Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 20 November 2019

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 28 October 2019

PRESENT:

Mayor Wendy Waller

Councillor Ayyad

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

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

Dr Eddie Jackson, Director City Community and Culture

Mr Peter Patterson, Director City Presentation

Mr Raj Autar, Director City Infrastructure and Environment

Mr Andrew Stevenson, Chief Strategy and Engagement Officer

Mr Adrian Nesbitt, Manager Communications

Ms Tina Sangiuliano, Special Projects Officer

Mr Michael Knight, Acting General Counsel Manager Governance Legal

Mr David Smith, Manager Planning & Transport Strategy

Mr Vishwa Nadan, Chief Financial Officer

Mr David Maguire, Internal Ombudsman

Mr George Georgakis, Manager Council and Executive Services

Ms Susan Ranieri, Coordinator Council and Executive Services (minutes)

The meeting commenced at 6.00pm.

STATEMENT REGARDING WEBCASTING OF MEETING

The Mayor reminded everyone that in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (other than the Public Forum Section), the meeting is being livestreamed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY, PRAYER OF COUNCIL AND AFFIRMATION TO BE READ BY

The prayer of the Council was read by Pastor Samantha Bulmer from Lifegate Church.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

The National Anthem performed by Rebekah Ferro was played at the meeting.

APOLOGIES

Motion: Moved Clr Hadchiti Seconded Clr Ayyad

That leave of absence be granted for Clr Hadid for his absence from the meeting.

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

CONDOLENCES

Nil.

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadchiti Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 25 September 2019 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting subject to the following changes:

Clr Hagarty, Clr Kaliyanda and Clr Karnib were not in the Chambers when COM 01 – Grants, Donations and Corporate Sponsorship was discussed and voted on.

Clr Harle declared a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in “EGROW 02 – Phase 1 of LEP Review to establish the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2020” rather than “EGROW 04 – Middleton Grange Town Centre”.

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

Declarations of Interest

Nil.

Public Forum

Presentation – items not on agenda

Nil.

Representation – items on agenda

Ms Lawrissa Chan – Director, Financial Audit Services and Mr Furqan Yousuf – Audit Leader from the Audit Office of NSW addressed Council on the following item:

CORP 04: Annual Financial Reports 2018/19.

BRING ITEM FORWARD

The Mayor ruled that CORP 04 – Annual Financial Reports 2018/19 be brought forward and dealt with now.

ITEM NO: CORP 04

FILE NO: 265470.2019

SUBJECT: Annual Financial Reports 2018/19

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and endorses the 2018/19 audited financial reports;

2. Authorises the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and the Responsible Accounting Officer (CFO) to sign the prescribed statement that will form part of the financial reports;

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to:

a. forward a copy of the financial reports together with the auditor’s report to the Office of Local Government in accordance with Section 417(5) of the Local Government Act 1993;

b. issue a public notice containing a summary of financial results and put the financial statements on exhibition for 7 days to seek public submissions;

4. Note that the financial statements and a summary of public submissions received will be presented to Council at its next meeting for consideration and adoption.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Rhodes

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

Clr Hadchiti asked that his name be recorded as having voted against the motion.

Mayoral Minute

MAYORAL MINUTE

ITEM NO: MAYOR 01

FILE NO: 274297.2019

SUBJECT: Liverpool Innovation Precinct Land Use and Precinct Strategy Launch

The Liverpool Innovation Precinct Land Use and Precinct Strategy sets out a vision for Liverpool’s Innovation Precinct – a significant part of our city centre – and is the result of great ambition and collaboration.

The strategy was enthusiastically launched today at the Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research with the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces The Honourable Rob Stokes MP delivering a keynote speech at the event.

The Minister strongly supported Liverpool’s case as a true innovation precinct, highlighting the combination of State Government investment, collaboration from key partners and leadership from Council.

He told an audience of senior health and planning professionals that Liverpool had put together a compelling case to be the city centre of the Western Parklands City.

Over the past two years, members of the Liverpool Innovation Committee have worked tirelessly to put together a vision for the precinct. In that space of time, milestones have also been achieved – one of them being the $740 million commitment from the NSW Government to transform Liverpool Hospital into a world-leading health and academic precinct.

The Precinct partners are committed to leveraging this large public commitment to create an environment that will attract even more private sector investment to the precinct.

The nine founding partners of the Liverpool Innovation Precinct have embraced the opportunity to collaborate and build Liverpool into a dynamic city that will attract and retain the best and brightest talent both locally and abroad.

It was an honour to speak at the event on behalf of Liverpool City Council and the community.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive and note this minute.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Waller

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

ITEM NO: MAYOR 02

FILE NO: 274313.2019

SUBJECT: Liverpool Youth Council 20 Year Anniversary

In May 1999, Council endorsed a Youth Strategy that included the aim of establishing the Liverpool Youth Council. The purpose of the Liverpool Youth Council is to provide a link between young people and Council, act as a consultative mechanism, plan and organise cultural, environmental, recreational and social activities citywide for young people and to promote the interests of young people in Liverpool.

Over the past 20 years the Liverpool Youth Council played an invaluable role in the development of local youth interested in improving their local community and allowing their voice to be heard in decisions made by Council.

The Youth Council has strived to achieve its purpose through the hosting of annual Youth Week activities, initiating the CBD Exposed music festival and members volunteering and participating at various Council events and consultative forums. Youth Council members attend monthly Committee Meetings and have been active in community consultation with many local students to make improvements where possible to support the community and Council’s activities.

As 2019 is the anniversary of the first Liverpool Youth Council, the current members of the committee are planning a 20^th anniversary function to invite all previous members to celebrate this great achievement.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

· Acknowledges the success of the Liverpool Youth Council and the commitment of its members between 1999 – 2019; and

· Contribute an amount of $2,500 to support the Liverpool Youth Council’s 20th anniversary event on Thursday, 21 November 2019.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Waller

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

MOTION OF URGENCY

ITEM NO: MOU 01

SUBJECT: Hoxton Park Road, Banks Road to Cowpasture Road Upgrade – Additional Submission

In accordance with Clause 8.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, the chairperson, Mayor Waller ruled the following matter (from Clrs Shelton and Hadchiti) as urgent, and as such it was dealt with at this meeting.

Council has made a submission on the Community Update released by the Roads and Maritime Services (on behalf of the State Government) for the proposed Hoxton Park Road Upgrade, between Banks Road and Cowpasture Road.

Council supports the proposed upgrade as part of the City Deal commitment to provide a rapid transit connection between Liverpool CBD and the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport in time for the airport’s opening.

Council also recognises that the design investigation carried out to date, is part of the NSW Government approach to deliver the City Deal commitment to connect Liverpool to the Airport by high quality transport.

However, the design layout shown in the Community updated for road upgrade with kerb side bus lanes, which is inconsistent with the centre-running of transit lanes in the section of Hoxton Park Road west of Banks Road.

International best-practice for rapid transit corridors recommends centre-running as the preferred configuration. Centre-running is generally found to have improved service frequency and reliability compared to side-running. Centre-running, by being physically separated from general traffic lanes, also can have improved legibility and capacity to be upgraded to other mass transit systems.

Council is concerned about the potential for major intersection layout requirement, and reduced traffic efficiency, if the rapid transit service needs to transition multiple times from centre-running to side-running.

Such arrangement will also affect the design investigation for the section of transit corridor west of Cowpasture Road, along Fifteenth Avenue, which Council is currently investigating. The Fifteenth Avenue strategic design investigation is expected to be completed by mid-2020.

Transport for NSW is also undertaking design investigation and corridor preservation of the section of Fifteenth Avenue, west of Devonshire Avenue.

As such, Council calls on the RMS to revisit the option for centre-running and that the State Government not to make a final decision on centre-running verses side-running, until after further design investigation is completed by Council and Transport for NSW on Fifteenth Avenue.

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That Council:

1. Makes supplementary submission on the Community Update on the proposed Hoxton Park Road;

2. Calls on the RMS to revisit the option for centre-running and that the State Government not make a final decision on centre-running verses side-running, until after further design investigation is completed by Council and Transport for NSW on Fifteenth Avenue;

3. Further, that this resolution be forwarded to the RMS forthwith;

4. Undertake a communications campaign and to delegate to the CEO that our concerns and dissatisfaction are immediately conveyed to the RMS and the Minister for Transport and all political representatives in the area. The example of the Dorrigo Avenue entrance and exit be included as an example of Council’s dissatisfaction and that we oppose any suggestion that it be closed; and

5. Advocate to Transport for NSW that Hoxton Park Road to be treated in its entirety rather than separate sections.

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

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Note: Clr Hadid was not at the meeting.

MOTION OF URGENCY

ITEM NO: MOU 02

SUBJECT: M12 on-ramp and off-ramp at Elizabeth Drive

In accordance with Clause 8.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, the chairperson, Mayor Waller ruled the following motion (from Clr Rhodes) as urgent, and as such it was dealt with at this meeting.

Motion: Moved: Clr Rhodes Seconded Clr Hagarty

That Council convey our dissatisfaction regarding the M12 at Elizabeth Drive and the lack of an on-ramp and exit off-ramp onto Elizabeth Drive. The issue to be addressed in the same manner as the previous urgency motion (on the previous page) including:

i) A submission to the RMS in relation to the M12 consultation;

ii) Undertake a communications campaign to express Council’s concerns; and

iii) To delegate to the CEO that our concerns and dissatisfaction are immediately conveyed to the RMS, Minister for Transport and all political representatives in the area.

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

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Note: Clr Hadid was not at the meeting.

RECESS OF COUNCIL

Mayor Waller called a recess of Council at 6.41pm to deal with technical issues.

Mayor Waller reopened the meeting at 6.56pm.

Chief Executive Officer Report

ITEM NO: CEO 01

FILE NO: 247440.2019

SUBJECT: Resubmission: Biannual Report January - June 2019

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the updated Biannual Report.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Rhodes

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

ITEM NO: CEO 02

FILE NO: 254705.2019

SUBJECT: Western Parklands Councils' Governance Arrangements

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note the information contained in the report on long-term governance arrangements for the Western Parkland Councils;

2. Formally enter into an alliance with the Western Parkland Councils in accordance with the draft Deed of Agreement and Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993;

3. Contribute $40,000 annually towards resourcing the Western Parkland Councils as outlined in the report; and

4. Nominate one Councillor to be appointed as an alternate representative on the Western Parkland Councils’ Mayoral Forum should the Mayor be unavailable.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Karnib

That Council:

1. Receive and note the information contained in the report on long-term governance arrangements for the Western Parkland Councils;

2. Formally enter into an alliance with the Western Parkland Councils in accordance with the draft Deed of Agreement and Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993;

3. Contribute $40,000 annually towards resourcing the Western Parkland Councils as outlined in the report; and

4. Nominate Clr Hagarty to be appointed as an alternate representative on the Western Parkland Councils’ Mayoral Forum should the Mayor be unavailable.

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

Clr Rhodes and Clr Balloot asked that their names be recorded as having voted against the motion.

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 01

Overview of Specific Planning Agreements

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	273724.2019
Report By	Shaun Beckley - Manager, Infrastructure Planning
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

This report is in response to a resolution of Council on 26 June 2019 seeking clarification if there “are current issues or issues looming with any PA’s the Council has entered into”. This resolution followed from a question with notice at the Council meeting of 29 May 2019.

Council currently has 11 executed PAs with outstanding work items. Council has previously been updated on three specific PAs which present a level of risk based on public interest, complexity of works and the value:

· Shepherd Street PA – Coronation and others

· Brickmakers Drive PA – Mirvac and New Brighton Golf Club

· Coopers Paddock PA – Australian Turf Club

These same PAs were subject of a briefing at Council’s Strategic Panel on 30 September 2019.

Planning Agreements (PA) are important legal instruments that provide additional public benefit in relation to various planning applications.

Council is actively working with each proponent to deliver the work items as agreed in the relevant PA. The outstanding components of these PAs generally relate to the provision of footpaths directly adjacent to the Georges River. The respective locations along the Georges River presents additional challenges and approval requirements not present in many other PAs.

Council staff are using a variety of measures, including provisions of the PA and a more customer focused approach, to move these and other PAs forward and ensure that the community receive the infrastructure and benefits that developers have committed to.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note this report; and

2. Note that future updates will be provided at the Strategic Panel every 6 months, commencing May 2020.

REPORT

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of specific, potentially contentious planning agreements (PA), in response to a question with notice from the Council meeting 29 May 2019 and subsequent Council resolution on 26 June 2019.

A PA is an agreement entered into by a Council and other party(ies) linked to either an LEP amendment or development application. The management of PAs is governed by legislation and Council’s PA Policy.

Under a PA a developer agrees to provide or fund:

· public amenities and public services

· affordable housing

· transport or other infrastructure.

Contributions can be made through:

· dedication of land

· monetary contributions

· construction of infrastructure

· provision of materials for public benefit and/or use.

Council has an online PA register, which identifies PAs that have outstanding work items. The table below lists these PAs and identifies whether they relate to monetary contribution or work.

