (site 3). Further testing was completed in November and December with the latest testing completed on 4 January 2018. This report provides a summary of the test results.

The tests completed from October to December recorded potentially toxic blue-green algae at the Lighthorse Bridge site with a total biovolume sufficient to trigger the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Amber Alert Level as specified in the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water.

Latest testing completed in January recorded high levels of blue-green algae, at the Casula Powerhouse site (site 1), triggering the Red Alert Level. Low levels of blue-green algae, were recorded at the Haigh Park testing site. In accordance with the NHMRC’s guidelines it is recommended that signage be erected to notify the public of the health risk associated with blue-green algae and ongoing weekly monitoring should occur to track the progression of the algal bloom.

To provide conclusive results and to make recommendations on the safety of the water for recreational uses, further regular testing will be required to compare results to the relevant guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive a further report following March 2018 monitoring that will allow for a more comprehensive comparison with past results, and better inform Council’s decision-making process.

REPORT

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water advocate a preventative approach to the management of recreational water, focusing on assessing and managing hazards and hazardous events within a risk-management framework.

A key aspect of the preventative approach is the development of monitoring programs that can provide a real-time indication of water quality. The guidelines suggest a three-level monitoring system:

· Surveillance mode (green level) – this level involves routine sampling to measure contaminants (eg physical, microbial, cyanobacterial and algal).

· Alert mode (amber level) – this level requires investigation into the causes of elevated contaminant levels, and increased sampling to enable a more accurate assessment of the risks to recreational users.

· Action mode (red level) – this level requires the local government authority and health authorities to warn the public that the water body is considered unsuitable for recreational use.

On the basis of the monitoring program, relevant authorities, such as local government and health bodies, may be required to take appropriate preventative action to protect the health of the public.

Following the resolution made at the 31 May 2017 Council meeting, arrangements were made to commence water quality monitoring at several sites across the Georges River. The five locations are identified below. Casula Powerhouse is indicated as site 1, Lighthorse Bridge is indicated as site 2 and Haigh Park is indicated as site 3.

Water testing commenced in October 2017. Further testing was completed in November and December with the latest testing completed on 4 January 2018.

Reports on the tests completed from October to December recorded potentially toxic blue- green algae at the Lighthorse Bridge site with a total biovolume sufficient to trigger the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Amber Alert Level. In accordance with the NHMRC’s guidelines this alert level requires signage be erected to notify the public of the health risk associated with blue-green algae and ongoing weekly monitoring should occur to track the progression of the algal bloom.

Testing completed in January recorded high levels of blue-green algae at the Casula Powerhouse site (site 1), exceeding the NHMRC guideline of 10 mm³/L, triggering the Red Alert Level. As recommended by previous alert levels, ongoing monitoring should occur to track the progression of the algal bloom and the public should be adequately notified of the health risk associated with blue-green algae.

Low levels of blue-green algae, were also detected at the Haigh Park testing site. While this was not sufficient to trigger NHMRC alert levels, the NHMRC recommends that regular monitoring occur as well as regular visual inspection of water surface for visible discolouration or scums.

Cyanobacteria (or blue-green algae) are a common and naturally occurring component of most recreational water environments. They are of public health concern because some types produce toxins that can have a harmful effect on recreational water users. Furthermore, production of toxins is unpredictable, making it difficult to quantify the toxicity of waters and define the restrictions that should be placed on their use. ^{^[1]}

While the initial monitoring results indicate low levels of blue-green algae occurring at Haigh Park, higher levels have been recorded at the other nearby test sites. It is therefore considered prudent to undertake further tests and to make recommendations on the safety of the water for recreational uses that are informed by those findings. This includes the NHMRC Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (2008), Australian New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Guidelines for Lowland Rivers South East Australia and Regional Water Quality Guidelines for Creeks of Western Sydney (2000).

Council have engaged CT Environmental for two years until 1 August 2019 to undertake water quality monitoring across the five locations as required.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There will be ongoing costs of water testing however this will be covered under contract with CT Environmental in place until 1 August 2019.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses. Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Promote community harmony and address discrimination. Support access and services for people with a disability.
Civic Leadership	Act as an environmental leader in the community. 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

Nil

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Community and Culture Report

COM 02

Toda Student Exchange Program

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Celebrate diversity, promote inclusion and recognise heritage
File Ref	045423.2018
Report By	Alyson Infanti - Civic Officer
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting held on 25 October 2017, Council resolved to:

“Investigate the previous student exchange program with Toda and the possible feasibility of continuing such a program or similar program. A report to be submitted to Council in December 2017.”

Following consultation with Departmental officials and a range of other organisations, a number of programs have been identified as potential operational models that would allow the program to be reinstated.

