Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Acknowledgment of Country and Prayer

National Anthem

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 July 2022...................................................................... 8

Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 09 August 2022....................................................... 60

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NOMR 01 Rescission of CEO 01 - Leading in Good Governance Practices from the Council meeting of 27 July 2022.................................................................................. 65......... 1

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01 Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures...................................... 66......... 2

CEO 02 Investment Report July 2022.......................................................................... 69......... 3

CEO 03 Day-time trial of Council meetings.................................................................. 80......... 4

CEO 04 Biannual Progress Report - June 2022.......................................................... 86......... 5

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 01 Draft Local Planning Agreement in conjunction with DA-922/2021 at 47-53 Seventeenth Avenue, Austral......................................................................... 89......... 6

PLAN 02 Planning proposal request to amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 at 61-71 Goulburn Street, Liverpool..................... 95......... 7

PLAN 03 Liverpool Local Environmental Plan Review - Draft Scoping Report........... 110......... 8

PLAN 04 Proposed Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge........................................................ 128......... 9

PLAN 05 Street renaming request - Squillaciote Crescent, Austral............................ 141....... 10

PLAN 06 Post exhibition report - Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 91 - Schedule 1 amendment to facilitate expansion of The Grove, Warwick Farm 161 11

PLAN 07 Draft Local Planning Agreement in conjunction with DA-1060/2020 at 5 Melito Court, Prestons............................................................................................. 170....... 12

PLAN 08 NSW Government e-scooter trial................................................................. 176....... 13

Community & Culture Report

COM 01 Report Back Mimosa Park (22 Box Road, Casula)...................................... 182....... 14

COM 02 Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship.......................................... 214....... 15

COM 03 Report back on amendment of the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy............................................................................................................. 221....... 16

Corporate Services Report

NIL

City Presentation Report

PRES 01 Heavy Vehicle Chain of Responsibility Policy.............................................. 228....... 17

Infrastructure & Environment Report

INF 01 Ibis Management.......................................................................................... 236....... 18

INF 02 Water Management Policy........................................................................... 263....... 19

INF 03 Asset Management Policy............................................................................ 273....... 20

INF 04 2021-22 Capital Works Carryover of Projects.............................................. 283....... 21

Economy & Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes of the Liverpool Sports Committee meeting held on 15 June 2022 289 22

CTTE 02 Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 June 2022 298 23

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Companion Animals Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 June 2022.............................................................................................................. 307....... 24

CTTE 04 Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held 12 July 2022............ 315....... 25

CTTE 05 Minutes of the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 20 July 2022 324 26

CTTE 06 Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 25 July 2022.............................................................................................................. 330....... 27

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Rates for Waste Collection............. 354....... 28

QWN 02 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Adherence to White Ribbon Accreditation 356 29

QWN 03 Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty - Citizenship Backlog............................ 360....... 30

QWN 04 Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty - Meeting with John Barilaro................. 362....... 31

Presentations by Councillors

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Accounting Treatment of Rural Fire Service 'Red Fleet' Assets.................. 365....... 32

NOM 02 Liverpool CBD 24hr Economy...................................................................... 369....... 33

NOM 03 NSW Local Government Annual Conference - Cat Confinement................ 371....... 34

NOM 04 DAMA at Aerotropolis................................................................................... 377....... 35

NOM 05 M7 Lane Widening........................................................................................ 379....... 36

NOM 06 Proposal to Amend Councillor Payment and Expenses Policy Regarding Conference Expenses.................................................................................. 381....... 37

NOM 07 Proposal to Amend the Councillor and Expense Policy Regarding Candidates for Federal and State Elections......................................................................... 382....... 38

NOM 08 Birth Centenary of Pramukh Swami Maharaj............................................... 384....... 39

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 Appointment of Independent Members of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Reason: Item CONF 01 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 02 RCL 3099 - Supply and Delivery of Ready Mix Concrete

Reason: Item CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d ii) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council.

CONF 03 Tender ST3139 - Comprehensive Liverpool Heritage Study

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

CONF 04 Schedule of Contracts Awarded - Financial Year 2021-22

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

CONF 05 WT3158 - Upgrade of Governor Macquarie Drive between Hume Highway and Munday Street, Warwick Farm

Reason: Item CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(d i) of the Local Government Act because it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CONF 06 Liverpool Civic Place Leasing Update and Accommodation Fitout Strategy

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

CONF 07 Confidential review of organisational structure in accordance with clause 333 of the Local Government Act

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

Note: This report has been provided to Councillors under separate cover and is not included in the Confidential Booklet.

Close

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 27 July 2022

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Ammoun

Councillor Goodman

Councillor Green

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Hagarty

Councillor Harle

Councillor Kaliyanda

Councillor Karnib (online)

Councillor Macnaught

Councillor Rhodes

Mr Peter Diplas, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Paul Perrett, Director Corporate Services

Ms Tina Bono, Director Community & Culture

Mr David Smith, Director Planning & Compliance

Mr Matthew Morris, Acting Director City Presentation

Mr Michael Zengovski, Acting Director Infrastructure & Environment

Ms Julie Scott, Acting Director Economy & Commercial Development

Mr George Hampouris, Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement

Mr David Galpin, General Counsel, Manager Governance, Legal and Procurement

Ms Ellen Whittingstall, Internal Ombudsman

Mr Vishwa Nadan, Chief Financial Officer

Mr Brett Goodridge, Chief People Leader

Mr John Milicic, Manager Property Service

Ms Maree Stewart, Coordinator Council and Executive Services

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

The meeting commenced at 2.03pm

of Country, Prayer and Affirmation

STATEMENT REGARDING WEBCASTING OF MEETING	The Mayor reminded everyone that in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (other than the Public Forum Section), the meeting is being livestreamed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY, PRAYER OF COUNCIL AND AFFIRMATION	The prayer of the Council was read by Father Melhem Haikal from St Rita Melkite Parish.

NATIONAL ANTHEM	The National Anthem was played at the meeting.
COUNCILLORS ATTENDING REMOTELY Clr Karnib has requested permission to attend this meeting via MS Teams. Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Ammoun That Clr Karnib be granted permission to attend the meeting via MS Teams. On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

APOLOGIES

Nil.

CONDOLENCES

Nil.

Confirmation of Minutes

Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Hadid

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 29 June 2022 be confirmed as a true record of that meeting.

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

Declarations of Interest

Clr Hadid declared a non-pecuniary, but significant interest in the following item:

Item: CONF 04 – Legal Affairs Report - Charles Street (NSW) Pty Ltd - 146-150 Terminus Street, Liverpool (DA-1092/2021).

Reason: Clr Hadid’s friend is the owner of the property.

Clr Hadid left the Chamber for the duration of the item.

Clr Kaliyanda declared a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:

Item: COM 02 – Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship.

Reason: Clr Kaliyanda has previously attended events with one of the community groups that is recommended for a grant.

Clr Kaliyanda remained in the Chamber for the duration of the item.

Mayor Mannoun and Clr Goodman declared a non-pecuniary, but significant interest in the following item:

Item: CONF 04 – Legal Affairs Report - Charles Street (NSW) Pty Ltd - 146-150 Terminus Street, Liverpool (DA-1092/2021).

Reason: Mayor Mannoun and Clr Goodman are related to the owner.

Note: Mayor Mannoun and Clr Goodman did not receive the report in their Agenda.

Mayor Mannoun and Clr Goodman left the chambers for the duration of the item.

Clr Hagarty submitted a Conflict of Interest Declaration form prior to the Council meeting declaring an interest in the following item:

Item: PLAN 02 - Principles for the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan Review.

Reason: Clr Hagarty owns real property in the Liverpool LGA. The matter is dealing with the Liverpool LEP.

Clr Hagarty remained in the Chambers during the duration of the item.

Public Forum

Presentation – items not on agenda

Nil.

Representation – items on agenda

1. Mr Hussein Oubani addressed Council, via MS Teams on the following item:

Item ECD 01 - Proposed Road Closure and Potential Future Sale of part of Gurner Avenue, Austral (adjoining No. 5 Gurner Ave)

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Hagarty

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

On being put to the meeting motion was declared CARRIED.

2. Ms Anneliese Alexander addressed Council on the following item:

Item NOM 03 - Declaration of Climate Emergency.

Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded Mayor Mannoun

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

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

3. Mr Dom Brunetta, Ms Donna Subritzky and Ms Amber Tanaka, on behalf of the Sydney Marae Alliance addressed Council on the following items:

Item NOM 04 - Supporting Our Visitation Economy

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded Clr Kaliyanda

That a three minute extension of time be given to the speaker.

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

MAYORAL MINUTES

ITEM NO: MAYOR 01

REPORT OF: Mayor Ned Mannoun

SUBJECT: Proposed new suburb of Cabrogal

The Cabrogal were the Aboriginal people in the Fairfield and Liverpool area around the Georges River and Cabramatta Creek. Cabrogal is part of the Dharug language group.

There are many sites across Liverpool today, such as the Georges River, which are recognised as sites of Aboriginal historical significance.

Liverpool City Council supports a proposal to rename part of the suburb of Badgerys Creek to the Aboriginal name Cabrogal (see map below). This is to honour and recognise our First Nations People and the historic Cabrogal clan.

The idea that tourists arriving in our beautiful country will immediately recognise that they are landing on Aboriginal land is not only wonderful; it is appropriate. The acknowledgment of the First Nations heritage of the land in the name of this new suburb presents an opportunity to educate international and domestic visitors, raising awareness and promoting Australia’s First Nations people and culture, the oldest known living culture in the world.

This is part of reconciliation and co-creation.

I believe the people of Liverpool will support this move and that we should fast track our endorsement with the relevant government authorities.

The adjoining new suburb of Bradfield, with its innovation flavour will only serve to compliment the change. A mix of much-loved old with new. It’s exciting to think that a newly

named suburb “Cabrogal” will grow rapidly and become a transport, business and innovation hub, integral to the City of Liverpool, and the rest of the world.

Map

Description automatically generated

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Commence the process to rename part of the suburb of Badgerys Creek to Cabrogal.

2. Undertake community and stakeholder consultation on this proposal, including with the local Aboriginal community and Geographical Names Board of NSW, consistent with the requirements of the NSW Place Name Policy.

3. Supports the proposed name of Bradfield.

COUNCIL DECISION:

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

On being put to the meeting the Motion (moved by Mayor Mannoun) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadowed motion (moved by Clr Kaliyanda) therefore lapsed.

Foreshadowed motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Hagarty

That Council:

1. Commence the process to rename part of the suburb of Badgerys Creek to Cabrogal.

Division called (for the Motion moved by Mayor Mannoun):

Vote for: Mayor Mannoun, Clr Ammoun, Clr Goodman, Clr Green, Clr Kaliyanda, Clr Karnib, Clr Macnaught, Clr Rhodes and Clr Hadid.

Vote against: Clr Hagarty and Clr Harle.

ITEM NO: MAYOR 02

REPORT OF: Mayor Ned Mannoun

SUBJECT: NSW Rural Fire Service National Emergency Medals and Long Service Medals Presentation

On Wednesday 3 August 2022, the NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) is holding a National Emergency Medals and Long Service Medals Presentation at the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre for NSW RFS Volunteers within the Macarthur District for services to the community in the local area.

The NSW RFS Macarthur District is in the South Western Sydney Corridor between the Georges and Nepean Rivers within NSW and includes the Local Government Areas of Liverpool, Camden and Campbelltown.

The 2019–20 bushfire season was the worst New South Wales has recorded. Over the course of a few months, 26 lives were lost, 2,448 homes were destroyed and 5.5 million hectares (ha) of land was burnt. The impact on NSW communities, farmers, local businesses, wildlife and bushland was unprecedented.

The NSW Rural Fire Service played a significant role in providing urgent, critical support to our community and many other communities across the Macarthur District, and the State, during this stressful period.

Our community is deeply grateful to all those involved in supporting residents who were affected.

In the 2021-22 financial year, Rural Fire Brigades of the Macarthur District responded and supported a total of 1416 incidents. They carry out regular hazard reductions in our LGA annually to help keep our community safe and reduce the impacts of future bushfire seasons. The Macarthur District also has an active Community Engagement team who attend many Community Education events.

In recognition of the service provided to the Liverpool community by Macarthur District Rural Fire Brigades, it is proposed that the National Medal Presentation on 3 August be hosted by Council as a Civic event.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

· Host the NSW Rural Fire Service National Emergency Medals and Long Service Medals Presentation at the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre on 3 August 2022 as a Civic event.

· Acknowledge and thank the NSW Rural Fire Service for choosing Liverpool as the location for this prestigious Medal Presentation.

COUNCIL DECISION:

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun

That the recommendation be adopted.

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

Clr Macnaught left the Chambers at 3:18pm.

Clr Macnaught returned to the Chambers at 3:20pm.

ITEM NO: QWN 02

FILE NO: 234339.2022

SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Green - Smoke Free Macquarie Mall

According to research and current health advice tobacco smoking is the single most preventable cause of death and illnesses including asthma and other long term respiratory diseases, stroke and heart disease.

The reactivation of the CBD, particularly Macquarie Mall has been a focus of our Mayor and this Council. The NSW state Government has supported the reactivation by funding community events such as Blessed Nights held in Macquarie Mall.

According to the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 bans smoking and using e-cigarettes in a commercial outdoor dining area, such as:

§ a seated dining area

§ within 4 metres of a seated dining area on licensed premises, restaurant or café

within 10 metres of a food fair stall.

The intention of the smoking ban is to protect people from the harms of second-hand smoke and vapour from e-cigarettes while dining in outdoor areas because the research is clear- there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Responses provided by Economy & Commercial Development and Planning & Compliance

Please address the following:

1. Can Council provide advice in relation to the status of the Macquarie Mall and the Smoke -Free Environment Act 2000, particularly as it applies to:

1.1 All outdoor cafes of Macquarie Mall where food and drinks are served in partial enclosed areas; and

1.2 The child play area?

Response

Under the Smoke-Free Environment Act 2000, smoking and use of e-cigarettes are banned:

1. Within 10 metres of children’s play equipment in outdoor public places,

2. Within 4 metres of a pedestrian access point to a public building,

3. In commercial outdoor dining areas, and

4. Within 10 metres of a place at a food fair where food is being sold for consumption.

In the Act, commercial outdoor dining areas are defined as seated dining areas in which food is being consumed or available to be purchased and consumed there. This does not include drink.

In relation to Macquarie Mall, if food is being served within the Macquarie Mall outdoor dining structures, the area must be smoke-free and display ‘No Smoking’ signs. Businesses serving drink only within the outdoor dining structure must display “NO FOOD TO BE CONSUMED IN THIS AREA” signage in line with Clause 5 of the Smoke-free Environment Regulation 2016 to allow compliant smoking to proceed in the public space.

The Act also applies to the children’s play area in Macquarie Mall, with smoking banned within 10 metres of the play area, and applies to the two entrances to Liverpool Plaza, with smoking banned within 4 metres.

The below condition is imposed on Development Consents regarding the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and Smoke-free Environment Regulations 2016.

(G468) Smoke-free Environment Act and Smoke-free Environment Regulation

The Applicant and Occupier of the premises are alerted to the requirements of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and Smoke-free Environment Regulation 2016. Nothing in this consent is to be taken to imply that the development meets the requirements of the aforementioned legislation. In the event that the Applicant and/or Occupier wishes to facilitate smoking within the premises, they must ensure that the design and construction of the area proposed to facilitate smoking fully complies with the requirements of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and Smoke-free Environment Regulation 2016.

The dining structures are leased to Macquarie Mall businesses through the Macquarie Mall Outdoor Dining Permit, issued by Council. As resolved in the Outdoor Dining Policy 2022, permits issued in FY2023/2024 will be eligible for a 50% reduced fee if permit holders/businesses adopt a smoke-free outdoor dining area.

Can Council please advise how compliance is currently enforced?

Response

NSW Health are the appropriate Regulatory Authority to enforce the Smoke-Free Environment Act 2000. NSW Health inspectors are responsible for conducting compliance monitoring and enforcement activity in relation to smoke-free regulations in these public places. They investigate breaches on a complaint basis and can issue cautions or on the spot fines of $300 to people who break no smoking bans.

Council communicated with SWS Local Health District in 2018 during the development of the ‘Implementation Strategy for Smoke-Free Areas’.

In 2019 following the Council resolution for ‘Implementation Strategy for Smoke-Free Areas’ to encourage compliant smoking in Macquarie Mall, Council:

· updated signage at smoke-free zones,

· delivered a media and education campaign in Macquarie Mall,

· conducted intercept surveys which revealed 63% of respondents supported the entire city centre becoming smoke-free,

· conducted business surveys which highlighted mixed feedback on smoke-free zones in Macquarie Mall, with some concern over impact on business,

· investigated the implementation of smoke-free zones and governing policies in other Sydney LGAs which showed support from community and business.

3. What reports has Council received from SWS Local Health District in relation to Smoke-Free Environment Act 2000 and Macquarie Mall out-door dining area compliance with the regulations of the legislation?

Response

Council does not receive statistical data from NSW Health SWS Local Health District in relation to the Smoke-Free Environment Act 2000 and its compliance within the Macquarie Mall precinct.

Clr Kaliyanda left the Chambers at 3:48pm.

Clr Kaliyanda returned to the Chambers at 3:52pm.

ITEM NO: NOM 04

FILE NO: 236141.2022

SUBJECT: Supporting Our Visitation Economy

Background

Further to the June 2022 Council resolution to provide a supporting letter to the Sydney Marae Association (SMA) in relation to their West Invest program application which was presented for Liverpool Council in support of servicing Western Sydney. It is recognised that Liverpool would be losing Visitation dollars which would be going to the Central City and not the Western Parklands City of which all the Western Sydney suburbs and their related LGAs reside.

As Greystanes is not a Western Sydney suburb, it is actually to the detriment of Visitation Economies of the Western Sydney LGA’s where the Pacifica people actually reside. The same People who the SMA Project intend servicing would have to actually travel out of our residential Western Sydney LGAs to go to the Central City and to support their visitation economy, not Liverpool’s and not the LGA’s of the Western Sydney Garden City.

To support such a project would be selling off our own opportunity to support our own constituents and our own opportunity to support our own Visitation Economy and or our neighbouring Western Sydney Garden City LGA’s opportunity to boost their own Visitation Economies now and into the future through any similar project.

Liverpool constituents who form the Liverpool Pacifica organisations have been calling out for Liverpool to support them so that Liverpool can benefit from the enormous boost to our own Liverpool Visitation Economy through our own Liverpool vibrant and of national and Internationally recognised Pacifica Organisations. If anyone should have such a facility on the basis of Pacifica national and International recognition it should be in Liverpool.

The urgency of the motion made it impossible to consult with our own Pacifica communities who are the constituents that elected us as Councillors to represent them and who certainly contribute to pay our wages.

Since the June 2 resolution, I have been contacted and I now believe our Pacifica constituents in our LGA are not in favour of Liverpool supplying a letter of support to the SMA Project and would prefer the provision of such facility be in the Liverpool LGA.

This SMA Project was highly contested in Cumberland Council with objections from the first nation people, it had divided opinions in the Marae cultural communities throughout Western Sydney and I have been told even in New Zealand itself.

Our regulating Documentation Destination Plans and Strategic Plans clearly identifies the three cities of Sydney and our support for our neighbouring LGA’s within the Western Garden City, AKA South West Sydney and identified clearly in the City Deal but nowhere does it say to support the Central City’s Visitation Economy.

To support the SMA project is to deny Liverpool the opportunities of future grants for Liverpool Council to deny the Liverpool Pacifica organisations of possible grant funding in the future and deny Liverpool’s opportunity to boost our Liverpool Visitation Economy and serve the Pacifica people of Liverpool.

We would not be supporting our neighbouring Western Garden City LGA’s by supporting a project that they may have been interested in providing themselves.

I am sure MSA and Cumberland Council will understand that after consideration we are obliged to follow our Destination Management, and Strategic Plans and most importantly listen to and act on behalf of the Liverpool Constituents as we were all elected to do.

There are plans in Liverpool for the Visitation Precinct, that was always intended to support all the cultures in Liverpool and that defiantly includes the Pacifica Community.

Council has not as yet presented those concept plans to Council so our Councillors were not aware of Liverpool’s future plans when they voted in support of a support letter, but such support for the SMA Project may inhibit Liverpool in attaining grant funding for that project in the future.

Our support for the SMA Project is not essential.

To support this project could impact poorly on Liverpool’s future plans, our own opportunity to increase the Visitation Economy of Liverpool and Liverpool’s ability as a City that is home to the new airport to establish ourselves as a destination of significance and utilise the International recognition that has already been established by one of Liverpool’s Pacifica communities. A community who wants to be in Liverpool.

It is important that we protect our Visitation Economy by making decisions that are in the best interest of Liverpool and our constituents.

NOTICE OF MOTION (Submitted by Clr Rhodes)

That Council;

1. Notes that a formal letter of support has already been sent to the Sydney Marae Association (SMA) in relation to their West Invest program application in line with a June 2022 Council resolution;

2. A further letter be sent to SMA explaining that their project may be in competition with Liverpool organisations’ future plans of a similar nature in the Liverpool LGA. On that basis Council no longer supports its application;

3. Confirming through this letter that this is now Council’s new position on this matter and therefore the original letter should be disregarded; and

4. Invites the SMA should their application be unsuccessful to engage with Liverpool Council to discuss opportunities to participate in Liverpool’s own endeavours to increase cultural attractions in the Liverpool LGA.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Rhodes Seconded: Clr Hadid

That Council:

1. Notes that a formal letter of support has been sent to the Sydney Marae Association (SMA) in relation to their West Invest program application in line with a June 2022 Council resolution;

2. Notes that $300,000 Budget (matching grant) to undertake the master planning works for the Visitation Precinct was secured in 2021-2022 Financial Year.

3. Acknowledges that a meeting has been requested for and on behalf of Liverpool’s Pacifica Community so that they might contribute to the development of the Council understanding on what are Liverpool’s current Tourism assets that might contribute to the briefing on the project development for the Visitation Precinct, before submissions for tender.

4. Acknowledges Council’s Commitment to Community Centric core decision making and that Council has not delivered a Visitation Precinct before and this necessitates a meeting for clarification of recent confusing statements that need to be agreed to in the Project Briefing and direction.

5. Hold a workshop before open tender for submissions for a Project Consultant is conducted and invite Matavai and other Pacifica and other Community organisations to present their visitation assets that Council and Councillors need to be made aware of in order to understand what likely assets could and should be considered in the Liverpool Visitation Precinct.

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

Clr Kaliyanda asked that she be recorded as having voted against this motion.

MOTION OF URGENCY

Clr Ammoun requested Mayor Mannoun accept a Motion of Urgency relating to Grove Street and the Hume Highway.

Grove Street at its intersection with the Hume Highway is currently left into Grove Street from the Hume Highway. Clr Ammoun has observed vehicles exiting Grove Street onto the Hume Highway, contrary to the signs. Clr Ammoun stated that this is a serious safety issue that needs to be resolved by the closure of Grove Street to the Hume Highway.

Clr Ammoun believes it is urgent due to the safety of constituents.

In accordance with Clause 9.3 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, the Chairperson Mayor Mannoun, ruled the matter as urgent and as such it was dealt with at this meeting.

