Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Wednesday, 31 March 2021

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Acknowledgment of Country and Prayer

National Anthem

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2021.............................................................. 7

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01 Payment of Fees for Members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee 72 1

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 01 Amendments to Austral/Leppington North Planning Framework................... 75......... 2

EGROW 02 Issues and Options Report - Temporary Use of Land in Growth Areas........ 90......... 3

EGROW 03 Street Naming Request - Austral.................................................................. 106......... 4

EGROW 04 NSW Government Funding for Staged Upgrade of Edmondson Avenue, Austral 110 5

City Community and Culture Report

NIL

City Corporate Report

CORP 01 Investment Report February 2021................................................................ 114......... 6

CORP 02 2021 National General Assembly of Local Government.............................. 123......... 7

CORP 03 Order of Liverpool Awards and Australia Day Awards................................. 125......... 8

CORP 04 Geographical Infomation System License - Corporate Applications........... 128......... 9

CORP 05 Information Technology - Product Standardisation...................................... 133....... 10

City Presentation Report

NIL

City Infrastructure and Environment Report

INF 01 Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study Update............................................ 137....... 11

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 5 February 2021............................................................................................... 157....... 12

CTTE 02 Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council meeting held Tuesday 9 February 2021 175 13

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee held 8 February 2021.... 184....... 14

CTTE 04 Minutes of Strategic Panel Meeting held on 8 February 2021..................... 193....... 15

CTTE 05 Minutes of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 February 2021................................................................ 202....... 16

CTTE 06 Minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee meeting held on 4 February 2021.............................................................................................................. 212....... 17

CTTE 07 Minutes of Budget Review Panel 18 February 2021.................................... 218....... 18

CTTE 08 Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee meeting held on 23 February 2021 226 19

CTTE 09 Minutes of the Intermodal Precinct Committee meeting held on 1 March 2021 234 20

CTTE 10 Liverpool Sports Committee Minutes of meeting held 25 February 2021... 246....... 21

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Boardwalk at the Paper Mill............... 257....... 22

QWN 02 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Service Level Agreements................. 259....... 23

QWN 03 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Heritage Review................................ 260....... 24

QWN 04 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Machinery Purchase.......................... 262....... 25

QWN 05 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Wait Time for Household Clean Up Service 265 26

QWN 06 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - One Lane Bridge on Sixth Avenue, Austral 266 27

QWN 07 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Twenty Sixth Avenue, Austral Resurfacing 267 28

QWN 08 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Edmondson Avenue, Austral - Part Road Resurfaced.................................................................................................... 268....... 29

QWN 09 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Extra Road Lanes on Greenway Drive, West Hoxton........................................................................................................... 269....... 30

QWN 10 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Drive Through to Inspect the Quality of Roads in the Rural Area........................................................................................... 271....... 31

QWN 11 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti Annual Fire Safety Statement (AFSS). 273....... 32

QWN 12 Question with Notice - Clr Rhodes - Mobile Office Services........................ 275....... 33

QWN 13 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Customer Service Request................ 276....... 34

QWN 14 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Climate Action Plan........................... 277....... 35

QWN 15 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Council's Debt Level.......................... 278....... 36

QWN 16 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - 35 Scott Street, Liverpool.................. 279....... 37

QWN 17 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Civic Place......................................... 280....... 38

QWN 18 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Rates.................................................. 281....... 39

QWN 19 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Food Insecurity............................... 282....... 40

QWN 20 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Gender Pay Gap............................. 283....... 41

QWN 21 Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty - Infrastructure and Services in Growth Areas 284 42

QWN 22 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Civic Place Documentation................ 285....... 43

QWN 23 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Aerotropolis........................................ 286....... 44

QWN 24 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Drainage Channels............................ 287....... 45

QWN 25 Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Consultants........................................ 288....... 46

Presentations by Councillors

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Parking on Verges and Nature Strips........................................................... 289....... 47

NOM 02 Liveable Communities - One Size state Planning Does Not Fit All............. 301....... 48

NOM 03 Western Sydney City Deal............................................................................ 305....... 49

NOM 04 Racism Not Welcome................................................................................... 307....... 50

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 Pt Lot 141 DP 852633 being Part of 305 Denham Court Road, Denham Court for drainage 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 Dedication to Council of Lot 39 in DP 1160527, Lot 39 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 Fire and Rescue NSW Referrals

Reason: Item CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(g) of the Local Government Act because it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

CONF 04 Environment Advisory Committee - Appointment of Committee Membership

Reason: Item CONF 04 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 05 Tourism and CBD Committee - New Community Representative

Reason: Item CONF 05 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 06 School Infrastructure NSW proposed partnership

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.

Close

Questions with Notice

ITEM NO: QWN 01

FILE NO: 019732.2021

SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Hadchiti - Fast Transit Corridor

Council has invested a lot of time and money working on plans for a fast transit corridor from the CBD through to Fifteenth Avenue.

Please address the following:

1. What has the cost been to the ratepayer, including staff cost, promotional material, study tours (converting points if used to real dollars) etc?

2. What stage is this project at?

Response

Background

Council’s vision is for the Fast Transit Corridor to be a high-quality public transport link between Liverpool CBD and the Airport/Aerotropolis.

The corridor consists of the following road links:

· Liverpool Station along Moore Street to Hoxton Park Road.

· Hoxton Park Road along the existing Liverpool to Parramatta transit way to Banks Road.

· Hoxton Park Road, from Banks Road to Cowpasture Road.

· Fifteenth Avenue, from Cowpasture Road to the Western Sydney Airport and Aerotropolis.

The corridor in its local context is shown below.

Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) identifies the FAST corridor as a project of strategic significance to Council, and other strategic planning documents including the Liverpool City Centre Public Domain Plan identify the corridor.

The NSW Government, through the Western Sydney Growth Centres State Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) levy, has allocated funding for road upgrades along the following road sections:

· Hoxton Park Road between the end of the existing Liverpool to Parramatta transit way (at Banks Road) to Cowpasture Road.

· Fifteenth Avenue between Cowpasture Road and Devonshire Road.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) administers SIC funding.

1. What has the cost been to the ratepayer, including staff cost, promotional material, study tours (converting points if used to real dollars) etc?

This project is largely a SIC funded project. Council secured $4,845,500.00 in grant funding from DPIE towards the concept and detailed designs for the upgrade of the section of Fifteenth Avenue between Cowpasture Road and Devonshire Road.

There has been general funds expenditure of $56,214.58 to date which is not claimable expenditure under the SIC funding agreement. In addition, Council utilised accumulated air points for travel which amounted to $21,037.03 (if converted into dollars).

Expenditure Summary

Total project expenditure to date = $2,025,380.34

Grant funding received to date = $2,742,500.00

2. What stage is the project at?

TfNSW and Council have both received funding under the SIC and design investigations for the upgrade of the above-mentioned road sections is underway.

The status of the two projects are as follows:

TfNSW upgrade of Hoxton Park Road

TfNSW has completed a strategic concept design which involves road widening to provide two dedicated bus lanes along both sides of the existing four-lane road. The design was placed on public exhibition early last year. TfNSW provided a briefing to Councillors on the project.

The main project feature which attracted community submissions was the arrangement to restrict right turn movements into and out of Dorrigo Avenue. Council also raised a concern that the provision of two dedicated bus lanes as a continuation of the existing Liverpool to Parramatta transit lane would be a better arrangement should an upgrade to a mass transit system such as light rail or trackless tram be required in the future.

Council’s Fifteenth Avenue Road Upgrade

Council engaged consultants with the funding provided by DPIE to prepare an optioneering report on the corridor between Liverpool City Centre and the Airport as well as a strategic concept design for the road section between Cowpasture Road and Devonshire Road.

The optioneering report has been completed and is used as an advocacy document for the project. The report has enabled Council to advise DPIE and TfNSW on the need for a coordinated design and implementation strategy for the project’s delivery.

In response, the three agencies have funded the preparation of an Integrated Transport Corridor Plan to ensure a uniform design approach and implementation strategy can be adopted. The plan is expected to be completed in the middle of 2021.

In addition, to fulfill the commitment in the Western Sydney City Deal, TfNSW has engaged consultants to prepare delivery programs for the provision of rapid bus networks from Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown to Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport before it opens in 2026, and to the Western Sydney Aerotropolis. The report on this is expected to be completed in the middle of 2021.

Project Advocacy

The advocacy to date has included representations to the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment, Transport for NSW, the Minister for Transport and Roads and meetings with senior DPIE and Transport for NSW representatives. This has enabled Council to highlight the importance of the project to DPIE and TfNSW management and both agencies have agreed to partner with Council to prepare an Integrated Transport Corridor Plan.

ITEM NO: NOM 03

FILE NO: 040999.2021

SUBJECT: Climate Action Plan

BACKGROUND

The Climate Council of Australia states as follows:

2020 was the second hottest year on record, cementing the last decade as the hottest on record globally, as climate change continues to accelerate.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed global average temperature for 2020 was +0.98C above the 20^th century average, and only 0.02C shy of the previous record set in 2016.

It’s remarkable that despite La Nina conditions, 2020 was the second hottest year on record’, said Climate Council expert Professor Will Steffen.

‘What it’s telling us is that climate change is driving very rapid warming trends and worsening the impacts of natural variability events. This sets off yet another alarm bell to the climate change siren’, he said

Fast Facts:

- 2020 was the second hottest year globally on record – despite a cooling La Nina, whereas 2016, the hottest on record, began with a strong warming El Nino event.

- The past decade (2011-2020) was the hottest on record (+0.82C above the 20^th century average). This surpassed the previous decade record (2001-2010) of +0.62C.

- The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.08C per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (0.18C) since 1981.

- The past seven years in the 1880-2020 record have been the hottest seven on record.

- The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2005.

- 2020 marks the 44^th consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20^th century average.

- The 2020 Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the highest in the 141-year record at +1.28C above average.

- 2020 was the hottest year on record for Europe and Asia.

Campaigns for actions in relation to climate change have focussed on the younger generations, who have the most at stake, and local government because it is easier to find local governments who promote themselves as innovators and early and nimble movers than other levels of government and of course local government is the tier of government closest to and most likely to reflect, on a ground up basis, the wishes of the communities they represent.

The City of Darebin in Melbourne’s north was the first local government globally to declare a climate emergency (on 5 December 2016). This was followed by Hoboken in New Jersey and Berkley in California. Notable further other local government units in Australia to initially take action in this context include the City of Yarra, City of Sydney, City of Banyule and Bass Coast Shire. Mosman Council has been preparing a Climate Strategy and Action Plan, and since 2012 the City of Yarra has been the first council in Victoria to be accredited as carbon neutral. By July 2020 over 1,755 local government jurisdictions, across thirty countries, had declared a climate emergency, 96 of which were in Australia, representing eight million Australians.

This motion does not however call for the declaration of a climate emergency for the Liverpool Local Government Area not withstanding this region has hardly been exempt from the accelerating effects of climate change, particularly within recent memory, and many would easily consider as much to be entirely justifiable. The reality is, and despite the overwhelming evidence previously referred to, such a motion is unlikely to be politically supported.

Instead, the motion seeks to gather together what other councils have undertaken in this space together with various policy goals of this Council to form a cohesive Climate Action Plan for Liverpool City Council which in due course will become an overarching policy document which informs a number of piecemeal statements already in existence.

NOTICE OF MOTION (Submitted by Clr Shelton)

That Council:

1. That this Council moves towards the creation of an evolving, overarching centralised policy document styled in terms of a Climate Action Plan:

- which draws together existing programs of this or other councils relating to: the promotion of WSUD principles; minimum tree canopy in urban developments to prevent heat sinking effects; the promotion of solar and other forms of renewal energy for private development and government buildings; the reduction of emissions from the Council fleet and equipment, and any public transport services council provides or sponsors, ensuring energy efficient building standards, ensuring energy efficient public lighting, improving infrastructure for walking and cycling; the promotion of recycling; the protection of vulnerable flora and fauna; and the general embedding of climate resilience into council strategies, and such other matters as may from time to time in the future be relevant for inclusion.

2. This Council sets ambitious but realistic explicit goals in terms of measuring and attaining carbon neutral status for its own operations, with the intention such goals will in due course be expressed in the aforesaid Climate Action Plan.

3. A new stream be added to Council’s grants program for Community Led Climate Action Projects.

4. This Council wherever possible advocates in terms of the contents of this motion and supports other councils and/or local government units who have taken positive action on climate change, and further supports and joins various coalitions, networks and conferences created (or supported) by local governments addressing the issue of climate change.

5. Advocate for state and federal governments to adopt climate targets and actions including net zero emission targets that are, at least, consistent with international standards.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Kaliyanda

That this Council moves towards the creation of an evolving, overarching centralised policy document styled in terms of a Climate Action Plan:

This Council sets ambitious but realistic explicit goals in terms of measuring and attaining carbon neutral status for its own operations, with the intention such goals will in due course be expressed in the aforesaid Climate Action Plan.

A new stream be added to Council’s grants program for Community Led Climate Action Projects and funded from Government grants.

This Council wherever possible advocates in terms of the contents of this motion and supports other councils and/or local government units who have taken positive action on climate change, and further supports and joins various coalitions, networks and conferences created (or supported) by local governments addressing the issue of climate change.

Advocate for state and federal governments to adopt climate targets and actions including net zero emission targets that are, at least, consistent with international standards.

That Council notes that a Workshop with Councillors will be held in May 2021 and that Council look at setting timeframes at that workshop.

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

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

ITEM NO: NOM 06

FILE NO: 041141.2021

SUBJECT: Food and Organic Waste

BACKGROUND

In 2019/2020, Liverpool Council identified that up to 48% of the red-lidded waste bins were filled with food material, or 24,860.75 tonnes. This is in addition to 16,736.69 tonnes of organic garden waste collected through the Council’s kerbside garden waste bin.

Recently, a report commissioned by Sustainability Victoria on strategies to reduce food waste identified that a lot of this food waste is unnecessary. Furthermore, the NSW EPA also identifies that wasting food also costs the community a lot of money – billions of dollars per year – as well as energy, water and other resources needed to produce food. However, one in five Australians does not have adequate access to food.

Although the Australian Government has introduced a target to halve our food waste by 2030, the NSW Government has not.

Governments, especially local governments, can play a role in reducing food waste by:

- Supporting and educating businesses and households to reduce food waste

- Using policy and regulatory levers to support reducing food waste

- Monitor and report on food waste

- Connect supply chains and sectors by fostering an environment of innovation and collaboration to reduce food waste.

Local government also has a key role to play in connecting businesses, community organisations and households.

NOTICE OF MOTION (Submitted by Clr Kaliydanda)

That Council:

1. Provide a report on the nature of food and organic waste in Liverpool, by the June meeting of Council. The report should include:

- The impact of the volume of Liverpool’s food and organic waste in terms of energy and water wastage.

- The economic cost of food and organic waste in Liverpool.

- The cost and feasibility of introducing measures such as: a community education program, specific bins for food waste.

- Explore the feasibility of other strategies to reduce the level of food and organic waste generated in Liverpool.

2. Identify funding opportunities and other resources to support measures to reduce Liverpool’s food waste.

3. Write to the NSW Government to undertake a similar review to identify where and how food waste can be reduced across NSW, with a view to introducing a target or goal to halve our food and organic waste by 2030.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That Council:

1. Provide a report on the nature of food and organic waste in Liverpool, by the June meeting of Council. The report should include:

- The impact of the volume of Liverpool’s food and organic waste in terms of energy and water wastage.