This reports seeks the determination of Council in regard to the reactivation of a Schools Exchange Program.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the contents of the Department of Education’s document (attached);

2. Agrees that an expression of interest should be issued to all High Schools in the Liverpool LGA with a view to undertaking a student exchange to Toda in September 2018;

3. Notes a budget allocation required to host incoming delegations from Toda will be included in annual budgets;

4. Approves the participation of the Mayor and Councillors (and support staff) in a visit to Toda in September 2018, either accompanying the student exchange or as a Council delegation to further demonstrate Council’s commitment to the Sister City relationship with Toda; and

5. Approves the allocation of an additional staffing resource equivalent to (0.4) FTE to administer the student exchange program.

REPORT

Program Overview

Following the initiation of the Sister City relationship with Toda in 1992, students from eight schools participated over several years in student exchanges with their counterparts in Japan. Students stayed in Japan for a period of three weeks, hosted by local families. School Principals led the organisation of visits, with teachers accompanying students.

By 2009, over 600 students and teachers had participated, with the benefits of the program including the continuing friendships among students, fostering harmony and cross-cultural understanding. At that time, Council’s contribution towards the visiting delegations amounted to $64,000.

The outbreak of Swine-flu in 2009, followed by the earthquake in March 2011 that triggered the Fukushima nuclear accident brought a suspension of the program. However, several other factors have since contributed to the withdrawal of public schools from the program.

All of the Principals who were involved initially have since retired or moved from the area and their successors have not shared the earlier enthusiasm for the program. Many Principals now cite the pressures of program administration and an overburdened curriculum as leaving insufficient time to remove students and teachers from the classroom for an extended period of time.

Similarly, in complying with more robust legislation in regard to child protection, the Department of Education now require comprehensive procedures around child protection and related homestay checks for which payment must be made. The Department has introduced an implementation document for overseas student and visitors, a copy of which is attached, which set out the roles and responsibilities of respective stakeholders in such programs and an associated framework for related costs.

Contemporary context

Council has signaled clearly its intention to engage more proactively in its Sister City relationship with Toda. As part of the relationship, Councillors from both Liverpool and Toda have expressed their support for the reinstatement of a student exchange program, most recently during the visit to Liverpool of a political and business delegation from Toda in September 2017 and a subsequent resolution of Council at its meeting of 25 October 2017.

Council officers have held a series of meetings with a range of bodies with knowledge and practical experience in this area, including the Department of Education, Japan Local Government Centre (CLAIR) officials, two other Councils involved in Sister City programs and a private school that operates a two-way student exchange program.

Toda officials have confirmed that their preferred timing for an exchange program visit from Liverpool would be September. Toda also confirmed that there is no dormitory style accommodation available and that they are in a process of exploring appropriate hotel accommodation that would provide the necessary assurance to Council, participating schools, and parents in regard to the safety of the participating students.

Based on the advice received, it would appear that the following actions are required, if the September timeframe is to be met:

Outgoing delegations

· Council should issue an expression of interest to all High schools in the Local Government Area;

· Schools would be responsible for the organisation of all logistical arrangements necessary to enable students to participate, including fund raising. That may also involve engaging a registered tour operator or agent to undertake the work on behalf of the school;

· Public liability would rest either with the school or the registered tour operator contracted for the group to act on the school’s behalf;

· Typically, cohorts of up to 15 students are preferred as the optimal arrangement from supervisory and logistical perspectives;

· Toda officials have expressed their preference for homestay arrangements to be put in place. Alternatively, hotel accommodation can be secured but it has been confirmed that no dormitory style accommodation is available within Toda City.

Incoming delegations

· Council may contribute financially, as it does presently and on the same operational model, to incoming delegations from Toda at the rates set out by the Department of Education. Based on a cohort of 15 students, staying for 5 days, this represents a sum of approximately $25,000.

Resources

Advice received from those organisations involved in active programs indicate that modest additional resources are required to organise and administer such programs. It is estimated that an additional part time position (0.4 FTE) would be sufficient to ensure appropriate operationalisation at a cost of approximately $35,000.

Timing

Given the complexity of organising such visits, which rests primarily on the willingness of schools to participate, it may not be possible to organise a program in the current school year. However, given the previously expressed concerns about the safety and supervision of participants, it may be prudent to send an advance delegation to undertake due diligence in regard to the operation of the proposed program for future years.

Subject to the agreement of Toda Council in regard to timing, such a delegation should be headed by the Mayor and Councillors, or their delegates, (and support staff) to further demonstrate Council’s renewed commitment to the Sister City relationship with Toda. Based on a delegation of five members, it is estimated that the costs of the delegation would amount to approximately $30,000 for flights, accommodation, ground transport and subsistence.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Associated expenditure will vary according to the size and timing of delegations but based on patterns of expenditure over past financial years, it is estimated that a budgetary allocation of $100k would be necessary on an ongoing basis to support a regular two-way engagement in support of the student exchange and the broader Sister City relationship.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Promote community harmony and address discrimination.
Civic Leadership	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Implementation document for overseas student and visitors policy

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Corporate Report

CORP 01

Budget Review - December 2017

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Meet the challenges of Liverpool’s growing population
File Ref	034793.2018
Report By	Earl Paradeza - Senior Management Accountant
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Manager Finance

Executive Summary

In June 2017 Council adopted its 2017/18 operating budget with projected revenue of $251.3m and expenditure of $178.2m. In terms of the net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes, the Council budgeted for a deficit of $0.577m.

