COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

12 December 2018

 

FRANCIS GREENWAY CENTRE

170 GEORGE STREET LIVERPOOL


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby notified that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held at the Francis Greenway Centre, 170 George Street, Liverpool on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 commencing at 6.00pm. Doors to the Francis Greenway Centre will open at 5.50pm.

 

Liverpool City Council Meetings are taped for the purposes of minute taking and record keeping.  If you have any enquiries please contact Council and Executive Services on 8711 7584.

 

 

 

 


Kiersten Fishburn

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 


 

 

 


Order of Business

 

                                                                                                              PAGE     TAB

Opening

Acknowledgment of Country and Prayer

National Anthem

Apologies 

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 21 November 2018........................................................... 8

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 01    Revised contributions plans for Liverpool City Centre and Established Areas 64         1

EGROW 02    Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 71 - Rezoning of certain lands in Prestons for Environmental Conservation - Post-exhibition report    73 2

EGROW 03    Proposed amendments to Liverpool Development Control Plans - Controlling Shopping Trolleys .......................................................................................... 81......... 3

EGROW 04    Middleton Grange Town Centre Planning Proposal - Post exhibition report.. 85......... 4

EGROW 05    Implementation Strategy for Smoke-Free Areas......................................... 107......... 5

EGROW 06    Council Parking Analysis Report.................................................................. 111......... 6

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01          City Deal Relationship Framework............................................................... 118......... 7

City Community and Culture Report

COM 01          Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 - 2022 and Crime Prevention Plan 2019 - 2021........................................................................ 123......... 8

COM 02          Grants, Donations and Corporate Sponsorship............................................ 127......... 9

COM 03          Establishing an Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) Service at Carnes Hill 132....... 10

City Corporate Report

CORP 01        Legal Services Policy................................................................................... 138....... 11

City Presentation Report

NIL

City  Infrastructure and Environment Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01         Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee Meeting..... 160....... 12

CTTE 02         Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018................................................................................................ 165....... 13

CTTE 03         Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee Meeting held 7 November 2018                                                                                                                        192....... 14

CTTE 04         Minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee Meeting held 1 November 2018 199          15

CTTE 05         Minutes of Budget Review Panel 15 November 2018................................. 207....... 16

Questions with Notice

QWN 01         Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty............................................................... 212....... 17

QWN 02         Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty............................................................... 214....... 18

QWN 03         Question with Notice - Clr Ayyad................................................................. 215....... 19

QWN 04         Question with Notice - Clr Harle................................................................... 216....... 20

QWN 05         Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty............................................................... 218....... 21

QWN 06         Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti............................................................... 219....... 22

QWN 07         Question with Notice - Clr Harle .................................................................. 220....... 23  

Presentations by Councillors

 

Notices of Motion

NOM 01          Car Parking .................................................................................................. 222....... 24

NOM 02          123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton.............................................................. 224....... 25

NOM 03          Edmondson Park Town Centre North.......................................................... 226....... 26  

Council in Closed Session

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

 

 

 

CONF 01   Endorsement of Liverpool Access Committee 2018

Reason:     Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

 

CONF 02   Woodward Park Masterplan Brief

Reason:     Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CONF 03   Fire and Rescue NSW Referrals

Reason:     Item CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(g) of the Local Government Act because it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

CONF 04   Proposed Granting of an Easement to Drain Water over Council's Public Reserve located at 93 Box Road corner Hume Highway at Casula.

Reason:     Item CONF 04 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CONF 05   Acquisition of Lot 2 DP 567321 being 2082 Camden Valley Way, Edmondson Park for open space/drainage purposes

Reason:     Item CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CONF 06   Tender WT2759 Bigge Park Water Play Amenities and Council Store Building

Reason:     Item CONF 06 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

 

CONF 07   Proposed creation of Gas Easement in favour of Jemena over Council land Pt Lot 101 DP 1190263 (Pt of Mill Park, Casula) and Right of Carriageway

Reason:     Item CONF 07 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.  

Close                                             


 

 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


11

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 21 November 2018

 

 

PRESENT:

Mayor Wendy Waller

Councillor Ayyad

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Hagarty

Councillor Harle

Councillor Kaliyanda

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Rhodes

Councillor Shelton

Ms Kiersten Fishburn, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Tim Moore, Director City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Mr Chris White, Director City Corporate

Ms Tina Sangiuliano, Acting Director City Community and Culture

Dr Eddie Jackson, Director City Deal

Mr Peter Paterson, Director City Presentation

Mr Raj Autar, Director City Infrastructure and Environment

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.00pm.

 

 

OPENING                                                 6.00pm.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY,          The Prayer of the Council was read by Father

PRAYER OF COUNCIL AND                 Anthony Morgan from St George and Prince Tadros

AFFIRMATION TO BE READ BY                   Coptic Orthodox Church.

 

NATIONAL ANTHEM                             The National Anthem performed and recorded by

Rebekah Ferro was played at the meeting.

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

APOLOGIES                                            Clr Balloot           

 

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

CONDOLENCES                                     Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 29 October 2018 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting.

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

 

Declarations of Interest                            

 

Mayor Waller declared a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:   

 

Item:          CONF 01 - Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Members and Amendments to Charter

 

Reason:     One of the nominees is known to Mayor Waller.

 

Mayor Waller remained in the Chambers for the duration of this item. 

 

 

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

 

Item:          CONF 01 - Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Members and Amendments to Charter

 

Reason:     One of the nominees is known to Clr Hagarty.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Item:          CONF 01 - Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Members and Amendments to Charter

 

Reason:     Some of the nominees are known to Clr Rhodes.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Item:          CONF 03 - 2019 Australia Day Awards.

 

Reason:     Two of the nominees are known to Clr Rhodes

 

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

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

 

Item:          CONF 01 - Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Members and Amendments to Charter

 

Reason:     One of the applicants is known to Clr Kaliyanda.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Item:          CONF 01 - Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Members and Amendments to Charter

 

Reason:     One of the applicants is known to Clr Karnib.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Item:          CONF 03 – Australia Day Awards 2019.

 

Reason:     Clr Hagarty gave a reference for one of the nominees.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Item:          CONF 03 - 2019 Australia Day Awards.

 

Reason:     One of the nominees is known to Clr Kaliyanda.

 

Clr Kaliyanda left the Chambers for the duration of this item

 

 

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

 

Item:          CTTE 05 – Endorsement of Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee 2018-2020.

 

Reason:     Clr Hagarty is on the board of an organisation nominated. 

 

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


 

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

 

Item:          CONF 05 – Tourism & CBD Committee Community Representatives.

 

Reason:     Some of the nominees are known to Clr Rhodes. 

 

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

 

Public Forum

 

Presentation – items not on agenda    

 

1.       Ms Carrie Alvaro addressed Council on the following matter:

 

Elizabeth Hills Traffic Conditions.

 

Motion:                                                     Moved: Clr Rhodes     Seconded: Clr Hadid 

 

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

 

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

 

Representation – items on agenda

 

1.       Mr Tom Forrest (Applicant’s representative – from Nelcorb Pty Ltd) addressed Council on the following item: 

 

EGROW 06 – Proposal to Rezone 315 and 335 Denham Court Road, Denham Court from E4 (Environmental Living) to R2 (Low Density Residential).

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

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

 

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

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

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

 

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

 


15

 

Mayoral Minute

 

ITEM NO:       MAYOR 01

FILE NO:        323821.2018           

SUBJECT:     Recognition of Council’s Achievements

 

 

In the past three months, Liverpool City Council has won three important awards for innovative projects and campaigns that have made our city a better place to live, work and learn.

In September, Liverpool City Council’s Smart Pedestrian Project won an award in the category Best Local Government Initiative at the Committee for Sydney’s Smart City Awards. The victory marks the second year in a row that Council has taken home this award. The judging panel recognised the project as a ground-breaking initiative that will revolutionise urban design and traffic management in the city.

In October, the Liverpool Innovation Precinct committee received the Public Relations Institute of Australia’s Golden Target Award for best national Advocacy and Public Affairs Campaign. The award recognised the committee’s campaign for the Liverpool Hospital upgrade, which secured a $740 million budget commitment from the NSW Government.

Receiving such a prestigious award highlights the successful collaborative efforts between Council, Sydney Business Chamber and South West Sydney Area Health Service on the Liverpool Innovation Precinct committee.

In November, Liverpool City Council took home a Premier’s Award in the category ‘Transforming residential approval’ for our FastTrack@LiverpoolCityCouncil program. The program was praised for the innovative way it streamlined approval processes. Almost 180 applications are approved in one day, a dramatic improvement on the previous 75-day approval timeline.

Winning these awards is a testament to Council’s efforts as an ambitious, courageous and collaborative organisation that aspires to do great things for ourselves, our community and our growing city.

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council acknowledges the hard work of the staff involved in the award-winning projects and campaigns and congratulates them on their success and write to staff involved.

Motion                                   Moved: Mayor Waller         

 

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

 

 

ITEM NO:       MAYOR 02

FILE NO:        323827.2018           

SUBJECT:     Success of Liverpool Remembers  

 

To commemorate the Centenary of Armistice, Liverpool City Council organised a series of events and exhibitions under a program called Liverpool Remembers. From 20 October 2018 to 11 November 2018, Liverpool hosted four events: Peace Comes to Liverpool, Visions of Peace, Freedom of Entry Parade and Liverpool Remembers Centenary of Armistice.

Our city centre came alive with the spirit of commemoration. Innovative screen projections beamed historical photos and community stories onto buildings and walls. Visions of Peace was the first project of its kind to be displayed in our city. Exhibitions, commemorative ceremonies and marches brought many members of the community together.

The careful organisation and execution of each event ensured that our community could properly honour our servicemen and servicewomen. Our city also had a chance to pause and reflect on the importance of freedom, peace and harmony.

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council acknowledge the work undertaken by Council staff and congratulate them in putting the Liverpool Remembers program together, in particular the Visions of Peace digital project, the Freedom of Entry Parade and the Remembrance Day commemoration and write to staff involved.

 

Motion                                   Moved: Mayor Waller

 

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

 


MOTION OF URGENCY

 

Clr Hagarty requested that the matter and motion below be dealt with at this meeting.

In accordance with Clause 16.62 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, the Mayor ruled that the business proposed was a matter of urgency and as such, was dealt with at this meeting.

 

Background (as provided by Clr Hagarty)

In the last week I have been contacted by three separate residents regarding similar issues with traffic incidents. The three involve intersections or stretches of road already earmarked for safety upgrades or speed assessments. All three have seen accidents in the last week.

 

1.     A woman at Regentville Drive, Elizabeth Hills had the drivers side door ripped off her car by a speeding motorist last weekend. Thankfully she is fine. Council approved two traffic calming devices for this stretch of road at the October meeting.

 

2.     The forth accident in as many months occurred at the intersection of Buchan and Jardine Drives, Edmondson Park last Tuesday. This intersection was approved for a roundabout the August Council Meeting. A child care centre is scheduled to open at the intersection early next year.

 

3.     Feodore Drive Cecil Hills has been the site of numerous minor accidents, I'm aware of at least two in the last month, and will be subject to a speed assessment. One of two major entry exit points into Cecil Hills, Sandringham Drive, which connects up with Feodore Drive, was the site of a fatality in January this year when a retired priest was struck and killed by a speeding driver.

 

While the process appears to be working, I worry that it is not working fast enough for riskier sites, as the above examples seem to suggest.

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council:

 

  1. Review relevant policies and procedures in consultation with relevant external parties such as RMS and Police with a view to allowing a quicker process for riskier sites;

 

  1. Move as quick as is practically possible on scheduled works and assessments for the following:

·         traffic calming devices along Regentville Drive Elizabeth Hills.

·         roundabout at Jardine and Buchan Avenue Edmondson Park.

·         speed assessment and potential works along Feodore Drive Cecil Hills.

 

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

 

 

City Economy and Growth Report

 

ITEM NO:       EGROW 01

FILE NO:        285284.2018

SUBJECT:     Draft amendment to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 - Second / Multiple Driveways

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Endorses and places the draft amendment to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days in accordance with Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000; and

 

2.    Delegates to the CEO the finalisation of the draft Development Control Plan should no submissions be received; or reports back to Council the details of the submissions upon conclusion of the exhibition period.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad 

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


17

 

ITEM NO:       EGROW 02

FILE NO:        294143.2018

SUBJECT:     City Activation Strategy 2019-2024

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the City Activation Strategy 2019-2024.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council:

 

  1. Adopts the City Activation Strategy 2019-2024 subject to the following:

 

a)   That Council trial playing a variety of music including classical, and Christmas carols during the Christmas season in Macquarie Mall with the footage of the music displayed on the big screen in the Mall;

 

b)   That the ABS data relating to the demographics of people living in the CBD be included in the strategy; and

 

  1. Commend Council staff on the strategy.

 

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

 


17

 

ITEM NO:       EGROW 03

FILE NO:        294329.2018

SUBJECT:     Draft City Innovation Strategy

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Exhibit the draft Innovation Strategy for 28 days; and

 

2.    Delegate to the CEO the finalisation of the Strategy if no submissions are received; or

 

3.    If submissions are received, report back to Council with the details and a final strategy incorporating any updates.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


19

ITEM NO:       EGROW 04

FILE NO:        300737.2018

SUBJECT:     Voluntary Planning Agreement in conjunction with DA-407/2017/A at 24 Bernera Road, Prestons

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Endorse the attached VPA for a monetary contribution towards the upgrade of the Bernera Road/Yarrunga Road/Yato Road intersection and directs the CEO to publicly exhibit the VPA and accompanying explanatory note for a period of 28 days;

 

2.   Delegate authority to the CEO, subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition, to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor alterations;

 

3.   Note that if changes other than minor changes arise from the public exhibition process these will be reported back to Council;

 

4.   Note that this delegation is within the powers that can be delegated under Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993;

 

5.   Note that any planning agreement will be subject to approval of development application DA-407/2017/A;

 

6.   Note that in accepting the proposed offer to enter into a planning agreement, Council retains full discretion to determine development application DA-407/2017/A on its merits in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; and 

 

7.   Endorse the proposed approach of collection of funding for the upgrade of the intersection of Bernera Rd/Yarrunga/Yato Rd through the negotiation of VPA’s with developers of significant development sites in proximity to this intersection.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


19

 

ITEM NO:       EGROW 05

FILE NO:        301358.2018

SUBJECT:     Draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment 31) - Boarding House Development - Post exhibition report

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment 31), to come into effect upon publication of the required notice in the local newspaper.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That Council adopts draft Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 (Amendment 31), to come into effect upon publication of the required notice in the local newspaper subject the following change:

 

·         The side setback in Clause 10 as shown on page 128 of the Council Agenda be changed to 3 metres as originally proposed by officers.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 


 

ITEM NO:       EGROW 06

FILE NO:        302549.2018

SUBJECT:     Proposal to rezone 315 and 335 Denham Court Road, Denham Court from E4 - Environmental Living to R2 - Low Density Residential

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Does not support the proposed rezoning of 315 and 335 Denham Court Road, Denham Court from E4 – Environmental Living to R2 – Low Density Residential because the proposal lacks strategic merit;

 

2.    Do not forward to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination;

 

3.    Notify the applicant of Council’s decision.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Hadid                 Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

  1. That the planning proposal be revised as follows:

 

a)    Retain as an E4 zone;

 

b)    Have a minimum lot size of 600sqm;

 

c)    Introduce a maximum dwelling cap of 44. 

 

  1. That the amended planning proposal be referred to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

3.    Should this be required to go back to the Local Planning Panel, that Council do so prior to referring it to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

 

 

On being put to the meeting the motion (Moved by Clr Harle) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadowed Motion (moved by Clr Hadid) lapsed.

 

 

Vote for:        Mayor Waller

                        Clr Hagarty

                        Clr Harle

                        Clr Kaliyanda

                        Clr Karnib

                        Clr Rhodes

                        Clr Shelton

 

Vote against: Clr Ayyad

                        Clr Hadchiti

                        Clr Hadid

 


23

 

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

 

ITEM NO:       CEO 01

FILE NO:        303408.2018

SUBJECT:     Councillor Briefings

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the Councillor Briefing Procedure.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                 Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted subject to the following changes:

 

  1. That Council adopt a more flexible meeting schedule that allows for Councillor Briefing Sessions to be held both during and after normal business hours;

 

  1. Amend Clause 13.5 to add the following words at the end of the clause:

 

                        “Or at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer”.

 

                        So that 13.5 reads:

 

                        13.5         How often can a Councillor participate remotely?

 

                             As physical attendance is the preferred method of participation and in                     order to maintain human relationships through physical proximity,                                      Councillors will only be authorised to participate remotely up to three times                       per annum, or at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer.

 

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

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CEO 02

FILE NO:        308387.2018

SUBJECT:     Code of Conduct Annual Complaints Statistics 2013-2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


25

 

City Community and Culture Report

 

 

ITEM NO:       COM 01

FILE NO:        304183.2018

SUBJECT:     Grants, Donations and Corporate Sponsorship

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the funding recommendation of $10,000 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Program for the following projects:

 

Applicant

Project

Recommended

Liverpool Domestic Violence Liaison Committee

Stop DV In Our Community

$10,000

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


25

Clr Hagarty left the Chambers at 8.26pm.

 

City Corporate Report

 

 

ITEM NO:       CORP 01

FILE NO:        297169.2018

SUBJECT:     Investment Report October 2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


27

Clr Hagarty returned to the Chambers at 8.27pm.

ITEM NO:       CORP 02

FILE NO:        305148.2018

SUBJECT:     Budget Review - September 2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes the report; and

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CORP 03

FILE NO:        306522.2018

SUBJECT:     Review of the delegations of the Chief Executive Officer

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Note that the Chief Executive Officer exercises the functions, role and delegations of “General Manager” under the Local Government Act 1993;

 

2.    Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the delegations detailed in in the Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer  in Attachment 2 to this Report; 

 

3.    Authorise the Mayor, Councillor Waller to sign Instrument of Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer; and

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


29

 

Committee Reports

 

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That all the Committee items be considered in bulk with the recommendations in the reports adopted with the exception of CTTE 03 and CTTE 05 which are to be considered separately.

 

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

 

Clr Shelton asked that his name be recorded as voting against the motion. 

 

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 01

FILE NO:        290573.2018

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Strategic Panel held on 15 October 2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the Minutes of the Strategic Panel Meeting held on 15 October 2018.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


29

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 02

FILE NO:        296792.2018

SUBJECT:     Notes of the Liverpool Access Committee meeting held on 20 September 2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the Liverpool Access Committee meeting notes held on 20 September 2018.

         

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


31

Clr Hagarty left the Chambers at 8.32 pm.