Number	Location	Cash	Work
PA-2	Sirius Road, Voyager Point		√
PA-4	Hoxton Park Airport		√
PA-5	Lot 29 Cowpasture Road, Len Waters Estate	√	√
PA-8	Inglis, Coopers Paddock, Warwick Farm		√
PA-9	New Brighton Golf Course, Moorebank		√
PA-10	90 Flynn Avenue, Middleton Grange	√
PA-11	146 Newbridge Road, Moorebank		√
PA-12	124 Newbridge Road, Moorebank		√
PA-15	75 Flynn Avenue, Middleton Grange	√
PA-19	Shepherd Street, Liverpool	√	√
PA-34	85 Flynn Avenue, Middleton Grange	√

A question with notice was raised on 26 June 2019 Council meeting seeking clarification if there “are current issues or issues looming with any PA’s the Council has entered into”. The subsequent response provided comment on the following PAs:

· Shepherd Street PA – Coronation and others

· Brickmakers Drive PA – Mirvac and New Brighton Golf Club

· Coopers Paddock PA – Australian Turf Club

These same PAs were subject of a briefing at Council’s Strategic Panel on 30 September 2019. These PAs remain the most critical for Council in terms of profile, value and/or scale of works. An update on these PAs is provided below.

1. Shepherd Street PA

The PA was executed between Council, Coronation, Shepherd Street Developments and Shepherd Property Nominee in November 2017. This PA was in support of an amendment to the LEP that provided greater density in the precinct. Coronation have since commenced redevelopment in the area, with a number of sites yet to be developed.

An overview of the items included in the PA, and their current status, is provided in the table below.

Item	Status
Bike share pods	Complete
Car share spaces	Complete
3 x Monetary contributions	Complete
Riparian zone rehabilitation	Complete
Woodbrook Road underpass	Entered dispute resolution process (as provided for by the PA) as Council has a specific vision for this access point, including vehicular access. The completion of this item as originally envisioned would likely impact Council’s ability to deliver this vision. In addition, the PA did not provide the ability of Council to have the developer complete these works to our desired standard. Council have negotiated a monetary contribution in lieu of the remaining works, based on quantity surveyors report. Upon payment of this contribution, this item will be complete.
Pedestrian and cycle path	The portion of path from Atkinson Street to Lighthorse Park has been completed. Entered dispute resolution process on the remaining portion of the path within Lighthorse Park. This approach is being taken as the completion of the shared path as originally proposed would likely impact Council’s ability to deliver the Lighthorse Park Masterplan. Negotiating a monetary contribution in lieu of the remaining works, based on quantity surveyors report. Upon payment of contribution in lieu of works for pathway through Lighthorse Park, item will be complete.
Bank stabilisation and path	Incomplete Council have been working closely with Coronation and their engineers on the design of the bank stabilisation and the shared pathway. Design now agreed, subject to review by Council of final plans and Review of Environmental Factors (REF) documentation. Council will then be in a position to approve the REF. NSW Fisheries approval issued for the works. A condition of this approval is that Fisheries must approve the construction environmental management plan prior to the commencement of works. Currently in discussions with Coronation regarding the permit requirements and location of a works compound.
Shuttle bus service	Incomplete Coronation advised that agreement is in place with bus company though service not currently operating.

2. Brickmakers Drive PA

The PA was executed between Council, Mirvac Homes and New Brighton Golf Club on 21 September 2012. This PA was in support of an amendment to the LEP that enabled residential development on portions of the original golf course. Mirvac subsequently developed the residential portion of the site and the golf course was redesigned.

An overview of the items included in the PA, and their current status, is provided in the table below.

Item	Comment
Public access under M5	Complete
Local drainage facilities	Complete
Landscaping and improvements to open space	Complete
Shared pathway (adjacent residential area)	Complete
Shared pathway from Brickmakers Drive to Georges River	Final pathway design and REF documentation submitted to Council 29 October 2019. It is anticipated that by the time of reporting, the REF process will be complete and the Golf Club/Mirvac can program the works.
Riparian planting adjacent to Georges River	Specifications for the works forms part of the REF documentation. Upon approval of the REF, these works can be undertaken.
Transfer of land	Council are currently progressing the transfer of the land. Issues related to historic contamination of the land and risk associated with proximity to the golf course are currently being investigated.

3. Coopers Paddock PA

The PA was executed between Council and Australian Turf Club on 14 May 2012. This PA was in support of an amendment to the LEP that permitted sales and stock yards as permissible in the RE2 zone. ATC and Inglis subsequently developed portion of the land for this purpose.

An overview of the items included in the PA, and their current status, is provided in the table below.

Item	Comment
Widening of GMD	Complete
New intersections on GMD	Complete
Shared pathway along majority of GMD	Complete
Transfer of land (Coopers Paddock)	Incomplete The transfer of land is dependent on the completion of the items below.
Shared pathway (inside coopers paddock)	DA previously submitted for the pathway. The DA was withdrawn due to issue with contamination. Council are currently exploring this issue further with ATC and how it may impact the construction and usage of the path. Once more information is available regarding contamination, the appropriate approval process will be determined and progressed as a matter of urgency.
Shared pathway (GMD)	A section of the shared path along GMD (over horse tunnel) remains to be completed. Advice from ATC is that the works will be commenced December 2019.
Removal of contamination from portion of Coopers Paddock	Council have been advised that these works have been completed. No documentation in support of these works has been submitted to Council. Upon satisfactory verification of these works, this item will be completed.
Environmental works (including management)	The works will be undertaken in conjunction with the construction of the shared pathway within Coopers Paddock.

Council has a team dedicated to the management of PAs and direct engagement with relevant developers. This renewed focus on behalf of Council will ensure that we continue to focus on the important task of supporting the delivery of infrastructure as agreed to by Council through the PA process.

To ensure that Council are aware of any current or potential issues associated with PAs, an update will be provided to the Strategic Panel every 6 months. This forum provides the best opportunity for Council to discuss specific PAs and raise questions about other PAs.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Promote community harmony and address discrimination. Support access and services for people with a disability.
Civic Leadership	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 – Section 7.4

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 02

Post Exhibition Report - Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 74) - Schedule 1 Amendment to permit multi-dwelling housing at 123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	249694.2019
Report By	Luke Oste - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 27 March 2019, Council resolved to support in principle a planning proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008) for an additional permitted use for ‘multi dwelling housing’ at 123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton and to forward the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway determination. Council also resolved to undertake a heritage impact assessment to assess the heritage values of the palm trees adjacent to the site.

This report updates Council on the Gateway determination which was issued for the planning proposal (Draft Amendment 74) and the results of the public exhibition and community consultation undertaken. The heritage impact assessment relating to the heritage listed palm trees adjacent to and within the site is provided at Attachment 1.

It is recommended that Council support the making of Amendment 74 and delegates to the CEO the authority to liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to finalise the LEP amendment

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the Gateway determination for draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 74), the results of public exhibition and community consultation and the heritage impact assessment; and

2. Approves Amendment 74 and delegate’s authority to the CEO to liaise with the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to finalise the amendment.

Report

At its meeting on 12 December 2018, Council resolved to:

1. Support in principle a proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 to allow multi dwelling housing as a land use permitted with consent on 123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton (Lot 3 DP 602936), subject to the necessary planning investigations required by Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act;

2. Direct the CEO to prepare a planning proposal for Council’s consideration and report back to Council for the second February 2019 meeting; and

3. Investigate the value of any heritage listed trees that may be listed in or in close proximity to the site.

As required by the above resolution, a planning proposal was prepared that proposed an amendment to Schedule 1 of the LEP to permit multi dwelling housing as a land use permitted with development consent on the subject site.

The planning proposal was considered by the Liverpool Local Planning Panel in February 2019 and Council at its meeting on 27 March 2019. At that meeting, Council resolved:

That Council:

1. Notes the advice of the Liverpool Local Planning Panel;

2. Supports in principle the planning proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 to permit multi dwelling housing as a land use permitted with consent at 123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton (Lot 3 DP 602936);

3. Delegates to the CEO to make any typographical or other editing amendments to the planning proposal if required;

4. Forwards the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment, pursuant to Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, seeking a Gateway determination;

5. Subject to Gateway determination, undertake a heritage impact assessment to assess the heritage values of the palm trees adjacent to the site and undertake public exhibition and community consultation in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway determination; and

6. Receive a further report on the outcomes of public exhibition and community consultation.

The Site

The site is identified as Lot 3 in Deposited Plan 602936 otherwise known as 123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton. The site is located at the south western corner of the intersection of Epsom Road and Governor Macquarie Drive. The site is located in an area of predominantly low to medium density residential development.

Figure 1: Aerial view of the site

Objective of the Planning Proposal

The objective of this planning proposal is to amend the LLEP 2008 to permit the development of multi dwelling housing at 123 Epsom Road, Chipping Norton subject to development consent. This objective applies to the subject site only.

Gateway Determination

Gateway determination (Attachment 2) was received on 14 May 2019 and was subject to a number of conditions, including:

· Requirement to undertake the following studies:

o Heritage Impact Assessment study;

o Traffic Impact Assessment study; and

o Acid Sulfate Soils study.

· Undertake community consultation for a minimum of 14 days.

· Undertake public authority consultation with the following:

o NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division;

o Road and Maritime Services;

o Sydney Water;

o Endeavour Energy; and

o Telstra.

· The timeframe for completing the LEP is to be 12 months from the date of the Gateway determination.

The Gateway determination authorised Council as the planning proposal authority to make

Amendment 74.

Following discussions with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE), a revised Gateway determination (Attachment 3) was issued that removed the conditions requiring the preparation of the three studies described above.

Heritage Report

As required by Council’s resolution of 27 March 2019, a heritage report was prepared by Edwards Heritage Consultants. The report concluded that the group of thirteen (13) Canary Island Palms (Phoenix canariensis) have been assessed as having historical, aesthetic and representative significance at the local level and should continue to be identified and managed as an item of local heritage significance in the LEP.

The report provides a number of recommendations for ongoing and future management of the trees. Specifically, for any future development proposals, the report recommends that development should:

· Be appropriately positioned so that it does not result in material impacts to the trees;

· Ensure the ongoing health and vigour of the trees and not involve any excavation works or landfill that would otherwise undermine the structural integrity or vitality of the trees; and

· Ensure the visual legibility of the trees, that is, no development should occur in the spaces between the plantings.

Consultation

Public Authority Consultation

In accordance with the Gateway determination, a copy of the relevant documentation was forwarded to the public authorities for comment from 2 September 2019 to 23 September 2019. Summaries of each submission and the officer response is listed in Table 1 and original copies are included in Attachment 4. No changes are required to the planning proposal as a result of public authority consultation.

Officers consulted Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) on two separate occasions. Two separate acknowledgements were received on 2 September and 1 October 2019. The letter stated on both occasions that if a response had not been received within 21 days, it would be assumed that the RMS had no comments. No formal response was provided by the RMS during this period therefore officers consider that RMS have no concerns with the proposal.

Table 1: Public authority submissions and officer response

Public Authority	Summary of Submission	Officer Comments
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division	No objection to the proposal. Noted that Council is consent authority for the locally significant heritage trees and the preservation and mitigation of any impacts to this item rests with Council.	No changes required
Road and Maritime Services	No response.	No changes required
Sydney Water	No objection to the proposal. Development proposals to 123 Epsom Road in the future will be assessed by Sydney Water separately.	No changes required
Endeavour Energy	No objection to the proposal, however a number of comments were provided in relation to the following: · Network Capacity / Connection · Vegetation Management · Dial Before You Dig · Demolition · Removal of Electricity Supply · Asbestos · Public Safety · Emergency Contact	No changes required. The comments by Endeavour Energy will be considered and addressed at the Development Application stage.
Telstra	No objection to the proposal.	No changes required

Community Consultation

In accordance with the Gateway determination, the planning proposal was placed on public exhibition from 28 August 2019 to 13 September 2019. Notices were placed on Council’s website and the Liverpool Leader, an information poster and background information was available at Council’s Customer Service Centre and letters were sent to adjoining landowners. No submissions were received during the public exhibition period.

During the preparation of the planning proposal, two public comments were submitted to Council through the Planning Alerts website (planningalerts.org.au). Council responded directly to both comments to clearly answer their questions and invited the submitters to attend the Liverpool Local Planning Panel meeting. A document containing all submissions and correspondence is included as a confidential attachment (Attachment 5).

Conclusion

The Gateway requirements, including consultation have been satisfied and the submissions received have been addressed. The heritage report has been prepared as required by Council’s resolution, and no changes to the LLEP 2008 are required in this regard. This report recommends that Council note the heritage report, approve Draft Amendment 74 and delegate’s authority to the CEO to liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to finalise Amendment 74.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

ATTACHMENTS

1. Heritage Impact Statement (Under separate cover)

2. Gateway determination (Under separate cover)

3. Alteration to Gateway determination (Under separate cover)

4. Public Authority Consultation – Submissions and Correspondence (Under separate cover)

5. Community Consultation – Submissions and Correspondence (Under separate cover) - Confidential

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 03

Endorsement of Liverpool Pioneers Memorial Park Conservation Management Plan

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Celebrate diversity, promote inclusion and recognise heritage
File Ref	266991.2019
Report By	Thomas Wheeler - Heritage Officer
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

This report has been prepared seeking endorsement of the Liverpool Pioneers Memorial Park Conservation Management Plan (CMP). On 31 July 2019, Council resolved to publically exhibit the conservation management plan, with the requirement for a report to be provided to Council if any submissions were received. This report has been prepared in response to this resolution.

