Addendum Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Wednesday, 25 November 2020

Ordinary Meeting

25 November 2020

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 05

Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Meet the challenges of Liverpool’s growing population
File Ref	297711.2020
Report By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Property

3 Bridges Road, Moorebank (Lot 200, DP 1009044);

5 Bridges Road (Lot 100, DP 775780);

6 Bridges Road (Lot 10, DP 875626);

8 Bridges Road (Lot 111, DP 1133744);

11 Bridges Road (Lot 201, DP 1009044);

361 Newbridge Road (Lot 101, DP 827141)

Owner

Coronation Property Co Pty Ltd and Leamac Property Group

Applicant

Mecone

Executive Summary

Council received a request to prepare a planning proposal on behalf of Coronation Property and Leamac Property Group (Attachment 1) for 32 hectares of land in the precinct known as Georges River North, or Moore Point in Moorebank. The planning proposal request seeks to rezone the site, amend development standards, introduce additional permitted uses, and introduce site-specific development controls to enable a mixed-use development on the site, which would allow for approximately 12,200 dwellings and 249,364m² of commercial floor space over a long-term period until 2051.

The planning proposal request specifically seeks the following amendments to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2008:

· Rezone the subject land from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, B6 Enterprise Corridor and RE1 Public Recreation;

· Increase the maximum floor space ratio to 4.2:1 and 3.5:1;

· Increase the maximum height of buildings from 18m and 15m to RL 136 and RL 108; and

· Introduce Division 1A into the LEP to provide site-specific development controls for the site including design excellence, sun access and requirements for the preparation of a development control plan. This Division also seeks an amendment to the Key Sites Map such that Clause 7.22(4) of the LEP applies to the site, which would allow residential development within 50m of a classified road within the B6 zone, as long as it is not within 8m of the classified road.

The planning proposal request also includes an Urban Design Study, which includes a structure plan for the entire ~38.5-hectare Moore Point precinct, as well as studies for the entire precinct.

The Council officer’s planning assessment report to the Local Planning Panel is included in Attachment 2. The report concludes that the proposal demonstrates strategic and site-specific merit. It is noted that the finalisation of flooding and traffic studies is required and will be completed post a Gateway determination. The report recommends that a planning proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway determination.

Advice was sought from the Liverpool Local Planning Panel (LPP) at its meeting on 26 October 2020 in accordance with the Local Planning Panel Direction – Planning Proposals dated 23 February 2018. The panel concluded that the proposal had strategic merit. A majority of the panel (3-1) agreed that the proposal had site-specific merit, with a dissenting opinion stating that there was not enough information to determine whether there was site-specific merit at this point in time. The panel advice is that it is appropriate for the planning proposal to proceed to a Gateway determination, with all issues raised in the majority and dissenting opinion to be appropriately addressed at the post Gateway stage. The advice of the LPP is provided at Attachment 3.

It is recommended that Council note the advice of the LPP, support in principle the planning proposal request with the recommended amendments and submit the proposal to DPIE seeking a Gateway determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

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

2. Endorses in principle the planning proposal request with the following amendments:

a) an additional 1.5 hectares of open space marked as ‘Open Space Investigation’ adjacent to Haigh Park;

b) a minimum 40m RE1 – Public Recreation zone is provided along Lake Moore;

3. Endorses the Urban Design Study and Structure Plan for the George’s River North precinct, with the above amendments, to guide the assessment of future planning proposals in this area;

4. Notes that further detailed studies, including site contamination, acoustic, flood, flood evacuation and transport impact assessment will be completed post Gateway determination;

5. Notes the offer from the proponent to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement and/or the preparation of a Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan to ensure there is appropriate funding for local infrastructure to support development in the precinct;

6. Delegates to the A/CEO authority to negotiate a planning agreement with the proponent, agree the terms of offer with the proponent and report back to Council the details of any planning agreement, consistent with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy;

7. Delegates to the A/CEO authority to prepare the formal planning proposal including any typographical or other editing amendments if required;

8. Forwards a planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, pursuant to Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, seeking a Gateway determination with a recommendation that completion of relevant studies be included as a condition of any Gateway determination and that the Department play an active role in the planning process given the strategic significance of this proposal to Liverpool and Greater Sydney; and

9. Receives a further report on the outcomes of public exhibition and community consultation.

Report

Background

Council received this planning proposal request on 15 April 2020. The planning proposal request replaced the previous planning proposal request lodged in 2015, and all other previous site-specific planning proposal requests in this area, lodged by the proponents, were withdrawn.