ITEM NO:       CTTE 03

FILE NO:        304342.2018

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 3 October 2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 3 October 2018.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


31

 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 04

FILE NO:        305503.2018

SUBJECT:     Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 26 October 2018

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Receives and notes the Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 26 October 2018; and

 

2.       Directs the CEO to undertake a review of the Charter of the Civic Advisory Committee, and of the civic events.    

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


 

ITEM NO:       CTTE 05

FILE NO:        305751.2018

SUBJECT:     Endorsement of Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee 2018-2020

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the membership applications from agencies listed below as members of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee for the period 2018 – 2020:

·    Liverpool City Police Area Command;

·    Outer Liverpool Community Services;

·    Scott Street Clinic;

·    Liverpool Women’s Health Centre;

·    MTC Australia;

·    Hume Community Housing Association;

·    Department of Family and Community Services;

·    Liverpool Fairfield Suicide Prevention Network, Lifeline Macarthur;

·    Liverpool Street University, The Ted Noffs Foundation;

·    South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) Drug Health Services;

·    TAFE NSW;

·    Liverpool Community Drug Action Team;

·    Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections;

·    Western Sydney Migrant Resource Centre (WSMRC);

·    Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre (DAMEC); and

·    Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE).

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


33

Clr Hagarty returned to the Chambers at 8.33pm.

 

Questions with Notice

 

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 01

FILE NO:        295795.2018

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Ayyad

 

It has been brought to my attention that some DA consents are given deferred commencements, to secure easements from council or neighbouring properties, while others are not.

 

Please address the following:

 

  1. What is Council’s policy regarding deferred commencements for drainage easements?

 

It is common practice for Council to issue a deferred commencement development consent requiring the creation of the easement on title, before the consent becomes operative. A deferred commencement consent will however only be issued once the applicant has obtained in-principle owner’s consent from the land owner on which the easement is proposed.

 

In the event that the owner of the land retracts their consent during the works or registration stage, disputes can be taken to the Community Justice Centre who offer a non-legal mediation service. Alternatively, civil action can be taken against the land owner. Council does not become involved in civil proceedings between property owners.

 

  1. What is Council’s policy regarding approved drainage easements and commencements, for those that are not deferred when approved at the same time as a DA?

 

While there have been cases in the past where Council has issued an operational consent containing conditions (prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate) for obtaining an easement, this approach is no longer taken. This is mainly due to several Land and Environment Court Judgements which have determined that owner’s consent is required for development works on adjoining sites before a consent is granted.

 

In the event an applicant is relying on an already registered easement on an adjoining property which benefits the applicant’s site, a deferred commencement is not required. In this situation, an operative consent may be issued.

 

 

 

  1. What are the processes for both Council property and private easements?

 

The process described in the response to question 1 above is also followed for Council easements, whereby a deferred commencement development consent is issued for a development requiring a council easement. Again, this is only if Council have granted in-principle consent to the creation of the easement.

 

The establishment of an easement on Council land is required to be reported to the full elected Council for endorsement before it can be created. This process usually takes place once a deferred commencement consent has been issued.

 

  1. How do easements affect the processing of DA’s, specifically smaller DA’s for example R3 town houses and duplexes?

 

This can delay the DA assessment process. When the requirement for an easement on an adjoining property is identified during the assessment process (following the lodgement of the application), the applicant may sometimes experience difficulty in obtaining owner’s consent from the adjoining property owner. In the event that owner’s consent cannot be obtained, the council will request that the applicant explores an alternative stormwater management design where possible.

 

  1. Any other information in relation to easements and how they affect DA’s.

 

Owner’s consent from adjacent properties for easements (or other infrastructure works) is required prior to lodgement of a development application. Where the need for an easement is identified as part of the assessment process, the applicant will be asked to provide in-principle owner’s consent for the creation of an easement before a deferred commencement consent may be issued.

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Ayyad                Seconded: Clr Hadid

 

That Council create a policy regarding easements.

 

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

 


35

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 02

FILE NO:        295798.2018

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Ayyad

 

Please address the following:

 

Is there any circumstance that allows a Councillor or the Mayor to approve expenditure of Council funds without a prior resolution of Council?

 

If so, can you highlight which section of the Local Government Act allows this, and under which circumstances?

 

Response

 

Section 226(d) of the Local Government Act 1993 states:

 

The role of the mayor is as follows:

...

(d)   to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing     body of the council between meetings of the council

 

This section of the Act effectively enables a Mayor, in cases of necessity, to stand in the shoes of Council by directing actions in the manner of a quasi-resolution.  In addressing what constitutes “policy decision-making”, the OLG’s Councillor Handbook (October 2016, at page 18) notes that this means “…mak[ing] decisions and policies that guide the activities of the council.  Policies can be defined as the principles and intent behind the programs that a council implements.  This includes setting the broad, strategic direction for the local community.”

 

The apparent exceptions to this power are, in effect, those powers that the Act (or, in the case of clauses, the associated regulation) specifically reserves for a Council resolution.  These include:

 

  1. The power to authorise a third party to exercise a power of expulsion (s.10);
  2. The power to authorise staff to forego a tender process (s.55(3)(i));
  3. The power to authorise the charging of an amount of less than the approved fee for Council works on private land (s.67);
  4. The power to authorise the filling of a casual vacancy in Council by way of a countback of votes (s.291A);
  5. The power to permanently delegate authority on behalf of the Council (s.377; cl.136B);
  6. The power to resolve to enter into a Public-Private Partnership (s.400L);
  7. The power to approve the inclusion of part or all of a Council’s area within a Joint Organisation’s boundaries (s.400P);
  8. The power to formally censure a councillor for misconduct (s.440G);
  9. The power to refer misconduct to the OLG, following a Censure / Code of Conduct process (s.440H);
  10. The making of a rate or charge (s.535);
  11. The establishment of a process to permit pensioner or other concessions (ss.579, 599);
  12. The establishment of an alcohol-free zone (s.644B);
  13. The establishment of rating categories for irrigable land (cl.120A);
  14. The establishment of procedures for writing off rates and charges (cl.131; cl.213);
  15. A decision not to accept tenders, and to progress various post-refusal activities (cl.178);
  16. Make a statement on a Council’s annual financial reports (cl.215);
  17. The establishment of a committee of Council (cl.260).

 

Council’s own practice requires that any decisions made by a Mayor under this power be referred to the Council for information and endorsement.  This is to ensure transparency in the exercise of this power, and is a procedure recommended by the Office of Local Government, as well as by Council’s auditors.

 


37

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 03

FILE NO:        313038.2018

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty

 

Introduction

 

"It’s a hellscape"- This is how one employee described working conditions at Amazon's Dandenong South fulfilment centre in Melbourne's outer south east in a recent Fairfax article.

 

The story also describes workers being advised not to drink water before or during a shift because going to the toilet would affect productivity rates and being reluctant to report injuries for fear of not getting shifts.


Amazon's market capitalisation recently passed US$1 trillion, the second company to do so. It's founder Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world.


Liverpool wants and needs good quality, well paying jobs. We also want good corporate citizens who provide safe, secure workplaces.

 

Questions


What percentage of workers based at the Amazon Moorebank fulfilment centre are:

1.    from the Liverpool LGA?

2.    directly employed by Amazon?

3.    employed by a labor hire company?

4.    in insecure casual employment?

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the December 2018 Council meeting business papers.

 


39

 

ITEM NO:       QWN 04

FILE NO:        313045.2018

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty

 

Introduction

 

Despite gardening and other maintenance of roundabouts being performed by Council staff, Council outsources the weeding of roundabouts to external contractors. 

 

Questions

 

How many times in the last 12 months have Council staff had to perform remediation weeding on roundabouts that had already been weeded by external contractors?

 

What is the estimated cost to ratepayers and Council (including salaries and wages) of performing this additional work?

 

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the December 2018 Council meeting business papers.

 


 

ITEM NO:       QWN 05

FILE NO:        314540.2018

SUBJECT:     Question with Notice - Clr Harle

 

Recreational Areas

 

Several complaints have been received from residents adjoining the Chipping Norton Recreational Areas, in particular Black Muscat Park, raising re-occurring issues of excessive noise, loud music, open fires and objectionable smoke and unauthorised use of portable generators to power Public Address Systems.

 

During 2016 and 2017 Council had successfully implemented a program of using security firms to patrol these areas on Saturday and Sunday mornings, including Public Holidays, to prevent unauthorised groups setting up PA systems and illegally roping off areas for their exclusive use without obtaining Council permission.

 

Please address the following:

 

  1. Can Council re-introduce the security contractors to prevent the issues that have re-occurred over the last 12 months so that residents and recreational users are treated fairly?

 

  1. What are the budget implications, and can these be met from the current budget?

 

A response to these questions will be provided in the December 2018 Council meeting business papers.

 


41

 

Notices of Motion

 

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 01

FILE NO:        313240.2018

SUBJECT:     LEP Review

 

BACKGROUND

 

The issues of over-development, lack of notification and a sense of being ignored in planning matters have consistently been raised as issues by residents over this term of Council. From established suburbs in the east such as Moorebank, Chipping Norton and Holsworthy through to new release suburbs such as Edmondson Park and Middleton Grange, residents throughout the LGA feel that current planning controls are stacked against them and are inadequate in addressing the cumulative social and community impacts of development. The review of the Liverpool Local Environment Plan (LEP) is once in a decade chance to fix those realities and perceptions.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Hagarty and Clr Kaliyanda)

 

That Council incorporate the following issues and factors into the review of the Liverpool Local Environment Plan:

·      Amenity - retaining the existing amenity and character of the neighbourhood;

·      Notification - better notification when applications are lodged and amended;

·      Privacy - ensure residents privacy is maintained, especially in backyards, from neighbouring properties;

·      Transparency - deliver more transparency in the planning process; and

·      Social Impact - review the thresholds for conducting Comprehensive Social Impact Assessments. 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hagarty             Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

 

That Council incorporate the following issues, but not limited to, and factors into the review of the Liverpool Local Environment Plan:

·      Amenity - retaining the existing amenity and character of the neighbourhood;

·      Notification - better notification when applications are lodged and amended;

·      Privacy - ensure residents privacy is maintained, especially in backyards, from neighbouring properties;

·      Transparency - deliver more transparency in the planning process; and

·      Social Impact - review the thresholds for conducting Comprehensive Social Impact Assessments. 

 

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

 

 


43

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 02

FILE NO:        314133.2018

SUBJECT:     Airport Connectivity

 

BACKGROUND

 

In September 2016 Transport for NSW released the Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study Discussion Paper which from page 35 onward identified six options for direct public transport connectivity with the airport, the first of which was described as follows:

 

 '1.   The simplest way to provide a train service to the proposed Western Sydney Airport would be to extend the South West Rail Link from Leppington via Bringelly to service the airport site using the double-decker suburban trains. This could provide good connections to Sydney's south-west…(t)his service also offers the potential to support additional developments at new stations between Leppington and the proposed Western Sydney Airport. In 2014-15 the NSW Government conducted community consultation for the corridor preservation of the South West Rail Link extension.'

 

The same paper also notes a direct rail 'express service' from Parramatta 'would be comparatively expensive to construct' and 'would not necessarily service the population who are expected to work at and use a Western Sydney Airport in the short term.'

 

Each of these options has from time to time been referred to as an east-west connection.

 

In 2018 the 'Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study Outcomes Report' under the heading of 'Elements of the Preferred Network' included a reference to the 'South West Link Extension from Leppington' as a link 'supporting growth and the airport' but it was not placed under the heading 'Rail Links connecting Western Sydney and the airport'. Possibly this was on account of the link under current thinking now being channelled through a Badgery's Creek interchange. 

 

The Report went on to state 'The prioritisation, staging, sequencing and timing of the links will be further considered by governments.'

 

It also states 'Creating a South West Link to extend the existing line from Leppington to a Badgery's Creek Aerotropolis interchange south of Western Sydney Airport would support the heart of the Western Parkland City, growth in the southwest and access to the airport. This extension provides additional connectivity for the growing south-west and access to Western Sydney Airport by rail…Over the longer term, this would provide important benefits to the longer term growth of Greater Sydney's southwest, serving as the principal link between Western Sydney Airport and development at the Badgery's Creek Aerotropolis, Bringelly and Liverpool.'                   

 

Given the above it is contended this Council should continue to advocate for the speedy development of the South West Link Extension from Leppington as an important part of the overall suite of connections being proposed for the airport - including also a mass rapid transport connection through Hoxton Park Road and Fifteenth Avenue.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Shelton)

 

That Council continues to advocate for the timely provision of transport infrastructure, including in accordance with the notes to this motion. 

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


45

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 03

FILE NO:        314316.2018

SUBJECT:     Drug Related Socially Unacceptable Behaviour and its Impact on Businesses in the CBD

 

BACKGROUND

 

Over the past year I have received various reports from Liverpool constituents who have observed drug related issues in and around the Liverpool CBD that is going unreported to the police because it is so prevalent it is becoming accepted as the norm.

 

A recent Council activation in the Mall had an added advantage in that there was constant surveillance in the Mall to observe citizen behaviour, what they witnessed along with other reports from other areas in the CBD over the past year poses the questions:

 

  1. Is it appropriate that Liverpool businesses have to endure inappropriate and threatening behaviour from people who meet regularly in the Liverpool Mall whilst they are waiting to receive prescription Methadone?

 

  1. Is it appropriate that there are reports from Liverpool businesses owners, staff and or customers who have felt unsafe when returning to Parking areas and report witnessing people in the process of dealing drugs?

 

  1. Is it appropriate that businesses have had to endure drug affected citizens entering their premises?

 

  1. Is it appropriate for Liverpool businesses to have to be constantly chasing people from their toilet areas who are in the process of self injecting?

 

  1. Is it appropriate that businesses have to constantly clean up needles left in the service laneways that serve their Liverpool businesses?

 

  1. Is it appropriate that the Liverpool Museum has to clean away needles from their car park on a regular basis?

Well it is a sad fact that all the above are just some of the reports I have and other Councillors have received in the last 12 months.

 

Liverpool Council needs to know how drug related issues are affecting the Liverpool CBD and ask itself, is this appropriate for the image of an innovative, health and education precinct, a smart city that proposes to attract more business and become the business hub of the Western City.

 

 

The businesses in the Liverpool CBD are the easily contactable eyes and ears of the CBD who can provide Council with information about their experiences and observations.

 

Council needs to investigate the growing concern about drug related socially unacceptable behaviour in our CBD, that is or is not being reported to police and, report their findings back to Council in order to consider ways of addressing either the perception or the reality of such problems in our CBD.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Rhodes)

 

That Council prepare a survey to investigate the impacts on businesses from drug related socially unacceptable behaviour in the CBD and report the results back to Council by the March Council meeting 2019.

 

The survey to include:

 

1.   The number and nature of social disturbances or observations of socially inappropriate behaviour as a result of drug dealing or drug effected citizens or people waiting for prescription Methadone that they have observed in close proximity to their business?

 

2.   Have they or their customers at any time felt unsafe by such activities?

 

3.   Are such activities having a negative impact on their businesses?

 

4.   What action was taken upon observing such events?

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That the following motion be referred to the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory and the CBD Committees:

 

              That Council prepare a survey to investigate the impacts on businesses from drug     related socially unacceptable behaviour in the CBD and report the results back to    Council by the March Council meeting 2019.

 

              The survey to include:

 

1.   The number and nature of social disturbances or observations of socially inappropriate behaviour as a result of drug dealing or drug effected citizens or people waiting for prescription Methadone that they have observed in close proximity to their business?

 

2.   Have they or their customers at any time felt unsafe by such activities?

 

3.   Are such activities having a negative impact on their businesses?

 

4.   What action was taken upon observing such events?

 

  That report to Council to also include what further action can be taken.

 

After the trial of the classical and other music in Macquarie Mall, a further survey to be undertaken to compare the results.

 

              Call for a report on the financial implications of providing a security officer in the          Macquarie Mall.

 

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

 

 


47

Clr Ayyad left the Chambers at 9.07 pm.

Clr Ayyad returned to the Chambers at 9.10pm.

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 04

FILE NO:        314400.2018

SUBJECT:     Clean CBD Campaign

 

BACKGROUND

 

The latest regional litter program from the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) has achieved a 46 per cent reduction in cigarette litter across key Western Sydney shopping strips.

 

Bin Your Butts program is an ongoing WSROC effort to tackle Western Sydney’s $14 million per year litter clean-up bill under the Western Sydney Regional Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy (2017 – 2020).

 

Already run between March and September 2018, Bin Your Butts can include the installation of cigarette butt bins, voluntary smoking zones, as well as a range of community education and engagement activities.

 

Cigarettes may seem small, but they make up the majority of litter across our region. Each time someone drops a cigarette on the ground, they are diverting resources away from important work like bush regeneration, community centres, public parks and footpaths as well as polluting our iconic Georges River.

 

The Bin Your Butts Program that previously achieved 46% reduction in Cigarette litter gives hope that most people do care about keeping their community clean.

 

Liverpool although previously engaged through this program has an ongoing problem with cigarette litter, particularly in the Macquarie St Mall.

 

We are a unique city with unique challenges.

 

Receiving 200 new citizens every week combined with our culturally and linguistically diverse community makes it all the more necessary for an ongoing continuous commitment through programs such as these to continually educate and encourage more socially acceptable disposal of litter.

 

Despite all efforts so far, Liverpool’s CBD litter problem continues and often the Mall and the rest of the CBD appears dirty and uninviting in comparison to the non-smoking commercial centres that service our CBD.

 

To address the Liverpool CBD’s continuing perception of un-cleanliness we need to engage with and continue the education and encouragement that the Bin your Butts program delivers.

 

To be able to attract the thousands of shoppers out of the non-smoking clean shopping opportunities offered at the northern end of Macquarie Street, into the Mall and into other businesses in the Liverpool CBD we have to make the CBD as equally clean and inviting.

 

The need to re-engage in ongoing education programs in order to address the un-cleanliness of the Liverpool CBD particularly the problem of cigarette butts in order to help revitalise the CBD Business sector is no longer just an option but is becoming a necessity.

 

Bin provision, and the investigation into the possible provision of voluntary smoking areas that might confine the cigarette litter and or encourage the correct disposal of the butts, together with street performers, multi-lingual educators, street art and all other methods to raise awareness about the importance of disposing of litter correctly, has to continue in order for the Liverpool CBD to transform into the innovative, health, education and major business district we envisage as Liverpool’s destiny.

 

In order to transform Liverpool, we not only have to talk the talk we must now walk the walk and that includes making our CBD clean and inviting so it looks like the innovative smart city that Council promotes our city to be.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Rhodes)

 

That Council investigate and report back to the December Council meeting 2018 the opportunities and cost to:

 

1.   Implement an education and public engagement WSROC program “Bin Your Butts Campaign” or other similar available programs to reduce cigarette litter in the CBD and in particular the Mall; and

 

2.   Investigate and identify possible suitable sites and costs for the installation of voluntary smoking zones in which people could be encouraged to smoke and dispose of their cigarette butts in a socially responsible way.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle 

 

That Council investigate and report back to the December Council meeting 2018 the opportunities and cost to:

 

 

  1. Implement an education and public engagement WSROC program “Bin Your Butts Campaign” or other similar available programs to reduce cigarette litter in the CBD and in particular the Mall; and

 

  1. Investigate and identify possible suitable sites and costs for the installation of voluntary smoking zones in which people could be encouraged to smoke and dispose of their cigarette butts in a socially responsible way.