The draft conservation management plan was publically exhibited from 28 August 2019 to 27 September 2019. Two submissions were received. This report provides an overview of the submissions received, the response by Council and resultant changes to the CMP.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note this report and endorse the Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park Conservation Management Plan.

REPORT

The Liverpool Pioneers Memorial Park Conservation Management Plan has been prepared to improve the conservation and maintenance of Liverpool Pioneers Memorial Park, which dates from the 1820 and plays a significant role in the past and present of Liverpool.

On 31 July 2019, Council resolved to publically exhibit the conservation management plan, with the requirement for a report to be provided to Council if any submissions were received. This report has been prepared in response to this resolution.

The draft conservation management plan was publically exhibited from 28 August 2019 to 27 September 2019. Two submissions were received and the comments were summarised and provided to the consultant for consideration in the completion of the conservation management plan.

Submissions Overview
Page	Comment	Response
Heritage Advisory Committee
	Update section 2.3 to reflect the recent changes to the Heritage Division name and department. Revise OEH identifications to reflect current agency.	This section has been updated.
64	The assessment of archaeological potential should relate back to the research themes. As it stands there appears to be no assessment of the potential of the site to address the themes.	Combined sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.2 into summary in section 6.6.4. Updated to address concerns.
68 - 78	The comparative analysis would be improved through the inclusion of a comparison to other known asylum cemeteries. Further, a more in depth comparative analysis should be undertaken.	Comparable sites were included - Randwick Asylum and the Prince of Wales hospital cemetery is the Randwick Destitute Children's Asylum Cemetery. Moved the summaries from page 68 to page 76 and added more information.
79	How will the burial data from the site provide better information to better supplement the incomplete pauper burial records?	This section has been made clearer and the information expanded to address the concerns.
	The policy section should be updated to incorporate sections of the statement of significance which are best served in the policy section. This includes section 9.1.2. The policies should also include one about the public accessibility of the document.	Policy 3 and 6 has been updated and are now 4 and 7 respectfully. A new policy has been added (policy 3) in relation to accessibility.
87	Interpretation should be development in conjunction with LCC, the City of Liverpool and District Historical Society and the community.	This section has been updated.
88	Recommendations in relation to management of unanticipated aboriginal cultural material should reflect established procedures.	This section has been updated.
99	The CMP has not identified any significant views or settings and should do this if they are present.	This section has been updated.
109	Change the date the Martha Doyle inform was review as it identifies 5 Oct 2019.	This section has been updated.
Community Feedback
-	The document should include any existing mapping, such as historical maps, currently held by Liverpool City Council.	Appendix 3 has been updated to include the new mapping.
-	Not enough attention was given to the war graves at St Luke’s Pioneer Park. The document should identify the four remaining concrete covers Harris, Laing, Byrne and Mallise are not noted. A further recommendation should have been included stating that the WW1 and WW2 War graves have an official commemoration installed on each one as a matter of respect as per the Office of Australian War Graves guidelines.	The St Luke’s burial register has been included as a part of appendix 4. The history of the cemetery has been updated to include additional information in relation to the military burials. The individual war headstones are not identified within the report, but information has been provided in Appendix 1. A policy has been included to restrict removal and to retain and repair. Policy 15 has also been updated to address the matter relating to Office of Australian War Graves.
-	The consultants failed to thoroughly research the records of St Luke’s burial register for a complete burial record. All the consultants have done is identify the headstones still existing and the names on the headstones are not identified in their report.	The burial register records are incomplete. It is not possible to conform the position of graves. The requirement for further research has been identified in the report and the burial register has been included as a part of appendix 5 to facilitate this. This approach is standard for conservation management plans.

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications for Council as a result of the endorsement of the conservation management plan. While maintenance and conservation has been identified in the report, these works are existing and ongoing. The report provides guidance to improve the approach to maintenance and to provide a more cost effective conservation outcome.

Summary

The conservation management plan has been amended to reflect the submissions received.

The purpose of a conservation management plan is not to provide a detailed history of the site, but an overview sufficient to inform the assessment of significance.

This has been completed in-line with heritage conservation principles and the report is considered to be suitable for endorsement.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Final Liverpool Pioneers Memorial Park Conservation Management Plan (Attachment Booklet 2).

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 04

Investigation of Heritage Incentives of City of Perth and Adelaide

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Celebrate diversity, promote inclusion and recognise heritage
File Ref	279285.2019
Report By	Thomas Wheeler - Heritage Officer
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

Council resolved at the 29 May 2019 meeting that Council:

1. Undertake further research and report back to Council on the viability (including the budget implications) of the following:

a. Conservation grants (to fund minor and major conservation works);

b. Conservation management grants (for technical advice and management documentation);

c. Development of local heritage policies and procedures for heritage exemptions; and

d. Development of guidelines for the use of conservation incentives including permissible development, FSR bonuses and height bonuses.

2. That Council undertake an expression of interest to determine market interest in operating Councils heritage buildings such as Collingwood House.

This report outlines each of the heritage incentive schemes including the expected budget implications for Council, with recommendations for further consideration (resolution 1 above); and provides an update on Collingwood House expression of interest (resolution 2 above).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Implement a trial conservation grants scheme of $25,000 per annum from 2020/2021 with full program review at end of 2022/2023; and

2. Engage a heritage architect and prepare a Heritage Minor Works Policy in 2020/2021.

REPORT

Heritage Incentive Schemes

The following are the potential heritage schemes that are applicable to Liverpool as outlined in the May 2019 Council report. A brief summary of each scheme, comments on the viability for Liverpool City Council and an outline of the potential budget implications are provided below.

Conservation grants (to fund minor and major conservation works)

Conservation grants were implemented by Perth and Adelaide Councils as a means of providing support to assist owners in maintaining and conserving heritage significant buildings.

Adelaide City Council budgets between $700,000 and $1.3 million per annum and Perth City Council budgets $400,000 per annum for heritage grants. Both councils provide a maximum of between $75,000 and $90,000 per grant.

For Liverpool City Council, a trial scheme of $25,000 per annum is appropriate. It is proposed that small grants of up to $5,000 per applicant be made available with a requirement for matched funding, for a 3 year trial to allow for an evaluation of the level of interest and the effectiveness of such grants to meet heritage conservation objectives. Each grant would be subject to Council approval.

Total Annual Budget Implication

· $25,000 per year, for three years, totalling $75,000

Conservation management grants (for technical advice and management documentation)

Conservation management grants are aimed at providing property owners with heritage advice to ensure proper conservation of heritage assets. The scheme would typically support the conservation grants scheme. However, as the proposed conservation grant scheme is only a trial, this technical advice and management documentation can be provided by Council’s Heritage Officer.

Over the duration of the trial conservation grant scheme, data would be collected to understand the cost to property owners on getting conservation advice and documentation, to inform budgetary decisions for a potential expansion of this service.

Total Annual Budget Cost

· Nil.

Development of local heritage policies and procedures for heritage exemptions

A cause of significant confusion and frustration among heritage property owners arises from uncertainty of what works to a heritage item require development consent. Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2008 allows for works considered to be minor or maintenance to be undertaken with a minor works approval. Instead of a development application this approval can be issued via exchange of correspondence including drawings outlining the nature of the works, saving time and costs.

It is proposed to provide greater clarity and guidance on the type of minor and maintenance works that can be supported under this clause, through the development of a minor works policy with the assistance of an external heritage architect.

The preparation of the policy is likely to incur a cost of up to $25,000 for the engagement of a heritage architect to assist.

Total Annual Budget Cost

· A one-off cost of $25,000

Development of guidelines for the use of conservation incentives including permissible development, FSR bonuses and height bonuses

Clause 5.10 of the Liverpool LEP 2008 provides significant conservation incentives by allowing development consent to be granted for land uses that would otherwise be prohibited in the zone.

The site area of a heritage listed property can also be relied on to provide a floor space benefit /incentive for development sites. This incentive is best illustrated with a recent example for the development of the Commercial Hotel and adjacent site on Bigge Street, Liverpool. The heritage significant portion of the site is occupied by a hotel building which could not on its own accommodate any significant development. However, as part of a larger development site, the site area of the hotel was included in the FSR calculations, resulting in additional floor space achievable for the larger development site.

In addition to the above and where appropriate, based on a thorough assessment of the merits of a proposal that facilitates good heritage outcomes, the provisions of Cl 4.6 of the LEP also provide for building height and FSR that exceeds the numeric controls.

The combination of these provisions represent adequate incentives applicable to the redevelopment of heritage items and no additional guidelines or controls are required to be introduced.

Collinwood House Update

The results of an expression of interest to determine market interest in taking up potential commercial opportunities at Collingwood House is the subject of a separate report included in the business papers for this Council meeting.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	If adopted, a heritage incentives scheme would incur a $25,000 cost on the annual budget for 3 years. An additional cost of $25,000 in 2020/2021 would be incurred for the preparation of the minor works guidelines.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

109

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 05

Report back following NOM 04 - Affordable Housing and Planning for Infrastructure from 25 September 2019 Council meeting

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
File Ref	270940.2019
Report By	Murray Wilson - Executive Planner
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting of 25 September 2019 resolved:

That Council

1. Write to WSROC and all neighbouring Councils calling for collaborative support for a revision of the State Environment Planning Policies because a one size fits all State Planning Legislation does not consider the local needs in LGA’s.

2. Issues of concern include:

i. Affordable housing

ii. Social housing

iii. Block size

iv. Road widths

v. Setback controls

vi. Parking provision

3. Publicly collaboratively advocate for overall strategic decision making to be returned to Local Government through the LEPP and local planning controls.

4. Advocate for the SEPP’s to only deal with broad infrastructure planning issues that does not constrain Local Government from delivering “Liveable cities” for their constituents.

5. Council prepare a comprehensive report that outlines Councillor concerns with the SEPP’s for the October meeting for Council approval to be sent to the NSW Minister for Planning, WSROC, and neighbouring Councils.

6. Publicly advocate for the decision making concerning all development regulation to be returned to Local Government in order to meet the specific and individual needs of each LGA that are currently not being met by the one size fits all State Environment Planning Policies.

7. Investigate the opportunity of proposing a motion at the NSW Local Government Annual Meeting to be held in Liverpool this year, proposing for the return of planning decisions to Local Government under Local Government Environment Planning Controls that might sit inside a revised broader State Environment Planning Policies concerning infrastructure planning only, and enables the local individual needs of each LGA to be met at the Local Government.

This report addresses point 5 of the above resolution. Resolution points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 will be actioned following Councillors consideration of this report. Resolution point 7 was actioned at the LGNSW conference.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council authorise the CEO to prepare correspondence highlighting the key issues outlined in this report, for distribution to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, WSROC and neighbouring councils.

REPORT

Background

At the Council meeting of 25 September 2019, Council resolved to receive a report outlining Council’s concerns with State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and in particular, that a ‘one size does not fit all’ approach to planning does not consider the local needs of a local government area

Council resolved that the main concerns were:

· Affordable Housing;

· Social Housing;

· Block size;

· Road widths;

· Setback controls; and

· Parking provision.

This report advises Council on what SEPPs are and what they do, why they were introduced and how they differ from the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008.

What is a SEPP?

A SEPP is an environmental planning instrument (EPI) prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. SEPPs are therefore legal planning instruments and are usually developed to deal with matters of State or Regional environmental planning significance.

A SEPP sits above an LEP in the hierarchy of EPIs and also sits above development control plans (DCP). A SEPP takes precedence over local planning controls and can prohibit or permit certain types of development.

What SEPPs override Council’s LEP?

All SEPPs override Council’s LEP and DCP, unless there are specific provision in a SEPP to the contrary. In relation to the above Council resolution, the following SEPPs contain provisions that override Council’s LEP and DCP with development standards for dwellings and subdivision (i.e. block size, road width, setback controls and parking provision), child care facilities, schools and waste or resource management facilities.

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP);

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres SEPP);

· State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 (known as the State Significant Precincts SEPP);

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Exempt and Complying SEPP);

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP); and

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (Education SEPP).

Specific details on the ARHSEPP, Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP and the Growth Centres SEPP are discussed below. These SEPPs are considered due to the fact that their requirements differ from Councils LEP provisions and DCP controls.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The ARHSEPP was introduced in July 2009 by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE). The intent of the SEPP is to increase supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW.

The ARHSEPP covers a number of different housing types including in-fill affordable housing, secondary dwellings (granny flats), boarding houses, group homes, social housing and supportive accommodation.

Secondary dwellings (granny flats)

The ARHSEPP makes development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling permissible on all residential zoned land throughout NSW. A secondary dwelling must be located within, or attached to, the principal dwelling, unless the site area is at least 450m², in which case a detached secondary dwelling is permitted.

ARHSEPP does not offer any floor space ratio (FSR) bonuses to the development of secondary dwellings. It acts only to make the development of secondary dwellings permissible in all residential zones in NSW. Its impact in Liverpool is limited to allowing secondary dwellings as development permissible with consent in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone. Under the LEP, secondary dwellings are not permissible in the R5 zone, but dual occupancies are.