For Quarter 1 ended 30 September 2017, Council approved adjustments through resolutions and budget review process, resulting in a revised revenue target of $251.5m and expenditure of $177.9m. This translated to revised deficit net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes of $0.572m.

The review of Council’s budget at 31 December 2017 identified further adjustments and if approved will result in a $0.069m net operating deficit before grants and contributions for capital purposes for 2017/18 (Ref attachment 1 – Note G). The deficit of $0.069m is the accumulation of the Original Budget of -$0.577m, Q1 adjustment of +$0.005m and the proposed Q2 adjustment of +$0.503m (Ref attachment 1 – Note C).

Fit For the Future net operating results will also favourably change from a budget deficit of $7.057m to $5.546m deficit (Ref attachment 1 – Note H).

The second quarter budget review for 2017/18 has also resulted in a decrease of $6.1m of Council’s capital expenditure program (Ref attachment 1 – Note F).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the report; and

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

REPORT

Legislative Requirements

Clause 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires the Responsible Accounting Officer to provide a quarterly budget review not later than two months after each quarter's end. This report provides an overview of the results on the financial review for the quarter ended 31 December 2017.

Commentary

Operating Budget

For Quarter 1 ended 30 September 2017, Council approved budget variations through resolutions and budget review process, resulting in a revised revenue target of $251.5m and expenditure of $177.9m. This translated to revised deficit net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes of $0.572m.

A comprehensive budget review conducted at second quarter ended 31 December 2017 has resulted in further budget adjustments, as detailed in Attachment 2. As part of the Budget Review, managers have conducted a review of their programs with a view to providing a revised forecast for the financial year ended 30 June 2018. Managers take into consideration events that have occurred to date and/or information that has become available since the adoption of the original budget and the impact of which provides the basis for the budget adjustments.

The review has resulted in $4.588m (Ref attachment 1 – Note A) increase in total revenue. Total expenditure is also projected to increase by net $1.973m (Ref attachment 1 – Note B). Significant changes include:

· +$1.290m increase in Environmental Compliance Levy

· +$0.567m forfeiture of developers bonds

· -$0.515m restatement of Land Under Roads

· -$0.587m Removal of buildings demolished in previous years from asset register

The budget review also include adjustments for the following temporary positions:

· Administration Officer (Tourism) temporary position for 2017/18 year to provide administrative and policy support for the development and delivery of tourism initiatives and activities. The role will contribute to the development, implementation and review of tourism and activation strategies. It is also a resource to reinstate and conduct the Tourism and Events Committee, and any items arising from the Committee and industry initiatives.

· Senior Officer – City Innovation temporary position on a 12 month trial. The position purpose is to connect people, place and technology and innovatively solve city challenges. The role will work in collaboration across Council, together with expert partners and the community, to understand city needs and apply new ways of problem solving and advancements in innovation and technology to present more effective and efficient solutions to city services.

The proposed budget changes will improve the budgeted net operating result before grants and contributions for capital purposes to a deficit of $0.069m for the year ending 30 June 2018 (Ref attachment 1 – Note G) and will favourably change the net operating result before grants & contributions for capital purposes for Fit For the Future at a deficit of $5.546m (Ref attachment 1 – Note H).

Capital Budget

In June 2017, Council approved its $156.3m capital works program for 2016/17. Council subsequently approved carry over of projects valued $9.6m that were planned but not completed in 2016/17.

In Quarter 1 budget review, capital expenditure program was further adjusted upwards by $18.9m by bringing forward selected future projects due to delays in the commencement of Liverpool Civic Place.

The second quarter budget review has resulted in $6.1m decrease to Council’s capital expenditure program (Ref attachment 1 – Note F). The budget adjustments include the following:

· Manning Street Bypass project with budget of $1.030m is being returned to the general fund. The cost of constructing the Manning Street bypass and the remaining works to upgrade Governor Macquarie Drive is $14 million which is unfunded. The Warwick Farm precinct around Manning Street is also part of the Liverpool Collaboration Area. Studies will determine development patterns and infrastructure requirements. Deferral of this project will enable these issues to be defined and associated funding options to be explored.

· Macquarie Mall to 33 Moore Street-Optical Fibre Link project. The optical fibre link has been installed without the need to expend this budget of $117,000. A request has been received from the City Community and Culture Directorate to fund the Aquatic and Leisure Centre Study. This study will inform the planning and delivery of these facilities. It is supported by Council’s Strategic Projects PCG. Accordingly it is recommended that these funds be transferred to this project.

At 31 December 2017, Council has a capital expenditure program of $162.3m as detailed in Attachment 3. Note, 31 December 2017 YTD capital expenditure was $19.8m.