 

  1. That the CEO organise a pens down, gloves on, Clean Up Liverpool day, incorporating the whole of the organisation where possible, without affecting services.

 

 

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

 

 


51

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 05

FILE NO:        314413.2018

SUBJECT:     Zero Budget 2019/2020

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council has several options in the way in works towards finalising the annual budget.

 

A zero budget although takes more time digs further in to where the rate payer dollar is spent and allows us to determine whether that particular service or function has value.

 

This motion is calling on the CEO to request that all the Council departments review their budgets line by line and present a case as to why funding should be allocated for their particular service.

 

Council needs to question the value its getting for every rate dollar spent and this is the best way to ensure it does.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Hadchiti)

 

That Council direct the CEO to begin preparations for a zero budget for the 2019/20 financial year.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Hagarty             Seconded: Clr Rhodes

 

That Council directs the CEO to provide a report to Council with a report listing Council departments where it would be reasonable to do a zero budget for the 2019/20 financial year.  That report to also include a timeframe for zero budgeting for the remaining Council departments. 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Division called for the motion (moved by Clr Hadchiti):

 

Vote for:        Clr Hadchiti

                        Clr Hadid

 

 

Vote against: Mayor Waller

                        Clr Ayyad

                        Clr Hagarty

                        Clr Harle

                        Clr Kaliyanda

                        Clr Karnib

                        Clr Rhodes

                        Clr Shelton

 

 


53

Clr Hagarty left the Chambers at 9.39pm.

Clr Hagarty returned to the Chambers at 9.40pm.

ITEM NO:       NOM 06

FILE NO:        314473.2018

SUBJECT:     Bathurst Street Ring Road

 

BACKGROUND

 

In the previous term of Council, millions of rate payer dollars were spent to acquire land between Macquarie Street and Terminus Street for the sole purpose of extending Bathurst Street and for the closure and conversion of Pirie Street.

 

Correspondence received from the CEO on the 8th of November states that ‘funding has not been allocated for concept/detailed designs, environmental approvals and construction of the project’.

 

Given the considerable cost to acquire and the extra traffic through the CBD we can’t sit back and need to design and deliver this extension.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Hadchiti)

 

That Council:

 

1.   Allocate funds from the unrestricted reserve for the concept/detailed designs, and environmental approvals associated with this project; and

 

2.   Report back to Council by June 2019 with designs and approvals for determination of funds to construct the road.

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That Council:

 

1.   Allocate funds from the unrestricted reserve for the concept/detailed designs, and environmental approvals associated with this project subject to any approvals required; and

 

2.   Report back to Council by June 2019 with designs and approvals for determination of funds to construct the road.

 

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

 


53

 

ITEM NO:       NOM 07

FILE NO:        314496.2018

SUBJECT:     Carnes Hill Precinct Stage 2

 

BACKGROUND

 

Council purchased a considerable size of land immediately adjacent to the Carnes Hill Recreational Centre for the purpose of delivering a sporting precinct.

 

Initial discussions were being had with a sporting organisation to deliver a centre of excellence which would have been a great outcome.  Unfortunately these discussion fell through and with the growing population in that area, Council needs to come up with concepts and deliver a sporting precinct which could include a swimming centre.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Hadchiti)

 

That Council:

 

1.   Investigate a suitable use for the land in consultation with the community; and

 

2.   Report back to Council in June 2019 on the outcomes of the consultation.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 


 

ITEM NO:       NOM 08

FILE NO:        314530.2018

SUBJECT:     Nominating to become a Councillor

 

BACKGROUND

 

There are certain criteria’s one needs to meet in order to be eligible to nominate to be elected as a Councillor in a Local Government Area.

 

A person may become a Councillor in a particular area even if they do not live or pay rates in that given area.  They may simply be ‘sponsored in’ by a rate payer making them eligible.

 

Many non-residents are rate payers by either having an investment property or leasing a property where the lease includes the payments of outgoings which generally would include paying rates.

 

Council is the closest level of Government to the people and it makes great sense that the governing body has a vested interest in the area.

 

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Hadchiti)

 

That Council:

 

1.   Write to State Local Government Minister and the Opposition Local Government Minister Government requesting changes to the Electoral Act in order to ensure that a person wishing to nominate for a particular Council area must either be a resident or a rate payer; and

 

2.   Request the support of organisations such as but not limited to WSROC and LGNSW to lobby for changes as above.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda  

 

That Council:

 

1.   Write to State Local Government Minister and the Opposition Local Government Minister Government requesting changes to the Local Government Act in order to ensure that a person wishing to nominate for a particular Council area must either be a resident or a rate payer;

 

 

2.   Request the support of organisations such as but not limited to WSROC and LGNSW to lobby for changes as above; and

 

3.    Have suitable qualifications such as the Local Government Director’s Course or be compelled to enroll in such course in the first year of their first term.

 

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Rhodes              Seconded: Clr Harle

 

That Council:

 

  1. Write to State Local Government Minister and the Opposition Local Government Minister Government requesting changes to the Local Government Act in order to ensure that a person wishing to nominate for a particular Council area must either:

 

a)    Be either a rate payer, resident, or operate a business within the LGA and be registered on the residential or non-residential roll for the LGA in which they wish to stand?

 

b)    Have suitable qualifications such as the Local Government Director’s Course or be compelled to enroll in such course in the first year of their first term;

 

c)    Must not miss any more than 3 Council Committees and or Council meetings in succession without providing reasonable cause or be asked to resign; and

 

  1. Request the support of organisations such as but not limited to WSROC and LGNSW to lobby for changes as above.

 

Foreshadowed Motion:       Moved: Clr Ayyad                Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

Receive and note the CEO’s comments to the Notice of Motion (as shown at the end of this item).

 

 

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

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993 (Act), and in order to be elected to Council, a person must be enrolled to vote in the relevant LGA (s.274(a) of the Act).

 

 

 

 

In order to be enrolled to vote, one must either be:

 

  1. A resident of the ward in question;
  2. A non-resident owner of rateable land in the ward in question; or
  3. An occupier, or ratepaying lessee, of land in the ward.

 

(See s.266(1) of the Act).

 

An “occupier” is defined under the Dictionary to the Act as:

 

occupier includes:

 

(a)  a person having the charge, management or control of premises, and

 

(b)  in the case of a building which is let out in separate occupancies or a lodging house which is let out to lodgers, the person receiving the rent payable by the tenants or lodgers, either on his or her own account or as the agent of another person,

and, in the case of a vessel, means the master or other person in charge of the vessel.

 

Further to the above, sections 299 and 300 of the Act set out the process and circumstances under which someone may be added to the non-residential roll as either a non-resident owner, occupier, or ratepaying lessee of a ward.

 

Any change to the constitution of the non-resident roll, or the process for appointing persons to that roll, would require action on the part of the NSW Parliament in relation to the above sections of legislation.

 

A decision to advocate for such change is entirely a matter for the Council.

 

   


57

PRESENTATIONS BY COUNCILLORS

 

Councillor Hagarty advised that he represented the Mayor at the Iraqi Cultural Festival held at Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre on Sunday 18 November 2018. The event was organised by the Iraqi Australian University Graduate Forum.  He advised that the group presented Council with a plaque in appreciation of Council’s kind support to the Iraqi Cultural Festival and the Iraqi Community.

 

 

Clr Kaliyanda left the Chambers at 10.05pm.

 

Clr Hagarty left the Chambers at 10.05pm.

 

 

Confidential Items

 

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 01

FILE NO:        283578.2018

SUBJECT:     Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Members and Amendments to Charter

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Adopts the revised Draft Environment Advisory Committee (EAC) Charter; and

 

2.   Appoints the following representatives to the Environment Advisory Committee in accordance with the terms of their appointment in the EAC Charter.

 

a)   Community Representatives:

·    Dr Floret Meredith

·    Ms Signe Westerberg

·    Ms Ellie Robertson

·    Ms Patricia Glossup

·    Mr Stephen Dobell-Brown

·    Mr Ian Bailey

·    Mr Peter Fraser

·    Mr Robert Storey

·    Ms Francis Coorey

·    Ms Rosalyn Faddy

 

b)   Environment Group Representative:

·    Mr Michael Streatfield

·    Ms Noni Papalia

 

c)   Industry Representative:

·    Mr Tony Wales

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Ayyad

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


59

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 02

FILE NO:        297143.2018

SUBJECT:     Contract Extension - Project Manager Accelerated LEP Review

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Approve an exemption from the tender process to allow an extension of the contract of the incumbent Project Manager LEP Review to continue in the role for up to two years pursuant to 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 on the basis of the following extenuating circumstances:

 

a.   A competitive process was originally conducted for the position but no suitable candidate was found.

b.   The existing candidate has performed to a high standard; and

c.   The existing candidate has developed a good understanding of Liverpool’s planning issues and the needs of Council.

 

2.   Delegates authority to the CEO or delegate to finalise any contractual arrangements with the candidate on suitable terms.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Shelton

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

 


61

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 03

FILE NO:        305522.2018

SUBJECT:     2019 Australia Day Awards

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Hadchiti             Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That Council:

 

  1. Endorse the recommended award recipients as proposed in this report with the exception of the Small Business Awards; and

 

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

 

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

 

 


61

Clrs Kaliyanda and Hagarty returned to the Chambers at 10.07pm.

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 04

FILE NO:        306059.2018

SUBJECT:     Tender Report VP2750 - Supply of Diesel Bulk Fuel Rose St Depot

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council: 

 

1.      Accept the Tender from Caltex Australia Petroleum PTY LTD for Tender VP2750 – Bulk Diesel Fuel for an initial three (3) Year contract term with the option of extending by up to two separate 12 month extensions at the estimated GST inclusive price of $1,494,000 (based on estimated fuel use derived from historical consumption trends);

 

2.    Makes public its decision regarding tender VP2750 – Bulk Diesel Fuel;

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Shelton              Seconded: Clr Karnib

 

That the recommendation be adopted.

 

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

 

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

 

 


62

 

ITEM NO:       CONF 05

FILE NO:        302461.2018

SUBJECT:     Tourism & CBD Committee Community Representatives

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the appointment of the following community representatives to the Tourism and CBD Committee:

 

·   Phillip Raponi

·   June Young

·   Christopher Donovan

·   Carol North-Samardzic

·   McKayla Vamarasi

·   Tom Wang

·   Michelle Caruso

·   Brian Stout

 

COUNCIL DECISION

 

Motion:                                  Moved: Clr Kaliyanda          Seconded: Clr Hagarty

 

That the recommendation be adopted. 

 

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

 


 

 

 

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 10.08pm.

 

 

<Signature>

Name: Wendy Waller

Title:     Mayor

Date:     12 December 2018

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 21 November 2018. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

 

    


71

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

 

EGROW 01

Revised contributions plans for Liverpool City Centre and Established Areas

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

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

File Ref

309507.2018

Report By

Shaun Beckley - Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement for the draft Liverpool Contributions Plans for Established Areas and the Liverpool City Centre (refer attachments 1 and 2).

At its meeting of 29 August 2018, Council resolved to place the draft contributions plans on public exhibition.

The draft contributions plans were publicly exhibited from Wednesday, 19 September 2018 to Friday, 19 October 2018. 

24 submissions were received in relation to the proposed contributions plan for the Established Areas.  None were received in relation to the proposed contributions plan for Liverpool City Centre. No changes to the plans are recommended following consideration of the submissions.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Adopt the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 – Liverpool City Centre;

 

2.   Adopt the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 – Established Areas; and

 

3.   Give public notice of the adoption of the contributions plans in accordance with Clause 31 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 


 

REPORT

Background

In August 2018, Council considered a report recommending exhibition of contributions plans for Established Areas and the Liverpool City Centre.

The review of the Established Areas contributions plan has been completed and the draft plan proposes a revised contributions rate and will now include all forms of residential development (including secondary dwellings). It is also proposed to levy a 1% contribution (on the cost of development over $100,000) on all non-residential development.

The draft contributions plan for the Liverpool City Centre updates the required community infrastructure needed due to increased development in the City Centre.  This plan maintains the current 3% levy on development in business/mixed use zones and 2% levy on development in residential and industrial zones in and around the Liverpool City Centre.

No approval is required from the State Government for the proposed percentage levies as they are within the level permitted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Proposed Contributions Plans

Established Areas Contributions Plan

It is proposed to:

·    Include a levy on secondary and studio dwellings, consistent with existing levies on all other residential development

·    Levy a 1% contribution on all non-residential development.

The scope of infrastructure to be funded by contributions represents the cost of additional infrastructure that is generated by the additional development.  It does not seek to recover any existing shortfalls in infrastructure provision.  It seeks to ensure that existing residents are not required to fund the additional demand on existing local infrastructure. 

The scope of infrastructure for which contributions would be levied are as follows:

·    Augmenting district community centres & providing library books;

·    Augmenting district sporting fields, district & local passive open space;

·    Augmenting various traffic management facilities;

·    Augmenting stormwater quality measures; and

·    Administration costs.

An example of the likely contribution rates (based on June 2018 quarter indexation) under the revised plans are:

·    $14,086 per lot over 450 sqm

·    $13,407 per lot under 450 sqm or 3 or more bedroom unit

·    $9,900 per 2 bedroom unit or 2 bedroom secondary dwelling

·    $7,893 per 1 bedroom unit or 1 bedroom secondary dwelling

The draft plans have been updated to better clarify that contributions are required for new lots of land (over 450sqm and under 450sqm), new medium density development (1, 2 or 3+ bedroom units) and secondary dwellings (1 or 2 bedroom).

Comparable contribution rates in neighbouring local government areas are:

 

Contribution rate

Type of development

Local Government Area

$19,800

per lot or 3 bedroom dwelling

(residential in centres)

Sutherland

1%

of cost of development

(established areas)

Sutherland

$13,219

per lot or 3 bedroom dwelling

(Fairfield sub district)

Fairfield

1%

of cost of development

(established areas)

Canterbury Bankstown (former Bankstown LGA)

$20,000

per lot or 3 bedroom dwelling

(established areas)

Camden

$12,011- $20,000

per lot or 3 bedroom dwelling

(established areas & adjacent to centres)

Cumberland

$20,000

(on exhibition)

per lot or 3 bedroom dwelling

(established areas)

Campbelltown

$20,000

per lot or 3 bedroom dwelling

(established areas)

Georges River

Infrastructure that is not included in the Established Areas Contributions Plan are:

·    Liverpool City Centre items;

·    Release area items; and

·    Infrastructure that may be required as a result of future rezoning that might warrant a separate contributions plan or Planning Agreement.  This may include any future rezoning around Warwick Farm and the areas immediately east of the Liverpool City Centre in Moorebank (George’s River Precinct).

Liverpool City Centre Contributions Plan

It is proposed to retain the existing general approach, which involves levying 3% in the business zones and 2% in the residential and industrial zones.  There is no change to the existing contribution rate. The draft plan includes an update to the schedule of works to be funded by the plan.

The scope of infrastructure to be funded by contributions is:

·    Georges River foreshore - western side including pedestrian link over railway;     

·    Pioneer Park;

·    Apex Reserve; 

·    Georges River Pedestrian Bridge;         

·    Discovery Park;        

·    Community facility upgrade;        

·    Car parking;     

·    Access, bike facilities and bus priority;  

·    Peripheral Streetscape works in surrounding residential streets; and  

·    Footpath widening in the City Centre.

 

Exhibition of draft contributions plans

The draft contributions plans for Established Areas and the Liverpool City Centre were exhibited from Wednesday, 19 September 2018 to Friday, 19 October 2018. 

24 submissions were received in relation to the proposed contributions plan for the Established Areas. 

A summary of the submissions, grouped by theme, and Council’s response is provided in the table below.

No submissions were received in relation to the proposed contributions plan for Liverpool City Centre.

No changes have been made to either draft contributions plans as a result of submissions received.

 

Issue

Response

Increasing contributions will affect growth of the area.

Previous research into the impact of a 2% levy (previously proposed for the Established Areas) and adapted for the current proposed contributions plan does not support the comment that the proposed contributions would affect the rate of development.

A comparison of contribution rates in nearby local government areas indicates that the proposed contribution rate is reasonable.

Increasing contributions will impact on housing affordability.

Previous research into the impact of a 2% levy (previously proposed for the Established Areas) and adapted for the current proposed contributions plan does not support the comment that the proposed contributions would affect the rate of development and hence the sale price of residential development.

The rise will affect those wishing to sell their homes as it will reduce the value of property.

Previous research into the impact of a 2% levy (previously proposed for the Established Areas) and adapted for the current proposed contributions plan does not support the comment that the proposed contributions would affect land values.

It is worth noting that the contributions only apply when development occurs on a property with contributions paid prior to the issue of a construction certificate linked to any development.

The increase is dramatic and unjustified.

The scope of infrastructure to be funded by contributions represents the cost of additional infrastructure that is generated by the additional development.  It does not seek to recover any existing shortfalls in infrastructure provision. 

It seeks to ensure that existing residents are not required to fund the additional demand on existing local infrastructure. 

A comparison of contribution rates in nearby local government areas indicates that the proposed contribution rate is reasonable.

The information online was difficult to understand and time consuming.

The proposed contributions plans were exhibited in accordance with legislative requirements. The information provided online included all relevant information including:

·    Contribution rates

·    Administrative requirements

·    Expected development trends

·    Background information derived from Council’s Community Strategic Plan

·    Supporting information on each category of development

·    Formulae for calculating contributions

·    Map of infrastructure

The increase will affect investment in the area and drive developers away.

A comparison of contribution rates in nearby local government areas indicates that the proposed contribution rate is reasonable.

We will not be able to maximise returns on development on our land.

Previous research into the impact of a 2% levy (previously proposed for the Established Areas) and adapted for the current proposed contributions plan indicates that the contributions would not significantly impact development feasibility.

It is important to consider that additional development within an area creates increased demand on a range of infrastructure, including open space, storm water and roads which council needs to provide.

It will affect our children’s ability to own a property.

The proposed contributions will only apply to properties that are being redeveloped (i.e.: additional dwellings being created).

No evidence has been submitted detailing how the contributions framework could impact the cost of housing and the ability of future generations to purchase property.

The increase is unfair.

Recovery of the cost to provide infrastructure to meet the increased demand resulting from development is a well-established practice. By levying contributions only on additional dwellings it is widely regarded as a fair approach to infrastructure cost recovery.  A comparison of contribution rates in nearby local government areas indicates that the proposed contribution rate is reasonable.

Developers will have to increase sales prices to maintain feasibility.

Recovery of the cost to provide infrastructure to meet the increased demand resulting from development is a well-established practice.  By levying contributions only on additional dwellings it is widely regarded as a fair approach to infrastructure cost recovery.  A comparison of contribution rates in nearby local government areas indicates that the proposed contribution rate is reasonable

The increase in contributions should only be 10-12% of what is currently payable.

Recovery of the cost to provide infrastructure to meet the increased demand resulting from development is a well-established practice.  By levying contributions only on additional dwellings it is widely regarded as a fair approach to infrastructure cost recovery.  A comparison of contribution rates in nearby local government areas indicates that the proposed contribution rate is reasonable

Knock-down rebuilds will become unviable.