Council’s LEP and DCP provide more generous development controls for secondary dwellings than the ARHSEPP, as illustrated in Table 1 below:

	ARH SEPP	LLEP/LDCP 2008
Size of dwelling permitted	60 m²	60 m² or 25% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is greater
Minimum lot size for detached secondary dwelling	450 m²	400 m² (merit assessed)
Additional parking requirements	nil	nil

Table 1 – SEPP and LEP Requirements

Setbacks and other controls for secondary dwellings are not specified in the ARHSEPP. These controls are outlined in the Exempt and Complying Development SEPP or Council’s LEP and DCP.

Number of Secondary Dwelling Approvals

Secondary dwelling approvals in the Liverpool LGA have increased significantly since 2009, as shown in Figure 1 below. This is likely due to the introduction of the ARHSEPP allowing secondary dwellings to be approved as complying development.

Figure 1 – Secondary dwelling approvals in Liverpool LGA

Between 2014-2019, approximately 66% of secondary dwellings were approved as complying development under the Exempt and Complying Development SEPP with the remainder approved via a development application, assessed in accordance with Council’s LEP and DCP.

The ARHSEPP does not impede Council’s ability to levy development contributions for secondary dwellings. The Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 — Established Areas, adopted by Council in December 2018, levies development contributions for secondary dwellings in the established areas (outside of Liverpool city centre). The Liverpool Contributions Plan 2014 – Austral and Leppington North also levies contributions for secondary dwellings.

These development contributions assist Council in funding necessary infrastructure to support growth, including drainage, roads, transport facilities and parks.

Boarding Houses

All LEPs in NSW are required by the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 to include boarding houses as a permissible use in the following zones:

· Zone R1 General Residential;

· Zone R2 Low Density Residential;

· Zone R3 Medium Density Residential;

· Zone R4 High Density Residential;

· Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

· Zone B2 Local Centre; and

· Zone B4 Mixed Use.

Boarding houses are therefore a permissible use in all seven nominated zones in the Liverpool LEP 2008.

The ARHSEPP provides a floor space ratio bonus for the development of boarding houses in zones where residential flat buildings are permitted (excluding land containing a heritage item). The FSR bonus for boarding houses is an additional 0.5:1 if the existing maximum FSR is 2.5:1 or less, or an additional 20% of the existing maximum FSR, if the maximum FSR is greater than 2.5:1.

The ARHSEPP provides for minimum development standards (including building height, landscaped area, solar access, private open space, parking and accommodation (room) size), which if met, may not be used by Council as a basis to refuse development consent. However, the standards are only applied to proposed developments on land within an accessible area (i.e. 800m walking distance from the entrance to a railway station or 400m walking distance of a bus stop that has at least one bus service per hour between 6am and 9pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 6pm Saturday and Sunday).

A recent amendment to the ARHSEPP restricts the size of boarding houses on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential to no more than 12 boarding rooms.

Part 3.9 of LDCP 2008 prescribes additional development standards for boarding houses, including a requirement that a character statement is lodged with the development application. This requirement was introduced recently by Council as a way of ensuring that proposed boarding houses are compatible with the prevailing streetscape and that external and internal design requirements, communal open space and solar access are properly considered.

Council has issued a total of just five (5) approvals for boarding houses in the last five years, all under the ARHSEPP.

In-fill affordable housing

The ARHSEPP provides floor space ratio bonuses for infill development for the purpose of social and affordable housing, but only where the proposed development is located in an accessible area (as defined above).

The FSR bonus applied to developments including a portion of affordable housing is 0.5:1, where at least 50% of the gross floor area of the development is used for the purposes of affordable housing (and proportionately less as the percentage of GFA used for affordable housing is reduced, to a minimum of 20%), on land where the existing maximum FSR is 2.5:1 or less. On land with a FSR greater than 2.5:1, the maximum FSR bonus is 20% of the existing FSR (and proportionately less as the percentage of GFA used for affordable housing is reduced).

Minimum development standards prescribed by the ARHSEPP for infill multi dwelling housing are less stringent than those required by Part 3.6 of LDCP 2008 in some cases, but more stringent in other cases, as illustrated in Table 2 below:

	LDCP 2008	ARHSEPP
Minimum lot size	650 m²	450 m²
Minimum frontage	18 m	Not specified
Landscaped area	20% of site area	35m² per dwelling (social housing provider) or otherwise, at least 30% of the site.
Deep soil zones	20m² in rear setback	15% of the site area
Private open space	30-50m² per dwelling	Not specified
Solar access	3 hours sunlight between 9am-5pm on 21 June for 50% of the POS only.	3 hours sunlight between 9am-3pm on 21 June for 70% of living rooms and/private open spaces
Parking	1 space per small dwelling (< 65sqm) or 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per medium dwelling (65 - 110sqm) or 2 bedrooms 2 spaces per large dwelling (> 110sqm) or 3 or more bedrooms 1 visitor car space for every 4 dwellings or part thereof	Social housing provider on accessible land 0.4 spaces for 1 bedroom; 0.5 spaces for 2 bedroom; and 1 space for 3 or more bedrooms. All other development 0.5 spaces for 1 bedroom; 1 space for 2 bedroom; and 1.5 spaces for 3 or more bedrooms
Minimum dwelling size	No minimum specified	35m² studio; 50m² 1 bedroom; 70m² two-bedroom; or 95m² 3 more bedrooms

Table 2: Comparison of controls for multi dwelling housing under ARHSEPP and LLEP and DCP 2008

Setback requirements (front, rear and side) are not specified in the ARHSEPP and are controlled in all cases by Council’s DCP.

Residential flat buildings developed by social housing providers

Division 5 of the ARHSEPP permits social housing providers, and the Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) to develop residential flat buildings on land where it would not otherwise be permissible, as long as the land is in an accessible location (as defined above).

The developer must seek a site compatibility certificate from the Secretary of the DPIE in order for the development to proceed. The Secretary must take account of the existing and approved uses of the land in the vicinity of the development, the impact of the development (including its bulk and scale) and the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the development.

Over the last 5 years, Council has received one notification of an approved site compatibility certificate.

Land and Housing Corporation: Development Consent not required

Division 6 of the ARHSEPP permits the Land and Housing Corporation to undertake limited development without consent under Part 5 of the Act. In order for the development to be carried out without consent, it must be permissible on the land as well as having a building height of 8.5m or less and not more than 20 dwellings on a single site. LAHC prepares a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) which assesses the likely impacts of the proposal. In most cases, LAHC consults with Council prior to approving their development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

The Growth Centres SEPP was introduced in 2006 by DPIE to manage the planning, release and development of land within the North West and South West Growth Centres.

Land that is planned and zoned under the Growth Centres SEPP does not need to consider the LEPs in the specific Council area, rather the planning controls are within the SEPP and the relevant Development Control Plan. Within the Growth Centres, DPIE prepared and approved the final Growth Centres DCP.

Once land is zoned under the Growth Centres SEPP, the Liverpool LEP is ‘turned off’ and no longer applies. The Liverpool DCP also no longer applies unless specifically referred to within the Growth Centres DCP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005

The State Significant Precincts SEPP was introduced in 2005 by the DPIE to manage the planning, release and development of land that is typically owned by the State government. State Significant Precincts are areas with state or regional planning significance because of their social, economic or environmental characteristics.

Within the Liverpool LGA, the Edmondson Park South precinct was owned by the State government, who purchased the site from the Department of Defence in 2011.

Considering the development potential and significant size of the land, the Edmondson Park South development site was included in the State Significant Precincts SEPP. All planning controls, including building heights, zoning and floor space ratio are managed under this SEPP. A DCP also prepared and approved by DPIE for Edmondson Park South applies to this site.

The Liverpool LEP does not apply to the land covered by the State Significant Precincts SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

The Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP was introduced in 2008 by DPIE. The purpose of the SEPP is to streamline and standardise minor / low risk development across NSW.

What is Exempt Development?

Exempt development includes many types of minor home renovations and small building projects such as carports, balconies, decks or garden sheds. As long as the building project meets specific development standards and land requirements, no planning or building approval is needed.

What is Complying Development?

Complying development is a combined planning and construction approval for straightforward development that can be determined through a fast-track assessment by Council or an accredited certifier. Complying development applies to homes, businesses and industry and allows for the construction of a new dwelling, alterations and additions to a dwelling, new industrial buildings, demolition of a building and changes to a business use to be approved as complying development.

The Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP allow an alternative pathway to be used to gain approvals for the identified development categories. The Liverpool LEP does not apply to development proposals that are characterised as exempt or complying.

There are sound planning reasons to have standardised controls for minor / low risk developments across NSW, However this standardisation does not always allow for local conditions to be included or addressed.

It addition to the above standards, the State government recently introduced the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code to “fast track” approvals for low rise medium density development such as dual occupancies, manor homes and terraces.

The Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code allows for the approval of dual occupancies, manor homes and terraces through “complying development”, bypassing council’s LEP and DCP.

In mid-2019, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces requested an independent review of the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code. As part of this review, it was recommended that the Code be temporarily deferred until 1 July 2020. This will allow Councils to complete their strategic planning, including Local Strategic Planning Statements and Local Housing Strategies.

Importantly, the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code does not permit development where is it is currently prohibited under Council’s EPI or a SEPP. The Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code can only be used where the use proposed is a permitted use.

Resource recovery facilities and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP)

Resource recovery facilities are a type of ‘waste or resource management facility’ and they are only permitted within the IN3 Heavy Industrial zone (with development consent) in the LEP. They are otherwise prohibited in all other zones.

However, the ISEPP overrides the LEP and permits ‘Waste or resource management facilities’ (including ‘resource recovery facilities’) in the following prescribed zones with development consent:

· RU1 Primary Production;

· RU2 Rural Landscape;

· IN1 General Industrial;

· IN3 Heavy Industrial;

· SP1 Special Activities; and

· SP2 Infrastructure

In most cases, a resource recovery facility would not meet the specific objectives of the RU1 and RU2 zone which aim to minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands and maintain the rural landscape character of the land respectively. Additionally, development of ‘resource recovery facilities’ on rural land undermines opportunities to maintain such land for agricultural purposes. However, as the SEPP overrides the LEP, these are not relevant considerations when assessing a development application, which has caused concern with communities.

The remaining prescribed zones (IN1, IN3, SP1 & SP2) include objectives which could be used to support the development of resource recovery facilities. The industrial zones encourage employment opportunities, while the special activity zones provide opportunities for development which would otherwise be prohibited in other locations.

Therefore, it is considered that the provisions of the ISEPP are largely consistent with the objectives of the prescribed zones, with the exception being the development of such facilities in the rural zones.

Council is collaborating with the DPIE and the GSC through the LSPS and LEP review to address these issues, particularly the establishment of resource recovery facilities in the rural zones of Liverpool.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

In September 2017, the NSW Government established this SEPP that relates to child care facilities and education establishments (i.e. schools, universities and TAFEs). This SEPP overrides Council’s LEP if there is an inconsistency.

However in relation to child care facilities specifically, the SEPP and the Child Care Planning Guideline (CCPG) overrides Council’s controls, except for building heights and side and rear setbacks. Controls within the DCP do not apply (other than stated above). The SEPP does not allow Council to stipulate locational requirements (number of child care centres in a block, on cul-de-sacs) or prescribe a ratio of ages i.e. 0-2 year olds and 3-5 year olds.

The SEPP does allow council to refuse development applications should they not meet certain development standards, other than the non-discretionary standards in the SEPP. The SEPP also allows Council to approve a development application should they not meet the non-discretionary standards.

In relation to the requirements for a school, the SEPP removes all standards and controls from a DCP. This effectively exempts schools from all locally specific controls.

SEPP Review Programme

A review program for SEPPs is underway by the NSW Government. The review aims to simplify the NSW planning system and reduce complexity without reducing the rigour necessary in considering matters of State and regional significance.

This review process is aimed at modernising, simplifying and improving the effectiveness and usability of SEPPs.

The SEPP review program will examine existing policies to consider:

· whether they are still relevant; and

· the need to update and integrate into a new SEPP or elsewhere in the planning framework, including LEPs.

The review intends to remove policy and controls that are duplicated in strategies, regional plans and LEPs.

Delivery of policies through standard instrument LEPs is a priority, where possible and appropriate. The role and importance of SEPPs to deal with matters of State or regional environmental planning significance will not be diminished.

The review is being undertaken in several phases.

Stage 1 is complete with amendments commenced on 5 August 2016. Stage 1 repealed the following SEPPs:

· Hunter Regional Environmental Plan 1989 (Heritage)

· Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No 1

· Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Jamberoo Valley

· Jervis Bay Regional Environmental Plan 1996

· Lower South Coast Regional Environmental Plan (No 2)

· North Coast Regional Environmental Plan

· Orana Regional Environmental Plan No 1 – Siding Spring

· Riverina Regional Environmental Plan No 1

· State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP 53 Transitional Provisions) 2011

· State Environmental Planning Policy No 15 – Rural Landsharing Communities

· State Environmental Planning Policy No 29 – Western Sydney Recreation Area

· State Environmental Planning Policy No 32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

· State Environmental Planning Policy No 39 – Spit Island Bird Habitat

· State Environmental Planning Policy No 59 – Central Western Sydney Regional Open Space and Residential

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 18 – Public Transport Corridors

· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 19 – Rouse Hill Development Area.

Stage 2 of the review is now underway. To date, DPIE has sought public comment on proposed amendments including a Draft Coastal Management SEPP, Draft Environment SEPP and Updates to SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat Protection.

DPIE has also gazetted the following new SEPPs:

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Aboriginal Land) 2019

DPIE is still considering feedback on some of these proposals, and is continuing to progress its review of other SEPPs.

