Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 16 December 2015

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Prayer

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 November 2015......................................................... 10

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NOMR 01 Rescission of DPG 01 - DA-304/2015 - Three lot Torrens title subdivision at 11 Bullrush Cr, Voyager Point from the Council meeting 25 November 2015................. 72......... 1

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Resurfacing of Freeman Street Warwick Farm............................................. 73......... 2

NOM 02 Protecting Services in Liverpool..................................................................... 75......... 3

NOM 03 Building Our New City Committee................................................................. 78......... 4

NOM 04 Bringing Christmas Lights back into Liverpool................................................ 80......... 5

NOM 05 Friends of Collingwood................................................................................... 82......... 6

NOM 06 Georges River Combined Councils' Committee .......................................... 84......... 7

NOM 07 Provision of Embellishments to Parks ........................................................... 88......... 8

Motions of Urgency

NIL

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01 DA-237/2015 - Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of an eight (8) storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor commercial space, 58 residential units with associated car parking at 402 Macquarie Street and 190 Terminus Street, Liverpool ......................................................................................................... 90......... 9

IHAP 02 DA-1014/2014 - Subdivision of proposed Residue Lot 53 (approved under Development Consent No. DA-961/2013) into four Torrens title residential lots including; earthworks, road and drainage construction at 320 Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park...... 99....... 10

IHAP 03 DA-376/2015 - Demolition of existing structures and subdivision of 2 Lots into 4 Torrens title lots and construction of a two storey dwelling on each lot at 79-81 Atkinson Street, Liverpool........................................................................................................ 108....... 11

IHAP 04 DA-219/2015 - Subdivision of one lot into three Torrens title lots at 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville. ............................................................................................. 114....... 12

Development Application Determination Report

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01 Corporate Sponsorships............................................................................... 122....... 13

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01 Investigation - Files Destroyed in Council Fire 2010.................................... 125....... 14

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 01 Delegation of Authority by Council for the Christmas / New Year Recess.. 128....... 15

CFO 02 Investment Report November 2015............................................................. 130....... 16

City Presentation Report

NIL

Community and Culture Report

DCC 01 Closed Circuit Televison Network in Liverpool City Centre......................... 141....... 17

Economy and Engagement Report

NIL

Infrastructure and Environment Report

NIL

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01 Proposed changes to Council committees................................................... 144....... 18

DPG 02 Animal Management Policy.......................................................................... 150....... 19

DPG 03 Development Engineering Bonds Policy - Draft........................................... 171....... 20

DPG 04 Bathurst Street Car Park Extension............................................................. 187....... 21

DPG 05 Amendment 51 to LLEP 2008 - Proposal to rezone 148 George Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street and 133 Bigge Street from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use. 192....... 22

DPG 06 Application to amend LLEP 2008 to permit 'shops' up to a maximum GFA of 21,000sqm at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Orange Grove MegaCenta)... 209....... 23

DPG 07 Council submission on Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek........... 217....... 24

Property and Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 11 November 2015 235 26

CTTE 02 Environment Advisory Committee minutes of meeting held on 9 November 2015 239 27

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee meeting held November 10, 2015 246 28

CTTE 04 Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 24 November 2015 254 29

CTTE 05 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 2 December 2015....... 262....... 30

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Stanley................................................................ 269....... 31

Questions Taken on Notice

Presentations by Councillors

Council in Closed Session

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

CONF 01 Acquisition of part Lot A DP 391813, 9 Speed Street, Liverpool, for road purposes

Reason: Item CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 02 Acquisition of Lot 39 DP 1160527 & Lot 39 DP 1167333, Swoffer Avenue, Middleton Grange, for drainage purposes

Reason: Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 03 Proposed easement for draninage purposes over Lot 236 DP 25142, 203 Memorial Avenue, Liverpool, known as 'Ireland Park'

Reason: Item CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 04 Tender WT2494 - George Street and Northumberland Street Traffic Flow Changes

Reason: Item CONF 04 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 05 Easement for an Electrical Switching Station and Underground Cables over Lot 515 in DP 235072 known as Hargrave Park in Warwick Farm

Reason: Item CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 06 Tender WT2502 - Restoration Works at Aviation Road Basin, Elizabeth Hills

Reason: Item CONF 06 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 07 Proposed easements over Lot 101 DP 1143458, 306 Macquarie Street, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 07 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

CONF 08 Minutes of Civic Advisory Committee - 2016 Australia Day Awards

Reason: Item CONF 08 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

CONF 09 Legal Affairs Report

Reason: Item CONF 09 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c)(d ii) (g) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

CONF 10 ST2481 Building and Grounds Cleaning Services

Reason: Item CONF 10 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i)(d ii) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

CONF 11 ST2515 - Signage Licence - Corner Wilson and Hoxton Park Road, Hinchinbrook

Reason: Item CONF 11 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 12 Tender WT2496 - School of Arts External Works, Liverpool

Reason: Item CONF 12 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 13 WT2447 Liverpool Civic Place Project

Reason: Item CONF 13 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c)(d i)(d ii) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

CONF 14 Waste Management Audit and Process Review (to be provided in the Confidential Addendum Booklet)

Reason: Item CONF 14 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i)(e) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; AND information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law

CONF 15 Macquarie Street Mall Revitalisation - Risk Management Initiative (to be provided in the Confidential Addendum Booklet)

Reason: Item CONF 15 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(c) (d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

Close

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 25 November 2015

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Balloot

Councillor Hadchiti

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Harle

Councillor Karnib

Councillor Mamone

Councillor Ristevski

Councillor Shelton

Councillor Stanley

Councillor Waller

Mr Carl Wulff, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Gary Grantham, Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Ms Toni Averay, Director Planning and Growth

Ms Kiersten Fishburn, Director Community and Culture

Mr Gino Belsito, Director City Presentation

Mr Michael Cullen, Director Economy and Engagement

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure and Environment

Ms Carole Todd, Director Business Improvement

Mr John Morgan, Director Property and Commercial Development

The meeting commenced at 6.05pm.

OPENING 6.05pm

PRAYER The prayer of the Council was read by Mr George Georgakis, Manager Council and Executive Services.

APOLOGIES Nil

CONDOLENCES Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Mamone Seconded: Clr Hadid

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 28 October 2015 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 10 November 2015 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting.

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

Declarations of Interest

Clr Stanley declared a pecuniary interest in the following item:

Item: DPG 02 - Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 38 Proposed Reclassification and Rezoning of Parks Post Exhibition Report.

Reason: Clr Stanley owns a property in the vicinity of one of the parks in question.

Clr Stanley left the Chambers for the duration of the Item.

The CEO, Mr Carl Wulff declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following Item:

Item: CONF 09 - ST2440 - Transformation Process for Delivering Services to the Community

Reason: Mr Wulff has previously had business dealings with one of the companies mentioned in the report.

Public Forum

Presentation – Items not on Agenda

Mr Peter Konc addressed the Council on the following matter:

Parking issue concerning all day parking by non-residents.

Mr Peter Konc addressed the Council on the following matter:

Lack of notification of DA 1175/2014 to adjoining properties.

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadid Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That a two minute extension of time be given to Mr Peter Konc.

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

Mr Zelko Filipic addressed Council on the following matter:

Lack of notification to the owners of DA 1175/2014 and approval of the adjoining properties.

Representation – Items on Agenda

4. Mr Jeff Smith addressed Council on the following Item:

NOM 01: Almalfi Park Detention Basin

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadid Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That a two minute extension of time be given to Mr Jeff Smith.

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

5. Ms Renee Searle addressed Council on the following Item:

DPG 01: DA-304/2015 - Three lot Torrens title subdivision at 11 Bullrush Cr, Voyager Point

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Mamone

That a two minute extension of time be given to Ms Renee Searle.

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

6. Ms Roslyn Fagan addressed Council on the following Item:

DPG 02: Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 38 Proposed Reclassification and Rezoning of Parks.

Motion: Moved: Clr Harle Seconded: Clr Shelton

That a two minute extension of time be given to Ms Roslyn Fagan.

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

7. Mr David Fagan addressed Council on the following Item:

DPG 02: Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 38 Proposed Reclassification and Rezoning of Parks.

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Harle

That a two minute extension of time be given to Mr David Fagan.

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

8. Ms Denise Hodgson addressed Council on the following Item:

DPG 02: Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 38 Proposed Reclassification and Rezoning of Parks.

Ms Signe Westerberg addressed Council on the following Item:

DPG 02: Draft Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 38 Proposed Reclassification and Rezoning of Parks.

ITEM NO: MAYOR 02

FILE NO: 304975.2015

SUBJECT: Ms Lilly Lyons

REPORT

Thirteen-year-old Lilly Lyons is an outstanding young person in Liverpool and has been taking a keen interest in government and the community and working as a volunteer.

From her participation in the Youth Council, and her efforts as host of her radio program RADAR, Lilly has set a fine example in raising awareness and providing a voice for youth in our local area. Lilly also volunteers at community events such as Australia Day and ANZAC Day, and has represented her community at the YMCA’s NSW Youth Parliament.

On October 30 Lilly’s efforts were formally recognised, when she was awarded the John Lincoln Youth Community Service Award by the Executive Director of NSW Public Schools; Murat Dizdar. This is a prestigious award only given to a few of Australia’s youth and is part of the Order of Australia.

The local community can be very proud of Lilly’s achievements and we wish her all the best for her future goals and ambitions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Formally recognise the achievements and voluntary activities of Miss Lilly Lyons for the Liverpool area, and provides her with a certificate of recognition for her achievements.

2. Provides Miss Lilly Lyons with a copy of this Mayoral Minute.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

ITEM NO: MAYOR 03

FILE NO: 314466.2015

SUBJECT: Metro Train Line to Liverpool

REPORT

The NSW Government recently announced that it is investigating the possibility of extending the rapid metro line beyond the planned Southwest termination point in Bankstown to Liverpool. This has been reported as a result of strong support from Liverpool residents and a strong campaign led by Council.

There are currently issues with overcrowding on trains out from Liverpool to the City in the AM peak and from the City to Liverpool in the PM peak. As the population grows in Liverpool and South West Sydney, transport infrastructure will play a vital role in improving the quality of day-to-day commuting life, particularly when many suburban residents flock to the Sydney CBD for work as well as other services within the CBD.

Transport infrastructure will also play a vital role for Badgerys Creek when the second airport is operational, which will see many international travellers required to travel to and from the airport and rail is the best option to commute travellers from airports towards the city.

Earlier this year, Council ran a major campaign to include Liverpool in the Metro Train Line project. Many staff members attended Liverpool and Warwick Farm train stations in the early hours of the morning and early evenings to collect signatures for a petition. The petition campaign project was highly efficient and was overseen by Hiba Soueid and members of her team as well other team members.

I am meeting with Senior Advisors to the Minister for Transport next week where, amongst other topic, will be discussing the government’s investigation into including Liverpool as part of the Metro Train Line project.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Congratulate the State Government on its decision to investigate including Liverpool in its Metro Train Line project.

Thank Council staff for their work on collecting signatures from commuters at Liverpool and Warwick Farm train stations in the early mornings and early evenings.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

ITEM NO: MAYOR 04

FILE NO: 314466.2015

SUBJECT: Terrorist Attacks in France, Lebanon and Mali

REPORT

On the evening of Friday, 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks, consisting of mass shootings, suicide bombings and hostage-taking occurred in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint Denis.

The terrorists murdered 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan theatre, where they took hostages before engaging in a three-hour standoff with police. A further 368 people were injured, many of them seriously. It has been stated that the attacks were the deadliest attacks within France since World War II, and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004. Subsequently, the terrorist death cult ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks.

On 12 November 2015, two suicide bombers detonated explosives in a southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon killing 44 people. The death cult ISIS also claimed responsibility for the attacks.

On 20 November 2015, terrorists took 170 hostages and killed 19 of them in a mass shooting in Bamako, the capital of Mali. Al-Mourabitoun claimed that it carried out the attack in cooperation with Al-Qaeda.

Acts of terror should be condemned throughout the world, by all backgrounds and by all religions. Acts of mass murder are not acts authorised by any religion and should only be described as acts of murder conducted by groups of murderers.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Publicly expresses its condolences to the families of all the victims of the Paris attacks.

2. Publicly expresses its condolences to the families of the victims of the Beirut attacks.

3. Publicly expresses its condolences to the families of the victims of the Mali attacks.

4. Condemns the evil acts of terror carried out by the groups of murderers in Paris, Beirut and Mali - and other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

One minutes silence was observed at the meeting in memory of the victims of the attacks.

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 01

DA-237/2015 - Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of an eight (8) storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor commercial space, 58 residential units with associated car parking at 402 Macquarie Street and 190 Terminus Street, Liverpool

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	302245.2015
Report By	Taylar Vernon - Senior Development Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	402 Macquarie Street and 190 Terminus Street, Liverpool (Lot 1 DP 798853 and Lot 10 DP 589509)
Owner	MR J AND MS S HALL
Applicant	PETDEV PTY LTD

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-237/2015, proposing the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of an eight (8) storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor commercial space, 58 residential units with associated car parking at 402 Macquarie Street and 190 Terminus Street, Liverpool. This application was lodged on 1 April 2015.

This application was referred to the 23 November 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 7.16 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008, which stipulates that consent must not be granted for a building on land in the B4 Mixed Use zone if the ground floor of the development will be used for the purposes of residential accommodation. The proposal includes residential units on the ground floor fronting Carey Street, representing a variation of 100%.

One objection was received during the public exhibition of this application. The Council Officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 2) provides further details on the variation request and a summary of the issues raised in the objection.

The IHAP recommendation (Attachment 3) was to approve the development application subject to conditions of consent as contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report and a further condition recommended by the IHAP regarding additional landscaping. An additional condition is also recommended adding an unexpected asbestos finds protocol resulting from a review of the submitted Phase 2 Site Contamination Assessment.

Additional conditions of consent have been added to the recommended conditions of consent, relating to the hanging of washing on balconies. The additional conditions will ensure that the hanging of any washing is not visible from a street to ensure the amenity of the streetscape is maintained.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves DA-237/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent attached to the Council officers IHAP report (Attachment 2) with the addition of Condition 32A (unexpected asbestos finds protocol), Condition 101A (amendments to landscaping plan), and Conditions 107A and 121 (restrictions on hanging washing on balconies).

New recommended Condition 32A to read:

Prior to works commencing, an Unexpected Asbestos Finds Protocol shall be developed and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval. This protocol is to provide guidance in accordance with relevant EPA and Work Cover guidelines should isolated asbestos containing materials be found during excavation, earthworks or demolition

New recommended condition 101A to read:

Prior to the issue of any occupation certificate, the PCA must be satisfied that an additional six small shrubs (compared to that shown on the approved landscape plan in Condition 1(b) (such as magnolia little gem) that will attain a height of a minimum of four metres, are planted in the rear planter area.

New recommended condition 107A to read:

Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, the following restriction as to user must be registered on the title of the property:

“The hanging of washing, including any clothing, towels, bedding or other article of a similar type on any balcony is not to be visible from any street.”

The restriction as to user may not be extinguished or altered except with the consent of Liverpool City Council.

New recommended condition 121 to read:

The hanging of washing, including any clothing, towels, bedding or other article of a similar type on any balcony is not to be visible from any street.

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-237/2015 proposing the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of an eight (8) storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor commercial space, 58 residential units with associated car parking at 402 Macquarie Street and 190 Terminus Street, Liverpool.

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the IHAP for consideration as the proposed development includes a request to vary a development standard in excess of 10%; pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.16 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008, which stipulates that consent must not be granted for a building on land in the B4 Mixed Use zone if the ground floor of the development will be used for the purposes of residential accommodation. The proposal includes residential units on the ground floor fronting Carey Street, representing a variation of 100%.

The application is accompanied by an additional written request to vary Clause 4.4 of the LLEP 2008, which stipulates the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the site. A maximum FSR of 3.64:1 applies to the site and the proposed development has a FSR of 3.72, which represents a numerical non-compliance of 2.2%

The Site

The site is identified as 402 Macquarie Street and 190 Terminus Street, Liverpool, with legal description of Lot 1 DP 798853 and Lot 10 DP 589509. The subject site is located on the corner of Macquarie Street and Carey Street and has an area of 1487.2m².

Current improvements on the site consist of a single-storey commercial building on Lot 1 and a two-storey commercial building on Lot 10. The site is adjoining by a commercial building to the north-east and residential buildings to the south and east. An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

The subject site is located in the south-western portion of the Liverpool City Centre in a mixed use area of predominately residential and mixed use commercial land uses.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

details of the proposal

The proposed development is comprised of:

· 58 units with a mix of one (1), two (2) and three (3) bedroom units and private and communal open space areas;

· One level of at grade car parking and two (2) levels of basement car parking providing 72 spaces, four (4) motorcycle parking spaces, a disabled persons parking space, bicycle parking spaces, storage compartments, and a loading/service bay; and

· Ground floor commercial floor space.

The apartments are accessed via a central resident lobby which provides access to ground floor units, the commercial floor space and to the pair of central lifts and stair well. Access to the resident lobby and stairwell is achieved via Terminus Street, Carey Street and the basement car park.

The application is accompanied by a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 7.16 of the LLEP 2008, which stipulates that consent must not be granted for a building on land in the B4 Mixed Use zone if the ground floor of the development will be used for the purposes of residential accommodation. The proposal includes residential units on the ground floor fronting Carey Street.

The application is accompanied by an additional written request to vary Clause 4.4 of the LLEP 2008, which stipulates the maximum FSR for the site. The development is proposed to exceed the maximum FSR of 3.64:1 prescribed by Clause 4.4 of the LLEP 2008. The proposed development has a FSR of 3.72.

An extract of the proposed architectural plans is provided in Figures 3 & 4 below.

Figure 3: Proposed north-west elevation (as viewed from Macquarie Street)

Figure 4: Proposed north-west elevation (as viewed from Carey Street)

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to Clause 7.16 of the LLEP.

The proposal fails to comply with Clause 7.16(4), which applies to the development and stipulates;

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of a building on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the ground floor of the building:

(a) will not be used for the purposes of residential accommodation, and

(b) will have at least one entrance and at least one other door or window on the front of the building facing a street other than a service lane.

The application satisfies Clause 7.16(4)(b), however the proposal includes four one-bedroom units on the ground floor, with frontages to Carey Street and is therefore inconsistent with Clause 7.16(4)(a).

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to Clause 7.16(4) of the LLEP 2008.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the LLEP are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6 (3) prescribes:

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard as follows:

· The development is consistent with the objectives of the B4 zone and the development standard.

· Strict compliance would hinder the attainment of the objects of the EP&A Act 1979 to promote the efficient and economic development of land.

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.16(4):

· There is presently a high vacancy rate for commercial floor area in the south-west of the city centre and on Macquarie and Terminus Street in the locality.