Motion: Moved: Clr Ammoun Seconded: Clr Goodman

That Council direct the Acting CEO:

1. To prepare a report for the next Liverpool Local Traffic Committee meeting on the closure of Grove Street onto the Hume Highway; and

2. To urgently communicate with the Police for surveillance in the area.

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

Confidential Items

ITEM NO: CONF 01

FILE NO: 218638.2022

SUBJECT: Acquisition of Lot 1047 DP2475, 265 Sixth Avenue, Austral

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Hadid Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1. Approves the acquisition of Lot 1047 DP2475, being 265 Sixth Avenue, Austral, within the terms outlined in this confidential report;

2. Authorises the Acting CEO or his delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney, necessary to give effect to this decision;

3. Resolves to classify Lot 1047 DP2475 as “Operational” land in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993; and

4. Keeps confidential this report pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

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

MINUTES OF THE Extraordinary Meeting

HELD ON 9 August 2022

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Ammoun

Councillor Goodman

Councillor Green

Councillor Hadid

Councillor Hagarty (online)

Councillor Harle

Councillor Kaliyanda (online)

Councillor Karnib (online)

Councillor Macnaught

Councillor Rhodes

Mr Peter Diplas, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Paul Perrett, Director Corporate Services

Ms Tina Bono, Director Community & Culture

Mr David Smith, Director Planning & Compliance

Mr Raj Autar, Director Infrastructure & Environment

Mr Matthew Morris, Acting Director City Presentation

Mr David Galpin, General Counsel, Governance Legal & Procurement

Ms Lina Kakish, Manager City Planning

Mr John Milicic, Manager Property

Mr Vishwa Nadan, Chief Financial Officer

Mr George Georgakis, Manager Council and Executive Services

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

OPENING 4.02pm

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY, The prayer of the Council was read by the

PRAYER OF COUNCIL AND Manager, Council and Executive Services from

AFFIRMATION TO BE READ BY Liverpool City Council.

NATIONAL ANTHEM The National Anthem was played at the meeting.

APOLOGIES

Nil

CONDOLENCES

Nil.

Declarations of IntereST

Mayor Mannoun declared a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:

Item: CONF 01 - Opportunity to Purchase a potential Depot Site

Reason: His children attend tutoring in a nearby facility.

Mayor Mannoun remained in the Chambers.

COUNCILLORS ATTENDING REMOTELY

Councillors Hagarty, Kaliyanda and Karnib have requested permission to attend this meeting via MS Teams.

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Green

That Councillors Hagarty, Kaliyanda and Karnib be granted permission to attend the meeting via MS Teams.

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

Council In Closed Session

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Green

That Council move into Closed Session to consider the following items:

● CONF 01 Opportunity to Purchase a potential Depot Site

Pursuant to Section 10A(1)-(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, the media and public to be excluded from the meeting on the basis that the business to be considered is classified confidential under the provisions of:

● 10A(2)(c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Council moved into Closed Session at 4.08pm.

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

Confidential Items

ITEM NO: CONF 01

FILE NO: 267387.2022

SUBJECT: Opportunity to Purchase a potential Depot Site

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Mayor Mannoun Seconded: Clr Macnaught

That Council:

Approve proceeding with a negotiation and due diligence process for the potential purchase of a depot site.

2. Submit an Expression of Interest submission for the potential purchase of the depot site. The terms of the EOI are to be within (but not limited to) the following parameters:

a. Subject to a minimum 4 week due diligence period to allow Council to conduct all the required probity requirements, including but not limited to, valuations, finance (if required), building condition assessments.

b. The offer is to be no greater than the amount specified in the confidential report noting the current offer on the site at the value specified in the confidential report.

c. A settlement period of up to 6 months.

d. The ability to access and occupy the site prior to settlement at no cost.

e. Owners consent to lodge any development applications (if required).

f. Authority to enquire with Transport for NSW (or the relevant authority) of the validity of the mechanical workshop licenses.

3. Approve expenditure associated with the due diligence of up to $50,000 to be funded from unrestricted reserves/general fund.

4. Ensure due diligence includes:

a. a review and any cost benefits of the site in relation to Council’s existing 2018 Depot Masterplan.

b. at least 2 independent valuations of the site by suitably qualified valuers.

Seek to appoint an independent and suitably qualified probity officer as soon as practical to assess all aspects of this process.

Refer this matter and all related documentation for consideration at an extraordinary meeting of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee where possible.

Bring a further report to be presented to Council once the due diligence has been completed, to seek final approval from Council to consider the purchase of the property and that said report is to include a funding strategy and a summary of the changes required to the existing 2018 Depot Masterplan should this purchase be progressed.

Notes the costings outlined in the 2018 Depot Masterplan which included calculations for cost escalations through to 2036.

Notes that Council recently resolved to build a new depot in 2022 and that this purchase would potentially negate that need.

Provide the Acting CEO with required delegations to implement the above.

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

Vote for: Mayor Mannoun, Clr Ammoun, Clr Goodman, Clr Green, Clr Hadid, Clr Hagarty, Clr Kaliyanda, Clr Karnib, Clr Macnaught and Clr Rhodes.

Vote against: Clr Harle.

OPEN SESSION

Council moved back into Open Session at 4.53pm.

Mayor Mannoun then read out the resolution for CONF 01 - Opportunity to Purchase a potential Depot Site that was passed in Closed Session and shown above.

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 4.55pm

Name: Ned Mannoun

Title: Mayor

Date: 31 August 2022

I have authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 9 August 2022. I confirm that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 02

Investment Report July 2022

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Ensure Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic management of assets and resources
File Ref	270485.2022
Report By	Chi Nguyen - Accountant - Investments & Treasury Management
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

This report details Council’s investment portfolio and its performance at 31 July 2022. Key highlights include:

· Council held investments with a market value of $446 million.

· The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has raised the official cash rate from 1.35 per cent to 1.85 per cent. Economic forecasts suggest that the official cash rate may increase to more than 2.0 per cent by December 2022.

· The expected increase in cash rate will improve future interest earnings for Council.

· The portfolio yield (for the year to July 2022) was 151 basis points above the benchmark (AusBond Bank Bill Index)

	AusBond Bank Bill Index (ABBI)
Benchmark	0.22%
Portfolio yield	1.73%
Performance above benchmark	1.51%

· Year-to-date, Council’s investment income was $1.04 million higher than the original budget. This is due to a combination of increase in market interest rate and unrealised gain in fair value of Floating Rate Notes (FRNs).

· Year-to-date, Council’s investment in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) are valued at $557 thousand below face value. Council’s investment advisor (Amicus Advisory) continues to review Council’s investment in MBSs and recommends Council continue to hold its investments in the Class A and both Class C securities. There is significant uncertainty associated with these investments, however presently the investment advisor believes there is, on balance, more upside opportunity than downside risk. This is subject to ongoing regular review. MBSs are no longer 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, noting the exception applicable to MBSs (as investment in them pre-dates the current Investment Policy).

· Council is committed to NSW TCorp’s balanced investment framework and held 25.18 per cent of its portfolio in ADIs 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 31 July 2022, Council held investments with a market value of $446 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.

*Definition of terms

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

· FRB - Fixed Rate Bond – returns a fixed coupon (interest) rate and is tradeable before maturity.

· TCD - Transferrable Certificate of Deposit - 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-day Bank Bill Swap Rate).

The economic environment globally, is suffering significantly from impacts of Covid-19 pandemic and conflict in Ukraine. The fair value of FRN’s particularly those with fixed interest rates, have decreased significantly. This is a mark-to-market issue and will not affect the long term cashflow expectation from these investments. Council has sufficient funds in its current account and has no plans at this stage to sell any of its FRNs to meet its short-term cashflow requirements.

Council is fully compliant with the requirements of the Ministerial Investment Order including the grandfathering^{^[1]} provisions. 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 25.18 per cent of its portfolio in ADIs rated BBB and below.

Mortgaged-backed securities

Council’s investment advisor (Amicus Advisory) regularly reviews investments in grandfathered mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). and continues to recommend “hold” position on investments in Class A and both Class C securities.

There is significant uncertainty associated with these investments, however presently the investment advisors believe there is, on balance, more upside opportunity than downside risk. 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 in the future. Fitch Rating Agency has decided to withdraw its rating on MBSs and as a result, Council’s investments in these securities are now classed as non-rated. Year-to-date, Council’s investment in MBS’s are valued at $557 thousand below face value.

Portfolio maturity profile

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

Counterparty policy limit compliance

Credit rating policy limit compliance

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 for the year to July 2022 exceeded the ABBI index by 151 basis points (portfolio yield: 1.73%; ABBI: 0.22%)

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

Performance of portfolio returns against budget

Year-to-date, Council’s investment income was $1.04 million higher than the original budget. This is due to a combination of increase in market interest rate and unrealised gain in fair value of Floating Rate Notes (FRNs).

	YTD Budget	YTD Actuals	Budget Variance
Interest yield on cash holdings	$0.37m	$0.71m	$0.34m
Fair value market movement	$0m	$0.70m	$0.70m
Total	$0.37m	$1.41m	$1.04m

Investment portfolio at a glance

Portfolio Performance

The portfolio yield for the month of July 2022 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 151 basis points (portfolio yield: 1.73%; ABBI: 0.22%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

Council’s investment income was $1.04 million higher than the original budget at 31 July 2022.

Investment policy compliance

Legislative requirements		Fully compliant, noting exception applicable to grandfathered mortgaged-backed investments.
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 of Australia has increased the official cash rate to 1.85 per cent in its meeting on 3 August 2022. Economic forecasts suggest that the official cash rate may increase to more than 2.0 per cent by December 2022.

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 income was $1.04 million higher than the original budget at 31 July 2022.
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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Investment Portfolio July 2022

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 03

Day-time trial of Council meetings

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Demonstrate a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive governance framework
File Ref	273833.2022
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	George Hampouris - Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement

Executive Summary

To report back on the day-time trial of Council meetings and seek a resolution from Council on the commencement time of future Ordinary Meetings of Council.

The report also addresses the matter of Questions Taken on Notice at Council meetings and recommends an amendment to Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Continue to hold Ordinary Meetings of Council at 2.00pm;

2. Resolve in the future to hold any future meetings in the evening if any future dates are not suitable for 2.00pm starts; and

3. Amend the Code of Meeting Practice to include the following clause under Clause 9.20 Questions:

“Where the question will utilise more than four hours of staff time or incur in excess of $500 in external costs, the Councillor will be invited to submit the matter to Council for determination, in the form of a notice of motion. The Councillor is to be advised if such a question falls within these categories as soon as practicable after the meeting, to allow them the opportunity to submit a Notice of Motion on the matter to the next meeting should they wish.

The exception to this is if the question relates to an item that Council subsequently resolves to defer and that question taken on notice directly will assist Council forming a view or determination when that item is re-considered.”

REPORT

A report on the draft Code of Meeting Practice was considered by Council at its meeting on 30 March 2022.

The following clause was included in the Code which was placed on exhibition:

“Council to trial day-time Council meetings for a period of three months.”

The draft Code was then placed on public exhibition. No submissions were received and a report was submitted to the 25 May 2022 Council meeting to advise Council that in accordance with the 30 March 2022 resolution, the Acting CEO adopted the Code as exhibited.

At the 25 May 2022 meeting, Council resolved to receive and note the report with the following amendments:

- Under Clause 3.1, the day-time trial of Council meetings for a period of three months to start at 2.00pm; and

- The maximum finish time for meetings to be updated in the Code, so that meetings are to be a maximum of 5-hour duration

The June and July Ordinary Meetings of Council commenced at 2.00pm. The August Ordinary Meeting will also commence at 2.00pm being the last month of the three month trial of day-time Council meetings.

Council at the 31 August 2022 meeting will need to resolve the time of Council meetings moving forward.

Clause 3.1 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states:

“The council shall, by resolution, set the frequency, time, date and place of its ordinary meetings.

Council to trial day-time Council meetings for a period of three months from June 2022 with the meetings to start at 2.00pm. Meetings are to be a maximum duration of 5 hours.”

Note: Under section 365 of the Act, Councils are required to meet at least ten (10) times each year, each time in a different month unless the Minister for Local Government has approved a reduction in the number of times that a council is required to meet each year under section 365A.

To assist in deciding when to hold future Council meetings, the following information is provided.

Council promoted the day-time Council meetings on the website and social media and put out a survey to ask the community whether they preferred future Council meetings to commence at 2.00pm to a maximum of 7.00pm, or commence at 6.00pm to a maximum of 11.00pm.

The same survey was sent to staff who are involved in Council meetings.

The results of the survey are provided below.

Internal survey (staff):

14 responses

- 12 support 2.00pm start

- 2 support 6.00pm start

External survey (community):

100 responses

- 91 support 2.00pm start

- 9 support 6.00pm start

Of the combined total of 114 survey responses, 90% preferred Council meetings to commence at 2.00pm.

Data from the webcast was obtained to compare the number of people who viewed the live webcast this year and the number of people who have viewed the recorded webcast on Council’s website.

That data is provided below:

Below is the analytics data for the Ordinary Meetings of Council for the past six months, including the first two 2.00pm meetings:

	Live Views	Replay Views	Total Views
23-Feb	297	244	541
30-Mar	89	209	298
27-Apr	114	148	262
10-May	36	184	220
25-May	123	165	288
29-June 2pm	166	132	298
27-July 2pm	163	106	269

The is no major difference in either live views or replay views from the above figures. The 23 February meeting appears to be an outlier to the trend and therefore most likely the high views were due to a specific circumstance.

Similarly, there hasn’t been a big difference in the number of people attending the Council meetings in person in the public gallery.

Questions with Notice and Questions Taken on Notice

Questions with Notice and Questions Taken on Notice are dealt with in the Code of Meeting Practice in the following manner:

Questions with Notice

3.14 A councillor may, by way of a notice submitted under clause 3.9, ask a question for response by the CEO about the performance or operations of the council. The Question with Notice (QWN) must be in writing and must be submitted by close of business nine (9) business days (not including the day of the meeting) before the meeting is to be held. Where a QWN is received after the nine 9 day cut-off date, the QWN will be put forward to the next ordinary meeting.

3.15 A councillor is not permitted to ask a QWN under clause 3.14 that comprises a complaint against the CEO or a member of staff of the council, or a question that implies wrongdoing by the CEO or a member of staff of the council.

3.16 The CEO or their nominee may respond to a QWN submitted under clause 3.14 by way of a report included in the business papers for the relevant meeting of the council or orally at the meeting. Where a QWN cannot be addressed at the forthcoming meeting, the QWN will be addressed at the next ordinary meeting.

Questions

9.17 A councillor or council employee to whom a question is put is entitled to be given reasonable notice of the question and, in particular, sufficient notice to enable reference to be made to other persons or to documents. Where a council employee to whom a question is put is unable to respond to the question at the meeting at which it is put, they may take it on notice and the response to questions taken on notice at a Council meeting will be provided to Councillors before the next meeting of the council.

9.18 Councillors must put questions directly, succinctly, respectfully and without argument.

9.19 The chairperson must not permit discussion on any reply to, or refusal to reply to, a question put to a councillor or council employee.

2017 version of Code of Meeting Practice

A previous version of the Code of Meeting Practice from 2017 provided for additional clauses relating to Questions asked by Councillors during a Council meeting which were taken on notice.

These provisions are copied below (with some text in bold for emphasis):

31.4. Questions put to a Council employee may be answered immediately or taken on notice for reply in writing within a period of three ordinary days prior to the next scheduled Council meeting

where:

31.4.1. The subject question is classified as normal business;

31.4.2. The answering of the question will utilise no more than two hours of staff time;

31.4.3. The answering of the question will not incur more than $500 in external costs.

31.5. In the event that the relevant information needed to answer the question properly is not available, the response is to be provided within a timeframe agreed between the questioning Councillor

and the Council employee.

31.5.1. Where the question is determined to be classified as non-Council business or will utilise more than two hours of staff time or incur in excess of $500 in external costs, the Councillor will be invited to submit the matter to Council for determination, in the form of a notice of motion.

Upon review of the above provisions in the previous Code of Meeting Practice, it is considered prudent to consider amending Council’s current Code of Meeting Practice to include something similar.

Councillors have an opportunity to submit Questions with Notice on the Council Agenda (as per Clauses 3.14 – 3.16 above) for a response to be provided (on the Agenda) and no changes are suggested to those clauses.

Questions asked during a Council meeting are dealt with in accordance with Clauses 9.17 – 9.19 shown above.

There is merit in adding a provision similar to that of the 2017 Code as sometimes a question is taken on notice during consideration of a matter which is then resolved by Council (at the same meeting), however staff are still responding to the question taken on notice (which may no longer be relevant). In some instances, it could take a long time to provide that response, or it may involve external expenses.

By including the suggested clause below, the Councillor will be advised if any questions fall within that category and if so, the Councillor would be required to submit a Notice of Motion for consider to consider whether the response is to be provided.

It is therefore recommended that the following clause be added to Council’s Code of Meeting Practice under Questions:

9.20 “Where the question will utilise more than four hours of staff time or incur in excess of $500 in external costs, the Councillor will be invited to submit the matter to Council for determination, in the form of a notice of motion. The Councillor is to be advised if such a question falls within these categories as soon as practicable after the meeting, to allow them the opportunity to submit a Notice of Motion on the matter to the next meeting should they wish.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are cost savings by holding meetings in the day rather than the evening. This is by way of time in lieu/flex leave accrual which award staff receive for attending evening meetings.

In some instances, certain staff are entitled to claim overtime when working beyond 6.00pm.

An estimate of cost savings in having Council meeting held during the day is $5,000 in overtime per annum and an estimated combined total of 400 hours per annum in time in lieu/flex leave for staff.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	An estimate of cost savings in having Council meeting held during the day is $5,000 in overtime per annum and an estimated combined total of 400 hours per annum in time in lieu/flex leave for staff.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Under section 365 of the Act, Councils are required to meet at least ten (10) times each year, each time in a different month.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low and is considered to be within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 01

Draft Local Planning Agreement in conjunction with DA-922/2021 at 47-53 Seventeenth Avenue, Austral

Strategic Objective	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Implement planning controls and best practice urban design to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	131530.2022
Report By	Claire Scott - Coordinator Contributions Planning
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

Council received Development Application (DA-922/2021) for the demolition of existing structures and subdivision to create 51 residential lots, together with the construction of roads and associated civil works at 47 – 53 Seventeenth Avenue, Austral on 12 August 2021.

The applicant subsequently lodged a Class 1 deemed refusal appeal on 20 October 2021 with the Land and Environment Court. As part of the appeal process, a conciliation conference under Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act was held on 7 February 2022. The main contention related to floodplain engineering requirements.

It was agreed at the conciliation conference that the most appropriate mechanism to alleviate water quality concerns was to construct a gross pollutant trap.

The technical assessments provided to Council for consideration indicated the most appropriate Gross Pollutant trap (GPT) is the CDS GPT or equivalent design. Based on similar projects undertaken by Council, the supply and installation of the GPT would cost approximately $400,000 (GST Inclusive).

The approximate cost was agreed between the parties and an apportioned cost of these works was identified. The apportioned developer cost equated to $95,000. The legal mechanism for Council to obtain monetary contributions for the supply and installation of the GPT, outside of a local contributions plan, is in the form of a Planning Agreement.

To meet the conditions of consent, the applicant prepared a draft planning agreement for Council’s consideration and endorsement, which details the provision of a monetary contribution by the developer of $95,000, being their apportioned contribution towards the design and installation of the GPT. The remaining cost of the GPT ($305,000) will be met by Council or alternatively recouped in a new contribution plan schedule of works.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft local planning agreement for a monetary contribution towards the provision of a Gross Pollutant Trap and directs the A/CEO to publicly exhibit the planning agreement and accompanying explanatory note for a period of 28 days.

2. Delegate authority to the A/CEO (or delegate), subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition, to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor alterations.

REPORT

During assessment of DA-922/2021, Council considered there to be significant constraints in the catchment area because of the proposed development to subdivide 2 lots into 51 individual lots. The initial stormwater design by Orion Consulting considered the provision of rainwater tanks within the individual lots, which was not acceptable at the time of the assessment. The stormwater design was required to be revised excluding the water tanks from the individual lots.

The stormwater design by Orion Consulting (Ref: 21-0101, WSUD Catchment Plan – Plan: 400, Revision: B, dated: 15/07/2021) indicates that the proposed development site is divided into two sub-catchments. The southern sub-catchment, which is smaller in size will directly discharge into the creek through a stormwater pipe. The stormwater flow from the northern sub-catchment will be directed to an existing water quality basin located within Lot 153 DP 2475, being 90 Eighteenth Avenue, Austral, which was provided for the subdivision under DA-851/2017. The water quality basin size shall be upgraded so that it can achieve the water quality target without the provision of water tanks within the individual lots.

Since stormwater flows from the proposed subdivision site are directly discharged into the creek, the design shall include the provision of a gross pollutant trap (GPT) at the stormwater outlet. The GPT shall be installed when building construction within 80% lots are completed (approximately).

An interim onsite water quality basin shall also be provided for the southern sub-catchment. The basin shall be sized without the provision of water tanks within the individual lots.

Class 1 Appeal

On 20 October 2021, the applicant of DA-922/2021 filed a Class 1 Appeal with the Land and Environment Court. As part of the appeal process, a conciliation conference was held on 7 February 2022. It was agreed the most appropriate mechanism to alleviate the water quality concerns at the site was to construct and install a Gross Pollutant Trap at the site. The outcomes of the conciliation conference are discussed further in this report.

Figure 1: Location of Gross Pollutant Trap

Figure 2: Aerial view of the subject site.

Section 34 Conciliation Conference

The Section 34 Conciliation Conference was held on 7 February 2022 in which the following Floodplain Engineering particulars related to the construction of a GPT were discussed:

Contention

Particular

Discussion Prior to Section 34 Conciliation Conference

Discussion at Section 34 Conciliation Conference (07/02/2022)

3-19(d)

An interim onsite water quality basin shall be provided for the southern sub-catchment. The basin shall be sized without the provision of water tanks within the individual lots.

06.01.22 – Respondent advised it would consider a GPT as an alternative to interim on-site water quality basin.

01.02.22 – Parties agreed to condition GPT requirement via a bank guarantee pursuant to section 4.17(6)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203. Orion presently preparing scope and costing, to be provided to Respondent for approval.

Parties still agreed to condition GPT requirement via a bank guarantee. Orion indicate they are preparing scope and costing, to be provided to Respondent for approval.

3-19(e)

Since stormwater flows from the proposed subdivision site are directly discharged into the creek, the design shall include the provision of gross pollutant traps (GPT) at the stormwater outlets. The GPT shall be installed when building constructions within 80% lots are completed (approximately).

Same as above.

Parties still agreed to condition GPT requirement via a bank guarantee. Orion indicate they are preparing scope and costing, to be provided to Respondent for approval.

Planning Agreement and Court Order

As the GPT for the development was not identified in any contribution plan that would apply to the land, Council’s only mechanism to receive a monetary contribution towards the apportionment of the design and implementation is via a planning agreement.

Both parties agreed that this was the legal mechanism, therefore the court amended the conditions of consent noting the following:

Condition 8: the applicant is to enter into a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) in accordance with the irrevocable letter of offer from Keypoint Law, on behalf of the applicant, dated 16 February 2022 (attachment 7). The VPA relates to the provision of Gross Pollutant Trap (GPT) at the site, wherein Liverpool City Council will pay for and construct the GPT at the site and the applicant will contribute to the payment of the GPT as agreed within the VPA.

The consent noted that the applicant must meet this condition prior to the issue of a construction certificate (subdivision works certificate).

Although the mechanism is agreed between the parties and made by Court Order, the draft Planning agreement must still be endorsed by Council and placed on public exhibition for a minimum 28 days.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The impact on the budget and long-term financial plan are outlined in the table below. A financial allocation will need to be made in the 2024/25 Operational Plan for delivery.