No contributions will be levied on the knock-down and rebuild of dwellings. This is based on the assumption that an existing dwelling has already funded infrastructure provision through previous contributions. Contributions only apply when additional dwellings are being created.

The contributions charges should not apply to any residential development.

It is considered that new residential development that generates the need for addition infrastructure should fund this rather than existing residents who in many cases have previously funded the provision of infrastructure.

Putting the burden of local infrastructure provision on others is unacceptable to the local community.

It is considered that new development that generates the need for addition infrastructure should fund this rather than existing residents who in many cases have previously funded the existing infrastructure.

The property market is on a downturn and an increase in contributions charges will exacerbate that.

The property market is a complex system with many elements that impact raw land value and development feasibility.

The contribution component of a development is only a very small proportion of the cost of redevelopment when land cost, construction costs, government charges and other associated costs are factored in.

Despite any changes to property market conditions, any changes in the property market does not change the increased demand from additional development on Council’s local infrastructure.

The increase will affect all residents.

In relation to residential development, contributions would only be levied on new development that results in additional dwellings. As such, there will be no impact on a typical owner/occupier who does not intend to redevelop their land.

It will impact on the ability to provide a granny flat.

A lesser contribution rate would apply for 1 & 2 bedroom dwellings based on a lower expected occupancy rate.

A granny flat will, like other forms of residential development, have occupants that use Council infrastructure and facilities.

It will reduce demand for duplexes.

Developer contributions will not impact the demand for duplexes.

In relation to supply, the contribution component is only a very small portion of the cost of redevelopment when factoring in land cost, construction costs, government charges and other associated costs.

Increases should be applied incrementally to allow developers to better handle and prepare for changes

The proposed increase has been available to the general public since the previous report of 29 August 2018. 

Exhibition of the previous proposed 2% levy has signalled Council’s intention to increase contributions in the Established Areas.

Contributions for secondary dwellings (granny flats) should be removed or significantly decreased as they do not impose a major additional burden on local infrastructure. The proposed contribution rate would be a notable percentage of total development cost for a secondary dwelling such as a one-bedroom granny flat, and would influence the decision to build what is an important type of local-cost housing in existing urban environments.

A lesser contribution rate applies for 1 & 2 bedroom secondary dwellings based on a lower expected occupancy rate.

A granny flat can, like other forms of residential development, increase demand on road and stormwater infrastructure and have occupants that use parks, open space and Council facilities.

It should be noted that the proposed changes seek to better align funding of infrastructure provision/augmentation with development that increases the demand rather than existing residents through their rates.

Section 3.5 (Adoption of Contributions Plan) of the draft Plan should be amended such that the Plan would only apply to applications lodged after the date on which the Plan comes into effect. The current wording is such that the Plan would apply to development applications under assessment but not yet determined.

The proposed wording is consistent with other contributions plans.  The proposed increase has been available to the general public since the previous report of 29 August 2018. 

Exhibition of the previous proposed 2% levy has signalled Council’s intention to increase contributions in the Established Areas.

 

Financial Impact

The increased demand on infrastructure as a result of additional development requires funding. This report, and the contributions framework generally, seeks to align funding of infrastructure upgrades with development that increases demand. If Council do not support the recommended approach, any shortfall in funding will need to be accommodated from general revenue.

Alternatively, if Council cannot fund the necessary upgrades, there is a potential negative impact on amenity for existing and future residents through inadequate provision of infrastructure.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

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

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

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

Support the delivery of a range of transport options.


Social

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

Deliver high quality services for children and their families.

Civic Leadership

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

Legislative

Section 7.11/7.12 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 - Liverpool City Centre (Under separate cover)

2.         Draft Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 - Established Areas (Under separate cover)

3.         Draft Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 - Established Areas Infrastructure Map (Under separate cover)

4.         Draft Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 - Liverpool City Centre Infrastructure Map (Under separate cover) 


73

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

 

EGROW 02

Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 71 - Rezoning of certain lands in Prestons for Environmental Conservation - Post-exhibition report

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

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

File Ref

311848.2018

Report By

Louis Chen - Strategic Planner

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 7 February 2018, Council resolved to provide in-principle support to rezone Lot 10 DP 1003837 and Part Lot 11 DP 1228445 from IN3 Heavy Industry to E2 Environmental Conservation. A planning proposal (Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Draft Amendment 71) was prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for gateway review. A gateway determination was issued by the Department on 7 May 2018. The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 23 May 2018 to 20 June 2018. Four submissions, two in support and two in opposition were received.  

 

The two sites proposed to be rezoned to E2 are of high ecological significance and are encumbered by an existing Section 88B instrument that does not permit development on the sites. The restriction on title requires retention and management of the endangered ecological communities and vegetation.

 

This report details the post-Gateway actions that have been undertaken, including consultation, and recommends that Council approves the planning proposal and delegates to the CEO or her delegate to liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment and the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to finalise the Amendment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.       Notes the Gateway Determination (and gateway alteration) for Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 71 and the submissions received;

 

 

2.       Approves the planning proposal and delegates to the CEO to liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and Department of Planning and Environment to finalise Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 71; and

 

3.       Notify the submitters of Council’s decision.

 

 

REPORT

 

Background

 

At its meeting on 7 February 2018 (Attachment 1), Council resolved to:

 

1.   Provide in-principle support for the rezoning of Lot 10 DP 1003837 and Lot 11 DP 1228445 from IN3 Heavy Industry to E2 Environmental Conservation; and

 

2.   Delegate to the CEO to prepare a planning proposal and forward it to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking gateway determination.

 

The subject land is also known as 36 Lyn Parade, Prestons (Lot 10 DP 1003837) and Part Lot 11 Progress Circuit, Prestons (Part Lot 11 DP 1228445), depicted in Figure 1. The western section of Lot 11, not included in this proposal, is zoned SP2 (Drainage), indicating its primary purpose as a riparian buffer and drainage basin for Maxwells Creek. The SP2 zoning is highly restrictive in terms of development potential and offers ecological protection for this land as it is. The planning proposal (also known as Liverpool Local Environmental Plan Draft Amendment 71) proposes changes to the planning controls as listed in Table 1.

 

Figure 1: Location of subject sites highlighted with SP2 zone as shown (Nearmap 2018).

 

Table 1: Current and proposed controls for the subject sites

 

Control

Current

Proposed

Zoning (LZN)

IN3 Heavy Industrial

E2 Environmental Conservation

Maximum height of buildings (HOB)

30m

N/A

Minimum lot size (LSZ)

2000sqm

N/A

 

The rationale behind Draft Amendment 71 is to provide protection for sites that contain endangered ecological communities and threatened species, in particular Acacia pubescens. Furthermore, the two sites are both burdened by Section 88B instruments under the Conveyancing Act 1919 that require:

·         For Lot 10 DP 1003837, the permanent protection and management of the site through a conservation management plan and that any development of the site is prohibited.

·    For Lot 11 DP 1228445, no alteration of native vegetation and the land to be retained as bushland and managed through a management plan.

The rezoning of this land will ensure consistency between the restriction on title, and the land use planning controls. There is no actual loss of land zoned IN3 Heavy Industry -  industrial development on the subject sites is not permitted due to the respective restrictions on title through the s88B Instruments. Therefore, there is no loss of developable employment lands resulting from this proposal.

 

Despite the s88B Instruments applying to the site, development applications (DAs) have been lodged with the intention of removing the vegetation, as recently as 21 December 2016 for 36 Lyn Parade (DA-1250/2016) and 31 August 2018 for Lot 11 Progress Circuit (DA-734/2018). The refusal, or deemed refusal of the respective DAs resulted in Land and Environment Court proceedings, with  proceedings relating to  Lot 11 Progress Circuit currently underway. The rezoning will not only provide greater legislative protection for the high ecological value of the two sites, but also reduce uncertainty that may result from the misalignment of the s88B instruments and zoning.

 

Gateway determination

The DPE issued a Gateway Determination on 7 May 2018 (Attachment 2). The Gateway conditions required Council to undertake a number of actions, including:

 

·    Publically exhibit the proposal and relevant documentation for a minimum of 28 days;

·    Provide a minimum of 21 days to the following public authorities to comment on the proposal:

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage;

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division;

NSW Rural Fire Service;

NSW Department of Industry; and

Australian Department of the Environment and Energy.

 

The Gateway Determination also authorised Council as the local plan-making authority to make LLEP Amendment 71.

 

On 1 November 2018, the DP&E altered the Gateway Determination to require the inclusion of “a savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any development applications or appeal processes”. The planning proposal has been amended to reflect this change (Attachment 3). The purpose of this amendment is to ‘save’ any development approvals that may be granted by the Land and Environment Court stemming from the current legal proceedings in relation to the DA at Lot 11 Progress Circuit. The Land and Environment Court refused development consent for a similar development application at 36 Lyn Parade largely on ecological grounds. 

 

Public authority consultation

 

In accordance with the Gateway Determination, a copy of the relevant documentation was forwarded to the specified public authorities for comment from 10 May 2018 to 8 June 2018. Summaries of each submission and the officer response are listed in Table 2 and original copies are included in Attachment 4. No changes are required as a result of public authority consultation.

 

Table 2: Public authority submissions and officer response

Public authority

Summary of submission

Officer comments

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Support for the planning proposal and the additional environmental protection for the endangered ecological communities and threatened species on the site.

No response required.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division

Noted. No objections raised.

No response required.

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)

Noted. No objections raised.

The planning proposal seeks to rezone bushfire prone land. In accordance with Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection, Council must obtain written advice from the RFS that notwithstanding any non-compliance with the direction, the RFS does not object to the progression of the planning proposal. The letter indicating the RFS has no objection provides this written advice.

NSW Department of Industry

No comments received.

No response required.

Australian Department of the Environment and Energy

No comments received.

No response required.

 

Community consultation

 

In accordance with the Gateway Determination, the planning proposal and relevant documents were placed on public exhibition from 23 May 2018 to 20 June 2018. Notices were placed on Council’s website and the Liverpool Leader and letters were sent to the two affected landowners and neighbouring landowners and occupiers. A total of four submissions were received, two in support and two in objection. The two objections were from the landowners of the respective sites. Summaries of each submission and the officer response are listed in Table 3 and original copies are included in Attachment 5. An independent peer review of one of the objections was also undertaken (Attachment 6). No changes are proposed as a result of community consultation.

 

Table 3: Community submissions and officer response (O: Objection, S: Support)

 

No.

Summary of submission

Officer comments

O1

Financial burden of owning the property and unable to sell land despite no benefit to landowner

The subject site was an ecological offset site as part of the previous industrial subdivision of the parent lot. The original development consent required the concurrence of the National Parks and Wildlife Service in order for the subdivision application to be approved. As a result, 4.4ha of native vegetation was protected and its ongoing protection was secured by an s88B Instrument.

Requests Council to purchase property

Council is under no obligation to purchase the site and the landowner is required under the s88B Instrument to maintain the site.

 

 

 

S1

Support for the preservation of the endangered Acacia Pubescens

Support noted.

Potential for the sites to be educational demonstration areas and viable seedbank for future regeneration work throughout the LGA

S2

Support for the protection of the last piece of native bushland between Brickmakers and Cabramatta Creeks providing corridor of habitat for fauna and flora including endangered Acacia Pubescens.

Support noted.

O2

Site purchased for the express purpose of developing site for industrial purposes.

The subject site was offset as part of the industrial subdivision. The s88B Instrument was signed by the current landowner and they have already commercially benefited from the clearing of native vegetation for industrial development.

Outline of a hypothetical industrial development scenario which would achieve commercial viability

A Species Impact Statement (SIS) has been submitted to support the proposed development scenario.

The submitted SIS was independently peer reviewed by a SIS consultant engaged by Council. The review found that the submitted SIS fails to comply with several Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Chief Executive’s Requirements (CER). It was also found that the SIS makes no reference to the site history or any details of the existing s88B covenant. 

 

Based on the result of the peer review, the SIS provides insufficient information to substantiate the argument that the proposed rezoning of the subject land to E2 — Environmental Conservation should not go ahead.

If no development occurs, the vegetation will degrade.

The s88B instrument, to which the landowner is a signatory, requires the landowner to manage and retain the vegetation in accordance with the Vegetation Management Plan. Should vegetation degradation occur, this is a violation of the underlying development consent and s88B instrument and enforcement action can be taken.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Gateway requirements, including consultation for Draft Amendment 71 have been satisfied, submissions received have been addressed and the planning proposal has been updated accordingly. This report recommends that Council approves Draft Amendment 71 and liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and DP&E for finalisation of the amendment to provide appropriate legislative protection for the land parcels which have high ecological significance.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

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


Social

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Legislative

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Conveyancing Act 1919

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Report and Resolution - Council meeting 7 February 2018 - EGROW  05 (Under separate cover)

2.         Gateway Determination (and alteration) (Under separate cover)

3.         Updated Planning Proposal November 2018 (Under separate cover)

4.         Public Authority Submissions (Under separate cover)

5.         Landowner and Public Submissions (Under separate cover) - Confidential

6.         Submission Attachment - 11 Progress Crt, Prestons - Species Impact Assessment (Under separate cover) - Confidential

7.         Council Consultant Peer Review of Species Impact Statement for Lot 11 Progress Circuit, Prestons (Under separate cover) - Confidential

8.         Council Consultant Expert Report for Land and Environment Court Appeal of DA-1250/2016 at 36 Lyn Parade, Prestons  (Under separate cover) - Confidential

9.         Judgment of Land & Environment Court - Refusal of DA-1250/2016 at 36 Lyn Parade, Prestons (Under separate cover)  


83

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

 

EGROW 03

Proposed amendments to Liverpool Development Control Plans - Controlling Shopping Trolleys

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

Manage the community’s disposal of rubbish

File Ref

322274.2018

Report By

Kweku Aikins - Strategic Planner

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting on 26 September 2018, Council resolved to amend the Liverpool Development Control Plan (LDCP) 2008 to introduce measures which would confine shopping trolleys to a designated area and facilitate the installation of trolley management systems (such as coin operated trolleys or wheel lock mechanisms).

 

Draft amendments of the LDCP 2008 and the Liverpool Growth Centre Precinct Development Control Plan (LGCP DCP) have been prepared to provide controls for the management of shopping trolleys throughout the whole local government area.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Endorses the draft amendment of the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 and Liverpool Growth Centre Precinct Development Control Plan, to include controls for the management of shopping trolleys;

 

2.    Place the draft amendments to the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008 and Liverpool Growth Centre Precinct Development Control Plan on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days in accordance with Clause 18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000; and

 

3.    Delegates to the CEO the finalisation of the draft Development Control Plans should no submissions be received; or receive a report summarising the details of the submissions upon conclusion of the exhibition period.

 


 

REPORT

 

Background

 

A notice of motion (NOM) was considered at Council’s meeting of 26 September 2018 regarding abandoned shopping trolleys and their negative impacts on safety and public amenity.

 

As a result, Council resolved to prepare an amendment to the DCP to require that new shops (such as supermarkets) be required to include measures to prevent trolley abandonment (Attachment 1).

 

In addressing the above resolution, draft amendments of the LDCP 2008 and LGCP DCP have been prepared to include controls for the management of shopping trolleys.

 

Proposed DCP Amendments

 

Although the LGCP DCP does not include any provisions for the management of shopping trolleys, the LDCP 2008 contains a specific control in Part 4 (Development in Liverpool City Centre) and Part 7 (Development in Industrial Zones), which reads as follows:

 

A daily trolley collection service or a coin operated return system is required for all businesses that offer the use of trolleys to their customers.

 

The control is enforced via conditions of consent for any new retail developments in the City Centre or industrial zones. The current control does not apply to development in business zones that are outside of the City Centre. Notwithstanding this, current Council practice is for new developments outside of the city centre to have the control included as a condition of development consent.

 

The proposed amendments will augment the current practices by introducing a definition for shopping trolley as follows:

 

Shopping trolley: A basket, frame or flat base on wheels (or castors), usually of metal construction that is provided by a business for customers to transport items within the store and within any car parking area allocated for use by customers of the store. 

 

The definition will be inserted into each of the DCPs to ensure that there is no ambiguity about what is considered to be a shopping trolley (Attachments 2 & 6).

 

The DCP amendments will also enforce the submission of trolley management plans, and the installation of trolley containment mechanisms (e.g. coin-operated system, radio signal etc.) for businesses that provide, for use by their customers, 20 or more trolleys.

 

 

 

LDCP 2008

 

Part 1 (General Controls for all Development) will be amended to introduce a new section for the management of shopping trolleys (Attachment 2). Amending Part 1 of the LDCP 2008 will ensure that the shopping trolley controls will apply in all zones and localities, thereby accounting for any instances where retail uses are undertaken as an additional permitted use outside of a business zone. As a result, the existing shopping trolley control in Parts 4 and 7 of the LDCP 2008 will be removed to avoid duplication (Attachments 3 & 4).

 

LGCP DCP

 

Section 5 (Centres Development Controls) will be amended to include a new section for the management of shopping trolleys. Amending Part 5 of the LGCP DCP will ensure that the controls will apply to all centres throughout Austral and Leppington. Section 6 (Employment Lands Subdivision and Development Controls) will also be amended to insert the controls under subsection 6.10.2 (Industrial Retail Outlets), thereby ensuring that the provisions will apply to any retail development in industrial zones (Attachment 5).

 

Next Steps

 

Should Council proceed with the amendments, the next step would be to publicly exhibit the draft DCPs for a minimum period of 28 days in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. During this time, members of the public will be able to view the draft DCPs and make any comments. Following the public exhibition process, if there are any submissions, a report will be presented to Council detailing the public submissions.

 

Conclusion

The purpose of the proposed amendments are to establish controls for the management of shopping trolleys.

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

Minimise household and commercial waste.

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

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


Social

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


Civic Leadership

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Legislative

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Resolution - October 2018 - NOM 01 - Shopping Trolleys (Under separate cover)

2.         Draft LDCP 2008 Part 1 amendment - Section 28 & Appendix 1 (Under separate cover)

3.         Draft LDCP 2008 Part 4 amendment - Section 5 (Under separate cover)

4.         Draft LDCP 2008 Part 7 amendment - Section 9 (Under separate cover)

5.         Draft Liverpool Growth Centre Precincts DCP amendment - Part 5 & Section 6.10 (Under separate cover)

6.         Draft Liverpool Growth Centre Precincts DCP amendment - Appendix A (Under separate cover)  


105

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

 

EGROW 04

Middleton Grange Town Centre Planning Proposal - Post exhibition report

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

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

File Ref

322303.2018

Report By

Graham Matthews - Senior Strategic Planner

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

Property

60-80 Southern Cross and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange

Owner

Manta Group P/L

Applicant

Manta Group P/L

 

 

 Executive Summary

 

At its 16 December 2015 meeting, Council resolved to endorse in principle the proposed rezoning of land at 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange and to delegate to the CEO authority to approve a final planning proposal for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for a Gateway determination. The original planning proposal included a letter of offer for a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) which was not renewed by the proponent when their revised proposal was submitted in July 2018.