Council had previously resolved to defer consideration of these planning proposal requests while the draft Georges River Precinct Plan was developed in 2016, and again until the release of the Liverpool Collaboration Area Place Strategy.

Following the adoption of the Liverpool Collaboration Area Place Strategy by the Greater Sydney Commission in September 2018, Council indicated to landowners in Moore Point that it was prepared to consider a rezoning of land in the precinct that would meet the intention expressed in the Liverpool Collaboration Area Place Strategy, namely ‘a mixture of commercial, retail, residential and community uses that provide sustainable employment, that is complementary to, and not in competition with, the commercial core of the Liverpool CBD’.

Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) also provides strategic support for the rezoning of the precinct. The LSPS, adopted by Council earlier this year, states that Council will ‘investigate amendments to the LEP to rezone the river precinct north of Newbridge Road (Moore Point) as a mixed-use zone to support the Liverpool CBD and Innovation Precinct, with an extensive open space system and cross-river linkages’ over the short-to-medium term.

The site and locality

The subject site is located in the Georges River North (Moore Point) precinct, defined as being all lots bounded by Newbridge Road to the south, the Georges River to the east and north, and Haigh Park, Lake Moore and McMillan Park to the north and west. The primary access to the site is via Bridges Road and Newbridge Road.

Figure 1: Aerial view of the Georges River North precinct

Source: Nearmap 03 August 2020

The planning proposal request submitted to Council seeks changes to those lots owned by a Joint Landowner Group (JLG) comprising Leamac Property Group and Coronation Property. A separate planning proposal request has been lodged within the precinct at 335-349 Newbridge Road, which is currently under assessment.

Figure 2: Ownership of land within the Georges River North precinct

Blue/yellow = Joint Landowner Group

Purple = other landowners

Source: Mecone 2020

The planning proposal request applies to six lots of varying sizes represented in yellow and blue in Figure 2. All lots in the precinct are currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial.

The site is currently used for a range of light industrial purposes, the largest of which is Prysmian, a cable and electrical wire manufacturer.

The Proposal

The planning proposal request seeks to amend the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan to facilitate high-density mixed-use development. It is envisaged that the development could support approximately 12,220 dwellings and provide 249,364m² of commercial floor space over a long period to 2051.

An associated Urban Design Study envisages that the entire precinct could ultimately accommodate approximately 14,054 dwellings and 344,499m² of commercial floor space, with a residential population of approximately 30,760 persons. The gross residential density of the precinct would be approximately 365 dwellings per hectare, with a residential population density of 800 people per hectare, making it one of the densest urban regeneration projects in Australia.

The proposal would be achieved through the following amendments to the LEP:

· Rezone the site from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, B6 Enterprise Corridor and RE1 Public Recreation;

· Increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard to 4.2:1 and 3.5:1;

· Increase the maximum height of buildings (HOB) development standard from 18m and 15m to RL 136 and RL 108; and

· Introduce Division 1A to the LEP to provide site-specific development controls for the site including design excellence, sun access and requirements for preparation of a development control plan. It also seeks to amend the Key Sites Map such that Clause 7.22(4) applies to the site, which would allow residential development within 50m of a classified road within the B6 zone, as long as the development was more than 8m from the classified road.

The intended Land Zoning Map is pictured in Figure 4, FSR in Figure 5, and HOB in Figure 6.