The Department has advised that they will continue to seek public comments on further proposed amendments to other SEPPs coming from the review.

Council’s issues of concern

At the 25 September 2019 Council meeting, ‘issues of concern’ were raised by Council. This included:

· Affordable housing

· Social housing

· Block size

· Road widths

· Setback controls

· Parking provision

Affordable Housing

For clarification, affordable housing means:

very low income households, low income households and moderate income households are those whose gross incomes fall within the following ranges of percentages of the median household income for the time being for the Greater Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area) or the Rest of NSW (Greater Capital City Statistical Area) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Very low income household	less than 50%
Low income household	50 or more but less than 80%
Moderate income household	80–120%

Source: State Environmental Planning Policy No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)

The main concern raised by Council with ARHSEPP seems to be that some developments may be circumventing local controls to gain approvals rather than providing genuine affordable housing.

It is noted that for developments to be approved as “affordable housing”, a condition of consent requires that the portion of affordable housing must be used for a minimum of 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate and must be managed by a registered community housing provider. This clause (within the ARHSEPP) does not apply for housing developed on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation or secondary dwellings.

It was raised in the NOM, that there were no mechanisms in place (within the ARHSEPP) to monitor whether or not this SEPP is addressing the real issue of housing affordability. Council is collaborating with the DPIE and GSC through the preparation of the LSPS and LEP on this issue.

Social Housing

Social housing is secure and affordable rental housing for people on low incomes with housing needs. It includes public, community and Aboriginal housing. The categories of social housing are further defined below:

· Public housing is managed by Family and Community Services (FACS);

· Community housing is managed by non-government organisations; and

· Aboriginal housing is specifically for Aboriginal people and these properties are managed by FACS or community housing providers, including Aboriginal community housing providers.

(Source: Family and Community Services)

Historically, Liverpool has had large areas of social housing, including Green Valley, which includes the suburbs of Sadlier, Miller, Ashcroft, Cartwright, Heckenberg and Busby. There are also other areas outside of the former Green Valley estate that also includes large areas of social housing, including Warwick Farm.

Green Valley was built by the NSW Housing Commission (now NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC)) between 1961 and 1964 to provide subsidised housing for 6,000 families.

LAHC is currently running a program known as Communities Plus. The program is delivering up to 23,000 social housing dwellings, 500 affordable housing dwellings and 40,000 private dwellings.

While suburbs such as Miller and Warwick Farm, still contain large amounts of government owned housing, this also provides an opportunity for redevelopment. A successful strategy has been used under the Communities Plus programme. This involves state owned lands being redeveloped with new private dwellings, social and affordable housing at the ratio of 70% private and 30% social and affordable housing. It is noted that this ratio (70/30) may vary from development to development.

Block size

Minimum lot sizes are provided for in different ways between the Growth Centres SEPP and the Liverpool LEP 2008. Both planning instruments recognise that in areas of high amenity (e.g. overlooking a park), or closer to town centres, there are advantages in allowing smaller lot sizes. The mechanisms in which the Growth Centre SEPP and the Liverpool LEP provide for smaller lot sizes are different, but the outcomes are generally suitable for the context of their respective areas. Generally speaking, the Growth Centres SEPP provides for a greater variety of minimum lot sizes, in an effort to increase housing diversity, whereas the LEP is more consistent, which responds largely to existing character.

The Growth Centres SEPP controls provide incentives to supply attached and semi-detached housing forms in areas close to town centres and open spaces, which provides for greater housing diversity, aimed at improving affordability. These dwelling typologies are important in ensuring that Liverpool’s housing supply caters for a variety of households and will become increasingly important to address housing affordability and a general trend towards smaller household sizes.

The primary concern with block sizes usually relates to a lack of green and open space. The problem isn’t necessarily that lots are too small, but more so that the buildings constructed on these lots are too large.

Narrow setbacks at the perimeter of buildings are unusable space, larger consolidated areas would be more useful. The minimum requirement for landscaped and open space often isn’t high enough (Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP allows as low as 10% for detached dwellings), and the incentives to build to two or even three storeys are not high enough for home owners/developers to provide for more open space.

This results in large, single storey homes which take up almost all of the allotment. The Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP also plays a role as it typically doesn’t provide for a minimum landscaped area, or if it does, it is lower than what would provide for good planning outcomes.

Road Widths

The ARHSEPP and the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP do not specify road widths. The LEP and the Growth Centres SEPP also do not specify road widths (with the exception of road corridor protection zoning for high order movement corridors). Road widths are controlled through the respective DCPs i.e. the Liverpool DCP and the Growth Centres DCP.

Both the Liverpool DCP and the Growth Centres DCP have a set of generic local street types for local streets in the precinct for which the plan applies. In the Liverpool LGA, this results in several different standard street cross-sections as different aspects of street design were often prioritised at a time when a DCP was prepared and adopted.

For example, local streets being delivered in Austral were designed some 5-10 years ago, whilst those still being delivered in areas such as Prestons were designed almost 30 years ago. It is not generally advisable to change cross-sections after an area is significantly established, unless it is necessary to do so, as this can erode neighbourhood character and disturb wayfinding based on the road hierarchy.

The Western Sydney Planning Partnership is currently designing a suite of uniform standard road cross-sections for Council’s in Western Sydney to adopt. This street design manual and related engineering standards will be based on international best practise and suitability for the local area and are aimed at achieving consistent, functional and attractive streets. Council staff have significant input into this large body of work which is forecast for completion in mid-2020.

Setback controls

Controls for setbacks can vary considerably between the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP and DCPs. Without detailing all of the different setback provisions in each SEPP or DCP (including locality specific DCPs), it appears the primary concern is with the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP adopting a 3m rear setback. Most precincts in the Liverpool DCP adopt a rear setback of 4m or more.

The rear setback provides for private open space while also allowing for trees and vegetation. If dwellings are all uniformly setback 3m from the rear boundary, which is a common occurrence in the growth areas (due to the use of the Exempt and Complying Development Code), there is little space for large trees to mature within the rear setback of new dwellings. This results in suburbs devoid of tree canopy and enhances the urban heat island effect.

Parking provision

Council’s DCP stipulates that two car parking spaces are required for detached dwellings, with at least one space required behind the building line. The Codes SEPP typically requires at least one off-street car parking space to be required per dwelling.

Neither the Liverpool DCP, nor the SEPP, require additional parking to be provided for secondary dwellings (granny flats).

There is a need to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each dwelling, while ensuring that excessive parking is not provided. Requiring higher parking rates will result in garage door dominance (with related negative streetscape impacts), and excessive driveways result in higher amounts of paved areas (retention of heat, increased stormwater run-off). Driveways also reduce the availability of on-street parking, disrupt pedestrian footpaths and limit space for street trees. It is noted that many residents use garages as areas for storage or additional living areas rather than for their intended use as car parking.

While the Liverpool LEP (for the Liverpool City Centre only) and DCP (for other areas) provide car parking controls, there are circumstances where they can be overridden by SEPPs. For example, State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) allows a reduced amount of car parking for development within 800 metres of a railway station. It is noted in SEPP 65, that where less car parking is provided, Council should not provide on street resident parking permits.

Parking requirements should be determined in relation to the availability, frequency and convenience of public transport. Reduced car parking requirements promote a reduction in car dependency and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.

Conclusion

SEPPs play a key role in addressing issues of State or regional significance and to ensure consistent planning controls for certain development across NSW.

Council is collaborating through the LSPS and LEP review with DPIE and the GSC on the issues raised in this report. DPIE has commenced a phased review of many SEPPs and Council will continue to ensure that local character and amenity and infrastructure provision is considered and that good planning outcomes are achieved.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

117

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Community and Culture Report

COM 02

COM 04 - Green Valley Hotel Liquor Licence Application

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Implement access and equity for all members of the community
File Ref	273804.2019
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting on 6 February 2018 considered a Notice of Motion in relation to an extended trading hours application by the Green Valley Hotel to Liquor and Gaming NSW (L&G NSW). A follow up report on the resolution was brought to the Council meeting on 29 May 2019.

Council, in collaboration with community and interest groups collectively advised against the application and advocated to Liquor & Gaming NSW on the potential adverse impacts of the Green Valley Hotel’s application for extended trading hours. Despite these collective efforts the application was approved by the authority on 26 June 2019 with new conditions being imposed on the subject licence.

This report is provided to inform Council on the outcomes of actions undertaken in relation to the resolution made at the Council meeting on 29 May.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Continues to make submissions and lobby L&GNSW in regards to adverse impacts of the industry for Liverpool LGA;

2. Advocates to NSW Government for increased Local Government decision making in gaming machine provisions, including the changed Local Impact Assessment Band that allows moving of or increase of poker machines within the Liverpool LGA; and

3. Considers a policy position, where public interest is in the forefront of all such decisions, including investigating measures of non-association with alcohol and gambling industries.

REPORT

At its meeting held on 29 May 2019, Council resolved to:

1. Strengthen control mechanisms and sub-categories in the revised Social Impact Assessment Policy and Development Control Plan to ensure the protection of communities against the adverse impacts of gaming and liquor related developments, especially at vulnerable localities;

2. Subject every development application relating to a premises that provides both liquor and gaming to a comprehensive SIA process, regardless of the nature of the proposed development;

3. Continues to lobby L&G NSW on the adverse impacts related to the subject liquor licence;

4. Undertake research into social and economic costs and impacts of alcohol consumption and gambling in Liverpool and introduce measures, including controls applied by other councils, to manage and mitigate the impacts on communities; and

5. Receives a further report in November 2019 on the outcome and proposed directions of the research.

Council staff have been liaising with external and internal stakeholders to investigate responses and actions relating to this resolution. Responses to the resolution are provided in three parts, as outlined below.

Resolution item 1

Council’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy, coupled with the SIA Guidelines readily provide mechanisms to Council by way of review and assessment of development applications and planning proposals.

The SIA Policy and Guidelines have been updated and are submitted to the Council meeting of 20 November for consideration, with the aim to strengthen and expand all aspects of the Policy. They provide Council with a comprehensive approach in protecting communities against the adverse impacts of an increased supply in liquor and gaming-related developments. In this regard, the SIA Policy and Guidelines revision includes some key measures including:

· Fine-tuning the internal referral process, including the introduction of a requirement for proponents to answer a SEIFA score question for the locality of the development;

· Amending social impact assessment triggering thresholds in line with emerging trends and local growth;

· Strengthening mechanisms to make sure all applications with a potential to cause adverse impacts, regardless of the scope and scale of the development;

· Outlining expected level of community consultation by the proponents and developers in relation to liquor and gaming applications to ensure local communities have a say in the decision-making process;

· Providing comprehensive guidance to the developers of Council’s expectations in relation to community education and awareness; and

· Strengthening inter-departmental mechanisms to increase efficiency.

Resolution items 2 and 3

Council’s SIA Policy requires every development application to submit a Comprehensive Social Impact Assessment (CSIA) regardless of their size, location or other variable, should the development result in an increased supply of liquor and/or gaming machines within Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA). In addition, as a part of the revised SIA Policy, Community Planning is working to establish more effective partnerships with South West Sydney Local Health Districts, community and interest groups to provide collective input for submissions relating to significant and complex developments, where necessary.

The current SIA referral processes for liquor and gaming applications include:

1. Liquor & Gaming NSW (L&GNSW) receives applications which will have implications on liquor and gaming provisions within Liverpool LGA. L&GNSW sends a request to Council to review and make a submission, for consideration during the decision-making process alongside other major stakeholders.

2. Community Planning team analyses the subject application and relevant submissions made by the proponent and will make a submission to the L&GNSW authority; including recommendations on the application.

3. L&GNSW makes determination on all liquor and gaming applications, having considered all the submissions.

While Council’s SIA Policy and Guidelines provide necessary mechanisms for Council to assess liquor and gaming applications, the NSW Government sets overarching guidance and regulations for the liquor and gaming industry. Therefore, it is crucial that Council continues to advocate for greater authority locally, to prevent and/or mitigate any adverse impacts related to Liverpool.

Resolution item 4

A variety of legislations, including the EPA Act 1979 and the Liquor Act 2007^{^[1]}, requires Council to consider social impacts of planning decisions, development applications and other policy instruments that may affect the lived experience of the community. This is particularly pertinent in the case of applications that will increase the supply of alcohol and/or gambling outlets, including consideration to cumulative effects on the community of several such applications over time. One of the primary concerns is the increasing numbers and frequency of such establishments in Liverpool LGA, in particular, in areas of higher socio-economic disadvantage.

Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) data suggests the Liverpool LGA has one of the lowest scores in NSW, i.e, higher levels of disadvantage. This means Liverpool LGA is more vulnerable to detrimental social and economic effects arising from an increased consumption and supply of alcohol and gambling provisions. The following demographic and public health related data demonstrate how the SEIFA data for socio-economic disadvantage in Liverpool exacerbate the negative impacts generated by alcohol and gambling provisions:

· Liverpool LGA has higher than state average rates of unemployment (both youth and adult), single parent families, culturally diverse communities, and high rental stress.

· Liverpool has an overall lower median income.

· Harmful drinking is highest for people aged 16-24 years and lowest for people over 65 years. Liverpool has a large young population with 37% of our residents under the age of 24.