- The economic cost of food and organic waste in Liverpool.

- The cost and feasibility of introducing measures such as: a community education program, specific bins for food waste.

- Explore the feasibility of other strategies to reduce the level of food and organic waste generated in Liverpool.

2. Identify funding opportunities and other resources to support measures to reduce Liverpool’s food waste.

4. Request a presentation from staff on food and organic waste processing in Liverpool.

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

Mayor Waller advised that Council would now move into Closed Session to deal with:

· Items CONF 01 - Companion Animals Advisory Committee Membership 2021-2023 and item CONF 02 – Tourism and CBD Committee – New Community Representative are confidential under section 10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 because they contain personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

· Item CONF 03 – Question with Notice – Clr Hadchiti – Section 7/11 Contributions is confidential under section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 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.

RECESS OF COUNCIL

Mayor Waller called a recess of Council at 8.47pm to allow members of the gallery to leave the Chambers. The meeting resumed at 8.56pm in Closed Session with all Councillors present except Clr Balloot.

COUNCIL IN CLOSED SESSION

Clr Hadchiti left the Chambers at 8:57pm.

Clrs Hadchiti and Balloot returned to the Chambers at 8:58pm.

Confidential Items

ITEM NO: CONF 01

FILE NO: 317279.2020

SUBJECT: Companion Animals Advisory Committee Membership 2021-2023

During discussion of this item Clr Shelton moved the following motion:

Procedural Motion: Moved: Clr Shelton Seconded: Clr Hadchiti

That the motion be put.

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

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Hagarty

That Council:

1. Endorses the community representatives detailed in this report as members of the Companion Animals Advisory Committee for 2020-2023 term; and

2. Write to those not successful thanking them for their interest in joining the committee.

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

Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 01

Amendments to Austral/Leppington North Planning Framework

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	035016.2021
Report By	Ian Stendara - Executive Planner Shaun Beckley - Manager, Infrastructure Planning
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 75 (Attachment 1), adopt changes to the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct DCP (Attachments 2 and 3) and endorse Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 – Austral and Leppington North Precincts (Attachments 4 and, 5).

At its meeting held on 29 March 2019, Council resolved to exhibit amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 – Austral / Leppington North Precinct), Liverpool Growth Centre Precinct Development Control Plan; and Liverpool Contributions Plan 2014 (Austral and Leppington North Precincts) “the Austral/Leppington North Planning Framework”.

A planning proposal (Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Draft Amendment 75 – the LEP) was prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway determination in accordance with Council’s resolution. DPIE issued a Gateway determination on 10 August 2019 (Attachment 6) which required Council to place the proposal on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days. Gateway alterations were issued on 5 December 2019 (requesting additional sites be considered), and extensions granted on the 5 August 2020, and 12 February 2021.

Prior to public exhibition, LEP Amendment 75 was subject to public agency consultation. Most public agencies did not object and provided general comments or additional considerations. Where these comments were in keeping with the scope of the planning proposal (e.g. rezoning sites owned by utility authorities to SP2 Infrastructure) those changes have been facilitated.

An objection was received by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s Environment, Energy and Science (EES) group regarding Council not providing a Biodiversity Consistency Report in their preferred template. This report has since been provided to EES.

The draft plans were placed on public exhibition from 18 March 2020 to 14 April 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000 and the Gateway determination. Submissions were received from 13 individuals/entities during the public exhibition period relating to the three exhibited plans.

Many of the submissions were supportive of the proposed amendments, whilst others sought further changes. Where those further changes demonstrated merit and were in keeping with the intent of changes to the planning controls, those amendments have been made in the post exhibition version of the planning proposal, the revised Development Control Plan (DCP) and the revised Contributions Plan (CP).

Council received several submissions on the proposed approach to water quality in the draft DCP and CP amendment, which reflected the revised precinct stormwater strategy. Key issues raised included the preference for the retention of the existing basin strategy, lack of support for raingardens and the apportionment of cost for the delivery of the raingardens.

Through collaboration with representatives of the development community and additional technical investigations carried out by Council’s consultant, the revised DCP and CP provide an equitable approach to the delivery of raingardens that meet the necessary water quality targets. These in-street raingardens will be delivered by Council using contributions funds paid for by developers.

Other issues raised by residents and the development community are discussed in detail in this report. Some of these aspects were within the scope of this amendment and were considered, whilst other matters raised during the exhibition are outside the scope of the proposed amendments.

This report details the post-Gateway actions that have been undertaken, including consultation, and recommends Council finalises the planning proposal and forwards the LEP Amendment to DPIE for finalisation and gazettal, endorses the contributions plan for consideration and assessment by the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal (IPART), and approves the amendments to the Development Control Plan on publication of the required notice and to come into effect once Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 75 is gazetted.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the Gateway determination for Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 75) and the results of public exhibition and community consultation on the Austral/Leppington North Planning Framework.

2. Proceeds with Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 75 (Attachment 1) and forwards the amendment to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation and gazettal.

3. Approves amendments to Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct DCP in accordance with Attachments 2 and 3, on publication of the required notice and to come into effect once Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 75 is gazetted.

4. Endorses Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 – Austral and North Leppington Precincts (Attachments 4 and 5) and forwards the contributions plan to the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal (IPART) for assessment followed by consideration of IPART’s assessment by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces (or nominee).

5. Receives a further report following IPART’s assessment and the Minister’s advice for adoption of Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 – Austral and North Leppington Precincts as an ‘IPART Reviewed Contributions Plan’.

6. Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer authority to make any typographical amendments and consequential changes to maps and works schedules in the DCP and CP if required.

7. Directs the CEO to further investigate issues relating to odour impacts and dwelling density/variety controls in the Austral/Leppington North Precinct, with a further report back to Council.

REPORT

Background

At its meeting on 29 March 2019, Council endorsed draft amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (the SEPP), the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Development Control Plan (the DCP), and the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2014 - Austral and Leppington North Precincts 2014 (the CP).

Changes to the planning controls largely resulted from the preparation of a detailed water cycle management strategy, as well as a desktop analysis of inefficiencies in the Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) which forms part of the DCP.

The draft plans sought to address the following matters:

· Optimise the ILP network, by providing more regular block sizes, reducing instances where residue lots are required and adding cross-streets where required for greater permeability, where practical.

· Amend the SEPP zoning and DCP to reflect the new water cycle management strategy. This includes rezoning of surplus drainage land, moving away from stand-alone bioretention basins, and adopting a new approach of streetscape water quality improvement devices.

· Remove unnecessary road bridge crossings, which present a large cost to the contributions plan, increase the chances of creek blockages, and are not key roads.

· Improve the DCP’s approach to traffic safety, amend some street cross-sections to respond to Water Sensitive Urban Design characteristics, and provide dedicated parking bays for most local streets as a response to community concerns regarding narrow streets.

· Update the CP to reflect changes to road bridges and water cycle management.

As required by Council’s resolution, the planning proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a gateway determination. A gateway determination was issued by DPIE on 5 December 2019. The SEPP, DCP, and CP amendments were forwarded to nominated public agencies for comment and placed on public exhibition from 18 March 2020 to 14 April 2020.

Bridge Crossings

The objectives of removing some bridge crossing were based on ensuring that:

· The road network remains sufficient for distributing traffic in the precincts;

· Pedestrian permeability is not impacted by the removal of road bridge crossings;

· Any bridge crossings are capable of being designed to a standard which does not impede stormwater flows, nor presents a safety issue for residents in the event of storm conditions;

· Any existing and future residents will retain road access, and that alternative routes will be provided should any proposed bridges be removed;

· Minimise costs of development, by reducing contributions expenditure in relation to proposed bridges and culverts.

Several road bridges or culverts are proposed in the Precinct. The construction of new bridges across creeks are funded via developer contributions. The plan is comprised of the construction and land acquisition costs of all infrastructure and facilities that needs to be constructed in Austral and Leppington North for new developments.

In total 3 bridges are proposed to be removed from the ILP and CP (out of a total of 18 to be delivered in the precincts). These include:

· Item BR9, located on 14^th Avenue, west of 4^th Avenue. This item was costed at $496,577 and provided for pavement upgrade only. Upon review, the existing twin-pipe culvert will be unable to cater for urban stormwater flows, and blockages would present a flood safety hazard for all upstream residents.

The creek runs at a 15-25° angle to the road, and as such a box culvert would not be suitable (due to the steep entry/exit angles of water). Instead, this would require reconstruction with a bridge deck of up to 130m in length at a cost which could exceed $3,794,121 (2014 costs). The bridge would serve only a handful of RU6 and E4 zoned lots.

Instead, the ILP has been modified to provide a new local street through a lot zoned E4, connecting the western extent of 14^th Avenue to other local streets, where residents would be able to access Fourth Avenue from an intersection at 13^th Avenue (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below). The 13^th Avenue and 4^th Avenue intersection will be upgraded to include a roundabout, which will cater for safer turn movements compared to 14^th Avenue, which will retain give-way signs.

The 14^th Ave alignment over the creek would be retained until such a time as a trafficable route connects this western portion to 13^th Avenue as per Figure 2.

Figure 1: Existing ILP layout at 14th Avenue and traffic route for residents.

Figure 2: Proposed ILP layout at 14th Avenue and traffic route for residents.

· Item BR3, located on 9^th Avenue, west of 4^th Avenue. The 2014 CP provides $430,366 for the resurfacing of this road/bridge, however the road was not to be retained as per the existing or proposed ILP, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. A pedestrian bridge has been reflected in the new ILP.

· LR71: Sixth Avenue, $628,997 was provided in the CP for road upgrade works, but not for construction of a bridge. A bridge would be required here as the road is unformed. The Department’s post-exhibition planning report noted that this bridge would only be needed should the Western Sydney Parklands develop a recreation facility and seek access to Edmondson Avenue. The report recommended that developers upgrade parts of the road facing developable land, but that the developers (and CP) should not be providing for the bridge.

Such works should not be attributed to the Contributions Plan, as the Western Sydney Parklands does not pay contributions (there is no nexus between the demand for the infrastructure and the development which pays into the plan). Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows changes to the ILP relating to item LR71.

The single lane 6^th Ave bridge across the Upper Canal is also outside of the precinct boundary, and widening has not been provided for in either the precinct plan, or the CP. As such, any development in the Western Sydney Parklands would need to consider a wholistic access strategy. Additionally, the ILP should avoid funnelling traffic associated with a regional recreation facility through residential areas, and access would be more appropriate from Bringelly Road.

Figure 5: Existing ILP layout at 6th Avenue

Figure 6: Proposed ILP layout at 6th Avenue

A pedestrian bridge will be provided to maintain pedestrian permeability. The road corridor will be retained by Council, should the Western Sydney Parklands require construction of a road.

Public Agency Responses

Engagement with public agencies was undertaken in accordance with the gateway determination from 11 January 2020 to 31 January 2020. In addition to the agencies identified in the gateway determination, Council also sought comment from additional public agencies given changes were also being made to the DCP.

An overview of the engagement, with agency and council comment, is provided below:

*Agency (required by gateway)**	Comments	Council response
Rural Fire Service*	The NSW Rural Fire Services did not object, provided that future developments complied with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 (or subsequent versions).	No changes were deemed necessary as the existing planning framework requires development on bushfire prone land to consider the policy.
Sydney Water*	Recognises changes to water cycle management controls and wishes to further collaborate. Requested a water pumping site be rezoned to SP2 Infrastructure.	Council staff will continue to collaborate with Sydney Water, especially on the South Creek catchment. Rezoning of pump site is supported including adjustments to ILP road network as required.
Office of Environment and Heritage (now Environment, Energy and Science Group)*	Objected on the grounds that the planning proposal did not address concurrence with the biodiversity certification order. Also objected pending further investigation as to flood evacuation for flood prone lands.	Council staff are of the opinion that the planning proposal complies with the biodiversity certification order and a consistency report has been sent to EES. Residential development on flood prone land will be carried out as per the DCP and technical guidelines relating to development on flood-prone land.
Transgrid*	That residential development is carried out in accordance with their development guidelines.	The ILP and DCP provide for development which is consistent with the guideline.
Endeavour Energy*	Recommended rezoning of a site to SP2 which they have acquired for a substation. Recommended roads separate residential development from easements.	SP2 zone supported. Roads or other public spaces generally separate transmission lines from residential development, where feasible.
APA Group (Gas)	No objection, but recommended DAs in the vicinity of pipelines be referred for their comment.	DAs which impact on APA assets are referred consistent with SEPP (Infrastructure). No changes to planning controls required.
Jemena (Gas)	No response received.	Nil
Camden Council	No objections or concerns.	Nil
Landcom	No response received.	Nil
Office of Strategic Lands	No response received.	Nil
Western Sydney Parklands Trust	No response received.	Nil
NSW Department of Primary Industries (Water)*	No response received.	Nil

Public Exhibition

The draft Plans were placed on public exhibition from 18 March 2020 to 14 April 2020 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, Regulation, and gateway determination.

Letters were sent to all landowners who were directly impacted by a proposal to rezone part/all of their land or where there were proposed changes to an ILP road on their property. Council also sent letters to a handful of developers who regularly develop land in the Liverpool growth centre precincts.

Each notification letter included a fact sheet (Attachment 7), which was plain English material designed to outline what changes were proposed, how to make a submission, and who to contact for further information.

In addition to the direct notification letters, public notices were also place on Council’s website (for the whole exhibition period) and the Liverpool Leader newspaper (for the 18 & 25 March, and 1 & 8 April 2020 editions). No subsequent additions were printed due to the suspension of printing caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Council received 13 submissions from unique parties (note that some parties provided multiple submissions). A summary of submissions organised by theme with a response from Council is provided in Attachment 8 Detailed responses, which address each individual submission is provided in Confidential Attachment 9.

Note: Attachment 9 contains details of each submitter’s response, including details of changes they proposed which may be commercial in nature, as well as aspects that may reveal the submitter’s identity; as such, it is provided in the Confidential Attachment booklet.

Some of the submissions provided very brief, specific comments, whilst others addressed a broad range of planning changes. Given the range of comments from multiple parties, some key themes emerged for the consideration of further changes to planning controls that were in scope of this amendment. Some of these changes were outside the scope of the current amendments to planning controls and will require further technical investigation.

Other issues raised that were outside of the scope of this amendment included:

· unclear dwelling density controls in the DCP; and

· an updated study being needed in relation to odour impacts.

Council acknowledge that these controls need to be reviewed, but this will require additional time not afforded by the gateway determination timeframe to adequately understand and address concerns. Additionally, any changes resulting from this work should be subject to public exhibition. This report recommends that Council investigates these issues further and prepares a future report to Council that addresses these issues.