An illustrative masterplan for the entire precinct is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 4: Intended zoning map for Georges River North Precinct

NB: Striped land indicates land not subject to planning proposal

Source: Mecone, 2020

Initially, the planning proposal request did not include any RE1 zoned land, however the proposal was revised to include RE1 land along the Georges River. Council officers recommend an additional 1.5 hectares be provided as an ‘open space investigation area’ adjacent to Haigh Park, as well as additional RE1 zoned land of 40m from the top of bank around Lake Moore, in order to better provide for active recreation onsite, and for there to be an appropriate buffer between Lake Moore and development. Further information on the request for additional open space is provided in the planning assessment (Attachment 2).

Figure 5: Intended FSR map for Georges River North Precinct

NB: Striped land indicates land not subject to planning proposal

Source: Mecone, 2020

Figure 6: Intended HOB map for Georges River North Precinct

NB: Striped land indicates land not subject to planning proposal

Source: Mecone, 2020

Figure 7: Illustrative masterplan

NB: Striped land indicates land not subject to planning proposal

Source: SJB, 2020

Council officers recommend that Council endorse the illustrative masterplan (Figure 7) with the recommended changes to guide future assessment of planning proposals in the Moore Point precinct. Changes recommended include marking an additional 1.5 hectares as ‘open space investigation’ south-west of Haigh Park, and providing a minimum 40m open space buffer from the top of bank of Lake Moore.

It is intended that a suitable staging and sequencing plan will be further developed to ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place to support development. An indicative staging plan for the subject land has been provided as part of the Urban Design Study (Figure 8). Council officers consider the planning proposal request should include clear staging which limits the ability to obtain development consent for later stages to ensure development is appropriately sequenced and supported by infrastructure. How staging and sequencing will be implemented through planning controls is expected to be resolved post-Gateway in close consultation with DPIE, GSC, TfNSW and other state agencies.

An indicative render of the development is provided at Figure 9.

Figure 8: Indicative staging plan

Source: SJB

Figure 9: Indicative render of precinct viewed from the east.

Source: SJB

Planning Assessment

The planning assessment report is contained in Attachment 2. It provides an assessment of the merits of the proposal against the District and Region Plans, Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and the Department’s ‘A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals’. The report concludes that the planning proposal request has strategic and site-specific merit and should proceed to a Gateway determination. The report notes that resolution of outstanding traffic and flooding considerations is required, as well as changes to the planning proposal request to increase the amount of public open space.

Local Planning Panel Advice

The planning proposal request was considered by the Local Planning Panel at its 26 October 2020 meeting, and this advice is included at Attachment 3.

The Panel agreed unanimously with the Council officers conclusion that the planning proposal request has strategic merit, having regard to the broader policy context, including the Greater Sydney Regional Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities, the Western City District Plan, Local Strategic Planning Statement and the Liverpool Collaboration Area Place Strategy.

A majority of the Panel (3-1) agreed that the planning proposal request has site-specific merit, noting that the final form and ultimate capacity of the site will be determined through the completion of investigations that will determine the carrying capacity and configuration of the Precinct. This includes:

· Detailed analysis of flooding conditions and required mitigation and management measures;

· Outcomes of the strategic transport modelling and transport impact assessment;

· Outcomes of the open space needs analysis for the Collaboration Area (with in principle support given for a larger quantum of open space, dependent on the outcome of the analysis); and

· Advice on the need for schools within the precinct.

The Panel noted Council’s planning assessment report detailing issues that required further resolution post-Gateway, including:

· Contamination;

· The treatment of offensive odour from the Liverpool water recycling plant;

· The extent of the riparian zone buffer and its treatment;

· Urban design;

· Connectivity;

· Affordable housing – the Panel notes and supports the Council officers recommended 5-10% affordable housing target;

· The quantum and extent of physical and social infrastructure to support a major population and employment precinct;

· A suitable staging and sequencing plan to ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place to meet the demands of the precinct.