· High aggregate and per capita gaming expenditure which is also observed in other low SEIFA score neighbouring suburbs such as Fairfield and Bankstown.

Health data indicates that residents of Liverpool have poorer health compared to the rest of the state including:

· Higher rates of diabetes – 6.9 % compared to 5.5% in NSW;

· High or very high levels of psychological distress – 15.4% compared to 13.2% in SWS and 11.1% in NSW);

· Higher rates of death that is from all causes – 107.3 per 100,000 persons compared to 100 per 100,000 persons;

· Higher proportion of people aged 16 years and over that are overweight – 34.8% compared to 33.4%;

· Higher proportion of people aged 16 years and over that are obese – 21.8% compared to 19.6%;

· Higher proportion of people aged 16 years and over that do not participate in adequate physical activity – 48.1% compared to 55.2%; and

· Higher proportion of people who smoke – 22.3% compared to 17.1%.

In addition to the demographic characteristics of Liverpool LGA which deem the community to be more vulnerable to negative impacts resulting from alcohol consumption and gambling, there is a wealth of research that demonstrates the direct correlation between an increase in density of alcohol and/or gambling outlets and increase in issues such as the rates of assault and domestic and non-domestic violence.

The gambling industry generates economic activity, tax revenue and recreational benefits which is often used by the industry to promote their business operations. Nevertheless, it is well recognised that gambling also results in diverse negative consequences to the gamblers themselves, as well as those around them, ‘affected others’, and the broader community.

Supporting studies found that overall costs of gambling on the community, does not only come from problem gamblers, and that low and moderate risk gamblers also substantially contribute to the broader costs associated with the gambling industry. The following framework developed by the Productivity Commission (PC), have categorised the costs associated with gambling into five parts:

a) Financial costs;

b) Productivity and employment costs;

c) Crime and legal costs;

d) Personal and family costs; and

e) Treatment costs.

Australia has 76 per cent of the world’s pub and club poker machines, and half of those are in NSW. According to Alliance for Gambling Reform, a national advocacy organisation which works to prevent and minimise the harm from gambling, the NSW Government’s gambling tax revenue in 2018-2019 was $2.631 billion, a jump of $266 million from the previous year. This equals to a record $6.815 billion lost on poker machines per annum or $18.7 million per day. Approximately 85% of the harm caused by gambling is experienced by those considered at low or medium risk. Further, 5–10 other people are impacted for each individual gambler. The annual cost of alcohol is estimated to be $14.9 billion, making it the second highest addiction in Australia, after gambling.

According to Department of Liquor and Gaming data, provided by the Alliance for Gambling Reform, the 2019 net profit from gaming machines in Campbelltown, Canterbury/Bankstown, Blacktown, Fairfield and Liverpool amounted to $1,693,788,978; or $32,572,865 loss to those with gambling addiction per week. The overall number of machines has fallen in NSW, however, the numbers across the Councils above have increased by 104 machines from 2018.

In Liverpool, there are 1438 gaming machines available in pubs and clubs, with a profit of $161,345,545 annually. This equals to a weekly loss of $3,103,549 by those with gambling addiction. More specifically, Liverpool LGA ranks number 10 in NSW with regards to personal losses generated per gaming machine, with a staggering $87.305 lost per gaming machine. According to the L&GNSW, there are 341 poker machines across 12 hotels in Liverpool, generating $40,085,619 per annum. For the period July to December 2018, five hotels in Liverpool were among the top fifty hotels in NSW recording highest gaming machine net profit in NSW. They included the Cross Roads Hotel (ranked at #1), Collingwood Hotel (ranked #18), El Toro Motor Inn (ranked #36), Macquarie Hotel (ranked #42) and Green Valley Hotel (ranked #45).

Local agencies including those working with victims of domestic violence, Housing NSW, Liverpool Community Kitchen and Hub and Mission Australia all report that alcohol and gambling-related harm have been major contributors to homelessness when seeking assistance with temporary accommodation. The data and research indicate that alcohol and or gambling-related harm are major public health and financial issues and the regulation of licences in this sense is an important control mechanism on the availability and supply of such venues.

In conclusion, it is of paramount importance for the wellbeing of Liverpool community that Council continue to strengthen control mechanisms to limit and/or mitigate adverse impacts emerging from alcohol consumption and gambling harm, and to be vigilant in its advocacy work on behalf of the people to higher tiers of government. Council can be most effective by working with local government and non-government agencies in regards to management and mitigation of these negative, long lasting impacts by way of advocacy, funding and service coordination.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Support policies and plans that prevent crime. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	· Local Government Act, 1993; and · Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Report National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

121

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Community and Culture Report

COM 03

Draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	274151.2019
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

Executive Summary

The draft Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy and Guidelines are the primary mechanisms for Council to identify and manage the likely social impacts of proposed developments, policies, projects and planning instruments to maximise social outcomes, community wellbeing and social sustainability in the Liverpool LGA.

The draft SIA Policy and Guidelines are grounded in the social justice principles of sustainability, access, equity, participation and human rights and is supported by Council’s Social Justice Policy. The draft SIA Policy determines when a SIA is required, how it is to be undertaken and how the outcomes arising from the assessment are to be implemented and managed. The draft Policy is accompanied by Guidelines which provide specific triggering thresholds for various types and/or sizes of developments, provides guidance on the minimum requirements of community participation in the decision-making process and provide data sources for the applicants, to assist with assessments.

The draft SIA Policy and Guidelines are attached to this report for the consideration of Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines for public exhibition for a period of six weeks; and

2. Receives a report at the completion of the public exhibition period noting feedback received and any changes made to the draft policy in line with community feedback, or if no submissions are received, delegate authority to the CEO to endorse the draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines.

REPORT

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the process of assessing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions including policies, programs and projects; and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. When undertaken as part of a Development Approval process, an SIA is prepared to assist the relevant consent authority in its informed decision-making. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more socio-culturally, ecologically and economically sustainable and equitable environment. Although the SIA is used as an impact prediction mechanism and decision-making tool in regulatory processes, the role of SIA in contributing to the ongoing management of social issues throughout the whole project development cycle, from conception to post-closure, is equally important.

The rationale for Council to have a stronger and more comprehensive SIA Policy and related mechanisms in place include, but are not limited to, the exponential growth within the Liverpool LGA and the positioning of Liverpool as the third CBD of Sydney; and emerging international trends on incorporating impact analysis and community participation in decision making processes. It allows Council to have a strong position to ensure:

a) Positive impacts emerging from policies, programs and projects are maximised;

b) Community opinions and or needs are prioritised in an equitable and inclusive way through a genuine engagement process;

c) Social, environmental and economic qualities of the local area are enhanced as a result of permitted development; and

d) Increased trust in Council by the Liverpool community through an enhanced consistency and transparency in Council’s decision making processes.

Highlights of Key Changes

The Draft SIA Policy and Guidelines incorporates a number of changes, which aim to increase the rigor of the process and decision making. The key changes can be summarised as following:

· Expanding on the definitions and assessment scope, including introduction of concepts such as: a) Cumulative Impacts, b) Distributional impacts, and c) Value Capture.

· Expanding on monitoring and management of social impacts through the introduction of a Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) for projects with significant impact (i.e. a shopping centre). SIMP will be requested where avoidance is not possible or negative residual impacts remain after minimising.

· Reduction of SIA trigger thresholds for certain types of developments such as boarding houses, function centres, places of worship and childcare centres:

- Every boarding house development regardless of its size is now subject to carrying out a SIA.

- Function centres and/or amusement centres are now subject to carrying out a SIA should the proposed capacity be greater than 50 persons, decreased from the previous threshold of 100 persons.

- Places of worship are now subject to carrying out a SIA if the proposed capacity is greater than 100 persons, decreased from the previous threshold of 200 persons.

- Childcare centre applications are subject to carrying out a SIA regardless of their size. Previously only applications for 20 places or above would trigger SIA.

- Residential flat buildings greater than 20 units and those that seek variation greater than 10% from the DCP / LEP density (height and/or FSR) controls are subject to carrying out a SIA, decreasing from the previous threshold or 250 units.

· Introduction of a requirement for a SIA submission by other government agencies and/or non-government organisations if a proposed plan, policy, project or proposal may have an impact on Liverpool community. These include but not limited to infrastructure developments, relevant state environmental planning policies and or local health plans.

Developing the SIA Policy and Guidelines

Building on the current SIA Policy and Guidelines, the draft policy and guidelines have been developed following a comprehensive review of international best practice guidance, emerging trends in the field of social impact assessment and an analysis of Liverpool’s local context in regard to specific pressures, gaps and requirements. In addition, an internal and external consultation process was undertaken, seeking feedback on the content and directions.

This report recommends that Council endorses placing the draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks, from mid-January to the end of February 2020.

A final Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines will then be submitted to a future Council meeting in early 2020 for adoption should submissions be received.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes.
Legislative	Local Government Act, 1993 Gaming Machines Act, 2001 / Liquor Act, 2007 Liverpool Development Control Plan (DCP), 2008 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 Liverpool City Council Social Justice Policy, 2018 Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Connected Liverpool 2050

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines - November 2019 (Under separate cover)

127

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Corporate Report

CORP 01

EOI2906 Collingwood House Commercial Opportunities

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Attract businesses for economic growth and employment opportunities
File Ref	265770.2019
Endorsed By	Macario Biala - Procurement Business Partner
Approved By	Chris White - Director City Corporate

Recommended By

Name: Michal Szczepanski

Chairperson

Name: Christopher Guthrie

Committee Member

Name: Thomas Wheeler

Committee Member

Name: Macario Biala

Convenor

Executive Summary

On 29 May 2019, Council resolved relevantly to “…undertake an expression of interest to determine market interest in operating Council’s heritage buildings such as Collingwood House…”.

Council subsequently tested the market, seeking to enter into a contract with a suitably experienced and competent contractor for the provision of Collingwood House Commercial Opportunities for a period of 5 years, with an option for a further 5 years.

The subject area would encompass the main building, the ancillary building, car park and all land contained within the fenced area.

Interested parties were made aware of the constraints and unique opportunities associated with Collingwood House as outlined earlier, and invited to submit an Expression Of Interest proposal that presented a case for a sustainable business concept. Such concepts were required to take into account the significant building upgrades that may be required to be undertaken prior to commencing, as well as ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the buildings and the grounds.

Council sought either a market rent that would otherwise be achieved for comparable premises, or alternatively, lease incentives in lieu of the Offeror undertaking, or financially contributing to any required building works or upgrades.

Subject to finalising the commercial agreement, the Offeror was expected to obtain any relevant statutory approvals required for the proposed use or building upgrades, including but not limited to Development Approval and Construction Certificate.

There has been no contract in place previously for this service.

No offers were received. As such, it is recommended that the future of Collingwood House be addressed in a manner consistent with the Heritage Properties Assets Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Pursuant to clause 178 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, does not award the Expression Of Interest EOI2906, as no submissions were received;

2. Makes public its decision regarding EOI2906 Collingwood House Commercial Opportunities; and

3. Directs the CEO to progress the adaption of Collingwood House as a boutique venue for functions and cultural events in accordance with the endorsed Heritage Properties Assets Strategy.

TENDER RECEIVED/INVITED

Tenders were invited publicly via the Sydney Morning Herald on 10^th September 2019, the Liverpool Leader on 11^th September 2019 and was made available on the Council eTendering portal https://www.tenderlink.com/liverpoolcity from 10^th September 2019.

Tenders closed at 3:00 pm on 1 October 2019 with no submissions received.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The following Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) was formed to determine the tender evaluation criteria, weightings and assess the tenders received for the proposed contract:

Role	Description	Appointee
Convenor	Manage and facilitate the evaluation process and ensure the process is carried out in accordance with the relevant procedures. The Convenor is to remain separate from the actual evaluation process and does not assess tenders.	Name: Macario Biala Title: Procurement Business Partner Procurement, Governance and Legal Services
Chairperson	The Chairperson is to coordinate the panel members and liaise directly with the Convenor on behalf of the Committee Members. The Chairperson also carries out the assessment as detailed below.	Name: Michal Szczepanski Title: Senior Property Officer Corporate Services, Property Services
Committee Members	Perform a detailed assessment of the tender submissions, deliberate and agree on the tender that offers the best ‘value for money’ to Council. Assessments will consider cost, non-price criteria, financial viability and risk of a tender.	Name: Thomas Wheeler Title: Heritage Officer City Economy and Growth, City Design and Public Domain
Committee Members		Name: Christopher Guthrie Title: Coordinator Business Development City Economy and Growth, City Economy

The Tender Evaluation Committee met prior to the close of tenders and agreed on the following weightings of the published evaluation criteria:

Criterion	Weighting (%)
Applicant’s Business Experience	15
Details of Proposed Commercial Activity	40
Commercial (financial) terms	45
Total	100%
Conformance to Conditions	Pass / Fail

SUMMARY OF THE EVALUTION

No tenders were reviewed to assess their conformance to the Conditions of Tender and Conditions of Contract.