 

The planning proposal seeks to modify the zoning and development standards applying to the subject site in order to enable the following outcomes:

 

•     86,031m2 of residential space (912 dwellings);

•     20,240m2 of retail; and

•     2,533m2 of other commercial uses.

 

The Gateway Determination was issued by DP&E on 15 August 2016. It included a number of conditions and required that the proponent update the planning proposal and submit the revised planning proposal to DP&E for review. Council officers worked constructively with the proponent to address concerns with the built form in relation to transition of heights in the revised planning proposal. The amended proposal was then referred to the Department for final review, as required by the gateway conditions in order for the proposal to be released for public exhibition.

This report details the process of the revision of the planning proposal since Council’s earlier in-principle support, public authority consultation and public exhibition of the revised planning proposal.

 

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has raised significant concerns about the proposal. In addition, Council undertook extensive public consultation on the planning proposal, receiving 867 submissions of which 94% of respondents oppose the planning proposal.

 

Following a review of all technical studies and agency and community comments, Council officers hold significant reservations about the proposal, the potential impacts on the community and the financial costs to public authorities, including RMS and Council.

 

Specifically:

 

·    the proposal does not adequately address why the current controls are not appropriate and how the proposal aligns with the strategic planning framework (i.e. the new regional and district plans);

·    a town centre of an appropriate size and scale may be achieved with the current zoning and development standards;

·    site specific constraints do not support the density of built form and land used proposed;

·    the increase in the amount of housing and retail in the town centre will have impacts on the residential and regional road network;

·    there is insufficient public transport to support the proposed development;

·    the proposed built form is inappropriate within an outer suburban location largely characterised by one and two storey dwellings on the boundary of the site; 

·    existing infrastructure is insufficient to support the increased population and there has not been any commitment to address this through agreements for public benefits and contributions to infrastructure; and

·    the proposed increase in residential density is not required for Liverpool to meet its housing targets in the Western City District Plan.

 

The proposal would result in a significant change to a low density outer suburban area, a change not supported by the majority of the residents of Middleton Grange.

 

On the basis of the concerns raised by State agencies and the overwhelming opposition of the local community to this proposal, it is recommended that Council withdraw support for the planning proposal, as allowed for under Section 3.35 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Notes the gateway determination issued by the Department of Planning & Environment;

 

2.   Notes the submissions received during the public exhibition of the planning proposal, including public agency comments;

 

3.   Notes that significant infrastructure upgrades will likely be required to support the planning proposal, including regional road upgrades;

 

4.   Notes that no funding mechanism for infrastructure and public benefits has been advanced by the proponent to date;

 

5.   Notes the issues identified in the assessment report in relation to the proposed built form, environmental impacts and density and the area not serviced with regular and reliable public transport services.

 

6.   Withdraws support for the planning proposal pursuant to Section 3.35 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

 

7.   Writes to the Minister of Planning and the Greater Sydney Commission to request that the planning proposal not proceed pursuant to Section 3.35(4) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979;

 

8.   Writes to the proponent and all those who made a public submission to advise of Council’s decision; and

 

9.   Notes that the current zoning and land use controls enable the development of a local shopping centre for the Middleton Grange community which is consistent with the Liverpool Retail Centres Strategy.

 

 

Report

Background

On 25 June 2015, a planning proposal was lodged with Council seeking to amend Liverpool Local Environment Plan (LLEP) 2008 for 60-80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45-65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange, which forms part of the site for a planned local centre for Middleton Grange.

 

On 16 December 2015, Council resolved to provide in-principle support for the planning proposal and delegated to the CEO the authority to finalise a planning proposal and submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) seeking a Gateway Determination.

 

The Council resolution was:

 

That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The outstanding matters that remained unresolved at the time of the December 2015 Council meeting (and for which Council delegated authority to the CEO to resolve) included the following.

 

·    Concerns regarding the scale of the proposal, specifically the significant increase in density and height proposed over the subject site and the appropriateness of the development in the context of the low density residential character of Middleton Grange.

·    The lack of a comprehensive assessment of flood impacts, including the potential impacts of the proposed box-culvert over the open drainage channel within the planned local centre. Middleton Grange was initially master-planned as a catchment with open channels to provide for stormwater management and passive recreation for the residential community.

·    The lack of a comprehensive assessment of transport and traffic impacts which would result from the proposed rezoning, including both increased residential and retail/ commercial development.

·    The lack of a comprehensive assessment of the road realignment proposed within the local centre and the impacts upon the wider catchment.

·    The lack of a comprehensive assessment of impacts of the proposed intensification of retail/ commercial uses within the planned local centre with respect to the Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy. The proposed intensification would elevate the Middleton Grange town centre to a subregional centre similar to Carnes Hill, Casula Mall, or Edmondson Park.

·    The lack of a comprehensive assessment of social impacts and the social infrastructure required as a result of increased residential densities.

 

On 15 August 2016, the DP&E issued a Gateway Determination for the planning proposal, with conditions. Council was not delegated authority to make the plan. The Gateway conditions are discussed in the following sections.

 

On 29 March 2017, after lengthy discussions with the proponent, and noting the fact that the proponent had not undertaken the detailed assessments required to address the Gateway conditions, a report was prepared for the 29 March 2017 Council meeting. The options presented in the Council report were:

 

Option 1:

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

 

Option 2:

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

 

Council resolved:

That Council defer this item until a full report can be presented to Council for determination.

 

Following the Council meeting of 29 March 2017, the proponent lodged an updated report on traffic impacts in October 2017. An updated flood impact assessment was provided by the proponent in December 2017. The proponent provided a revised planning proposal for public exhibition in July 2018 (see Attachment 1).

 

The revised planning proposal did not include a revised letter of offer for a voluntary planning agreement (VPA). The proponent advised that additional development contributions that would accrue, were the planning proposal to be supported, would be sufficient to provide the additional infrastructure required to support the proposal. Significant concerns were raised by the RMS during agency consultation regarding required upgrades to the regional road network (which the RMS has not budgeted for and has not planned to deliver in the short-medium term). The proponent has not advanced a funding mechanism to fund upgrades to the regional road network, instead relying on the RMS to fund upgrades that would in a large way be caused by this development. A number of public submissions also raised concerns that the provision of infrastructure required to support the proposal was inadequate.

 

The revised planning proposal was submitted to DPE as required by gateway condition 2(c). The Department reviewed the revised planning proposal and was satisfied the planning proposal met the gateway conditions and requested Council publicly exhibit the planning proposal at its earliest convenience. The planning proposal, and supporting documentation, was placed on public exhibition from 29 August to 26 October 2018.

Site description and intended outcomes

The site is legally described as follows:

 

·    Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in DP 1207518;

·    Lot 1 in DP 1078564;

·    Lot 12 in DP 1108343; and

·    Lot 102 in DP 1128111

 

The site is irregular in shape and has an area of approximately 69,000m2 which comprises a total developable area of 43,559m2. It has a 200m northern frontage to Southern Cross Avenue and a 220m southern frontage to Flynn Avenue. Bravo Avenue bounds part of the site along the eastern side while residential blocks adjoin to the west. The site is generally known as 60 - 80 Southern Cross Avenue and 45- 65 Hall Circuit, Middleton Grange.

 

Figure 1: Site plan

 

The proposed amendment would facilitate a new town centre compromising a range of mixed use buildings up to 35m in height with a total site GFA of 112,050m2, achieved with a split FSR of part 1:1 and part 2.3:1.

 

The planning proposal states the new Town Centre would comprise:

 

•     86,031m2 of residential space;

•     20,240m2 of retail;

•     2,533m2 of other commercial uses; and

•     912 new dwellings;

 

Figure 2: Proposed land zoning map (from revised planning proposal)

Gateway conditions

The Gateway Determination issued by the DP&E on 15 August 2016 specified three conditions which had to be satisfied prior to placing the planning proposal on public exhibition. These conditions are discussed below.

 

Gateway Condition 1: s117 (now s9.1) Direction 4.3: Flood Prone land

 

Condition 1a of the Gateway Determination required that the proposal be supported by a comprehensive flood study that demonstrates consistency with s117 (now s9.1) Direction 4.3: Flood Prone land. Condition 1b required the proposal include a Flood Planning Area map.

 

After significant delays and multiple revisions, the proponent submitted a flood study and maps in December 2017. The study was referred to the SES for comments as required by Condition 3 of the Gateway determination.

 

On 28 November 2018, the SES provided a response which stated in part:

 

The modelling and associated maps produced for the proponent by J.Wyndham Prince (Attachment 1), shows that although the majority of the site is not impacted by flooding in the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood there is significant flooding through the site in a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), with some areas greater than 1m in depth (in an event simulated with 50% culvert blockage applied). However, there is no modelling between the 1% AEP and PMF floods to show at what flood frequency the development will be impacted.

Furthermore, it is not clear when areas impacted by flooding above the 1% AEP flood will start being affected as there has not been any modelling of floods above the 1% AEP and below the PMF in the information provided. As such it is difficult to know how the roads progressively get cut by floodwater and how this would impact movement from the flood affected part of the sites to a flood free location away from the site.

The NSW SES suggests it should be prudent for the relevant planning authority to be satisfied that there is the ability for the future population to evacuate from the at risk area of the future development and not be put at risk from flooding and its consequences.

However, the NSW SES does not support the requirement for evacuation plans to be produced as a condition of consent to overcome the risk present at the site (Floodplain Development Manual, Appendix N7) and prefers that the evacuation assessment has already been undertaken prior to the Development Application process.

 

The submission is reproduced in full at Attachment 5

 

While it is evident that the proposal manages flooding risk up to and including the 100 year event (1% Annual Exceedance Probability), the SES believes that the planning proposal should be amended to indicate how the site would be evacuated in flood events exceeding the 100 year flood. It does not accept the direction of the Floodplain Development Manual, which directs planning assessment of flood events, which indicates that evacuation plans be produced as a condition of consent of a DA. Council’s assessment of the potential flooding impacts of the proposal however, is informed by the requirements of the Floodplain Development Manual.

 

While Council’s Flood Policy and NSW Government’s Flood Policy do not restrict developments on low risk flood affected lands, in order to minimise risks associated with emergency evacuation for higher floods up to the PMF, the applicant is required to develop a site specific Fail Safe Flood Evacuation plan for floods up to the PMF, in consultation with the SES.

 

The proposed development is affected by the probable maximum flood (PMF) and access to the site will not be available under the PMF event.  The applicant has stated that there is currently no regional evacuation plan for this locality and the site is free from regional flooding.  The report also stated that based on contours of the area, evacuation could easily occur towards a higher area with a rising grade.

 

Based on the requirements of the Floodplain Development Manual, Council staff would expect the submission of evacuation plans, as noted by the SES, with a DA for the proposed development of the subject site.

 

The concerns raised by the SES would not be sufficient grounds for Council to request that the proposal not proceed.

 

Condition 2a transition of heights to existing neighbouring residential zones and overshadowing impacts

 

Condition 2a of the Gateway Determination required that the proposal address the transition of heights for the proposed development to the neighbouring residential zones, and overshadowing impacts.

 

On 14 July 2017, the proponent provided information on the proposed transition of heights with regard to Condition 2a. Council officers found the approach did not satisfy the Gateway condition as it did not comprehensively address the overall built form impacts of the proposed development in terms of height and massing across the whole of the subject site with respect to surrounding low density residential areas.

 

The proposal was required to demonstrate that the intended height and massing can be adequately transitioned, not only within the proposed development but also to the surrounding residential zones on all sides, without creating adverse visual and overshadowing impacts.

 

The proposal did not provide a sufficient level of justification for the scale of the development that may result. The urban design report (Attachment 4) and the supplementary height and massing diagrams provided by the proponent did not adequately demonstrate how the bulk and height of the proposed development would be transitioned to the surrounding low density residential neighbourhood, or conversely, that it would produce a quality built environment and internal amenity for the future residential and non-residential uses within the proposed development. This view was reiterated in multiple meetings with the proponent and also with the DP&E.

 

Council officers were of the view that an appropriate response to the ‘transition of heights’ would likely require the lowering of the proposed height of buildings (and corresponding floor space ratio) across the subject site to produce a more modest development outcome.

 

Council officers advised the proponent that they did not support a 2.5:1 FSR along the western boundary of the subject site. It was agreed by the proponents that the FSR would be reduced to 1:1 on these lots only. There was no corresponding change to the proposed 14m height of building control.

 

Council officers were also concerned that the core of the subject site, the area within the expanded B2 zone that makes up the town centre, which includes lots 4 and 5 (see Figure 1 above), would generate significant visual and overshadowing impacts and introduce a built form considered too intense for the surrounding low-density residential areas.

 

The proponent countered that the height and massing of the proposed development was in keeping with other developments around the Sydney metropolitan area, and that it represented the best option for financing such a development. By contrast, Council officer’s view is that examples of development of this scale may be suitable for strategic centres and/or where there is a high level of public transport infrastructure as well as the requisite level of services and amenities, including sufficient opportunities for employment to support residential densities of this scale. These conditions do not exist for Middleton Grange.

 

Importantly, the commercial viability of a landowner or a developer is not a consideration for the public authority when preparing development standards. Rather, the planning authority is required to consider the economic feasibility of those controls generally, to reflect land use planning objectives with regard to future housing and employment, and the demand and delivery of infrastructure.

 

With the assistance of the DP&E to mediate the concerns and move the proposal forward to public exhibition, Council officers noted the proponent’s revised massing diagrams and referred the amendments back to DP&E for their concurrence regarding compliance with gateway conditions.

 

Potential overshadowing of SP2 zoned land

 

There was discussion with the proponent regarding the anticipated use of the (Council owned) SP2 zoned land through the middle of the town centre and the impact of overshadowing on this space.

 

Council officers noted that the proponent had indicated that the open channel within SP2 zoned land would be covered (subject to a flood study and details of maintenance agreements). The planning proposal identifies this area as a central public plaza and a key pedestrian through-site link to connect the school, open spaces, and the residential areas to the east and west. The proponent relies on this space as one of the key strategic justifications for the planning proposal.

 

With this intended use, Council officers outlined the importance of the quality of this space to have good sun access and minimal wind impacts, particularly as it is proposed as a central feature of the town centre, noting the overshadowing impacts that surrounding buildings would create.

 

It is Council officers’ view that the objectives applying to the land zoned SP2 through the town centre should continue to apply. The SP2 Infrastructure zone identifies the following objective:

 

To provide for infrastructure and related uses, to prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure, and to reserve land for the provision of infrastructure.

 

While the primary purpose of the SP2 zoned land is to safely convey storm water, its secondary purpose is to provide public access through the town centre. Overshadowing the SP2 zoned land, would significantly reduce the utility and amenity of the land as a through site link.

 

The urban design analysis does not apply enough attention to the development of this core area. The proposed ‘sleeving’ with a reduced tower and street wall along portions of Lots 4 and 5 does not mitigate overshadowing of this central public open space. Refer to Urban Design Report at Attachment 4

 

Gateway Condition 2b: Proposed controls for commercial uses in residential zones

 

This condition required the proposal to address the proposed commercial uses in the R1 — General Residential zone. It was agreed by the proponent that the planning proposal would be revised to remove the proposed commercial uses under Schedule 1 (Additional permitted uses) in the R1 zone. This means that higher intensity business uses, including commercial would be contained within the expanded B2 zone.

 

Gateway Condition 2c: Provide the revised planning proposal to the Department for review

 

The updated planning proposal and supporting documents were submitted to the DP&E by Council officers, to address the outstanding matters as outlined above. The DP&E noted the revised proposal in accordance with the Gateway conditions, and agreed the planning proposal should proceed to community consultation.

 

Consultation

Public authority consultation

Condition 3 of the gateway determination required Council to consult with a range of public authorities, prior to public exhibition. The result of the public authority consultation is as follows:


 

 

Office of Environment and Heritage

 

On 30 September 2016 the OEH provided comments to Council which describe the requirements for a comprehensive flood study to support the proposed rezoning. OEH comments concluded with the following statement:

 

As the proposal potentially involves a significant increase of people located in the floodplain Council has a duty of care to ensure occupiers and owners are aware of any potential risks to their lives and to property. Council should be mindful that people may develop a false sense of security. Therefore, an appropriate education and awareness program should be considered in consultation with the SES.

 

Roads and Maritime Services

 

In its initial comments to Council dated 8 November 2016 the RMS stated:

 

The transport study submitted with the planning proposal is preliminary in nature and has not adequately analysed the cumulative transport and traffic impacts associated with the planning proposal… In this regard an addendum transport study should be undertaken to assess the cumulative impacts of the planning proposal on the local and regional road network (including public transport) and identify feasible infrastructure improvements required to support future developments within this Town Centre precinct.

 

As noted above, a revised traffic and transport assessment was provided by the proponent in September 2017. On 16 November 2018, RMS informed Council that it had assessed the Traffic Impact Assessment and noted the following:

 

Roads and Maritime has reviewed the planning proposal including the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Traffix Pty Ltd and notes this assessment and associated mesoscopic modelling has not tested the traffic impacts of the planning proposal on the existing state road network for the 2026 with development scenario. The 2026 with development scenario has included a number of road network upgrades, including widening of Cowpasture Road northbound between Fifteenth Avenue to Fairfield Drive and southbound from M7 to Sixteenth Avenue to be funded and constructed by others (i.e. NSW Government).

 

The above widening of Cowpasture Road is not in the NSW Government's forwards works program and is subject to business case approval and allocation of funding. As Council would appreciate, funding for road network improvements is limited and is allocated on a state wide priority basis. As a result, the planning proposal should not be reliant on uncommitted road infrastructure upgrades.


 

 

It is recommended that any further consideration of the planning proposal should include testing the traffic impacts of the planning proposal on the existing state road network for the 2026 with development scenario. This should include identification of any necessary road and transport upgrades (at no cost to State Government) to accommodate the additional trips generated by the development inclusive of staging of identified transport infrastructure linked to trigger points (i.e. development yields) for inclusion in a Planning Agreement (emphasis added).

 

The submission is reproduced in full at Attachment 3.

 

 

Transport for NSW

 

On 27 October 2016, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) provide comment which advised that:

 

A proposal of this size requires a transport impact assessment. The transport impact statement provided does not provide enough information for TfNSW to be able to assess the impact the proposed development will have on the regional and classified road network.

 

The proponent submitted a transport impact assessment on 12 October 2017. It was provided to the RMS for comment and the RMS comments are detailed above.

 

Sydney Water

 

On 2 November 2016 Sydney Water provided comments on the proposed rezoning. Sydney Water raised no objections and noted their requirements would be provided at the Section 73 application phase.

 

Department of Education

 

On 24 October 2016, the NSW Department of Education provided comment regarding the potential impact of the proposed rezoning on the Middleton Grange Public School. While requesting that “certain building design elements be incorporated to minimise the impact of the height of buildings e.g. the upper levels to be modulated/setback from side boundaries, and external building materials to be non-reflective,” the Department of Education otherwise raised no objection to the proposal.