	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26
Operating budget / LTFP impact
Capital budget impact			-$305,000
Ongoing unbudgeted impact to opex from capital expenditure				-$2,500
Unbudgeted impact to unrestricted cash
Funding source	+$95,000 (VPA)		-$95,000 (VPA)

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Explanatory Note (Under separate cover)

2. Draft Local Planning Agreement (Under separate cover)

3. ASIC report (Under separate cover) - Confidential

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 02

Planning proposal request to amend development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 at 61-71 Goulburn Street, Liverpool

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Deliver effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best outcomes for a growing city
File Ref	238668.2022
Report By	Cameron Jewell - Senior Strategic Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Property	Lot 9 Sec 41 DP 758620, Lot 1 DP 25642, Lot 20 DP 1113807, Lot 8 Sec 41 DP 758620, Lot 2 DP 610334 and Lot 1 DP 610334
Owner	J & D Sacco Pty Ltd
Applicant	Dino Sacco

Executive Summary

Council is in receipt of a planning proposal request for land at 61-71 Goulburn Street, Liverpool (Lot 9 Sec 41 DP 758620, Lot 1 DP 25642, Lot 20 DP 1113807, Lot 8 Sec 41 DP 758620, Lot 2 DP 610334 and Lot 1 DP 610334) (Attachment 1).

The planning proposal request seeks to amend floor space ratio (FSR) and height of building (HOB) development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LEP) to facilitate the development of a private hospital (health services facility), consulting and education suite space, and ancillary retail. The proposed change to the HOB development standard is from 35m to 79m and the proposed change to the FSR development standard is from a base of 2.5:1 (increasing to 3.5:1 under Clause 4.4(2)(c)) to 6.9:1. The proposed amendments to the LEP intend to facilitate the development of approximately:

· 155 private hospital beds;

· 12,540m² GFA of consulting and education suite space; and

· 353m²GFA of retail.

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the LEP and health services facilities are not a permissible use in the B4 zone, but are permitted with consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Infrastructure SEPP), therefore no change to the land use table in the B4 zone under the LEP is proposed.

Council planning officers have assessed the planning proposal request as having strategic and site-specific merit (Attachment 2). This support is contingent on Council further consulting with the Department of Planning and Environment and the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to develop controls that would tie the increase in height and FSR to the development of health services facilities and associated ancillary uses and protect against unintended uses being pursued on the site.

The planning proposal request was considered by the Liverpool Local Planning Panel (LLPP). The majority of the Panel (3 to 1) agreed with Council’s planning assessment that the proposal demonstrates strategic and site-specific merit (Attachment 3). The dissenting member of the Panel indicated that the proposal did not have site-specific merit due to the scale of the development in relation to the surrounding environment. The Panel advised that the proposal as lodged should proceed to a Gateway determination, with an urban design study and further market needs analysis recommended to be conducted prior to exhibition of the planning proposal.

It is recommended that Council endorse in principle the planning proposal request and forward the proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) seeking a Gateway determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

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

2. Endorses in principle the planning proposal request to amend the floor space ratio and height of buildings development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

3. Delegates to the Acting CEO (or delegate) to prepare the formal planning proposal including any typographical or editing amendments if required.

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

5. Recommends to the Department of Planning and Environment that a detailed economic demand analysis be conditioned as part of any Gateway determination.

6. Subject to Gateway determination, undertake public exhibition and community consultation in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway determination and the Liverpool Community Participation Plan.

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

8. Advises the proponent of Council’s decision.

Report

Background

In February 2020, Council was invited to comment on the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) pertaining to a private hospital at 61-71 Goulburn Street, Liverpool (Lot 9 Sec 41 DP 758620, Lot 1 DP 25642, Lot 20 DP 1113807, Lot 8 Sec 41 DP 758620, Lot 2 DP 610334 and Lot 1 DP 610334).

The proposal sought a Clause 4.6 variation to depart from the FSR development standard in the LEP from a maximum of 3.5:1 to 5.1:1. This represented an approximately 46% variation. Council indicated that given the magnitude of non-compliance with the development standard, it would be more appropriate for the changes sought to be progressed through a planning proposal rather than through a Clause 4.6 variation as part of the SSDA application. The Department agreed and in April 2020 advised the proponent to submit a planning proposal to Council to amend development standards before pursuing the SSDA.

In December 2021, Council received a planning proposal request in relation to the subject land, seeking the following amendments to Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LEP):

· Amend the maximum height of buildings development standard from 35m to 91m; and

· Amend the floor space ratio development standard from 2.5:1 (increasing to 3.5:1 under Clause 4.4(2)(c)) to 7.9:1.

Following internal consultation, Council staff recommended that the proposal be amended to address concerns relating to bulk and scale, overshadowing of neighbouring residential apartments and Bigge Park, and the amount of speculative floor space provided for consulting and education suite space.

The proponent provided a revised planning proposal request (Attachment 1) and supporting documentation to Council in May 2022, which reduced the increase in FSR and HOB development standard previously sought as follows:

· Amend the maximum height of buildings development standard from 35m to 79m; and

· Amend the floor space ratio development standard from 2.5:1 (increasing to 3.5:1 under Clause 4.4(2)(c)) to 6.9:1.

The Site

The planning proposal request relates to six lots along 61-71 Goulburn Street, Liverpool (see Figure 1). The site area is approximately 4,674m².

Figure 1: Subject site. Source: Nearmap

The site presently comprises three four-storey residential apartment buildings, a single-storey dwelling house and a double-storey detached garage.

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use (Figure 2) and has additional permitted uses under Schedule 1 of the LEP, whereby:

· Development for the purposes of light industry is permitted with consent but only if the industry is medical research and development; and

· Development for the purposes of office premises is permitted with consent but only with respect to the medical or health industries.

Zoning

Figure 2: LLEP 2008 Zoning

The site also contains an easement for the drainage of water, which is proposed to be relocated.

Under the LEP, the site currently has an FSR development standard of 2.5:1 (and up to 3.5:1 pursuant to Clause 4.4(2)(c) of the LLEP2008 and a HOB development standard of 35m.

The northern part of the site is impacted by the helicopter flight path for Liverpool Hospital, which is illustrated on the Key Sites Map (Figure 3). LLEP 2008 Section 7.17A Hospital helicopter airspace states:

(1) The objective of this clause is to protect hospital helicopter airspace.

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development under, or that intrudes into, hospital helicopter airspace unless the consent authority—

(a) refers the application for development consent to the chief executive of the relevant local health district, and

(b) considers any submission to the consent authority by the chief executive made within 21 days of the referral, and

(c) is satisfied the development does not present a hazard to helicopters using hospital helicopter airspace.

Figure 3: Key Sites Map

While this is not a prohibition on development, the Local Health District comments are required to be taken into consideration when assessing a development application. If the proposal receives a Gateway determination, it is expected that consultation occurs with the Local Health District at the exhibition stage.

The site is also part of the Bigge Park Heritage Conservation Area (Figure 4). Prior to any development within the Conservation Area or alteration to any building, structure or landscape feature, a Statement of Heritage Impact is to be prepared to assess the impact of the proposal on the significance of the Conservation Area. This has been provided (Attachment 4).

Figure 4: Heritage Map (NSW Legislation 2021).

The Locality

The site is in the Liverpool City Centre to the north of Bigge Park and directly adjacent to Liverpool Hospital (Figure 5). The block is bounded by Campbell Street to the north, Elizabeth Street to the south and Bigge St to the west. It is approximately 500m from Liverpool Train Station.

The site in zoned B4 Mixed Use under the Liverpool LEP, with the adjacent hospital zoned SP2 (Health Services Facility and Educational Establishment) and Bigge Park to the south which is zoned RE1 Public Recreation. There is land zoned R4 High Density Residential immediately to the north. It is surrounded by residential apartment buildings to the north, south and west, and Liverpool Hospital to the east.

Figure 5: Locality

The proposal falls within an area known as the Liverpool Innovation Precinct (Figure 6). The Land Use Analysis and Precinct Strategy for the Liverpool Innovation Precinct indicates there is desire for a new private hospital with close connectivity to key clinical functions of Liverpool Hospital.

Figure 6: Liverpool Innovation Precinct boundary

Planning Proposal Summary

The planning proposal request seeks to amend the HOB and FSR development standards applying to the site to facilitate a building comprising a private hospital (155 beds), health consulting rooms (~12,540m² GFA) and retail (~353m²GFA). Total GFA sought is 32,280m².

Figure 7: Proposed built form concept (source: Hatch Roberts Day)

A summary of the proposed amendments and the existing planning controls are defined below:

	Existing	Proposed
Floor Space Ratio	2.5:1 (with a max of 3.5:1 pursuant to Clause 4.4(2)(c) of the LLEP2008)	6.9:1
Height (max)	35m	79m

The planning proposal request does not seek to amend the zoning of the site. The proposal is consistent with the B4 zone objectives, which are:

· To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

· To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To allow for residential and other accommodation in the Liverpool city centre, while maintaining active retail, business or other non-residential uses at street level.

· To facilitate a high standard of urban design, convenient urban living and exceptional public amenity.

Commercial premises (i.e., supporting retail) are permitted with consent in the B4 zone and while ‘health services facilities’ are prohibited in the B4 zone, Clause 57(1) of the Infrastructure SEPP indicates the B4 zone as a prescribed zone where ‘health services facilities’ are permissible.

Council has indicated that the planning proposal should contain provisions so that additional HOB and FSR are only able to be accessed if used for purposes related to health services facilities.

The proponent has suggested the following additional local provision:

7.4x Development at 61-71 Goulburn Street, Liverpool

(1) This clause applies to 61-71 Goulburn Street, being SP 18729, Lot 8 Section 41 DP 758620, Lot 20 DP 1113807, Lot 1 DP 25642, Lot 2 DP 610334 and Lot 1 DP 610334.

(2) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building on land described in subclause (1) with building height shown on the Height of Buildings Map [as amended] and floor space ratio shown on the Floor Space Ratio Map [as amended], unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building is used for the purposes of health services facility and its associated ancillary uses only.

It would be preferable for the site to be included as a ‘key site’ on the Key Sites Map, tied to an additional local provision that allows an increase in HOB and FSR to be accessed for the purposes of development of health services facilities. Health services facilities may also need to be added as an additional permitted use.

Council will further consult with DPE and the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) to develop controls that would tie the increase in height and FSR to the development of health services facilities and associated ancillary uses and protect against unintended uses being pursued on the site.

The planning proposal request is accompanied by supporting consultant reports, including:

· Heritage impact statement (Attachment 4);

· Urban design report (Attachment 5);

· Transport assessment (Attachment 6);

· Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) and stormwater report (Attachment 7);

· Visual impact assessment (Attachment 8);

· Preliminary Aboriginal cultural heritage and historical archaeological advice (Attachment 9)

· Preliminary geotechnical assessment (Attachment 10);

· Preliminary site investigation (Attachment 11);

· Noise and vibration impact assessment (Attachment 12);

· Socio-economic impact assessment (Attachment 13);

· Market needs analysis (Attachment 14);

· Landscape strategy report (Attachment 15);

· Civil engineering plans (Attachment 16);

· Survey plan (Attachment 17); and

· Architectural plans (Attachment 18).

The concept design indicates the potential for a 20-storey building (with four basement levels) that includes nine storeys of hospital use, and 11 storeys of medical and education suites (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Proposed section (source: Hatch Roberts Day)

Planning Assessment

The planning assessment report considered by the Liverpool Local Planning Panel (LPP) is provided at Attachment 2. It includes an assessment of the merits of the proposal against the District and Region Plan, the Liverpool Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and the Department of Planning’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’. The report concluded that the planning proposal request has both site-specific and strategic merit.

Local Planning Panel advice

The planning proposal request was referred to the Liverpool Local Planning Panel for advice as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals. The advice of the LPP is included as Attachment 3.

The Panel agreed (3-1) with Council’s assessment that the proposal had strategic and site-specific merit and should proceed to a Gateway determination. However, the Panel indicated there was an absence of contextual and economic justification for the proposed extent of the uplift in height and FSR development standards. It recommended that further urban design testing and economic justification be provided prior to exhibition (post-Gateway) to confirm an appropriate scale. An urban design study was recommended for the block that the proposal is on, bounded by Bigge, Campbell, Goulburn, and Elizabeth Streets, to better understand the future desired character of the area. A more considered analysis of economic demand for the floor space proposed was recommended to confirm that the height proposed – some of which is for speculative development – is necessary.

The dissenting member of the Panel indicated that based on the information provided, the proposal did not demonstrate site-specific merit due to the scale of the development (height and FSR) in relation to the surrounding environment, indicating the proposal was an excessive increase that would result in a building incongruous with the surrounding built form and character.

The Panel advised that the proposal as lodged should proceed to Gateway, with the abovementioned urban design study recommended to be conducted prior to exhibition.

Next Steps

If Council adopts the recommendation, the planning proposal will be reformatted into Council’s template and forwarded to DPE seeking a Gateway determination.

Consultation

The proposal was placed on preliminary exhibition for 28 days between 2 February 2022 and 1 March 2022, as per the requirements of Council’s Community Participation Plan. No submissions were received.

Council also engaged with the Southwest Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) during this period, and was advised that substantive issues relating to the proposal could be addressed during the formal exhibition phase post-Gateway.

CoNCLUSION

Council has assessed the planning proposal request as having sufficient strategic and site-specific merit, and it is recommended that the proposal proceed to DPE for a Gateway determination.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A $75,000 lodgement fee has been paid by the proponent for the assessment and processing of this planning proposal request.

CONSIDERATIONS

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.
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	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Proposal (Under separate cover)

2. Local Planning Panel Report (Under separate cover)

3. Local Planning Panel Advisory Minutes (Under separate cover)

4. Historical Impact Statement (Under separate cover)

5. Urban Design Report (Under separate cover)

6. Transport Assessment (Under separate cover)

7. WSUD and Stormwater Report (Under separate cover)

8. Visual Impact Assessment Report (Under separate cover)

9. Preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Historical Archaeologoical Advice (Under separate cover)

10. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment (Under separate cover)

11. Preliminary Site Investigation (Under separate cover)

12. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Under separate cover)

13. Socio-economic Impact Assessment (Under separate cover)

14. Market Needs Analysis (Under separate cover)

15. Landscape Strategy Report (Under separate cover)

16. Civil Engineering Plans (Under separate cover)

17. Survey Plan (Under separate cover)

18. Architectural Plans (Under separate cover)

19. ASIC Extract (Under separate cover) - Confidential

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 03

Liverpool Local Environmental Plan Review - Draft Scoping Report

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Deliver effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best outcomes for a growing city
File Ref	242976.2022
Report By	Nancy-Leigh Norris - Executive Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 2 February 2022, Council endorsed the ‘100 Day Plan’, which included the commitment to “start the process to create a new Liverpool LEP as a matter of urgency”.

The preparation of a new Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LEP), which will replace the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008), requires the development of a Principal LEP Planning Proposal (planning proposal), as per the Department of Planning and Environments ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’.

Stage 1 of this process is the pre-lodgement phase, where a Scoping Report is prepared, and preliminary consultation with the Department of Planning and Environment and relevant agencies occurs, prior to the development of the planning proposal. Council will also undertake engagement with the community on the Scoping Report, in accordance with the requirements of the Liverpool Community Participation Plan.

Councillor workshops held in May and June 2022 determined the scope for the new LEP. At its meeting on 27 July 2022, Council endorsed high level principles for land use planning for residential, commercial, and industrial land under the new LEP. These high-level principles provided direction for the Scoping Report.

The Draft Scoping Report contains a broad overview of what the future planning proposal will comprise. It details the context, proposed changes, and strategic merit for residential, commercial, industrial and environmental land. The report contains a number of attachments detailing the draft changes to each residential suburb, commercial area, or industrial precinct. A key aspect of the Scoping Report is the proposed reduction in residential and commercial height of buildings development standards within suburban areas to a maximum of 12m, with certain exceptions applying as noted in this report.

It is important to note that the Scoping Report and its attachments contain initial draft recommendations only. Further investigations and studies will be required prior to making draft recommendations within the planning proposal itself. The Scoping Report intends to facilitate preliminary discussion with the community and the Department of Planning and Environment prior to the development of the planning proposal, which will also undergo further engagement.

The Scoping Report (Attachment 1) and its attachments (Attachments 2 - 5) are supported by the LEP Review Project Plan (Attachment 6) and Community Engagement Strategy (Attachment 7).

It is recommended that Council endorse the Scoping Report and attachments to proceed with engagement with the community and the Department of Planning and Environment.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the draft Scoping Report and Attachments to proceed with community engagement in accordance with the LEP Review Community Engagement Strategy and Liverpool Community Participation Plan, including engagement with the Department of Planning and Environment.

2. Delegates authority to the A/CEO (or delegate) to make minor or typographical changes to the draft Scoping Report and its attachments prior to public exhibition; and

3. Receives a further report back on the outcomes of the early community and stakeholder engagement.

REPORT

100 Day Plan & LEP Review Councillor Workshops

At its meeting on 2 February 2022, Council endorsed the ‘100 Day Plan’, which included the following commitments:

14. “Start the process to create a new Liverpool LEP as a matter of urgency”.

13. “Prepare a planning proposal to lower the height of buildings development standards in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 down to 12m in the following suburbs:

a) Chipping Norton

b) Wattle Grove

c) Hammondville

d) Casula

e) Prestons

f) Carnes Hill

g) Cecil Hills

h) Green Valley”

In response to Council’s resolution, four Councillor workshops were held in May and June 2022 to determine the scope and vision for the new Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LEP). This included the lowering of building heights to 12m generally across the LEP application area and addressing this matter as part of the LEP review.

Following these workshops, ‘Principles for the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan’ were adopted by Council at its meeting on 27 July 2022. These principles set general guidance on how residential, commercial and industrial land is to be managed under the new LEP and are detailed further within this report.

The Strategic Planning Framework

The Sydney Region Plan (Region Plan) and the Western City District Plan (District Plan) comprises the strategic planning framework at the State Government level applying to the Liverpool LGA. Strategic planning at the Local Government level is required to align with the Western City District Plan.

Council has recently established its local strategic planning framework, comprising of the following plans, which align with the Region Plan and District Plan:

· Liverpool’s Local Strategic Planning Statement “Connected Liverpool 2040 (LSPS);

· Local Housing Strategy;

· Centres & Corridor Strategy; and

· Industrial & Employment Lands Strategy.

Previous community engagement informed actions within the adopted LSPS and Land Use Strategies. Various short and medium term actions are to be addressed within the new Liverpool LEP, as noted in the Scoping Report. This will ensure the new LEP reflects the community’s strategic vision and is also in alignment with the Region Plan and District Plan.

Liverpool LEP Scoping Report

Creating a new LEP requires the development of a ‘Principal LEP Planning Proposal’ (planning proposal), as per the Department of Planning and Environment’s (the Department) ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’. Prior to the development of a planning proposal, a Scoping Report is required. The Scoping Report is part of the ‘Stage 1 – Pre-lodgement’ phase, where Council will consult with the Department on the scope of the future planning proposal.

Council’s Community Participation Plan states “For large scale planning proposals, Council will also exhibit the planning proposal for 28 days prior to a Council decision on whether to endorse the planning proposal for a Gateway determination. Feedback from the community will be incorporated into a report to Council.” (CPP 2019, p14). This is above the Department’s requirements for community consultation, and Council will use this Scoping Report to conduct early consultation with the community.

The Draft Scoping Report for endorsement (Attachment 1) contains a broad overview of what the future Liverpool LEP Principal Planning Proposal will comprise, with chapters detailing the context, proposed changes and strategic merit for residential, commercial, industrial and environmental land. The report contains a number of attachments detailing the proposed changes to each residential suburb, commercial area or industrial precinct.

The process and timeframes for the new LEP is outlined on the following page.

Objective of the Principal LEP Planning Proposal

The objectives of the future Principal LEP Planning Proposal are to:

1. Establish a new Liverpool Local Environmental Plan, in line with the strategic vision of the Western Sydney District Plan (District Plan) and Liverpool Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS);

2. Implement endorsed Land Use Strategy actions, developed as part of the accelerated Local Environmental Plan review project to inform the new LEP; and

3. Repeal the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

Land to which the Planning Proposal Applies

Various Environmental Planning Instruments apply across the Liverpool Local Government Area. The Principal LEP Planning Proposal is to cover the same extent of land as the LLEP 2008 currently does, being the area in blue within the image below.

Image 1: Application of the LLEP 2008 across the Liverpool LGA

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

Land to which the Planning Proposal Applies (continued)

The Scoping Report (and future planning proposal) has a specific focus on the established suburban areas, specifically within the eastern half of the LGA. This is to address actions within endorsed strategies which primarily focus on this portion of the LGA. The western portion of the LLEP 2008, primarily containing rural zoned land, is not a specific focus of this planning proposal, as the Rural Lands Strategy has not been prepared at this point in time. Following future engagement and endorsement of a Rural Lands Strategy, a separate planning proposal addressing any required changes to rural land will be prepared.

Residential Land in the LEP

Chapter 2 of the Scoping Report focuses on residential land. This chapter details the context of residential land in the LGA, including findings from the Local Housing Study and Strategy, how residential land is managed under the LLEP 2008, and emerging residential land trends.

Within the LLEP 2008, there are 29 suburbs which apply the residential land use zones. There is variation across each residential suburb in regard to their period of development, existing and emerging built form, proximity to infrastructure, demographics, and suitability and feasibility for additional residential development.

To apply a consistent approach to the management of residential land under the new LEP, each suburb has been classified as one of the following (Refer to Attachment 2 of this report):

· City Centre Suburb: Suburbs with residential land within the Liverpool Central Business District boundary;

· Town Centre Suburb: Suburbs with residential areas surrounding existing or future Town Centres, as identified within the Liverpool Centres & Corridors Strategy;

· High Density Suburbs: Suburbs with residential areas not surrounding the City Centre or Town Centre, yet contain high density land due to presence of existing high density housing stock, provision of a train station, or along major road corridors;

· Medium Density Suburbs: Suburbs with residential areas not surrounding the City Centre or Town Centre, yet contain other features, e.g. Local Centre and/or Neighbourhood Centre, train station, recreation facilities etc, which can support medium and low density development types; or

· Low Density Suburb: Suburbs with limited infrastructure and services available and appropriate for low density residential development only.

At its meeting on 27 July 2022, Council endorsed five principles for managing residential land under the new LEP. The Scoping Report and its Residential Land Attachment provide draft recommendations on how these principles are to be addressed, and a summary is provided below:

1. Encourage high density residential development in the vicinity of the Liverpool City Centre and Town Centers, and along transport corridors

The application of high density residential zoned land as per the LLEP 2008 (typically R4 High Density Residential, and also R1 General Residential) is to remain in and around the Liverpool City Centre, i.e. within the suburbs of Liverpool and Warwick Farm. High density residential zoned areas are proposed to remain around the Town Centres of Moorebank, Casula, Miller, Green Valley and Edmondson Park. It is noted that Carnes Hill does not currently apply the R4 High Density Residential zone in the vicinity of its Town Centre, and no high density residential is proposed in Carnes Hill as part of this Scoping Report.

The R4 High Density Residential zone application is to remain near Holsworthy train station, and along Hoxton Park Road within the suburbs of Lurnea and Cartwright, and also on certain land where high density residential land has already been developed (Chipping Norton and Ashcroft).