Summary of changes to controls since Council’s initial resolution

In addition to matters addressed by the response to submissions, other changes were flagged by the gateway determination, subsequent amended gateway determinations, liaising with DPIE officers and further refinement of controls by Council staff. This includes:

Document	Change
SEPP	Rezoning Lot 99 Gurner Avenue, Austral to SP2 Infrastructure (Electricity distribution) at the request of Endeavour Energy.
SEPP	Moving an SP2 Infrastructure (Local Drainage) zone near Tokyo Road and Cortina Avenue, Austral to reflect the constructed position of the drainage path and to facilitate residential development on lots subdivided for residential purposes.
SEPP	Moving SP2 Infrastructure (Local Road) zoned land on 1382-1384 and 1402 Camden Valley Way, Leppington. The intersection of Cowpasture Road and Camden Valley Way (near the Four Lanterns Estate) was constructed in a different layout compared to the plan which informed the zoning. This requires construction of the road through the affected properties in a different location, hence the need to move the zone.
SEPP	Rezoning Lot 2 Gurner Avenue (owned by Sydney Water) to SP2 Infrastructure (Sewerage system) at the request of Sydney Water.
SEPP	Additional land zoned SP2 Local drainage is to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the vicinity of 255-285 Fifteenth Avenue, Austral. The existing zoning extent would require significant disturbance to an established childcare centre and place of worship with the resultant impact being that Council would have to acquire and demolish these assets. A culvert solution can be achieved on these lands, which would minimise disturbance and allow privately owned social infrastructure to be retained.
SEPP	Amendments to Clauses 4.1AD, 4.1AE, and 4.1AF. Clauses allow lodgement of a 1 lot to 2 or more lot subdivision combined with DA plan for a dwelling but restricts DA plans for one dwelling only. Modification of this clause will allow Council to consider dwelling plans for more than one lot.
DCP	Changes to section 2.3.2 (Water cycle management) and 3.3.1 (Street network layout and design) as a result of changing the onus of rain-garden construction from developers to the CP.
DCP	Reduction in width of the shared path on collector roads from 3.0m to 2.5m. A secondary section has also been provided for collector roads to provide details around Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) devices, bus stops, tree pits, or intersections.
DCP	Updates the local street cross-section, reducing the carriageway from 6.0m to 5.5m and increasing the verge widths from 2.8m to 3.05m each. 5.5m of carriageway still permits two-way traffic, without requiring passenger vehicles to stop. Most passenger vehicles are in the region of 2m in width, with Australian Vehicle Standards requiring vehicles (including trucks) to be no wider than 2.5m without an exemption (e.g. oversized vehicles). Carriageway narrowing was required as the combined width of the carriageway and parking bays was overlapping with standard utility allocations. This would result in stormwater pipes and Sydney Water pipes being in the same horizontal position, which would result in construction and maintenance issues/delays. Additional notes were also provided to describe the passive irrigation tree pit.
DCP	Amending the local street 20m figure. The figure shows a shared path on one side of the street despite some not being identified as bicycle routes in the DCP. A note was added to state that the shared path is only required on cycleway routes.
DCP	A culvert is required under a future local street at 275 Fifteenth Avenue Austral and would be too wide to fit under the carriageway of the new local street cross-section. The former local street cross-section will be used for roads where a 5.5m-9m wide culvert will be positioned under the carriageway.
DCP	Adding a new section in the DCP 3.3.2 Street furniture. Moved controls relating to street trees, signage, lighting to this section, as they were randomly spread throughout the street network layout and design section. · Added a control requiring lighting on pedestrian access paths, to address CPTED requirements. · Added a control which recommends lighting of paths, especially key walking/cycling routes, when traversing open space (consistent with controls for open space). · Added a control which requires the design and placement of street furniture in the public domain to consider physical distancing requirements (e.g. avoid pinch points created by clustering infrastructure such as bus-shelters next to utility boxes, or fenced pedestrian paths / bridges to be at least 3.5m wide).
DCP	Clarified various controls in the Local Area Traffic Management section.
DCP	Amending the pedestrian access path cross-section figure to provide a total width dimension. This was described in the in-text control, but the number in the figure was mistakenly omitted.
DCP	Updated the temporary half road cross-section to provide 2.75m travel lanes, as per the local street (16m) cross section of which it is derived.
DCP	Updated garage door width controls, where relevant, to clarify that the garage internal and external dimensions are to be no more than 40% of the façade width, not just the garage door. This is important in maintaining passive surveillance of the street and responds to recent DAs where double width garages have been provided with a single width door in order to avoid complying with the intent of the control.
LEP 2008	Repealing LEP 2008 maps for land zoned as per the East Leppington precinct. When the East Leppington precinct was rezoned under the SEPP in 2014, the LEP maps applying to the area were not amended / repealed. Whilst the LEP maps have no effect, the mapping of zoning and development standards on the land still creates confusion.
Contributions Plan	Retitled to Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 – Austral and Leppington north Precincts to reflect the broad update of the plan.
Contributions Plan	Updates to the CP to reflect the removal of several bioretention basins, open drainage channels, and some detention basins. As a result of exhibition, the CP now includes the cost of in-street raingardens at nominated locations.
Contributions Plan	Indexation of costs to the December 2020 quarter
Contributions Plan	Aligns the occupancy rate of open space generation from 3.1 people per dwelling to 3.4 to respond to observed increases within the precinct. This is consistent with the generation rates elsewhere in the CP
Contributions Plan	Update to the planning principles for open space to clarify.
Contributions Plan	Updated CP, works schedule and map to align with the above changes and most recent ILP.
Contributions Plan	Update likely location of regional Sports and Aquatic Centre to Scott Memorial Park as identified in Council’s Aquatic Facilities Strategy.

Attachments 2 and 3 detail changes to the DCP, inclusive of the DCP as exhibited and further changes following exhibition. If adopted by Council, these changes will be made to the DCP.

The changes to the CP summarised above and included in the post exhibition version of the CP result in an increase in uncapped contributions from an average of $56,000 per lot to $58,000 per lot. This increase includes indexation and the inclusion of items to support the stormwater strategy as requested by key developers within the precinct.

Next Steps

If Council resolves to proceed with Amendment 75, the planning proposal will be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation and gazettal.

If Council approves amendments to Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct DCP, the changes will come into effect once Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 75 is gazetted and on publication of the required notice.

If Council endorses Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 – Austral and North Leppington Precincts, the plan will be forwarded to the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal (IPART) for assessment followed by consideration of IPART’s assessment by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces (or nominee).

Council will then receive a further report following IPART’s assessment and the Minister’s advice for adoption of Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 – Austral and North Leppington Precincts as an ‘IPART Reviewed Contributions Plan’, thereby removing the current cap on contributions in this precinct.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	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.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. 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	Support policies and plans that prevent crime.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000
Risk	The risk is deemed to be High. Council has an identified strategic risk relating to shortfall of contribution funding, particularly in the Growth Areas. This precinct represents most of the potential shortfall. If the recommendations of this report are adopted, and IPART and the Minister supports the contributions plan, the risk will be reduced. The risks of not adopting the amendments to the CP is considered outside of Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Post exhibition Planning Proposal - Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 75 (Under separate cover)

2. Post exhibition DCP Main Body (Changes Only) February 2021 (Under separate cover)

3. Post exhibition DCP Schedule 1 (Changes Only) January 2021 (Under separate cover)

4. Post exhibition version of Liverpool Contributions Plan 2021 - Austral and Leppington North Precincts (Under separate cover)

5. Contributions Plan - Schedule of works (Under separate cover)

6. Gateway determination and alterations (Under separate cover)

7. Notification Fact Sheet (Under separate cover)

8. Submissions Summary (Under separate cover)

9. Detailed Submissions Summary (confidential) (Under separate cover) - Confidential

EGROW 02

Issues and Options Report - Temporary Use of Land in Growth Areas

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	036332.2021
Report By	Ian Stendara - Executive Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting on 23 September 2020 resolved to:

“Direct the Acting Chief Executive Officer to present an issues and options paper for potential amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy growth centres to permit, in a time limited manner, land uses that aren’t currently permitted”.

This report investigates the issues facing landowners in areas that have been zoned for urban development, primarily in the Austral/Leppington North release area who do not have access to utility services such as water and sewerage to allow urban development at this time. These landowners may be impacted as they are not able to develop their land for urban purposes yet, however rural land uses are no longer permitted.

This report outlines land uses which were permitted under the formal rural zones and identifies potential conflicts with urban uses. Some lower impact rural uses could be compatible with urban uses, and higher impact uses could be controlled via temporary consents or limiting the scale of operation to minimise impacts. A comparative analysis has been provided at Attachment 1 which explores compatibility issues and impacts of rural uses in urban zones.

The report outlines future steps, consultation requirements and financial implications (to Council, landowners, and surrounding landowners) should Council wish to pursue opportunities to allow for additional permitted uses of a temporary nature in growth areas.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the report.

REPORT

Issues

Background – Precinct Rezoning

Prior to the rezoning of land within the Liverpool precincts of the South West Growth Centre (now South West Growth Area), most land in the suburbs of Austral and Leppington were zoned for rural uses, being either RU1 – Primary Production or RU4 – Primary Production Small Lots under the Liverpool LEP 2008. These zones allowed for very low-density residential development as well as rural and agricultural activities.

The Austral and Leppington North precincts were rezoned for urban purposes on 15 March 2013. The East Leppington Precinct was rezoned on 8 August 2014. Whilst any properties that had rural or agricultural operations are subject to savings provisions (existing use rights), the new urban zones largely prohibit Council from granting development consent for new rural or agricultural uses.

Rural land uses that were permitted in the RU1 and RU4 zones, which are not permitted in many urban zones include:

· Agriculture,

· Animal boarding or training establishments,

· Aquaculture,

· Cemeteries,

· Crematoria,

· Entertainment facilities,

· Environmental facilities,

· Farm buildings,

· Farm stay accommodation,

· Landscaping material supplies,

· Plant nurseries,

· Recreation areas,

· Recreation facilities (indoor),

· Recreation facilities (outdoor),

· Roadside stalls,

· Rural industries,

· Rural supplies,

· Rural workers’ dwellings,

· Veterinary hospitals, and

· Water recreation structures.

Current Planning Restrictions

Prohibiting new agricultural or rural uses in an urban environment is sensible, given that new rural land uses can impact urban amenity by way of noise, dust or odour. Residential areas, where uses such as chicken farms are prohibited, would find impacts such as odour emissions to be offensive.

Since the areas were rezoned in 2013, lead-in infrastructure (notably sewerage infrastructure) has not been available for several years, particularly in the Austral and Leppington North precincts. This is in part a result of the size of the precinct and the need for Sydney Water to stage delivery given other precincts and priorities. Sydney Water has also indicated that it will be slowing the rate of delivery of sewerage infrastructure.

This has impacts for many landowners as rural land uses are no longer permissible with consent (to avoid reverse amenity impacts for residential development), but some areas are not yet serviced by critical lead in infrastructure (such as a sewerage system) to allow urban development.

Impacts on Landowners

The issues above are further compounded by the fact that land has already been rezoned for urban purposes, and as a result, the value of the land has increased compared to its previous rural zoning given its development potential. Whilst this is a gain for those residents who want to move away and sell their land, it can create financial hardship for those who want to stay on their land. The increase in land value also increases the rates that landowners pay.

Current Utility Servicing

Clause 6.1 of the Growth Centres SEPP restricts Councils ability to issue development consent for new residential or commercial development where Council is not satisfied that adequate utility infrastructure is available or will be available to service the development. Whilst there has been a slow rollout of utilities in areas such as Austral (for many reasons), the three critical services are: drinking water, sewerage, and electricity. Telecommunication and gas infrastructure are not considerations under Clause 6.1 of the Growth Centres SEPP. Many parts of Austral cannot develop for urban uses currently as they fail to satisfy this provision of the SEPP.

Drinking Water and Sewerage

Developers provide the pipes to each new lot and/or building for sewerage services and drinking water. Sydney Water must approve such developments, and be satisfied that adequate trunk infrastructure is available to cater for the development, that is, there exists a sewerage system for the development to connect to, and the drinking water mains are adequately sized to provide capacity for the development, and pressure for firefighting purposes.

Sydney Water publishes its plans for the roll-out of trunk and lead-in mains in its “Growth Servicing Plan”. Its latest Growth Servicing Plan was published in 2019. The maps (Figure 1, and Figure 2), on the following pages, indicate the timeframe and capacity of lead-in mains for areas in South-west Sydney. Council staff can assess DAs on the basis that drinking water and sewerage services will be available to the development as roughly indicated by these dates (subject to further confirmation).

The maps indicate that there is limited existing capacity for drinking water services across Austral as of September 2019. That is, drinking water services are available, but there is not enough capacity at present if the entire precinct were to be developed at once. Drinking water services have been provided for in East Leppington.

The maps also indicate that some areas of Austral have limited capacity for wastewater services, whilst other areas have no services available. The areas that are currently not serviced are shown by the plan to have lead-in mains in place by December 2021. Whilst this would indicate that all land has servicing by December 2021, it is understood that the system will still have capacity constraints and would not allow for full precinct development without augmentation.

To further complicate matters, it is understood that from late 2020, Sydney Water will no longer be delivering lead-in mains to this timetable.

The current sewerage network directs wastewater to the Liverpool treatment plant at Warwick Farm. It is anticipated that a new treatment facility will be constructed to the north west of Austral (north of Elizabeth Drive in the Penrith LGA) to capture waters from the existing release precincts as well as the aerotropolis precincts.

Figure 1: Map of drinking water infrastructure roll-out (Source: Sydney Water, 2019)

Figure 2: Map of Wastewater infrastructure roll-out (noting Sydney Water is no longer committed to this timeline) (Source: Sydney Water, 2019)

Electricity

The Austral and Leppington North Precincts are serviced by Endeavour Energy’s wholesale electricity network. Endeavour Energy have previously advised Council that the existing infrastructure has adequate capacity to cater for growth. A new zone substation was recently completed in Leppington North, on the corner of Bringelly Road and Eastwood Road. A new site in the north of Austral is also in the planning phases and will further improve capacity and reliability.

Alternative Options

Postponed Rates

Under Section 585 of the Local Government Act 1993, landowners may apply for rate relief for part of the rates levied on their land if the land only has a single dwelling house (dual-occupancies are not eligible), but the land zoning allows for commercial, industrial or more concentrated residential development. Rate postponement can accrue for a period of up to 5 years before Council will commence ‘writing-off’ postponed rates. After the fifth year, Council will write-off the postponed rates accrued during the first year; after the sixth year, Council would then write off the postponed rates from the second year, and so forth. Any rates that have been postponed (for a period of up to 5 years) will become due at the time that the dwelling house ceases to be occupied (normally occurring prior to development taking place).

The percentage of rates that has to be paid, versus the amount that can be postponed will depend upon the value of the land as a development site for the higher use, and the value of the site for a single dwelling house. The Valuer General’s Policy for allowances has additional details regarding this process, which can be viewed at:

https://www.valuergeneral.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/199999/Concessions_for_single_residential_or_rural_land_zoned_for_higher_use.pdf

Postponing rates removes the immediate financial impact imposed by rezoning for affected landowners, by deferring payment. Developers will typically acknowledge instances where rates have been postponed in negotiating a purchase price. This process is already in place; applications for postponement of rates can be downloaded and emailed via Council’s website or completed in person at Council’s office.

Categorisation of Rates under the Local Government Act 1993

Clause 514 of the Local Government Act 1993 allows Councils to set rates based upon a land category; land can be categorised as Farmland, Residential, Mining or Business. The farmland category attracts a lower rate base than the residential category and could lower the rate cost to residents where the land is primarily used for agricultural production. Where the land can be described as farmland (as per clause 515 of the Act) a landowner can apply to have their land category changed as per Clause 525 of the Act. An adjustment to rates can then be made if/when a declaration of a change in land category has been made.