 

State Emergency Services

 

Detailed discussion on the submission received from the SES on 28 November 2018, is provided above.

Public exhibition

In accordance with condition 4 of the Gateway Determination, the planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 29 August 2018 to 26 October 2018, for a period of 59 days. The extended exhibition period was considered appropriate given the scale and nature of the planning proposal. Relevant stakeholders were notified by post and letterbox drop, through the local newspaper, on the Council website and social media, and at Liverpool Listens.

 

A community forum was held on 16 September 2018 at Thomas Hassall Anglican College, Middleton Grange, to further engage local residents about Amendment 63, in addition to other matters affecting Middleton Grange. The community meeting was attended by over 600 people.

 

A total of 867 submissions were received during public exhibition that consisted of:

 

·    813 objections (94%);

·    649 unique and verifiable submissions;

·    178 form letters objecting to the proposal (of which 53 were accompanied by further comments);

·    3 institutional submissions, one each from Parkbridge Community Association, Charter Hall (owners of Carnes Hill Shopping Centre), and the Serbian Cultural Club St Sava;

·    One petition in support with 73 signatures; and

·    One petition in objection with 830 signatures.

Overall, 608 (94%) of the 649 verifiable submissions received objected to the planning proposal. The range of concerns raised is detailed in the Table 1 below.

 

The Parkbridge Community Association submission was prepared by Sue Weatherley & Associates and the Charter Hall submission was prepared by Design+Planning Consultants. These two institutional submissions incorporated the concerns raised by a large number of the public submissions, while providing detailed planning justification for their objections.

 

The following issues were raised in these submissions.

 

·    With regards to strategic merit, there are significant inconsistencies between the planning proposal and the Western City District Plan and Greater Sydney Region Plan, as well as the Community Strategic Plan (Our Home, Liverpool 2027) and Liverpool Business Centres and Corridors Strategy.  Furthermore, the applicant has not addressed why the current controls would lead to outcomes which are inconsistent with the strategic planning framework and therefore require amending;

 

·    The assumptions and methodologies used for the economic, social, and traffic impact assessments were critiqued;

 

·    A town centre of an appropriate size and scale may be achieved with the current development standards, without the negative impacts associated with the increase in height and density; and

 

·    Measurable impacts on nearby centres resulting from insufficient demand for a retail centre of this scale from the local community.

 

Transport and traffic

 

·    Intensification of the scale proposed is inappropriate owing to its location, in the “belly” of a low density residential area and distant from major transport routes (arterial roads and mass public transport);

 

·    The qualitative increase in the scale of the town centre is not supported by a residential street network that has the capacity to support it, with or without the proposed road layout changes; and

 

·    Lack of public transport (only one bus route with no plans from Transport for NSW for additional services).

 

Built form

 

·    Built form would have significant impact on surrounding areas and the transition zone between low-rise (8.5m) to high-rise (20m-35m) is considered inadequate; and

 

·    The urban design drawings do not reflect the maximum possible height that may be achieved via the proposed development standards.

Other matters

 

·    Insufficient social infrastructure and services to support the increased population;

 

·    Liverpool as an LGA is already on track to meet housing supply targets; and

 

·    Significant community opposition.

The majority of the community feedback has been consistent with the submissions made by Parkbridge and Charter Hall.

 


 

 

Table 1 presents all matters explicitly raised in submissions.

 

Item

Matter

Council staff comment

Count

1

General opposition to the proposed number of new dwellings

A development of the scale proposed will strain local infrastructure, in particular roads, schools, and open space. The planning proposal has not adequately addressed the traffic constraints required to accommodate the increased development, nor the additional unmet demand for public transport. There is no funding agreement advanced by the proponent to date and there is no commitment to any upgrades to the regional road network to be funded by the proponent without relying on government funding.

580

2

Built form and height of buildings concerns

The proposed built form is inconsistent and out of character with the low density residential area of Middleton Grange. The transition of heights from the low-rise surrounds to the maximum height of 35m is considered inadequate and does not negate the fact that the proposed development will be almost double the current permissible maximum height of buildings development standard. 

 

Although any DA for apartments must meet Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements for overshadowing, the sharp transition of heights from low density residential to high-rise may render mitigation measures ineffective.

435

3

Overshadowing, particularly in relation to Middleton Grange Public School

202

4

Traffic generation

The planning proposal does not adequately demonstrate that the existing transport network can accommodate the development, independent of future upgrades from RMS (to date unfunded and not committed). Middleton Grange has two vehicle entry points by road. Constraints on Fifteenth Avenue and Cowpasture Road limit potential intersection improvements to support additional vehicle trips.

The RMS has also indicated that the proposed widening of Cowpasture Road is not within its forward allocations to 2026. It advises the proposal should not be reliant on uncommitted road infrastructure upgrades.

492

5

Lack of parking availability

Households in Middleton Grange have a high reliance on motor vehicles due to the lack of alternative transport options. It is likely that households in the town centre will exhibit similar characteristics. The planning proposal does not adequately assess the required provision of parking and impacts on local streets and on-street parking.

205

6

Lack of public transport

There is one public bus route that does not service the northern section of Middleton Grange.  Public transport is not adequate to meet the needs of the existing population and will therefore not cater for the proposed increased population. Transport for NSW has not committed to any increase in services, despite significant representations from Council.

55

7

Lack of social infrastructure

The social infrastructure in the area, including the schools and open spaces, have been planned to meet the needs of a population density that the current controls provide for.

 

Several recommendations to mitigate negative social impacts are reliant on commitments from other authorities and therefore may not materialise. A funding mechanism to address social infrastructure has not been advanced by the proponent to date.

228

8

General lack of infrastructure

See 1, 4, 6, and 7.

98

9

Overdevelopment of the site

See 2, 3, and 16.

75

10

Lack of greenery

Increased landscaping is a matter of detail for future development applications if the planning proposal is supported.

4

11

Other more appropriate locations for this development

This comment is supported by the Liverpool Residential Development Strategy that indicates that high density residential zones should be situated in the vicinity of significant public transport nodes and town centres. Development of the scale proposed would be more appropriate in the vicinity of a train station or town centre (not an area planned for a village centre).

23

12

Overlooking and privacy issues

Although any DA for apartments must meet ADG requirements for overlooking, the sharp transition of heights from low density residential to high-rise may render mitigation measures ineffectual.

 

Comments relating to privacy and safety issues relating to overlooking into the public school are unfounded. Examples of apartments overlooking schools can be found across Sydney.

34

13

Housing targets in Liverpool already met

The Liverpool housing supply target established by the Western City District Plan is 8,250 by 2021. Based on existing development approvals, Liverpool will exceed housing targets, in areas that are planned for and supported by infrastructure.

3

14

Natural hazards (flooding/bushfire)

Although the town centre site itself is not mapped as bushfire prone land, the qualitative increase in residents would have ramifications for evacuation for the broader Middleton Grange community given there are only two vehicle exit points out of the suburb and the bushfire risk arising from the Western Sydney Parklands and Cessna Reserve.

The response of the SES regarding evacuation routes in case of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and Council officers’ response is detailed above.

6

15

Noise and amenity issues

Increased traffic generation and activity in the town centre may result in greater noise disturbance. Although noise impacts are expected in inner city and high density areas, noise thresholds for Middleton Grange may be lower, as a low density suburban neighbourhood.

28

16

Economic viability and lack of demand

The Middleton Grange Town Centre was planned to only service the Middleton Grange community. The Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy classifies Middleton Grange as a village centre, the purpose of which is to service the local community. The proposed scale of development is a significant deviation from the Retail Hierarchy, which does not envisage any substantial growth for the Middleton Grange town centre.

 

The increased retail and commercial floor area was premised upon a trade area extending from Green Valley in the east to Rossmore in the west. This is considered to be an overestimate, given all areas outside of Middleton Grange already have larger and more convenient centres to use, such as Green Valley and Carnes Hill. Limited entry points into Middleton Grange will further deter potential users and operators. This potential overestimation of retail demand may lead to low occupancy rates for the non-residential component of the development and may have unforeseen impacts on the viability of surrounding (planned and existing) centres.

 

It is to be noted that the Gateway Determination did not require Council to update/review the economic impact assessment (EIA) provided by the proponent. The submission provided by Charter Hall raises considerable questions regarding the methodologies used and conclusions drawn in the proponent’s EIA.

7

17

Increased crime and reduced safety

Crime and safety are influenced by a large range of factors, and submissions claiming that the greater number of apartments would lead to increased crime and reduced safety are unfounded.

47

18

Concerns with commission housing and renters

There is no commitment to offer public/social housing on the site. The majority of proposed new dwellings would be housing developed for the market and in any event Council cannot control the tenure type (owner/renter) of dwellings.

24

19

Wants a local centre

As noted by the Parkbridge and Charter Hall submissions, a town centre that can appropriately service the local community needs is already permissible under the current planning controls.

348

20

Will stimulate economic growth and generate activity

Activity can be generated even with a smaller scale town centre, especially if delivered in conjunction with community facilities. There is no guarantee as to the commercial success of the non-residential component, as discussed above (see 16).

24

21

Increases supply of housing

Increased housing supply and diversity is positive, in the right location relative to public transport and other amenities. The proposed increase in residential density of the subject site would be out of character with Middleton Grange and not supported by sufficient infrastructure.

9

Table 1: Analysis of submissions

 

Attachment 2 provides a spreadsheet of all submissions received. The issues raised in each submission are described with reference to the codes provided in Table 1 (i.e. 1-21).

 

The overwhelming majority of the community feedback to this planning proposal is negative. The majority of community concerns do have planning justification and are supported by the Parkbridge Community Association and Charter Hall submissions. These two submissions are attached as Attachment 6 and Attachment 7.

Conclusion

Council resolved at its December 2015 meeting to provide in-principle support for the planning proposal to proceed to a Gateway determination. Like many planning proposals, that is the first step in allowing Council to more fully understand the impacts of the planning proposal once additional technical studies are undertaken, comments from key state government agencies are received and the Council has the benefit of hearing from the community.

 

Following a review of all technical studies and agency and community comments, Council officers do not support the planning proposal for the following reasons:

 

·    the proposal does not adequately address why the current controls are not appropriate and how the proposal aligns with the strategic planning framework (i.e. the regional and district plans);

·    a town centre of an appropriate size and scale may be achieved with the current zoning and development standards;

·    the site-specific constraints do not support the density of built form and land used proposed;

·    the increase in the amount of housing and retail in the town centre will have impacts on the residential and regional road network;

·    there is insufficient public transport to support the proposed development;

·    the proposed built form is inappropriate within an outer suburban location largely characterised by one and two storey dwellings on the boundary of the site; 

·    existing infrastructure is insufficient to support the increased population and there has not been any commitment to address this through agreements for public benefits and contributions to infrastructure; and

·    the proposed increase in residential density is not required for Liverpool to meet its housing targets in the Western City District Plan.

 

The proposal would result in significant change to a low density outer suburban area, a change which is not supported by the majority of the residents of Middleton Grange.

 

The current zoning and planning controls allow for an appropriately scaled town centre to develop in Middleton Grange to serve the day to day needs of the community, and which is consistent with the planned hierarchy of retail centres under the Retail Centres Strategy.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to withdraw support for the planning proposal, and inform DP&E & GSC of its decision, as well as the proponent and those who made a submission.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

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

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

Civic Leadership

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

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions

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

Legislative

 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Revised planning proposal — July 2018 (Under separate cover)

2.         Register of public submissions (Under separate cover)

3.         RMS submission (Under separate cover)

4.         Urban Design Report (Under separate cover)

5.         State Emergency Services (SES) Submission (Under separate cover)

6.         Submission from Parkbridge Community Association (Under separate cover)

7.         Submission from Charter Hall (Under separate cover)  


105

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

 

EGROW 05

Implementation Strategy for Smoke-Free Areas

 

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

Manage the community’s disposal of rubbish

File Ref

325656.2018

Report By

Vi Girgis - Senior Officer City Precinct

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following a series of Council resolutions regarding smoking in Liverpool, Council will implement a strategy to raise awareness about current smoke-free areas throughout Liverpool. This strategy will be implemented over 12 months, starting in January 2019, and will include the following actions:

 

1.   An audit of signage at smoke-free areas in the Liverpool LGA.

2.   Production and installation of signage where required.

3.   A media campaign to educate the community about smoke-free areas.

4.   Education campaign delivered by Council rangers undertaking active patrols.

5.   Cleansing campaign undertaken by Council cleansing staff.

6.   Intercept surveys seeking community feedback.

7.   Regular internal reviews of the strategy’s progress.

8.   Investigations into possible suitable sites, costs and implementation of voluntary smoking zones.

 

Following the twelve-month implementation of the strategy, Council will receive a report on the outcomes, community feedback, and recommendations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

 


 

REPORT

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

At the Council meeting of 29 October, Council resolved that:

 

1.   Council shall forthwith commence the implementation of a policy to prohibit smoking throughout the areas currently designated as no smoking zones; and

 

2.   Council does not otherwise adopt an enforcement strategy through its ranges; and

 

3.   The CEO direct the Communications Department to implement an appropriate communication/education campaign; and

 

4.   Council receive a report at the end of a 12 month period, including information on how the policy has been managed, what the response has been and general feedback; and

 

5.   ‘No Smoking’ signs be erected around all playgrounds in the whole Liverpool LGA.

 

At the Council meeting of 21 November 2018, Council resolved to investigate and report back to the December 2018 Council meeting the opportunities and cost to:

 

1.   Implement an education and public engagement WSROC program “Bin Your Butts Campaign” or other similar available programs to reduce cigarette litter in the CBD and in particular the Mall; and

 

2.   Investigate and identify possible suitable sites and costs for the installation of voluntary smoking zones in which people could be encouraged to smoke and dispose of their cigarette butts in a socially responsible way.

 

2.       IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

 

Council staff have prepared an implementation strategy that addresses the above Council resolutions. This strategy will be implemented over 12 months, starting in January 2019, and will include the actions below.

 

1.   An audit of signage at playgrounds in the Liverpool LGA, and at public transport stops in the Liverpool CBD.

 

2.   Production and installation of ‘No Smoking’ signage where required, as per the audit.

 


 

3.   A media campaign to educate the community.

(a)  The campaign will raise awareness of the following:

·    Smoke-free areas in Liverpool, as per the Act;

·    Importance of ‘binning your butts’, and the environmental and economic costs of cigarette butt litter; and

·    A list of ‘quit smoking’ resources.

(b)  The campaign will be promoted in the following ways:

·    Media releases;

·    A page on the Council website;

·    Social media posts; and

·    Urban screen in Macquarie Mall.

 

4.   Education campaign undertaken by Council rangers, which will include:

·    Identification of all public smoke-free areas across the Liverpool CBD, as per the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000, with the exception of ‘within 4 metres of a pedestrian access point to a public building’;

·    Rangers undertaking active patrols of one site per week. They will have postcards with the above information to hand out to smokers in smoke-free areas, as well as verbally informing them of the smoke-free laws;

·    Report back on interactions with people; and

Consistent with Council’s resolution, no infringements are to be issued under this campaign.

 

5.   Cleansing campaign undertaken by the City cleansing staff, which will include:

·    A thorough review of the sites at which rangers undertake active patrols, to do cigarette butt counts in the smoke-free areas; and

·    A report back on cigarette butt counts.

 

6.   Regular intercept surveys at smoke-free areas seeking community feedback on the strategy and its effectiveness.

 

7.   Regular reviews of the strategy’s progress by Council staff responsible for implementation, and amendments/refinements where relevant.

 

8.   Informed by the progress and ongoing results of the strategy’s implementation, Council staff will, in the second half of the 12-month period, undertake investigations into possible suitable sites, costs and implementation of voluntary smoking zones.

 

Following the twelve-month implementation of the strategy, Council will receive a report on outcomes, community feedback, and recommendations.

 


 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

Financial and staffing resources related to strategy implementation.

Environment

Manage the environmental health of waterways.

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

 


Social

There are no social and cultural considerations.


Civic Leadership

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

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

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil


109

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Economy and Growth Report

 

EGROW 06

Council Parking Analysis Report

 

Strategic Direction

Generating Opportunity

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

File Ref

328745.2018

Report By

Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 29 August 2018, Council resolved that a report on car parking including the number of spaces, spaces per household, density, parking cost per household and replacement costs in the Liverpool Local Government Area and in particular the Liverpool City Centre be presented.

 

This report provides information which indicates that the City Centre contains approximately 20,530 (on and off street) car parking spaces with a replacement cost of approximately $981M.

 

In addition, based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2016 Census Data, the analysis has identified that the City Centre has 6,870 dwellings and a car parking density of 82 car parking spaces per hectare.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes this report.

 

 

REPORT

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 29 August 2018, Council considered a Notice of Motion (NOM06 ‘Cost of Car Parking’) and resolved that a further report be presented. 

 

The NOM referred to a Research Institute for Housing America (RIHA) Special Report on Quantified Parking: Comprehensive Parking Inventories in Five US Cities, which provides information about estimated car parking spaces per household, costs per household, parking spaces per acre and replacement costs. 

 

The RIHA report outlined that New York has 1.85 million parking spaces at a cost of $6,570 (US) per household, while Jackson, Wyoming has 100,119 spaces costing each household $192,138 per space.

This report analyses the current car parking supply in the Liverpool Local Government Area with emphasis on the Liverpool City Centre including the following:

 

a.    total number of parking spaces

b.    parking density per hectare

c.    parking spaces per household

d.    the total replacement cost of parking

e.    the parking cost per household

 

The report also provides summary information on parking supply in the adjoining LGA suburbs.

 

PARKING SUPPLY AND COST IN LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE

 

The current car parking supply in the City Centre has been analysed in accordance the City Centre Development Control Plan Area as shown in Figure 1:

 

Figure 1 – Liverpool City Centre Parking Study Area (GTA report 2017)

Figure 2 - Existing On-Street Car Parking Restrictions within LCCP Study Area

 

This catchment has approximately 20,530 car parking spaces, made up of 8,710 public car parking spaces (2,450 on-street spaces and 6,260 off-street spaces) and 11,820 on-site private parking spaces. The catchment has an area of approximately 250 hectares.  

 


 

Details of on-street and off-street car parking spaces are as follows:

 

·     On-street parking is made up of:

Approximately 740 on-street timed parking spaces between 30 minutes and 2 hours or special use restrictions such as accessible parking spaces, loading, mail or taxi zones. These spaces are located within the City Core Area as shown in Figure 2.

 

Approximately 1,709 unrestricted parking spaces located within residential areas outside of the city core.  Most of them are located within 800m walking distance to either Warwick Farm Station or Liverpool Station.

 

·     Off-street public accessible parking is made up of:

A total of 6,260 off-street parking spaces which are available to the public within 16 car parks including Collimore Park, Warren Serviceway car park, Westfield car park and commuter car parks at Warwick Farm and Liverpool station.

Details of each car park and the number of parking spaces are shown below.