· Commercial floor space provided at street level on Terminus Street is not similarly capable of being provided at street level on Carey Street due to the grade of the site.

· It is considered unlikely that commercial development fronting Carey Street would be viable, due to poor visual exposure and the relatively low volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

The proposal also fails to comply with Clause 4.4 of the LLEP 2008, which stipulates the maximum FSR for the site. The maximum development is proposed to exceed the maximum FSR of 3.64:1 prescribed by Clause 4.4 of the LLEP 2008. The proposed development has a FSR of 3.72, which represents a numerical non-compliance of 2.2%

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard as follows:

· The development is consistent with the objectives of the B4 zone and the development standard

· The non-compliance does not result in any contravention of the objects of the EP&A Act 1979 to promote the efficient and economic development of land

· The non-compliance will not result in any adverse environmental impacts

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 4.4:

· The non-compliance equates an additional 123sqm of floor space. The variation is considered minor and will not result in any perceptible difference in the bulk and scale of the building.

· The variation will not result in any additional environmental impacts resulting from the development,

· The locality is in need of revitalisation. The additional residential floor space which is proposed will result in additional residents in the area and therefore make a positive contribution towards a more active streetscape.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.16(4) and Clause 4.4 is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Additional recommended conditions of consent have been added to restrict the hanging of washing on balconies. These conditions have been added in response to rising community concerns regarding the visual amenity impacts of hanging washing on and from balconies in residential flat buildings in Liverpool. The proposed conditions will require that any washing hung on balconies not be visible from any street.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 23 November 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that DA-237/2015 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by Council officers and the condition referred to in the minutes.

The additional condition recommended by the IHAP is:

“The Panel notes the proposed planter to the rear of the property has the capacity to provide further amenity. The Panel recommends the provision of six small shrubs (such as Magnolia little gem) that will attain a height of a minimum of four metres to be located in the planter area”.

The Panel recommendations have been included as conditions of consent and an additional condition is also recommended, requiring an unexpected asbestos finds protocol condition resulting from a review of the applicants Phase 2 Site Contamination Assessment.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant considerations prescribed by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is worthy of support. On this basis, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant and Landowner Details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendation View (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 02

DA-1014/2014 - Subdivision of proposed Residue Lot 53 (approved under Development Consent No. DA-961/2013) into four Torrens title residential lots including; earthworks, road and drainage construction at 320 Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	312916.2015
Report By	Rodger Roppolo - Development Assessment Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property	Lot 7A DP 29317 Rynan Avenue and Lot 8A DP 29317, 320 Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park
Owner	Juvesconi Investment Pty Ltd
Applicant	Juvesconi Investment Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-1014/2014, proposing the subdivision of residue Lot 53 (approved under Development Consent No. DA-961/2013) into four Torrens title residential lots including earthworks, road and drainage construction.

This application was referred to the 23 November 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary the following Clauses of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008:

- Clause 7.11 Dwelling Density; a numerical variation of 28.57% is proposed; and

- Clause 7.13 Minimum Lot Width; a numerical variation ranging from 24% to 43% is proposed

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to conditions of consent as contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (see Attachment 2).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves development application DA-1014/2014 subject to conditions of consent contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (see Attachment 2).

Background

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.11 and Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008. Clause 7.11 requires a minimum dwelling density of 14 dwellings per hectare. A dwelling density of 10.01 dwellings per hectare has been provided which represents a numerical variation of 28%. Clause 7.13 requires a minimum lot width of 10m. Lot 52 provides a minimum lot width of 7.55m at the rear boundary. The extent of variation is 2.45m or 24.5% while Lot 55 provides a minimum lot width of 5.705m at the primary frontage. The extent of variation is 4.295m or 42.9%.

The Site

The sites are legally identified as Lot 7A DP 29317 Rynan Avenue and Lot 8A DP 29317, 320 Jardine Drive, Edmondson Park. An aerial photograph of the locality is provided below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site

The proposed development will be occurring within Proposed Lot 53, which was approved under Development Consent No. DA-961/2013, as shown below.

Figure 2: Extract of the subdivision plan as approved under Development Consent No. DA-961/2013

The development site is located on the western side of the Cabramatta Creek Riparian Corridor, which is identified as open space on the approved subdivision plan. The site has an approximate area of 3996m2 and is triangular in shape. The site is relatively flat with a slight slope to Cabramatta Creek and contains some remnant woodland.

The deposited plan does not identify any easements or restrictions on the site that would affect the proposed subdivision.

The immediate locality is generally comprised of low scale residential development consisting of single storey and two storey detached dwellings. The subject site to the immediate east has recently been approved for a 27 lot residential subdivision and works for this subdivision have commenced. The site to the immediate north is currently vacant, however, a Development Application proposing a 44 lot residential subdivision has been lodged and is currently under assessment.

details of the proposal

The development application seeks consent for the subdivision of proposed Lot 53 into four Torrens title lots.

Details of the proposed Lots are as follows:

Proposed Lot	Area	Lot Width	Type of Lot
52	632m²	7.5m to 20.6m	Regular shaped lot
53	501m²	12.5m to 14.6m	Regular shaped lot
54	450m²	14m to 16.5m	Regular shaped lot
55	607m²	5.7m 27.7m	Corner lot

The development application also seeks consent for the following works:

- Bulk Earthworks

- Road construction; and

- Drainage construction.

An extract of the proposed subdivision plan is provided in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the minimum dwelling density required by Clause 7.11 of the LLEP 2008 and the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008.

Discussion of Variation to Clause 7.11 Dwelling Density

Clause 7.11 of the LLEP 2008, identifies a minimum dwelling density of 14 dwellings per hectare for the development site. A dwelling density of 10.01 dwellings per hectare is proposed, which results in a numerical variation of 28.57%.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

Clause 4.6(3) prescribes:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard summarised as follows:

Compliance with the dwelling density of 14 dwellings per hectare of land is unreasonable in this case as:

- The DA lot layout and design has been made pursuant to the LLEP 2008 lot size and lot width requirements which limit the number of lots able to be subdivided.

- The DA is restricted by developed land and open space surrounding it and therefore the maximum yield has been sought.

- The site has a significant area of road required to be dedicated restricting the developable land. The road area represents approximately 1850m² leaving 2,210m² of developable land. This road is classified as ‘internal road’ under the LLEP 2008, however, the roads form a greater network for the Edmondson Park growth centre.

- Additional lots and an increase in dwelling density would be preferred, however, this is not achievable in this instance.

The loss of 1 to 2 lots from the development is negligible and would not have a negative visual impact on the surrounding area.

- The land is undevelopable if the minimum dwelling density is enforced.

In consideration of the merits of the proposal and the applicant’s submission with respect to Clause 4.6, it is considered that the objectives of Clause 7.11 are still satisfied with this proposal despite the variation. The objectives of Clause 7.11 are:

· to contribute toward the efficient use of land resources,

· to ensure the viability of public transport and other services planned for the area,

· to ensure adequate funds for the recreation and community facilities planned for the area.

The following factors have been considered in assessing the appropriateness of this variation:

- As part of the parent subdivision being Development Consent No. 961/2013, a total of 51 residential allotments were created, which represented a surplus of 9 lots. Therefore, the overall subdivision including both Development Consent No. 961/2013 and DA-1014/2014 will still result in a surplus of 7 lots (as represented in the table below), despite the variation to the dwelling density under this DA.

Development Application	Number of Dwellings (Lots) Required	Likely Number of Dwellings (Lots) to be Provided	Variation in number of Dwellings
DA-961/2013	42	51	+9
DA-1014/2014	5.5 (i.e. 6)	4	-2
Total	48	55	+7

- Strict compliance with the dwelling density as part of this DA would mean the creation of an additional 2 lots. This would result in further variations to the minimum lot width standard, variation to the minimum lot size standard and would likely prevent suitable residential development being achieved on the lots.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with the dwelling density standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in this case, and that based on the circumstances of this proposal, it is reasonable to allow flexibility in the application of the lot width standard. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Discussion of Variation to Clause 7.13 Minimum Lot Width

Clause 7.13(3) of the LLEP 2008, identifies a minimum lot width of 10m. The development proposes the following:

- Lot 52 provides a minimum lot width of 7.55m at the rear boundary. The extent of variation is 2.45m or 24.5%.

- Lot 55 provides a minimum lot width of 5.705m at the primary frontage. The extent of variation is 4.295m or 42.9%.

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard summarised as follows:

The approved development applications to the north and west of the site heavily restrict the possible lot layout and potential configurations available to the subject site. The two end lots (i.e Lot 52 and Lot 55), were given significantly more area to compensate for the area not complying with the minimum lot width. The location of the road prevents any movement or reconfiguration and the lots are designed to be perpendicular to the road to facilitate better lot design for house construction in the future.

Lot 55 is physically unable to remove the issue with the minimum lot width as the already approved development to the west and the road location dictates where the lot boundaries sit. Lowering of the minimum lot width on Lot 52 could be removed if all lots were no longer parallel to the street.

The small portions of each lot not fully complying with the minimum lot width would be used as part of the rear garden or yard of the property despite their width and would not detrimentally affect the intended use of the lot.

In consideration of the merits of the proposal and the applicant’s submission with respect to Clause 4.6 it is considered that the objectives of Clause 7.13 are still satisfied with this proposal despite the variation. The objective of Clause 7.13 is to ensure that lot dimensions are able to accommodate residential development that is suitable for its purpose and is consistent with relevant development controls. The following factors have been considered in assessing the appropriateness of this variation:

- The proposal would still provide an average lot width of 16.7m for proposed Lot 55 and 14.1m for proposed Lot 52, and site areas well in excess of the 450m² requirement, which is more than sufficient to accommodate a dwelling.

- Based on the above, the variation does not prevent the objectives of the lot width standard from being achieved, in terms of enabling suitable residential development to be constructed on the site.

- The variation would not result in any detrimental environmental impacts and is acceptable.

It is therefore considered that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard as there are no expected adverse impacts as a result of allowing for flexibility within the development standard in this instance.

As detailed above, the variation would satisfy the intention of the standard in providing lots with dimensions suitable to accommodate residential development that would meet Council’s residential requirements. The variation to the development standard is therefore considered worthy of support and has sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 23 November 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that DA-1014/2014 be approved subject to conditions attached to the Council officer’s report.

Conclusion

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant and Land Owner Details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendation View (Under separate cover)

113

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 03

DA-376/2015 - Demolition of existing structures and subdivision of 2 Lots into 4 Torrens title lots and construction of a two storey dwelling on each lot at 79-81 Atkinson Street, Liverpool

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	313410.2015
Report By	Emma Butcher - Development Assessment Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

Lot 5 DP 137115 and Lot 7 DP 1040496

79-81 Atkinson Street, Liverpool

Owner

Ms Y Y X Zhang, Ms E Chan and Ms E Y F Zhang

Applicant

GEC Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-376/2015, proposing the demolition of existing structures and Torrens title subdivision of two lots into four lots with the construction of a dwelling on each lot at 79-81 Atkinson Street, Liverpool. This application was lodged on 14 May 2015.

This application was referred to the 23 November 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the development seeks to vary Clause 7.13 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 which requires a 5 metre minimum lot width for battle-axe lots. The proposal includes two battle-axe shaped allotments (Proposed Lots 2 and 3). The access handle serving the proposed hatchet shaped lots is 5 metres wide. The proposal seeks to divide the access handle equally between Lots 2 and 3, such that a 2.5m wide access handle is provided, with reciprocal rights of way for each allotment. This represents a variation of 50% for each of the lots. It is noted that Amendment 32 to the LLEP 2008 which relates to the minimum lot width for battle-axe blocks is imminent. The proposed development would be compliant if assessed under the amended Clause.

The IHAP recommendation was to approve the development application subject to conditions of consent as contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (See Attachment 1).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves DA-376/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (See Attachment 2).

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-376/2015 proposing the demolition of existing structures and Torrens title subdivision of two lots into four lots with the construction of a dwelling on each lot at 79-81 Atkinson Street, Liverpool.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes the minimum lot width for subdivision in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4. A minimum lot width of 5m for each proposed battle-axe lot applies to the site. The proposed subdivision includes two battle-axe blocks, proposed Lots 2 and 3, which each have a minimum lot width of 2.5m.

The Site

The sites are identified as 79-81 Atkinson Street, Liverpool, with legal description of Lot 5 DP 137115 and Lot 7 DP 1040496. The subject sites are rectangular shaped allotments with a combined area of 1353.2m².

The subject sites currently each contain a single storey dwelling and detached garage. To the east of the site is the Hume Highway, and associated commercial development along the B6 Enterprise Corridor zoned land. Directly to the north of the site is a carpark associated with a Veterinary Clinic, Health supply store, restaurant and the Collingwood Hotel.

An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

The subject site is located in an established residential area within Liverpool which is characterised by low density residential development, with commercial development towards the east.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development consists of:

· Demolition of existing structures on each of the sites

· Subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) Torrens title lots as follows;

o Lot 1 – 305.76m² with a minimum lot width of 12.74m

o Lot 2 – 307.07m² with a minimum lot width of 2.5m

o Lot 3 – 307.07m² with a minimum lot width of 2.5m

o Lot 4 – 305.76m² with a minimum lot width of 12.74m

· Construction of a double storey detached dwelling on each lot

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008, which prescribes the minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4.

An extract of the proposed subdivision plan is provided in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13 of the LLEP.

Proposed Lots 2 and 3 fail to comply with Clause 7.13, which states that if a lot resulting

from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is a battle-axe lot:

(a) the lot must have an average width of more than 10 metres and a minimum width of at least 5 metres, and

(b) the access handle must not be included when calculating the size of the lot for the purposes of clause 4.1 (3).

Proposed Lots 2 and 3 propose a minimum lot width of 2.5m, representing a variation of 50%.

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width control as prescribed by Clause 7.13(4) LLEP.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the LLEP are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6 (3) prescribes:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard as follows:

· The dimensions of the individual access handles are less than 5m however have a combined width of 5m. Combining the access handles achieves a width of 5m which is suitable for access purposes for the two rear lots (the intended function of access handles). The combining of the access handles represents an orderly and economic use of land which is an outcome that is consistent with one of the primary objects of the Act, namely Section 5(a)(ii).

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.13(4):

· The objective of Clause 7.13 is to “ensure that lot dimensions are able to accommodate residential development that is suitable for its purpose and is consistent with relevant development controls”. The application has demonstrated that both lots are capable of accommodating dwellings that comply with the relevant controls outlined in the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008.

· The variation relates only to the width of the access handle and not the developable land area. The developable portion of the lots meets the minimum lot size and lot width requirements as outlined in the LLEP 2008.

· It is noted that Amendment 32 to the LLEP 2008 which relates to the minimum lot width for battle-axe blocks is imminent. The proposed development would be compliant if assessed under the amended Clause.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.13 is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 23 November 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The Panel has inspected the development site and read the Council officer’s report. The panel agrees with the Council officer’s recommendation and proposed conditions. It is recommended that DA-376/2015 be approved subject to the conditions recommend by council officers

Conclusion

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant and Land owner details View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Report View (Under separate cover)

3. IHAP Recommendation for DA-376/2015 View (Under separate cover)

121

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Report

IHAP 04

DA-219/2015 - Subdivision of one lot into three Torrens title lots at 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville.

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	315626.2015
Report By	Emma Butcher - Development Assessment Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

Lot 8 DP 246745

Meehan Park, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville

Owner

Liverpool City Council

Applicant

Liverpool City Council

Executive Summary

Council has received and considered a development application DA-219/2015, proposing a three lot Torrens title subdivision at Meehan Park, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville. This application was lodged on 23 March 2015.

This application was referred to the 26 October 2015 meeting of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) as the application has been lodged by Council and it is considered that Council has a pecuniary interest in the development. In addition, the development seeks to vary Clause 7.13 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 which requires a 10 metre minimum lot width for standard lots and a minimum lot width of 5m for battle-axe blocks. A lot width of 3.5m for the access handle of Lot 1 and 2 is proposed, which represents a variation of 30%. Lot 3 proposes a lot width of 5.63m along the arched boundary, which represents a maximum variation of 43.7%.

The IHAP recommendation was to defer the development application and request that the applicant redesign the proposal as suggested in the minutes (See Attachment 2). Correspondence with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Council’s Manager of Traffic and Transport has confirmed that the amendments proposed by the IHAP relating to access from Heathcote Road are not possible, as the subject site has alternative access for a driveway.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves DA-219/2015 subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained within the Council Officer’s IHAP report (Attachment 1)

Background

Council has received and considered a development application DA-219/2015 proposing a three lot Torrens title subdivision at Meehan Park, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville.

Pursuant to the requirements of the endorsed Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Procedure, the proposal was referred to the IHAP for consideration as the application has been lodged by Council and it considered that Council has a pecuniary interest in the development. The proposed development also includes a request to vary a development standard in excess of 10%; pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008.

The application is accompanied by a written request to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008 which prescribes the minimum lot width for subdivision in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4. A minimum lot width of 10m applies for Lot 3 and a minimum lot width of 5m applies to Lots 1 and 2. The proposed subdivision includes a lot, proposed lot 3, which provides for a minimum lot width of 5.63m at the arched boundary and two battle-axe blocks, proposed Lots 1 and 2, which each have a minimum lot width of 3.5m.

The Site

The site is identified as Meehan Park, 150 Heathcote Road, Hammondville, with a legal description of Lot 8 DP 246745. The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment with an area of 1991m².

The subject site is currently contains a footpath and play equipment and is fronted by Heathcote Road to the south west and Meehan Avenue to the north east. The site was recommended to be reclassified from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ land at the Council meeting held on 16 December 2014.

An aerial map of the site is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject site.

The subject site is located in an established residential area within Hammondville which is characterised by low density residential development.

Figure 2: The site and surrounding locality.

details of the proposal

The proposed development consists of:

· Subdivision into three (3) lots as follows;

o Lot 1 - 540m² with a minimum lot width of 3.5m

o Lot 2 - 577m² with a minimum lot width of 3.5m

o Lot 3 - 665m² with a minimum lot width of 5.63m

The application is accompanied by a written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, to vary Clause 7.13 of the LLEP 2008, which prescribes the minimum lot width in Zones R1, R2, R3 and R4.

An extract of the proposed subdivision plan is provided in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Proposed Lot layout for subject site.

the issues

The key issue identified with respect to the proposal relates to the variation to the minimum lot width required by Clause 7.13 of the LLEP.

Proposed Lot 3 fails to comply with Clause 7.13(3), which states that the width of any lot, resulting from a subdivision of land, that is not subject of a development application for residential development, must not be less than 10 metres except in the instance where the lot resulting from a subdivision of land is a battle-axe.

Proposed Lot 3 proposes a minimum lot width of 5.63m, representing a variation of 43.7%.