Financial Hardship

Land which has been zoned for a public purpose, such as RE1 Public Open Space, will ultimately be acquired by a public authority. Normally land is only acquired by a public authority (such as Council) closer to when that infrastructure is to be delivered. Landowners who are in financial hardship may be able to apply to have their land acquired early if they meet the requirements of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. Even if the landowner does not meet the definition of financial hardship, Council (or the specified authority) may still agree to purchase land if it is mutually beneficial to both parties. This can provide relief for landowners where part, or all the land, is zoned for a public purpose only.

Allowing Additional Permitted Uses

Key Considerations

Whilst rates can be postponed, some landowners might want to undertake economic activity on their land to avoid postponing rates, or more generally, to support self-employment, market demand, and other interests. This is even more notable on those areas described previously, which may have been rezoned several years ago, but critical utilities are not available, or there is a lack of demand, and as such, development under the new zone cannot take place.

Views of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Prior to preparing or receiving a planning proposal in an area subject to a precinct plan or subject to future release in a Growth Centre, Council must liaise with the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE). Given that the precincts are zoned by, and subject to controls of a State Environmental Planning Policy, rather than Council’s Local Environmental Plan, Council must work with DPIE on any amendments to the SEPP.

Reverse amenity impacts

Council must consider the reverse amenity impacts that rural and other prohibited uses would have on currently established or approved residences and or residences that are approved in accordance with the precinct plan. Planning instruments use zones to ensure that sensitive receivers are not subject to land uses or activities that would cause harm or be offensive given proximity or other factors that are not able to be mitigated.

Allowing additional permitted uses, which conflict with the land-uses permitted by the underlying zone, can cause potential for future land use conflicts and complaints. Where both conflicting developments are operating in accordance with their DA consent, this would reflect poorly upon Council as the determination authority and facilitator of land use planning. As such, Council must be careful in ensuring that any land uses which are made permissible in an urban zone have minimal impacts and/or time limits for operation.

Potential for temporary activities to undermine underlying zone on adjacent properties

Some rural activities would impact upon properties in their immediate surrounds from being able to develop in accordance with the planning controls applying to surrounding sites. In some cases, this may result in more costly mitigation, or in extreme scenarios may result in the urban development for which the zoning provides for being sterilised.

An example of an extreme scenario could be the operation of a poultry farm. A poultry farm generates significant odour impacts. An adjoining site which is serviced and zoned R2 Low Density Residential would be so severely impacted by odour emissions that residential dwellings would not be permitted under the SEPP controls. In this instance, the temporary use would be inconsistent with the zone’s objectives and would undermine the adjoining properties’ development potential.

Operational time limited consent

Clause 4.17(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act allows Councils to issue a development consent which limits the period during which the development may be carried out in accordance with the consent so granted. Such conditions normally allow for a use to be carried out for a limited period of at least 1 year. This may be modified by a modification application.

Consistency with the zone objectives

Any additional permitted uses, even if they are temporary in nature, should not be inconsistent with the zone’s objectives, or substantially undermine the ability for the development to achieve zone objectives. This is to minimise the potential for land use conflicts and ensure that the precinct can still develop in a logical and orderly manner.

One example could be the construction of a rural worker’s dwelling on an existing working farm. Such a dwelling could be positioned on an R2 zoned site such that it allows for continued operation of an existing rural use, but its design and general layout allows it to be retained if/when the property develops for residential subdivision.

Such a development could be beneficial to the broader community, as it allows the retention of jobs associated with an existing economic activity, whilst minimising environmental and economic waste by demolishing a new dwelling to facilitate future residential development. On the other hand, constructing a rural worker’s dwelling to support an agricultural activity in an area zoned for public open space, or for infrastructure, would likely result in unorderly development. The dwelling will increase the improved value of the land, placing an increased land acquisition cost on a public authority for delivery of infrastructure.

As such, a tailored approach would likely be required to match temporary uses to the underlying zone of the land, to ensure that any benefits to the existing landowner do not burden either adjacent landowners and/or the broader community. Uses which have more pronounced impacts, such as noise, traffic or odour impacts, will need to be considered on their merits carefully.

Allowing additional permitted uses - Opportunities

To evaluate the potential for additional uses to be permitted in areas zoned under the Growth Centres SEPP, it is necessary to identify each rural land use, its potential impacts, and its potential compatibility or incompatibility with the urban zones. Attachment 1 summarises some of the key impacts of certain rural uses and identified whether those uses could be temporarily compatible with future urban uses.

Many rural land uses are likely to interfere with the amenity of urban uses. Those uses which have minimal impacts are far less likely to have any commercial benefits. However, uses such as extensive agriculture (cropping or grazing) can be compatible with urban amenity when impacts such as dust, odour, noise and traffic impacts are managed appropriately. Uses with more notable amenity impacts can be controlled to an extent by the size of the operation or via other DA consent conditions.

The need for additional compliance checks should also be considered where some uses (e.g. farm buildings) are easily converted into non-permissible uses (such as storage or industrial uses). Similarly, complaints may be made against uses such as truck parking if truck depots were to be made permissible. These uses may also generate additional traffic or stormwater run-off for which there will be complications in calculating development contributions (for traffic and drainage infrastructure), particularly where such development may only be considered on a temporary basis.

Next Steps

Should Council seek to consider making some of the rural land uses permissible in urban zones, the next step would be to determine whether the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment would support temporary uses in the growth centres. Should DPIE not support any temporary uses, a short report will be prepared for Council to inform Council of this outcome.

Should DPIE provide in principal support, Council staff would need to further consider the impacts of temporary uses, review any licensing, permits etc. that may be needed to support such uses, and develop new controls which would form the basis of a SEPP and DCP amendment.

Council staff would also need to prepare a planning proposal, ensure consistency with state and regional strategies, Council’s LSPS and ministerial directions, as well as evaluating site specific and strategic merit. The advice of the Liverpool Local Planning Panel should also be sought.

A contributions plan amendment may also be required if the changes would reasonably increase the demand for Council infrastructure (such as increased traffic on roads or increased paved area for stormwater run-off). Staff would need to consider how this would work if some uses were only permitted on a temporary basis.

In accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan (CPP), and planning proposal procedures, the draft plans would be subject to an initial community consultation period, and the plans would be reviewed by the Local Planning Panel, prior to being reported back to Council.

Consultation

The advice in this report has been prepared by Planning & Transport Strategy with input from Council’s Rates department. Should Council resolve to progress changes to planning controls to permit temporary uses, consultation will be required between internal Departments, DPIE, and any state agencies where there may be implications concerning licensing and/or permits.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Facilitate economic development.
Environment	Retain viable opportunities for local food production while managing land use to meet urban growth.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006
Risk	There is no risk associated with the recommendation of this report nor would there be any risks in discussing the matter with DPIE should Council be interested in further exploring temporary uses in the Growth Centres, acknowledging no changes can be made in this area without the support of DPIE as the land is zoned under a SEPP.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Table of potential temporary uses and impacts in growth areas

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 03

Street Naming Request - Austral

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Advocate for, and develop, transport networks to create an accessible city
File Ref	064538.2021
Report By	Christopher Jattan - Administration Officer - Planning & Transport Strategy
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Executive Summary

This report seeks Council’s endorsement for the renaming of a future street, currently named Impala Street, to Dagostino Street in Austral. The proposed name has been assessed using Council’s Naming Convention Policy and has been granted pre-approval by the Geographical Names Board (GNB) of NSW.

The future street is proposed to be constructed through Lots 487, 424 DP 2475 and Lot C DP 414563 between Wyalkatchem Street and Endure Street, Austral.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Supports the renaming of Impala Street to Dagostino Street, Austral;

2. Forwards the name to the Geographical Names Board (GNB), seeking formal approval;

3. Publicly exhibit the name in accordance with Council’s Naming Convention Policy, for a period of 28 days and notify adjacent landowners, following formal approval from the GNB; and

4. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to undertake the process of gazettal, if there are no submissions received during public exhibition.

REPORT

Council received a street naming request on 15 February 2021. The proposed name has been assessed using Council’s Naming Convention Policy and checked for duplication using the GNB’s Online Road Naming System.

The name has been granted pre-approval from the Geographical Names Board (GNB) of NSW.

Dagostino Street, Austral

Council approved Impala Street (in keeping with the Austral street naming theme), and names for all other proposed streets in Austral in 2018 which have subsequently been gazetted by the Geographical Names Board of NSW.

The proposed street is to be constructed between Wyalkatchem Street and Endure Street as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Location of future street to be renamed to Dagostino Street, Austral

As this road has not yet been built and will be constructed through properties owned by the Dagostino family, the owner has requested that the street be renamed as Dagostino Street in memory of his grandfather and grandmother.

The applicant has provided information to support the renaming request (Confidential Attachment 1).

Next Steps

If supported, the above name will be forwarded to the GNB for formal approval and if approved, placed on public exhibition for 28 days on Council’s website and Council will notify adjacent landowners.

Relevant stakeholders will be consulted including Australia Post, NSW Ambulance, Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW State Emergency Service, NSW Volunteer Rescue Association, Transport for NSW and NSW Police Force.

Council officers will consider all submissions during the public notification period. The three potential scenarios following exhibition are as follows:

· If there are objections from the relevant agencies, Council will not proceed with the naming request. The applicant will be notified of the outcome. A report to Council will be prepared for the next available meeting outlining the reason for rejection.

· If there are no objections, the naming request will proceed to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) for gazettal under the delegation of the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate).

· Any submissions from the community during the public notification period will be considered. If there is strong community opposition, or reason to reconsider the proposed names, a report will be prepared for the next available Council meeting recommending withdrawal of the naming proposal.

If Council decides to support the proposal, the naming request will proceed to the PCO for gazettal under the delegation of the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate). If Council decides not to adopt the naming proposal, the applicant will be notified in writing outlining the reason for rejection.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place.
Civic Leadership	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.
Legislative	Roads Act 1993.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Street Naming Application - Confidential

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

City Economy and Growth Report

EGROW 04

NSW Government Funding for Staged Upgrade of Edmondson Avenue, Austral

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Advocate for, and develop, transport networks to create an accessible city
File Ref	073082.2021
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Acting Manager Planning & Transport Strategy
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Executive Summary

Following a competitive submission process, Council has secured $59.1 million in grant funding under the NSW Government South West Growth Centres Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) Program for the following projects:

· Edmondson Avenue Upgrade from Bringelly Road to Seventh Avenue, Austral. This is an upgrade of the current two-lane rural road to a four-lane urban standard road, including footpaths - $58.0 million; and

· Design investigations for the upgrade of Denham Court Road from Commissioners Road to Campbelltown Road, Denham Court - $1.1 million.

The two projects are on a list of regional transport infrastructure projects identified by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in consultation with Transport for NSW to facilitate growth in the South West Growth Centre.

The funding allocations require Council to sign funding agreements to deliver the Edmondson Avenue upgrade project by June 2024 and the Denham Court Road design investigations by June 2022. Following execution of the funding agreements, payment will be made to Council in instalments as outlined in this report.

Further representations and funding submissions to the NSW Government will be required for the upgrading of the remaining section of Edmondson Avenue, Austral and for the upgrade of Fifteenth Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the successful application for grant funding totalling $59.1 million for the staged upgrade of Edmondson Avenue from Bringelly Road to Seventh Avenue, Austral to a four-lane road and for design investigations for the upgrade of Denham Court Road from Commissioners Road to Campbelltown Road, Denham Court to a four-lane road.

2. Writes to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces expressing Council’s appreciation for the funding allocation and to seek a commitment for additional funding to complete the upgrade of the remaining section of Edmondson Avenue from Seventh Avenue to Fifteenth Avenue and for the full upgrade of Fifteenth Avenue.

REPORT

Background

The NSW Government’s Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) Program has been established to fund infrastructure, including transport infrastructure to facilitate development in the growth centres.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) administers the program on behalf of the NSW Government. This includes collection and distribution of contributions made by developers in the growth centres. The South West Growth Centre includes the Austral / Leppington North and East Leppington release areas.

Funding Allocations

Every three to four years, DPIE, through a competitive submission process, invites Councils and State Government delivery agencies to submit funding applications under the SIC program.

Council prepared a funding submission and was successful in securing $59.10 million for the following two projects:

Project Name	Funding Category	Allocation ($ million)
Edmondson Avenue Upgrade - Stage 1 Bringelly Road to Seventh Avenue, Austral	Delivery	58.00 million
Denham Court Road Upgrade (Commissioners Drive and Campbelltown Road) - Design Investigation)	Detailed Design and Preparation of Business Case	1.10 million

In 2018, Council was allocated $16.12m under the program, primarily for design investigations for the following projects:

Projects	Funding $ million
Fifteenth Avenue - Stage 2 and 3 Concept Design	$1.8 million
Edmondson Avenue Upgrade (Stage 1 - Concept/Detailed design and start of land acquisition	$5.73 million
Edmondson Avenue Upgrade (Stage 2) Concept/Detailed design and start of land acquisition	$7.70 million
R10 Denham Court Road - Strategic Concept Design	$0.65 million
Bus Depot at Austral (Preliminary site Identification and Design Layout)	$0.24 million
TOTAL	$16.12 million

Edmondson Avenue Upgrade, between Bringelly Road and Fifteenth Avenue – Staged Delivery

Edmondson Avenue, between Bringelly Road and Fifteenth Avenue will be upgraded from the current two-lane rural road to a four-lane urban standard road. The above funding will allow for the necessary land acquisitions and construction of Stage 1 between Bringelly Road and Seventh Avenue. Additional funding will be required to complete the upgrade of the remaining road section from Seventh Avenue to Fifteenth Avenue. This has been raised with DPIE representatives and additional funding submissions and representations will be required.

Denham Court Road Upgrade (Commissioners Drive and Campbelltown Road – Detailed design Investigation

The funding for the Denham Court Road Upgrade (Commissioners Drive and Campbelltown Road) project will allow detailed design and preparation of a business case. DPIE will then utilise the design to preserve the land required for a future upgrade of the road.

Funding Agreement and Payment Installments

The funding allocation requires Council to sign an agreement with DPIE to allow the following milestone payments.

Edmondson Avenue Upgrade	Amount
Instalment 1 - Execution of the Agreement with DPIE	$8 million
Instalment 2 and 3 – Agreed land acquisition in two stages	$16 million
Instalment 4 – Commencement of Stage 1 Construction	$34 million

Denham Court Road Upgrade	Amount
Instalment 1 - Execution of the Agreement with DPIE	$700,000
Installment 2 - Agreed design milestones	$404,000

The draft agreement requires Council to deliver the Edmondson Avenue upgrade by June 2024 and the Denham Court Road design investigation by June 2022.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Deliver a high-quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environment	Promote an integrated and user-friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social	Support access and services for people with a disability. Improve road and pedestrian safety.
Civic Leadership	Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	Roads Act.
Risk	The risk is considered Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting 31 March 2021

City Corporate Report

CORP 01

Investment Report February 2021

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Seek efficient and innovative methods to manage our resources
File Ref	054490.2021
Report By	John Singh - Accountant - Investments & Treasury Management
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

executive summary

This report details Council’s investment portfolio and its performance for the month ended 28^th February 2021:

· Council held investments with a market value of $311 million.