Where the R4 High Density Residential zone is applied under the LLEP 2008, however does not meet the above requirements (near Liverpool City Centre, Town Centre or along a transport corridor), it is to be changed to R3 Medium Density Residential. This has occurred on certain land within Chipping Norton and Ashcroft.

The maximum height of buildings within the R4 High Density Residential zone is generally to be reduced to 12m under the new LEP (as per the 100 Day Plan). This results in a proposed reduction in height within the R4 High Density Residential zone in the following suburbs:

· Moorebank (currently 12m, 15m & 18m)

· Casula (currently 12m, 15m & 18m)

· Green Valley (currently 12m & 15m)

· Ashcroft (currently 18m)

The following are proposed exceptions to the 12m height of building limit within high density residential areas:

· Liverpool: The R4 High Density Residential land within the suburb of Liverpool allows a range in heights from 12m-77m. This area forms part of the Liverpool City Centre, and heights greater than 12m are therefore appropriate to be retained to encourage residential growth within the City Centre. It is noted that certain R4 High Density Residential land in Liverpool located west of the T-Way is recommended to be reduced from 15m to 12m, as the suburb transitions away from the City Centre to suburban areas.

· Warwick Farm: Certain R4 High Density Residential land within Warwick Farm forms part of the City Centre area, and therefore heights greater than 12m are to remain (currently 35m south of the Hume Highway). High density zoned land to the north of the Hume Highway is to retain its existing permissible heights of 21m, as engagement with NSW Land & Housing is recommended prior to reduction in heights in this area.

· Miller (and surrounding Busby & Sadlier): The R4 High Density Residential land in this area is to retain its current permissible heights of 15m, 18m and 21m, until a wholistic review of land use occurs in this area in conjunction with NSW Land & Housing.

· Edmondson Park: The R1 General Residential zone allows for heights of 15m along Bernera Road, and 21m closer to the Edmondson Park Town Centre. It is recommended these heights are retained, as the height forms an appropriately scaled corridor leading to the new Town Centre.

· Lurnea & Cartwright: The R4 High Density Residential zone currently allows for heights of 12m, 15m and 18m along Hoxton Park Road. This is recommended to be retained, as it will create a visual corridor leading into and out of the Liverpool City Centre.

2. Facilitate appropriate transitions from R4 High Density to R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land

The R3 Medium Density Residential zone is to be generally applied around the R4 High Density Residential zone to ensure a transition in built form from high to low density areas. The current application of the R4 High Density and R3 Medium Density Residential zones in certain land under the LLEP 2008 will lead to interface issues if development was to occur, as road separation between the two zones is not applied.

The Scoping Report proposes improvements to R4 High Density and R3 Medium Density interfaces in following suburbs:

· Liverpool

· Casula

· Green Valley

· Lurnea

· Cartwright

3. Promote high quality medium density residential development near centers

The R3 Medium Density zone is to generally remain as it currently applies within the LLEP 2008, as it is typically located within walking distance to centres. Additional R3 Medium Density Residential land is being investigated in parts of Chipping Norton around the Epsom Road Local Centre.

In some areas where the LLEP 2008 currently applies the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, recent low density residential development has occurred. This results in a transition to medium density uses in the future as being unlikely to occur. In these instances, the R2 Low Density Residential zone is recommended to be applied. This includes certain land within:

· Wattle Grove

· Carnes Hill

· Moorebank

· Prestons

· Cecil Hills

The application of SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP) is being investigated as part of the LEP Review. This includes investigating:

· The addition of ‘dual occupancy’ as a permissible use within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the new LEP. This would be adding a new form of housing to the LEP, allowing it to be developed by either a complying development pathway, or a development application; and

· The addition of minimum lot sizes for ‘multi dwellings’ (and dual occupancies if added as a permissible use) into the new LEP. The addition of minimum lot sizes would override smaller lot size requirements in the Codes SEPP, and is a way to set the character of the area whilst allowing complying development under the Codes SEPP to occur.

Changes to development standards, such as 9m height (increased from 8.5m under the LLEP 2008) are proposed. It is noted a specific workshop will be held with Council and industry on multi dwelling housing design. This is to occur as part of public exhibition.

4. Incentivise multi dwelling development in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone to support housing diversity

The Scoping Report notes ways to incentivise the development of medium density development across the LEP area. There will be further investigation on incentives for medium density developments on large sites (i.e. where sites are amalgamated) in the vicinity of the Liverpool City Centre, Town Centres, Local Centres. For example the Hill PDA Review suggested sites within 200m of a centre with 3,500sqm site area receive 1:1 FSR, and sites within 400m of a centre with 1,600sqm receive 0.8:1 FSR. This is subject to further design and feasibility testing.

5. Protect suburban character of low-density residential areas

The R2 Low Density Residential zone is to be generally applied in areas beyond walking distance of centres, and where recent development has predominantly delivered low density housing forms (as noted in principle 3 above).

New permissible uses within the low density zone is being investigated, including:

· Dual Occupancies: The addition of ‘dual occupancy’ as a permissible use would be adding a new form of housing to the LEP, allowing it to be developed by either a complying development pathway, or a development application. If dual occupancies were added as permissible, it would be subject to lot size requirements to ensure its development was reflective of the suburban character of these areas. Further testing and lot analysis will occur on this matter; and

· Neighbourhood shops: Low Density Residential areas are typically greater than walking distance to retail, and in some cases are further than 2km to a supermarket. The addition of neighbourhood shops would provide for minor retail needs in areas lacking local retail, and would be limited to 100sqm under clause 5.4 of the LEP.

Minimum subdivision lot size under the LLEP 2008 is generally 300sqm in the R2 Low Density zone. It is recommended a minimum lot size of 400sqm is applied under the new LEP. Initial analysis shows approximately 11,500 lots (more than 1/3 of lots) in the R2 zone are over 600sqm, therefore can be subdivided into small lots. These small lot subdivisions are emerging in low density areas, and are not reflective of the low density scale of the area.

The 400sqm minimum lot size will allow increased room for landscaping on site and is more reflective of the existing lot size patterns. It is recommended to generally apply the 400sqm lot size for clarity of development standards across the LEP, rather than different sizes suburb by suburb.

Infill development to rejuvenate low density areas (where required) can continue to occur. ‘Knock-down-rebuilt’ lots are emerging in older suburbs such as Holsworthy, and the potential addition of dual occupancies as a permissible land use on large sites will also encourage development. Sites greater than 800sqm will be available for subdivision (6.5% of the R2 Low Density Residential zone).

Commercial Land in the LEP

Chapter 3 of the Scoping Report focuses on commercial land. This chapter details the context of commercial land in the LGA, including findings of the Centres and Corridors Study and Strategy, and how commercial land is managed under the LLEP 2008.

There are numerous commercial areas within the LLEP 2008. The Centres & Corridors Strategy lists the centre hierarchy across the LGA, with the following centre types:

· Metropolitan cluster

· Town centre

· Local centre

· Stand-alone centre

· Out of centre bulky goods cluster

· Neighbourhood centre

At its meeting on 27 July 2022, Council endorsed three principles for managing commercial land under the new LEP. The Scoping Report and its Commercial Land attachment (Attachment 3) outline how these principles are to be addressed, and a summary is provided below:

1. Provide for the retail needs of the Liverpool LGA into the future

The Scoping Report recommends the retention of commercial land use zones where they form part of the Liverpool Retail Hierarchy within the Centres & Corridors Strategy, and/or play a retail function within the LGA.

Where land is zoned for commercial purposes under the LLEP 2008, but does not form part of the Liverpool Retail Hierarchy and/or play a retail function, an appropriate land use zone to match the intent of the land into the future is recommended.

During LEP Review Workshops, Councillors made comment that the north side of Hoxton Park Road does not contain a service station. The LLEP 2008 had identified a key site in Hinchinbrook for this use, however it was developed for residential purposes. B1 zoned land, in which service stations are permissible, has not yet been developed at 335-345 Hoxton Park Road (near Banks Road), and a service station operates near Flowerdale Road on the northern side of Hoxton Park Road.

2. Enable redevelopment of centres which will provide both commercial and residential uses, with high quality design encouraged

The LLEP 2008 contains a number of clauses which support the development of vibrant centres, which will continue under the new LEP, including the following below. Further investigation will be conducted on these, to ensure out of centre retail development (e.g. along road corridors) is appropriate and vibrancy of centres is achieved:

· Requiring certain business zones to have active ground floor levels with retail uses;

· Application of restrictions on the size of ‘food and drink premises’ and ‘shops’, applied to centres other than the Liverpool City Centre, Town Centres and Local Centres; and

· Maximum size for commercial premises within the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone.

At its meeting on 27 July 2022, Council resolved to review the City Centre standards as part of the LEP Review process. A review of Amendment 52 will occur, looking at the zone application, development standards, and specific City Centre clauses within the LLEP 2008, to ensure the future LEP will continue to achieve this principle.

A ‘Gateway Site’ design clause is being investigated for key sites at entry points along main roads into the LGA. This is to ensure their development results in buildings which can act as prominent visual markers with high quality design and landscaping, as people enter and exit the LGA.

3. All centres, regardless of their hierarchy, are to have a height of building development standard of 12m or less to limit the height of buildings across all centres within the LEP, with exclusions such as the Liverpool City Centre centres subject to planning proposals.

During Councillor workshops on the LEP Review, it was discussed that the 100 Day Plan item to reduce height of buildings to 12m in the suburbs was to generally apply across all suburban areas under the LEP, including commercial zoned land. It was suggested that the 12m heights were applied within Town Centres, and Local/Other Centres applied a 10m height limit.

At its meeting on 27 July 2022, Council resolved to choose this principle (3), which reduced centre heights to 12m or less, noting exceptions to land within the Liverpool City Centre, commercial land subject to planning proposals, or recently completed planning proposals.

Attachment 3 to this report details commercial land within the LEP application area, and the draft recommendations as part of the Scoping Report. It generally recommends the following, with exceptions (heights over 12m) noted further below:

· Town Centres: Apply a 12m maximum height of buildings, and undertake further investigation on applicable development standards e.g. Floor Space Ratio;

· Local Centres, Stand-Alone Centres & Business Corridors: Apply a 10m maximum height of buildings, and undertake further investigation on applicable development standards e.g. Floor Space Ratio. Where active planning proposals apply, or planning proposals have recently applied to the site, the existing development standards are to be retained;

· Neighbourhood Centres: It is recommended that centres which adjoin R4 High Density Residential land, apply development standards which align with the high density areas. In other locations, it is recommended that a maximum 10m height of buildings is applied, with further investigation on applicable development standards e.g. Floor Space Ratio;

· Bulky Goods: Retain existing development standards for both the Casula Crossroads and Sappho Road, Warwick Farm bulky goods sites; and

· Non-Hierarchy Areas: Review the land use zone and development standards in relation to the existing and/or likely future use of the site.

Majority of centres will apply the draft recommendations above, with exceptions to the 12m or less height of building standard recommended for the following areas:

Local Centres

· Holsworthy Local Centre: It is recommended to retain 21m height, as it is subject to a separate planning proposal.

· Middleton Grange Local Centre: It is recommended to retain 18m height, as it was recently subject to a separate planning proposal.

Neighbourhood Centres

· Warwick Farm Neighbourhood Centres: It is recommended to retain 35m and 21m heights for Goulburn Street and Mannix Parade neighbourhood centres, respectively. These areas are adjoining R4 High Density Residential Land, and retaining this height will allow redevelopment to be in alignment with the high density residential land.

· Cartwright Neighbourhood Centre (Wilan Drive): It is recommended to retain the 15m height limit, as it adjoins R4 High Density Residential Land (15m height), as noted in the residential land section above. Retaining this height will allow redevelopment to be in alignment with the high density residential land.

· Ashcroft Neighbourhood Centre (Sinclair Rd): It is recommended to apply 12m height (currently 18m), to align with the recommendations within residential land section to reduce height of buildings within R4 High Density Residential Land in Ashcroft to 12m. Aligning the neighbourhood centre land with adjoining high density residential zoned land will ensure redevelopment will be consistent with neighbouring land.

Stand Alone Centres

· Land subject to previous planning proposals: It is recommended that development standards are retained for land which have recently been subject to a planning proposal. This is applicable to the centres of Woolworths Casula, Woolworths Prestons and Orange Gove, which all currently have 15m height, 0.75:1 FSR and 2,000sqm minimum subdivision lot size.

· Flowerdale Road, Liverpool: It is recommended the commercial areas at the intersection of Flowerdale Road and Hoxton Park Road retain their existing development standards, including heights of 21m, as this is leading into the City Centre, as previously discussed in the residential land section.

Bulky Goods Centres

· Bulky Goods Sites: It is recommended that both bulky goods sites retain their development standards which contain heights over 12m. Under the LLEP 2008, Crossroads Casula has permissible heights of 18m & 30m, and Sappho Road Warwick Farm has 15m. These are large sites which can manage interfaces with adjoining land appropriately into the future.

Corridors

· Land subject to planning proposals: It is recommended that 240 Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm and 124 & 146 Newbridge Road, Moorebank retain their existing development standards of 15m heights and 0.75:1 FSR, as they are currently subject to separate planning proposals.

· Hume Highway Liverpool: It is recommended that the business corridor along the Hume Highway within the suburb of Liverpool retains its existing development standards, including permissible heights of 15 and 18m, as it is leading into the City Centre.

Non-Hierarchy Centres

· Banks Road, Hinchinbrook: Undeveloped land along Hoxton Park Road in the ownership of Transport for NSW is to retain its existing development standards, including 18m height and 1.5:1 FSR. Council will liaise with TfNSW regarding future development on this site.

· Hoxton Park Road & Taloma Avenue, Lurnea: The undeveloped B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone between Hoxton Park Road, Hill Road and Taloma Road (currently 21m under the LLEP 2008) is to align with R4 High Density Residential land along Hoxton Park Road in Lurnea, being a 15m height limit. This is consistent with the neighbourhood centre recommendations, where the height of the centre is to align with adjoining R4 High Density Residential land.

Industrial Land in the LEP

Chapter 4 of the Scoping Report focuses on industrial land. This chapter details the context of industrial land in the LGA, including findings of the Industrial and Employment Lands Strategy and how industrial land is managed under the LLEP 2008.

Industrial precincts located within the LEP application area are:

· Prestons/Yarrunga St

· Chipping Norton

· Moorebank - Collaboration Area

· Moorebank - Intermodal Area

· Orange Grove

· Warwick Farm - Scrivener/Priddle St

· Warwick Farm - Sappho Road

· Warwick Farm - Coopers Paddock

· Len Waters Estate

· Crossroads Casula

· Cecil Park

At its meeting on 27 July 2022, Council endorsed three principles for managing industrial land under the new LEP. The Scoping Report and its Industrial Land attachment (Attachment 4) details how these principles are to be addressed, and a summary is provided below:

1. Review and manage industrial land, whilst allowing flexibility for future development

In relation to minimum lot size:

· Reduce minimum lot size from 2,000sqm to 1,000sqm in certain light industrial precincts to promote infill development; and

· Increase minimum lot size from 2,000sqm to 4,000sqm in certain industrial precincts to protect from further subdivision and retain large industrial areas into the future.

2. Encourage renewal of industrial precincts

It is recommended that ways to incentivise renewal of industrial land are investigated. For example ‘Nil Floor Space Ratio’, or ‘Nil Height of Building limit’ is investigated for industrial precincts.

3. Determine the role of industrial precincts

Retain the application of all industrial zones across all industrial precincts. No industrial precincts are to be changed from industrial uses (e.g. to bulky goods or commercial zones). Site specific masterplans (e.g. Scrivener/Priddle St) to be undertaken as part of future LEP reviews.

Environmental and Recreation Land

Chapter 5 of the Scoping Report details items to be investigated in the new LEP in relation to environmental and recreation matters. This includes:

· Review of the Environmentally Significant Land map and clause within the LLEP 2008. It is proposed to update the map and clause, to address terrestrial biodiversity (land) and riparian land (waterways) through separate maps and clauses, which are under preparation and will be exhibited as part of the post Gateway planning proposal.

· Addition of clauses for stormwater management, recycled water and urban heat.

· Council owned land identified as pocket parks within the Liverpool City Public Domain Masterplan to be rezoned RE1 Public Recreation.

Next Steps for LEP Review

Community Engagement

Preliminary engagement will occur on this Scoping Report in October 2022. This will include targeted surveys and workshops, to inform the future planning proposal. This is in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan and is above the Department’s requirements for community consultation of a planning proposal. A flyer notifying the community about the LEP Review and upcoming exhibition has been distributed with the yearly rates notice.

Further engagement with the community will occur in 2023 once a Gateway determination has been issued by the Department for a planning proposal. Refer to the Community Engagement Strategy at Attachment 6.

Stakeholder Engagement

Preliminary engagement with the Department will occur on this Scoping Report. This will involve early engagement with the following:

· Department of Planning and Environment

· Environment, Energy and Science Group (the Department)

· Sydney Water

· Endeavour Energy

· Any other agencies deemed appropriate by the Department

Additional Investigations

As noted in this report, the Scoping Report is the preliminary stage prior to the development of a Liverpool LEP Principal Planning Proposal. The Scoping Report sets the intent of the future LEP, identifying local strategic planning actions to be addressed as well as alignment with the Region and District Plans.

Further investigation is required prior to proceeding with a planning proposal. This investigation will be conducted as part of early engagement with the community, through procurement of additional studies and by research conducted by staff. Timeframes on the LEP Review process have been expanded to cater for additional studies to be conducted on the City Centre as recently resolved by Council and changes to retail provision, as required as a result of the 27 July 2022 Council meeting resolutions.

Details on further investigations are within Chapter 6.3 of the Scoping Report, and include:

· Review of Amendment 52: A review of the Liverpool City Centre planning controls will occur, to ensure future development of the City Centre in a post Covid-19 economy.

· Commercial Feasibility: Testing feasibility of redevelopment of retail, based on reduced heights within business zones, and impact on retail delivery, including appropriate development standards, e.g. FSR. Also investigate ways to ensure vibrant centres and reduce out of centre development

· Innovative Industry Workshop: Engage and meet with leading industry professionals to explore medium density housing design and delivery

· Targeted Surveys: Surveys of people living in medium density housing to see what they like and dislike about design

· Housing Study Addendum: Addendum to Housing Study to test the impact of changes resulting from new application of land use zones

· R3 Medium Density Residential Feasibility Testing: Test proposed development standards and controls for Medium Density Development

· Low Density Codes SEPP Case Study: Review CDCs submitted since Codes SEPP came into force, and lot size analysis in low and medium density areas to determine permissibility and lot size requirements of dual occupancies and multi dwellings

· Industrial Land: Investigate ways to incentivise redevelopment of industrial land, such as removal of Floor Space Ratio, or removal of Height of Building requirements

Conclusion

It is recommended that the Scoping Report and attachments are endorsed to proceed with early community engagement in accordance with the Community Engagement Strategy, as well as engagement with the Department of Planning and Environment.

A report on the outcomes of engagement will be presented to Council in December 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Costs associated with the LEP Review are included in the 2022/2023 budget and the Long-Term Financial Plan for Year 1 (2022-23) and Year 2 (2023-24).

201594 - LEP & DCP Review	Year 1 (2022-23)	Year 2 (2023-24)
Employee - LEP Review Staff	$224,892	$112,446
Employee – Heritage Review	$260,000	$0
Consultants	$337,608	$75,054
Total	$822,500	$187,500

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Division 3.2 and 3.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Medium. The Scoping Report may lead to implications for landowners in the LGA, however extensive community consultation will occur as part of the planning proposal process. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Scoping Proposal - Phase 2 LEP Review (Under separate cover)

2. LEP Scoping Report - Attachment A - Residential Land (Under separate cover)

3. LEP Scoping Report - Attachment B - Commercial Land (Under separate cover)

4. LEP Scoping Report - Attachment C - Industrial Land (Under separate cover)

5. LEP Scoping Report - Attachment D - Other Amendments (Under separate cover)

6. Draft LEP Review Project Plan (Under separate cover)

7. Draft Community Engagement Strategy - LEP Review (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 04

Proposed Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Communicate, listen, engage and respond to the community by encouraging community participation
File Ref	247296.2022
Report By	Danielle Hijazi - Assistant Strategic Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

At the 23 February 2022 meeting, Council resolved on NOM 10 to:

1. Recommend that the bridge on Kurrajong Road that connects Carnes Hill be called Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge; and

2. Write to the immediate family members and receive their views on this matter.

This report outlines the written support received from the family of the late Harry Hunt OAM and seeks endorsement from Council to proceed with the administrative process to officially name the bridge “Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge”.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the support received from the Hunt family to the naming of the bridge on Kurrajong Road, the “Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge”.

2. Publicly exhibits the name “Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge” in accordance with the requirements of the Geographical Names Board Place Name Policy and Council’s Naming Convention Policy, for a period of 28 days.

3. Authorises the Acting CEO (or delegate) to undertake the process of gazettal if there are no submissions received during public exhibition, noting that gazettal can only occur post February 2023 to comply with GNB Policy concerning naming places posthumously.

REPORT

At its meeting on 23 February 2022, Council resolved to:

1. Recommend that the bridge on Kurrajong Road that connects Carnes Hill be called Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge; and

2. Write to the immediate family members and receive their views on this matter.

Bridges which are a Council asset and form part of a Council managed road are to be named in accordance with Council’s Naming Convention Policy and follow the standard procedure for naming bridges as outlined in Section 11.3 of the NSW Place Naming Policy.

The location of the bridge is outlined in Figure 1 below:

A picture containing text, road, highway

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Location of the Bridge

Section 11.3 - Bridge Naming - NSW Place Naming Policy

The GNB encourages all bridge naming to follow the guidelines as set out in the policy.

· The name has wide community support.

· An Aboriginal name has the support of local Aboriginal groups.

· Consideration has been given to National and State commemorative initiatives involving the naming of new of key road infrastructure.

· The name is consistent with GNB place name criteria.

· The design of the name plaque accords with RMS requirements.

The NSW Place Naming Policy Section 7 Commemorative Names also states:

Commemorative names are those that commemorate a person, event or place. Acts of bravery, community service and exceptional accomplishments are typical grounds for this recognition. The name of persons who gave their lives in service for their country are often used as commemorative names. The person commemorated should have contributed significantly to the area around the geographic feature or locality. When such a name is applied, it shall be given posthumously, at least one year after the decease of the person.

Section 7.1 Personal Names

The names of deceased persons are suitable for the naming of reserves. Such persons shall have had a long term association with the area, or have made a significant contribution to the area of the proposed park or reserve. To assist local governments in determining the suitability of a name the GNB offers the following guidelines regarding association or contribution:

• Two or more terms of office on the governing local government council.

• Twenty or more years association with a local community group or service club.

• Twenty or more years of association or service with a local or state government or organisation.

The name “Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge” satisfies these requirements, subject to the naming taking place no less than one year after the late Mr. Hunt’s passing.

Letter from Council to Hunt Family

Council wrote to the Hunt family expressing Council’s condolences to the family and advising them of Council’s resolution to name the bridge that connects the suburbs of Prestons and Carnes Hill as “Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge”. Prior to proceeding with the name, Council wished to seek the support of the Hunt Family in the naming of this bridge.

Letter of Support from the Hunt Family

On the 17 June 2022, a letter was received from the Hunt Family supporting the proposal to name the bridge. The letter outlined the significant contribution of the late Harry Hunt OAM to the Liverpool LGA.

Exhibition Period

As outlined above, Section 7 Commemorative Names of the NSW Place Naming Policy states when a name is applied to commemorate a person, it shall be given posthumously, at least one year after the decease of the person. Mr. Hunt passed away on 9 February 2022.