The Table 1 below provides summary of the budget results:

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

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

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

2. Changes following Quarter 2 budget review

3. The proposed budget for 2017/18 financial year

Attachments 2 – This report provides details of operating budget adjustments

Attachments 3 – This report provides details of capital budget adjustments

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

Attachment 6 - Cash and Investments Statement: Providing a reconciliation of restricted and unrestricted funds to the level of Cash and Investments held as at 31 December 2017

Attachment 7 - Key Performance Indicators

Attachment 8 - 9 Contracts and Other Expenses Statement.

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

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital, health and medical precinct (of the City Centre). Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries. 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	Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Clause 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

ATTACHMENTS

1. QBRS - Consolidated Budget Analysis ⇩

2. Operating Budget Adjustments ⇩

3. Capital Budget Adjustments ⇩

4. Grant Status Report - Applications ⇩

5. Grant Status Report - Received ⇩

6. Reserve Movement Report ⇩

7. Key Performance Indicators ⇩

8. Consultancy & Legal Expenses Budget Review Statement ⇩

9. Contracts Budget Review Statement

123

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Corporate Report

CORP 02

Investment Report January 2018

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Seek efficient and innovative methods to manage our resources
File Ref	037211.2018
Report By	John Singh - Revenue Accountant
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Manager Finance

Executive Summary

This report details Council’s Investment portfolio.

At 31 January 2018, Council held investments with a market value of $221 million.

The portfolio yield to the end of January 2018 is 102 basis points above the AusBond Bank Bill index.

	AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)
Benchmark	1.75%
Portfolio yield	2.77%
Performance above benchmarks	1.02%

Return on investment for the 7 months ended to January 2018 was $689k higher than budget.

Council’s investments and reporting obligations fully comply with the requirements of Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

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

Council’s Portfolio

At 31 January 2018, Council held investments with a market value of $221 million. Council’s investment register detailing all its investments is provided as an attachment to this report. In summary, Council’s portfolio consisted of investments in:

At 31 January 2018, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

Asset Class	Jan-18	Jun-17
Senior Debts (FRN's & TCD's)	100.77%	100.85%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	59.53%	60.13%
T-Corp Unit Trusts	101.62%	100.39%

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

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

Portfolio Maturity Profile

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

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

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Portfolio Performance against relevant market benchmark.

Council’s Investment Policy prescribes AusBond Bank Bill Index (ABBI) as a benchmark to measure return on cash and fixed interest securities. The ABBI represents average daily yield of a parcel of bank bills. Historically there has been a positive correlation between changes in the cash rate and the resulting impact on the ABBI benchmark.

The portfolio yield to 31 January 2018 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 102 basis points (2.77% against 1.75 %).

Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower market term deposit yields. Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

Performance of Portfolio Returns against Budget

Council’s investment income for the 7 months to January 2018 exceeded budget by $689k mainly due to higher actual monthly average portfolio holdings compared to budgeted monthly average portfolio holdings for the period.

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance

The portfolio yield to 31 January 2018 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 102 basis points (2.77% against 1.75%)

Annual Income vs. Budget

Council’s investment interest income exceeded budget by $689k as at 31 January 2018 mainly due to higher actual monthly average portfolio holdings compared to budgeted monthly average portfolio holdings.

Investment Policy Compliance

Legislative Requirements		Fully Compliant.
Portfolio Credit Rating Limit		Fully Compliant.
Institutional Exposure Limits	X	Investments in Police Credit Union (SA) is slightly higher than the policy limit - $2m maturing in August 2018 will be recalled.
Overall Portfolio Credit Limits		Fully Compliant.
Term to Maturity Limits		Fully Compliant.

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank has left the official cash rate on hold at 1.5 per cent in its 6 February 2018 meeting. The current 1.5 per cent cash rate is at a historically low level and impacts returns on investment

Certificate of Responsible Accounting Officer

The Manager Financial Services, as Responsible Accounting Officer certifies that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Councils Investment Policies at the time of their placement. The previous investments are covered by the “grandfather” clauses of the current investment guidelines issued by the Minister for Local Government.

Independent verification by Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC)

Council requested an independent review of its investment portfolio by Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC). At its meeting on 9th February 2018 ARIC deliberated on this request and agreed for its Chairperson to issue a certificate to that effect. The process will include the Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement independently validating all investments and recommending to the Chair of ARIC to issue the certificate.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Council’s investment interest income exceeded budget by $689k as at 31 January 2018 mainly due to higher actual monthly average portfolio holdings compared to budgeted monthly average portfolio holdings.
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	Council is fully compliant with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 – Investment Order (authorised investments) and with reporting requirements under Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment Portfolio - January 2018 ⇩

2. ARIC Certification of Investment Portfolio

125

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

City Presentation Report

PRES 01

Liverpool City Council Operations Centre Strategic Plan 2036

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Meet the challenges of Liverpool’s growing population
File Ref	028122.2018
Report By	Margaret Diebert - Acting Director City Presentation
Approved By	Margaret Diebert - Acting Director City Presentation

Executive Summary

Liverpool City Council commissioned a qualified consultant who, in consultation with relevant staff within council, developed the Liverpool City Council Operations Centre Strategic Plan 2036. A number of issues are driving the need for a strategic approach and for the master planning of Council depots, these are:

· Age and the original function of depots are out of step with modern operational requirements;

· Staff accommodation and technology;

· Impact of surrounding residential property placing pressure on controlling noise and fumes;

· Inadequate size of facilities to reflect ever increasing population;

· Outsourcing and encroachment of residential uses on depot land and how they impact the value of land; and

· The number of depots operating to serve the council area.