There was a dissenting view that the proposal is not supported by appropriate studies, in sufficient detail, to establish whether there is site-specific merit. This includes the following:

· Flooding – the minority opinion believes there is insufficient information to assess environmental, socio-economic and climate change-related impacts from the proposed flood mitigation strategy;

· Connectivity – it is unclear whether the three bridge connections to the Liverpool CBD, Innovation Precinct and Warwick Farm can be adequately captured through a VPA or contributions plan to a standard that is equitable and accessible to ratepayers, and that climate change must be addressed in the design. It is argued that this must be resolved at the planning proposal stage rather than at concept DA or DA stage;

· Aboriginal culture – the minority opinion questions whether consultation has been done with the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC). It is stated that engagement with the LALC and local Aboriginal community is pertinent at this stage of the planning proposal;

· Aquatic Ecology – there is no information on the aquatic ecology values of the Georges River in Moore Point or upstream in the compensatory flood storage locations. Given the large potential disturbance footprint and infrastructure required for riparian improvements, it is considered important to establish an understanding of aquatic environment. The Coastal Management Plan objective to “protect and improve the extent and condition of estuarine and riparian vegetation” does not appear to have been considered.

Key issues

Traffic

Council’s traffic planning department have provided in principle support to the planning proposal proceeding to a Gateway determination. They note the strategic transport modelling work underway by Transport for NSW which includes:

· Stage 1 - A strategic analysis of the transport infrastructure required to support the planning proposal;

· Stage 2 - Detailed Transport and Traffic Assessment in the context of a Transport Management Accessibility Plan (TMAP) to identify the infrastructure and service requirements and determine development contributions / SIC.

Flooding

Council’s Flood Plain and Water Management department required the following in order to determine the suitability of the proposal:

· A detailed hydraulic analysis to assess the effectiveness of the proposed flood mitigation option;

· A flood impact assessment for all design flood events including the 1% AEP and PMF. Appropriate flood mitigation measures shall be incorporated including provision of compensatory flood storage and to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts on flood levels and flow velocity in the river and on the adjoining properties;

· Further detail on how the proposed flood mitigation option in Helles Park will ensure enhanced and effective recreation uses, in addition to effective flood mitigation; and

· A revised flood evacuation strategy with plans including levels to demonstrate that a continuous rising grade is achieved to a level above the PMF.

Council officers have agreed that this information is important and necessary, and that it must be provided at the post-Gateway stage. Council will also need to resolve whether off-site compensatory storage is an acceptable solution, as it is currently not Council policy to support off-site solutions. However, as part of the solution, the proponent has offered to further embellish land at Helles Park to provide superior active recreation facilities. Once the above studies have been completed, Council staff will be able to make a recommendation to Council regarding whether off-site flood mitigation can be supported as a solution. If it is not, the planning proposal will need to be amended to include on-site flood mitigation.

Environmental Health

Council’s Environment & Health department have advised that the following information is required before they can support the planning proposal being gazetted:

· a preliminary investigation of the land carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines – the currently provided report does not fulfil all requirements of a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation as outlined within the contaminated land planning guidelines referenced in Ministerial direction (No 2.6) issued 17^th April 2020 and guidelines made and approved by the NSW EPA under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

· an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant for the noise sensitive development

Council officers have agreed that this information is important and necessary, and that it must be provided at the post-Gateway stage.

Part of the site is also affected by the Sydney Water odour buffer, and Council will engage with Sydney Water post-Gateway to understand whether they can support increased residential development within the 2OU buffer. The Gateway determination will include Sydney Water as a state agency that must be consulted.

Open Space

Council’s Community Planning department raised concern with the provision of open space in the proposal. Council typically requires 2.83 hectares of open space per 1000 persons. With a precinct-wide population expected to be 30,760 persons, this would require 87 hectares for open space, including eight sports fields, which is larger than the precinct itself.

It is clearly understood that such metrics are not suitable for urban renewal areas, however percentage-based open space metrics (for example 20% of site area), which have been applied to the proposal and reflected in the proponent’s Community Benefits Analysis (Attachment 10), are also problematic as they do not account for density or open space capacity limits. In the case of this planning proposal, the density is significantly higher than any other similarly scaled urban renewal precincts in Sydney. For example, Green Square has a population density of 211 persons per hectare, while Georges River North is predicted to have an ultimate density of 799 persons per hectare.