· The economic environment globally, including Australia, suffered significantly from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March. The market value of Council’s investment in Floating Rate Notes (FRN) has since improved;

· RBA has decided to lower the cash rate to 0.10% with an indication to keep it at this level for next three years. This will have significant impact on Council’s interest earnings;

· The portfolio yield was 122 basis points above the AusBond Bank Bill index;

	AusBond Bank Bill Index (BBI)
Benchmark	0.21%
Portfolio yield	1.43%
Performance above benchmarks	1.22%

· Return on investment was $1.6m lower than the original budget. This does not take into account $1.4m capital gain on FRN’s. Assuming these FRN’s hold value to 30 June 2021, the budget shortfall will be sufficiently balanced.

· Council’s investment advisor, Amicus Advisory, has completed its review of Emerald Mortgage Backed Securities and recommends Council continue to hold its investments in the “Class A” and both “Class C” securities given current poor market pricing. MBS Securities are now not rated.

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

· Council’s portfolio also fully complied with limits set out in its current Investment Policy; and

· Council is committed to NSW TCorp’s balanced investment framework and held 19.92% of its portfolio in ADI’s rated BBB and below.

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 28^th February 2021, Council held investments with a market value of $311 million. Council’s investment register detailing all its investments is provided as an attachment to this report. In summary, Council’s portfolio consisted of investments in:

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

Asset Class	Feb -20	Jun-20
Senior Debts (FRN's ,TCD's & FRB)*	101.35%	100.75%
MBS (Reverse Mortgage Backed Securities)	75.65%	62.11%
T-Corp Unit Trusts	103.14%	102.81%

*Definition of terms

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

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

· Floating Rate Note (FRN) - returns an aggregate of a fixed margin and a variable benchmark (usually BBSW).

The economic environment globally, including Australia, suffered significantly from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March. The market value of Council’s investment in FRN’s has since improved. Council has sufficient funds in its current account and has no plans at this stage to sell off any of its FRN’s to meet its short-term cashflow requirements.

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

Council is committed to NSW TCorp’s balanced investment framework and held 19.92% of its portfolio in ADI’s rated BBB and below.

Emerald – Mortgaged Backed Securities

Council’s new investment advisor, Amicus Advisory, was asked on appointment to review Council’s investments in “grandfathered” mortgage backed securities. Amicus has completed its review and recommends Council continue to hold its investments in the “Class A” and both “Class C” securities given current poor market pricing. Notwithstanding this recommendation, Amicus has assessed that both “Class C” securities are likely to eventually default. However, Council will continue to receive interest up until default which is likely to be many years away. Fitch Rating Agency has decided to withdraw its rating on mortgage backed securities and as a result, Council investments in these securities are now classed non-rated.

Portfolio Maturity Profile

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

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

Overall Portfolio Credit Framework compliance to Investment Policy

Portfolio performance against relevant market benchmark.

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

The portfolio yield to 28^th February 2021 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 122 basis points (1.43% against 0.21%)

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

Performance of Portfolio Returns against Budget

Council’s investment income for February 2021 is lower than the original budget by $1.6m. This does not take into account $1.4m capital gain on FRN’s. Assuming these FRN’s hold value to 30 June 2021, the budget shortfall will be sufficiently balanced.

Investment Portfolio at a Glance

Portfolio Performance

The portfolio yield to 28^th February 2021 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 122 basis points (1.43% against 0.21%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

Council’s investment interest income is lower than the original budget by $1.6m as at 28^th February 2021 and will be closely monitored.

Investment Policy Compliance

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

Economic Outlook – Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank has left the official cash rate on hold at 0.10 per cent in its meeting on 2^nd March 2021.The current 0.10 per cent cash rate is at an historically low level and impacts returns on investment.

Certificate of Responsible Accounting Officer

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

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Council’s investment interest income is lower than the original budget by $1.6m as at 28^th February 2021 and will be closely monitored.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Council is fully compliant with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 – Investment Order (authorized investments) and with reporting requirements under clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.
Risk	The capital value and return on investment is subject to market risks. Investment limits prescribed in Council’s policy framework is aimed to mitigate these risks. Market interest is expected to stay at its lowest rate for a long period and will continue to put pressure on Council’s budget.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment Portfolio - February 2021

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

City Corporate Report

CORP 03

Order of Liverpool Awards and Australia Day Awards

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Increase community engagement
File Ref	063475.2021
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	George Hampouris - Acting Director City Corporate

Executive Summary

This report is in response to Council’s resolution from the 27 October 2020 meeting to seek an amendment to the Civic Advisory Committee Charter to add a clause regarding the eligibility criteria to the Order of Liverpool Awards.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the inclusion of the following clause to the eligibility criteria of the Order of Liverpool Awards and Australia Day Awards:

“A breach of Council’s Code of Conduct in the previous 12 months would preclude a nominee from being considered for an Award”.

REPORT

When considering and endorsing Award recipients for the Order of Liverpool Awards at the 27 October 2020 Council meeting, Council resolved:

“That the Civic Advisory Committee Charter be reviewed to ensure the suitability of the nominees and what would exclude them from the Award”.

This would also be relevant to the Australia Day Awards.

The report recommends that the following Clause be added to the eligibility criteria (to both the Order of Liverpool Awards and the Australia Day Awards):

“A breach of Council’s Code of Conduct in the previous 12 months would preclude a nominee from being considered for an Award.”

The current eligibility criteria is outlined on pages 3 and 4 (for the Australia Day Awards) and page 8 (for the Order of Liverpool Awards) of the Civic Awards Charter which is attached to this report, and is copied below:

Eligibility criteria for Australia Day Awards

· Nominations must be submitted on Council’s official nomination form;

· Nominees cannot apply on their own behalf;

· Nominations must be received by the advertised date;

· Nominations must include the name and contact number of one referee that can provide supporting evidence for the nomination;

· A nominator is not permitted to nominate a person for more than one category in the same year; and

· Nominators must also meet the requirements of the respective award (outlined on pages 4 and 5 of the attached Civic Awards Charter).

Eligibility criteria for Order of Liverpool Awards

· Nominations must be submitted on Council’s official nomination form;

· Nominees cannot apply on their own behalf;

· Nominations must be received by the advertised date;

· Nominations must include the name and contact number of one referee who can provide supporting evidence for the nomination;

· Persons who reside outside the Liverpool local government area but contribute to the Liverpool community can be nominated as ‘honorary’ members of the Order of Liverpool;

· Posthumous awards will be considered provided the date of the nominee’s death occurred within the 12 months following the previous closing date of the Awards;

· Nominees’ contributions to the Liverpool community must be predominantly voluntary and not solely as a result of paid employment; and

· Guidelines for expected quality and length of voluntary service to have served in order to be nominated for an award:

i. 5 years’ service for consideration for a Member of the Order of Liverpool Award;

ii. 10 years’ service for consideration for an Officer of the Order of Liverpool Award; and

iii. 15 years’ service for consideration for a Companion of the Order of Liverpool Award.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low and is considered to be within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Civic Awards Policy (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

City Corporate Report

CORP 04

Geographical Infomation System License - Corporate Applications

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
File Ref	065712.2021
Report By	George Harb - Chief Information Officer
Approved By	George Hampouris - Acting Director City Corporate

Executive Summary

It is Council’s intention to enter into direct negotiations with existing service providers to continue to deliver the Geospatial system for a period of five (5) years with the option to renew two (2) 12-month terms.

The Geospatial platforms are an integral component of Council’s technological infrastructure delivering essential planning services to internal and external stakeholders.

Since inception, the incumbents AAM Pty Ltd, ESRI Australia and Hexagon Spatial have provided reliable and professional service.

The annual cost of the software maintenance and assurance is approx. $140,000 in total.

To ensure the continuity of service and in keeping with Council’s “Best of Breed” approach a departure from the tendering requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 is required in accordance with Section 55 (3) (i) to enter into a contract with Council’s current suppliers “because of the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers… that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders”. It is proposed that a broader strategy to source alternative platforms will be examined and considered once the 5-year Digital Transformation initiative is complete.

The Geospatial systems (combination of Geocortex, ArcGIS and Apollo) require the services of the following suppliers and systems in order to be fully functional:

· AAM Pty Ltd -VertiGIS Geocortex; - procured 2015

· ESRI Australia - ESRI ArcGIS; - procured 2003

· Hexagon Spatial - Apollo Image Server. – procured 2010

The functionalities include:

· Spatial data creation, maintenance, and editing – plotting of maps (the spatial data comprise datasets such as Liverpool LEP, Cadastre, DCP, infrastructure, community services, roads, assets etc);

· Spatial data analysis capabilities e.g. Flood mapping, analysis and population data

· Web mapping – distribution of spatial data and information internally and to the public via web applications and web sites;

· Storing of imagery (2D/3D) (e.g. air photo data, topography data);

· 3D imagery;

· Integration into Pathway and Assetic.

The platform is extensively used by both State and Local Government due to their interoperability to work with other products or systems seamlessly.

The ESRI ArcGIS platforms have significant presence in the Local Government sector representing approximately one third of 560 LGA’s in Australia, while their presence in state government is even greater. Sourcing an alternative platform is thus unlikely to deliver better value for money, whilst at the same time requiring a significant investment in time and resource resulting in significant financial outlay and business disruption.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approves by resolution pursuant to section 55 (3) (i) of the Local Government Act 1993 not to tender for existing services on the grounds that (i) because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders in so far as:

1.1 The existing system is a market leader having significant participation in local and state government;

1.2 The likelihood the tender process achieving an equivalent or superior system is remote given the supplier saturation of the market;

1.3 The existing systems are integral software packages allowing Council to meet customer service objectives across all service delivery areas;

1.4 Operations are familiar with the platform having successfully used the systems for many years;

1.5 Migrating to alternative systems at this time would be both cost prohibitive and difficult to achieve.

2. Delegate authority to the CEO to enter into direct negotiate with the incumbent suppliers pursuant to 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

· AAM Pty Ltd - Verti GIS - Geocortex

· ESRI Australia - ESRI

· Hexagon Geospatial - Apollo

3. Delegate to the CEO authority to enter into a formally binding licenced contract with the existing services providers for a period of five (5) years with the option to extend for a further 2 12-month intervals.

REPORT

Over the past two decades or more, Liverpool City Council has adopted a “Best of Breed” approach to procuring software technologies for internal and external service delivery.

The emergence of new, smarter technologies in the market have resulted in the companies outlined in this report enhancing their products and offerings. As a consequence, Council’s technology environment has evolved in complexity to the point where Council’s existing Geospatial system (Georcortex, ArcGIS and Apollo) are all provided by different companies namely:

· AAM Pty Ltd -VertiGIS Geocotex (User Interface) – since 2015

· ESRI Australia - ESRI ArcGIS -since 2003

· Hexagon Spatial - Apollo Image Server - since 2014

These applications provide the following broad functionalities:

· Enterprise Spatial Data Base;

· Spatial data analysis capabilities e.g. Flood mapping, analysis and population data;

· Web mapping – distribution of spatial data and information internally and to the public via web applications and web sites;

· Storing of imagery (2D/3D) e.g. air photo data, topography data;

· 3D imagery;

· Mobile functionality.

The existing Geospatial systems were procured by Council through a comprehensive, thorough and rigorous procurement process. The system capability to integrate with other Local Government software platforms including Pathway and Assetic, was an essential criteria of the software.

These systems are tightly integrated to enable seamless interoperability. The ESRI ArcGIS has an extensive client base in the LG sector, representing approximately a third of Australia’s 560 LGAs and is extensively in operation in capital cities and most of the larger councils. Its presence in state government is even greater, with the majority of State Government agencies using ArcGIS. The software providers have a demonstrated track record of providing ongoing support and maintenance to ensure regular software upgrades are provided and troubleshooting concerns are addressed expeditiously.

Like almost all significant software purchases, maintenance and support is part of the purchase and is assumed to be ongoing while the software is fit for purpose and still in use.

Service delivery has generally been of a high professional quality and it is anticipated this will continue.

Sourcing an alternative system would be uneconomical, inefficient and result in significant disruption of current services.

It is therefore recommended that Council approves by resolution pursuant to section 55 (3) (i) of the Local Government Act 1993 not to tender for existing services because of extenuating circumstances i.e remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenderers, a council decides by resolution that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders in so far as:

· The existing system is a market leader having significant participation in local and state government

· The likelihood the tender process achieving an equivalent or superior system is remote given the supplier saturation of the market;

· The existing systems are integral software packages allowing Council to meet customer service objectives across all service delivery areas;

· Operations are familiar with the platform having successfully used the systems for many years;

· Migrating to alternative systems at this time would be both cost prohibitive and difficult to achieve.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision-making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993, s.55(3)
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

City Infrastructure and Environment Report

INF 01

Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study Update

Strategic Direction	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Develop, and advocate for, plans that support safe and friendly communities
File Ref	071829.2021
Report By	Madhu Pudasaini - Manager Technical Support
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director City Infrastructure and Environment

Executive Summary

Council, at its meeting of 29 July 2020, resolved to publicly exhibit the updated Wianamatta South Creek (WSC) Flood Study and associated flood maps for community information and feedback. At this meeting, Council also resolved to receive a further report following conclusion of the exhibition period to adopt the Flood Study and associated flood maps for the WSC catchment.

Drivers for updates to flood study

The existing South Creek Flood Study was adopted by Council in 2004 following a detailed flood study and community consultation. While this study has played an important role in assisting Council manage flood risks within the WSC catchment, a more recent initiative by the NSW Government to undertake a broader catchment wide flood study to inform planning of the WSC catchment provided Council an opportunity to update and align its flood mapping with the most current flood related information.

Further, over the last three years and at numerous forums, residents from the WSC catchment have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding Council’s continued reliance on the 2004 flood study for planning decisions, which in their view was outdated and did not reflect changes in the catchment.

In view of resident concerns and the age of the existing flood study, the NSW Government’s flood study provided Council a unique opportunity to develop a better understanding of the flooding characteristics of Wianamatta South Creek.

Community consultation

Council commenced a comprehensive community engagement process in August 2020, which included a range of consultation activities undertaken generally between 10 August and 30 November 2020. The consultation process included:

· Exhibition and provision of the flood study report and the corresponding updated flood maps via Council’s website.

· Display and provision of maps and reports to the residents at Council libraries and Local Post Offices.

· Presentations and briefings to residents and other stakeholders at numerous community forums.

· Presentations and briefings to Council’s Environment Advisory Committee (EAC) on a regular basis.

· Face to face meetings with individual property owners over a two-day period in early November 2020 at the Bringelly Community Centre.

· Numerous phone meetings and video conferences to further clarify study results to residents and stakeholders.

Consultation outcomes

Upon conclusion of the public exhibition process, a total of 140 submissions were received. Most submissions were from residents whose properties are already affected by flooding. Council also received submissions from public authorities, planners and flood engineers representing some of the residents.

Information received during the public consultation process was carefully analysed, and where necessary, incorporated in the study to update the flood maps. The assessment report covering all the submissions has been tabulated in section 5 of this report.