Proposed Lots 1 and 2 fail to comply with Clause 7.13(4), which states that if a lot resulting

from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is a battle-axe lot:

(a) the lot must have an average width of more than 10 metres and a minimum width of at least 5 metres, and

(b) the access handle must not be included when calculating the size of the lot for the purposes of clause 4.1 (3).

Proposed Lots 2 and 3 propose a minimum lot width of 3.5m, representing a variation of 30%.

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking a variation to the minimum lot width control as prescribed by Clause 7.13(3) LLEP.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the LLEP are as follows:

(a) “to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.”

Clause 4.6 (3) prescribes:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.”

The applicant has provided justification for the departure to the development standard as follows:

· The proposed subdivision has been designed to minimise amenity impacts such as overshadowing and visual privacy on adjoining properties, as the non-compliances relate to the width of the access handle.

· In our opinion, the best planning practice should recognise these constraints [development within an existing urban area] and respond to the opportunity to value add to this development by going beyond basic numerical compliance checking, and consider broader structural and urban design frameworks.

The following comments are offered in response to the variation sought to Clause 7.13(3):

· The objective of Clause 7.13 is to “ensure that lot dimensions are able to accommodate residential development that is suitable for its purpose and is consistent with relevant development controls”. Building envelopes have been provided for each of the lots, demonstrating that they are capable of accommodating residential development.

· The average width of each of the lots is greater than the required 10m, as the areas of non-compliance relate only to the access handles of Lot 1 and 2, and the front boundary of Lot 1.

· The subject site is of an irregular shape and form. For this reason, any future development of this site would be heavily constrained.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that strict compliance with Clause 7.13 is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

Independent Hearing and assessment panel

At their meeting on 26 October 2015, IHAP made the following recommendation:

The panel notes that the development site is highly constrained by the shape of the allotment, the stormwater easement, and adjoining residential buildings to the north of the site.

The panel is concerned that the site does not have the capacity for three allotments given these constraints and that a two lot subdivision represents the capacity of the site. The panel is concerned about the proximity of the building envelope on proposed lot 3 to the dwelling immediately to the north and the proposed building envelope on proposed lot 2. The panel is also concerned about the presentation of the rear yard of proposed lot 1 to Heathcote Road alongside the adjoining dwellings that have front yards facing Heathcote road.

The panel recommends that the application be deferred and a redesign considered taking into account the following suggestions:

· Vehicular access to proposed lot 1 be directly from Heathcote Road

· Re-arrangement of the boundary between proposed lots 2 and 3 so that the drainage easement presently within proposed lot 2 is incorporated into proposed lot 3, allowing a greater setback of the building envelope to the northern boundary

· The proposed building envelope on proposed lot 2 be moved to the southern portion of the proposed lot

· The battle axe handle for proposed lot 1 be incorporated into proposed lot 2 (subject to access from Heathcote Road being permitted to proposed lot 1)

If these amendments are not possible the panel is inclined to recommend refusal of the application.

One of the panel members is of the view that the application should be refused without redesign on the basis that it removes an important pedestrian link between Meehan Avenue and Heathcote Road that provides access to public transport in Heathcote Road.

The Panel recommends that council defers consideration of DA-219/2015 and the applicant be requested to redesign the proposal as suggested in the panel minutes above.

Following the IHAP recommendation, discussions were held with the RMS and Council’s Manager of Traffic and Transport regarding the possibility of gaining access from Heathcote Road. Correspondence with RMS has confirmed that access from Heathcote Road would not be supported. An extract from the email received from RMS is provided below.

Roads and Maritime advises that current practice is to limit the number of vehicular conflict points along the arterial road network to maintain network efficiency and road safety. This current practice is reflected in Section 6.2.1 of Roads and Maritime current publication of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, which states ‘access across the boundary with a major road is to be avoided wherever possible’.

Heathcote Road is a major arterial road, which carries a high volume of traffic, where transport efficiency of through traffic is of great importance. In Addition Roads and maritime would not support access to proposed lot 1 from the bus bay.

Further to the above, clause 101(2a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, which reads as follows:

“The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a) where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road”.

As the subject site has alternative vehicular access via the local road network, Roads and Maritime would not grant concurrence to the proposed access on Heathcote Road under Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993.

As access from Heathcote Road is not possible, the subsequent IHAP recommendations regarding subdivision layout are not feasible, and the subject site can be provided with access via an alternative route (Meehan Avenue).

The issue of the loss of pedestrian link between Meehan Avenue and Heathcote Road was addressed during the process of reclassifying the land from ‘community’ to ‘operational’. The proposal was notified to adjoining properties, and three submissions were received. Two of the submissions were in support of the reclassification of land.

As the IHAP recommendation is not possible, it is recommended that the application is approved subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained within the Council officer’s IHAP report.

Conclusion

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environmental and Sustainability	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social and Cultural	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. IHAP Report DA-219/2015 View (Under separate cover)

2. IHAP Recommendation for DA-219/2015 View (Under separate cover)

125

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Business Improvement Report

DBI 01

Investigation - Files Destroyed in Council Fire 2010

Strategic Direction	Leading Proactive Council Position Council as an industry leader, delivering best practice and innovation
Key Policy	Information Technology Strategy
File Ref	312694.2015
Report By	Carole Todd - Director Business Improvement
Approved By	Carole Todd - Director Business Improvement

Executive Summary

The information given prior to this report regarding the number and nature of files destroyed in the fire at Council’s Hoxton Park Civic Building in 2010 was not correct. Until recently, estimates of the number of hard copy files that were lost in the fire indicated that 8905 paper files, with somewhere in the region of 750 hard copy files completely unrecoverable.

The Director Business Improvement has undertaken a more intensive investigation which has revealed that whilst an audit was undertaken after the fire, seemingly it was performed in an unstructured manner over several months on and off site, it is understood the findings were not recorded in a formal report.

The investigation has revealed that there was an estimated complete loss of 624 hard copy files that do not appear to have had any electronic back up and assessed that the remaining 2476 files that were destroyed did have electronic copies in the Document Management System; however those files may not be complete.

A more robust process has been introduced from November 2015. All files received into Council are Trimmed automatically and assigned electronically to the relevant officers. In the main, although there are a few exceptions, hard copies are not circulated to staff, which considerably reduces the risk of the files being lost or misplaced.

The current method of research into missing files has been investigated and as a result a more vigorous process is in place to ensure a thorough investigation is carried out before any member of the public is informed the files may be missing, for whatever reason.

Information can only be provided to customers if the documentation is stored within Council’s files or recorded electronically in the document management system. In some cases the hard copy files have been lost, however Council does have some information; and therefore some relevant documentation will be stored within TRIM.

In most cases Council will be able to offer sight of the relevant documentation, however if those documents are not stored in either hard or electronic form, it is impossible for staff to provide copies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the content of this report.

REPORT

Council’s first Document Managment System (DMS) ‘Genesis’ was introduced in 1990. It was quite unsophisticated in today’s terms. Prior to that, Council mainly relied on hard copy files some of which some are on microfilm although the quality in some cases is extremely poor. From 2003 a more robust Document Managment System (DMS) – TRIM was introduced, however in the early years, there would have been limited ability to scan large documents and therefore it is highly likely that large plans would have been kept in hard copy only.

Whilst it can never be known exactly how many files were completely destroyed in the fire, following a more robust analysis, it is estimated that Table A below is as accurate as possible, given the lack of formal investigation or audit undertaken since the Council Building was partially destroyed in 2010.

Table A

A more stringent process has been introduced from November 2015. All files received into Council are Trimmed automatically and assigned electronically to the relevant officers. In the main, although there are a few exceptions, few hard copies are circulated to staff, all of which have been Trimmed, which considerably reduces the risk of the files being lost or misplaced.

Checks will be carried out by Records & Archives staff to ensure that any files that cannot be located are marked as either missing, or lost in the fire of 2010.

Copies of files to Customers

Information can only be provided to customers if the documentation is stored within Council’s files or recorded electronically in the document management system. In some cases the hard copy files have been lost, however Council does have some information; and in some cases all relevant documentation stored within TRIM.

Whilst there may be electronic copies of plans, large scale plans cannot be reproduced if the original was not scanned into the Document Management System (DMS) in the first instance. Unfortunately if the documentation is not available to Council, Council is unable to assist with replicating plans.

On the purchase of a property, prospective owners should ask their legal representatives to ensure the vendors provide copies of all documentation relevant to the sale. If home owners have lost their plans, they cannot rely on Council to provide a copy. Owners or vendors would need to engage the services of an architect, draftsperson or surveyor to prepare new plans of existing structures on the site, which can be used in any future proposals.

Council can assist to a limited extent by advising those who enquire, of any historical details that may be recorded such as contact information. The previous owners may have a copy of the consent and stamped plans which they may be able to make available, however it is important to note that details very often change since the determination of an application.

It should be noted that some plans are subject to copyright, and as such cannot be replicated and distributed without the permission of the copyright holder. Council can allow viewing access to these plans, and they can be supplied to lawyers for the purposes of obtaining legal advice.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

135

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Chief Financial Officer

CFO 02

Investment Report November 2015

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	319600.2015
Report By	Christian Hope - Senior Financial Accountant
Approved By	Gary Grantham - Chief Financial Officer / Director Corporate Services

Executive Summary

This report details the Council’s Investment portfolio.

At 30 November 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $178.3 million. The portfolio yield for twelve months ended was 3.51 per cent exceeding the benchmark of 2.37 per cent by 114 basis points for the same period.

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

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 30 November 2015, Council held investments with a market value of $178.3 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:

As at the end of November 2015, the ratio of market value compared to face value of various debt securities is shown in the table below.

Asset Class	Nov-15	Jun-15
Senior Debts (FRN’s & *TCD’s)	100.08 %	100.49%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	65.42 %	66.01%

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

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

During the month of November Council purchased two floating rate notes (FRN) at a discount on the secondary market for a total face value of $5 million as follows:

Issuer

Credit Rating

Coupon Interest

Rate

Face Value

Purchase Price

Discount Received

Maturity Date

Macquarie Bank

S&P A

BBSW+113 basis points

$2,000,000

$1,997,720

$2,280

3 March 2020

Bank of Queensland

S&P A-

BBSW + 111 basis points

$3,000,000

$2,995,530

$4,470

6 November 2019

Portfolio Maturity Profile

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

Term To maturity	Total	% Holdings	Term To maturity Policy Limit
Cash & Cash at Call	21,625,445	12.13%	100%
Term Deposit < 1 Year	50,000,000	28.05%	100%
Tradeable Securities	52,742,797	29.59%	100%
Term Deposits 1 to < 3 Years	31,000,000	17.39%	60%
Term Deposits 3 to < 5 Years	21,000,000	11.78%	25%
Grandfathered Securities	1,898,204	1.06%	N/A
Grand Total	178,266,446	100.00%

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

Security Rating	Issuer	Total	% Holdings	Institution Policy Limit
Fitch A	Emerald Reverse Mortgage Trust	276,705	0.16%	25%
Fitch BBB+	Heritage Bank Ltd	3,000,750	1.68%	15%
Moodys P-1	Rabobank Australia Ltd	9,000,000	5.05%	35%
S&P A	Credit Suisse Sydney	1,996,940	1.12%	25%
	Emerald Reverse Mortgage Trust	520,660	0.29%	25%
	Macquarie Bank	5,021,400	2.82%	25%
S&P A-	Bank of Queensland Ltd	1,992,280	1.12%	25%
	Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd	9,985,040	5.60%	25%
S&P A+	Suncorp-Metway Ltd	1,994,040	1.12%	25%
S&P A1	AMP Bank Ltd	10,727,167	6.02%	35%
S&P A1+	Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd	10,898,277	6.11%	45%
	National Australia Bank Ltd	35,000,000	19.63%	45%
S&P A2	Bank of Queensland Ltd	27,000,000	15.15%	25%
	MyState Bank Ltd	2,000,000	1.12%	25%
	P&N Bank Ltd	11,000,000	6.17%	25%
	Police Bank Ltd	2,000,000	1.12%	25%
S&P AA-	ANZ Banking Group Ltd	698,117	0.39%	35%
	Bank of Queensland Ltd	2,998,590	1.68%	35%
	National Australia Bank Ltd	6,015,600	3.37%	35%
	Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd	6,006,580	3.37%	35%
S&P AAA	Emerald Reverse Mortgage Trust	1,100,839	0.62%	45%
S&P BBB	SGE Mutual Ltd trading as G&C Mutual Bank	1,000,000	0.56%	15%
S&P BBB+	Credit Union Australia Ltd	4,031,180	2.26%	15%
	Members Equity Bank Ltd	1,009,200	0.57%	15%
	Newcastle Permanent Building Society Ltd	9,979,140	5.60%	15%
	Police Bank Ltd	998,300	0.56%	15%
	Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd	2,015,640	1.13%	15%
Unrated UR	Bananacoast Community Credit Union Ltd	4,000,000	2.24%	5%
	Bank of Sydney Ltd	4,000,000	2.24%	5%
	Rabobank Australia Ltd	2,000,000	1.12%	5%
Grand Total		178,266,446	100.00%

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Security Rating	Total	% Holdings	Portfolio Credit Limit
Moody’s P-1 (high grade)	9,000,000	5.05%	100%
S&P A1+ (high grade)	45,898,277	25.75%	100%
S&P AA- (high grade)	15,718,887	8.82%	100%
S&P AAA (high grade)	1,100,839	0.62%	100%
Fitch A ( upper medium grade)	276,705	0.16%	60%
S&P A (upper medium grade)	7,539,000	4.23%	60%
S&P A- (upper medium grade)	11,977,320	6.72%	60%
S&P A+ (upper medium grade)	1,994,040	1.12%	60%
S&P A1 (upper medium grade)	10,727,167	6.02%	60%
S&P A2 (upper medium grade)	42,000,000	23.56%	60%
Fitch BBB+ (lower medium grade)	3,000,750	1.68%	50%
S&P BBB (lower medium grade)	1,000,000	0.56%	15%
S&P BBB+ (lower medium grade)	18,033,460	10.12%	15%
Unrated UR (not rated by rating agencies)	10,000,000	5.61%	25%
Grand Total	178,266,446	100.00%

Portfolio Performance against Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW)

Council’s investment portfolio yield for the 12 months ended 30 November 2015 was 3.51 per cent which exceeded benchmark of 2.37 per cent by 114 basis points for the same period. Council continues to achieve a solid outcome despite ongoing margin contraction and significantly lower deposit yields on offer. Council’s ongoing outperformance has been boosted by a handful of longer term investments yielding above 4% and maturing out to 2019. Return on investments is expected to slowly decrease as old investments in Council’s portfolio mature and replaced with investments yielding lower returns.

Comparative yields for the previous months are charted below:

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance vs. 90 day Bank Bill index over the 12 month period.		The portfolio yield for 12 month ended is 114 basis points above the benchmark for the same period (3.51% against 2.37%).
Annual Income vs. Budget		Council’s investment year to date interest income was slightly below budget as at 30 November 2015 mainly due to low return on cash and cash at call accounts; however it is expected to improve and exceed year to date budget during the course of this financial year.

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

At its December 2015 meeting, the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.0 per cent. A statement released on 1 December 2015 by Glenn Stevens, Governor of the RBA commenting on the central bank decision is attached to this report. The cash rate is at historically low level and adversely impacting returns on investment. Returns on Term Deposits have significantly dropped since the last twelve months. The average market returns on term deposits are:

· Longer term deposits (> 3years maturity) - 3.0% to 3.4% p.a

· Medium term (2 to 3 years to maturity) - 2.9 % to 3.0 % p.a.

· Short term deposits rate (less than one year to maturity) – ranges from 2.3% to 2.9% per annum.

· Cash & Cash At Call accounts range from1.7% to 2.5%

· 31 Days’ Notice Account 2.7%

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 Councils Investment Policies at the time of their placement. The previous investments are covered by the “grandfather” clauses of the current investment guidelines issued by the Minister for Local Government.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Council’s investment year to date interest income was slightly below budget as at 30 November 2015 mainly due to low return on cash and cash at call accounts; however it is expected to improve and exceed year to date budget during the course of this financial year.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment Portfolio details November 2015 View

2. RBA Cash Rate Media Release December 2015 View

3. Performance Graphs Actual to Budget November 2015 View

149

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 01

Proposed changes to Council committees

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	306174.2015
Report By	Benny Horn - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Council committees are important forums for engagement of focus groups relating to specific proposals, precincts or areas of interest. However, preparations for and tasks following from the committees can consume considerable staff resources. Moreover, the logistics of organising committees and satisfying quorum requirements can delay outcomes considerably.

The Strategic Planning Department presently has secretariat responsibilities for four committees: the Street Naming Committee, the Heritage Advisory Committee, the No Intermodal Committee and the Warwick Farm Steering Committee. The protocol and processes for these committees have been considered and the following proposed changes to the committees are recommended in the interest of efficiency.

- The Street Naming Committee: disband the Committee based on the proposed draft Naming Convention Policy, which sets out a standardised process for determining place names by Council, including those for streets, parks, places, objects and geographical features;

- The Heritage Advisory Committee: stop holding Committee meetings. Instead, Committee members will be invited to engage with Council, on heritage matters, via a written stakeholder referral process as matters for consideration arise; and

- The No Intermodal Committee: hold Committee meetings quarterly rather than monthly.

No changes are proposed to the processes of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report.

2. Adopts the proposed changes to the processes of the No Intermodal Committee and amends the Committee charter to bring these changes into effect.

3. Adopts the proposed changes to the processes of the Heritage Advisory Committee and amends the Committee charter to bring these changes into effect.

4. Endorses the proposal to disband the Street Naming Committee and refers to the proposed draft Naming Convention Policy for a standardised process on making decisions on naming requests.

5. Endorses the draft Naming Convention Policy to be placed on public exhibition and requests a further report following the exhibition period.

6. Revokes the charter of the Street Naming Committee.

7. Writes to the members of the Street Naming Committee to acknowledge their contribution.

REPORT

Background

The Strategic Planning Department presently has secretariat responsibilities for the following Council committees:

· Street Naming Committee;

· Heritage Advisory Committee;

· Warwick Farm Steering Committee; and

· No Intermodal Committee.

Membership of these committees comprises Councillors, community representatives, and Council officers.

Options for amending Council committee processes

The committee meetings are important forums for the discussion and consideration of matters arising within each respective committee. However, in their present form the committee meetings consume an undue portion of Strategic Planning resources in secretariat responsibilities.

The processes of these committees have been reviewed and it is considered that the committees impact on effective and efficient decision-making by unnecessarily delaying Council processes. For example, the Street Naming Committee, which meets once every two months, did not have a quorum at two consecutive meetings this year, and therefore was unable to make formal recommendations to Council on a range of street naming issues for four months. This resulted in undue delays to straightforward naming processes which is an unsatisfactory outcome for Council and its stakeholders. Preparations for the meetings also consume officer resources which could otherwise be devoted to more productive pursuits and responsibilities.