Active recreation demand triggered by the proposed development should primarily be addressed within the development area, with Haigh Park a complementary open space area. It is recommended that a metric of 1 hectare of open space be provided per 1000 persons, or 10 square metres per person, based on international best practice examples. Currently the proposal provides for around 0.25 hectares per person, or 2.5 sq m per person.

Council staff recommend that an additional 1.5 hectares of open space be provided as an ‘Open Space Investigation’ in line with Community Planning’s feedback and the Community Benefit Analysis recommendation that there should be 1.5 hectares for a district-level park on-site inclusive of sporting fields. The Community Benefits Analysis suggests Haigh Park could support an additional two sporting fields, which is supported by Community Planning.

It should be noted that following the preparation of the planning assessment report by staff for the Local Planning Panel, including the recommendation on open space, the proponent submitted updated advice (Attachment 11) from the Community Benefits Analysis consultant that contended that sports recreation does not need to be provided on-site, and that Haigh Park could support one local sports space, with two additional sports fields to be provided offsite. It is Community Planning’s and the Council officer’s view that the provision of only one informal sports space within Moore Point is not adequate for a projected population of over 30,000 persons. A population of 30,000 residents warrants 8 soccer fields and 3 cricket pitches. The integration of additional sports fields with Haigh park is acceptable for capacity building, integration and co-location of recreation facilities.

Council staff support the inclusion of 1.5 hectares of additional open space adjacent to Haigh Park as ‘open space investigation’ while an open space needs assessment is conducted for the entire Liverpool Collaboration Area. This will give Council a better understanding of the quantum of open space required across the Collaboration Area, and its necessary configuration and locations. It is also noted that the proposal’s dwelling yield may need to be reduced following the finalisation of studies, including transport and flooding. This may change the amount of open space required to be provided.

Public Domain

Council’s City Design and Public Domain department identified a number of urban design issues concerning built form and public domain that will need to be resolved through the Place Making and Statutory Planning Working Groups, post Gateway. While the scale of development is supported on the east of the site closer to Liverpool Station, further consideration should be given to the scale of development, including bulk and height of development closer to Haigh Park and around Lake Moore. The proponents have suggested that this can be addressed through the development of DCP controls, though the City Design team have concerns that this could lead to challenges during the development assessment stage. This issue will be closely considered in consultation with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment through the next stages of the planning process.

There is also concern over the ‘urbanised’ treatment around Lake Moore, which is listed as a Coastal Wetland, and where Council’s City Design and Public Domain unit indicate that the environmental qualities of the lake should have primacy. This issue will also be considered carefully by the Environment, Energy and Science Group (EES) within DPIE as part of state agency consultation.

Council staff recommend the planning proposal request be amended to provide a minimum 40m buffer of RE1 zoned open space surrounding Lake Moore in order to provide a suitable urban design outcome. While recognising that other urban design issues need to be addressed, as noted in the LPP report, it is considered that the refinement of these detailed design elements can be undertaken during the post-Gateway stage through inclusion into a site-specific DCP.

Consultation

Section 10 of the Liverpool Community Participation Plan (CPP) 2019 states the following:

For large scale planning proposals, Council will also exhibit the planning proposal for 28 days prior to a Council decision on whether to endorse the planning proposal for a Gateway determination. Feedback from the community will be incorporated into a report to Council.

As required by Council’s Community Participation Plan, the proposal was publicly exhibited for 28 days prior to being reported to Council.

The proposal received three community responses during this period, and one agency response. Of the three community responses, one was in support, one was in opposition, and one was neutral.

The response in support of the proposal came from the Liverpool Innovation Precinct, which comprises nine of Liverpool’s largest organisations, including South Western Sydney Local Health District; Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research; Western Sydney University; University of NSW; South Western Sydney Primary Health Network; TAFE NSW; Department of Education and the University of Wollongong; and Liverpool City Council. It is independently chaired by the Western Sydney Business Chamber.

The submission stated that “Moore Point represents the logical extension of the Liverpool CBD and will help to reorientate the city towards the Georges River by providing several new connections across the river between the Liverpool CBD, the transport interchange and Moore Point, and a new community of residents who will seek to connect to the Liverpool city centre in new ways.”