Given the 12-month period that must pass before Council can officially name the bridge, it is proposed that exhibition takes place towards the end of October 2022 - early November 2022. This will allow Council to review any submissions received and report back to Council, if required, whilst ensuring that the steps taken to finalise the name take place closer to the time in which the name can be formally gazetted.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

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	The risk is deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Letter to Hunt Family

2. Letter of support from Hunt Family

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 05

Street renaming request - Squillaciote Crescent, Austral

Strategic Objective	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Continue to invest in improving and maintaining Liverpool’s road networks and infrastructure
File Ref	247433.2022
Report By	Danielle Hijazi - Assistant Strategic Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

This report updates Council on the proposed renaming of Squillaciote Crescent to Driver Street, Austral following Council’s resolution from the 27 April 2022 Council meeting. At that meeting, Council resolved to defer the renaming of ‘Squillaciote Crescent’ to ‘Driver Street’ in Austral pending consultation with the family.

A letter detailing the reasons for the proposed street renaming was sent to thirty-three (33) residents, identified through Council’s property system as having the same or similar surname as Squillaciote. The letter asked residents to provide feedback on the proposal to rename this street. The closing date for submissions was 7 July 2022. One letter of support and no objections to the proposed renaming were received.

It is recommended that Council proceeds with the renaming of ‘Squillaciote Crescent’ to ‘Driver Street’ in Austral.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Proceeds with the renaming of ‘Squillaciote Crescent’ to ‘Driver Street’ in Austral;

2. Forwards the names to the Geographical Names Board, seeking formal approval;

3. Publicly exhibits the name in accordance with Council’s Naming Convention Policy for 28 days, following formal approval from the GNB; and

4. Authorises the Acting CEO (or delegate) to undertake the process of gazettal if there are no submissions received during public exhibition.

REPORT

Council received a street naming request from a resident who recently purchased land in Squillaciote Crescent, Austral. The resident has concerns in relation to the pronunciation of the street name and the impacts this will have on future residents. The resident referred to the NSW Address Policy and User Manual which states:

Section 6.7.1 Ensuring Public Safety and Service Delivery

Ensuring public safety and service delivery road names shall not risk public and operational safety for emergency response, or cause confusion for transport, communication, and mail services.

The resident is concerned that in an emergency they and others will not be able to pronounce or spell the street name which will cause confusion to emergency services, and which may delay an emergency response.

Section 6.7.2 Language

Road names shall be easy to pronounce, spell and write, and preferably not exceed three words (including the road type) or 25 characters.

The resident noted that the surrounding street names are all simple and easy to pronounce and write. Figure 1 below shows surrounding street names, including Biffin Street, Hazelton Street, Guillow Road, Hemmingson Road, Lethbridge Road, Kensell Street and Starr Close.

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Surrounding Street Names to Squillaciote Crescent

The street naming theme for this section of Austral is “early residents”. Squillaciote was the surname of an early resident of the area.

Squillaciote Crescent was gazetted in 2018 as part of several dozen names commemorating early landowners in the area. Given the need to name several hundred streets in Austral at the time, there was very little information provided in support of each name. Council’s Heritage Officer, the Liverpool Historical Society, searches of internal records and information from council’s Local Studies Officer could not find any information on “Squillaciote”. However, a spelling variation of the name Squillacioti was found.

The Squillacioti family are known to have moved to the Austral area in the mid-1950s. In 1963 the Squillacioti family were known urban farmers and had established market gardens in Kelly Street, Austral. Members of the Squillacioti family still reside in Austral and the wider LGA.

Proposed renaming to Driver Street, Austral

In consultation with Council’s Heritage Officer, a new street name has been proposed and assessed using Council’s Naming Convention Policy and the NSW Address Policy and User Manual. The Geographical Names Board have granted pre-approval for the name, Driver Street.

The name “Driver” is in commemoration of John and Elizabeth Driver, with John being an early land grant holder. John, along with his wife Elizabeth, were strong supporters of the rum rebellion. The rum rebellion of 1808 was Australia’s first and only military coup, staged by the New South Wales Corps to depose Governor William Bligh for the illicit rum trade of early Sydney. The Drivers were one of 16 of the colony’s principal inhabitants who signed a letter in support of the coup to disband Governor William Bligh, written by John MacArthur, and addressed to Major Johnston on 26 January 1808, the day of the coup.

Elizabeth subscribed £30 towards MacArthur’s expenses for his anticipated trial in England against Bligh. The Drivers received a 200-acre land grant at Cabramatta from their support of the rum rebellion also known as the anti-Bligh regime. John Driver died in 1810 and Elizabeth Driver in 1825.

Driver Street is consistent with the street naming theme of early residents for this section of Austral and has been assessed against the road naming principals detailed in the NSW Address Policy and User Manual and has been checked for any potential conflicts using the Geographical Names Board’s Online Road Naming System. The name is easily pronounceable and does not contain unusual spelling.

Council Resolution and letter to residents

At its meeting on 27 April 2022, Council resolved to defer the renaming of ‘Squillaciote Crescent’ to ‘Driver Street’ in Austral, pending consultation with the family.

A letter detailing the reasons for the proposed street renaming and spelling variation was sent to thirty-three (33) residents, identified through Council’s property system as having the same or similar surname as Squillaciote. The letter asked residents to provide feedback on the proposal. The closing date for submissions was 7 July 2022. One letter of support and no objections to the proposal were received.

Future Park Name

As members of the Squillacioti family still reside in Austral and the wider LGA, it is recommended that the name be used for a future park in the locality, to recognise the Squillacioti family and their contribution to Austral. Whilst the name will still be difficult to spell and pronounce (an inconsistency with the GNB’s Place Naming Policy), the name reflects Liverpool’s cultural diversity. Public safety is addressed by the fact that surrounding street names will be easier to pronounce and would allow emergency services to locate the park.

It is proposed that a future report be prepared for Council’s consideration which identifies a suitable future park or reserve to be named “Squillacioti”. Naming a park or reserve after the Squillacioti family continues to provide a connection with the area, without potentially compromising the ability for emergency services to access residents.

Recommendation

Given that no objections to the proposal were received and the name remains inconsistent with GNB naming guidelines, it is recommended that Council proceeds with the renaming of Squillaciote Crescent to Driver Street, Austral.

Next Steps

If the renaming of Squillaciote Crescent to Driver Street is supported by Council, the new name will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

The following three potential scenarios are likely to arise resulting from exhibition:

No objections received

The naming request will be forwarded to the Geographical Names Board for formal approval and gazettal to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) under the delegation of the A/CEO (or delegate).

Relevant stakeholders will be notified to update their mapping systems, 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.

Objections from the relevant agencies

Council will not proceed with the naming request. A report to Council will be prepared for the next available meeting outlining the reason for rejection.

Submissions received from the community

If there is a strong community objection, or reason to reconsider the proposed name, a report will be prepared for the next available Council meeting recommending withdrawal of the naming request.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

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	The risk is deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Letter to residents

2. Letter of support

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 06

Post exhibition report - Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Amendment 91 - Schedule 1 amendment to facilitate expansion of The Grove, Warwick Farm

Strategic Objective	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Implement planning controls and best practice urban design to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	249517.2022
Report By	Kweku Aikins - Senior Strategic Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

At its meeting of 28 April 2021, Council resolved to endorse a planning proposal request to include ‘business premises’ as an additional permitted use at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Lot 101 DP 1043160) and increase the current cap for ‘retail premises’ from 19,000sqm to 21,000sqm at 5 Viscount Place, Warwick Farm (Lot 23 DP 1190437). A planning proposal, Draft Amendment 91 to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 was prepared in accordance with this resolution (Attachment 1). The planning proposal was then submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a Gateway determination in accordance with Council’s resolution.

A Gateway determination was issued by DPE on 1 July 2021 (Attachment 2). The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 12 October 2021 until 9 November 2021 in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan. No community submissions were received.

At its 28 April 2021 meeting, Council also resolved to endorse in principle the public benefit offer dated 13 April 2021. As part of this resolution, the proponent agreed to amend the existing planning agreement applying to the site so that it would account for the changes outlined in the planning proposal.

The terms of the planning agreement were reported to Council at its meeting of 29 September 2021 (PLAN 04), where Council resolved to endorse the amendments and place the amended planning agreement on public exhibition. No submissions were received, and the A/CEO has delegation to execute the amended planning agreement.

This report updates Council on the outcomes of public consultation of the planning proposal and recommends that Council proceed with Amendment 91 to the LLEP 2008 and delegates authority to the A/CEO (or delegate) to liaise with DPE and the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to finalise the amendment.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the Gateway determination for Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Amendment 91) and the results of the public authority consultation and community consultation.

2. Subject to the execution of the amended planning agreement, proceeds with Amendment 91 to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and delegates authority to the Acting CEO (or delegate) to liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department of Planning and Environment to finalise the amendment.

3. Notifies the proponent of Council’s decision.

REPORT

Background

On 7 September 2020, Council received a request to prepare a planning proposal on behalf of Gazcorp Pty Ltd for land at 10 Orange Grove Road (Lot 101 DP 1043160) and 5 Viscount Place (Lot 23 DP 1190437), Warwick Farm. The planning proposal was updated in April 2021 following pre-gateway community consultation, an independent peer review by SGS Consultants and advise from the Liverpool Local Planning Panel (LPP). The planning proposal amends the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan (LLEP) 2008 as follows:

· Include ‘business premises’ as an additional permitted use under Schedule 1, Clause 24 and change the address so that the subject clause would apply to the ‘Homemaker Centre’ site at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Lot 101 DP 1043160).

· Increase the current cap on retail premises under Schedule 1, Clause 21 from 19,000sqm to 21,000sqm and change the legal description so that the subject clause would apply to the ‘Fashion Spree’ site at 5 Viscount Place, Warwick Farm (Lot 23 DP 1190437).

The proposal aims to facilitate the redevelopment of ‘The Grove’ at Warwick Farm.

At its meeting of 28 April 2021, Council considered the planning proposal request and resolved that Council:

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

2. Endorses in principle the amended planning proposal request as follows:

· Include business premises as an additional permitted use under Schedule 1, Clause 24 as it applies to the ‘Homemaker Centre’ site at 10 Orange Grove Road, Warwick Farm (Lot 101 DP 1043160).

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

5. Endorses in principle the public benefit offer dated 13 April 2021;

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

7. Subject to Gateway determination, undertakes public exhibition and community consultation in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway determination; and

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

The proposal was sent to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) on 28 May 2021 requesting a Gateway determination.

Gateway Determination

DPE issued a Gateway determination on 1 July 2021, which included the following key conditions:

· Prior to public exhibition, Council is to amend the planning proposal to accurately identify the subject sites and the land description; and

· The planning proposal must be exhibited within 6 months following the date of the Gateway Determination.

Council implemented all conditions of the Gateway determination. Due to the time taken to address flood evacuation issues raised by DPE’s Environment, Energy and Science Group (now Environment and Heritage Group), Council sought an extension to the Gateway determination. The current deadline to complete the LEP amendment is 1 October 2022.

Community Consultation

The planning proposal and relevant documentation was placed on public exhibition from 12 October 2021 until 9 November 2021 in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan. No submissions were received and, as such, no further changes to the planning proposal or planning agreement are proposed.

Public Authority Consultation

State Emergency Service (SES), NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS), DPE’s Environment and Heritage Group (EHG) and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) were consulted between 12 October 2021 and 9 November 2021. A summary of each submission received during public authority consultation is provided in Table 1, and original copies included in Attachment 3.

Table 1: Summary of public authority consultation comments

Public Authority	Comment	Officer’s response
State Emergency Service (SES)	The consent authority will need to ensure that the planning proposal is considered against the relevant Ministerial Section 9.1 Directions, including 4.3 – Flood Prone Land and is consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy as set out in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual, 2005 (the Manual).	The proposal has been assessed by Council’s flood engineers and the DPE’s EHG. It is considered that the proposal meets the parameters of the Ministerial Directions and NSW Floodplain Development Manual.
NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)	The NSW RFS has considered the information submitted and subsequently raise no concerns or issues in relation to bush fire.	Noted.
Environment and Heritage Group (EHG) – former Environment Energy and Science Group (EES)	Environment and Heritage Group (EHG) has reviewed the evacuation study and considers that the additional information addresses EHG’s prior concerns regarding the flood evacuation at The Grove.	Noted. Flood evacuation issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
	The evacuation study indicates that the utilisation rate of the carpark at The Grove is expected to be lower than the assumption used in evacuation modelling. Consequently, the risk for vehicles to be stranded at The Grove is expected to be insignificant based on the current utilisation rate of the carpark.	Noted.
	EHG suggests that the proponent should review the local flood emergency management plan and monitor the utilisation rate of the carpark at regular intervals and update the local flood emergency management plan in consultation with Liverpool Council and the SES, as required, to address and manage the flooding risk during major and extreme events.	Noted. EHG’s advice has been forwarded to the proponent for future action. Council will work with the proponent to review any flood evacuation plan as needed.
Transport for NSW (TfNSW)	TfNSW has responded to the applicant (via email to SCT consulting).	SCT Consulting is the proponent’s traffic consultant. SCT has been liaising with TfNSW regarding DA-416/2021 which seeks to expand the Homemaker Centre at 10 Orange Grove Road. DA-416/2021 has no relationship to the subject LEP amendment. Advice was sought from TfNSW to verify if they had any comments for the subject LEP amendment. Despite numerous requests, clarification has not been received. Given the significant time elapsed and lack of concerns or objection raised, the planning proposal can progress.

As there were no objections raised, or issues that required amending the planning proposal, no changes to the planning proposal are recommended resulting from public authority consultation.

Amendment of Existing Planning Agreement

In support of the planning proposal, the proponent provided a letter of offer dated 13 April 2021 to amend the existing planning agreement applying to the site. A copy of the letter of offer is provided as Attachment 4. The letter of offer seeks to amend the existing planning agreement as follows:

1. Identify 5 Viscount Place, Warwick Farm (Lot 23 DP 1190437) as also being subject to the agreement;

2. Include a definition for ‘business premises’; and

3. Update all relevant clauses and definitions to ensure that a 3% monetary contribution also applies to the additional 2,000sqm of ‘retail premises’ that is proposed at 5 Viscount Place (Lot 23 DP 1190437).

All other items to be delivered under the existing planning agreement will remain unchanged.

The proponent, their legal representatives and Council incorporated the amendments and finalised a draft planning agreement and explanatory note (Attachments 5 and 6) for public exhibition.

Table 2 shows the list of items proposed to be delivered under the planning agreement.

Table 2: Proposed works under the Planning Agreement

Item	Specification	Time for Completion
Homepride Avenue Roadworks	Roadworks which will include the rehabilitation of the road surface and construction of a pedestrian access on the Homepride Avenue Land.	Within six (6) months of commencement of work.
RMS Roadworks - Orange Grove Road/ Viscount Place Intersection	Roadworks which will include: (a) Construction of a 90 metre long left turn slip lane on the north approach to the signalised intersection of Orange Grove Road and Viscount Place. Any land components required for the provision of the slip lane will be dedicated to RMS by the Developer as public road at no cost to RMS; and (b) Extend dual right turn lanes on the south approach to 120 (adjacent median) and 180 metres (adjacent through lane) (note – the above road works shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Austroads and RMS supplements)	Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the Development.
RMS Roadworks – Hume Highway/Homepride Avenue Intersection	Roadworks which will include an extension of the existing right turn storage bay on the east approach to Homepride Avenue within the constraints of the existing Hume Highway corridor.	RMS Roadworks – Hume Highway/Homepride Avenue Intersection
Monetary Contributions	The greater of the following: (a) 3% of Capital Investment Value (CIV); or (b) 21000sqm (retail premises floor area) x $100	Prior to the issue of the first Occupation Certificate for the Development or any part of the Development
	The greater of the following: (a) 3% of Capital Investment Value (CIV); or (b) 2000sqm (retail premises floor area) x $100	Prior to the issue of the first Occupation Certificate for the Further Development or any part of the Further Development
	Payment to Council for Homepride Avenue Land Acquisition	If Council acquires the Homepride Avenue Land by private treaty, then the later of: (a) completion of that acquisition by Council; and (b) five (5) business days after Council provides written notice to the Developer of the amount required to be paid. If Council acquires the Homepride Avenue Land by Compulsory Acquisition, then the later of: (a) the date on which Council is required to make payment of compensation to any relevant interested party on account of that acquisition; and (b) five (5) business days after Council provides written notice to the Developer of the amount required to be paid.

Council resolved at its meeting of 28 April 2021 to:

Delegate authority to the CEO, subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition, to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor modifications.

The planning agreement and explanatory note were placed on public exhibition between 12 October 2021 until 9 November 2021. No submissions were received, therefore the Acting CEO will execute the planning agreement under delegation.

Next Steps

If Council resolves to finalise Amendment 91, as recommended, the planning agreement will be executed by the A/CEO and staff will liaise with the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and DPE to begin the legal drafting of the amendment to the LEP. Once finalised, Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 91 will be notified in the NSW Government Gazette.

Conclusion

The Gateway determination requirements for Amendment 91 have been satisfied and matters raised by public authority agencies will be appropriately considered as part of a future DA process.

It is recommended that, subject to execution of the amended Planning Agreement, Council finalises Amendment 91 to the LLEP 2008 and delegates authority to the Acting CEO (or his delegate) to liaise with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and DPE to finalise Amendment 91.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Facilitate economic development.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes.
Legislative	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Proposal (Under separate cover)

2. Gateway Determinations (Under separate cover)

3. Public Authority Submissions (Under separate cover)

4. Public Benefit Offer Letter (Under separate cover)

5. Planning Agreement (Under separate cover)

6. Planning Agreement Explanatory Note (Under separate cover)

7. ASIC Extract - Confidential

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 07

Draft Local Planning Agreement in conjunction with DA-1060/2020 at 5 Melito Court, Prestons

Strategic Objective	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Continue to invest in improving and maintaining Liverpool’s road networks and infrastructure
File Ref	266148.2022
Report By	Claire Scott - Coordinator Contributions Planning
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

On 17 December 2021, Council approved development application DA-1060/2020 which sought consent for demolition of existing structures, construction and use of six warehousing and distribution centres and associated site works at 5 Melito Court, Prestons.

The development site is in the Prestons Industrial Area and gains vehicular access (including for heavy vehicles) through the existing signalised Bernera Road / Yarrunga Street / Yato Road intersection.

During the assessment of this and adjoining development applications, Council and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) identified the need for the existing signalised intersection to be upgraded to accommodate the expected additional traffic movements from development in the area and to improve road safety.

Without the intersection being upgraded, there will be increased traffic congestion, an unacceptable level of service and safety issues.

The upgrade works will be funded primarily by monetary contributions from new developments in the Prestons Industrial Area that are identified as directly contributing to increased traffic and the need for the intersection upgrade.

Several development applications approved in the last few years have included development consent conditions for portions of the required intersection upgrade to be carried out by individual developers prior to occupation of the developments (or the payment of a contribution in lieu of the works).

Based on this approach, DA-1060/2020 included a condition requiring the the applicant to design and upgrade a portion of the intersection prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate. Council received a modification application seeking approval to remove the condition that applied to the intersection upgrade, and instead require payment of a monetary contribution via a local planning agreement to fund their part share of the cost of the intersection upgrade.

Council has now negotiated a draft local planning agreement with TAP III Prestons Pty Ltd related to development at 5 Melito Court, Prestons (Lot 1 DP 405571). The draft local planning agreement obligates the developer to pay a monetary contribution of ($387,600 excl. GST) towards the intersection upgrade at Bernera Road, Yarrunga Street and Yato Road.

The intersection upgrade work is not listed within the Section 7.11 or Section 7.12 contributions plan, so the amount was negotiated based on the apportionment of traffic generated by the proposed development and the total cost of the upgrade work.

It is recommended that Council endorse the planning agreement for public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 and Council’s Community Participation Plan and that Council delegates authority to the A/CEO (subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition) to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor modifications.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft local planning agreement for a monetary contribution of $387,600 towards the upgrade of the Bernera Road / Yarrunga Street / Yato Road intersection and direct the A/CEO to publicly exhibit the planning agreement and explanatory note for 28 days.

REPORT

On 17 December 2021, Council approved development application DA-1060/2020 which sought consent for the demolition of existing structures, construction and use of six warehousing and distribution centres and associated site works at 5 Melito Court, Prestons.

The development site is located within the Prestons Industrial Area. Development within this precinct has created additional demand for infrastructure, specifically intersection and road upgrades, which are not captured in the contribution plan that applies.

The existing signalised intersection leading to the Prestons Industrial land was constructed as a requirement of the existing ALDI Distribution Centre (as State Significant Development) in 2009. It was specified and funded as a basic four-way interim configuration without dedicated right and left turn lanes along Bernera Road or Yarrunga Street.

In the past 4 years, the Department of Planning & Environment, and the Sydney Western City Planning Panel (SWCPP) have approved eight (8) significant industrial developments in the Prestons Industrial Area, including the Prestons Logistics Estate (LOGOS) development, along the section of Bernera Road and between Kurrajong Road and Yarrunga Street (207,210sqm) and the Charter Hall development off Yato Road (149,000sqm). These combined developments are forecast to generate significant traffic movements.

During the assessment of these development applications, Council and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) identified the need for the existing signalised Bernera Road, Yato Road and Yarrunga Street intersection to be upgraded to accommodate the expected additional traffic movements including heavy vehicles from developments in the area and to improve road safety.

The intersection upgrade involves localised road widening of approximately 200m along Bernera Road and 50m along Yarrunga Street and Yato Road to the intersection. The intersection upgrade works will include the relocation of an existing water main and TfNSW Directional Message Board. A strategic concept design of the intersection upgrade has been endorsed by TfNSW. The upgrade is estimated at $5.7m and is to be funded from monetary contributions from new developments in the Prestons industrial area including approximately 40% to 50% of the total from LOGOS.

The cost of the upgrade has been apportioned to each development based on the traffic expected to be generated by the relevant development. Based on this approach, monetary contributions have been calculated and used as the basis for discussion with developers for payment of a monetary contribution in lieu of the developer completing the required design and road works.

Development Consent Condition

Council included a condition on DA-1060/2020 requiring the applicant to design and upgrade a portion of the intersection prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate. The location of the development is shown in the map below. Council has received a modification application seeking approval to remove the condition that applies to the intersection upgrade, and instead require payment of a monetary contribution via a local planning agreement to fund their apportioned cost of the intersection upgrade.

Figure 1: Location of site

The offer outlined in the attached draft Planning Agreement is for a monetary contribution of $387,600 (subject to CPI increases) paid to Council prior to the issue of any Occupation certificate for the development

Legal Planning Agreement Mechanism

The legal representative of the applicant in conjunction with Council’s legal advisor have prepared a draft Planning Agreement and Explanatory Note.

A local planning agreement enables the provision of contributions for a variety of public purposes, some which extend beyond the scope of a section 7.11 or 7.12 Contributions Plan under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The local planning agreement was negotiated with the developer in the context of the modification application. The planning agreement is for the payment of a monetary contribution towards the intersection design and upgrade.

The planning agreement obligates the developer to pay monetary contributions of $387,600 (subject to CPI increases) prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate. Council will only modify the condition of the development consent once the planning agreement is executed by all parties.

Council will register the planning agreement on title if the monetary contribution is not received within 14 days of execution of the planning agreement and a bank guarantee will apply equal to the value of the monetary contribution. Additionally, an occupation certificate cannot be issued until the monetary contribution is paid.