CONCLUSION

As no EOIs were received, the panel recommends that the EOI be withdrawn, and that staff be directed to progress the adaption of Collingwood House as a boutique venue for functions and cultural events in accordance with the endorsed Heritage Properties Assets Strategy.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions. Culture and creative industries.
Environment	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership	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	Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, cl.178

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

133

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Corporate Report

CORP 02

Bigge Park Cafes - Lot 702 DP 1056246, Bigge Street, Liverpool

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Attract businesses for economic growth and employment opportunities
File Ref	275245.2019
Report By	Michal Szczepanski - Senior Property Officer
Approved By	Chris White - Director City Corporate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bigge Park, Liverpool, is Crown Land which is managed by Liverpool City Council, previously as Reserve Trustee (under the Crown Lands Act), and now (with the adoption of the Crown Land Management Act 2016) as Crown Land Manager.

Previously as Reserve Trustee and with the approval of the Crown, Council leased/licensed two of the buildings within Bigge Park for Café purposes to private operators. The two café businesses located within Bigge Park ceased trading in October 2018 and January 2019 respectively. As construction of the amenities buildings in the park has now been completed, Council intends to again offer the vacant buildings for café/restaurant use.

Council has now completed the public notification process of the proposal and received one objection from an individual, on the following grounds:

1) Bigge Park should be free of commercial activity, and

2) The public notice process was not conducted properly and should be restarted.

Given the community classification of the park, legislation requires that Council consider the objection, and that the objector be advised of the outcome.

The objection, and Council Officer’s recommended response to the objection, are dealt with in the body of this Council report.

On the basis of the Council Officer’s proposed response to the objection, it is recommended that Council resolve to proceed with the tender process to offer the two buildings within Bigge Park for café/restaurant use, based on the public notification process that was recently completed.

In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act concerning the objector’s request, it is also recommended that Council refers the request to the NSW Office of Local Government to notify the state government and seek Ministerial consent to proceed with the tender process to award the proposed occupancies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Resolve the objection to EOI WT2904 and WT2905 by confirming the veracity of the public notification process that was recently conducted by staff, and adopting the Council staff’s recommendation to proceed with the tender process to offer the Bigge Park premises known as Courtside Cafe (WT2905) and Pump House Café (WT2904) for café/restaurant use, on five year tenures, with options for a further five years in each case;

2. Direct the CEO or her delegate to write to the relevant authorities and seek consent from the Minister to finalise the tender processes accordingly;

3. Direct the CEO to report the outcomes of the process to Council upon completion; and

4. Direct the CEO to notify the objector of this resolution, and the actions of Council in both progressing the tender, and seeking Ministerial approval.

REPORT

Liverpool City Council has in the past granted tenures to Café operators over the Bigge Park buildings known as Courtside Café and Pump House Café. The most recent businesses operating from the Courtside Café (located on the southern end of the Park) ceased trading and vacated the premises in January 2019, whilst the business operating from the Pumphouse Café located in the North-Eastern corner of the Park vacated in October 2018.

Council has now completed the construction of new public amenity buildings in the park, and intend to re-offer both the structures to café & restaurant operators, on five year terms (with options for further five year terms) subject to the outcome of a tender process.

Bigge Park is located on Crown Land and the Crown Land Management Act 2016 requires that Council manage Crown Land in the same manner as if it were Community Land. The Local Government Act 1993 requires that any tenures over Community Land which exceed five years be subject to a public notification process, and further mandates that such tenures may only be granted by a tender (s.46A-47).

Council recently notified the public of its intention to offer these properties under tender. The notification was the subject of a mailout to nearby properties in accordance with Council’s notifications processes, and was also published on Council’s website, and in the Liverpool Leader in the following form:

Liverpool City Council is the appointed Crown Land Manager of Bigge Park, located at 124 Bigge Street, Liverpool.

Notice is hereby given that it is proposed to grant new leases of the buildings located in the North-East corner of the Park (the former storage shed), and along the Southern boundary of the Park (the former ‘Courtside Café’ building).

Council will conduct an ‘Expression Of Interest’ campaign seeking café and restaurant operators to lease the subject buildings for a term of five (5) years with an option to renew for a further five (5) years.

Any person is entitled to make a submission to Council in respect of this proposal by Monday, 2 September 2019. Submissions must be made in writing, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Liverpool City Council, Locked Bag 7064 Liverpool BC NSW 1871, quoting file reference number 2019/0536. Enquiries may be referred to Council’s Senior Property Officer on 8711 7514.

Public notice was also physically displayed at Bigge Park in locations adjoining the proposed facilities.

One objection has been received in relation to the proposed use. Broadly, the terms of this objection are as follows:

1) Bigge Park should be free of commercial activity, and

2) The public notice process was not conducted properly and should be restarted.

The full text of the objection is extracted below, with name and contact details withheld. It is noted that the submission also included full text of both the tender notification, and an accompanying notification of Council’s recent proposed changes to ward boundaries (hence the reference below):

Att: CEO

It has been brought to my attention that Council is proposing to lease out premises in Bigge Park.

I strongly object to this as this is community/crown land and should be free of commercial activity.

There are plenty of empty shops in Liverpool and this presents opportunities for people to open up shops or cafes - not in beautiful public places.

Also, can you please provide an email address of where to send these objections to? I note that after some investigation that the item relating to ward boundaries contains an email address (see below). I believe that this exhibition process has not been conducted properly and fairly and ask that it be restarted.

Sincerely,

…

Objection (1) - Bigge Park should be free of commercial activity:

Staff note that, if approved, the proposed access and use arrangements for the cafés would be a continuation of the use of premises previously provided for café activity within Bigge Park, and which had been previously approved by Council and the Crown.

The cafes represent an adaptive re-use of previously dormant or under-utilised assets, and would provide patrons the opportunity to enjoy the beautiful surroundings of the park, whilst also providing employment opportunities. It is noted that there are many parks within the Sydney metropolitan area which include cafes, which themselves add to the drawcard of the attraction provided by these facilities.

The proposed café uses would also provide passive surveillance, additional activation, and further amenity to the park, complementing the existing park amenities such as the playgrounds, waterpark, and tennis courts.

As the cafes would service the Health precinct, CBD employees, visitors and apartment residents, a tender process would test and gauge interest for the ongoing café/restaurant use. In respect to the operation of cafés within the park, it should be noted that Council has received queries wanting to know when the cafes would be reopened. It is considered that the use of cafes is considered complementary to the use of the park, particularly workers taking coffee and lunch breaks, as well as providing dinning opportunities for functions held in Bigge Park.

The commercial nature of the cafes has not resulted in public objections or concerns in the past. In fact, the recent closure of the café businesses did result in a number of complaints received by Council about their closure. In addition, the rental income collected form the cafes will partially offset the cost of operating and maintaining the Park and the associated facilities.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (Crown Lands) have expressly approved café businesses in Bigge Park in the past, and have expressed no past objection to the use of these facilities for this purpose.

It is also noted that there are parks situated within Liverpool that do not (and will not) include café facilities, which could provide an alternative for residents with an objection to such facilities.

Based on the potential beneficial outcomes of progressing with a tender for the use of the existing buildings for café/restaurant activity at Bigge Park, it would be recommended that Council proceed with the proposal to offer these facilities, subject to referring the proposal to the NSW Office of Local Government in order that the state government/Minister is informed of the objection as requested by the objector.

Objection (2) - The public notice process was not conducted properly and should be restarted:

The notice identified relevantly that:

It is worth noting that the objection in question was, in fact, received via email through Council’s “LCC Mail” email portal, and was receipted and managed accordingly.

Based on this being the sole objection, which was sent via e-mail and considered by Council, it is considered that the process undertaken by Council has not precluded submissions in respect to the Public Notice of the proposal.

Council officers advise that the public notice was exhibited in accordance with requirements of Section 47(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act), and contained all the required information as required under Section 47(2) of the Act, specifically:

1) Council gave public notice of the proposal (including on Council’s website). The public notice was included on Council’s website from 30 July 2019.

2) Council gave notice of the proposal to such persons as appear to it to own or occupy the land adjoining community land. The public notice was mailed to all surrounding premises on 2 August 2019.

3) Council exhibited notice of the proposal on the land to which the proposal relates. Signage was placed in the park.

4) In addition to the requirements of the Act the public notice also appeared in the Liverpool leader on August 7, 14 and 21, 2019.

As identified above, Council staff believe that the public notice process was conducted in line with the requirements of the Act, and that the proposed café uses will be of benefit to the users of the park and to Council.

Council staff offered to discuss the objection with the applicant. The applicant declined and stated that his objection should be determined by the Minister. Discussions with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment confirmed that due to the introduction of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 which came into effect on 1 July 2018, objections for Crown land are now to be determined by Council, and not the Minister.

However, given that:

a. the objector has specifically requested that the State Government should know of the objection, and;

b. the provisions of the Act identify that Ministerial consent is required to enter into a lease or license for community land if there is an objection, it is recommended that Council apply for Ministerial consent to finalise the proposed tender process.

It is further recommended that Council resolve the objection by directing the CEO to proceed to tender for café/restaurant operators to access and occupy the premises known as Courtside Cafe and Pump House Café in Bigge Park on five year terms, with options for a further five years in each case. It is noted that the recommendation also anticipates notifying the objector of this outcome.

It is noted that, if Ministerial consent is not forthcoming, the process will need to be reviewed. To this end, staff recommend a direction to report the outcomes of the process back to Council in due course.

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Crown Land Management Act 2016, Crown Land Management Regulation 2018 and Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Appendix 1 - Aerial Map

141

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Corporate Report

CORP 03

Investment Report October 2019

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Seek efficient and innovative methods to manage our resources
File Ref	276779.2019
Report By	John Singh - Accountant - Investments & Treasury Management
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

executive summary

This report details Council’s investment portfolio.

As at 31 October 2019, Council held investments with a market value of $292 million.

The portfolio yield to the end of October 2019 is 107 basis points above the AusBond Bank Bill index.

	AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)
Benchmark	1.65%
Portfolio yield	2.72%
Performance above benchmarks	1.07%

Return on investment for October 2019 was $307k lower than the budget.

Council’s investments and reporting obligations fully comply with the requirements of section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

Council’s portfolio also fully complies with limits set out in its Investment Policy. NSW TCorp however has recommended that Council progressively reduce its exposure to lower-rated financial institutions to below 25% of its investment portfolio by 2021.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

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

Council’s Portfolio

At 31 October 2019, Council held investments with a market value of $292 million. Council’s investment register detailing all its investments is provided as an attachment to this report. In summary, Council’s portfolio consisted of investments in:

The ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

Asset Class	Oct-19	Jun-19
Senior Debts (FRN's ,TCD's & FRB)*	100.70%	100.76%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	59.48%	59.48%
T-Corp Unit Trusts	104.12%	103.65%

*Definition of terms

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

· Fixed Rate Bond (FRB) – returns Fixed Coupon (interest) Rate and is tradeable before maturity.

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

NSW TCorp has recommended that Council progressively reduce its exposure to lower rated financial institutions to below 25% by 2021. Downgrading of AMP Bank’s credit rating on 27 August 2019 from “A” to “BBB” has increased Council exposure to 26.2% this month compared to 24.9% at 31 July 2019. Council staff will monitor and work with investment advisors to meet this requirement.

Portfolio Maturity Profile

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

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

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Portfolio performance against relevant market benchmark.

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

The portfolio yield to 31 October 2019 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 107 basis points (2.72% against 1.65 %).

Council portfolio continues to performance at above benchmark rates despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower market term deposit yields. Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

Performance of Portfolio Returns against Budget

Council’s investment income for October 2019 is lower than the budget by $307k and will be closely monitored.

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance

The portfolio yield to 31 October 2019 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 107 basis points (2.72% against 1.65%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

Council’s investment interest income is lower than the budget by $307k as at 31 October 2019 and will be closely monitored.

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The current 0.75 per cent cash rate is at a historically low level and impacts returns on investment.

Certificate of Responsible Accounting Officer

The Chief Financial Officer, as Responsible Accounting Officer, certifies that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy at the time of their placement. The previous investments are covered by the grandfathering clauses of the current investment guidelines issued by the Minister for Local Government.

Independent verification by Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement (HARI)

Council has requested an on-going independent review of its investment portfolio by the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) or its representative under delegated authority. The ARIC has agreed for its Chairperson to provide a certificate on a quarterly basis – the confirmation on investment to August 2019 is provided as an attachment to this report.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Council’s investment interest income is lower than the budget by $307k as at 31 October 2019 and will be closely monitored.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Council is fully compliant with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 – Investment Order (authorized investments) and with reporting requirements under clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment Portfolio - October 2019

2. ARIC Certification of Investment Portfolio

149

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Corporate Report

CORP 04

Budget Review - September 2019

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Meet the challenges of Liverpool’s growing population
File Ref	277183.2019
Report By	Earl Paradeza - Senior Management Accountant
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

In June 2019 Council adopted its 2019/20 operating budget with projected revenue of $305.8m and expenditure of $205.0m. In terms of the net operating result before grants and contributions provided for capital purposes, the Council budgeted for an operating deficit of $2.178m. The proposed budget changes will reduce the budgeted operating deficit before grants and contributions for capital purposes to $0.506m (Ref attachment 1 – Note D).

The first quarter budget review for 2019/20 has resulted in $1.982m overall increase in Council’s capital expenditure program (Ref attachment 1 – Note E).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves the identified budget variations in accordance with this report.

REport

Legislative Requirements

Clause 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires the Responsible Accounting Officer to provide a quarterly budget review not later than two months after each quarter's end. This report provides an overview of the results on the financial review for the quarter ended 30 September 2019.