The submission stated that the Liverpool Innovation Precinct seeks to leverage the strong health, research and education assets of the Liverpool CBD to attract more private sector investment, and employment opportunities in knowledge jobs, which requires an expansion of its housing, cultural, recreational and amenity opportunities, which Moore Point would deliver.

The submission objecting to the proposal was from a resident and ratepayer. The objection was based on the proposal likely adding to congestion already experienced on Newbridge Road. It also objected to the proposal on the basis that the land is flood prone, and that Newbridge Road floods during heavy rain events, making the site unsuitable for further development.

The final submission suggested that the proposal may fall short by seeking to maximise residential and commercial space, and that Covid-19 may require amendments to better accommodate changing social and commercial needs. It also stated that the proposal didn’t respond to the need for parking, and that a parking station should be incorporated into the development.

One state agency, Schools Infrastructure NSW, responded to the proposal, stating that the proposal would lead to a substantial increase in the total number of government primary and secondary school students, which would be more than can be accommodated at existing schools. SINSW requested further ongoing consultation to ensure educational facilities are supporting community needs and are appropriately resourced to service future population growth.

Next Steps

If Council supports in principle the planning proposal request, a formal planning proposal will be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) seeking a Gateway determination.

A further report will be provided to Council following the public exhibition period detailing submissions received and any amendments proposed.

CONclusion

It is recommended that Council support in principle the planning proposal request with the changes recommended by staff, as the proposal demonstrates strategic and site-specific merit. The finalisation of necessary studies can be conditioned through the Gateway process.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital health and medical precinct (of the City Centre). Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. Facilitate economic development.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
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	Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. If Council does not support the planning proposal request, there is a risk that the landowner will seek a review of Council’s decision by the Sydney Western City Planning Panel.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant's Planning Proposal Request

2. Local Planning Panel Report

3. Local Planning Panel advice

4. Urban Design Study

5. Amended Urban Design Analysis

6. Aboriginal Heritage Report

7. Aeronautical Assessment

8. Air Quality Assessment

9. Biodiversity Assessment

10. Community Benefits Analysis

11. Community Benefits Analysis Addendum

12. Demographic Analysis

13. Economic Impact Assessment

14. Flood Evacuation Strategy

15. Flood Impact Assessment

16. Historical Heritage Assessment

17. Interim Letter of Offer - Voluntary Planning Agreement

18. Benchmarking report

19. Part 1 Contamination Assessment

20. Part 2 Acid Sulfate Management Plan

21. Place Design Framework

22. Riparian Strategy

23. Riparian Strategy Appendix A

24. Servicing Infrastructure Report

25. Strategic Transport Impact Assessment

26. Sustainability Statement

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
Key Policy	Long-Term Financial Plan
File Ref	313763.2020
Report By	Earl Paradeza - Senior Management Accountant
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

1
CORP 07	Annual Financial Reports 2019/20
Attachment 1	Draft Financial Statements 2019-20

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 2	Local Planning Panel Report

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 3	Local Planning Panel advice

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 4	Urban Design Study

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 5	Amended Urban Design Analysis

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 6	Aboriginal Heritage Report

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 7	Aeronautical Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 8	Air Quality Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 9	Biodiversity Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 10	Community Benefits Analysis

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 11	Community Benefits Analysis Addendum

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 12	Demographic Analysis

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 13	Economic Impact Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 14	Flood Evacuation Strategy

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 15	Flood Impact Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 16	Historical Heritage Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 17	Interim Letter of Offer - Voluntary Planning Agreement

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 18	Benchmarking report

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 19	Part 1 Contamination Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 20	Part 2 Acid Sulfate Management Plan

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 21	Place Design Framework

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 22	Riparian Strategy

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 23	Riparian Strategy Appendix A

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 24	Servicing Infrastructure Report

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 25	Strategic Transport Impact Assessment

1
EGROW 05	Planning proposal request to rezone land and amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan for land at Moore Point Bridges Road, Moorebank
Attachment 26	Sustainability Statement

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	Division 2 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Risk	Financial risk management issues are included in the financial statements.