Council has accepted similar offers made by other developers and copies of the executed planning agreements can be viewed on Council’s website:

https://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/development/planning-the-future/planning-agreements

Section 7.11 contributions continue to apply in accordance with the Liverpool Contribution Plan and are conditioned accordingly.

Conclusion

Council has received an offer to enter into a planning agreement in connection with DA-1060/2020 for a monetary contribution of $387,600 (subject to CPI increases) towards the Bernera Road / Yarrunga Street / Yato Road intersection upgrade.

It is recommended that Council endorses the planning agreement for public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 and Council’s Community Participation Plan, and that Council delegates to the A/CEO (subject to consideration of any changes following public exhibition) to execute the planning agreement in the form that is publicly exhibited or with minor modifications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The upgrade works to the Bernera Road / Yarrunga Street / Yato Road intersection will be funded primarily by monetary contributions from new developments in the Prestons Industrial Area that are identified as directly contributing to increased traffic and the need to upgrade works. The upgrade is estimated at $5.7m and is to be funded from monetary contributions from new developments in the Prestons industrial area including approximately 40% to 50% of the total from LOGOS.

The detailed design will be completed by the end of the year to identify the exact total cost of the upgrade works. The remaining amount required to fund the upgrade works will be identified in a new contribution plan to apply to the Prestons Industrial Area. The amount collected to date will be held in a restricted account and the remaining will be forward funded from the pooling of contribution funds. The remaining landowners to develop within the Preston Industrial Precinct catchment will be required to contribute to the remaining cost of the upgrade works.

Considerations

Economic	Further develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment opportunities. Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Deliver a high-quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021
Risk	The risk is considered to be low and has been subject to legal review. The risk is within Council’s risk appetite

ATTACHMENTS

1. Explanatory Note (Under separate cover)

2. Draft Local Voluntary Planning Agreement (Under separate cover)

3. ASIC report (Under separate cover) - Confidential

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 08

NSW Government e-scooter trial

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Promote and advocate for an integrated transport network with improved transport options and connectivity
File Ref	271007.2022
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Manager Transport Management
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

Currently, under NSW Road Rule 240(2)(C), it is illegal for a person to travel in or on a wheeled recreational device including electronic scooters (e-scooters), if the device is wholly or partly assisted by means other than human power, on public roads, footpaths, and road related spaces.

Due to increasing popularity of e-scooters, a number of States have started trials to assess the safety implication of permitting e-scooters on the public road network.

The NSW Government has announced that it will be undertaking a 12-month trial of shared scheme e-scooters from July 2022 to allow e-scooters to be used in trial areas. A typical e-scooter is as shown in Attachment 1.

The trials are currently underway at the following three locations within Western Sydney Parklands’ Bungarribee Park, Lizard Log and Shale Hills (Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA), as well as the Australian Botanic Garden Mount Annan.

The trial areas could include travel along major strategic paths (point to point), for tourism purposes, to provide first/last kilometre experiences to transport hubs, activity centres or residential areas, or to be used in parks/reserves to meet community interest and curiosity.

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is managing the trial on behalf of the NSW Government and will provide the regulatory framework and conditions, assist with data and analytics, provide communications and engagement, and will help to contract a shared scheme provider.

TfNSW has advised that the trial is to be limited to electric scooter shared services (not privately owned scooters), performance capacity of the electric scooters would be greater than 10km/h and the trial would be independently evaluated.

E-scooter riders must be 16 years and older and will only be permitted on a shared path or a local road with speed limit less than 50km/h. The initial speed limit for e-scooter is 10km/h on a shared path and 20km/h on a local road.

TfNSW has invited Councils to make a submission to take part in the trial and to nominate trial areas in their LGA’s by 30 September 2022. To date, the City of Sydney Council and Inner West Council have indicated that they would not participate in the trial for road safety reasons.

TfNSW have advised that Councils that nominate to participate in the program, will be assisted to carry out road safety reviews of the nominated areas to ensure road safety and the shared scheme providers will be responsible for insurance.

Council staff will be required to comply with TfNSW Guide for councils and providers interested in participating in the NSW E-scooter Shared Scheme Trial. This includes a review of expression of interest from shared scheme providers, nominate trial areas and assist TfNSW staff and relevant e-scooter providers to monitor the trial areas and enforce legal use of e-scooters within and outside of the trial areas. Council staff may also be required to remove abandoned e-scooters.

Council has requested TfNSW to provide funding assistance for the Council staff and resources that may be used to assist in the trial. Council’s submission could indicate that its participation in the trial is subject to funding assistance being provided.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Makes a submission to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) to participate in the shared scheme e-scooter trial and nominates the following areas for the trial:

· Casula Powerhouse Art Centre - Shepherd Street Precinct – Lighthorse Park along shared paths

· Chipping Norton Lakes along shared paths.

· Western Sydney Parklands.

· Other suitable locations to be identified in consultation with TfNSW and with the advice of the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee.

2. Requests financial assistance from TfNSW to ensure Council’s participation in the trial is at no cost of Council, including but not limited to funding for project management resourcing.

REPORT

Currently under NSW Road Rule 240(2)(C), it is illegal for a person to travel in or on a wheeled recreational device including electronic scooters (e-scooters), if the device is wholly or partly assisted by means other than human power, on public roads, footpaths, and road related spaces.

Similarly, e-scooters are not permitted on public roads in other states and territories. However, in the ACT and Northern Territory, e-scooters are permitted in public places if specific requirements are met.

Due to the increasing popularity of e-scooters, a number of states have started trials to assess the safety implications of permitting e-scooters on the public road network. In this regard, the NSW Government will be undertaking a 12-month trial of shared scheme e-scooters from July 2022 to allow e-scooters to be used in trial areas.

A typical e-scooter is as shown in Attachment 1. Features includes a weight of approximately 30kg, a maximum speed of 25km/h and dimensions of 1.25m long, 0.7m wide and 1.35m high.

The trial areas will be in both metropolitan and regional areas. TfNSW is inviting Councils to make a submission to take part in the trial and to nominate trial areas in their local government areas by 30 September 2022.

The trial areas could include travel along major strategic paths (point to point), for tourism purposes, to travel to transport hubs, activity centers or within residential areas, or to be used in parks/reserves to meet community interest and curiosity.

The trial will explore a new mobility option (i.e. e-scooter) to be permitted on a public road or road related area. The results and findings of the trial will enable the NSW Government to review and update the current transport legislation to make provision for e-scooter uses.

As part of the trial, TfNSW will provide the regulatory framework and conditions, assist with data and analytics, provide communications and engagement, and will help to contract a shared scheme provider.

Current e-scooter trials

Currently, e-scooter trials are being carried out in Queensland, South Australia and ACT. Brief comments on these trials are as follows.

Brisbane has implemented a shared e-scooter scheme with two supply companies. However, new restrictions were introduced from 1 December 2021, for a six-month trial to reduce injuries across the city.

The six-month safety trial includes locking and lowering speed limits of shared e-scooters from midnight to 5 AM in the CBD area and Fortitude Valley.

South Australia has a trial covering areas including Adelaide, North Adelaide, Coastal Park Trail, City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, and the City of Unley which permits shared e-scooters. The respective councils will monitor and evaluate the trials.

Issues reported in the trial by the City of Adelaide includes the following:

· People not wearing helmets

· Children as young as 12 riding e-scooters (minimum age is 18)

· Riding on the roads, in bike lanes and disobeying road rules

· Riding outside of the approved area

· Educating users about responsible riding and non-users about possible conflicts

· Conflict between pedestrians, vehicles and e-scooter users

· Parking of e-scooters

· Contending with a new mode of transport

TfNSW investigation of e-scooters

In February 2019, TfNSW established an Electric Scooter Advisory Working Group (ESA) to provide the agency with guidance and recommendations around policy, regulatory and other relevant issues that may affect road safety relating to e-scooter trials. The working group has prepared and submitted a report with recommendations including.

· The trial would be limited to electric scooter shared services (not privately owned scooters)

· Performance capacity of the electric scooters would be greater than 10km/h

· Any trial would be independently evaluated

Invitation to Council

As indicated above, TfNSW is inviting Councils to make a submission to participate in the trial by 30 September 2022.

Council’s participation in the trial could provide the following benefits.

· Obtain first-hand experience of the e-scooter uses along a public road or within a public area

· Provide an alternative mobility option to residents

· Explore a new transport mode for tourists in some tourist destinations

· Support sustainable transport mode and relieve traffic congestion

Some potential issues in participating in the trial for Council include the following.

· Managing e-scooters deployment

· Operator relationships

· Inappropriately parked / preferred parking areas

· Congestion on footpaths

· Quality of footpath and ramp infrastructure

· Illegal uses of e-scooters outside of trial areas

Possible Trial Areas in Liverpool LGA

E-scooters can be operated in a “zoned” area. No go zones can be set up for any area, subject to further discussion with Council. Council will select operational zones in consultation with the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee and the provider.

Suggested pilot areas (zones) in the Liverpool local government area are:

· Casula Powerhouse Art Centre - Shepherd Street Precinct – Lighthorse Park on shared paths along Georges River

· Chipping Norton Lakes along shared paths

· Western Sydney Parklands

· Other suitable locations to be identified in consultation with TfNSW and with the advice of the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee

E-scooter providers

To date, the following three providers have expressed interest to operate a trial in the Liverpool LGA:

· BEAM (Beam - Shared Electronic Scooter and Bike Rentals (ridebeam.com)

· Flamingo (flamingoscooters.com)

· Neuron Mobility: Safety-leading e-scooter and e-bike operator (rideneuron.com)

The providers have advised that the e-scooters would be monitored, and any abandoned e-scooters would be picked up as soon as possible.

Arrangements to address possible operational concerns

One of the providers who has expressed interest to operate within the LGA (Beam Mobility Holdings Pty. Ltd) has provided an information package on how their trial would operate in the Liverpool LGA. The information package includes the following arrangements that would be used to address the potential operational concerns with the trial.

The information package is shown in Attachment 2.

Financial Implications for Council participating in the trial

Without funding from TfNSW, there will be some financial impact on Council resources as staff will be required to comply with TfNSW Guide for councils and providers interested in participating in the NSW E-scooter Shared Scheme Trial. This includes a review of expression of interest from shared scheme providers, nominate trial areas and assist TfNSW staff and relevant e-scooter providers to monitor the trial areas and enforce legal use of e-scooters within and outside of the trial areas. Council staff may also be required to remove abandoned e-scooters if not done so in a timely manner by the e-scooter provider.

Council has requested TfNSW to provide funding assistance to Council to ensure Council’s participation in the case is at no cost to Council. Council’s submission will also indicate that its participation in the trial is subject to funding assistance being provided.

One of the shared scheme providers (Beam) has advised that it would deliver the shared e-scooter program at its own cost. The company would charge riders a $1 unlock fee followed by $0.45 / min. However, the provider has various subscription packages, discounts, and concession rates available which varies the cost considerably from trip to trip.

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.
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 deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Typical E-Scooter Specification (Under separate cover)

2. Beam Mobility Information (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Community & Culture Report

COM 01

Report Back Mimosa Park (22 Box Road, Casula)

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Improve liveability and quality of life for the community by delivering vibrant parks, places and facilities
File Ref	248517.2022
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 27 October 2020 Council considered a report on Mimosa Park, 22 Box Road, Casula and resolved to endorse Option 1 of the following two options:

· Option 1: Mimosa Park to be kept as a local park and embellished (this option will require allocation of funds); and

· Option 2: Reclassify, rezone and dispose of Mimosa Park.

An allocation of 15,000 to develop concept designs was provided to undertake a feasibility study, environmental testing and concept development. Council officers engaged an external landscape architect to prepare the design to embellish the park. Within the design process due to the site topography several risks have been identified pertaining to public safety, accessibility, fall heights, maintainability and material selection.

As some of these risks have been found to be significant, a risk assessment and risk control matrix has been prepared for Council’s consideration, should Council proceed with the previously endorsed option. The Risk Assessment and proposed mitigation measures, including site stabilisation costs, are outlined in the report. If Council were to proceed with Option 1 (Mimosa Park to be embellished as a local park) funding of approximately $100,000 is required.

Due to the existing site constraints in establishing a pocket park and associated cost to deliver the project, it is recommended that Council consider the option of rezoning and reclassifying the property to allow potential future sale, with the proceeds allocated for the embellishment and renewal of parks and open space in the vicinity.

Within Option 2 (Reclassify, rezone and dispose of Mimosa Park) it would require an amendment to Liverpool LEP 2008 to undertake a rezoning to rezone the site to R2 Low Density Residential (to reflect the zoning of the immediately adjoining properties) and reclassify the site to “operational” land for potential future sale. If this option was to be adopted and an amendment to the LEP was approved, a future report would be presented to Council recommending methods of sale and establishing a reserve/minimum price for the property, prior to proceeding with any sale.

This report is presented to table the concept development plan and estimated embellishment costs; and seeks direction on a final position for the future use of Mimosa Park.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Consider proceeding with an amendment to Liverpool LEP 2008 to seek a rezoning for the property at 22 Box Road, Casula (Lot 1103 DP 1051233) to R2 Low Density Residential and reclassification of the site to “operational” land for potential future sale with the proceeds from any future sale to be allocated for the embellishment and renewal of parks and open space in the vicinity.

2. That if a rezoning and reclassification process are approved as part of an amendment to the LEP, that a further report be presented to Council recommending methods of sale and establishing a reserve/minimum price for the property, prior to proceeding with any sale.

REPORT

The site known as Mimosa Park (22 Box Road, Casula being Lot 1103 DP 1051233) is a small vacant pocket of open space of approximately 550 sqm. Mimosa Park was identified as a park in Liverpool Contributions Plan 2001 (Section 10.3 (Box Road)). The land drops approximately 4-5 metres from the front of the site to the back and has a gradient close to 1:10. The block of land is the size of a residential property, is zoned RE1-Public Recreation and is classified a “Community” land. The site is immediately surrounded by R2 Low Density Residential zoned land. The site is occasionally used by local residents to watch the sunset or take a rest whilst on walks.

An aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated

At its meeting on 27 October 2020 Council considered a report on Mimosa Park, 22 Box Road, Casula. The report followed comprehensive community consultation and sought Council directions on the following two options:

· Option 1: Mimosa Park to be kept as a local park and embellished (this option will require allocation of funds).

· Option 2: Reclassify, rezone and dispose of Mimosa Park.

Council conducted a community consultation through online surveys and door knocking, with over sixty responses. Whilst the majority of feedback from the community consultation (55.9%) supported the park to be rezoned, Council endorsed Option 1 of the report and allocated a sum of $15,000 to undertake a feasibility study, environmental testing and concept development. This report is submitted to present the findings of this study.

Site Analysis and Risks

Mimosa Park is currently an open block of vacant grassy land (550sqm), bound by double storey residential buildings, with the western boundary secured by a significant retaining wall which has a significant drop off down to the residence below. Key constraints identified at the site include the surrounding residential buildings, level change, access, retaining wall and drop off along the western boundary and contamination.

Due to the site topography, through the ongoing design process several risks were identified pertaining to public safety, accessibility, fall heights, maintainability and material selection. As some of these risks have been found to be significant, a risk assessment and risk control matrix has been prepared for Council’s consideration should Council proceed with the endorsed option.

The key items with potential risk include:

· Site access

· Safety around vehicles and pedestrians

· Site contamination

The subject site being Lot 1103 DP 1051233 is also subject to notations on title relating to drainage easements and existing Restriction on the Use of Land relating to fencing and BCA Code requirements.

Concept Development

Council engaged a consultant in 2021 to prepare a concept plan. There are two proposed concepts presented for Council’s consideration. They both highlight the need for accessibility, shade, site retention and an overall landscape design as key requirements to support the space as a functional and safe pocket park. Due to the site constraints the offerings of the park are limited to passive use; and the majority of the proposed works are to mitigate the identified risks.

Recreational Value

The risks and constraints of the site, significantly limit the functionality and broad community benefits that are typically expected from open spaces. Additionally, the site location being among residential properties has been considered to minimise impact on residents, including noise and lack of parking and amenities nearby. Approximately three quarters of the concept cost is to provide solutions to site constraints and risk mitigation. Overall, the recreational value of the site is highly limited for both existing residents and casual users.

The initial Council report in August 2020 discussed the need and demand analysis and outlined parks and open space in close proximity to the site which meet diverse and broad recreation and sporting needs of the community. For the information of Council, the table below outlines the current provision of parks and opens spaces within a 1,200m catchment area of Mimosa Park.

	Name and location	ROSS Strategy classification	Main functions	Approx. distance from Mimosa Park
A	Daruk Park, Casula Ingham Drive	District Park	· Sports field · Amenity building · Community centre · Library	820m
B	Jardine Park, Casula Reserve Road	District Park	· Sports field · Basketball court · Netball court · Playground · Amenity building	1.5k
C	Peter Miller Reserve, Casula Cedar Road	District Park	· Sports field · Basketball half court · Cricket nets · Playground · Amenity building §	280m
D	Gandangara Park, Casula Strawberry Road	Neighbourhood Park	· Drainage corridor · Pedestrian pathway	700m
E	Tharawal Park, Casula Gunsynd Avenue	Local Park	· Children’s playground	1.3km
F	Bill Wilson Park, Casula Maple Road	Local Park	· Children’s playground · Picnic shelters	1.5km
G	Acacia Park, Prestons 72A Grevillea Crescent	Local Park	· Children’s playground · Picnic shelters	500m

With consideration to identified risks, site constraints and recreational value, the public use and benefit of Mimosa Park is found to be limited.

Rezoning Consideration

Should Council reconsider its previous resolution to rezone and dispose of Mimosa Park, consideration needs to be given to the proposed new zone and the reclassification requirements of the Act.

Rezoning and reclassifying of land requires the preparation of a planning proposal. As with all planning proposals, this will need to demonstrate strategic and site-specific merit in relation to the change in zone as per to date investigation, and whether this site is suited to the proposed land-use zone. All planning proposals require a gateway determination by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), followed by public authority consultation and public exhibition. In accordance with LEP Practice note PN 16-001, any land which needs to be reclassified also needs to be subject to a public hearing and cannot be rezoned until it has been granted reclassification by the governor (Minister).

Should Council resolve to dispose of the land, it is recommended that proceeds from the sale be considered a restricted asset for provision and or embellishment of open space in the vicinity.

Conclusion

Council endorsed on 27 October 2020 to allocate a sum of $15,000 to undertake a feasibility study, environmental testing and concept development for Mimosa Park. The investigation has identified several risks pertaining to public safety, accessibility, fall heights, maintainability and material selection. These risks and constraints at the site are significantly limiting the functionality of the site, and broad community benefits that is typically expected from a pocket park. Additionally, the cost to mitigate these risks is found to be approximately three quarters of the concept development cost. The recreational value of the site is found to be limited and there are existing parks and open spaces nearby to meet the broad community recreation needs.

With respect to the risks, limited functionality and costs identified through concept plan development, it is recommended that Council consider proceeding with a process for an amendment to Liverpool LEP 2008 to rezone, reclassify and consider the potential sale of the site; and allocate the proceeds from the sale for embellishment and renewal of parks and open space in the vicinity.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Costs associated with existing Council resolution (retain and embellishment) are outside of Council’s current budget and long-term financial plan. The impact on the budget and long-term financial plan are outlined in the table below and would need to be drawn from general revenue if Council ere to embellish the park. These figures provide an indication of the probable order of costs for the specified works dated November 2021. This estimate is for the park only and does not include any costs associated with the design of the drainage channel. This is not an estimate and is intended to give an indication of the probable costs. To obtain detailed accurate estimates, it’s recommended that a qualified quantity surveyor be engaged.

	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26
Operating budget / LTFP impact	General upkeep and maintenance as per pocket park maintenance schedule
Capital budget impact	Nil budgeted	Site mobilization and establishment, letterbox drop, temporary fencing $9,500 Earthworks $10,000 Paving works/ stairs $4,500 Retention/fencing $10,075 Park furniture $2,842 Softscape $13,505 Site clean-up and completion $5,000 10 weeks maintenance period during construction $10,500 GST $6,592.20 10% contingency $6,592.20 Contamination Study: $20,000 Total: $99,106.40
Ongoing unbudgeted impact to opex from capital expenditure		Maintenance schedule cost estimate: Approximately $26,000 per year for the basic upkeep of this park
Unbudgeted impact to unrestricted cash		N/A
Funding source		General Funds

There would also be a cost of approximately $45,000 if Council was to consider a one-off application for an amendment to the LEP. In this regard, it would be recommended that if an amendment was to be considered, that it be dealt with as part of an LEP review, which would incorporate a number of properties (which would not require the payment of a one-off application fee).

Due to the identified potential risk of contamination, it is also recommended that a contamination assessment be obtained if Council proceeds with either option to embellish the park or rezoning/reclassification for potential sale to determine if provision needs to be made for any additional costs.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are economic and financial considerations as noted above.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Include any relevant legislation and section here. There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Extreme / High / Medium / Low. There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mimosa Park Concept Design 2021

2. Safety In Design Report Mimosa Park

3. Mimosa Park Concept Design Cost

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Community & Culture Report

COM 02

Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Promote a harmonious community that celebrates its diversity
File Ref	253055.2022
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

Council is committed to building strong and resilient communities in the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA) and to maximising social wellbeing. Council helps achieve these goals by providing financial support through grants and sponsorships to develop leadership skills, increase participation in community activities and address identified social issues.

Impacts from COVID-19, including the respective physical distancing requirements have impacted on capacity and eligibility of programs, projects, or events. This is expected to change as restrictions are easing and vaccination rates are increasing. To ascertain community safety, demonstrate compliance with NSW Health guidelines, and demonstrate evidence of proactive and measurable program governance, applicants have been requested to provide information on their compliance with COVID-19 safety guidelines.

This report provides a recommendation for funding totalling $18,300 from the Community Grants and Matching Grants programs.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the funding recommendation of $9,800 (GST exclusive) under the Community Grants Program for the following projects:

Applicant	Project	Recommended
Autism Advisory and Support Service	AASS Supporting Families to Build Capacity	$5,000
Road Safety Education Limited	RYDA Road Safety Education for Liverpool Youth	$4,800

2. Endorses the funding recommendation of $8,500 (GST exclusive) under the Matching Grants Program for the following project:

Applicant	Project	Recommended
Search Dogs Sydney Inc	Lawncare Improvements	$8,500

REPORT

Community Grants Program

The Community Grants Program received two applications which met the eligibility criteria and are recommended for funding as follows:

Applicant	Autism Advisory and Support Service
Project	AASS Supporting Families to Build Capacity
Amount Requested	$5,000	Total Project Cost	$5,000
Location	Liverpool LGA	Date	01/09/2022
About the Applicant	Autism Advisory Support Service (AASS) is a non-profit charity organisation servicing the Liverpool community since 2007. AASS provides a range of services to support, advocate, help, educate, and guide families who have a family member with Autism as well as the greater community.
Description	Objectives: The project will provide 150 hours of family support services to families seeking help post COVID-19 lockdown. The program will aim to overcome the challenges imposed on individuals with Autism and other neuro-developmental conditions by working collaboratively with families to ensure a cohesive service approach collaborating with Department of Education, NSW Health, the Department of Communities and Justice, NSW Police, and National Disability Insurance Scheme to support families to achieve positive outcomes. Outcomes: · Provide support and access to early intervention and support services; · Provide information for CALD and refugee families experiencing cultural and language barriers; and · Promote inclusivity by enabling families to build connections and opportunities in their community.
Beneficiaries	· 100 community members and their families
Assessment	Recommended for Funding - $5,000 The project aligns with the Community Strategic Plan Direction 1 Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging, and meets the Community Grants Program’s funding priorities. Expected program outcomes 7.4.1 a), b), c) and d).