Council officers have identified options to improve the efficiency and efficacy of these Council committees. Recommended changes to each Council committee are set out below.

Street Naming Committee

Street and park naming incorporates a number of processes that are currently subject to long delays as a result of the time span between Street Naming Committee meetings.

It is considered that changes to the processes involved in naming streets, parks, places, objects and geographical features are necessary to make decisions in a timely and efficient manner. The Community and Culture Directorate has developed a draft Naming Convention Policy (Attachment 1) that provides standardised and streamlined procedures to enable Council to easily and transparently determine place names, including those for streets, parks, places, objects and geographical features. This policy has been developed in accordance with legislative requirements and naming guidelines set out by the NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB).

The draft Naming Convention Policy proposes two naming processes for (1) the naming of suburbs and streets in new areas; and (2) external naming requests. These are set out below.

(1) For the naming of suburbs and streets in new areas:

a) A new area is planned identifying the need for new streets/suburb names;

b) New street/suburb names are selected from a Recommended Naming Themes list, developed by Council staff following internal and external consultation;

c) A recommendation to place the name/s on public exhibition is made to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate);

d) If the CEO (or delegate) approves the recommendation, the request is placed on public exhibition for 28 days in the local newspaper and affected residents notified (note that as per GNB guidelines, public exhibition is not required when naming streets on greenfield sites – when there are no existing residents to be affected by the new name – or if it is a private road);

i. For street naming requests, the GNB and other relevant state agencies are notified using the GNB’s Online Road Naming System to seek endorsement of the name’s suitability;

ii. For all other requests, the GNB and other relevant state agencies are notified by email to seek endorsement of suitability of the names;

e) During the 28 day public exhibition period, feedback is also sought from Councillors and internal stakeholders;

f) At the end of the exhibition period, any objections are considered and a recommendation on the proposed name/s is made to Council for adoption; and

g) Following adoption, Council gazettes the name in the NSW Government Gazette. The name is then legal.

(2) For external naming requests received from a member of the public or a developer:

a) A Naming Request Form providing details of a suggested name is submitted to Council;

b) The request is assessed for its suitability against the Recommended Naming Themes list, developed by Council staff following internal and external consultation;

c) If considered suitable, a recommendation to place the name/s on public exhibition is made to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate);

d) If the CEO (or delegate) approves the recommendation, the request is placed on public exhibition for 28 days in the local newspaper and affected residents notified (note that as per GNB guidelines, public exhibition is not required when naming streets on greenfield sites – where there are no existing residents to be affected by the new name – or if it is a private road);

i. For street naming requests, the GNB and other relevant state agencies are notified using the GNB’s Online Road Naming System to seek endorsement of the name’s suitability;

ii. For all other requests, the GNB and other relevant state agencies are notified by email to seek endorsement of suitability of the names;

e) During the 28 day public exhibition period, feedback is also sought from Councillors and internal stakeholders;

f) At the end of the exhibition period, any objections are considered and a recommendation on the proposed name/s is made to Council for adoption;

g) Following adoption, Council will gazette the name in the NSW Government Gazette. The name is then legal.

Further information about Council’s role and responsibilities in responding to naming requests is set out in the draft Naming Convention Policy attached to this report.

In light of the development of this policy, it is considered that Council’s Street Naming Committee is no longer required and it is recommended that it be disbanded. The draft policy and this report supersede changes to naming processes proposed by the Street Naming Committee at its meeting on 27 August 2015.

Heritage Advisory Committee

The Heritage Advisory Committee meets every two months to consider heritage matters. However, the Committee in its current form is subject to delays of a similar nature to those experienced by the Street Naming Committee, and preparations for meetings consume an undue portion of Council staff resources.

It is therefore recommended that the Committee no longer holds face-to-face meetings, to be replaced by a stakeholder referral process in which Committee members are invited by Council’s Heritage Officer to consider, and provide input on, heritage issues following written correspondence from the Heritage Officer.

Under the proposed changes, the Heritage Officer would contact the Heritage Advisory Committee members electronically and/or in writing when heritage matters arise for deliberation. In addition to referrals to Committee members, the Heritage Officer would also contact the Committee members electronically and/or in writing on a quarterly basis to share general information and updates on ongoing heritage matters.

Warwick Farm Steering Committee

The Warwick Farm Steering Committee currently meets quarterly to disseminate information and discuss emerging and ongoing issues related to development in Warwick Farm. This is considered an appropriate frequency of meetings for the purposes of sharing information with the Committee, and no changes are proposed.

No Intermodal Committee

The No Intermodal Committee presently meets monthly, however it considered meetings could be held quarterly and still serve its primary purpose of providing a forum for Council and the community to share information and discuss issues related to development of the intermodal terminal.

It is therefore proposed that the No Intermodal Committee meet quarterly, consistent with the frequency of Warwick Farm Steering Committee meetings. Quarterly meetings would strike a reasonable balance between the value of informing and discussing relevant issues with the community on the one hand and the frequency with which new matters pertaining to the intermodal terminal arise. A reduced number of meetings would also free up officer resources.

No other changes to the No Intermodal Committee are proposed.

Conclusion

The meeting processes of the four Council committees for which strategic planning has secretariat responsibilities have been reviewed. It is considered that in their current form, the processes can unnecessarily delay Council processes and decisions and consume an undue portion of Council officers’ time and resources.

The draft Naming Convention Policy identifies an efficient and streamlined process by which Council responds to naming requests. This process eliminates the need for the Street Naming Committee and therefore it is recommended that the Committee be disbanded. The draft policy and this report supersede changes to naming processes proposed by the Street Naming Committee at its meeting on 27 August 2015.

It is also recommended that the Heritage Advisory Committee no longer hold bimonthly face-to-face meetings. The meetings would be replaced by a stakeholder referral process by which the Heritage Officer contacts Committee members in writing and/or via email on an ad-hoc basis as heritage matters emerge for consideration.

In addition, it is recommended that the No Intermodal Committee meet quarterly rather than monthly, bringing the Committee’s meeting timetable into line with that of the Warwick Farm Steering Committee and reflecting the frequency with which new matters, pertaining to the development of the intermodal terminal, arise.

No changes are proposed to the Warwick Farm Steering Committee.

In each instance, the respective Committee secretariats would continue to prepare a report with recommendations to Council, thereby ensuring that Council retains oversight of the Committee process and control over decision making.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Naming Convention Policy View (Under separate cover)

153
DPG 02	Animal Management Policy
Attachment 1	Draft Animal Management Policy

ANIMAL MANAGEMENT POLICY

Adopted: (Current date)

TRIM 314232.2015

1. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To provide information on the keeping of animals within Liverpool to:

a) Ensure residents’ amenity is not impacted adversely by the keeping of animals

b) Safeguard wildlife and the environment

c) Promote responsible animal ownership

2. POLICY STATEMENT

The principles by which Council will control and regulate the number of animals kept on premises are primarily in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Companion Animals Act 1998.

The policy aims to:

a) To inform the community of the main statutory restrictions and acceptable limits which apply to the keeping of certain animals for domestic purposes.

b) To give guidance and advice to persons inquiring as to the keeping of animals for domestic purposes.

c) To minimise local nuisance and maximise residential amenity, and

d) To ensure the keeping of animals does not compromise minimum standards of public health, safety and convenience.

e) To establish local standards, acceptable to the Community, for the keeping of Animals.

3. DEFINITIONS

3.1 Residential zones as listed in the Liverpool Local Environment Plan 2008.

3.2 Rural zones as listed in the Liverpool Local Environment Plan 2008.

3.3 Wildlife Protection Area – specifically declared land which allows Council to control domestic animals (cats and dogs) in accordance with the Companion Animals Act 1998.

4. POLICY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Animal numbers should be kept in accordance with the requirements detailed in Appendix 1.

The kind of animal that is suitable to be kept at any premises will be determined having regard for the size of the available yard area and the distance to the nearest dwelling or other prescribed building.

It should not be assumed that animals of all kinds may be kept on the premises which are part of a multiple dwelling allotment. Where a dwelling is owned within a Strata Plan, it will be necessary for the rules of the Body Corporate to be examined for requirements relevant to the keeping of animals and approval obtained.

Animals should be kept in a manner which does not:

a) Create unsanitary or unhealthy conditions;

b) Attract or provide harbourage for vermin;

c) Create offensive noise odours;

d) Cause a drainage or dust nuisance;

e) Create a waste disposal problem;

f) Create an unreasonable annoyance to neighbouring residents or fear for safety;

g) Cause nuisance due to proliferation of flies, lice, fleas or other insects ; and,

h) Cause any ill health or distress to the animals.

Suitable facilities and shelters should be provided for all animals. Certain kinds of animals are required to be kept in enclosed locations to prevent escape or attack by predators. Generally other animals are to be securely enclosed with adequate fencing to prevent escape.

Certain animal shelters and facilities should not be erected or located without prior approval of the Council. Residents should refer to the Liverpool Local Environment Plan and State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 to determine which structures require development approval.

Design guidelines for the size, layout and construction of animal shelters are produced by the various animal welfare organisations and the Department of Agriculture. These may be adopted from time to time as supplements to this policy.

Where the number of animals owned by a person before the coming into force of the policy exceeds that shown in Appendix 1, no further or replacement animals should be acquired or bred, with the number to be reduced over time to no more than the recommended maximum as some of the animals die, are given away or sold. This allowance does not prevent the Council from issuing orders to reduce numbers where the circumstances make it appropriate.

4.2 Unleashed Dog Exercise Areas

Under the Companion Animals Act 1998 Council is required to provide at least one area designated for unleased dog exercise at all times.

Before designating an area as an unleashed exercise area Council must:

a) Ensure the use of that area does not compromise the environment with particular reference to threatened species;

b) Undertake appropriate consultation with current users and stakeholders to ensure there is no conflict with these groups; and

c) Adequately signpost all unleashed dog exercise areas.

Users of the unleashed dog exercise areas must:

a) Ensure their dog is under supervision and effective control of a person age 16 or above; and

b) Remove any dog faeces (poo) and waste produced by their dog(s) and dispose of in a waste bin.

Council may allocate areas on either a permanent basis or restricted time basis.

Council may terminate the use of any area as an unleashed exercise area where deemed appropriate.

Approved unleashed dog exercise areas are listed in http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/whats-on/Sports-and-Leisure/off-leash-dog-areas

4.3 Prohibited Areas

Cats are prohibited from all Wildlife Protection Areas within Liverpool Local Government Area.

Dogs are prohibited from:

a) Rivers and creeks (unless signposted otherwise)

b) Schools, preschools and childcare centres

c) Within 10 meters of children’s playgrounds

d) Within 10 metres of food preparation areas (except on a public thoroughfare)

Horses and other livestock are prohibited from:

a) Rivers and Creeks

b) Sporting fields, parks and reserves

4.4 Dogs in Outdoor Dining Areas

Under the Companion Animals Act 1998, since 2010, dogs are allowed in outdoor dining areas of cafes and restaurants under the following conditions:

a) Consent of café or restaurant owner

b) The area must not be enclosed and must be able to be entered by the public without passing through an enclosed area

c) Dogs must be on a leash at all times

d) Dogs must be on the ground at all times

e) Dogs may be provided with drink but not food

f) Dangerous and restricted dogs are prohibed

4.5 Animals Prohibited within Residential Areas

The following animals are not permitted to be kept in residential areas due to likely impact on health and amenity:

a) Roosters

b) Pigs

c) Goats

d) Sheep

e) Horses

f) Cattle

4.6 Compliance

The compliance of this Policy will be managed under appropriate legislation.

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Impounding Act 1993

Local Government Act 1993

Companion Animals Act 1998

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

Animal Welfare Code of Practice

Rural Lands Production Act 1989

Department of Primary Industry, Code of Practice for Keeping Birds (1996)

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/animal-welfare/codes/aw-code-4

Reptile keepers licence information

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifelicences/ReptileKeepersLicence.htm

Liverpool LEP 2008

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

6. AUTHORISED BY

Council

EFFECTIVE FROM

This date is the date the policy is adopted by Council resolution or approved by the CEO.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE

Community Standards

REVIEW DATE

The policy must be reviewed every two years or more frequently depending on its category or if legislative or policy changes occur.

VERSIONS

The current and previous version of the policy should be set out in the following table.

Version	Amended by	Changes made	Date	TRIM Number

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

REFERENCES

Warringah Council

Hurstville City Council

APPENDIX 1

Kind of Animal	Maximum Number (excluded off spring to 3 months of age)	Minimum Distance from Certain buildings)	Applicable regulations and other advisory matters
Poultry domestic and guinea fowl Poultry other Than fowls, Including ducks, geese, turkeys, peafowl and other pheasants	10 5	4.5m 30	Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 applies. Council may, by resolution, insist on greater distances than specified in particular cases. Hard paving must be provided under roosts in poultry houses if within 15.2m of a dwelling, public hall or school. Poultry yards must be enclosed to prevent escape of poultry. Yards must be kept free of rats and mice. NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required. Roosters are not permitted in residential zones.
Pigeons	Racing pigeons: including high flyers, rollers Up to 120 provided that the keeper is a certified member of a recognised pigeon racing club, federation or association and is an active member of the sport. If the keeper is not a certified member of a recognised pigeon racing club, federation or association or is not an active member of the sport, then the number of birds shall be limited to 20 (see below Domestic or other pigeons for further information).	15m	Keeping of pigeons is only permissible on properties that have single dwelling or dual occupancy development. Pigeons are not permitted on any other type of residential accommodation, which includes but is not limited to flat buildings and multi dwelling housing. Aviaries (Lofts) must be constructed to Council approval on hard paving of a smooth surface, or with a suspended floor elevated 0.8m above the ground. Loft must be an enclosed structure. Aviaries (Lofts) are to be kept clean at all times. Manure is to be cleaned up daily and disposed of correctly. To minimise odours owners must design and manage lofts to prevent manure becoming wet in rain or during cleaning. Pigeons must be fed within lofts after exercise. All feed must be kept in vermin proof containers. Racing pigeon Aviaries (lofts) should have adequate visible landing platforms. All pigeons must have a leg band with the club name, and unique ID number. Exercising/free flight should occur between 7:00am and 8.00am and between 4.00pm and 5:00pm give or take 15mins either side of the time restrictions, other times the pigeons must be kept within their enclosure. All exercise should be conducted under close supervision by the owner. The exit and entry of these birds from the Aviary (loft) must be fully controlled. Provision must be made for all released birds to return through a one-way entrance that will not permit uncontrolled exit. On no account should Pigeons be allowed to roost on neighbouring buildings. Aviary (Loft) doors and traps must be locked at all times with the exception of exercising/free flight time. Free lofting of pigeons outside of free flight time (that is allowing pigeons to freely roam outside of their loft) in a residential area is not permitted. NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
Pigeons	Domestic other pigeons including fancy pigeons: Up to 20		Keeping of pigeons is only permissible on properties that have single dwelling or dual occupancy development. Pigeons are not permitted on any other type of residential accommodation, which includes but is not limited to flat buildings and multi dwelling housing. Aviaries (Lofts) must be constructed to Council approval on hard paving of a smooth surface, or with a suspended floor elevated 0.8m above the ground. Loft must be an enclosed structure. Aviaries (Lofts) are to be kept clean at all times. Manure is to be cleaned up daily and disposed of correctly. To minimise odours owners must design and manage lofts to prevent manure becoming wet in rain or during cleaning. Pigeons must be fed within the loft. All feed must be kept in vermin proof containers. Free lofting of pigeons (that is allowing pigeons to freely roam outside of their loft) in a residential area is not permitted at any time. On no account should Pigeons be allowed to roost on neighbouring buildings. Aviary (Loft) doors and traps must be locked at all times. NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
All birds except for racing pigeons, sulphur- crested cockatoo, long- billed Corella, poultry and domestic and guinea fowl	As appropriate to species, size of cage/aviary or bird room. Keepers of more than 50 birds should be members of official Agricultural Societies.	Distance appropriate to noise of species and/or sound proofing measures taken.	Aviaries must be of an appropriate size and regularly cleaned. Allow a maximum of 30 budgerigars per cubic meter of aviary. All birds should be kept in accordance with NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice No 4 - Keeping and Trading of Birds. National Parks and Wildlife permit is required to keep many native birds. Exemptions include budgerigar, zebra finch, galah and sulphur-crested cockatoo. N.S.W. Agriculture permit is required for some exotic species. Noisy birds should be restricted in number. NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
Sulphur-crested cockatoo and long-billed Corella	2 if in portable cages 4 if in aviary	3m or within owners dwelling 6m	Sulphur-crested cockatoo and long-billed Corella are likely to be noisy if kept as single caged birds. NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
Rabbits	1	9m	Must be domestic breed and kept in cage. Do not release into environment. Restriction on number is imposed by the NSW Agriculture Dept. under the Rural Lands Production Act 1989 Hutches and runs are to be kept clean. No smells or pest species are present.
Ferrets Undesexed hobs (mates	4	9m	Compliance with de-sexing, proper care, and provision of secure enclosures of adequate size will be relevant factors in assessing requests to keep more than four ferrets. If ferrets are exercised outdoors adequate fencing to prevent escape is essential. Undesexed hobs should be caged outdoors during the months of October-February when females are on heat. NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
Pet rats, mice and guinea pigs	4	9m	Must be kept in appropriate cages and not released into the environment. Should be kept outside of dwelling NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
Sheep and goats	0	-	Not permitted in residential zones.
Pigs	0	-	Not permitted in residential zones.
Horses and cattle	0		In residential zones.
Reptiles	As appropriate in the circumstances	As appropriate in the circumstances	Advice on the keeping of reptiles should be sought from National Parks and Wildlife Service in all cases. All species must be adequately housed to prevent escape. The keeping of snakes will cause concern to neighbours.
Fish, aquarium and pond	As appropriate in the circumstances	As appropriate in the circumstances	Water is to be maintained clean and at sufficient levels. Ponds are to be made child -safe if more than 300mm in depth by fencing complying with AS 1926 NOTE: Check with Council officers as to whether Development Consent is required.
Dogs	Residential Properties -4 (excluding townhouses units or land area 400m²) Units, townhouses & small land holdings -1 Rural Properties (properties in excess of one hectare) - 6	-	The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires permanent identification of animals and life time registration. Note: Approval is required from the Body Corporate for Strata Buildings.
Cats	4	-	More than four cats will not be appropriate in many situations. Compliance with de-sexing, use of approved identity collars with multiple bells, proper care, restriction of access to outdoors at night will be relevant factors in determining whether more than four cats may be kept at a premise.
Bees	Maximum 2 hives	As far as practicable from doors or windows of dwellings, paths or outdoor resting areas.	Regulated by the NSW Agriculture Department. (Permit required from Department to locate hives.) Bee flight paths to and from hive should be kept distant from outdoor areas frequently used by humans. Screens may be necessary to raise flight paths. An ample supply of water near to hive is required in summer months. Hives should be constructed to approved guidelines issued by NSW Agriculture.