Council considers that while the full range of flooding related concerns and issues highlighted during the consultation process are valid, a detailed assessment has shown that changes to the flood extents are a result of significant innovations and improvements in topographical survey and modelling techniques and not changes within the catchment.

The flood extents resulting from the new study are generally consistent with the current flood maps (2004), however, some variations have been noted around the flood fringe areas. Further modelling was undertaken based on information gathered during the consultation process, which has resulted in minor changes to the proposed flood extents. The updated flood extent maps are attached as Attachment C & D for Council endorsement.

The following summarises the changes to flood impacts on properties within the catchment arising from moving to adopt the new flood maps (when compared with existing flood maps) in a 1% AEP flood:

a) 71 flood affected properties will be completely relieved from flooding.

b) 480 flood affected properties will be partially relieved from flooding.

c) 317 flood affected properties will experience some increases to flooding.

d) 33 flood free properties will now become partially flood affected.

The flood study and associated flood maps are generally prepared and updated using the methods prescribed in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2005). Information used to update the flood maps are the best available information at the time to assist land use planning and managing flood risks arising from occupation of flood prone lands. This also ensures that Council’s approach to managing flood risks is consistent with requirements of Section 733 of the Local Government Act relating to acting in good faith.

Following a comprehensive review of flood modelling and study, and an extensive public consultation process, this report recommends that Council endorses the updated Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study 2020 and associated flood extent maps to guide future planning of this important corridor.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study and associated flood maps.

2. Notifies all respondents of Council’s decision.

REPORT

1. Background

Liverpool LGA is traversed by two major river systems namely the Georges River and the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Most of the western parts of the LGA fall within the Wianamatta South Creek catchment, which is a major contributory catchment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system. Catchments of the adjoining Kemps Creek and Badgerys Creek also drain through the Wianamatta South Creek to ultimately discharge into the Hawkesbury River near Windsor.

Council has adopted flood studies and associated flood maps for all its major rivers and creek systems to guide the planning and development of flood prone lands in accordance with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy. The current Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study (South Creek Flood Study) was adopted by Council in 2004 following a detailed flood study and community consultation.

2. Drivers for updates to flood study

While the 2004 study has continued to play an important role in guiding flood risk management and flood related development controls within the WSC catchment, a more recent initiative by the NSW Government to undertake a broader catchment wide flood study to inform planning of the WSC catchment provided Council an opportunity to update and align its flood mapping with the most current flood related information.

Further, over the last three years and at numerous forums, residents from the WSC catchment have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding Council’s continued reliance on the 2004 flood study for panning decisions, which in their view was outdated and did not reflect changes in the catchment.

The new flood study uses the most current topographical information with significantly improved accuracy that was not available at the time of adopting the flood maps in 2004. The new flood study also includes some additional areas of the Badgerys Creek and Thompsons Creek catchments, which were not previously included in the flood studies and mapping. In addition, the study uses two-dimensional hydraulic modelling technique that represents far better flood behavior compared to the one-dimensional modelling technique used in the 2004 flood maps.

3. Outcomes of the updated flood study

(The 1% AEP, which is also referred to as the 100-year flood, has a 1% or 1 in 100 chance of occurring in any one year, whereas the PMF represents the largest flood that could conceivably occur at a particular location.)

The following summarises the changes to flood impacts on properties within the catchment arising from adopting the new flood maps (when compared with existing flood maps) in a 1% AEP flood as shown in Attachment A:

a) 71 flood affected properties will be completely relieved from flooding (shown purple).

b) 480 flood affected properties will be partially relieved from flooding (shown purple).

c) 317 flood affected properties will experience some increases to flooding (shown orange).

d) 33 flood free properties will now become partially flood affected (shown orange).

Flood study and mapping of the Badgerys Creek and Upper Thompsons Creek catchments show that up to 49 properties are partially affected by flooding under the 1 % AEP. Similarly, the following shows changes to flood impacts on properties within the catchment arising from the new flood maps under the PMF scenario, and is shown in Attachment B:

a) 175 flood affected properties will be completely relieved from flooding (shown purple).

b) 558 flood affected properties will be partially relieved from flooding (shown purple).

c) 229 flood affected properties will experience increased flooding (shown orange).

d) 25 flood free properties will now become partially flood affected (shown orange).

As for the 1% flood event, the PMF flood mapping for the Badgerys Creek and Upper Thompsons Creek catchment shows that 60 properties are affected by the PMF event.

4. Community consultation and outcomes

· Exhibition and provision of the flood study report and the corresponding updated flood maps via Council’s website.

· Display and provision of maps and reports to the residents at Council libraries and Local Post Offices.

· Presentations and briefings to residents and other stakeholders at numerous community forums.

· Presentations and briefings to Council’s Environment Advisory Committee (EAC) on a regular basis.

· Face to face meetings with individual property owners over a two-day period in early November 2020 at the Bringelly Community Centre.

· Numerous phone meetings and video conferences to further clarify study results to residents and stakeholders.

Generally, the submissions focused on the six issues highlighted below. These issues and concerns are also assessed and discussed in the table in Section 5 below:

a) Flooding impacts arising from upstream development - residents felt that increased urbanisation and developments within the upper (Camden) catchment are the major causes of any increased flooding within the WSC catchment.

b) Flooding impacts arising from recent widening of culverts across Bringelly Road by TfNSW - the expanded capacity of the culverts feeding the WSC is seen as a source of increased flood flows and velocity.

c) Unauthorised land filling activities along sections of Kemps Creek, Thompsons Creek and South Creek - the land filling activities over time is seen to be having a major impact on flood flows and flood extents.

d) Lack of confidence around the flood modelling - consultants representing residents queried the accuracy of model calibration, hydrology and use of historical flood data.

e) Concerns regarding the accuracy of topographical data - residents have queried the accuracy of the topographical data used to define the landform.

f) Flooding impacts arising from a lack of appropriate management of South Creek - lack of creek maintenance over time was also seen as contributing to the changes to flood extents.

Council considers that while the above concerns are generally valid, the detailed assessments below has shown that changes to the flood extents are a result of significant innovations and improvements in topographical survey and modelling techniques and not changes within the catchment.

5. Evaluation of submissions

The table below provides the details of the concerns raised in the submissions and Council’s response to them.

Key Issues	Details of Issues	Council Officer Response
Flooding impacts are arising from upstream development	1. Increased flows due to new developments in Camden LGA are adversely affecting flooding of properties at downstream of Bringelly Road.	Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study (2020) aims to review and update flood levels and flood extent mapping of 1% AEP and PMF, which are very rare and significantly large flood events. Council acknowledges that substantial new release areas are being progressively developed in the upper catchment within Camden LGA. Further, it is also acknowledged that without appropriate stormwater management measures/controls in place, peak flood flows are likely to increase and would have detrimental impacts on downstream properties. However, Camden City Council has confirmed that appropriate stormwater managements measures have been incorporated in the new development areas to ensure the stormwater exiting the sites are controlled to pre-development condition. The peak design flow determined for 1%AEP event downstream of Bringelly Road for the Wianamatta South Creek in 2004 flood study is 299 m³/s, which closely aligns with the 305 m³/s peak design flow determined for 2020 flood study at the same location. While some contribution from the development activities are unavoidable, this small increase in the peak flow is mainly due to better delineation of the catchment boundaries, refinement of the sub-catchment, improvement in the reliability of the catchment input data and improved reliability in estimating impervious areas in the catchment, and is unlikely to be the cause of changes to flood extents downstream.
	2. Increase in flood extents of some properties within the catchment is a consequence of failure by council to manage stormwater adequately.	The increase in flood extents in some area are almost entirely the result of new and more reliable topographic data becoming available and being relied upon in the mapping of flood extents. The 2004 flood extents for the 1% AEP event were produced using contours of land surface extracted from 1:4,000 and 1:10,000 orthophoto mapping, which is reported as having a vertical accuracy of ±0.5 m or ±1.0 m. LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data used in 2020 study has accuracy of ±0.15 m. LiDAR is a unique remote sensing technology that uses light in the form of lasers to measure distances and use it to create exceptionally precise three-dimensional topographical information.
	3. Properties at downstream of Bringelly Road are experiencing more frequent flooding.	Council notes that the Sydney basin including the Wianamatta South Creek has experienced more frequent flooding in the recent years including in 2015, 2016 and more recently in 2020. More frequent flooding is due to more intense rain events that the Sydney basin is experiencing over the recent years.
Flooding impacts are arising from recent widening of culverts across Bringelly Road by TfNSW.	1. Culvert upgrade works at Bringelly Road would have resulted in increased flooding of downstream properties.	As part of the Bringelly Road upgrading works, South Creek crossing at Bringelly Road has been upgraded. The Review of Environmental factors (REF) for the Bringelly Road upgrading works demonstrated that it has adopted the peak 1 in 100-year flow from the 2004 South Creek Flood Study for the design of the upgraded culvert.
	2. Flood model to be reviewed and all key drainage structures to be included in the model.	The flood model has been reviewed and extended approximately 800 metres upstream of Bringelly Road using the recently acquired topographic data and details of structures such as bridges and culverts which could act as hydraulic controls during major flooding. The results are similar to the original results with flood affectation unchanged.
Unauthorised land filling activities along sections of Kemps Creek, Thompsons Creek and South Creek	1. Illegal land filling at four (4) locations along South Creek, Thompson Creek and Kemps Creek would have worsened flooding of properties.	Council has undertaken flood impact assessments of the alleged illegal land fillings indicated in the submissions. The assessment demonstrated that the impacts of filling are localised and contained within the close vicinity of the filling. Analysis of alleged illegal filling on Thompson Creek demonstrated that impacts of filling is fully contained within the property and no adjoining property will be adversely affected.
	2. Requested council actions on alleged illegal filling within the floodplain.	Council has initiated investigations to address the issues with the alleged illegal fillings. Council will take appropriate action once the investigation is completed.
Lack of confidence around the flood modelling	1. There is significant increase in flow in 2015 study in comparison to 2004 study. Peak 1 in 100-year flows is higher than previous studies.	The adopted peak flow in the updated study is 305 m³/s, which is similar to the peak flow of 299 m³/s adopted in 2004 study for 1%AEP. The increase is attributed to various improvements in the current modelling as explained previously in this report. Further technical details are provided in Attachment E.
	2. The flow estimation modelling is based on 1987 Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR) methodology rather than the latest ARR 2019 guidelines.	The methodology adopted for estimation of peak flows for application in the flood modelling are in accordance to the ARR 2019 guideline and in consistent to approach Council has taken for peak flow estimation across the LGA. Further details are provided in Attachment E the flood study report (Attachment F).
	3. The upstream model inflow boundary location is at Bringelly Road, which may have overestimated flood levels at downstream. Flood model setup is not appropriate	The two-dimensional hydraulic model used in the study generally takes care of any potential anomalies in the flow distribution from the upstream boundary conditions. To confirm this, the flood model has been reviewed and updated with boundary condition extended approximately 800 metres upstream of Bringelly Road using the recently acquired topographic data and details of structures such as bridges and culverts which could act as hydraulic controls during major flooding. The results are similar to the original results with flood affectation unchanged. Further technical details are provided in Attachment E.
	4. The flood model is not sufficiently calibrated against local historical flood data.	Validation of the flood model by comparison of the 1% AEP flood surface generated from the modelling undertaken in 1990 / 1991 as part of the original flood and floodplain management studies was considered acceptable and reasonable by Council. Further details are provided in Attachment E.
	5. The flood model needs to be validated against previously calibrated model.	As explained above, the model has been validated as necessary.
	6. The RMA-2 model predicts flood levels that are approximately 0.4 to 0.5m higher than the levels in the 2004 study	Comparison of flood levels predicted by one and two-dimensional flood models such as the 2004 MIKE-11 and 2020 RMA-2 models can be misleading. Further details are provided in Attachment E.
Concerns regarding the accuracy of topographical data	1. Properties not previously affected by the 2004 flood study have become flood affected land under the new flood mapping. Landform has not been changed.	The 2004 flood extents were based on contours derived from orthophoto mapping that was generated in the late 1970s and early 1980s with a vertical accuracy of ±0.5 m. The contour intervals adopted in the 2004 study was 2 metres. Although the input data to the 2004 flood study was appropriate when adopted, there have been substantial changes to the catchment and floodplain over the intervening period, along with significant improvements to the reliability of available input data and modelling techniques. The current flood study is based on the latest topographical data captured in 2019 using LiDAR technology. Moreover, the current flood mapping is based on a 0.5m control interval. The combined application of more precise topographical data (LiDAR 2019) and more close contour intervals have produced most reliable flood extent mapping. Therefore, the change in the flood affectation observed in the 2020 flood study is mainly due to the better representation of the topography in the flood model compared to the topography represented in the 2004 flood study.
	2. Some lands are affected by drainage easement not flooding from the creek. Newly affected properties are due to overland flow.	As outlined above, the new flood mapping is based on very accurate topographical data, which was not available in 2004. During a 1%AEP flood creek banks overtop, and the low-lying overland flow paths and drainage channels become impacted by backwater effects.
	3. Flood maps to be reviewed and amended incorporating land survey data provided during the submission.	Flood maps have been reviewed and updated as appropriate. The updated flood maps represent the most up to date landform data available.
Flooding impacts arising from a lack of appropriate management of South Creek	1. Creeks are blocked due to accumulation of rubbish and dense vegetation.	Council acknowledges that the maintenance of creek has been an issue for the residents. Creek maintenance has been a complex issue due to the multi-agency responsibility associated with the ongoing management. Council has made representation to relevant State agencies in the past to provide clear direction and take appropriate action to resolve this issue. It is encouraging that the State Government has committed to develop Creek Management Strategy as part of its planning for the development of Western Sydney Aerotropolis.
	2. Flooding should have been improved if creeks are appropriately maintained.	While council acknowledges that the ongoing maintenance of the creek is an issue, presence of vegetation and rubbish have very little or no effect on flood extent during much larger and rare events such as 1%AEP or PMF. This is due to the presence of high volume of water at a higher velocity during these rare flood events.
Other general Concerns	1. Residents are concerned about the timing of new flood study.	Latest topographical data using LiDAR technology was available in mid-2019. Council became aware of the need to update flood maps with the latest data when latest LiDAR based topographical data was used to analyse the flood event of February 2020. As per the intent of Section 733 of the Local Government Act and the requirements prescribed in the NSW Flood Development manual, Council initiated the process of adopting the new flood maps to facilitate better forecasting of flood risks, so that it can provide far accurate flooding related advice.
	2. It is recommended that Council wait to adopt the new maps until the completion of rezoning process.	NSW Government has rezoned the land within the South Creek catchment and Western Sydney Aerotropolis based on the 2004 flood maps.
	3. Devaluation of the properties due to increased flood extent in the new flood maps and proposed rezoning.	Council notes this concern. It is Council’s statutory obligation to manage the flood risk within the LGA. As such, Council is obliged to act in good faith and update its flood forecasting instruments such as flood study and flood maps as soon as the latest and most up to date information becomes available.
	4. Flood extent of properties significantly increased in the new flood map.	Council acknowledges that some variations have been noted around the flood fringe areas. Variations in the flood extent is mainly due to the better representation of the current landform in the flood analysis. While flood affectation has been extended to some properties, there are significant number of properties that became flood free in the updated flood map. For example, 71 properties that were flood affected previously are now completely flood free compared to only 33 flood free properties now being partially flood affected in 1%AEP.
	5. Residents never experienced flooding of this extent in the past.	1% AEP are very rare events that have only 1% chance to occur in any particular year. The WSC catchment has experienced significant flooding in the recent past. It is essential that Council updates its flood forecasting tools such as flood maps with the best available data and technique to act on good faith as required by Section 733 of the Local Government Act.
	6. Impacts of climate change to be modelled and assessed.	An assessment of climate change impact has been included in Section 6 of the flood study report (Attachment F).
	7. Future development scenario to be included in the mapping. Flood maps will change after development.	The current flood maps are required to reflect flood behaviour and related risks due to the current landform. Flood maps are progressively updated once the landform is altered as a result of future developments. Understanding the current flood risks is an important first step to ensure appropriate control measures are in place to mitigate the flood risk in future development.
	8. Inclusion of peak flow for 1% AEP and PMF from tributaries in the report.	Peak flow rates at key crossings and tributary outlets are included in the flood study report (Attachment F).
	9. Inclusion of water surface contour.	Separate maps showing the water surface contours are included in the flood study report (Attachment F).
	10. Report does not consider flood evacuation and flood management strategies.	Flood study identifies the risk associated with flood affectation. Flood risk management study and plan is the next step that considers a range of flood risks and mitigations strategies. In case of Wianamatta South Creek Catchment, precinct planning process that the Stage Government is undertaking will consider mitigation strategies as necessary.
	11. Flood levels and extents should be replaced with the 2004 study results.	Council disagrees with this request for the following reasons: · Two-dimensional hydraulic modelling is the industry standard for large scale flood studies recognising the limitations of one-dimensional models such as HEC-RAS and MIKE-11 used in the 2004 flood study. · The one-dimensional MIKE-11 model predicts flood levels that do not vary across the floodplain and do not accurately mimic the actual hydraulic profile during a flood event. · The 2004 flood extents have a significant potential for error due to the accuracy of topographical data used. · The 2004 study is now outdated in terms of the input data and modelling techniques employed.