 

Total Existing Publicly Accessible Off-Street Parking Spaces

 

§     Number

§     Parking Station

§     Payment Method

§     Type of Restriction

§     Owner
(Operator)

§     Supply**
(No. of Spaces)

1

33 Moore Street

Paid

Nil

Liverpool City Council

(Secure Parking)

274

2

Liverpool Plaza

Limited free parking, then paid parking

1.5-hour free parking, paid parking thereafter

Perpetual Trustee Company
(Point Parking)

230

3

Westfield

Limited free parking, then paid parking

3-hour free parking, paid parking thereafter

Westfield

2,699
(incl. 500 leased)

4

Norfolk Lane

Paid

1-hour limit

Liverpool City Council

26

5

52 Scott Street
(Crunch Gym)

Limited free parking, then paid parking

2-hours free parking and fee thereafter

Liverpool City Council

(Elders Real Estate)

179

6

Warren Serviceway

Paid

Unlimited

Liverpool City Council

704
(incl. 120 reserved spaces)

7

Northumberland Street

Limited free parking, then paid parking

3-hour limit to free parking on L3-4

Liverpool City Council

440

8

Bathurst Street (North)

Paid

3-hour limit

Liverpool City Council

240

9

Bathurst Street (South)

Free

2-hour limit (M-F)

1-hour limit (Sat)

Liverpool City Council

49

10

Collimore Park

Free

Unlimited

Liverpool City Council

496

11

Speed Street

Free

3-hour limit

Liverpool City Council

87

12

Warwick Farm

Free

Unlimited

Rail Corporation NSW

328

13

Liverpool Railway Station

Free

1-hour limit
(15-min limit in peak times)

Rail Corporation NSW

50

14

Liverpool Hospital

Paid

Unlimited

NSW Health

324 [1]

15

Sydney Southwest
Private Hospital

Paid

Unlimited

Healthscope Ltd
(Wilson Parking)

84

16

Light Horse Park

Free

Unlimited

Liverpool City Council

50

Overall

6,260 spaces

 

**   Information relating to parking supply was provided by Liverpool City Council (dated as of 2016).

[1]  A total of 1,343 spaces are provided at the Hospital on-site, with 1,019 spaces allocated to Hospital staff and employees and 324 spaces available to the public.

(Source: GTA Liverpool City Centre Car Parking Strategy Report 2017)

 

On-site private parking spaces

 

It is estimated that the City Centre Catchment has approximately 11,820 on-site private parking spaces which are located in residential apartments, houses, offices, community centres, schools, hospitals and retail buildings.

 

In addition, there are approximately 6,870 households in the catchment owning 6,780 cars. There are approximately 8,410 on-site residential parking spaces (owners and visitors) and the remaining parking spaces of 3,410 are located in commercial and other land use sites.

 

On average, every household owns one car with one car parking space available. This means that most residents in the City Centre have sufficient on-site parking spaces for their own vehicles.

 

Cost of parking

 

Rawlinson Australian Construction Handbook provides estimated cost for construction of car parking spaces.  The current edition indicates that the construction cost of car parking space is as follows:


 

 

 

Type of parking space

Total cost per car space

Open parking areas

$10,000

Parking stations (2-3 storey)

$30,000

Underground in office building

$73,000

 

A summary of car parking supply and costs in the City Centre is as follows:

 

Total number of parking spaces (off and on streets) in the City Centre

20,530

Estimated total cost of car parking spaces in the City Centre

$981M

Parking density per hectare

82

Total residential parking spaces in the City Centre

8,410

Average parking spaces per household*

2.99

Average number of cars per household

1

Total replacement cost of parking

$ 10,000 - $73,000

Parking cost per household

$ 10,000 - $73,000

 

* 2.99 is the total number of parking spaces in city centre divided by the total number of households

 

The City Centre has 20,530 parking spaces at an average cost of $47,800.

 

PARKING STATISTICS IN OTHER SUBURBS

Most dwelling houses in suburbs in the Liverpool LGA have two on-site parking spaces in accordance with Council’s DCP 2008.  It is estimated that these suburbs have approximately 116,000 on-site residential car parking spaces (outside of the City Centre).

From ABS 2016 Census data, it has been estimated that the average number of cars per household is 1.9, as shown in Figure 3 below.

The following suburbs have a higher car ownership than this average; Cecil Hills, Bringelly, Edmondson Park, Elizabeth Hills, Green Valley, Hinchinbrook, Holsworthy, Horningsea Park, Hoxton Park, Middleton Grange, Moorebank, Prestons, Voyager Point, Wattle Grove, and West Hoxton.

These suburbs are likely to have on-street parking concerns as over 70% of the households own two or more cars. In addition, some local streets adjacent to train stations, such as Edmondson Park and Warwick Farm, attract significant commuter on-street parking.

The average car ownership rate for the Liverpool LGA is higher than the average rates for the WSROC region and the Greater Sydney Region. 

This report indicates that the City Centre contains approximately 20,530 (on and off street) car parking spaces with a replacement cost of approximately of $981M.

 

Based on the latest ABS 2016 Census Data, the analysis has identified that the Liverpool City Centre has 6,870 dwellings and a car parking density of 82 car parking spaces per hectare.

 

Additional analysis can be carried out to compare car parking supply and costs in neighbouring city centres to establish a benchmark for car parking supply.

 

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

Support access and services for people with a disability.

Improve road and pedestrian safety.


Civic Leadership

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

Legislative

NSW Roads Act 1993

NSW Road Rules

NSW Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999

Roads and Maritime Service’s Traffic Management and Road Design Guidelines

Australian Standards

Austroads Technical Guidelines

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan

Liverpool Development Control Plan

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil  


121

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

Chief Executive Officer Report

 

CEO 01

City Deal Relationship Framework

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Strive for best practice in all Council processes

File Ref

329400.2018

Report By

Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Deal

Approved By

Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In March 2018, 8 Councils signed a 20-year Western Sydney City Deal agreement with the Australian and NSW Governments. This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will help transform Sydney’s outer west into one of Australia’s most connected and prosperous cities.  It will support the new Western Sydney airport and the surrounding Aerotropolis and seeks to create 200,000 new jobs in the region.

 

Through their joint work, a Relationship Framework (attachment 1) has been developed to underpin lasting and effective collaboration between the eight Councils.  At its meeting on the 29th August 2018, Council adopted in-principle the Relationship Framework and committed to continuing to work cooperatively with both State and Commonwealth Governments.

 

Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been drafted (attachment 2) to establish a lasting governance model through the Relationship Framework.  The MOU is non-binding and does not prevent Council from entering in to other collaborative arrangements with other government bodies.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the Relationship Framework and Memorandum of Understanding involving the other seven Councils within the Western Sydney City Deal area.

 

 

 


 

REPORT

 

Background: The City Deal

 

The City Deal document was signed on 4 March 2018 at the launch attended by the then Prime Minister, the Premier of NSW and each of the eight Mayors.  A copy of the full document is available here (https://cities.infrastructure.gov.au/western-sydney-city-deal).

 

The City Deal as published contains 38 “Commitments” which include initiatives that will deliver early practical benefits to Council such as the $15m Liveability Fund, the Planning Partnership and the establishment of an Industry Attraction Office, located in Liverpool.  Others, such as the development of the Aerotropolis and the delivery of road and rail connections, will have a transformative effect on the region but over the longer term.

 

The 38 initiatives that are each aligned under one of the following six domains of the Deal:

a.    Connectivity

b.    Jobs for the Future

c.    Skills and Education

d.    Liveability and the Environment

e.    Planning and Housing

f.     Implementation and Governance

 

The City Deal further commits to an Implementation Plan being released by the end of 2018 which will be regularly updated.

 

Governance of the City Deal

 

As part of delivering the City Deal, an Implementation and Governance framework has been established as set out below.

 

The overall role of the implementation and governance structure is to ensure that the commitments made under the Deal are being progressed.  Engagement with Local Government at this level is already one of the underpinning achievements of the City Deal, in that Local Government is now an active partner in the decision-making framework and not just a layer of government to be consulted with.

 

A summary of the key groups and their membership is reproduced below:

 

Leadership Board – consists of the Commonwealth Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, Alan Tudge (Co-Chair), NSW Minister for Western Sydney, Stuart Ayres (Co-Chair) and all of the Mayors.

 

Implementation Board – consists of the Commonwealth Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure Dr Stephen Kennedy (Co-Chair), Regional Development and Cities, NSW Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet Tim Reardon (Co-Chair), Chief Coordinator Western Sydney – Greater Sydney Commission, Geoff Roberts and the General Managers of Camden, Fairfield, Hawkesbury and Liverpool Councils.

 

Coordination Group – consists of the following representatives:

·     The Chief Coordinator (GSC – Geoff Roberts, Chair).

·     Department of Infrastructure (ED Western Sydney Unit DIRDC - Nathan Smyth).

·     WSA Co (CEO - Graham Millett).

·     Sydney Metro (CEO - Tom Gellibrand).

·     Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan (CEO RMS - Ken Kanofski).

·     Western Parkland City Authority (ED DPC - Danielle Woolley).

·     Western Sydney Industry Attraction (Secretary NSW DoI - Simon Draper).

·     Western Sydney Planning Partnership (Councils supported by Secretary DPE - Carolyn McNally and CEO GSC - Sarah Hill).

·     South Creek Investigations (COO INSW - Amanda Jones).

·     Four Council representatives (initially Fairfield, Liverpool, Penrith and Wollondilly).

 

Governance between the Councils

 

A new level of cooperation has been demonstrated by the eight Councils across the Western City. While it is both prudent and useful to combine the efforts of all eight Councils under the City Deal to ensure outcomes across the region are shared, consideration has also been given as to how the Councils might formally cooperate in future on matters that may impact on the region but exist outside the City Deal itself.

 

Relationship Framework

 

The eight Councils have been assisted by Elton Consulting in formulating a Relationship Framework which seeks to ‘guide the way we work together and with other levels of government to deliver long-term outcomes for the Western Parkland Region’.  

 

The framework sets out the values for how the Councils might come together to work with each other on issues that affect other Councils or the whole region and to make decisions impartially, respectfully and fairly.

 

Details of the values and how they will be demonstrated are set out in the Framework (attachment 1), but in summary those values are that eight Councils are United, Clever, Community Minded, Fair, Respectful and Trusted.

 

Additionally, as well as establishing parameters for media and communications, the Framework sets out a pathway to a united governance approach to support the relationship framework.

 


Memorandum of Understanding

 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has subsequently been drafted (attachment 2) to establish a lasting governance model through the Relationship Framework.  The MOU is non-binding and does not prevent Council from entering in to other collaborative arrangements with any other government bodies.

 

The MOU sets out the vision, aim and objectives of the eight Councils as they seek to make more formal the relationships and processes that have underpinned the successful negotiations thus far.

 

Should a Council or Councils so decide, the MOU could be terminated by mutual agreement or a majority of the Councils giving written notice of such termination.

 

Legal Services have reviewed the draft MOU and have confirmed that the MOU does not create any legal relationships between the parties; that it is

not binding and, accordingly, has no operative legal effect; and that the MOU provides ‘high-level’ statements of intent (in relation to Aims, Objectives and Purpose, Vision and Commitments) and these statements appear consistent with the City Deal.

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

Utilise the Western Sydney City Deal Agreement to create Jobs for the Future.

Utilise the Western Sydney City Deal agreement to provide opportunities for residents in the LGA to enhance skills and education.

Environment

Utilise the Western Sydney City Deal agreement to enhance liveability and environment of the LGA.

Utilise the Western Sydney City Deal agreement to facilitate Planning and Housing in the LGA.


Social

Utilise the Western Sydney City Deal agreement to provide connectivity across the LGA through infrastructure and social initiatives.

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

Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts.


Civic Leadership

Implementation and Governance of the Western Sydney City Deal agreement.

Act as an environmental leader in the community.

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

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

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

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Relationship Framework for Councils of the Western Parkland Region (Under separate cover)

2.         Memorandum of Understanding (Under separate cover)   


121

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Community and Culture Report

 

COM 01

Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 - 2022 and Crime Prevention Plan 2019 - 2021

 

Strategic Direction

Creating Connection

Implement access and equity for all members of the community

File Ref

322864.2018

Report By

Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning

Approved By

Tina Sangiuliano - Acting Director City Community and Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 and the Draft Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 for the NSW Department of Justice outline Council’s strategic directions and commitment to improve community safety and reduce crime and injuries within the Liverpool Local Area (LGA).

 

The draft Strategy and Action Plan have been prepared following an evaluation of the outcomes of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2013 – 2017, the Crime Prevention Plan 2014 - 2016, an analysis of crime data, and comprehensive consultation with the local community, partner agencies and other stakeholders.

 

This report seeks Council’s endorsement to place both the Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 - 2022 and the Crime Prevention Plan 2019 - 2021 on public exhibition.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.       Place the Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 and the Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 for the NSW Department of Justice on public exhibition from mid-January to the end of February 2019 (six weeks); and

2.       Receive a report by April 2019 noting feedback received and any changes made to the draft Strategy and Plan in line with community feedback, or if no submissions are received, delegate authority to the CEO to execute and submit the Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 and the Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 to the NSW Department of Justice.

 

REPORT

Background

 

Council develops the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy every four years in order to address identified community issues and concerns.

 

The draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 delivers a comprehensive and coordinated approach to improve community safety, crime, and injury prevention initiatives in the Liverpool LGA. It uses a collaborative approach to address the identified issues and concerns to reduce crime and injury, increase safety and perceptions of safety in Liverpool. The Strategy will also assist Council to secure external funding to support the delivery of community safety and crime prevention initiatives.

 

The Liverpool Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 has been developed for the NSW Department of Justice in accordance with the Department’s Guidelines. Once endorsed by the Department, Council will be eligible to apply for Safer Community Compact – Crime Prevention Grant funding. The Plan aligns with the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022, and is valid for three years (2019 – 2021). The implementation of this Plan will be subject to successfully securing the above grant.

 

Development of the Strategy

 

Extensive research was undertaken to identify and determine community safety priorities, including current community safety, crime and injury prevention issues and concerns to inform this Strategy.

 

The scope of this research included:

·    Review and evaluation of the Liverpool Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2013 – 2017;

·    Analysis of crime data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), and data from the Liverpool City Police Area Command (PAC); and

·    Undertaking the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Survey 2017 from August to November 2017, which was distributed widely and included face-to-face and online responses, receiving 704 responses.

 

In a quest to improve safety and well-being across the Liverpool LGA, Council is seeking Pan Pacific Safe Community Accreditation for Liverpool City. A Priority Setting Workshop held in May 2016 involved a wide range of government and non-government agencies including the Liverpool City PAC. The outcomes of this workshop have informed the development of this Strategy.

 

 

 

The Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 identifies the major crime, safety and injury issues and concerns for Liverpool and recommends a proposed Action Plan for Council and other agencies for implementation over the next four years.

 

The focus areas of the draft Strategy include:

 

·    Domestic and Family Violence;

·    Youth and Crime Prevention;

·    Opportunistic Crime; and

·    Injury Prevention.

 

The Action Plan in the Strategy recommends a collaborative approach that encourages community capacity building, social inclusion and cohesion.

 

The Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 is aligned with the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 and is developed for endorsement by the Department of Justice. This Plan enables Council to apply for funding to implement strategies to reduce and eliminate community safety matters relating to:

 

·  Steal from Retail Store;

·  Break and Enter - Dwelling; and

·  Steal from Motor Vehicle.

 

Evaluation

 

The implementation of the action plan will be monitored regularly to document changing community needs and issues, with progress reports presented to the quarterly Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee meetings. A report will be provided to Council following a detailed review of the Strategy in 2022.

 

If Council successfully secures the Crime Prevention Grant funding, progress reports on the actions in the Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 will be presented to the quarterly Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee meetings. Additionally, reports will be provided to the Department in accordance with their reporting requirements.

 

Recommendation

 

This report recommends placing the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 – 2022 and the Crime Prevention Plan 2019 – 2021 on public exhibition for a period of six weeks from mid-January to the end of February 2019. A further report, if there is public feedback, will be provided to Council following the public exhibition period for Council’s adoption in April 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social

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

Support policies and plans that prevent crime.

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


Civic Leadership

Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.

Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Draft Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy 2019 - 2022 (Under separate cover)

2.         Draft Crime Prevention Plan for NSW Department of Justice 2019 - 2021 (Under separate cover)  


125

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Community and Culture Report

 

COM 02

Grants, Donations and Corporate Sponsorship

 

Strategic Direction

Creating Connection

Implement access and equity for all members of the community

File Ref

317357.2018

Report By

Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning

Approved By

Tina Sangiuliano - Acting Director City Community and Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is committed to building strong and resilient communities in the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA) and to maximising social wellbeing. Council helps achieve these goals by providing financial support through grants and sponsorships to develop leadership skills, increase participation in community activities and address identified social issues.

 

This report presents the funding recommendations for the Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Program for Council’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorses the funding recommendation of $10,000 (GST exclusive) under the Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Program for the following project:

 

Applicant

Project

Recommended

Western Sydney Community Forum

2019 ZEST Community Awards

$10,000

 

REPORT

 

Corporate Sponsorship

The Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Program received one application which met the eligibility criteria and is recommended for funding.

 


 

 

Applicant

Western Sydney Community Forum

Location

Parramatta

Organisation

Public Benevolent Institution

Project

2019 ZEST Community Awards

Amount Requested

$10,000

Description

Objective

The ZEST Awards, led by the Western Sydney Community Forum, have celebrated over 800 outstanding projects and individuals from the community across the past eight years. The awards showcase the great work of the Community Services Sector across the region, and promote a positive image of the Greater Western Sydney region by highlighting the assets, the diversity and the creative and innovative work. This region includes, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Camden, Campbelltown, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cumberland, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith, the Hills, Wollondilly and Wingecarribee. The awards celebrate and promote life in Western Sydney and the great things being done by community service sector organisations and volunteers from the community.

 

Outcomes

§ Raises the profile of services in Liverpool and promotes a positive image of the Greater Western Sydney region by highlighting assets, diversity and creativity.

Beneficiaries

§ 550 attendees

§ Branding opportunity for Council, reinforcing Liverpool’s position as a leading role model in Western Sydney for community development and capacity building.

Assessment

Recommended for Funding - $10,000

The applicant’s event supports Council’s ‘Vision and Values’, aligns with the ‘Community Strategic Plan Directions of Creating Connections and Leading Through Collaboration’ and meets the Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Programs funding benefits and outcomes. 

 

4.2.2 Community, cultural, and social benefit

§ Provides an innovative opportunity to meet community needs;

§ Enhances Liverpool’s profile and reputation; and

§ Creates opportunities for education and information exchange between Council, the community and the sector.

 

5.1 Expected program outcomes

§ Provide an opportunity for measurable economic, social, environmental and/or cultural benefits to Council and the Liverpool LGA;

 

§ Provide opportunities for the community to participate and contribute in activities/events in the Liverpool LGA;

§ Create a valuable strategic alliance for Council;

§ Provide extensive coverage and promotional/publicity opportunities across a range of media outlets; and

§ Promote Council’s reputation as a great place to live, visit, work, and invest.

 

Council has a strong relationship with the Western Sydney Community Forum. The ZEST Awards provides a positive platform through which Council and the community services sector are encouraged to celebrate and showcase their work. A number of Council projects and sector initiatives from Liverpool have been previously recognised and have been award recipients through the ZEST Awards, including four awards won from Liverpool in 2018.