Notes:

(A) The distances indicated in the third column of the above table are to be measured in meters from the animal yard or enclosed to the nearest dwelling, public hall, school or premises used for the manufacture, preparation, sale or storage of food.

(B) Policy details may change prior to review date due to legislative changes.

191

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 04

Bathurst Street Car Park Extension

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Assist exiting businesses to grow, innovate and become more competitive
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	303040.2015
Report By	Alex Helderman - Parking Services Coordinator
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

Business proprietors operating close to Bathurst Street Car Park have approached Council with requests for the car park to be extended to increase parking availability.

Investigation in response to the requests has identified that the garden area within the car park behind a bus shelter along Northumberland Street can be converted to parking spaces.

The garden area attracts anti-social behaviour and therefore the conversion will provide dual benefit to the community with additional parking and the removal of an area prone to anti-social behaviour.

The cost of conversion is estimated at $75,000 and the return on this investment is approximately 1.5 years, based on current gross income generated by the car park.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the information contained in this report.

2. Allocates funding for the Bathurst Street Car Park extension in the 2016/17 budget, an amount of $75,000.

REPORT

Representations have been received from business proprietors close to Bathurst Street Car Park requesting that the car park be extended to address the parking demand.

Due to its location, the Bathurst Street Car Park attracts significant parking demand from shoppers visiting Westfield and other nearby shops and businesses. The car park currently has 211 car parking spaces and on weekends and major trading days it is usually fully occupied.

To increase the number of car parking spaces, an investigation was undertaken to convert the existing garden bed behind the bus shelter along Northumberland Street to car parking spaces. The garden bed has area of approximately 640 m^2. and is currently landscaped with 11 trees. The trees have been assessed as insignificant and can be removed. The garden bed is hidden from Northumberland Street by the existing bus shelter with the area being prone to anti-social behaviour including the consumption of alcohol. The location of the garden bed within the car park is as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Converting the garden bed to additional parking is therefore not expected to have a significant environmental impact or be objected to by the community. Based on the existing car park layout, the garden bed can accommodate 38 car parking spaces. This will bring the capacity of the car park to 249 car parking spaces.

The estimated cost of the required civil works (including signs and line marking) is approximately $75,000. This financial year’s budget does not contain an allocation for this work to be carried out. A separate allocation will be required if the project is to proceed. The return on investment, based on the estimated cost and the current gross income generated by the car park is estimated at approximately 1.5 years.

Other features in the car park

1. Disabled Parking

The car park presently contains six disabled parking spaces which comply with Liverpool Development Control Plan (DCP) 2008 and Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009. The DCP requires a minimum of 2% of the parking spaces to accommodate people with disabilities and Council exceeds this requirement.

The Australian/New Zealand Standard specifies the dimension of disabled parking spaces and requires a shared zone between two spaces as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

In providing the additional parking spaces in Bathurst Street Car Park, Council will also upgrade the disabled parking spaces to meet current standard with two disabled spaces relocated to either side of the Northumberland Street entrance and two disabled spaces near the Bathurst Street exit.

Motorists who hold a valid Disability Permit, can park anywhere within the car park and do not need to comply with the time restriction or pay for parking.

2. Vandalism of parking meters in the car park

The car park currently has five ticket machines and during the year three have been broken into with monies stolen.

Two machines were broken into on two occasions and these have been replaced with credit card payment facility only. Of the total ticket machine transactions in Bathurst Street Car Park, 11% of payments are made by credit card compared to 16% for the remainder of the City Centre. The existing arrangement of two machines with credit card facility only and the remaining three offering payment with cash and credit card is considered appropriate.

The locations of the ticket machines are shown in Figure 3

Figure 3

3. Car park lighting

There are two solar lights in the car park and one is faulty. Figure 4 shows one of the solar lights. Funding has been obtained from the State Government to replace the existing solar lights with new solar panels and LED lights. A contractor has been engaged and the required installation will be completed this calendar year.

Figure 4

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Provide efficient parking for the City Centre.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Deliver services that are customer focused.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

191

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 05

Amendment 51 to LLEP 2008 - Proposal to rezone 148 George Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street and 133 Bigge Street from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Activate the city centre and develop vibrant places that attract people to Liverpool
Key Policy	City Centre Strategy
File Ref	304855.2015
Report By	Graham Matthews - Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

148 George Street, Liverpool

26-28 Elizabeth Street, Liverpool

133 Bigge Street, Liverpool

Owner

Peter Warren Properties Pty Ltd

Applicant

Mosca Pserras Architects Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

On 22 August 2014 Council received a request to rezone 148 George Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street and 133 Bigge Street from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use. The proposal also sought to amend development controls relating to the site to remove the height of building control applying to the site, increase the available floor space ratio (FSR) to 10:1 across the site, add a minimum non-residential FSR development clause pertaining to the site, remove a land reservation acquisition applying to part of the site, and remove part of the site (133 Bigge Street) from the Bigge Park Conservation Area.

At its meeting of 16 December 2014 Council resolved to support the proposed rezoning in principle and to delegate to the CEO the task of lodging a finalised planning proposal with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). A finalised planning proposal was lodged with DP&E on 23 January 2015, incorporating the proposed amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 detailed above, with the exception of the removal of 133 Bigge Street from the Bigge Park Conservation Area, which was not supported.

A Gateway Determination was issued by DP&E on 22 May 2015. Public Authority consultation was conducted from 1 June 2015. The planning proposal was amended in line recommendations of the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on 10 September 2015. A revised Gateway Determination was issued by DP&E on 22 September 2015. The proposal was publicly exhibited between 23 September and 23 October 2015. One submission was received, as discussed below.

This report recommends that Council approve the planning proposal for the rezoning of the subject site and submit the proposal to DP&E for finalisation. The report also notes a number of other conditions that should be applied to any subject development application for the site.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the making of Draft Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 (Amendment 51).

2. Request that the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment make Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 51) pursuant to Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

3. Note that any subsequent development application for the redevelopment of the subject site shall be assessed against the requirements of Clause 5.10 and Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008 to assess the impacts of any proposed development on Bigge Park.

4. Note that a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) must be lodged with any subsequent development application for the redevelopment of the subject site. The HIS should assess the significance of buildings on site; as well as address the Conservation Criteria outlined in Section 7.1 Heritage Items and Conservation Areas in Part 4, of the Liverpool DCP 2008, together with the policies of the Bigge Park Conservation Management Plan (CMP). The HIS should include detailed mitigation measures to offset the impacts the development may have on the site’s heritage values. An archival photographic recording of the remnant timber cottage located on 26-28 Elizabeth Street (including a history of the house) should be lodged with any subsequent development application that entails the demolition of the building.

5. Note that a development application for the subject site involving the disturbance or excavation of land that is likely to contain archaeological remains, will require appropriate approval from the Heritage Council pursuant to the Heritage Act 1977.

Report

Background

On 22 August 2014 Council received an application to rezone 148 George Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street and 133 Bigge Street (the subject site) from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed use. The planning proposal also sought to increase the permissible floor space ratio (FSR) across the site to 10:1; remove height of building controls from the site; include a clause specifying minimum non-residential FSR controls for the site and to remove a reservation for land acquisition of part of the site.

The planning proposal also sought to remove reference to the Bigge Park Heritage Conservation Area which applies to 133 Bigge Street. The removal of the site from the Bigge Park Heritage Conservation Area was not supported in the planning proposal drafted by Council staff and submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment under the delegation of Council’s CEO.

At its Ordinary Meeting of 16 December 2014 Council resolved the following:

1. Endorses in principle, the proposal to rezone 133 Bigge Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street and 148 George Street, Liverpool from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use.

2. Delegates to the CEO the authority to approve the final Planning Proposal to administer the rezoning for submission to the Department of planning and Environment for Gateway Review.

On 23 January 2015 the finalised planning proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment. The finalised planning proposal sought the following amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan:

1. Rezoning of the subject site from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use

The proposed rezoning of the site from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use would expand the permissible uses of the site, specifically by making residential uses permissible.

2. Increase in the Floor Space Ratio across the site to 10:1

This planning proposal seeks to increase the Floor Space Ratio of the site to 10:1. Existing controls restrict the floor space ratio of 148 George Street and 26-28 Elizabeth Street to 5:1 and 133 Bigge Street to 2.5:1.

3. Minimum non-residential floor space ratio

To introduce an additional clause into LLEP 2008 mandating that minimum non-residential floorspace be developed on the site in order to require that any future development include job generating (commercial/retail) uses. The proposed clause is as follows:

7.36 Minimum non-residential floor space ratio control at 133 Bigge Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street and 148 George Street to state:

(1) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development of land known as 148 George Street, Liverpool (being Lot 1, DP 516633; Lots 2 & 3, DP 700219; Lot 4 DP 592346) unless at least a floor space ratio of 2.5:1 is used for non-residential purposes.

(2) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development of land known as 133 Bigge Street, 26-28 Elizabeth Street, Liverpool (being Lot 1 DP 217460; Lot 10 DP 621840; Lots A, B, C, D DP 337604) unless at least a floor space ratio of 1.5:1 is used for non-residential purposes.

(3) Notwithstanding subclauses (1) and (2) above, the maximum floor space ratio that can be developed on the land referred above inclusive of non-residential use, is 10:1.

4. Remove the height of building controls from the site

This planning proposal seeks to remove height of building controls from the site. The final height of any buildings proposed for the site under a subsequent development application would be assessed on their merit.

5. Removal of the Land Reservation Acquisition from the site for Local Road (SP2)

The Land Reservation Acquisition Map for LLEP 2008 reserves land on the corner of Elizabeth and Bigge Streets, over 131 Bigge Street for the purpose of a Local Road (SP2). The reservation is intended to permit the acquisition of land to develop a left-turning lane on the corner of Bigge Street and Elizabeth Street as traffic pressures increase.

Council is in the process of developing an alternative traffic pattern for Liverpool City Centre. This aims to ameliorate future pressure on the Bigge Street/Elizabeth Street intersection. As a result, Council wishes to relinquish its interest in purchasing the land and seeks to have the reservation of the land removed from the site.

Gateway Determination

The proposal received a Gateway Determination on 22 May 2015 (copy attached). Prior to proceeding to public exhibition, the Gateway Determination required Council:

· To amend the planning proposal to correctly identify land incorrectly identified as Local Road (SP2) as B3 Commercial Core;

· To revise the planning proposal and all relevant documents to accurately show the correct subject site;

· To prepare a shadow analysis to assess the potential impact of the proposal on Bigge Park;

· To conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposal to satisfy the conditions of Section 117 Direction 2.1 Heritage Conservation; and

· To conduct an Acid Sulfate Soils study on the site to satisfy the conditions of Section 117 Direction 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils.

In addition, clause 4(d) of Section 117 Direction 3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes required that Council:

obtain permission from that Department of the Commonwealth, or their delegate, where a planning proposal proposes to allow, as permissible with consent, development that encroaches above the OLS. This permission must be obtained prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act.

The Gateway Determination also required Council to consult with a range of public authorities (see below) and to publicly exhibit the proposal for a minimum of 28 days.

Response to the Gateway Determination

On 3 July 2015 Council received the required Acid Sulfate Soils Study and an archeological site assessment from the proponent. Council received a shadow analysis from the proponent on 9 July 2015 and a Statement of Heritage Impacts on 21 August 2015. All documents were submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) as required by the Gateway Determination.

As noted above Condition 1(a) and (b) of the Gateway Determination required that Council

(a) Revise the planning proposal in relation to identifying the part of land to be removed from the Land Acquisition map. The land is incorrectly identified in the planning proposal as being zoned “Local Road (SP2 Infrastructure)” instead of B3 Commercial Core zone; and

(b) Revise the planning proposal and all relevant documents to show the correct subject site.

The planning proposal correctly identified the “land to be removed from the Land Acquisition map” as being zoned B3 – Commercial Core. The Land Acquisition Map identifies the land by yellow shading and a label which states “Local Road SP2”. This is how the request to remove the portion of the site from the Land Reservation Acquisition Map was described in the planning proposal. At no point was the portion of the site described as being zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road). Consequently, no amendment to the planning proposal was required.

In addition, the site was correctly identified by Lot and DP and street address in the planning proposal. The proposed rezoning of the site necessitated the consequent rezoning of the portions of Bigge Street and George Street adjacent to the subject site also as B4 – Mixed Use following mapping convention. Consequently, no amendment to the planning proposal was required.

Shadow Analysis and solar access to Bigge Park

Condition 1(c) of the Gateway Determination directed Council to prepare a shadow analysis to assess the impact [of the proposal] on Bigge Park. In addition, the cover letter of the Gateway Determination signed by Simon Manoski, Acting General Manager, Metropolitan Region Planning Services states that,

I have also noted Council’s discussion in the planning proposal about the overshadowing impact in Bigge Park. As such, Council should give careful consideration for the need for solar access controls in this locality.

Figure 1 shows the shadowing, based on a conceptual building form provided by the proponent. The image shows the likely overshadowing of Bigge Park at 2pm on June 21 (the shortest day of the year). As is evidenced by the other shadow diagrams provided by the proponent (and attached for reference), the shadow cast would begin to impact Bigge Park at 12pm, increasing its impact on the south-western portion of the park until 3pm.

Figure 1: Shadows generated by development in accordance with the proposal

(Source: architectus)

By comparison, Figure 2 depicts a shadow diagram indicating the shadowing of Bigge Park at 2pm on 21 June for a development which complies with the existing controls for the site. This image was also provided by the proponent.

Figure 2: Shadows generated by a complying development on the site

(Source: architectus)

The proponent has estimated the degree of overshadowing of Bigge Park as reaching a maximum of 35% between 11am and 2pm on 21 June, and has justified the degree of overshadowing with reference to controls for Green Square Town Centre in the City of Sydney, which permit 50% overshadowing of ‘The Drying Green’ between 11am and 2pm.

It is noted, however, that Green Square Town Centre is a new development. ‘The Drying Green’ is not a historic park, much less a heritage item.

In addition, The Drying Green is only 5500sqm in area and is supported by interlocking open space in the Green Square development. Overshadowing 50% of The Drying Green would impact only 2750sqm of open space.

By contrast, Bigge Park is a stand-alone park, and the largest contiguous area of green open space in Liverpool City Centre at approximately 34,000sqm. Overshadowing 35% of Bigge Park would impact around 12,000sqm of open space.

Council must also take account of the cumulative impact of the proposal. Permitting the shadowing of 35% of Bigge Park from the subject site alone may encourage other owners of Bigge Street landowners to seek an approval which would compound the overshadowing impact, increasing the impacts on the heritage site.

It is also noted that Council has invested in the commissioning of a master plan for Bigge Park, which envisages substantial public investment being made to the park, so as to increase its attractiveness as an area of passive recreation. The overshadowing envisaged by the proposal would risk undermining Council’s investment and reducing the value of the open space at its time of highest expected use (between 12pm and 3pm).

Council is committed to increasing residential density in appropriate areas in the Liverpool City Centre, in order to activate the City Centre and make provision for greater numbers of residents in an area of high amenity. Increased density must be balanced against the amenity which makes the location attractive.

The planning proposal does not give endorsement for any particular form of development on the site. Ultimate building height, placement, bulk and massing will be determined through the assessment of a development application lodged for the site, pending the approval of the amendment to zoning and development controls.

Clause 7.2 of LLEP 2008 (Sun access in Liverpool city centre) controls certain building heights in order to mitigate overshadowing on areas of significant open space in Liverpool City Centre. This clause controls the height of buildings along the northern side of Elizabeth Street between Bigge Street and College Street. It does not apply to development west of Bigge Street.

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation controls development that impacts heritage items (including Bigge Park), including in heritage conservation areas.

The proponent has lodged a Statement of Heritage Impact (SoHI) in support of the proposal. It is recommended that a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) be lodged with any development application for the subject site, which specifically addresses potential impacts on Bigge Park and other heritage items in the vicinity, pursuant to Clause 5.10 of LLEP 2008.

In addition, Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008 ensures that proposed development within Liverpool City Centre exhibits design excellence. With respect to potential impacts on Bigge Park, Clause 7.5 states the following:

(1) The objective of this clause is to deliver the highest standard of architectural and urban design.

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development involving the construction of a new building or external alterations to an existing building in the Liverpool city centre unless the consent authority considers that the development exhibits design excellence.

(3) In considering whether development exhibits design excellence, the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:

(d) whether the proposed development detrimentally overshadows Bigge Park, Liverpool Pioneers’ Memorial Park, Apex Park, St Luke’s Church Grounds and Macquarie Street Mall (between Elizabeth Street and Memorial Avenue) (emphasis added).

An assessment of impacts will be made on a finalised and resolved design submitted as part of a future development application which addresses Clause 5.10 and Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008.

Section 117 Direction 3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

The planning proposal seeks to permit building height that would encroach the protected airspace around Bankstown Airport (by permitting ‘unlimited height’ on the site). Clause 4(d) of Section 117 Direction 3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes required Council to obtain the permission of the relevant Commonwealth Department (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development – DIRD) prior to proceeding to public exhibition.

In response to a request for the required permission, Council received a letter from DIRD dated 17 July 2015 which made the following comment:

The Act and Regulations do not, however, require or enable the Department to approve planning decisions such as the removal of building height limits. It is instead necessary for the building authority, under paragraph 8 of the Regulations, to refer a building which would constitute a controlled activity to the relevant airport operator so that it can seek the relevant advice from aviation agencies and forward the application to the department for a decision.

Following further discussion with DP&E and DIRD, it was decided that, should Council agree to amend Clause 7.17 of LLEP 2008 (Development in flight paths) that DIRD would not object to the proposal proceeding to public exhibition.

On 10 September 2015 Council (under delegation to the CEO) lodged a revised planning proposal with DP&E pursuant to Section 58 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The revised planning proposal sought to make an additional amendment to LLEP 2008, being to amend Clause 7.17 Development in flight paths as follows:

7.17 Airspace operations

(1) The objectives of this clause are to:

(a) Provide for the effective and ongoing operation of the Bankstown Airport by ensuring that such operation is not compromised by proposed development that penetrates the Obstacle Limitation Surface or the Procedures for Air Navigation Systems Operation Surface for that airport;

(b) Protect the community from undue risk from that airport operation.

(2) Development consent must not be granted to undertake a controlled activity on land located under the prescribed airspace of Bankstown airport unless the airport has been consulted and the relevant Commonwealth body has granted approval under relevant Commonwealth legislation.