6. Benefits of adopting the updated flood study

Adopting the updated flood study and associated flood maps (Attachment C & D) will provide the following benefits:

a) The study uses most current topographical information, representing the best available data for improved flood forecasting.

b) The study utilises two-dimensional hydraulic modelling technology that mimics the flood behaviour more accurately compared to the one-dimensional modelling technology used in the 2004 flood study.

c) The study includes some additional areas from the Badgerys Creek and Thompsons Creek catchments which were not previously studied or mapped.

d) The updated flood study provides currency and will enable Council to align its flood maps with the most current studies and topographical information that are informing the planning of this catchment including the planning of the Aerotropolis.

7. Conclusion

As can be seen from the foregoing discussions, the updated flood study and associated flood maps provide the best available information to assist Council better manage the flood risks arising from occupation of flood prone lands within the Wianamatta South Creek catchment. The variations in the flood extents between the current (2004 maps) and the new flood maps are mostly attributable to higher levels of accuracy in the topographical data that has been used for the new study. Two-dimensional modelling technique used in the study has also provided better representation of the hydraulic profile of flood behavior.

The updated study will enable Council to align the current flood mapping for the Wianamatta South Creek with the most current information available for this catchment and assist in planning for the Aerotropolis. This report therefore recommends that Council adopts the updated Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study and associated flood maps (Attachment C&D).

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Adoption of the updated Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study will not have direct economic and financial impacts on Council.
Environment	The updating of South Creek Flood Study will facilitate better management of the environmental health of waterways. Updating of the South Creek Flood Study will ensure confidence to the better environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social	Preserve and maintain social welfare and minimise public risk associated with floods.
Civic Leadership	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.
Legislative	NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and NSW Floodplain Development Manual. Section 733 Local Government Act
Risk	This report supports the use of best and most up to date information to mitigate flood risk.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment A - changes to flood impacts arising from updated flood maps under %1 AEP scenario

2. Attachment B - changes to flood impacts arising from new flood maps under PMF scenario

3. Attachment C - updated flood maps under 1% AEP scenario for council adoption

4. Attachment D - updated flood maps under PMF scenario for council adoption

5. Attachment E - technical response related to flood modelling (Under separate cover)

6. Attachment F - Wianamatta (South) Creek Flood Study 2020 Liverpool LGA report (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

Committee Reports

CTTE 05

Minutes of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee Meeting held on 3 February 2021

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Advocate for, and develop, transport networks to create an accessible city
File Ref	064078.2021
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Acting Manager Planning & Transport Strategy
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Executive Summary

This report presents the recommendations of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee meeting held on 3 February 2021. At the meeting, the Committee considered eleven (11) agenda items, two (2) technical discussion items and twelve (12) general business items.

A copy of the meeting minutes, incorporating the Committee’s recommendations on the agenda items is included as Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the following recommendations of the Committee:

Item 1 - Manning Street, Priddle Street and Scrivener Street, Warwick Farm – Review of Parking Restrictions.

· Approves transverse line marking between 2m and 7m on either side of major driveways along Manning Street, to accommodate safe turning movements.

· Centre and edge line marking along sections of Manning Street, Priddle Street and Scrivener Street.

Item 2 - The Northern Road, (realigned road section), Bringelly - Request for Parking Restrictions.

· Approves proposed timed ‘No Parking’, bus stop and associated signs and line marking scheme.

Item 3 - Strzlecki Drive and Singleton Street, Carnes Hill – Proposed Traffic Facilities.

· Approves a pedestrian refuge at the intersection of Strzlecki Drive and Schoeffel Grove, two speed humps across Strzlecki Drive as well as minor intersection treatments at Strzlecki Drive - Singleton Street and Strzlecki Drive -Rosedale Circuit intersections.

· Detailed design of the facilities be submitted to TfNSW for comment, prior to construction.

· Community consultation to be carried out with the affected residents prior to construction.

Item 4 - Nuwarra Road and Marshall Avenue Intersection, Moorebank - Request for Intersection Treatment.

· Approves installation of a mountable roundabout at the Nuwarra Road and Marshall Avenue intersection, Moorebank.

· Detailed design of the roundabout is to consider tree planting in the central island.

· Approves C3 yellow linemarking on the northern side of the intersection, along Clyde Avenue.

· Council to undertake community consultation prior to installation.

· Council to investigate options for imposing a load limit along Nuwarra Road, in consultation with TfNSW.

Item 5 - Brickmakers Drive/Christiansen Boulevard/Greenview Drive, Moorebank – Request for a Pedestrian Crossing Facility.

· Approves construction of a gap through the eastern splitter island at the Brickmakers Drive/Christiansen Boulevard/Greenview Drive roundabout, to act as a pedestrian refuge.

Item 6 - Mannow Avenue, West Hoxton – Proposed Line marking Scheme.

· Approves separation signs and line marking scheme along the section of Mannow Avenue, west of Carmichael Drive.

Item 7 - Fourth Avenue/Tenth Avenue, Road upgrade, Austral – Proposed signs and line marking scheme.

· Approves road upgrades along sections of Fourth Avenue and Tenth Avenue, two roundabouts at Fourth Avenue/Tenth Avenue and Fourth Avenue/ Eleventh Avenue intersections and associated signs and line marking scheme.

Item 8 - New Subdivisions – Proposed signs and line marking schemes.

· Approves signs and line marking at the intersection of Eighth Avenue and Muster Street.

· Signs and line marking at the intersections of Stock Street (half-road), Hackney Street and an unnamed laneway.

Item 9 - Hume Highway – Proposed Cycleway.

· Approves sign and line marking scheme for the proposed shared path.

Item 10 - Northumberland Street, Liverpool – Proposed Parking restrictions.

· Approves a works zone along the section of Northumberland Street and No Stopping restrictions along Laurantus Serviceway between 7am-6pm, MON-FRI, 8am-1pm SAT.

· Advise all stakeholders of Council’s resolution.

Item 11 - Items Approved Under Delegated Authority.

· Approve delegated authority applications approved by the NSW Police Force and RMS representatives during the period 19 November 2020 and 3 February 2021.

REPORT

This report presents the recommendations of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee meeting held on 3 February 2021. At the meeting the Committee considered eleven (11) agenda items, two (2) technical discussion items and twelve (12) general business items.

One of the agenda items includes a proposed intersection treatment at the Nuwarra Road and Marshall Avenue, Moorebank intersection. The committee also supported construction of a roundabout at this intersection at its meeting on 25 September 2019. Council at its meeting on 28 October 2019, resolved to adopt the traffic committee’s recommendations except for a proposed roundabout at the intersection.

Since then, Council has been receiving representations, including from the Local Member for Holsworthy, for an intersection treatment to be implemented to reduce the significant delays at the intersection for existing vehicle movements. The Committee considered different intersection treatments including traffic signals and alternate access arrangements for traffic to exit the precinct via a connecting road to Greenway Drive or through the Sydney Water site to Hennessy Avenue. These access arrangements would require significant land acquisition and are not considered feasible at this stage.

Marshall Avenue provides access to approximately 145 detached residential properties. Traffic counts carried out over the last two years indicates that traffic volumes do not meet the TfNSW traffic signals warrant of 900v/hr and 100v/hr; or 600 vehicles and 200v/hr along Nuwarra Road and Marshall Avenue respectively for four hours a day. Therefore, TfNSW has again advised that it does not support traffic signals at this intersection.

A copy of the meeting minutes, incorporating the Committee’s recommendations on the agenda items is included as Attachment 1. It is recommended that Council adopts the Committee’s recommendations on the agenda items as outlined above.

Two technical discussion and twelve general business items were considered, and the recommended actions are as follows:

Technical Discussion Items

TD1 - Regentville Drive, Elizabeth Hills

A Regentville Drive resident is organising for a petition to be presented to Council for traffic management changes along the street to improve road safety and reduce through traffic.

Council is yet to receive the petition, but the previous issues raised includes:

· Request for Installation of traffic calming devices

· Minimise traffic and noise in the area by removing speed cushions

· Investigate heavy vehicles accessing residential areas.

· Re-diversion of traffic from the residential area by consideration of:

o Making Regentville Drive a one-way street.

o Closing entry to Elizabeth Hills from Aviation Drive.

o Widening Cowpasture Road to avoid drivers using the back streets of Elizabeth Hills as a shortcut.

Council is carrying out additional speed classifications (after the school holidays) to provide an indication of the current traffic and speed profile. Once the petition is received, the traffic count information will be used to assess whether changes needs to be made to the existing traffic arrangements and reported to a future committee meeting.

It was noted that construction activities in the local area could increase traffic flow/speeding along Regentville Drive.

TD2 - Hume Highway, Casula – Arrangements for improved pedestrian safety

On 7 January 2021 there was a fatal crash involving a single vehicle and a pedestrian on the footpath. It has been reported that the pedestrian was struck at about 12.30pm on the Hume Highway at Casula. The driver was uninjured and has been charged following mandatory testing.

The Committee is requested to discuss possible arrangements/treatments to improve pedestrian safety along the Hume Highway.

This item was discussed earlier in the meeting under item 9.

TD3 - Traffic Counts - December 2020

Traffic counts that were undertaken in December 2020. Where the 85 percentile speeds are close to or higher than 60km/h, traffic calming devices will be considered and reported to the committee for further discussion. Alternatively, the Police will be requested to carry out speed enforcement.

Traffic Count Summaries – Conducted December 2020

Street Name	50^th Percentile Speed	85^th Percentile	7 Day AADT and % Heavy Vehicles (7-day average)	Comments/Recommendations
Christiansen Boulevarde, Moorebank - Midblock between Maddecks Ave & Sims St (outside house #66)	51	59	2964 Med 5.7%	With the speed profile less than 60km/h, the police have been requested to continue with speed enforcement rather than installation of a physical device at this stage.
Christiansen Boulevarde, Moorebank - Midblock between Bradbury St & Brickmakers Dr (outside house #31)	53	61	2793 Med 4.7%	With the speed profile greater than 60km/h, an appropriate location is to be identified for the installation of a speed hump. The investigation is to be presented to the committee at a future meeting.
Ardennes Drive, Edmondson Park - Midblock between Moscow Rd & Okinawa Rd (outside house #57)	52	60	2403 Med 3.4%	With the speed profile of 60km/h, the police have been requested to continue with speed enforcement rather than installation of a physical device at this stage.
Talana Hill Drive, Edmondson Park - Midblock between Jardine Dr & Kimberley Dr (outside house #40)	48	58	1889 Med 3.0%	With the speed profile less than 60km/h, the police have been requested to continue with speed enforcement rather than installation of a physical device at this stage.
Webster Rd, Lurnea - Midblock between Hoxton Park Rd & Reilly St (outside house #47)	47	56	6282 Med 2.1%	With the speed profile less than 60km/h, the police have been requested to continue with speed enforcement rather than installation of a physical device at this stage.
Webster Rd, Lurnea - Midblock between Wonga Rd & Graham Ave (outside house #103)	47	57	5136 Med 2.4%	With the speed profile less than 60km/h, the police have been requested to continue with speed enforcement rather than installation of a physical device at this stage.

General Business Items

GB1 - Rossmore Avenue (West) – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.

A property owner close to Bellfield College has raised concern about on-street parking close to the property driveway. The property is a construction depot and therefore needs to permit heavy vehicle movements.

The property owner has therefore requested parking restrictions for 14m including “No stopping” signs to be installed across both driveways and also “No stopping” signs opposite their driveways, outside Bellfield College.

Council has investigated the driveway access issues and is recommending “No Stopping” restrictions, approximately 7m on either side of both existing driveways. An application has been submitted under delegated authority for approval.

The school has been informed about this matter. The resident had requested the removal of parking opposite the school and was advised by Council that this is not supported.

GB2 - Hammondville Shops – Request for pedestrian crossing facility across Norman Avenue, Hammondville.

Council has received representation from the Member for Holsworthy concerning pedestrian safety across the section of Norman Avenue near its intersection with Walder Road with a request for a pedestrian crossing close to the Hammondville shops carpark entry. The local member has been advised that Council will investigate whether a crossing facility can be installed on Norman Avenue.

The investigation is expected to be completed for presentation to the March traffic committee meeting. The Committee noted this item.

GB3 - Bardia Parade, Holsworthy - Speeding concern.

Council has received representation from the Member for Holsworthy concerning traffic speed along Bardia Parade with a request for traffic calming measures to address this concern.

Council is investigating whether the existing road reserve can accommodate a raised threshold to be installed towards the roundabout approach on Bardia Parade between Huon Crescent and Mivo Street.

The investigation is expected to be completed for presentation to the May traffic committee meeting. Council will carry out the required investigation during the school term.

GB4 – 3-5 & 7-9 Atkinson Street, Liverpool – Request for no stopping signs opposite their driveways to cater for safe exit and entry movements.

The request for parking restriction is being investigated in consultation with the Strata Manager. If the parking restriction can be accommodated, an application will be submitted to the Police and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) under delegated authority for the requested parking restrictions to be supported. The Committee noted this item.

GB5 – Boundary Road – Request for change to bus route 866 and stop.

Council has received representation from the Member for Holsworthy requesting that bus route 866 be changed and for the bus stop at the corner of Boundary Road to be relocated.

Interline Bus Services operates bus route 866. The requested bus route change and bus stop relocation has been referred to the bus company for consideration. Interline will advise whether the requested change can be implemented.