Commentary

Operating Budget

A comprehensive budget review conducted at 30 September 2019 has resulted in further budget adjustments, as detailed in Attachment 2. As part of the Budget Review, managers have conducted a review of their programs with a view to providing a revised forecast for the financial year ended 30 June 2020. Managers take into consideration events that have occurred to date and/or information that has become available since the adoption of the original budget and the impact of which provides the basis for the budget adjustments.

The review has resulted in $2.262m (Ref attachment 1 – Note A) increase in total revenue mainly attributable to $2.2m unbudgeted ex-gratia payment from Moorebank Intermodal Company. Total expenditure is also projected to increase by net $0.815m (Ref attachment 1 – Note B), mainly comprising:

· $276k borrowing costs for Bernera Road project not capitalised this financial year

· $200k funding for Manager Liverpool Innovation Precinct (partially offset by contributions from Liverpool Innovation Precinct partners)

· $193k new bush regeneration team

The proposed budget changes will reduce the budgeted operating deficit before grants and contributions for capital purposes to $0.506m (Ref attachment 1 – Note D).

Capital Budget

In June 2019, Council approved its $156.3m capital works program for 2019/20. Council subsequently approved carry over of projects valued $16.2m that were planned but not completed in 2018/19.

The first quarter review for 2019/20 has resulted in $1.982m overall increase in Council’s capital expenditure program mainly comprising:

· + $809k High priority CBD open space project deferred in 2018/19 program year due to crown land approval process. Works to now proceed under MoU agreement.

· + $600k Fit-out costs relating to level 6, 35 Scott St (partially offset by lease incentives received from property owner).

· + $200k Consultancy costs for Carnes Hill Recreation Precinct Stage2 Master Plan.

At 30 September 2019, Council has a capital expenditure program of $175.4m as detailed in Attachment 3.

The YTD capital expenditure to 30 September 2019 was $11.8m which include $3.1m land acquisition for Sixteenth Avenue trunk drainage.

The Table 1 below provides summary of the budget results:

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

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

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

2. Changes following Quarter 1 budget review

3. The proposed budget for 2019/20 financial year

Attachments 2 – This report provides details of operating budget adjustments

Attachments 3 – This report provides details of capital budget adjustments

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

Attachment 6 - Cash and Investments Statement: Providing a reconciliation of restricted and unrestricted funds to the level of Cash and Investments held as at 30 September 2019

Attachment 8 - Consultancy and Legal Expenses

Attachment 9 - Contracts and Other Expenses

Attachment 10 - City Development Fund and Environment Levy

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

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	The revised budget net operating result before Grants and Contributions following Quarter 1 Budget Review and Council resolutions to 30 September 2019 will be a deficit of $0.506m.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Clause 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005

ATTACHMENTS

1. QBRS - Consolidated Financial Results

2. Operating Budget Adjustments

3. Capital Budget Adjustments

4. Grant Status Report - Applications

5. Grant Status Report - Received

6. Cash & Investment Report

7. Key Performance Indicators

8. Consultancy & Legal Expenses Budget Review Statement

9. Contracts & Other Expenses Statements

10. City Development Fund & Environment Levy Reserves

173

Ordinary Meeting 20 November 2019

City Corporate Report

CORP 05

Community Wealth Building

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Attract businesses for economic growth and employment opportunities
File Ref	280208.2019
Report By	Charlotte Cottam - Procurement Coordinator
Approved By	Chris White - Director City Corporate

Executive Summary

This report recommends the incorporation of local preferencing provisions into Council’s Procurement Policy in response to a Council resolution on 28 August 2019. The provisions are designed to support local businesses through Council’s procurement framework. The report also recommends the inclusion of provisions regarding sustainable and social procurement to strengthen Council’s overall procurement practices.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the proposed amendments to Council’s Procurement Policy, included as Attachment 1 to the report of staff, and authorise the CEO to adopt the policy.

REPORT

At its Ordinary Meeting on 28 August 2019, Council resolved to (QWN 02):

· Develop a Local Preferencing Policy and incorporate the principles of local preferencing into Council's Procurement Standards; and

· Report back on the potential to include other key anchor institutions and organisations in Liverpool, such as the universities, TAFE and Local Area Health in the Strategy.

Local Preferencing Policy

It is recommended that the following provisions be inserted into Council’s Procurement Policy to support local businesses through the supply of goods and services to Council under its procurement framework:

3.5 LOCAL PREFERENCE

3.5.1 Commitment to local content

Council is committed to promoting high-value local business content within its supply chain.

To this end, and in cases where evaluation demonstrates the capacity for local business to deliver a competitive supply, Council will take proactive steps to provide opportunities for local businesses and suppliers to overcome a narrow deficit over a non-local supplier.

3.6.2 Achieving increased local content

Council aims to secure increased local content in its supply chain by:

(a) Defining local suppliers within the Standards;

(b) Setting out a weighted allowance for local content within the Standards;

(c) Establishing a process for applying this weighted allowance within the procurement evaluation process; and

(d) Establishing circumstances when this weighted allowance will change an outcome in favour of a local supplier.

The above provisions are designed to provide an advantage to local suppliers in the form of a weighted allowance when they compete against non-local suppliers in Council procurement processes.

Local preferencing will benefit local businesses, which in turn will benefit the local communities that rely on those businesses for jobs, and goods and services. By using local businesses, Council will be in a better position to source specialised products and satisfy local preferences. In addition, by dealing with local businesses Council will benefit from shorter supply chains with reduced delivery times and lower costs. It will also make it easier for Council to travel to, work with, and manage local suppliers.

It should be noted that the local preference allowance will only make up a small component in the overall scoring and assessment of quotations and tenders by Council. To ensure that Council achieves value for money, local suppliers must continue to compete for Council business based on factors set out in the Procurement Policy including, but not limited to, quality, fit for purpose, price, capability, experience, risk profile and service support. All existing requirements relating to probity, accountability and transparency under the Policy and relevant legislation will also continue to apply.

Key Anchor Institutions

Council’s Manager City Economy has consulted with senior staff responsible for procurement at the South West Sydney Local Health District (LHD). The LHD has advised as follows:

1. The LHD (incorporating Liverpool Hospital) follows NSW Government procurement guidelines when sourcing suppliers;

2. Consequentially, if the proposed purchase exceeds a value of $250,000, the LHD submits the purchase to either RFQ or Tender, and will generally be required to use existing pre-qualified suppliers on NSW government preferred list;

3. For purchasing between $10,000 and $250,000, similar requirements exist, though such purchasing is generally conducted by formal quotation processes;

4. If the request is less than $10,000, only 1-2 quotes are required, and each unit has the flexibility to source locally with a weighting given to local SMEs and indigenous companies; and

5. There are no set quotas for Western Sydney companies. Under state government policy, this only occurs in regional and rural NSW where there is a high weighting given to local suppliers.

The information available to staff suggests that this approach is consistent across the state government sector.

The City Economy team are in regular contact with other key anchor institutions and are continually promoting local business as part of these discussions. Where probity and compliance requirements permit, any opportunities to collaborate on procurement activities with such institutions will be considered.

Sustainable and Social Procurement

It is recommended that the below provisions regarding sustainable and social procurement also be inserted into the Procurement Policy. While not directly related to local preferencing, the provisions will strengthen Council’s overall procurement practices by ensuring that they are beyond reproach. In particular, it is important that Council implement measures to identify and prevent unacceptable practices in the supply chain such as fraud, corruption, modern-day slavery, human trafficking and child labour. The provisions will enable Council to comply with requirements under the Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018 which came into effect in January 2019, and the consistent NSW Act which is currently under Parliamentary review.

3.6 SUSTAINABLE AND SOCIAL PROCUREMENT

3.6.1 Commitment to sustainable and social Procurement

Council is committed to taking positive action to minimise the negative impact of the products and services procured and maximising the benefits. This includes minimising unnecessary purchasing, and purchasing goods and services that contribute to a more sustainable future that is ethical and supportive of fair trade.

Council is also committed to embedding processes within its procurement framework that encourage suppliers to be proactive in engaging members of disadvantaged communities and demographics in the supply chain. Council is particularly committed to promoting the involvement in the supply chain of persons of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, as well as promoting broader racial, gender, sexual orientation and religious diversity outcomes.

3.6.2 Achieving Sustainable and Social Procurement

Sustainable and social Procurement is conducted through (where reasonably practicable and appropriate in the circumstances):

(a) applying sustainability and social responsibility evaluation criteria in formal quotations and tender processes;

(b) minimising unnecessary purchasing by only purchasing when a product or service is necessary;

(c) considering the environmental performance of all suppliers and contractors and encouraging them to conduct their operations in an environmentally sensitive manner;

(d) selecting products/services where possible, that have minimal effect on the depletion of natural resources and biodiversity e.g. purchasing products that save energy and/or water;

(e) avoiding purchasing products that pollute soils, air or waterways, or hazardous chemicals;

(f) choosing environmental preferred “green” or recycled products and services and purchasing products that reduce greenhouse emissions;

(g) purchasing ethically sourced and fair trade goods and services where appropriate;

(h) exploring opportunities to engage with social enterprises for the Procurement of goods or services which support reinvigorating

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Procurement Policy October 2019

[1] Objects of the Act (1) a. To regulate and control the sale, supply and consumption of liquor in a way that is consistent with the expectations, needs and aspirations of the community, (2) a. The need to minimise harm associated with misuse and abuse of liquor (including harm arising from violence and other anti-social behaviour), c. The need to ensure that the sale, supply and consumption of liquor contributes to, and does not detract from, the amenity of community life.

Meeting date	Comments
3 February 2020	First meeting after January break to deal with accumulated business.
24 February 2020	Last Monday of the month.
30 March 2020	Last Monday of the month.
27 April 2020	Last Monday of the month.
25 May 2020	Last Monday of the month.
29 June 2020	Last Monday of the month.
27 July 2020	Last Monday of the month.
31 August 2020	Last Monday of the month.
No meeting in September due to Local Government Elections.
19 October 2020	First meeting of the new Council.
16 November 2020	Third Monday of the month.
14 December 2020	Second Monday of the month.

67
CEO 02	Annual Code of Conduct Complaints Statistics Report
Attachment 1	Annual Code of Conduct Statistics Report submitted to the OLG

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Increase community engagement
File Ref	273000.2019
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	Andrew Stevenson - Chief Strategy and Engagement Officer

Economic	The cost of handling Code of Conduct complaints made against Councillors is set out in this report.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993, section 440AA

145
CORP 03	Investment Report October 2019
Attachment 2	ARIC Certification of Investment Portfolio

157
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 3	Capital Budget Adjustments

159
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 4	Grant Status Report - Applications

161
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 5	Grant Status Report - Received

163
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 6	Cash & Investment Report

163
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 7	Key Performance Indicators

165
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 8	Consultancy & Legal Expenses Budget Review Statement

167
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 9	Contracts & Other Expenses Statements

167
CORP 04	Budget Review - September 2019
Attachment 10	City Development Fund & Environment Levy Reserves

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Provide business excellence and financial sustainability to deliver services that meet community expectations
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	285434.2019
Report By	Earl Paradeza - Senior Management Accountant
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

Economic	The audited financial results for the year ended 30 June 2019 are contained and presented within the report.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Section 417 and Section 420 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Create an attractive environment for investment
File Ref	265583.2019
Report By	Vi Girgis - Senior Officer City Precinct
Approved By	Tim Moore - Director, City Economy and Growth / Deputy CEO

197
CTTE 01	Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee meeting held on 1 October 2019
Attachment 1	Tourism & CBD Committee Meeting Minutes - 1 October 2019

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Encourage community participation in decision-making
File Ref	268760.2019
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Dr Eddie Jackson - Director City Community and Culture

205
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 2 October 2019
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held on 2 October 2019.

211
CTTE 03	Notes of the Meeting held on 8 August 2019 and Minutes of the Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 10 October 2019.
Attachment 1	Notes of the Liverpool Access Committee Meeting held on 8 August 2019.

225
CTTE 04	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee held on 9 October 2019
Attachment 1	Environment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 9 October 2019

231
CTTE 05	Minutes of the Strategic Panel Meeting 8 October 2019
Attachment 1	Strategic Panel Minutes 8 October 2019

239
CTTE 06	Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee meetings held on 2 September 2019 and 25 October 2019
Attachment 1	Civic Advisory Committee Minutes from 2 September 2019

259
CTTE 07	Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 18 October 2019
Attachment 1	Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 19 October 2019

Year	Northumberland Street Carpark	Bathurst Street Carpark	On-Street Meter Revenue	TOTAL
2012	$0	$544,243	$0	$544,243
2013	$295,055	$292,323	$1,216,661	$1,804,039
2014	$353,704	$288,594	$1,037,252	$1,679,550
2015	$364,925	$297,155	$958,172	$1,620,252
2016	$407,486	$269,288	$971,561	$1,648,335
2017	$462,469	$307,263	$951,785	$1,721,517
2018	$556,945	$362,485	$1,055,873	$1,975,302
2019	$539,378	$336,911	$1,005,574	$1,881,863
Total	$2,979,962	$2,698,261	$7,196,877	$12,875,100

Parking Meter Upgrades	Amount
Upgrade to Pay by Plate (Paid)	$406,000
On road automated process	$ 69,000
Total Budget	$475,000