(3) The consent authority may grant development consent for the intrusion into prescribed airspace if the relevant Commonwealth body has issued an approval under relevant Commonwealth legislation. The consent authority must not grant consent to a controlled activity if an approval is not granted by the relevant Commonwealth body.

(4) In this clause:

prescribed airspace of an airport means the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations Surfaces (PANS/OPS) or any airspace declared by the relevant Commonwealth body under relevant Commonwealth legislation

relevant Commonwealth body means any body of the Commonwealth having responsibility for airports under Commonwealth legislation.

controlled activity means

o Construction of permanent structures, such as but not limited to, buildings, vents, aerials, poles that intrude into prescribed airspace;

o Construction of temporary structures, such as cranes, that intrude into prescribed airspace; and

o Any activities causing intrusions into the prescribed airspace through glare from artificial light or reflected sunlight, air turbulence from stacks or vents, smoke, dust, steam or other gases or particulate

The amended clause prohibits Council from granting approval to any development which includes a controlled activity, unless it receives approval from DIRD.

A revised Gateway Determination (attached) was issued by DP&E on 22 September 2015. The revised gateway Determination noted that Council had revised the planning proposal as a consequence of consultation with DIRD as required in condition no. 5 of the gateway Determination issued on 22 May 2015. It went on to note that the proposal now also sought to amend Clause 7.17 of LLEP 2008 (as described above), confirmed that the proposal was now in accord with Section 117 Direction 3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes, permitting Council to proceed to public exhibition.

It must be noted that the inclusion of this revised clause 7.17 into LLEP 2008 will further qualify the impact of the removal of height of building controls from the subject site. Council cannot provide certainty to an applicant for any proposed development which encroaches upon the OLS.

The height of the OLS for the subject site increases from approximately 108 to around 115 metres (AHD) from the east of the site to the west as depicted in Figure 4 below. The subject site has an existing height above sea level of between 13-14 metres, as illustrated by Figure 5 below.

Figure 4: The subject site showing the height of Bankstown Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) in metres AHD.

Figure 5: Contours of the subject site measuring height of the land above sea level

Any development application for the site which included buildings in excess of 95-100 metres will be referred to the airport operator and ultimately DIRD for approval. There is no certainty that an approval will be granted.

Public access considerations

The proponent submitted a “Streetscape Context Study” in support of the proposal which identifies the provision of a public laneway at the rear of the site to provide pedestrian and vehicular access from Warren Serviceway to Bigge Street and two pedestrian rights of way providing public access through the site. These are depicted in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Proposed laneway at rear of site marked in yellow; pedestrian links marked in dotted yellow

Source: Architectus

Provision of the public laneway and pedestrian access ways adds significantly to the merits of the proposal. A public laneway will provide pedestrian and vehicular access between Warren Serviceway, Bigge Street and George Street, increasing the permeability of the city. Ensuring provision for greater vehicular and pedestrian access is also a key desired outcome of the Liverpool City Centre LEP Review (Draft LLEP 2008 (Amendment 52)). Through-site links will also increase the permeability of the site and help maintain a human scale for any future development of the site.

It is recommended that Council’s support for the proposal be contingent on the proposed laneway being dedicated to Council at no cost, and the provision of appropriate through-site links, as part of any future development application for the site.

Public Authority consultation

Condition 5 of the Gateway Determination required that:

Consultation is required with the following public authorities under section 56(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and/or to comply with the requirement of relevant S117 Directions:

Office of Environment and Heritage

Transport NSW

Roads and Maritime Services

Sydney water

Energy Australia (later amended to Endeavour Energy)

Telstra

Bankstown Airport Limited

Civil Aviation safety Authority

Airservices Australia

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Subsequent to a request from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Council also consulted Air Ambulance NSW regarding any potential impacts of the proposal on the Careflight Helicopter flight path to Liverpool Hospital helicopter landing site.

Council commenced consultation on 1 June 2015 pursuant to the requirements of the Gateway Determination. Responses from all authorities have been received prior to public exhibition. Public Authorities were provided with all relevant documents pertaining to the application, including the Archaeological Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impact provided by the proponent.

The attached table summarises the comments received and details the staff response.

It is to be noted that no public authority submission objected to the proposal. The planning proposal was amended pursuant to a submission from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure & Regional Development as outlined above. An amended Gateway Determination was issued by the Department of Planning and Environment on 18 September 2015.

The submission from the Heritage Council of NSW noted that any development application lodged for the redevelopment of the subject site must include a Heritage Impact Statement. Heritage Council comments went on to say that:

The HIS should assess any impacts on the significance of the conservation area and heritage items in the area, including archaeological impacts. It should address the Conservation Criteria outlined in Section 7.1 Heritage Items and Conservation Areas in Part 4 of the Liverpool DCP 2008, and the policies of the Bigge park Conservation Management Plan (CMP). The HIS should include detailed mitigation measures to offset the impacts this project may have on the site’s heritage values.

The Heritage Council’s comments reinforce the recommendation noted above, that any development application for the site lodged pursuant to this amendment be assessed against the requirements of Clause 5.10 and Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008.

With respect to archaeology, the Heritage Council comments went on to state the following:

· Liverpool City Council should also give consideration to the potential for any significant historic archaeology or relics that may be uncovered by future ground disturbance. Approvals under the Heritage Act 1977 will be required.

· Undertake any works involving the disturbance or excavation of land that is likely to contain archaeological remains, a Section 140 application for approval under the Heritage Act 1977 will need to be submitted to the Heritage Council of NSW. Where the works are only minor in nature and will have minimal impact on the heritage significance of the place, approval may not be required. In this instance a Section 139 exemption from approval under the Heritage Act 1977 will need to be endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW prior to works commencing.

It is to be noted that the Heritage Council was in possession of the Archaeological Assessment of the site submitted by the proponent at the time of making its recommendations. That report recommended that no further action was necessary in regard to archaeological matters.

It is therefore recommended that Council notes in approving the proposal, that any subsequent development application lodged on the site pursuant to the proposal must be referred to the Heritage Council for approval pursuant to the requirements of the Heritage Act 1977.

Potential heritage value of the timber cottage

The outer walls and roof of a timber cottage from the 1920s/1930s remains on the subject site. This cottage is not intact, having been considerably altered over time and now used for business purposes by the Peter Warren Service Centre occupying the site. An archival photographic recording of the remnant timber cottage located on 26-28 Elizabeth Street (including a history of the house) should be lodged with any subsequent development application that entails the demolition of the building.

Public Exhibition

Condition 3 of the Gateway Determination for the proposal issued by the DP&E on 24 September 2015 required Council to publicly exhibit the proposal for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of section 5.5.2 of A Guide to preparing local environmental plans. The proposal was publicly exhibited between 23 September 2015 and 23 October 2015.

No submissions were received prior to the closing date of the exhibition. One late submission was received on Monday 26 October 2015. The central concerns expressed in the submission relate to the following issues:

· The removal of height controls from the site;

· The removal of the site from the Bigge Park Heritage Conservation Area; and

· The extent of the overshadowing of Bigge Park depicted in the shadow analysis provided.

The submission also endorsed the recommendations made regarding archaeological safeguards for development of 133 Bigge Street and recommends that a photographic archive of the 1920s/30s weatherboard house be undertaken prior to demolition.

Council staff response to the issues raised is as follows:

· The planning proposal notes that the removal of Height of Building controls from the site will allow the development of more slender buildings on the site, while permitting a developer to maximise use of the available FSR on the site;

· The planning proposal does not recommend the removal of 133 Bigge Street from the Bigge Park Conservation Area; and

· As discussed in this report, the potential of overshadowing of Bigge Park would be a matter for consideration of any development application lodged pursuant to this proposal. Impacts would be assessed against the requirements of Clause 5.10 and Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008.

Conclusion and recommendations

The rezoning of the subject site from B3 – Commercial Core to B4 – Mixed Use will facilitate residential development on the subject site, which will help activate Liverpool City Centre 18 hours a day in line with Council policy. The inclusion of a minimum non-residential clause pertaining to the site will ensure that any subsequent development of the site will make a proportionate contribution to jobs growth in Liverpool City Centre.

Appropriate development of the subject site will provide an important catalyst for the mixed-use development of Liverpool City Centre. Nevertheless, the site is also sensitive, situated adjacent to Bigge Park, and within the Bigge Park Conservation Area.

A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) should be lodged with any subsequent development application for the redevelopment of the subject site. The HIS should assess the significance of buildings on site; as well as address the Conservation Criteria outlined in Section 7.1 Heritage Items and Conservation Areas in Part 4, of the Liverpool DCP 2008, together with the policies of the Bigge Park Conservation Management Plan (CMP). The HIS should include detailed mitigation measures to offset the impacts the development may have on the site’s heritage values. An archival photographic recording of the remnant timber cottage located on 26-28 Elizabeth Street (including a history of the house) should be lodged with any subsequent development application that entails the demolition of the building.

In addition it is recommended that:

· A development application for the subject site be assessed against the requirements of Clause 5.10 and Clause 7.5 of LLEP 2008, to assess the impacts of any proposed development on Bigge Park;

· A development application for the subject site involving the disturbance or excavation of land that is likely to contain archaeological remains, will require appropriate approval from the Heritage Council pursuant to the Heritage Act 1977.

Non-delegated amendment

In its Gateway Determination issued for the proposal on 22 May 2015, DP&E noted that Council had requested that the finalisation of this Amendment to LLEP 2008 be delegated to Council, but decided that the matter should not be delegated. Should Council adopt the proposal, it will be submitted to DP&E for finalisation. The Gateway Determination indicates that a minimum of six weeks should be allowed before the finalised Amendment is gazetted.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development. Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities (in the City Centre).
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Gateway Determination View (Under separate cover)

2. Revised Gateway Determination View (Under separate cover)

3. Planning Proposal View (Under separate cover)

4. Public Authority Consultation summary View (Under separate cover)

209

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 06

Application to amend LLEP 2008 to permit 'shops' up to a maximum GFA of 21,000sqm at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Orange Grove MegaCenta)

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Deliver an efficient planning system which embraces sustainable urban renewal and development
Key Policy	Urban Development Plans
File Ref	304869.2015
Report By	Peter Pham - Strategic Planning
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Property

10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm

5 Viscount Place, Warwick Farm

Owner

Gazcorp Pty Ltd

Applicant

Gazcorp Pty Ltd

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council for a Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 to permit ‘shops’ up to a maximum GFA of 21,000m² at the Orange Grove MegaCenta site (Lot 101 DP104316 and part of Lot 23 DP1190437).

The proposed amendment will create the flexibility to permit ‘shop’ uses, while supporting the main function of the subject site for ‘bulky goods’ retailing under the existing B5 zoning (refer to Attachment 1).

The justifications for the support of the planning proposal are as follows:

· The Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) and two peer reviews of the EIA found the proposal will not adversely impact the viability of existing centres including Liverpool CBD and Westfield.

· The proposal demonstrates that the development cannot be accommodated within the existing available floor space in the Liverpool CBD, existing edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations.

· The proposal demonstrates the need to provide additional clauses to the LLEP2008 Schedule 1 – Additional Use as opposed to rezoning because the site does not meet the objectives of the B2 - Local Centre zone. Moreover rezoning to B2 – Local Centre would open up the possibility of establishing uses (e.g. residential flat buildings or shop top housing) that would not be desirable in the locality.

· The retail diversification at The Orange Grove MegaCenta will service the demand that is currently unmet and will play an important regional role in providing bulky goods and other services for the projected population and residential growth.

· The ability to establish ‘shops’ within this centre will assist the viability of the centre.

The applicant has also proposed to facilitate the upgrade at the intersection of Viscount Place and Orange Grove Road through a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). It is proposed that the VPA offer be made to Council prior to submission of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment, seeking Gateway Determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Supports the Planning Proposal to amend Schedule 1 of LLEP2008 to permit ‘shops’ as an additional use up to a maximum GFA of 21,000m² on 5 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Lot 101 DP104316 and part of Lot 23 DP1190437)

2. Receives and agrees to the Voluntary Planning Agreement from the applicant to facilitate the road upgrade at the intersection of Viscount Place and Orange Grove Road prior to submission of the Planning Proposal for Gateway.

3. Forwards the Planning Proposal to Department of Planning and Environment seeking Gateway pursuant to s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Report

Site Description

The legal description of the subject site is Lot 101 DP104316 and part of Lot 23 DP1190437 (5 Orange Grove Road), otherwise known as the Orange Grove MegaCenta Liverpool. It is located approximately 1.5km north of the Liverpool City Centre, and sits at the northern edge of the Liverpool LGA, bordering on the Fairfield LGA (refer to Figure 1).

The subject site forms part of a larger site known as the MegaCenta, which includes the approved retail outlets site (Weekend Markets) on the southern side of Viscount Place. A Dan Murphy’s store is also located within The Grove Centre on the southern side of Viscount Place and fronting Orange Grove Road. A stand-alone McDonalds outlet is located opposite the Dan Murphy’s store on the northern side of Viscount Place and on a separate allotment to the homemaker centre. There is also an IGA supermarket and Krispy Kreme outlet on the site on land zoned B6 – Enterprise Corridor.

Figure 1 –

Context Map

Source: Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy Review

Background

An initial Planning Proposal was submitted to Council in March 2015 which sought to rezone the part of the Site which is currently zoned B5 - Business Development to B2 - Local Centre. The proposed B2 – Local Centre zoning was intended to allow for the expansion of the retail uses on the site to accommodate ‘shop’ floor space.

Council assessed the initial proposal and concluded that the rezoning of the site from B5 - Business Development to B2 – Local Centre Zone was not supported as the proposed use did not meet the objectives of the B2 Zone and would result in poor land use outcomes. It was recommended that a better approach to achieving the intended outcome was to maintain the existing B5 – Business Development zoning and allow ‘shops’ under Schedule 1 of LLEP2008 as an additional use, with a maximum GFA limit of 21,000m². The proponent subsequently amended the Planning Proposal based on the advice provided by Council officers.

Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the LLEP2008 under Additional Permitted Use to permit ‘shops’ up to a maximum GFA of 21,000m² at the Orange Grove MegaCenta site (Lot 101 DP104316 and part of Lot 23 DP1190437). The Planning Proposal will facilitate the delivery of new additional uses for ‘shops’ to accompany the existing B5 zoning for bulky goods retailing (refer to Figure 2).

The objective of the proposal is to facilitate large format and traditional retail uses within the subject site to provide for unmet demand in the broader trading area serviced by the Orange Grove MegaCenta. No other development standards are changed as a result of this Planning Proposal. There is sufficient evidence to support the expansion of the additional ‘shop’ use with a maximum GFA limit 21,000m² space within the existing B5 – Business Development zone. The rezoning of the site to B2 – Local Centre is not supported as the rezoning would not meet the objective of the B2 zone as outlined below.

The Orange Grove MegaCenta plays an important regional role in providing bulky goods and large format retailing. The demand for bulky goods is expected to increase significantly with projected population and residential growth. It is recommended to permit “shop” use as ancillary to the existing B5 – Business Development zone and to directly support the existing bulky goods and other services currently on site. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Ministerial Directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act and applicable State Environmental Planning Policies.

Figure 2 – Location Map

Source: Nearmap

Economic Impacts

The applicant commissioned Leyshon Consulting Pty Ltd (Leyshon) to prepare an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposal, and subsequently commissioned Deep End Services to undertake a peer review of the Leyshon EIA. As part of Council’s assessment, an independent peer review of both reports was undertaken by Essential Economics on behalf of Council (refer to Attachment 2). All three reports found that there was sufficient unmet demand in the broader catchment to support the proposal and that there were likely to be minimal adverse impacts on the existing centres as a result of the proposed development.

According to the peer review by Essential Economics, the estimated impacts would not undermine or materially affect the viability of any shopping centre. It was calculated to have marginal impact on annual sales of -5.9% on the Liverpool CBD as a whole and -7.3% on Liverpool Westfield in 2019 post development of the planning proposal. It is considered that the proposed Orange Grove MegaCenta will service a retail demand that is currently unmet. The impacts are considered marginal and will slowly diminish over time due to the forecast increase in population within the city centre catchment. It is expected that there will be strong growth in bulky goods retailing centres with the big box retailers looking to capture market share from the department stores and some specialty retailers in traditional retail centres. It is also acknowledged, the Fairfield LGA lacks a department store, and lacks a discount department store in the south-east of the LGA. This further reinforces a lack of suitable locations to accommodate large format retail sites due to the existing fragmentation of sites zoned for retail.

The proposal within Orange Grove MegaCenta will result in economic growth and productivity benefits. Council’s independent peer review of both reports indicated the proposed Orange Grove MegaCenta would achieve potential sales of approximately $118.2m in 2019. These are similar to statistics provided by Leyshon Consulting and Deep End Services. The retail components are considered to be in line with industry averages and expectations for a retail development at the site.

All three economic impact assessment (EIA) reports establish an increase in community benefits through local employment opportunities as result of the Planning Proposal. It is estimated, that the proposal at Orange Grove MegaCenta has the potential to result in net employment growth of 576 direct jobs in retailing, including full-time and part-time positions.

Sequential Test and Site Suitability

As part of assessing the suitability of the subject site, the applicant has provided a sequential test in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations within the catchment area. It is to be noted, within the Draft Activity Centres Policy, the Orange Grove MegaCenta is identified as a stand-alone centre.

The applicant’s sequential site analysis established that no alternative sites are available in established retail centres to accommodate the proposal. A number of constraints were identified:

· Lack of large undeveloped areas with suitable commercial zonings

· The need to preserve industrial zoned land for industrial uses

· Preserving recreational land and public amenities

The finding also demonstrates that there are no opportunities to feasibly accommodate the proposal within the City Centre, due to the fragmentation of land ownership and subdivision/lot patterns. It is also noted, that the City Centre is dominated by the Liverpool Westfield with a variety of retail and commercial spaces.

Liverpool Retail Hierarchy

The Liverpool Retail Hierarchy Study by Hill PDA was approved by Council in November 2012. It was undertaken to ensure that the roles of centres are clearly defined and that expansion of one centre will not threaten the role of another centre further up or down the hierarchy. The review forecasts significant increases in retail growth and demand for retail floorspace over the 2006 to 2031 period.

The Liverpool Retail Hierarchy Review identifies the Orange Grove MegaCenta as a Stand Alone Centre and concluded it was suitable for diversification of uses beyond its bulky goods role, particularly if the existing outlet centre opened on the Weekend Markets site. The study also found the development of traditional retail outlets comprising a Discount Department Store (DDS) and a Full-Line Supermarket at the site could be supported and that these additional uses would most appropriately be accommodated by an amendment to Schedule 1 of LLEP2008, rather than a rezoning of the site. The document in support of the amendment states:

“If Council approve additional development at Orange Grove and Crossroads, this may be most appropriately accommodated through using additional uses as permissible. In doing so Council would retain a greater degree of control over the type of development, thus mitigate any potential impacts upon Liverpool City Centre and other centres” (Liverpool Retail Centres Hierarchy Review, July 2012 pg.65).

