Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 12 December 2018

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.

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)

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:

o NSW Office of Environment and Heritage;

o NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division;

o NSW Rural Fire Service;

o NSW Department of Industry; and

o 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.
O1	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.
S1	Potential for the sites to be educational demonstration areas and viable seedbank for future regeneration work throughout the LGA	Support noted.
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)

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;

· 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)

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:

o 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.

o 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:

o 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 29^th 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)

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

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

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)

139
CORP 01	Legal Services Policy
Attachment 1	Legal Services Policy

157
CORP 01	Legal Services Policy
Attachment 2	Legal Services Policy Adopted by Council 29 July 2015

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

185
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2018
Attachment 2	2018 Annual ARIC report

197
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee Meeting held 7 November 2018
Attachment

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.

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