The strategic plan will provide a road map for the provision of appropriate operational facilities to service the Liverpool LGA as the demand for municipal services grows into the future. Although the planning horizon is 2036, it is anticipated that the plan will identify a staged process for operations centre development with an initial phase of procurement for around 2025 and finalised for 2036.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the Operations Centre Strategic Plan 2036.

REPORT

Introduction

Established in 1810, Liverpool was identified as a prospective centre for the South Western Region of Sydney. The Council has a land area of 30,552 hectares (306 km²) and incorporates 42 Suburbs. Most of the urban development is located in the eastern sector of the city. The western sector is currently primarily rural (approximately 130 km²).The city is serviced by the Hume Highway, M5 and M7 and the East Hills Rail Line. The Main Southern Rail Line also passes through the LGA.

The Liverpool City Estimated Resident Population for 2015 was 204,594 (ABS ERP 2015) with the projected population growing to 325,000 residents by 2036. This represents a growth of 59% in population which will also link to growth in employment and regional development. A significant portion of the growth and development will occur in the western sector of the LGA where planning is well underway for the Western Sydney Airport (WSA) which is also going to have a major impact on the western part of the LGA.

This growth will result in significant increases in service demands for construction and maintenance of major infrastructure, parks, roads, public domain, drainage, and waste management services. Liverpool City Council currently supplies these services to the community through a mix of Council employed operational staff and external contractors. It is anticipated that Liverpool Council will continue to operate into the future under a similar mix of internal and external service providers.

On this basis the provision of appropriate and carefully located Operations Centre Facilities will be critical to the efficient and effective delivery of services to the community within the LGA. Council needs to look ahead and put in place a future plan as to what the Operations Centres will or should progressively look like through to the year 2036.

Background

The responsibility for Operations Centre Facilities management falls under the Director City Presentation. The staff assigned to City Presentation are primarily responsible for most of the infrastructure maintenance and waste management activities of Council and operate out of the various depots located in the LGA. The Council’s main depot site is located at the eastern end of the Council area and west of the Liverpool CBD. The site is accessed off Rose St and surrounded by residential areas and open space to the northwest.

The site has undergone a number of improvements over the years but like many other depots in other Council areas the layout has become haphazard and not functional.

City Presentation is the directorate located in and managing the depots with service area responsibility for:

· Parks and Cleansing

· Parks Programs

· Parks and CBD

· Trees

· Cleansing and Waste

· Waste Management (includes Domestic Waste Collection Contract Management)

· Maintenance Delivery – Concrete Works

· Maintenance Delivery – Roads

· Maintenance Delivery – Drainage, Street Furniture and Footpaths

· Plant and Fleet Services

· Stores

· Building Maintenance – Trades, Graffiti Removal and Playgrounds

· Building Maintenance – Building Infrastructure

· Maintenance Planning and Reporting

Current Depot Facilities

The existing primary Operations Centre and Mechanical Workshop / Store is located at 99-101 Rose Street Liverpool.

This is Council’s Main Depot site which covers 19,900 m². This is a general purpose Council depot that has been developed in a piecemeal fashion for many years as more and different pressures were placed on Council operations.

Many buildings are in poor condition and require significant refurbishment or replacement. The site is also subject to historic contamination.

The Mechanical Workshop and store covers 16,700 m² and is directly adjacent to the Main Depot at the end of Rose Street.

Operating from the Mechanical Workshop, Liverpool City Council owns and controls a large fleet of vehicles and plant valued at fair value $21.5 million and carrying approx. value $8 million. The Plant fleet consists of 270 Registered plant including trucks, tractors and graders and 500 items of small plant.

Rose St Depot

The Rose Street Operations Centre and Mechanical Workshop and store includes a new Community Recycling Centre, refurbished Administration Building, Trades workshop, Painters workshop, Parks Shed, an Old Services Building, Waste Management Shed, an SES Building (accessed via Pearce Street), Training Room (joint use with Emergency Management Services), Bio Diesel Fuel Tank, Telstra Tower Compound, Walled storage bunkers, Numerous Containers, Parking Areas – cars and plant.