Furthermore, the statement supports the EIA and peer reviews undertaken that the amendment to permit additional ‘shop’ use for up to 21,000m² GFA at Orange Grove MegaCenta site is unlikely to seriously impact on any nearby centre.

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008

An evaluation of the LLEP2008 found an amendment to allow an additional use provision was appropriate for the following reasons:

The site is largely isolated from the surrounding residential catchment area and lacks public transport connectivity or active transport connectivity such as walking or cycling. B2 – Local Centre zoning should be applied to areas located in proximity to an immediate residential catchment with high level of public transport and active transport connectivity.

The proposal demonstrates the need to provide additional clauses to the LLEP2008 Schedule 1 – Additional Use as opposed to rezoning because the site does not meet the objectives of the B2 - Local Centre zone. Moreover rezoning to B2 – Local Centre would open up the possibility of establishing uses that would not be desirable in the locality.

The B2 - Local Centre objective is to provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people in the local area. The subject site is a regional facility servicing a very broad catchment as opposed to a local catchment. The subject site is located on Orange Grove Road, a major regional thoroughfare, and is designed for and primarily accessible by motor vehicles.

The B2 – Local Centre would allow a number of additional uses permitted for development (e.g. residential flat buildings or shop top housing) which are prohibited in the B5 – Business Development zoning. This could lead to unplanned and unintended consequences on the site which may lead to poor land use outcomes.

Recent amendments to the LLEP2008

Consideration should be given to recent amendments to Schedule 1 of LLEP2008 to support the provision of large format retail within B5 – Business Development zoning. These amendments were assessed and approved on its merits and economic impacts on the retail hierarchy of Liverpool:

· Amendment No. 26: Permitted additional uses for ‘retail premises’, ‘business premises’, ‘service station’ and ‘vehicle repair station’ at Crossroads Homemaker Centre (Lot 200 on DP1090110) Beech Road, Casula to include a Costco Outlet on B5 – Business Development zoning

· Amendment No. 22 : Permitted ‘retail premises’ at 5 Viscount Place, Warwick Farm (Lot 23 on DP1190437) with a maximum of 19,000m² of retail premises permitted on the site, and restriction of 1,200 m² applied to each tenancy on B5 – Business Development zoning. The amendment facilitated the redevelopment of the Weekend Markets as an outlet retailing centre.

Traffic and Transport

A Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment has been submitted with the Planning Proposal. In regard to traffic generation and the capacity of the network to accommodate the traffic, the assessment finds that the peak demand of the Orange Grove MegaCenta can accommodate the additional vehicle movement generated. The subject site is motor vehicle dependent with strong connectivity to the sub-regional network (further indicating a lack of public transport and pedestrian connectivity to support for B2 – Local Centre zonings). It is noted that the level of public transport is generally not as frequent as traditional centres.

Voluntary Planning Agreement

The traffic and transport assessment submitted by the proponent has recommended upgrading the intersection of Viscount Place and Orange Grove Road as a result of the Planning Proposal. The proponent has offered funding be facilitated through a Voluntary Planning Agreement subject to Council approval and prior to submission of the Planning Proposal for Gateway.

Conclusion

The Planning Proposal to permit ‘shops’ at the Orange Grove MegaCenta will play an important regional role in providing bulky goods and large format retailing (shops). The Economic Impact Assessment reports and Council’s independent peer review confirm that there are unlikely to be any adverse impacts on the viability of existing centres. In addition, the sequential test provided by the proponent demonstrates that there are no opportunities to accommodate the proposal within the Liverpool City Centre due to the fragmentation of land ownership and subdivision/lot patterns.

While there will be marginal impacts on annual sales on Liverpool CBD and Liverpool Westfield, the proposal does not directly compete with these sites. It is considered that the proposed Orange Grove MegaCenta will service a retail demand that is currently unmet. With the forecast population growth, it is appropriate to support the provision of this additional use within B5 – Business Development zoning at this location. The additional ‘shop’ use will be ancillary to the objectives of the existing B5 – Business Development zone and will support the existing bulky goods retailing and other services currently provided by the subject site.

It is therefore recommended that the applicant forwards the VPA offer to Council subject to approval, prior to submission of the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment, seeking a Gateway Determination for an amendment to Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of the LLEP2008 to permit ‘shops’ up to a maximum GFA of 21,000m² at the Orange Grove MegaCenta site (Lot 101 DP104316 part of Lot 23 DP1190437).

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial

Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Proposal View (Under separate cover)

2. Peer Review of Economic Impact Assessment View (Under separate cover)

231

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Planning and Growth Report

DPG 07

Council submission on Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek

Strategic Direction	Vibrant Prosperous City Position Liverpool as the destination of choice to attract business and investment in South Western Sydney
Key Policy	Economic Development Strategy
File Ref	317338.2015
Report By	Murray Wilson - Senior Strategic Planner
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

The proposed Western Sydney Airport project will be one of the largest and most complex infrastructure projects in Australia. While the Commonwealth land is located wholly within our local government area, there will be both positive and negative impacts on residents and businesses across Western Sydney as a whole.

On Monday 19 October 2015, the Australian Government placed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Airport Plan (DAP) for the Western Sydney Airport (WSA) on exhibition for a total of 60 days.

Council officers are in the process of finalising a submission based on a review of technical studies by specialist consultants and internal advice. It is noted that the specialists’ reviews found overall that the DEIS did not adequately identify or address the likely environmental impacts of the proposed airport.

This report and the submission are generally supportive of the airport, due to the benefits an infrastructure project of this magnitude could provide for Western Sydney and in particular the residents (including future residents’) of Liverpool City Council. However, further investigation into the adverse impacts of the proposal should be undertaken by the proponent to better understand these. Should the airport proceed, appropriate mitigation measures should be undertaken to ensure the negative impacts are appropriately managed.

This report recommends that Council delegates to the CEO the authority to make a submission on behalf of Council on the Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses this report and delegates to the CEO the authority to finalise and lodge a submission on behalf of Council on the Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.

2. Advocates for a working committee to be created which would facilitate collaboration between the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and the relevant state and local governments to ensure quality planning outcomes are achieved.

REPORT

History

Badgerys Creek is located approximately 20 kilometres west of the Liverpool city centre and 56 kilometres west of Sydney’s CBD. The Badgerys Creek Airport site was identified as a potential site for an airport in the Sydney Region Outline Plan 1968. Since that time the Australian Government has acquired (between 1986 and 1991) approximately 1,700 hectares. Badgerys Creek has been the preferred site in detailed studies commissioned by successive governments since the 1970s.

In 1986, following an extensive site selection process, the Australian Government announced that Badgerys Creek had been chosen as the site for a second major airport for Sydney. The site has been largely protected from incompatible residential and urban development through New South Wales (NSW) Government planning restrictions in place since the 1990s.

However, in 1999, the then Federal Government decided not to proceed with the Badgerys Creek Airport after the Environmental Impact Statement was released. In April 2014, the Federal Government stated that the Commonwealth land at Badgerys Creek is the preferred site for Sydney’s Second Airport.

Background

The proponent for the development and operation of the proposed airport is the Australian Government Department known as the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD). DIRD is responsible for national policies and programmes that promote, evaluate, plan and invest in infrastructure and regional development, and foster an efficient, sustainable, competitive, safe and secure transport system for Australia. DIRD administers the Airports Act 1996 and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development is responsible for the approval of all major developments at federally leased airport facilities across Australia as defined by the Airports Act. The proposed airport would be developed and operated under the Airports Act.

The proposed airport is one of the largest infrastructure projects considered in Australia in recent years and would be the first major new Australian airport development in decades. Development of the proposed airport is subject to Federal Government approvals and is not subject to state or local authority approvals.

The proposed airport is supported (in principle), as it could be a much needed catalyst for employment growth in western Sydney. The airport will provide economic benefits to both residents of the Liverpool Local Government Area and the broader western Sydney area. It must be stated however, there will be both positive and negative impacts arising from the construction and operation of the airport. It is vital that appropriate mitigation measures should be undertaken to ensure the negative impacts are lessened on the community and the environment.

The Airport Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

There are two base documents associated with the public exhibition of the Western Sydney Airport, being the DAP and the DEIS.

The DAP sits alongside the draft EIS as a companion document. The DAP specifies how Stage 1 of the proposed airport is to be developed on the Badgerys Creek airport site. The EIS assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts associated with the Stage 1 development.

The DEIS and the DAP will be required to be revised taking account of comments received during the exhibition period. The finalised EIS will also provide any additional information that may be relevant to the Minister for the Environment’s consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposal.

Draft Airport Plan

The DAP is primarily concerned with the Stage 1 Development. The DAP is designed to the 2030 demand level with an estimated 10 million annual passengers. The Airport will consist of a single 3,700m runway, terminal, car parking facilities and other support facilities. As stated in Volume 2 of the DEIS, the proposed airport is forecast to generate demand for 8,730 full time equivalent jobs in airport operations and a further 4,440 full time equivalent jobs in the expected commercial development in business parks on the airport site in 2031. The operation of the proposed airport is also forecast to generate approximately $77 million in value-add for Western Sydney and a further $145 million in value-add for the rest of Sydney in 2031.

Stage 1 of the proposed airport is likely to be constructed in accordance with the DAP (See figure 1). The DAP forms a transitional planning instrument under the Airports Act. The concept design outlined in the DAP provides the planning framework for the proposed airport until the first master plan is in place. This part includes the development of objectives for the proposed airport, indicative flight paths, projected aircraft noise contours and the Land Use Plan for the airport site.

The DAP provides the basis for the assessment of the environmental impacts known as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS).

The concept design, including the Land Use Plan, cannot be altered without approval of the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. The Airport Plan sets out the Land Use Plan for the airport site. The Land Use Plan regulates the types of development, in terms of permissible land uses, that can occur within the airport site. It also outlines land uses and indicative developments that will facilitate long term growth.

The DAP allows for aviation related uses, warehousing, and non-aviation uses such as retail, commercial and / or business uses with no real consideration of integration with the surrounding environment. The proposed permitted land use zones within the airport lands should be compatible with the land adjacent to the airport site. This would allow for a better integration of uses between the airport lands and future development outside of the airport site.

Figure 1 – Stage 1 Draft Airport Plan (Single runway)

Summary

It is recommended that DIRD should work collaboratively with the Department of Planning and Environment and Liverpool City Council to prepare a coordinated approach and a staged release of land that can support the development of the airport but also foster economic and employment growth in the region.

Figure 2 – Land use zones (Stage 1)

Council officers have made a number of recommendations in regards to the DAP which are included in the submission, these include:

1. A greater emphasis on a better environmental outcome should be incorporated; for example as stated in Brisbane Airport’s 2009 Master Plan;

“ensuring the correct balance of built and biodiversity values and the minimisation of adverse environmental impacts”

2. The Minister for the Environment should condition the approval of the DAP requiring a detailed master plan that addresses:

· Sustainability outcomes, such as:

i. street layout;

ii. building and street design;

iii. construction;

iv. materials used;

v. energy, water harvesting;

· Integration of the airport into the surrounding environment (including land uses); and

· Future uses and expansion.

3. The airport master plan should incorporate measures to reduce the impact of the Urban Heat Island effect. This can include such design features as light coloured finishes, green walls and roofs, passive solar design, cross flow ventilation and the reduction of dark coloured surfaces.

4. All efforts should be used to protect the rail corridor, and ensure the rail line is constructed and operating from the first operational day of the Western Sydney Airport.

5. The airport sits within a broader environment and should be connected to other areas via eastern and southern connections.

6. A north south connection (east of the airport) from The Northern Road to Elizabeth Drive must be maintained.

7. The Airport Plan does not clearly indicate a southern access either from The Northern Road, Badgerys Creek Road or via a proposed Fifteenth Avenue extension. Council would like to see vehicle access to the airport from the east and the south, to better integrate the airport within the surrounding environment.

8. Stage 1 of the Airport Plan incorporates non airport related uses such as retail, commercial and business, within the Business Development (Reservation) zone (154 hectares). The uses within this part of the airport could detract business away from the Liverpool city centre and future centres within the South West Growth Area. An economic impact assessment should be prepared as part of the Airport Master Plan to ascertain the impacts on the existing centres.

Long Term Airport Development

The Long Term forecast (2063) (See Figure 3 – Likely Long Term Development) could see the airport cater for 82 million annual passengers (MAP) and 370,000 air traffic movements a year (ATM), this equates to 85 ATM an hour during peak times. The long term airport would consist of two parallel 3,700m runways, terminal, air traffic control tower and ancillary support uses.

Figure 3 – Likely Long Term Development

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

As stated earlier in this report, the DAP sits alongside the DEIS as a companion document. The DAP specifies how Stage 1 of the proposed airport is to be developed on the Badgerys Creek airport site, while this EIS assesses the environmental, social and economic impacts associated with the Stage 1 development.

The EIS is a detailed consideration of the environmental, social and economic consequences of the proposed airport and (in this case) is presented in four volumes, being

· Volume 1 – Background

· Volume 2 – Stage 1 Environmental Impact Assessment

· Volume 3 – Long term environmental assessment

· Volume 4 – Specialists Studies

Volume 2 provides a detailed impact assessment of the Stage 1 development and includes three parts;

· Part D - provides a detailed consideration of all environmental aspects potentially impacts by the proposal;

· Part E - provides the environmental management framework and mitigation requirements to be implemented as part of the proposal; and

· Part F – provides a conclusion to the assessment of impacts for Stage 1 development including the ability to meet the needs and the objectives of the proposed development.

Volume 3 provides a strategic level environmental assessment for the long term development of the airport site.

Future development of the airport will be subject to a detailed master planning and approval process. This assessment is only based upon indicative design concepts including indicative flight tracks to provide an idea of the extent of impacts potentially associated with the future development of the airport site. All future development including any cumulative or consequential impacts on other airports such as Sydney Airport will be subject to further assessment and approvals in accordance with the applicable legislative framework at the time of the application.

Therefore the majority of the concerns raised, revolve around additional information requests and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Stage 1 Development of the airport.

Peer Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) were engaged by Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) and Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils (MACROC) to project manage the Peer Review of the Western Sydney Airport draft EIS.

The peer review was managed by WSROC, acting on behalf of 11 councils from the WSROC and MACROC region including LCC. The participating councils, who provided funding and guidance throughout the peer review, were:

· WSROC;

o Auburn City Council;

o Blacktown City Council;

o Blue Mountains City Council;

o Fairfield City Council;

o Holroyd City Council;

o Liverpool City Council;

o Parramatta City Council;

o Penrith City Council;

· MACROC:

o Camden Council;

o Campbelltown City Council;

o Wollondilly Shire Council;

The key areas of review were:

· Aviation planning;

· Overflight noise;

· Ground based noise and vibration;

· Traffic and transport;

· Air quality and greenhouse gas;

· Human health impacts;

· Social and economic;

· Biodiversity;

· Surface water and Groundwater;

· Impact on Blue Mountains;

In its role of project manager, PB also undertook an overall review of the DEIS to assess issues not addressed by the specialists and prepared a final report of the peer review. The overall review of the DEIS and a list of Peer Review documents are attached for your information.

PB was critical of the adequacy of the DEIS, noting it was prepared over an eight (8) month period, from engagement of the DEIS consultants to provision of an initial draft for Commonwealth Department of Environment review. By way of contrast the previous EIS for the project prepared in the late 1990s was undertaken over two years. In PB’s opinion, the DEIS has resulted in a number of omissions and limitations.

Summary of the Issues Raised by the Peer Review

PB stated that the biggest issue of the DEIS is uncertainty over the operational impacts of the airport. There is significant uncertainty on the future flight paths and the impact of the flight paths (noise) on properties around the airport and under the flight paths. There is further uncertainty regarding the mitigation measures and appropriate targets to be achieved. Given that many of the properties within the Liverpool local government area will be impacted by the future overflight noise and ground noise, the submission recommends that DIRD make Council and local residents aware of these impacts prior to approval of an airport at Badgerys Creek.

The predicted Noise data does not translate into impact significance. Issues related to noise that will impact our community will included include community annoyance, sleep disturbance, dwelling insulation and land use impacts. Our submission raises these as issues that will need to be addressed.

PB also raised that the traffic modelling does not adequately assess local impacts of the airport. It is recommended that detailed transport network planning including road and rail network planning is undertaken.

In summary PB found that the DEIS:

· Generally did not adhere to the EIS Guidelines;

· Contained information gaps for key assumptions;

· Lacked appropriate ‘benchmarking’;

· Did not conform to ‘best practice’; and

· Lacked detailed modelling and detailed outputs.

The table below identifies the key issues raised by the specialists for each environmental issue reviewed. (Source: WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff).

Environmental issue	Key issues raised
Noise (aircraft overflight)	· Assessment based on 2030 scenario which reflects early stage of airport operation only · Uncertainty around actual flight paths · Proposed mitigation measures are generic due to uncertainty of flight paths · Outline of mitigation process is not performance driven.
Noise (airport ground-based noise and vibration)	· Type and magnitude of impact, pre and post mitigation has not been included · A single rating background level has been assumed for all receptors, this generalisation has underestimated the magnitude of noise impacts at receptors close to the airport. · Luddenham sensitive receptors were not included in background noise monitoring. · No cumulative noise impact assessment has been considered · The M12 motorway and the realignment of the Northern Rd has been excluded from the assessment regarding operational road traffic noise in Stage 1.
Local air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG)	· Local air quality assessment has several long term exceedances NO2, formaldehyde, PM2.5 and PM10 · Effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures to achieve compliance was not quantified. · GHG emissions relatively small
Regional air quality	· Stage 1 assessment is acceptable · Ozone concentration significantly above allowable increment for longer term development
Community Health	PLEASE NOTE: This was left blank by PB
Aviation planning	· No real visibility in draft EIS of how flight paths were determined · No presentation of alternatives · No certainty over final outcome · No consideration of point merge – impacts on Blaxland
Surface transport and access	· STM3 model has not been effectively calibrated and validated as the model is still in development with TfNSW · No traffic intersection modelling undertaken · Did not consider assessment of rail · Traffic estimate is based on 2011 which may be an underestimate as it does not include recent land use developments · Traffic generation (outside of air cargo) is unknown and no consideration made for passengers transferring within the airport.
Human health	· Reviewed air quality, noise and water impacts · however no discussion on implications of the · distribution of effects for inequality and equality have been discussed. · No rational or justification given on why a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has been undertaken rather than a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) · Perceived health issues not considered · Social determinants of health have not been considered · Long term cumulative impacts were not considered.
Biodiversity and offset strategy	· Offset package has not been prepared and residual ecological risks have not been discussed · Mitigation measures are limited · Difficult to assess the biodiversity value of the site for the long term development.
Surface water and groundwater	· Duncan Creek and its tributaries have not been modelled to allow definition of baseline and hydraulic impacts · Draft EIS appears to dismiss any relevance of increased pollutant loads on the receiving environment · Groundwater assessment lacks qualification of data, no baseline time-series data collected · Two residual risks for groundwater were identified; soil and subsurface contamination from spill/release of chemical or contaminants and impact on groundwater dependant ecosystems from reduced water supply.
Social impact	· Balance of discussion on impacts – strong focus on economic benefits rather than a balanced discussion · Strong focus on regional benefits not local impacts · Many potential issues are stated with little assessment of their implications or level of significance or duration · No discussion on how mitigation measures will be coordinated or resourced or who the key accountability falls with · Claims being made by Commonwealth about economic generation and job creation have not been explicitly tested in the draft EIS · The draft EIS does not describe the economic or social impacts of any transfer of activity from other areas in Sydney or Australia
Greater Blue Mountains	· A detailed assessment of significance under the Biodiversity Assessment for the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area has been deferred until a ‘multidisciplinary workshop’ is held to identify and assess potential impacts. · Limited assessment of wilderness value and high sensitivity · Noise levels predicted to be relatively low (below 50-55dB LAmax) however for a natural landscape is prediction is not justified and many impact the amenity values.