Applicant	Road Safety Education Limited
Project	RYDA Road Safety Education for Liverpool Youth
Amount Requested	$4,800	Total Project Cost	$35,406
Location	· High schools across the Liverpool LGA	Date	01/09/2022
About the Applicant	Road Safety Education Limited (RSE) is a not-for-profit organisation operating throughout Australia and New Zealand, committed to saving lives through the provision of world class road safety education targeting young people.
Description	Objectives: The program focuses on students aged between 16 and 18 years of age attending a number of Liverpool LGA high schools. It aims to support students to identify and understand road safety issues and the risk involved on a personal level. RYDA will deliver several road safety workshops in partnership with NSW Police, professional driving instructors and crash survivors. The program helps young people to develop strategies to mitigate risks while driving and approaching road use as a social responsibility. Outcomes: · Educating young people on the understanding of Road Safety; and · Empowering young people to become responsible decision makers and enable them to develop personal strategies and skills for road safety.
Beneficiaries	· Over 1000 high-school students
Assessment	Recommended for Funding - $4,800 The project aligns with the Community Strategic Plan Direction 1 Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging and meets the Community Grants Program’s funding priorities. Expected program outcomes 7.4.1 c), d) and e).

Matching Grants Program

The Matching Grants Program received one application, which met the eligibility criteria and is recommended for funding as follows:

Applicant	Search Dogs Sydney Inc
Project	Lawncare Improvements
Amount Requested	$8,500	Total Project Cost	$ 18,150
Location	Kemps Creek	Date	01/09/2022
About the Applicant	Search Dogs Sydney Inc (SDSI) is a volunteer organisation local to the Liverpool LGA. SDSI provide 24-hour support 365 days a year to NSW Police, emergency management agencies such as SES, and vulnerable community members and their families through Search & Rescue and Recovery operations across NSW. SDSI are a specialist team that train canines and technicians to search for and locate missing persons in any environment or terrain.
Description	Objective: The grant funding will be used to purchase an industrial standard lawn mower to maintain grounds and improve safety for canines and visitors to the Kemps Creek Training Academy. The equipment will strengthen and maintain community safety by ensuring the facility is kept clean and well maintained for beginner canines, technicians undertaking skilled training, and keen visitors interacting with the dogs and volunteers. Outcomes: · Enhance community safety; · Provide a sustainable environment for training; · Provide opportunities for volunteers to undertake drone and UAV operating training in a safe and secure environment; and · Create a welcoming environment and increase participation for visitors and community groups.

Beneficiaries	· NSW Police and law enforcement agencies; · Emergency Management Agencies (SES); · Liverpool LGA residents; · Local community organisations; and · National and International organisations
Assessment	Recommended for Funding - $8,500 The project aligns with the Community Strategic Plan Direction 1 Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging, and meets the Matching Grants Program’s funding priorities. Expected program outcomes 7.6.2 a), b), d), e) and f).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Costs associated with this recommendation have been included in Council’s budget for the current year and long-term financial plan.

A full breakdown of operating budget is included below.

COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIP
Budget	Balance	Recommended for funding in this report	Remaining
$100,000	$90,000	Nil	$90,000
COMMUNITY GRANTS
Budget	Balance	Recommended funding in this report	Remaining
$102,000	$102,000	$9,800	$92,200
MATCHING GRANTS
Budget	Balance	Recommended funding in this report	Remaining
$200,000	$200,000	$8,500	$191,500
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT GRANTS*
Budget	Balance	Recommended funding in this report	Remaining
$75,000	$75,000	Nil	$75,000
COMBINED FUNDING BALANCE
Combined Budget	Combined Balance	Total recommended funding in this report	Remaining
$477,000	$467,000	$18,300	$448,700

* Sustainable Environment Grants funding is via a rate levy and is only eligible to be used for the Sustainable Environment Grants Program.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Costs associated with this report have been included in Council’s budget for the current year and long-term financial plan.
Environment	Support schools and community groups to play an active role in reducing their impact on the environment and implementing environmentally sustainable actions.
Social	Support community organisations and groups to deliver services.
Civic Leadership	Role model to applicants, residents, and the general public, on COVID-19 safe practices and procedures when supporting funding requests.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993 - s356
Risk	Risk of supporting these activities is considered low. Applicants have provided information on their compliance with COVID-19 safety guidelines published by NSW Health.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Community & Culture Report

COM 03

Report back on amendment of the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Demonstrate a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive governance framework
File Ref	256714.2022
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

At its meeting on 27 April 2022, Council resolved to:

· Receive a report back to a future Council meeting to consider amendments to the Grants and Sponsorships policy with a view to enabling Councillors to include additional sponsorships outside of the grants program by resolution of Council.

In consultation with Council’s Legal Services, the Community Development team have interrogated the current Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy (the Policy) to ascertain whether such provisions would be permissible within the existing policy structure; or whether amendments would be required. Importantly, staff have sought clarification whether this provision is an approved use of public funds under section 356 of the Local Government Act (the Act), which outlines Council’s role and responsibilities in administering public funds for the purposes of exercising its functions.

It is advised that while it is permissible under the Act to amend the Policy to consider these additional functions, doing so is not without risk to Council; and without proper scrutiny this could see Council fall into legal error and inadvertently breach section 356 (2) of the Act which requires the giving of public notice – usually a period of 28 days – prior to passing a resolution relating to the provision of funds to “proposed recipients who act for private gain”. While in many instances it may be clear that a recipient acts for private gain, without the usual scrutiny of the application and assessment process, Council could find themselves at risk of breaching this condition of the Act. The requirement to publicly exhibit the sponsorship will also lead to delay in the provision of funding to an applicant.

To mitigate the likelihood of such risks, a similar process to that of existing grants program for documentation, assessment, reporting and acquittal will be required. This would result in duplication of processes and staff time. In light of this risk and resource impact, making amendments to the policy to enable Councillor to include additional sponsorships outside of the grants program it is not recommended.

Further to this resolution, the Mayor and Councillors have raised queries as to the capacity of the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Program to support infrastructure-related projects in the community. To this end, Council officers have identified that funds under the Matching Grants program (maximum $15,000) for infrastructure related projects that meet the criteria support the following are feasible:

· Minor repairs and capital works to address damage to properties (such as that experienced due to flooding) for non-profit organisations and other associations who provide services to the community on a not-for-profit basis; and

· Sporting associations for improvements to infrastructure such as sporting fields and facilities.

This report is submitted to present the findings of the investigation into Council resolution from 27 April and options relating to additional inquiries on funding infrastructure related community projects.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this report;

2. Amend the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy to include both minor repair works for not-for-profit organisations and upgrades to sporting infrastructure as part of the Matching Grants program; and

3. Place the amended Policy on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

REPORT

Background

At its meeting on 27 April 2022, Council discussed amendments to the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy (the Policy) to enable Councillors to include additional sponsorships outside of the grants program and bring a report back to Council. Further to this resolution, the Mayor and Councillors have raised queries around the feasibility of funding infrastructure related projects that support community outcomes.

Historical context – community sponsorships

Prior to 2017, Council’s Grants and Donations, and Corporate Sponsorship programs were managed independently of one another. Grants and Donations were managed by the Community Development and Planning team and focused on the delivery of community programs and activities by community organisations and groups which support community-based programs and services. The Corporate Sponsorship Program was managed by the Communications team and focused on providing financial support to large-scale community events and activities which were held in Liverpool and promoted Liverpool City and Council as a diverse and vibrant community.

Under this arrangement, The Corporate Sponsorship program was not subject to the same level of due diligence and probity considerations as the Grants and Donations program and was considered as posting potential accountability risk. Further, the sponsorship payments were not registered and tracked effectively which led to confusion as to outstanding acquittals and evidence of funds being spent for their intended purpose.

In order to ensure greater probity and transparency across the Corporate Sponsorship Program and provide a consistent approach to grant-making for Council, management of the Corporate Sponsorship Program was transferred to Community Development and Planning in 2017 and merged into the Grants and Donations Program, creating the Grants, Donations and Corporate Sponsorship Program. This Program was renamed the ‘Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Program’ in 2021 to better reflect the intentions of the sponsorship program in supporting large-scale, community-based events and initiatives.

Current policy position

The current Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy provides a clear direction as to the aims and functions of Council’s grant-making processes:

· Council is committed to building strong and resilient communities within the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA) and to increase social wellbeing for all residents. One way of achieving these goals is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants, donations, and sponsorships to individuals and groups to develop leadership skills, increase participation in community life and address identified social issues. Council seeks to support programs that can build or enhance the reputation and brand of Liverpool City in accordance with Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

· Council seeks to enhance the use of public funds through effective grant processes. Clear grant program objectives are linked to the organisation’s strategic goals, outlined in Council’s Community Strategic Plan. Council’s grant programs provide a coordinated and integrated approach to growing Liverpool socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally.

These directions are aligned with Council’s Community Strategic Plan (CSP) and Section 356 of the Local Government Act (the Act), which prescribes the requirements for councils when providing financial assistance to others (including charitable, community and sporting organisations and private individuals).

Importantly, the existing policy outlines clear ethics criteria which ensures that Council is not at risk of aligning with groups and organisations who are undertaking activities which may negatively impact the environment, are harmful or misleading to the community, and discriminate against or exploit community members. The existing grants management process requires that all necessary due diligence checks are conducted on each application – by both the applicant and Council.

Further, under the existing process applicants are required to acquit their funding at the end of their project to demonstrate that funds have been expended for the specific purpose for which they were provided. This requirement provides Council with peace-of-mind that public funds are being expended appropriately and to the benefit of the community, while also providing an audit trail for accounting purposes.

Considerations and risks

Community Sponsorship

Council’s current process for the assessment and recommendation of applications for community grants and sponsorships has been refined over time to ensure that all applications not only meet the Policy criteria but also represent value for money and align with Council’s strategic directions. This process includes a thorough assessment of the applicant organisations to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria and are not operating in such a way as could bring Council into disrepute by association.

The key processes for grant application and assessment includes:

· Organisations discuss and submit their application through Council’s online grants management portal, Fluxx;

· Applications undergo an initial assessment by Council’s Grants team to ensure all relevant criteria has been addressed and the organisation meets the initial eligibility requirements for the program;

· Once eligibility is confirmed, an assessment panel of three Council officers is formed to undertake a comprehensive assessment of each application, including assessing the alignment with the Policy and the priorities and requirements of each specific grant program;

· Each panel member will then make an independent recommendation to approve or decline funding for each application; and

· All assessed applications (recommended for funding or not) are then submitted to Council through a Council report for endorsement.

While enabling Councillors to include additional sponsorships outside the grants program by Council resolution is permissible under the Act, in doing so there is a risk that Council will fall into legal error and inadvertently breach section 356 (2) of the Act which requires the giving of public notice – usually a period of 28 days – prior to passing a resolution relating to the provision of funds to “proposed recipients who act for private gain”. While in many instances it may be clear that a recipient acts for private gain, without the usual scrutiny of the application and assessment process, Council could find themselves at risk of breaching this condition of the Act. The requirement to publicly exhibit the sponsorship will also lead to delay in the provision of funding to an applicant.

To ensure probity, transparency, fairness and accountability in grant-making processes; and compliance, a similar process (documentation, assessment, report and acquittal) for funding outside the grants program will still be required. This would mean a duplication of processes and staff resources. Therefore, amendment to the policy to allow sponsorships grants outside of the grants program by resolution of Council is not recommended.

Matching Grants

Funds under the Matching Grants program (maximum $15,000) for infrastructure related projects that meet the criteria can be utilised to support:

· Sporting associations for improvements to infrastructure such as sporting fields and facilities.

The Matching Grants program will be amended to include infrastructure project. An assessment criterion (below) to ensure compliance with both the Policy and the Act has been drafted and will be included in the Policy, and to the assessment process. These include but not limited to minor repairs or upgrades for community services, licensed tenants and permanent infrastructure at sporting facilities such as improved amenities, canteens, awnings, shelters or shade structures, improved accessibility for facilities and seating.

Considerations for infrastructure projects under Matching Grants program:

· The nature of the repairs being considered – are they a one-off and related to damage sustained from emergency incidents such as flooding;

· Is the applicant providing a community service or of private nature;

· Do the works represent value for money for Council and align with the Community Strategic Plan priorities;

· How will applications for repairs and capital works be assessed to ensure they represent cost effectiveness and value for money, and will be carried out safely and by licensed professionals;

· Is the application free of any conflict of interest for Council and does it align with the ethics criteria outlined in the Policy;

· In the case of sporting infrastructure – is the proposed infrastructure a permanent fixture (i.e. cannot be removed);

· Who is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the new infrastructure when added to an existing Council asset; and

· Does the applicant possess the relevant Landowners Consent and (where applicable) Development Application approvals.

Conclusion

Community Sponsorship

With consideration to potential probity and accountability risks and duplication of processes and resources, the amended to the policy to enable Councillors to include additional sponsorships outside of the grants program is not recommended.

Matching Grants

Funds under the Matching Grants program (maximum $15,000) for infrastructure related projects that meet the criteria can be utilised. The Policy will be amended to include both minor repair works for not-for-profit organisations and upgrades to sporting infrastructure as part of the Matching Grants program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no further financial implications associated with this report.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and 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	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Local Government Act – Section 356
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low. There is a risk that Council could inadvertently fall into legal error without the proper scrutiny of grant applications under the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Infrastructure & Environment Report

INF 01

Ibis Management

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Deliver a beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
File Ref	267934.2022
Report By	Michael Zengovski - Manager City Environment
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure & Environment

Executive Summary

Council, at its meeting held on 2 February 2022, resolved to investigate possible actions that may be taken to reduce the health and safety impacts of Ibis birds in the Liverpool CBD and suburban areas.

This report provides information regarding the management of Ibis. Proposed actions have been identified at priority locations to reduce the negative impacts of Ibis on the community. The actions include pruning vegetation being used by Ibis as roosting sites and increased cleaning of surfaces at the corner of Railway Street and Bigge Street, Liverpool.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

Background

At its meeting held on 2 February 2022, Council resolved:

That Council investigates possible action that may be taken to reduce the health and safety impacts of Ibis birds in the CBD and suburban areas. A report to be brought to the June 2022 Council Meeting.

Ibis Management Considerations

Ibis are a protected native species under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, which triggers specific requirements if management actions are proposed that could potentially harm them. This includes:

· Licences from NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (for the person undertaking the action, and the landholder), and associated conditions;

· Limits to degree of harm caused;

· Site management plan for sites with more than 50 Ibis; and

· Monitoring and reporting.

To ensure that actions taken by Council are effective and adhere to legislative requirements, Council sought advice from Ecosure, a consultancy with expertise in Ibis management.

The Ibis monitoring and management advice received from Ecosure to date is attached to this report. This information includes:

· Legislative and licence requirements, including licences required for the proposed vegetation pruning;

· Site monitoring of locations where Ibis may be having a negative impact on the community to establish number of birds and site specific issues;

· Likely attractants such as food sources for the Ibis; and

· Advice regarding potential management actions.

Next Steps

Priority actions have been identified in response to community concerns about Ibis. These actions will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with expert advice, legislative requirements, and licence conditions. The actions include pruning palms that are being used by Ibis as roosting sites at three locations within the CBD, and increased cleaning of surfaces at the corner of Railway Street and Bigge Street, Liverpool.

Phoenix Palms are a preferred habitat type for Ibis to roost in, with horizontal fronds providing a base for their nests. This roosting can be discouraged by pruning the lower fronds of the palms (known as “pineappling”). Palm pruning is being considered within Council managed land at the following priority locations within the CBD to reduce the roosting opportunities for Ibis:

· Intersection of Macquarie Street and Terminus Street;

· Macquarie Street, near intersection with Memorial Avenue; and

· Railway Street, near intersection with Bigge Street.

To be effective, the pruning would need to be undertaken on an annual basis to discourage Ibis from roosting. A tree contractor and an appropriately qualified and licensed person to oversee the pruning of palms at these priority locations are currently being sought. There are anticipated to be restrictions on when these works can occur due to the likely requirement that no Ibis chicks are harmed.

The development of an LGA-wide Ibis management plan is currently being considered to further guide Council's response and ensure actions are well informed and effective. Ongoing monitoring is also likely to be required to facilitate future actions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed palm pruning at the three identified priority locations is estimated to cost approximately $30,000 per annum on an ongoing basis. This includes engaging a tree contractor (approximately $20,000) and an appropriately experienced and qualified person to oversee the works (approximately $10,000). This cost is currently unbudgeted by City Presentation as it falls outside the scope of the standard tree maintenance program.

Additional consultancy fees would be incurred by any actions that require the preparation of a site management plan (where more than 50 Ibis are present), monitoring or LGA-wide Ibis management plan. The preparation of an LGA-wide Ibis management plan is estimated to be $20,000, which is unbudgeted.

	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26
Operating budget / LTFP impact	$50,000	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000
Capital budget impact
Ongoing unbudgeted impact to opex from capital expenditure
Unbudgeted impact to unrestricted cash	$50,000	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000
Funding source	General cash reserve	General cash reserve	General cash reserve	General cash reserve

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Costs of Ibis management would be highly variable depending on the type and extent of actions undertaken. The priority actions identified in this report would incur a cost of approximately $30,000 per annum. More intensive responses would require additional consultancy and contractor costs.
Environment	Ibis management actions would be undertaken in a manner that minimises harm caused to the protected species. Actions will only be undertaken where there is a clear need to manage the impact caused to the community.
Social	Ibis have been identified as a safety and health concern by members of the public. Identified priority actions aim to reduce adverse impacts to the community caused by Ibis.
Civic Leadership	Managing Ibis in a proactive manner will assist Council act as a leader in the community through improved management practices.
Legislative	Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979
Risk	Ibis can cause potential health and safety risks to the community if they are not appropriately managed. The actions identified in this report will help Council fulfil its responsibility to minimise these risks.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Preliminary Advice for Liverpool City Council – Ibis Management and Monitoring (Ecosure, September 2021)

2. Initial Ibis Monitoring Results and Recommendations for Management (Ecosure, May 2022)

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Infrastructure & Environment Report

INF 02

Water Management Policy

Strategic Objective	Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Develop, and advocate for, plans that support safe and friendly communities
File Ref	218956.2022
Report By	Binod Parajuli - Acting Manager Infrastructure Planning
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure & Environment

Executive Summary

Council’s adopted Water Management Policy sets standards for the management of all aspects of the water cycle in a holistic and coordinated way. The Policy provides clear directions for water management and defines the key principles that will underpin water management in the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA). The Policy plays a crucial role in:

· guiding the sustainable occupation of flood prone lands;

· the implementation of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles in achieving better water quality outcomes; and

· achieving better water conservation outcomes.

The Policy has been reviewed and updated to ensure it aligns with current best management practice in floodplain and water management, including any changes to the legislative requirements.

This report recommends that Council adopts the updated Water Management Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the updated Water Management Policy.

REPORT

Liverpool is traversed by a large number of creeks and waterways making the management of water a key issue for Council. Increasing urbanisation has resulted in a significant increase in impervious surfaces and has significantly increased the volume of stormwater flowing into urban waterways. Without appropriate response, this could lead to the continued physical degradation of natural watercourses in urban environments including creek erosion, siltation and dieback of vegetation.

Activities in urban areas also cause urban contaminants to be deposited and subsequently conveyed by stormwater to surrounding natural water environments, leading to stormwater pollution in these environments. The projected further growth forecasted for Liverpool means that these pressures on our waterways will continue to intensify. Therefore, a policy framework is essential to guide Council’s activities in managing floods, stormwater and water quality aspects of its catchments.

In June 2016, Council adopted the Water Management Policy as part of a water management framework to set standards for the management of all aspects of the water cycle in a holistic and coordinated way. The Policy provides clear directions for water management and defines the key principles that underpin water management in the LGA. The Water Management Strategy along with the Policy objectives, guide the sustainable occupation of flood prone lands, builds capacity to over time achieve better water quality and water conservation outcomes.

Council’s Water Management Framework together with its various elements are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – LCC Water Management Framework

The Policy has been reviewed by relevant stakeholders and updated with changes to ensure it aligns with current best management practices in floodplain and water management, including any changes to the legislative requirements.

After review and consultation, the following additions and changes have been made to the Policy:

1. Section 1

· Clarification is provided to ensure that the Policy applies to all developments including residential, commercial and industrial developments on private and public lands in the Liverpool LGA.

· The following additional objectives have been added to Section 1:

o ensure developments on floodplains follow the recommendations of the relevant Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan;

o ensure principles of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) is applied for water quality treatment and pollution reduction targets are achieved for all developments in accordance with the DCP;

o protecting and enhancing ecological health of the natural waterways; and

o encourages use of the waterways for open space and recreation.

2. Section 3.1

· Subclauses 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 are added to ensure the developments within flood prone lands comply with the requirements of floodplain risk management study and plan (FRMSP) and consider safe evacuation during major flood including and up to the probable maximum flood (PMF).

Adoption of the Policy will continue to provide clear directions for the management of waterways, flood, stormwater and water quality as well as define the key principles that underpin water management in the LGA.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications relating to this recommendation. Recommended principles in the Water Management Policy will drive long-term cost-effective solutions which will progressively improve Council’s financial burden.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Financial benefits arising from increased recycling and reuse of water.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution.
Social	Promote community education and awareness as key element to manage water quality.
Civic Leadership	Act as an environmental leader in the community.
Legislative	Policy assists council to fulfill its obligation under the Local Government Act 1993 and NSW Flood Policy.
Risk	Policy assists Council to protect people and properties from flood risks.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Water Management Policy

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Infrastructure & Environment Report

INF 03

Asset Management Policy

Strategic Objective	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
File Ref	218966.2022
Report By	Binod Parajuli - Acting Manager Infrastructure Planning
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure & Environment

Executive Summary

Liverpool City Council is responsible for the management, care and control of a vast portfolio of infrastructure assets, representing a significant public investment and utility. These assets are used to provide a range of services, which aim to deliver social, environmental and economic outcomes for the community of Liverpool. The levels of services delivered by these assets are largely determined by the manner in which they are maintained and managed.

Council has accordingly implemented a systematic asset management framework, comprising Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plans, to drive appropriate asset management best practices to ensure assets are planned, created, operated, maintained, renewed and disposed to best deliver Council’s service delivery and strategic outcomes.

The Asset Management Policy is a legislative requirement as per the Local Government Act 1993, Local Government Amendment (Planning and Reporting) Act 2009 and Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IPR). The purpose of the Asset Management Policy is to set guidelines for undertaking asset management in a structured and coordinated way throughout Liverpool City Council

The IPR requires Council to review the Asset Management Policy and update it at regular intervals to ensure its alignment with current best practice in asset management, including any changes to the legislative requirements. Accordingly, the Asset Management Policy has been updated with some minor adjustments, including consideration of the impact of climate change.

This report recommends Council adopts the updated Asset Management Policy

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the updated Asset Management Policy.

REPORT

Liverpool City Council is responsible for the management, care and control of a wide range of infrastructure assets, representing a significant public investment and utility. These include public roads and other transport related facilities; floodplain and drainage networks; parks, reserves and recreational facilities, property and buildings.

These assets are used to provide a range of services, which aim to deliver social, environmental and economic outcomes for the community of Liverpool. The levels of services delivered by these assets are largely determined by the manner in which they are maintained and managed.