The adjacent Mechanical Workshop and store at the end of Rose Street consists of a Mechanical Workshop, Store Building, Truck Wash bay, Call out Shed – demountable, External Storage Cages, Containers and various Storage Sheds, Old Dog Pound, LPG Gas Filling Cage, Staff car park. The two sites are adjacent to each other although the long term layout and operation of the depot combined with the triangular nature of the rear boundary, the Telstra tower and the separate road access has resulted in a largely split operation. However, a combined site area of 36,600m² is a significant land holding in this area of the Liverpool LGA.

Council’s secondary depot is the Western Depot which is located at Kemps Creek. This site covers 16,900m² and has recently undergone significant remediation following identification of high levels of asbestos contamination. Further work is currently underway on eliminating other contamination. This site was used for the recycling of road materials, an operation that Council wish to re-formalise for both environmental and financial advantages by creating a compliant recycling operation in the area.

This secondary Depot at Kemps Creek includes a small meal room, Rural Fire Service Building, Toilet Building, Storage / Garage Building, Chemical / Hazardous Materials Store, Fire Box. Currently two Civil Maintenance crews operate out of the Western Depot.

Smaller satellite depots primarily housing Cleansing and Parks Maintenance crews are also located at Liverpool CBD Warren Service Way, Library Carpark compound, Bigge Park Pioneers Memorial Park and Rosedale Park, National Street, Warwick Farm.

Devonshire St Depot (Western Depot)

At present, the Council’s depot sites are generally located in the suburban areas at the eastern end of the LGA. Due to the projected population growth at the western end of the LGA, these sites will become increasingly remote from the areas they are intended to serve. The New South Wales Government have identified the land to the west of the Liverpool CBD as the Western Sydney priority growth area.

Whilst the western depot is currently at the fringe of developed areas in the LGA, the map above demonstrates that as the population centre of Liverpool shifts west over the next 10-15 years, the Western Depot Site will become more strategically located in the LGA and able to more efficiently serve each end of the Council area.

Development of an effective Strategic Document

The western portions of the Liverpool LGA are located in the Western Sydney Priority Growth area where the population of Liverpool City is projected to grow by 59% to 2036. This represents an increase of approximately 120,000 residents. It is expected that growth will also occur in the more highly developed eastern areas through urban infill and increased population densities. This growth will apply pressure to Council’s delivery of infrastructure services in 2 ways:

1. As the population grows in the western sector of the LGA, the current location of the depot site becomes less central to the population mass; and

2. As there will be an increase in densities closer to the CBD, a re-configuration of the current depot site, which is surrounded by residential areas and open space will be required

Complete Urban were engaged by Liverpool City Council to prepare a Strategic Plan for their Operations Centre Facilities. In developing the Strategic Plan Complete Urban reviewed the existing operation and location of council’s operation centres and provided their advice on the suitability of the current depot operations to meet the needs of the organisation through to 2036 and beyond.

The scope of works for this project was split into two parts:

· Portion A is designed to develop a road map for the provision of appropriate operational facilities to service the Liverpool LGA; and

· Portion B is designed to prepare an Operations Master Plan for both the Rose Street and the Western Depots in the first instance, to support and address the issues and staged development concepts raised in the Liverpool City Council Operations Centre Strategic Plan 2036 (Portion A).

The combination of the above strategies provides continuous service to the community by locating appropriate depot facilities where and when they will be required.

Conclusion

Liverpool City Council is an area that will experience exceptional population growth over the next 20 years. Growth will obligate Council to assess the implications of a growing population on its operations. One important area that will require such assessment and planning is the need for increased resources, including Plant and Depot facilities.

A strategic approach is required to understand the driver’s for growth and the implications for the most appropriate form of depot services that will facilitate efficient Capital works and Maintenance operations into the future. The Rose Street depot facility (99-101 Rose Street, Liverpool) has performed a very valuable function for Liverpool City Council over many years. It is considered that this facility should remain to provide mainly maintenance services for the current city centre and the surrounding original residential and commercial areas including the CBD.

The size of that facility however should not be required on the scale it is currently provided as it has been used as the main central depot for the whole LGA.

Further to the west however there is a growing need for new depot facilities. The site known as the Western Depot (209 Devonshire Road, Kemps Creek) will service this need for the short to medium term. Western Depot has the size required and should provide a central service for the new developing areas of Liverpool once improvements are provided proportional to increasing need. This will include a road recycling plant.