Table 1: Summary of Key Issues Raised

Summary of the Key Issues Raised Internally

The following issues are in addition to those raised by the Peer Review.

Ground and Aircraft Noise

· Noise impacts arising from all infrastructure and activities associated with the proposed airport must be assessed to determine the cumulative impact upon the community and environment;

· The proponent should establish a Community Liaison Committee which is to meet regularly to discuss airport related issues; and

· Further noise modelling should be undertaken in Luddenham which details the impact for this area.

Air quality and greenhouse gases

· Appropriate mitigation measures for point and diffuse sources must be conditioned as part of any approval of the EIS. The mitigation measures must be certified by a suitably quality and experienced air quality consultant.

Contamination, Hazard and Risk

· To determine the suitability of the land for its intended use and satisfy the requirements of SEPP 55, the proponent should undertake investigations into contamination to ensure that the land can be remediated effectively if required.

Traffic Transport and Access

· Should Badgerys Creek Road be closed It is recommended that a new road link east of the airport should be provided;

· Additonal funding should be provided to upgrade Elizabeth Drive, Fifteenth Avenue and Badgerys Creek Road;

· Early constructure of the rail line to the airport would provide many benefits;

· The proposed airport will significantly burden the surrounding transport system;

· No examination has been carried out on the effects on the capacity of the local road network. Additional investigation of the transport impacts of the airport development as well as the needs of adjoining land users should be carried out to identify the required local road improvements including upgrades to roads such as King Street and Devonshire Road, Rossmore; and

· The Federal and State Governments are funding most of arterial road improvements required to accommodate expected traffic demand to the Stage 1 development. However, the EIS has not identified required improvement works on the regional and local road network and there is no mechanism to require the proponent to contribute to regional, district or local infrastructure. The EIS should include a requirement for the proponent to contribute to regional, district or local infrastructure (say about 2-3%).

Biodiversity

· Given the type of development proposed and the limited ability to avoid impacts to biodiversity, reliance upon measures to mitigate biodiversity loss is accepted. It is considered that proposed mitigation measures are generally reasonable with the following exceptions:

o It is noted, in Figure 2 of the Biodiversity Assessment that the proposed environment conservation zone does not extend for the entire length of Badgerys Creek located within the site, with a corridor gap of approximately 500-600m adjacent to the Northern Road. It is recommended that consideration be given to protect and enhance this portion of the corridor in keeping with other sections of the EIS (e.g. Figure ES 4 and ES 5 in the executive summary) that include this portion of land within the environment conservation zone. Further, portions of the Biodiversity Assessment assume the connectivity along Badgerys Creek will be retained;

o The preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan for the open space within the airport site and the environmental conservation zone is noted to occur during the operational stage. It is recommended that the Vegetation Management Plan is prepared during the pre-construction phase to allow it to encompass all pertinent works; and

o The airport proposes the removal of 120.4 hectares of potential foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox and 88.9 hectares of vegetation Cumberland Plain Woodland. The offsetting of this vegetation should be located within the Liverpool Local Government Area.

Surface water and ground water

· There should be no adverse impact on flooding or local drainage resulting from the proposed development. Any impact shall be assessed and addressed to ensure pre-development flooding regime is maintained or improved;

· Flood maps for all design flood events including the 1%AEP and the PMF should be submitted for Council review and acknowledgement; and

· The flood impact assessment should consider impact of climate change on flood levels of the creek system and on airport infrastructures, in accordance with the State Government’s guideline.

Stormwater quality

· The proposed airport development will have a significant impact on the surface water quality of adjoining waterways;

· Comprehensive on-site stormwater treatment facilities shall be designed and constructed to ensure all gross pollutants, nutrients and liquid contaminants (including spill of fuels, oils, lubricants) are captured and removed from stormwater runoff before entering in to the natural waterways; and

· A fail-safe emergency water quality management system shall be in place at all times.

Groundwater

· The EIS report has indicated that the proposed airport development has the potential to affect groundwater conditions.

Aboriginal Heritage

· A comprehensive list of recommendations for further investigation and the development of holistic conservation, management, consultation and interpretation plan has been recommended by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (October 2015, Section 10).

European Heritage

· The loss of heritage is never ideal however the proposal necessitates a cleared site and therefore does not allow the retention of heritage items in situ. The success of managing European Heritage for the Badgerys Creek site will require ongoing consultation and focus on the detail on mitigation measures.

Planning and land use

· The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development must commit to working cooperatively with both state and local governments to ensure planning documents / legislation are updated to ensure the impacts of the airport are known and incorporated within planning legislation; and

· It is recommended that a Strategic Land Use Strategy should be prepared to ascertain appropriate uses for the lands that are constrained by the airport.

Aviation Planning

· It is recommended that early and regular consultation is undertaken (by the future airport operator) with Liverpool City Council and the Department of Planning and Environment in order to develop appropriate planning controls around the airport. This should include discussion regarding the long term development of the airport.

Noise contours and noise mitigating management

Social

· It is anticipated that long-term economic stimulation arising from the development of an airport will potentially impact on Liverpool city centre;

· Potential adverse health impacts on residents surrounding the airport during construction and operation phases, especially in relation to noise levels and air quality are expected;

· It is anticipated that the proposal will place pressure on LCC to provide a range of social infrastructure to meet the needs of the expected additional population; and

· There are both positive and negative impacts associated with the development of the airport. These include

Negative Impacts:

o Loss of semi-rural lifestyle;

o Impacts on community cohesion; and

o Amenity and health impacts.

Positive impacts:

o Improved employment opportunities;

o Reduced travel times to work;

o Increase in average wages; and

o Improved retail and business service choice and price competition.

Economic

· The analysis confirms the significant positive economic impact of the construction and ongoing operation of the proposed international airport. On site employment of 13,169 full time equivalents projected by 2031 and 90,000 by 2063 and the value-add from the airport for the region of $1.904b by 2024 underlines the role of the airport as a catalyst for economic development for Western Sydney.

· There has been a strong focus on regional benefits but not local costs and benefits.

Conclusion

The proposed airport at Badgerys Creek has the potential to be a catalyst for employment growth in the Western Sydney region. The airport will provide economic benefits to both the residents of Liverpool Local Government Area and to broader western Sydney region as a whole. It must be stated however, that there are recognised positive and negative impacts arising from the construction and operation of the airport.

In summary, Council is generally supportive of the airport at Badgerys Creek, however it wishes to ensure that a thorough and transparent assessment of all of potential risks and impacts is undertaken and communicated appropriately to enable the Council to gauge the extent of negative environmental and social impacts. The Council also requests that a thorough set of quantifiable environmental targets / limits are established for the short and long term operation of the airport. Further, the Council requests that appropriate monitoring and achievable mitigation measures are stipulated to ensure targets / limits are met.

Council officers are preparing a submission on behalf of Council which makes the recommendations outlined in this report (including the recommendations made by Parsons Brinckerhoff) as well as requesting additional information required to better understand the impacts of the airport. This report recommends that Council delegates to the CEO the authority to finalise and lodge the submission on behalf of Council on the Draft Airport Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	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. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries.
Environmental and Sustainability	Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution. 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 and Cultural	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. 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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Peer Review of EIS Part A View (Under separate cover)

2. Peer Review of EIS Part B View (Under separate cover)

235

Ordinary Meeting 16 December 2015

Committee Reports

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

CTTE 01

Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 11 November 2015

Strategic Direction	Accessible Connected City Provide safe and easy travel with a high quality road and traffic management network
Key Policy	Traffic and Transport Plan
File Ref	309319.2015
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Service Manager Traffic and Transport
Approved By	Toni Averay - Director Planning & Growth

Executive Summary

This report is tabled in order to present the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 11 November 2015.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and adopts the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 11 November 2015.

2. Adopts the Local Traffic Committee recommendations as noted in the report below.

REPORT

At its meeting held on 11 November 2015, the Local Traffic Committee considered eleven agenda items and two technical discussion items. Minutes of the meeting are attached for Council to adopt the recommendations made.

The Minutes identify a number of actions that require Council staff to undertake. The financial implication of each of the recommendations is noted at the end of this report.

Summary of the Local Traffic Committee recommendations:

Item 1 Wilson Road, Hinchinbrook – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing

1. Approves installation of a marked pedestrian crossing on a raised threshold on Wilson Road, Hinchinbrook outside Hoxton Park High School.

2. Undertakes appropriate consultation with the adjoining residents.

3. Advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 2 Myall Road, Casula – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing

1. Approves upgrading of the existing pedestrian refuge to a raised pedestrian crossing on Myall Road, Casula, in front of Casula High School and associated regulatory signs and line marking.

2. Request Casula High School to carry out treatment works to channelise students to the proposed marked pedestrian crossing.

3. Undertakes appropriate consultation with adjoining residents.

4. Advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 3 College Street, Liverpool – Proposed Relocation of Existing Pedestrian Crossing on Raised Threshold

1. Approves relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing on College Street to approximately 8m north of the current location, as part of the proposed Bigge Park improvement works.

2. Advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 4 Mill Road and Charles Street intersection, Liverpool - Proposed Roundabout

1. Approves construction of a single lane roundabout at the Mill Road and Charles Street intersection, Liverpool.

2. Undertakes appropriate community consultation prior to installation.

3. Advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 5 Yarrunga Drive, Prestons – Traffic Channelisation and Parking Restrictions

1. Approves the proposed basic right turn intersection treatment and associated parking restrictions.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 6 Feodore Drive, Cecil Hills – Request for Bus Stop Relocation

1. Undertake further consultation with the residents of 44 Feodore Drive, for their concurrence, prior to further consideration of the requested bus stop relocation.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 7 Bird Walton Avenue, Middleton Grange – Proposed Traffic Calming Devices

1. Approves installation of S1 dividing line along Bird Walton Avenue to better demarcate opposing traffic movements.

2. Undertakes further consultation for the proposed rubber speed cushions on Bird Walton Avenue.

3. Continue to monitor traffic conditions along Bird Walton Avenue, and if required report back to the Traffic Committee after stakeholder consultation.

Item 8 2015-16 Federal Blackspot Funded Projects

1. Approves the Jedda Road and Ash Road minor intersection treatment and associated pedestrian refuge in Jedda Road.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

Item 9 Liverpool Local Traffic Committee Meeting Dates for 2016

1. Notes the following Local Traffic Committee meeting dates in 2016:

• 20 January 2016

• 16 March 2016

• 18 May 2016

• 20 July 2016

• 21 September 2016

• 9 November 2016

2. The LTC meeting dates be placed in the Corporate Diary.

Item 10 Rickard Road, Chipping Norton – Proposed 5 Tonne Load Limit

1. Approves the implementation of a Five (5) tonne load limit for the entire length of Rickard Road between Newbridge Road, Moorebank and the end of road, subject to the RMS approval of the associated TMP.

2. Advertises the Five (5) tonne load limit in local newspapers, after implementation.

3. Council advises all stake holders of its resolution.

Item 11 Speed Street, Liverpool - Proposed Bus Zone

1. Approves the proposed layback with approximately 28m bus zone and approximately 14m No Parking zone on either side of the existing driveway, in Speed Street, in front of Al Amanah College, Liverpool.

2. Council advises all stakeholders of its resolution.

In addition, to the above agenda items, the Committee considered the following two technical discussion items and outcome of the discussion is summarised below:

Item TD1 Magree Crescent, Chipping Norton – Proposed Kerb Blisters

The Committee discussed and recommended that installation of kerb blisters along Magree Crescent, would not reduce traffic speed, and is not supported.

Item TD2 Westfield, Liverpool - Proposed Changes to the Existing Access Arrangement

The Committee noted that temporary traffic control could be implemented to reduce traffic delays during the forthcoming peak trading season around Christmas, subject to the submission of a traffic control plan (to Council and the RMS).

Budget Impact of Matters Arising from Minutes

Item	Description	Funding Arrangements
1	Wilson Road, Hinchinbrook – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing	Council’s Minor Works Program.
2	Myall Road, Casula – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing	Council’s Minor Works Program.
3	College Street, Liverpool – Proposed Relocation of Existing Pedestrian Crossing on Raised Threshold	Part of Council’s Bigge Park project.
4	Mill Road and Charles Street intersection, Liverpool - Proposed Roundabout	Developer funding according to consent condition.
5	Yarrunga Drive, Prestons – Traffic Channelisation and Parking Restrictions	Developer funding according to consent condition.
6	Feodore Drive, Cecil Hills – Request for Bus Stop Relocation	Nil
7	Bird Walton Avenue, Middleton Grange – Proposed Traffic Calming Devices	Council’s Minor Works Program.
8	2015-16 Federal Blackspot Funded Projects	Federal Black Spot funding.
9	Liverpool Local Traffic Committee Meeting Dates for 2016	Nil
10	Rickard Road, Chipping Norton – Proposed 5 Tonne Load Limit	RMS Block Grant.
11	Speed Street, Liverpool - Proposed Bus Zone	Developer funding according to consent condition.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic and Financial	Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environmental and Sustainability	Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	Improved traffic and pedestrian safety.
Civic Leadership and Governance	The recommendation provides opportunity to advocate for the local community. The recommendations are required in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Liverpool Local Traffic Committee Minutes of meeting held on 11 November 2015 View (Under separate cover)

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Provide first class and iconic facilities and places
Key Policy	Heritage Strategy
File Ref	323940.2015
Author	Tony Hadchiti - Deputy Mayor

Strategic Direction	Natural Sustainable City Lead the community to develop and implement environmentally sustainable practices
Key Policy	Integrated Environmental Sustainability Action Plan
File Ref	323968.2015
Author	Peter Harle - Councillor Geoff Shelton - Councillor

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Create clean and attractive public places for people to engage and connect
Key Policy	Strategic Maintenance Plan
File Ref	324053.2015
Author	Peter Harle - Councillor Geoff Shelton – Councillor Wendy Waller - Councillor

ITEM NO:	DPG 04
FILE NO:	301215.2015
SUBJECT:	Compliance Levy
RECOMMENDATION That Council implements a compliance levy of 0.25% of the contract price of a development application, with a minimum levy of $75.00, to commence on 1^st January 2016.
COUNCIL DECISION Motion: Moved: Clr Stanley Seconded: Clr Shelton 1. That Council implements a compliance levy of 0.25% of the contract price of a development application, with a minimum levy of $75.00, to commence on 1^st January 2016. 2. That Council officers bring a report back to the February 2016 Council meeting regarding truck and container parking in the LGA. 3. Under Confidential Cover provides a resolution to the issues raised in this meeting. 4. That Councillors be provided with a detailed briefing about Compliance and priorities. On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Economic and Financial	Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environmental and Sustainability	Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social and Cultural	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Deliver services that are customer focused.

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Plan, support and deliver high quality and accessible services, program and facilities
Key Policy	NA
File Ref	322716.2015
Author	Anne Stanley - Councillor

Strategic Direction	Healthy Inclusive City Celebrate and respect Liverpool’s rich cultural and social diversity and embrace the opportunities it provides
Key Policy	NA
File Ref	323895.2015
Author	Sabrina Mamone - Councillor

87
NOM 06	Georges River Combined Councils' Committee
Attachment 1	Executive Summary - GRCCC Annual Report 2014 / 2015

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Strengthen and celebrate Liverpool’s unique community identity
Key Policy	Communications Plan
File Ref	320443.2015
Report By	Jennifer Havilah - Strategic Communications & Research Manager
Approved By	Carl Wulff - Chief Executive Officer

Economic and Financial	The 2015/16 Corporate Sponsorship Program has a budget of $125,000, with a remaining balance of $4,850. If the recommended amount of $8,000 is endorsed, the remaining balance will be $NIL.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

139
CFO 02	Investment Report November 2015
Attachment 2	RBA Cash Rate Media Release December 2015

139
CFO 02	Investment Report November 2015
Attachment 3	Performance Graphs Actual to Budget November 2015

Strategic Direction	Liveable Safe City Improve the community’s sense of safety in Liverpool
Key Policy	Community Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy
File Ref	315939.2015
Report By	Kamrun Rahman - Community Development Worker (Community Safety)
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

Economic and Financial	Deliver a high quality standard of processes for the administration of Engineering Bonds and to ensure Council has no financial obligations as result of substandard development and prolonged works in the Liverpool LGA.
Environmental and Sustainability	Support the delivery of a high quality of standard of Council assets and infrastructure.
Social and Cultural	Improved amenities in the public domain areas within existing and new residential areas in the Liverpool LGA.
Civic Leadership and Governance	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.

175
DPG 03	Development Engineering Bonds Policy - Draft
Attachment 1	Development Engineering Bonds Policy

237
CTTE 02	Environment Advisory Committee minutes of meeting held on 9 November 2015
Attachment 1	EAC Meeting Minutes 9 Nov 2015

Strategic Direction	Proud Engaged City Engage and consult with the community to enhance opportunities for communication and involvement
Key Policy	Community Engagement Policy
File Ref	315250.2015
Report By	Derek Tweed - Community Development Worker (Youth)
Approved By	Kiersten Fishburn - Director Community & Culture

253
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Committee meeting held November 10, 2015
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council 10 November 2015

261
CTTE 04	Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee Meeting held 24 November 2015
Attachment 1	Civic Advisory Committee Minutes from 24 November 2015 - Excluding names of recommended Award recipients

Economic and Financial	There are no significant economic and financial considerations.
Environmental and Sustainability	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social and Cultural	There are no significant social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership and Governance	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.

267
CTTE 05	Planning and Development Committee Minutes of 2 December 2015
Attachment 1	Planning and Development Committee Minutes - 2 December 2015