The Committee noted this item.

GB6 – Road work on Camden Valley Way and Ash Road, Prestons.

Transport for NSW has a project to extend the current right turn lane on Camden Valley Way into Ash Road from 50 metres to 170 metres.

Works are proposed between Sunday 17 January and Friday 12 March. The Committee noted this item.

GB7 – Disability Access to Wattle Grove Lakeside Park.

Accessibility concerns were raised by a resident in Wattle Grove, regarding the lack of accessible parking to provide access to the footpath at Wattle Grove Lakeside Park.

Currently, people in wheelchairs are required to cross the lawn and gutter to reach the footpath. An application will be submitted under delegated authority for approval of the requested mobility parking space.

GB8 - Decommission bus stop, San Marino Drive, Prestons.

The Committee was advised that a request was received from Interline to decommission a bus stop that is located approximately 150 meters east of San Marino Drive. An existing bus stop in front of the college has been relocated and now the distance between the two stops is 118 meters. It was requested that the one further away from the school be decommissioned.

The Committee supported the bus stop to be decommissioned.

GB9 - Traffic, Saint Mark’s Coptic Orthodox College, Australis Ave, Wattle Grove.

The Member for Holsworthy’s representative outlined a concern about traffic delays around St Marks College and requested arrangements to improve traffic flow.

It was advised that the traffic delay was due to an arrangement implemented by the school at the first week of school re-opening that required parents to pick up their school children close to the school gates.

This arrangement has since stopped, and traffic flow has improved. Council rangers and the Police have monitored traffic flow and enforced parking rules where required.

The Police representative recommended traffic management changes near the shopping centre on village way to improve traffic flow.

GB10 - Hoxton Park Road and First Avenue – Consideration of line marking on the First Avenue approach.

Clr Hagarty raised a concern that the two lanes approach along First Avenue to the intersection needs to be demarcated to clarify the permissible turning movements. There is concern that some motorists are making right turn from the kerbside lane use which may lead to crashes.

It was advised that advisory signs of “left lane must turn left” and “right lane must turn right” cannot be placed since one of the lanes allows motorists to drive straight. Pavement markings for the left lane to go straight and left will be considered, with the right turn reserved for the right lane in consultation with TfNSW.

GB11 - Riley Street, Lurnea - Parking restriction request.

Clr Hagarty raised concern about safe entry and exit movements to and from the childcare centre and requested the need for parking restrictions to be investigated.

It was advised that the issue will be investigated.

GB12 - Wilson Road, Green Valley – Bus stop not moved.

Clr Hagarty advised that the bus stop on Wilson Road near the Islamic College has not been moved. It was advised that the relocation will be carried out in the coming weeks.

Budget impact of matters arising from the minutes

Item	Description	Funding, Indicative Cost and Timing
1	Manning Street, Priddle Street and Scrivener Street, Warwick Farm – Review of parking restrictions	TfNSW grant funding# Indicative Cost - $3,500. Timing – May 2021.
2	The Northern Road, (realigned road section), Bringelly - Request for Parking Restrictions	TfNSW grant funding# Indicative Cost - $1,500. Timing – May 2021.
3	Strzlecki Drive and Singleton Street, Carnes Hill – Proposed Traffic Facilities	Council’s traffic facilities project Indicative Cost - $70,000. Timing – June 2021.
4	Nuwarra Road and Marshall Avenue Intersection, Moorebank - Request for Intersection Treatment	Council’s traffic facilities project Indicative Cost - $300,000. Timing – 2022/2023.
5	Brickmakers Drive/Christiansen Boulevard/Greenview Drive, Moorebank – Request for a Pedestrian Crossing Facility	Council’s minor traffic facilities project Indicative Cost - $5,000. Timing – August 2021.
6	Mannow Avenue, West Hoxton – Proposed Linemarking Scheme	TfNSW grant funding# Indicative Cost - $1,500. Timing – August 2021.
7	Fourth Avenue/Tenth Avenue, Road upgrade, Austral – Proposed signs and linemarking scheme	Developer Timing – In accordance with development consent requirement
8	New Subdivisions – Proposed signs and linemarking schemes	Developer Timing – In accordance with development consent requirement
9	Hume Highway – Proposed Cycleway	TfNSW grant funding# Indicative Cost - $10,000 - signs and linemarking only. Timing – 2021/2022.
10	Northumberland Street, Liverpool – Proposed Parking restrictions	Developer Timing – In accordance with development consent requirement
11	Items Approved Under Delegated Authority	TfNSW block grant funding# Indicative Cost - $10,000. Timing – April 2021.

# RMS block grant funding has no financial implication on Council

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Provide efficient parking for the City Centre. Deliver a high-quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environment	Promote an integrated and user-friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social	Support access and services for people with a disability. Improve road and pedestrian safety.
Civic Leadership	Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	Roads Act
Risk	The risk is considered Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes of the Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee meeting held on 3 Feburary 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

Ordinary Meeting

31 March 2021

Notices of Motion

NOM 02

Liveable Communities - One Size state Planning Does Not Fit All

Strategic Direction

Strengthening and Protecting our Environment

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

File Ref

081395.2021

Author

Karress Rhodes - Councillor

Background

State planning legislation is currently based on what the future might be when infrastructure is provided similar to the Sydney CBD that makes the dependence on privately owned vehicles redundant.

That is not the current situation for Western Sydney where the provision of such infrastructure is measured in decades if not many decades into the future.

It is time that all Local Governments in the growth centres of Western Sydney stood together to reject the one size fits all planning regulation and legislations of the State Government and insist on behalf of our residents that the current needs of our Local Communities are address now, not what their needs may be into the future.

The current State regulations and legislations are based on the needs of the Sydney CBD and those areas that the Government has already supplied the necessary infrastructure that makes owning a car unnecessary. Here in Western Sydney there is no such existing infrastructure and Western Sydney unlike other areas remains very much car dependent.

Dependent to get to work, dependent to get to schools, the shops dependent for your everyday living in the Western Sydney City.

To meet that need we need roads that are wide enough for traffic to flow in either direction at the same time with cars parked on both sides of the street all at the same time.

It is not ok for our residents to be forced into communities where the roads are so narrow that cars cannot park outside residential properties that then only permits one single flow of traffic in one direction, this is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable that residents are forced to break the law in order to park their cars in efforts to keep traffic trickling through residential areas all because of the State Planning belief that one day people will not need cars..

It is not ok for emergency services not to be able to reach any and every house that may have a need because the roads are just too narrow for them to be able to attend, this is not acceptable.

Western Sydney is more prone to extreme heat than areas closer to the cost and the one size fits all for minimum block size may be suitable for those areas, but here in Western Sydney we need larger blocks to enable opportunities for heat mitigation.

Block sizes need to be relevant to the dwelling foot print with enough room between boundaries to enable air flow and tree planting.

There is a need for a maximum density to be set to the identified infrastructure planning recognised in new development areas at time of zoning and there is a need to set maximum density upgrades in established area in accordance with the limits of existing infrastructure.

It is not ok to increase densities in established areas where the existing infrastructure is inadequate because it was established years before when the area was first zoned and. Infrastructure was established on the planned density needs at time of zoning. It is not always possible to meet new increased density infrastructure requirements. When State Government encourages increase in densities in such already developed areas that does not have the necessary infrastructure to cope with increased densities it simply lowers the standard of liveability for existing residents.

We as representatives of our Community need to stand united to deliver more liveable communities for the Liverpool LGA and the Western City that is based on the current needs of our residents not what might there needs be in decades to come.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council:

1. Write to Minister for Western Sydney and DPIE seeking changes to State Planning legislation and planning regulations that will ensure the delivery of Liveable Communities that meets the current needs of the residents in Western Sydney.

2. Seek supporting collaboration with all Western Sydney Local Governments, WSROC, Western Sydney State and Federal MP’s for changes to the State Planning legislation and regulations that includes:

a) maximum permissible density in all areas subject to original zoning and identified infrastructure at the time of original zoning for green fill areas and

b) maximum permissible densities in areas already developed subject to the existing supplied infrastructure.

c) Set a percentage of variety of zoning densities in all new green fill developments that provides a choice of housing from premium larger blocks with single dwelling to smaller block sizes with a variety of dwelling types and levels of affordability.

d) Increase the size of the smallest block size, in conjunction with the maximum permittable dwelling foot print per block to ensure deep soil opportunities for tree planting on each building block.

e) Increase the minimum residential road width to 12m

f) Increase the minimum off street parking required for any development to be aligned to the number of bedrooms for each dwelling and

g) a minimum of one car space per affordable or social housing dwelling except where within 1000m of public transport.

h) Increase the minimum building boundaries to 3metres from both side boundaries and 6m from the front and back block boundaries.

3. Report back to April Council meeting on the success or otherwise collaboration with Western Sydney Councils.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

Planning controls and land use zoning in the growth areas of Liverpool (Austral / Leppington North and East Leppington) are contained within State Environment Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. This SEPP also applies to growth areas in Camden, Campbelltown, Blacktown, The Hills, Hawkesbury and Wollondilly local government areas. Planning controls for constructing new buildings and additions in these growth areas are also contained within SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, particularly the Greenfield Housing Code.

SEPP (Western Sydney Aerotropolis) 2020 applies to land encompassed by the Western Sydney Aerotropolis, which surrounds the proposed Western Sydney Airport. The SEPP (State Significant Precincts) 2005 provides for planning controls and zoning for land in Edmondson Park South.

Planning controls and zoning for the remainder of the Liverpool local government area are contained within the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and other State Environmental Planning Policies including SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Code) 2008, particularly the Medium Density Housing Code.

Rezoning proposals (known as planning proposals) are required to demonstrate strategic and site specific merit when assessed against the Greater Sydney Region Plan, the Western City District Plan, the Liverpool Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and Council adopted land use strategies including the Liverpool Local Housing Strategy 2020. If a planning proposal does not demonstrate merit when assessed against these strategic planning documents, the proposal will not proceed.

Prior to writing to the Minister for Western Sydney, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, other Western Sydney Councils, WSROC and Western Sydney State and Federal MP’s advocating for changes to planning controls within the identified SEPPs, it is recommended that Council receive a detailed report on the matters identified in point 2 of the motion. This is consistent with point 7 of the recommendation on EGROW01 in this Agenda (regarding amendments to the planning framework in Austral) which states that Council “further investigate issues relating to odour impacts and dwelling density/variety controls in the Austral/Leppington North Precinct, with a further report back to Council (emphasis added).

A further report back to Council on the matters outlined in point 2 of the NOM can be provided by June 2021.

Separately, Council is preparing a submission on a proposed Design & Place SEPP that intends to encourage better design of places and buildings through establishing principles for the design and assessment of development. Through this submission, Council will be advocating for a review of the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Code) 2008 and other relevant SEPPs so that better design outcomes can be achieved throughout Western Sydney.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Economic	There are financial considerations to be considered as part of the Quarterly Budget Review.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. Failure to remunerate members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee at industry rates may lead to vacancies, Council failing to remain competitive, lost knowledge and experiencing in dealing with Council’s governance frameworks. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

1
EGROW 02	Issues and Options Report - Temporary Use of Land in Growth Areas
Attachment 1	Table of potential temporary uses and impacts in growth areas

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Meet the challenges of Liverpool’s growing population
File Ref	061294.2021
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	George Hampouris - Acting Director City Corporate

Economic	If the National General Assembly is to be held in Canberra as planned, the following costs will be incurred per delegate: Registration: $989 per person; Accommodation: Approximately $325 per night; Meals: Approximately $265 for the conference dinners on 21 and 22 June 2021 (if they go ahead as planned); and Travel: Via Council vehicle (or reimbursed mileage allowance if using private vehicle).
Environment	Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues. Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Civic Leadership	Act as an environmental leader in the community. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low and is considered to be within Council’s risk appetite.

Economic	The continuation of standardising Council mobility hardware offerings will ensure there is cost efficiency and enhanced service delivery.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no Civic Leadership considerations
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993, s.55(3)
Risk	The risk of this report is deemed low.

1
CORP 05	Information Technology - Product Standardisation
Attachment 1	Email From Catrin Walker - Account Manager

1
INF 01	Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study Update
Attachment 2	Attachment B - changes to flood impacts arising from new flood maps under PMF scenario

1
INF 01	Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study Update
Attachment 3	Attachment C - updated flood maps under 1% AEP scenario for council adoption

1
INF 01	Wianamatta South Creek Flood Study Update
Attachment 4	Attachment D - updated flood maps under PMF scenario for council adoption

1
CTTE 01	Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 5 February 2021
Attachment 1	Final ARIC Minutes - 5 Feb 2021

Strategic Direction	Leading through Collaboration Encourage community participation in decision-making
File Ref	055063.2021
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Acting Director City Community and Culture

1
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council meeting held Tuesday 9 February 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council meeting held on Tuesday 9 February 2021

1
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee held 8 February 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2021

1
CTTE 04	Minutes of Strategic Panel Meeting held on 8 February 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes of Strategic Panel meeting held on 8 February 2021

Strategic Direction	Creating Connection Celebrate diversity, promote inclusion and recognise heritage
File Ref	065063.2021
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Acting Director City Community and Culture

1
CTTE 06	Minutes of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee meeting held on 4 February 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes Aboriginal Consultative Committee 4 February 2021

1
CTTE 07	Minutes of Budget Review Panel 18 February 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes - Budget Review Panel Meeting 18 Feb 2021

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Create an attractive environment for investment
File Ref	068747.2021
Report By	Susana Freitas - Tourism Development Officer
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Encourage and promote businesses to develop in the hospital health and medical precinct (of the City Centre). Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Raise awareness in the community about the available services and facilities. Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts. Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Deliver services that are customer focused.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

1
CTTE 08	Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee meeting held on 23 February 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Tourism & CBD Committee meeting held on 23 February 2021

Strategic Direction	Generating Opportunity Attract businesses for economic growth and employment opportunities
File Ref	072598.2021
Report By	Chris Guthrie - Coordinator Business Development
Approved By	David Smith - Acting Director City Economy and Growth

1
CTTE 09	Minutes of the Intermodal Precinct Committee meeting held on 1 March 2021
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Intermodal Precinct Committee meeting held on 1 March 2021.

Economic	There are no economic or financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Sections 356(3), 377(1), and 378 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Risk	There are no risk considerations.

1
CTTE 10	Liverpool Sports Committee Minutes of meeting held 25 February 2021
Attachment 1	Liverpool Sports Committee Minutes of meeting held 25 February 2021

Property Name	Address	Comments
SES Liverpool	99-101 Rose St Liverpool	The premises is under renovation. Therefore, not currently being occupied. Date not specified for AFSS submission.
Casula Community Centre & Library & Childcare Centre	39 Ingham Drive Casula	Repairs scheduled for the 24^th March.
Warwick Farm Children's Centre	68 Williamson Crescent	The certificate has been submitted. Therefore, this is a timing issue towards official certification.
Rose Street Depot (Mechanics Workshop)	99-101 Rose Street, Liverpool	Testing is being completed. Awaiting fire testing report to determine whether repairs are required prior to certification

1
NOM 01	Parking on Verges and Nature Strips
Attachment 1	Letter to Minister for Transport and Roads - Council Resolution - 27 October 2020 - EGROW 05 - Parking on Verges and Nature Strips