The Western site and its surroundings, which is zoned rural may in future be zoned for residential purposes. Use of such a site for an industrial purpose such as a depot will be inappropriate when the rural land is subdivided into residential estates. In the longer term it will be necessary to establish the new main depot for the Liverpool area in what will be industrially zoned land adjacent to the new Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Council accept and endorse the Operations Centre Strategic Plan 2036 provided by Complete Urban which suggest:

A. The Rose Street depot be developed and consolidated as the main Liverpool depot for the next 10 years;

B. During this time, The Western Depot be developed as a new Main depot that would also include road recycling material capacity with an expanded life of 10 to 15 years;

C. In the period 10 to 15 years (or before) property should be purchased in what will be the industrial and employment precinct adjacent to the new Western Sydney Airport at Kemps Creek on its Southern Eastern fringe for the development of a new Main Liverpool City Council depot. This would include retaining a proportion of the Rose Street Depot and the Western Depot as satellite depots and to be provided with adequate screen planting as a buffer to the residential area while still providing convenient services to the newly developed central area and Liverpool CBD and environs respectively;

D. That Council actively seek small satellite depots or small buildings to store parks plant and provide staff amenities when developing future recreational areas adjacent to the sporting amenities buildings and the like spread throughout the developing area; and

E. Proceed to prepare the relevant Master Plans.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop depots that accommodates a variety of plant, equipment and operational employees.
Environment	Support the delivery of a range of City Presentation services.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Deliver services that are customer focused.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Operations Centre Strategic Plan 2036 and Masterplan ⇨ (Under separate cover)

151

Ordinary Meeting 28 February 2018

Committee Reports

CTTE 02

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting Held on 24 January 2018

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Advocate for, and develop, transport networks to create an accessible city
File Ref	035859.2018
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) Meeting held on 24 January 2018. The Committee considered six (6) Agenda Items, three (3) Technical Discussion Items and fourteen (14) General Business Items. A copy of the LTC minutes is attached.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the following recommendations in accordance with attached Minutes:

i) Item 1 - Northumberland Serviceway, Liverpool – Proposed Changes to Existing
Parking Restrictions

· Council supports the proposed changes as shown in Attachment 1.1.

ii) Item 2 - Australis Avenue and Conroy Road Intersection, Wattle Grove – Proposed
Pedestrian Refuge

· Council approves the proposed pedestrian refuge at Australis Avenue and Conroy Road roundabout, Wattle Grove, as shown in Attachments 2.1 - 2.3.

· Council advises the Local Member for Holsworthy and the local residents of its action.

iii) Item 3 - Hill Road, Lurnea – Proposed Improvement to existing Pedestrian Crossing

· Council approves upgrading of the existing marked pedestrian crossing to a raised threshold across Hill Road, Lurnea, south of Wych Avenue with associated signs and linemarking as shown in Attachments 3.1 and 3.2 and the above changes.

· Council conduct a community consultation prior to installation.

iv) Item 4 - Boundary Road, Liverpool – Proposed Changes to Existing Parking
Restrictions

· Council approves the upgrade of the existing marked pedestrian crossing to a raised threshold across Hill Road, Lurnea, south of Wych Avenue with associated signs and linemarking as shown in Attachments 3.1 and 3.2

· Council conducts a community consultation prior to installation.

v) Item 5 - Dalmatia Avenue, Edmondson Park – Proposed Roundabouts at its

intersection with Jardine Drive and Somme Avenue

• Council approves the installation of two (2) roundabouts along Dalmatia Avenue at its intersections with Jardine Drive and Somme Avenue and the signs and linemarking scheme as shown in Attachments 5.1 – 5.4, subject to the submission of revised turning paths demonstrating that the roundabouts can accommodate the turning paths of service vehicles

· Council advises the applicants of its decision.

vi) Item 6 - Items Approved Under Delegated Authority

· Council notes the information on 24 minor traffic management schemes approved under the Committee’s Delegated Authority.

REPORT

Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 13 December 2017 approved all the recommendations from the LTC meeting of 8 November 2017, except for Item 5 – ‘Proposed Raised Pedestrian Threshold across Flowerdale Road, in front of the Liverpool West Public School’.

For this item, Council advocated as a priority to the RMS for the installation of speed cameras on Flowerdale Road and Council staff report back to Councillors through the CEO Update on the results of that advocacy, before the installation of the threshold.

Council, has applied for a speed camera, but is yet to receive a response. If the RMS does not support installation of a speed camera, the raised pedestrian threshold should be installed over the Easter School Holidays.

Technical Discussion Items

TD1 Fifteenth Avenue and Fourth Avenue Roundabout, Austral – Proposed Transverse Linemarking

The Committee was advised that the proposed installation of pavement markings is an interim measure until the intersection is signalised in the future. The Committee supported the proposed transverse linemarking.

It was also requested that Council’s City Presentation Team trim the vegetation to improve reducing sight distance.

TD2 Moore Street, Liverpool – Proposed Pedestrian Crossing near Railway Interchange

The Transit Systems representative expressed concern that the proposed marked pedestrian crossing would affect right turn movements from the bus interchange and delay bus services. He also indicated that he has raised this concern with TfNSW.

Hence, the Transit Systems representative objected to the proposed location of the pedestrian crossing facility across the section of Moore Street and suggested installation of traffic signals or the access to Bigge Park from Moore Street be closed. The RMS also agreed that the proposed location is unsafe.

It was agreed that Council in consultation with Transit Systems and the RMS would carry out additional traffic counts and investigate alternate locations to ensure pedestrian safety before a final decision is made.