 


 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

 

CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP (OUTGOING)

Budget allocation

Current balance

Recommended amounts this report:

Remaining budget

$100,000

$51,328

$10,000

$41,328

COMMUNITY GRANTS

Budget allocation

Current balance

Recommended amounts this report:

Remaining budget

$102,000

$91,300

n/a

$91,300

MATCHING GRANTS

Budget allocation

Current balance

Recommended amounts this report:

Remaining budget

$200,000

$158,200

n/a

$158,200

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT GRANTS*

Budget allocation

Current balance

Recommended amounts this report:

Remaining budget

$75,000

$48,604

n/a

$48,604

 

 

 

 

COMBINED FUNDING BALANCE

Combined allocation

Combined balance

Total recommended amounts:

Remaining budget

$477,000

$349,432

$10,000

$339,432

 

·      Sustainable Grants funding is made available via a rate levy and is only eligible to be used for the Sustainable Environment Grants Program.

Environment

There are no environmental considerations.

Social

Support community organisations and groups to deliver services.

Civic Leadership

There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

Legislative

Local Government Act 1993 - s356.

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Corporate Sponsorship (Outgoing) Policy (Under separate cover)  


129

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Community and Culture Report

 

COM 03

Establishing an Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) Service at Carnes Hill

 

Strategic Direction

Creating Connection

Provide community facilities which are accessible to all

File Ref

326037.2018

Report By

Karyn Worlledge - Acting Manager Children's Services 

Approved By

Tina Sangiuliano - Acting Director City Community and Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has responsibility for the direct provision of six Early Education and Care Centres and one Preschool service catering for a total of 345 long day care places and 27 preschool places across the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA).

 

Liverpool is one of the fastest growing LGAs in Australia having experienced significant population growth in the last 20 years. The population is projected to increase further to 331,000 by 2036. In response to the growing population, the Children’s Services Strategy 2018 identifies that a shift in the current service delivery model is required to meet the demands of the growing population. 

 

While Children’s Services core function is to provide education and care to children aged 0-5 years, evidence suggests that there is a significant shortfall in places offered for children aged 5-12 years, outside of school hours and during school holidays. Recent studies highlight that in Liverpool there are fewer than 14 Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) places for every 100 children. In an area where households with children represent 60% of the population, these statistics highlight the critical issue of demand for quality OSHC care across the LGA.

 

This report recommends the establishment of an Out of School Hours Care service to cater to the demands of a growing and predominantly young family population. It is proposed for this service to operate from the Carnes Hill Community Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.   Supports the establishment of a 30 place Out of School Hours Care service to operate from the Carnes Hill Community Centre; and

 

2.   Place fees on public exhibition.

 


 

REPORT

 

Background

Council has responsibility for the direct provision of six Early Education and Care Centres and one Preschool service catering for a total of 345 long day care places and 27 preschool places. In addition to this there are approximately 1,250 children across the local government area on the waitlist to receive a placement in our services.

 

Liverpool is one of the fastest growing LGAs in Australia having experienced significant population growth in the last 20 years. The population is projected to increase further to 331,000 by 2036 - a 60% increase on current population levels. In response to the growing population, the Children’s Services Strategy 2018 identifies that a shift in the current service delivery model is required to meet the demands of the growing population. 

 

While Children’s Services core function is to provide education and care to children aged 0-5 years, evidence suggests that there is a significant shortfall in places offered for children aged 5-12 years, outside of school hours and during school holidays. Recent studies highlight that in Liverpool there are fewer than 14 OSHC places for every 100 children. In an area where households with children represent 60% of the population and over ten percent aged 5-12 years, these statistics highlight the critical issue of demand for quality OSHC care across the LGA.

 

Councils have an important role and responsibility under the Local Government Act (1993) to deliver vital community and education services, extending to services such as Children’s Services. Furthermore, recent findings for the National Quality Framework indicate that local government authorities deliver services to a higher degree of quality, and in addition provide greater access to children’s services to the most vulnerable children and families in their communities (ACECQA, 2016).

 

Service Specific Data

Council staff sought to identify an appropriate solution to this critical shortage and to provide support to families. Potential sites for the delivery of an OSHC service were investigated. It was identified that there is a growing demand for this service type from families living in the suburbs of Hoxton Park, Carnes Hill and West Hoxton and Middleton Grange. At the 2016 Census, there were 3,086 children aged 5-12 years living in these suburbs. Below are the schools within the area and the number of students enrolled at each school.

 

·    Greenway Park Public School – 760 Students

·    Holy Spirit Catholic College – 645 Students

·    Hoxton Park Public School – 650 Student

·    Middleton Grange Public School – 369 Students

The schools identified above have a combined enrolment of 2,424 students.

 

While several of the schools above have existing OSHC services on site, these equate to a total of only 168 OSHC places, leaving a significant shortfall for the area. It has also been identified that three of these services have recently received a rating of ‘working towards’ national quality standards in the National Quality Framework Assessment and Rating visits, highlighting the sectors’ challenges with providing quality OSHC services within this region. By comparison, all Council’s services have been assessed as ‘exceeding’ national quality standards. 

 

The figure below highlights the most recent ratings for OSHC services within the Liverpool LGA.

 

Council staff have spoken to three primary schools in the immediate area and the staff and parents have expressed their eagerness to see a new OSHC service established in the area to cater to the demand by local families.

 

It is proposed for Council to establish an OSHC service within the existing Carnes Hill Community Centre. This facility is situated in close proximity to the four schools highlighted above, allowing greater access for families who are unable to access quality programs for school-aged children. This proposal aligns with the Community Facilities Strategy and Council’s approach to the delivery of integrated community facilities that are flexible, address community need and, become a hub for community interaction.

 

At present the Carnes Hill Community facility provides the community access to small and large meeting rooms and large function spaces. Children’s Services are proposing that the OSHC service is operated out of two of the meeting rooms as highlighted in the below image. This facility is currently reporting a low level of utilisation and the establishment of this service will ensure no displacement of current user groups.

 

The area highlighted provides sufficient space to allow for an OSHC service to cater for 30 school aged children.

 

 

Operational Costs

Earlier this year a benchmarking exercise took place to establish fee ranges for before and after school care as well as vacation care services across the local area. The information below identifies the current fee range in the local area and the proposed fee structure.

 

Comparison fee range in local area

Before School Care (BSC): $16 - $26.50

After School Care (ASC):

$22 - $29

Vacation Care (VAC):

$55 - $65

Proposed fee structure

Before School Care:

$21

After School Care:

$25

Vacation Care:

$60

 

Based on the proposed fee structure the forecasted income at 100% capacity, is as follows:

·    OSHC (based on 40 weeks): $276,000

·    VAC (Based on 12 weeks): $108,000

Total annual income (100% utilised): $384,000

 

It should be noted that OSHC services are recognised by the Australian government as approved care and families are eligible to receive the Child Care Subsidy.

 


 

Staffing costs

Education and Care Services Regulations (2011) mandate an educator to child ratio of 1:15 for children aged 5-12 years. In order to ensure legislative compliance the following staffing structure is proposed:

·    1x Nominated Supervisor (30 hours at Grade 12)

·    2x Certificate III Assistants (27.5 hours at Grade 3)

Total staffing costs: $204,800 including on costs have been forecasted based on the 2018-19 financial year budget base.

 

Transportation and building leasing costs

In order to provide greater access to families it is proposed that a small community bus is used to both deliver and collect children from the identified schools. This bus will also be used during vacation care for transportation to and from any excursions. The current cost for Council’s community bus is $85 per day, which will result in an annual cost of $16,575. The cost for the lease of facility is estimated at $36,500.

 

Additional operating costs

A forecast budget has been prepared to include all of the above totals as well as the additional operating costs of approximately $41,000 such as utilities, replacement of equipment, building maintenance costs and other required expenses.

 

Before and After School Care Grants

The NSW Government created the $20 million Before and After School Care Fund to help deliver up to 45,000 additional OSHC places. The one-off grant of up to $30,000 can be used for site modification and fit-out costs, project management (including tendering or regulatory costs), or to pay for necessary equipment to support new or expanded services. An application will be submitted for Phase 3 of this Grant program and if successful will enable the establishment costs to be absorbed by this grant.   

 

Summary

There is currently an unmet need in the community that Council has the opportunity to address to support local families with primary school-aged children. Initial investigations have established the demand, the optimal operational model, associated costs, benefits to the community and considered the operational risk to Council.

 

The calculated operational costs ($300,025) will be offset by the income generated from fees charged. Further, the provision of this service in a Council owned and operated facility ensures low operational risk for Council.

 

This report therefore recommends that Council supports the development of a 30 place OSHC service for children aged 5-12 years to provide families in the area with a quality school aged service. The resulting benefits include enabling Children’s Services to expand on the current service delivery model, to cater to an identified need in the community, whilst also facilitating economic development, generating employment opportunities and providing Council with substantial annual revenue.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

The calculated operational costs will be offset by the income generated from fees charged.

Environment

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations


Social

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

Deliver high quality services for children and their families.


Civic Leadership

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

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Nil  


137

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

City Corporate Report

 

CORP 01

Legal Services Policy

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Strive for best practice in all Council processes

File Ref

254862.2018

Report By

Elizabeth  Espinosa  - General Counsel

Approved By

Chris White - Director City Corporate

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s Legal Services Policy was last reviewed and adopted on 29 July 2015. 

 

The Policy has been reviewed and updated to incorporate legislative changes since July 2015 and other improvements.

 

Approval of the reviewed updated policy is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve and adopt the Legal Services Policy, included as Attachment 1.

 

 

REPORT

 

Council’s Legal Services Policy is due for review and updating to incorporate legislative changes since July 2015 and to include other improvements to the provision of legal services to Liverpool City Council by the in-house Legal Services Unit.

 

The General Counsel has reviewed the policy.  A copy of the proposed reviewed and updated policy is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

The primary changes are summarised as follows:

 

1.   Clarification of when and how to request legal advice;

2.   Sets out the role of Legal Services Unit;

3.   Address client legal privilege; and

4.   Includes a reference to council’s obligation to act as a model litigant in civil claims and civil litigation.

 

 

The current Legal Services Policy adopted on 29 July 2015 is included as Attachment 2.

 

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

Deliver services that are customer focused.

Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.

Legislative

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 No 16

Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) No 16a

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Legal Services Policy

2.         Legal Services Policy Adopted by Council 29 July 2015  


139

CORP 01

Legal Services Policy

Attachment 1

Legal Services Policy

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


157

CORP 01

Legal Services Policy

Attachment 2

Legal Services Policy Adopted by Council 29 July 2015

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


159

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

Committee Reports

 

CTTE 01

Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee Meeting

 

Strategic Direction

Generating Opportunity

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

File Ref

323320.2018

Report By

Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport

Approved By

Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report presents the minutes of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 November 2018. The Committee considered ten agenda items, three (3) technical discussion and nine (9) general business items.

 

The Committee recommendations on the agenda items are as follows:

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.  That Council approve the following recommendations of the Committee:

 

i)    Item 1 – RMS Clearways Strategy on the Hume Highway and proposed timed parking restriction on Goulburn Street

·         Council approves the proposed three ½-hour parking spaces on Goulburn Street as shown in Attachment 1.2, subject to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) proceeding with implementation of the proposed Hume Highway clearways.

·      Council advises the RMS of its endorsement.

·      Council requests RMS to carry out community consultation for the clearways         and the proposed ½-hour parking restriction on Goulburn Street.

ii)    Item 2 – Terminus Street, Liverpool – Proposed full-time ‘No Right Turn’ restriction into Charles Street      

·      Council approves the proposed full-time ‘No Right Turn’ restriction from         Terminus Street, into Charles Street as shown in Attachment 2.1, subject to    Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) endorsement.

·      Council seeks RMS approval of an associated Traffic Management Plan.

·      Prior to installation, Council is to notify Charles Street residents, via its website, social media avenues and advertisements in the Liverpool Local      Newspapers.

 

iii)  Item 3 – Cartwright Avenue, Miller Proposed raised pedestrian crossing in front of St. Therese Catholic School

·      Council approves upgrade of the existing combined crossing to a raised        pedestrian crossing across Cartwright Avenue in front of St. Therese Primary          School, as shown in Attachments 3.1-3.2.

·      Council advises all stakeholders.

 

iv)  Item 4 – Flowerdale Road, Liverpool – Proposed median island          

·      Council approves the installation of a 0.9m wide concrete median island and           associated linemarking on Flowerdale Road, as shown in Attachment 4.1.

·      Council notifies the applicant of its decision.

 

v)   Item 5 – Twentieth Avenue, Hoxton Park – Proposed additional on-street parking 
restrictions on the approach to First Avenue

      Council approves the proposed extension of the existing ‘No Stopping, 8am- 9.30am & 2.30pm-4pm School Days’ restriction along the southern side of         Twentieth Avenue, as shown in Attachment 5.1.

vi)  Item 6 – Ernest Avenue, Chipping Norton – Proposed linemarking and signposting                scheme

·      Council approves the installation of a ‘No Stopping’ restriction along the         western side of Ernest Avenue between Barry Road and the existing bus stop.

vii) Item 7 – Beech Road and Barcelona Drive, Prestons – Proposed upgrade to existing roundabout

·      Council approves the proposed modification to the central island radius at the         intersection of Beech Road and Barcelona Drive, and raised thresholds across     the Beech Road approaches, as shown in Attachment 7.1.        

viii) Item 8 – North Liverpool Road, South Liverpool Road and Meadows Road        intersection – Proposed upgrade to existing roundabout.

·        Council approves the proposed kerb blisters and reconstruction of the central island at the intersection of North Liverpool Road, South Liverpool Road       and Meadows Road, as shown in Attachment 8.1.

 

ix)  Item 9 – Items approved under Delegated Authority

        Council notes the tabled Delegated Authority applications approved by NSW          Police and RMS representatives.

 

x)  Item 10 – Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee – Meeting dates for 2019

·        Council approves the following Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport & Traffic      Committee meeting dates for 2019:

o  23 January 2019

o  13 March 2019

o  15 May 2019

o  17 July 2019

o  18 September 2019

o  6 November 2019

·        Council includes the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport & Traffic Committee meeting dates in its Corporate Diary.

 

REPORT

 

This report presents the minutes of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 November 2018. The Committee considered ten agenda items, the following three (3) technical discussion and nine (9) General Business Items.

 

Technical Discussion Items

TD1      Temporary road closure of southern leg of Camden Valley Way/Bernera Road
             signalised intersection, Edmondson Park
TD2      Lucas Avenue, Moorebank – Proposed pedestrian crossing facility
TD3      Craik Avenue and Seventeenth Avenue, Austral – Proposed traffic
             management scheme for a new school

General Business Items

 

GB1       Mannow Avenue and Second Avenue, West Hoxton – Proposed driveway to Western Sydney Parklands

GB2       55 Yarrunga Road, Prestons

GB3       Hoxton Park Road/Banks Road intersection

GB4       Park Road – Heavy Vehicle parking in vacant lot

GB5       Heathcote Road - Vacant land

GB6       Scott/Bigge Streets – Median island installation

GB7       Bligh Avenue, Lurnea – Parking restrictions

GB8       Wattle Gove – Bus services

GB9       Banks Road, Miller – B Double route

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget impact of matters arising from the minutes

 

Item

Description

Funding

Indicative Cost

Indicative delivery time

1

RMS Clearways Strategy on Hume Highway

 

Proposed timed parking restriction on Goulburn Street

RMS

 

 

RMS Grant

N/A

 

 

$1,000

N/A

 

 

Subject to RMS

2

Terminus Street, Liverpool – Proposed full-time ‘No Right Turn’ restriction into
Charles Street

RMS grant funding

$300

2019

3

Cartwright Avenue, Miller Proposed raised pedestrian crossing front of St. Therese
Catholic School

Developer

N/A

2019

4

Flowerdale Road, Liverpool – Proposed median island

Developer

N/A

2019

5

Twentieth Avenue, Hoxton Park – Proposed additional on-street parking restrictions on the approach to First Avenue

RMS grant funding

$1,000

2019

6

Ernest Avenue, Chipping Norton – Proposed linemarking and signposting scheme

RMS grant funding

$500

2019

7

Beech Road and Barcelona Drive, Prestons – Proposed upgrade to existing roundabout

Federal Government Blackspot Grant

$105,000

2019

8

North Liverpool Road, South Liverpool Road and Meadows Road intersection –  Proposed upgrade to existing roundabout

Federal Government Blackspot Grant

$140,000

2019

9

Items approved under Delegated Authority

RMS grant funding

$5,000

2018

10

Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee – Meeting dates for 2019

N/A

N/A

N/A


 

 

    

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

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.

Environment

Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service.

Support the delivery of a range of transport options.


Social

Support access and services for people with a disability.

Improve road and pedestrian safety.


Civic Leadership

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

Legislative

NSW Roads Act 1993

NSW Road Rules

NSW Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999

Roads and Maritime Service’s Traffic Management and Road Design Guidelines

Australian Standards

Austroads Technical Guidelines

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Minutes of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee Meeting - 7 November 2018 (Under separate cover)  


163

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

Committee Reports

 

CTTE 02

Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Strive for best practice in all Council processes

File Ref

313259.2018

Report By

George Hampouris - Head of Audit Risk and Improvement 

Approved By

Kiersten Fishburn - Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Receives and notes the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018;

 

2.    Endorses the recommendations in the Minutes; and 

 

3.    Notes the Annual ARIC report for the period 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018.

 

REPORT

 

The Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) held on 19 October 2018 are attached for the information of Council. The Minutes identify a number of actions that require Council staff to undertake, none of which will have any financial impact on Council.

 

In addition, the outcomes of the ARIC annual report (Attachment 2) were presented by the Liverpool Council ARIC Chair at Council’s strategic panel meeting held on the 13th November. The ARIC annual report has also been uploaded onto Council’s website.    

 

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

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

Local Government Act 1993, sections 8B and 23A

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 19 Oct 2018

2.         2018 Annual ARIC report


165

CTTE 02

Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018

Attachment 1

Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 19 Oct 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


185

CTTE 02

Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018

Attachment 2

2018 Annual ARIC report

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


191

Ordinary Meeting 12 December 2018

Committee Reports

 

CTTE 03

Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee Meeting held 7 November 2018

 

Strategic Direction

Leading through Collaboration

Encourage community participation in decision-making

File Ref

321881.2018

Report By

Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning

Approved By

Tina Sangiuliano - Acting Director City Community and Culture

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 7 November 2018.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 7 November 2018.

 

 

REPORT

 

The Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council held on 7 November 2018 are attached for the information of Council.

 

The Minutes identify a number of actions that require Council staff to undertake, none of which will have any financial impact on Council.

 

         

CONSIDERATIONS

 

Economic

There are no economic and financial considerations.

Environment

There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.


Social

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


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.

Legislative

There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.         Minutes Liverpool Youth Council 7 November 2018  


197

CTTE 03

Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee Meeting held 7 November 2018

Attachment