TD3 North Liverpool Road – Request for traffic calming, North Liverpool Road at St Johns Road

It was agreed that a speed count be conducted and findings to be presented at the next LTC meeting.

General Business Items

GB1 Newbridge Road/Rickard Road, Chipping Norton – Illegal right turning movements

GB2 Hume Highway/Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm – Request for intersection upgrade

GB3 Memorial Avenue, Liverpool – Speed hump replacement

GB4 Lyn Parade and Cartwright Avenue movement, Cartwright – Signal phasing

GB5 Hoxton Park/ Glen Innes Road intersection, Prestons – Signal phasing

GB6 Dalmeny Drive/Venezia Street, Prestons – Roundabout vegetation

GB7 Moorebank Avenue and M5 Overpass, Moorebank – Faulty traffic signals

GB8 George Serviceway, Liverpool – Request for parking

GB9 Australis Avenue /Cassinia Court, Wattle Grove – Roundabout upgrade

GB10 Lyn Parade/Hoxton Park Road intersection roundabout – Request to trim hedges

GB11 Lyn Parade/Hoxton Park Road – Linemarking

GB12 St Francis Catholic College, Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park – School opening

GB13 Hoxton Park Road – RMS proposed Intersection treatment

GB14 Heathcote Road – Speed limit signs

Budget impact of matters arising from the minutes

Item	Description	Funding	Indicative delivery Time Frame
1	Northumberland Serviceway, Liverpool – proposed changes to existing parking restrictions	RMS Traffic Facilities Grant	June 2018
2	Australis Avenue and Conroy Road Intersection, Wattle Grove – Proposed pedestrian refuge	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program - $25,000	July 2018
3	Hill Road, Lurnea – Proposed improvement to existing pedestrian Crossing	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program-$30,000	September 2018
4	Boundary Road, Liverpool – Proposed Changes to Existing Parking Rest rictions	Council’s Minor Traffic Facilities Program	April 2018
5	Dalmatia Avenue, Edmondson Park – Proposed roundabouts at its intersection with Jardine Drive and Somme Avenue	Developer	December 2018
6	Items approved under Delegated Authority	N/A	N/A

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. 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 road and pedestrian safety.
Civic Leadership	Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services. There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	NSW Roads Act 1993. NSW Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999 Roads and Maritime Service Traffic Management and Road Design Guidelines

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 24 January 2018 (Under separate cover)⇨ (Under separate cover)

[1] NHMRC (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water

143
CTTE 01	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee meeting held 8 November 2017 and the Meeting Notes of the meeting held on 14 December 2017
Attachment 1	Meeting Notes Liverpool Youth Council 14 December 2017

147
CTTE 01	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee meeting held 8 November 2017 and the Meeting Notes of the meeting held on 14 December 2017
Attachment 2	Minutes Liverpool Youth Council 8 November 2017

161
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Liverpool Sports Committee Meeting held on 30 November 2017
Attachment 1	Liverpool Sports Committee Minutes of Meeting 30 November 2017

Economic	Facilitate economic development.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
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	As per the Local Government Act (1993) Section 404 (5), Council must ensure regular progress reports are provided to the Council reporting as to its progress with respect to the principal activities detailed in its delivery program at least every six months.

103
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 3	Capital Budget Adjustments

109
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 4	Grant Status Report - Applications

113
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 5	Grant Status Report - Received

114
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 6	Reserve Movement Report

113
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 7	Key Performance Indicators

116
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 8	Consultancy & Legal Expenses Budget Review Statement

115
CORP 01	Budget Review - December 2017
Attachment 9	Contracts Budget Review Statement

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Implement access and equity for all members of the community
File Ref	030642.2018
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Create a dynamic, inclusive environment, including programs to support healthy living
File Ref	035993.2018
Report By	Mark Westley - Sports Development Officer
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Attract businesses for economic growth and employment opportunities
File Ref	036727.2018
Report By	Vi Girgis - Senior Officer City Precinct
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

161
CTTE 04	Tourism and Events Committee Meeting of 8 February 2018
Attachment 1	Minutes of Tourism and Events Committee Meeting - 8 February 2018

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Create an attractive environment for investment
File Ref	036728.2018
Report By	Vi Girgis - Senior Officer City Precinct
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

167
CTTE 05	CBD Committee Meeting of 8 February 2018
Attachment 1	Minutes of CBD Committee Meeting - 8 February 2018

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Encourage community participation in decision-making
File Ref	042598.2018
Report By	Ash Chand - Executive Planner
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Economic	Cost of $4,000 which is contained within the existing Intermodal budget, allocated by Council to respond to the challenges presented by the proposed Intermodals at Moorebank.
Environment	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

173
CTTE 06	Minutes of the Intermodal Committee meeting held on 13 February 2018
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Intermodal Committee 13 February 2018

179
CTTE 07	Minutes of the Strategic Panel Meeting held on 12 February 2018
Attachment 1	Strategic Panel Minutes - 12 February 2018