Council has accordingly implemented a systematic asset management framework, comprising Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plans (as shown in Figure 1 below), to drive appropriate asset management best practices to ensure assets are planned, created, operated, maintained, renewed and disposed to best deliver Council’s service delivery and strategic outcomes.

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING - DOCUMENT MODEL

ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY, STRATEGY & PLAN

What is to be achieved?

§ defines the key principles that underpin AM at Liverpool.

§ outlines council’s AM goals and objectives.

§ i.e. defines what is to be achieved.

How will it be achieved?

Ø Current AM practices

Ø Emerging trends & issues

Ø Desired AM practices

Ø Gap analysis

Ø AM Improvement Plan

§ provides high level actions that will build asset management capability and will facilitate the achievement of Council’s AM objectives.

§ i.e. how the goals, as articulated by the policy, will be achieved

§ translates Council’s overall objectives and principles contained in the asset management policy into broad actions and targets through an asset management improvement plan

§ AM improvement plan

Ø identifies required improvement

Ø determines targets

Ø identifies resources & costs

Ø assigns responsibility

Ø presents performance measure

Converts strategy into actions

Ø tactics & asset level strategies

Ø life cycle management plans

§ ensures assets continue to provide the required levels of service over the long term in a cost effective manner

§ provides long term asset requirements and corresponding financial forecasts through a 10 year priority program of works

§ AM Plan

Ø levels of service

Ø future demand for assets

Ø risk management

Ø life cycle management plans

§ operations & maintenance plans

§ renewal & upgrade plans

§ disposal & decommissioning plans

Ø long term expenditure forecast

Figure 1 – LCC Asset Management Framework

The IPR Framework requires Council to regularly review and update the Asset Management Policy to ensure its alignment with current best practice in asset management and reflect any changes to legislative requirements. Accordingly, the Asset Management Policy has been reviewed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and the following minor changes have been made:

i) The Policy is presented in the new format to maintain consistency with Council’s policy documents;

ii) Clause 4 (VII) of the Policy requires Council to consider the impact of climate change on asset performances and make informed decisions on the choice of infrastructure solutions that are more climate resilient, for examples include utilising recycled crushed glass in road pavements, recycled pavement material (such as used on the Bernera Road extension) and light coloured coating on asphalt to reduce heat absorption; and

iii) The Policy acknowledges and aligns with the strategic objectives of Council’s adopted Community Strategic Plan 2022-2032.

A copy of the updated Policy is included as Attachment 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications relating to this recommendation. Recommended principles in the Asset Management Policy will drive long-term cost-effective solutions and optimisation of asset utilisation, which will progressively improve Council’s long term financial liabilities.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Deliver and maintain an efficient and cost-effective asset portfolio to meet community expectations.
Environment	Enhance the environmental performance of assets and promote climate resilient infrastructure.
Social	Deliver high quality assets for community to enjoy.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision-making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused.
Legislative	The Policy is developed to meet the requirements of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework under the Local Government Act 1993 and Civil Liability Act 2002.
Risk	The Policy assist Council to manage asset related risk under the Civil Liability Act 2002 and Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Asset Management Policy

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Committee Reports

CTTE 05

Minutes of the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 20 July 2022

Strategic Objective	Leading through Collaboration Strive for best practice in all Council processes
File Ref	270758.2022
Report By	Charles Wiafe - Manager Transport Management
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

This report presents the recommendations from the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 20 July 2022. At the meeting, the Committee considered eight (8) agenda, three (3) technical discussion, and twelve (12) general business items.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the following Committee recommendations:

Item 1 - Mclean Street, Liverpool – Proposed Relocation of the Existing Marked Pedestrian Crossing

Council approves the proposed relocation and upgrade to the existing marked crossing

Item 2 – Boundary Road, Liverpool - Proposed Speed Hump

Council requests the NSW Police Force to undertake speed enforcement and provide advice at a future meeting.

Item 3 – Liverpool LGA – Extension of Car Share Scheme

Council approves the continued demarcation of 10 car parking spaces with signage indicating No Parking, Authorised Car Share Vehicles Excepted, with LCC Zone numbers, to enable the car share scheme to continue.

Item 4 – Australis Avenue, Wattle Grove – Proposed Pedestrian Crossing

Council approves the staged installation of a raised marked pedestrian crossing across the narrowed road section, approximately 100m north of the roundabout at Australis Avenue & Daintree Drive.

Item 5 – Feodore Drive, Cecil Hills – Request for Bus Stop Relocation

Council and Transit Systems investigate relocation of the bus stop to the roundabout at Clementina Circuit and Feodore Drive intersection or any other location. If a suitable location is identified, Council to submit an application under delegated authority for the bus stop relocation.

Item 6 - Hoxton Park Road Serviceway, Prestons – Proposed After Hours Truck Parking

Council approves the proposed signs and linemarking proposal in the Serviceway on the south side along Hoxton Park Road, between Property Nos. 176 - 402 Hoxton Park Road, Prestons.

Item 7 – Bernera Road, Prestons – Proposed Deceleration Lane

Council approves in-principle the proposed 30m deceleration into the development site.

Item 8 – Items Approved Under Delegated Authority

Council notes the approved items under delegated authority.

REPORT

This report presents the recommendations of the Liverpool Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 20 July 2022. At the meeting, the Committee considered eight (8) agenda, three (3) technical discussion, and twelve (12) general business items.

A copy of the meeting minutes along with Attachment Booklet 1 with the Committee’s recommendations is included in Attachments 1 and 2. It is recommended that Council adopts the Committee’s recommendations on the agenda items as outlined above.

Comments on the technical discussion and general business items with recommended actions are as follows:

Technical Discussion

TD1 – Kurrajong Road, Prestons - Request for Noise Evaluation

Council has been receiving representations from the resident of 48 Latina Circuit, Prestons, concerning increased traffic noise and Council engaged an independent acoustic consultant to conduct A noise assessment.

The Committee noted the information provided in the body of agenda and no noise mitigation measures are required.

TD2 – Balmain Road/Hoxton Park Road intersection, Cartwright – Intersection Improvement

Council has received representations from local residents and Councillor Harle concerning road safety at Balmain Road/Hoxton Park Road/Hoxton Park Road Serviceway intersection.

Council will prepare a design layout, permitting left turn movements into Balmain Street and banning turning movements out of Balmain Street and report back to the Traffic Committee at the September or November meeting.

In addition, Council will reline the existing Keep Clear marking at the intersection.

TD3 – Cowpasture Road/ Qantas Boulevard intersection, Middleton Grange – Investigation to improve left turn movements into Cowpasture Road

Council has been receiving representations that eastbound traffic along Flynn Avenue/Qantas Boulevard turning left into Cowpasture Road experiences traffic delays.

Council has discussed with TfNSW for possible road widening to provide dual left turn lanes from Qantas Boulevard into Cowpasture Road

Council has carried out traffic counts and is preparing traffic signal layouts to be forwarded to TfNSW for its comments and for civil design to commence.

General Business Items

GB1 - First Avenue and Twentieth Avenue, Hoxton Park – Options to reduce traffic delay

Council has received information that a petition is being prepared concerning traffic delays at the First Avenue/Twentieth Avenue intersection. The residents are concerned about traffic delays particularly during weekday peak periods.

Council will carry out traffic counts and other investigations and provide an update to the Traffic Committee at the September meeting.

GB2 - Huon Crescent, Holsworthy – Request for Pedestrian Crossing

At its meeting in May, the Committee considered a request from the member for Holsworthy for a marked pedestrian crossing to be installed across the section of Huon Crescent in front of Holsworthy Primary School.

The Committee noted pedestrian and traffic counts indicates low number of pedestrians crossing at the suggested location. Most pedestrians still cross at the existing marked crossing and a second crossing is not considered appropriate.

GB3 - Shepherd Street, Liverpool – Parking restriction in Cul-de-sac

Following representations about illegal parking within the Shepherd Street cul-de-sac (at its southern end), Council has investigated and identified that 90-degree angle parking could be accommodated in a portion of the cul-de-sac as well as turning paths for 8.8m service vehicles.

The Committee noted that TfNSW and Police have approved the signs and line marking and Council will carry out community consultation prior to installation.

GB4 - Junction Road, Liverpool – Traffic speed

The Local Member of Holsworthy has advised on behalf of her constituent that westbound speeding vehicles are losing control, including running into the kerb line, close to House No. 67.

The Committee noted there is an existing traffic calming device, and an additional facility is not required

Council will request the Police to include this section of Junction Road in their highway patrol and speed enforcement.

GB5 - Moondarra Drive, West Hoxton – Road Closure

Council has received representation for the reopening of the section of Moondarra Drive, next to Clancy College.

Council has been advised that the work has been delayed due to a need for Sydney Water approval to relocate a watermain.

The relocation has partly been completed and one lane of the road has been reopened.

GB6 - Hume Highway/Kurrajong Road intersection, Casula – Delay for Right Turn Movements

Council has received representation about delays for right turn movements at the intersection.

Council will advise TfNSW regarding delays for right turn movements at the intersection.

GB7 – Wattle Grove - Missing footpaths

Council has received representation about missing footpath sections in Wattle Grove.

Council will investigate and identify missing footpath connections and add to the footpath construction program.

GB8 – Rossmore – Directional Sign

Council has received representation about a new sign that has been installed which is indicating East Leppington for a portion of Rossmore.

Council will investigate and change the directional sign.

GB9 – Liverpool Railway Station – Ibis bird droppings

Council has received representation about Ibis bird droppings near Liverpool Railway Station.

Council will organise cleaning of the droppings and consider a solution to minimise the droppings.

GB10 – Aviation Road and Airfield Drive, Len Waters Estate – Rat Running

Council has received representation about speeding and rat running occurring on Aviation Road and Airfield Drive.

Council will request the Police to include this section of Aviation Road and Airfield Drive in their highway patrol and speed enforcement.

GB11 – Glen Innes Road, Hinchinbrook – Missing Speed sign

Council has received representation about a missing 50km/h speed sign turning into Glen Innes Road from Hoxton Park Road.

Council will investigate and work with TfNSW for installation of the missing speed sign.

GB12 – Conroy Road, Wattle Grove – Speeding

Council has received representation about speeding occurring on Conroy Road.

Council will request the Police to include this section of Conroy Road in their highway patrol and speed enforcement.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The actions contained in the minutes are funded as outlined in the table below:

Item	Description	Funding, Indicative Cost and Timing
1	Mclean Street, Liverpool – Proposed Relocation of the Existing Marked Pedestrian Crossing	Funding - Council’s minor traffic facilities program Indicative Cost - $110,000 Timing – To be considered next financial year
2	Boundary Road, Liverpool - Proposed Speed Hump	No cost to Council
3	Liverpool LGA – Extension of Car Share Scheme	No cost to Council
4	Australis Avenue, Wattle Grove – Proposed Pedestrian Crossing	Funding - Staged line marking funded under TfNSW Block grant fund and civil works funded under Council’s minor traffic facilities program Indicative Cost - $120,000 Timing – To be considered next financial year
5	Feodore Drive, Cecil Hills – Request for Bus Stop Relocation	Funding - Civil work funded under Council’s minor traffic facilities program Indicative Cost - $10,000 Timing – To be considered this financial year
6	Hoxton Park Road Serviceway, Prestons – Proposed After Hours Truck Parking	Funding - TfNSW Block grant fund. Indicative Cost - $5,000 Timing – Second quarter 2022/23 financial year
7	Bernera Road, Prestons – Proposed Deceleration Lane	No cost to Council
8	Items Approved Under Delegated Authority	Funding - TfNSW Block grant fund. Indicative Cost - $5,000 Timing – First quarter 2022/23 financial year

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 deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite

ATTACHMENTS

1. Liverpool Traffic Committee Meeting Minutes 20 July 2022 (Under separate cover)

2. Attachment Booklet - Liverpool Local Traffic Committee Minutes (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Questions with Notice

QWN 02

Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Adherence to White Ribbon Accreditation

Strategic Objective

Visionary, Leading, Responsible

Demonstrate a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive governance framework

File Ref

273438.2022

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

In August 2018, Liverpool Council earned accreditation from White Ribbon Australia, becoming recognised as a workplace that is taking active steps to prevent and respond to family and domestic violence.

Subsequently, Liverpool Council was one of the first Local Government Areas to support introducing paid leave for staff experiencing domestic or family violence.

Please address the following:

1. Does Council have policies or processes in place if a staff member or councillor or committee member is found to be the perpetrator of domestic and/or family violence?

2. If so, what are the consequences for that individual or response by the organisation?

3. What is the current status of our White Ribbon Accreditation?

4. According to best practice, what other steps can Council take to ensure that we send a strong signal both within the organisation and to our community that we do not tolerate the perpetration of domestic and/or family violence?

Response (provided by Community and Culture)

1. Does Council have policies or processes in place if a staff member or councillor or committee member is found to be the perpetrator of domestic and/or family violence?

Council has a Family and Domestic Violence Workplace Support Policy. This policy provides guidance to all employees (Permanent full time, permanent part time, casual and fixed term contracts) who are impacted by Domestic and Family Violence (DFV) to access support and assistance such as flexible work arrangements and special leave, as well as promote awareness of appropriate support services available to individuals.

Section 6 of the Policy, “Responding to Family and Domestic Violence at Work” outlines how Council will respond to acts of DFV if they occur at the workplace and outlines Council’s measures to employees who allegedly commit actions of DFV at or from the workplace. The Policy provides measures for paid employees in its current form, however, its scope can be expanded.

2. If so, what are the consequences for that individual or response by the organisation?

Section 6 of the Family and Domestic Violence Workplace Support Policy states that:

· 6.1: An act of family and/or domestic violence may occur at or from the workplace. Such an act may include, but is not limited to, threatening, harassing or abusing a family or household member. This includes using workplace resources such as phones, smart devices, email, mail or other means to threaten, harass or abuse a family or household member;

· 6.2: Matters of family and domestic violence are complex in nature and difficult for all parties involved. In many cases, acts of family and domestic violence constitute a criminal offence. In recognising Council’s strong stance against family and domestic violence, any employee reasonably suspected of committing an act of family and/or domestic violence at or from the workplace that constitutes a criminal offence will be reported to Police to conduct an investigation. Some Council positions may give an employee access to certain types of personal information or resources. If Council becomes aware that an employee uses this access to knowingly enable a perpetrator to harm or harass a victim, that employee will also be reported to Police to conduct an investigation. NSW Police are best placed to conduct an unbiased investigation as family and domestic violence is a legal matter. Council may also conduct its own investigation into such matters, and may take disciplinary action based on the outcome of the police investigation and/or its own investigation;

· 6.3: Where the alleged act of family and domestic violence is between two Council employees, Council may also investigate the matter from the perspective of potential breaches of internal policies. Council will not undertake an internal investigation before notifying the Police of the alleged criminal activity;

· 6.4: Council will document all referrals to the Police and maintain these in a secure location in line with Councils’ Records Management Policy. Employees accused of acts of domestic violence at or from the workplace are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise; and

· 6.5 If proven, acts of criminal family and domestic violence committed at or from the workplace may result in disciplinary action up to and including the termination of employment.

3. What is the current status of our White Ribbon Accreditation?

Council’s White Ribbon Australia Workplace Accreditation expired on 31 August 2021. At this point, Council conducted a review of the cost and benefit of pursuing reaccreditation to this program and ultimately chose not to pursue this program further.

A memo was presented to Councillors in September 2021 which outlined the rationale behind the decision to not pursue reaccreditation. This included:

· Lack of engagement and support from Communicare, the organisation who assumed responsibility of the assets and intellectual property of White Ribbon Australia following the organisation’s financial collapse in 2019;

· The White Ribbon Australia brand and reputation was damaged by financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency before the organisation went into liquidation; and

· The substantially increased financial cost of becoming reaccredited as part of this program – an increase from $7,500 in 2015 to $27,400 (incl. GST) in 2021. Further, the human and other organisational resources required to pursue reaccreditation did not represent value to Council, given the limited engagement and support from the host organisation.

Despite choosing not to reaccredit as a White Ribbon Workplace, Council continues to honour its commitments under the Family and Domestic Violence Workplace Support Policy and the initiatives and activities outlined in the Workplace Safety Operational Plan (previously known as the White Ribbon Operational Plan) endorsed in June 2017.

Council has continued delivering on outcomes set through the accreditation regardless of challenges and changes at White Ribbon Australia, including:

· The internal White Ribbon Working Group continue to meet and are working towards meeting the relevant actions of Council’s Workplace Safety Operational Plan;

· Following White Ribbon Australia’s collapse, the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) endorsed the continuation of commitments under the Family and Domestic Violence Workplace Support Policy and Workplace Safety Operational Plan;

· Council’s support of initiatives which raise awareness of family and domestic violence are embedded in the work of Council. This includes delivering partnership initiatives such as Stop DV Day, education and community awareness programs as part of the Liverpool Domestic Violence Liaison Committee and SWS DV Alliance Network; and

· Support community and not-for-profit organisation with local initiatives through Council’s Grants, Donation and Corporate Sponsorship Program.

Externally, Council will continue to work closely with government, non-government and community groups in responding to domestic and family violence, based on best practice guidelines for work in this space. Internally, continuation of staff training, awareness and support measures, as well as measures in responding to perpetration of domestic and/or family violence will reaffirm Council’s strong stand against domestic and/or family violence.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

31 August 2022

Notices of Motion

NOM 01

Accounting Treatment of Rural Fire Service 'Red Fleet' Assets

Strategic Objective

Visionary, Leading, Responsible

Ensure Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic management of assets and resources

File Ref

258449.2022

Author

Nathan Hagarty - Councillor

Background

I am calling on Councillors to support the local government campaign on the financial accounting treatment of Rural Fire Service (RFS) mobile assets known as the ‘Red Fleet’.

A long-standing dispute over the accounting treatment of the Red Fleet has come to a head with the Auditor-General’s 2021 Report on Local Government on 22 June 2022. The Audit Report reemphasises the State Government determination that RFS assets are the “property” of councils and must be recorded in Council’s financial statements with Council required to therefore absorb all depreciation costs.

The Audit Office Local Government Report has reinforced the notion that RFS mobile and other fire-fighting assets can somehow be deemed to be council assets and applies more pressure on councils and the Office of Local Government (OLG) to conform with this determination, despite the fact that councils do not have effective management or control of these assets.

Councils across the State and Local Government NSW (LGNSW) refute this determination. Councils do not have any say in the acquisition, deployment or disposal of these assets. Comparable assets held by Fire & Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the State Emergency Service (SES) are not vested anywhere other than with the organisations that purchase, use, maintain and dispose of them.

Councils and LGNSW have also raised concerns that the requirement breaches Australian Accounting Standards. The State Government’s own Local Government Accounting Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting provides for councils to determine whether to record RFS assets on their books as council assets. This position has been confirmed by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment in his letter to the Auditor-General dated 7 June 2022, presented in Appendix1 on page 47 of the 2021 Local Government Audit Report.

While Liverpool Council has complied, advice from LGNSW notes that many councils are refusing to comply with the Auditor General’s instructions. Councils remained firm in 2021, resisting pressure to record RFS assets with the majority (68), choosing not to record the RFS mobile assets in accordance with the Local Government Accounting Code. This was the same number of councils as in 2020. LGNSW is encouraging councils to continue resisting pressure from the Audit Office and make their own determinations notwithstanding overtures that ongoing non-compliance with the Auditor General’s instructions may result in future qualified financial reports.

The latest Audit Report has made further impositions on (Council) by:

· recommending Council undertakes a stocktake of RFS assets and records the value in Council’s financial statements;

· warning that if Council does not recognise the assets it will be found non-compliant and will have a high risk finding reported; and

· calling on the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (OLG) to intervene where councils do not recognise rural firefighting equipment.

The Government’s blanket determination is not only nonsensical, it is also inconsistent with the treatment of the comparable assets of other emergency service agencies such as Fire & Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the State Emergency Service (SES). There is no rational reason for maintaining this anomaly.

LGNSW has been advocating this position on councils’ behalf and has written to the NSW Treasurer the Hon. Matt Kean MP, Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Steph Cooke MP, Minister for Local Government the Hon. Wendy Tuckerman MP and the Auditor-General, Ms Margaret Crawford to express the local government sector’s strong objection to the NSW Government’s determination, applied by the Auditor-General, that RFS assets are the property of councils for accounting purposes and amend the Rural Fires Act 1997.

LGNSW has advised it will continue its advocacy efforts on councils’ behalf and is asking all affected councils in NSW to consider adopting a resolution advising the Audit Office that Council will not carry out the RFS stocktakes on behalf of the NSW Government, and will not record RFS assets on Council’s financial statements.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council:

1. Writes to the local State Members, the Treasurer the Hon Matt Kean MP, Minister for Emergency Services and Resilience the Hon Stephanie Cook MP and the Minister for Local Government Wendy Tuckerman MP:

a. Expressing Council’s objection to the NSW Government’s determination on ownership of Rural Fire Service assets;

b. Advising of the impact of the Government’s position on Council finances of this accounting treatment;

c. Calling on the NSW Government to take immediate action to permanently clear up inequities and inconsistencies around the accounting treatment of Rural Fire Service (RFS) assets by acknowledging that rural firefighting equipment is vested in, under the control of and the property of the RFS; and

d. Amending s119 of the Rural Fires Act 1997 so that the effect is to make it clear that RFS assets are not the property of councils.

2. Writes to the Shadow Treasurer Daniel Mookhey MLC, the Shadow Minister for Emergency Services Jihad Dib MP, the Shadow Minister for Local Government Greg Warren MP, the Greens Spokesperson for Local Government Jamie Parker MP and the leaders of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, Animal Justice and One Nation parties Robert Borsak MLC, Emma Hurst MLC and Mark Latham MLC:

a. Advising Members of Council’s position, including providing copies of correspondence to NSW Government Ministers; and

b. Seeking Members’ commitments to support NSW Councils’ call to amend the Rural Fires Act 1997 as set out in correspondence.

3. Promotes these messages via its digital and social media channels and via its networks.

4. Re-affirms its complete support of and commitment to local RFS brigades noting that Council’s action is entirely directed towards the NSW Government’s nonsensical position that rather than being owned and controlled by local brigades, RFS assets are somehow controlled by councils, which councils consider to be a cynical financial sleight of hand abdicating the NSW Government’s responsibilities at the cost of local communities.

5. Affirms its support to Local Government NSW (LGNSW) and requests LGNSW continue advocating on Council’s behalf to get clarification once and for all from the State Government about the accounting treatment of RFS assets

6. Direct the CEO to provide Councillors with a briefing to better understand Council’s liabilities in relation to land in use by local RFS brigades.

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

The NSW Audit Office determination is based on s119 (2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997 which states:

All firefighting equipment purchased or constructed wholly or partly from money to the credit of the Fund is to be vested in the council of the area for or on behalf of which the firefighting equipment has been purchased or constructed.

Liverpool City Council compiled with NSW Audit Office requirements and first recognised RFS assets in its financial statements in 2020/21. The aggregate fair value of these assets at 30 June 2022 was $1.039 million and related depreciation cost is $270 thousand per annum.

Whilst not significant, the depreciation cost impacts on Council operating results and requires administration effort to account for these assets including physical inspection for existence and condition assessment.

There is merit in taking a practical view on the matter and supporting the industry.

Appropriate accounting adjustments will be made when NSW Audit Office changes its position post-proposed legislative changes to s119 of Rural Fires Act 1997.

If the motion is passed, staff will provide Councillors with a briefing to better understand Council’s liabilities in relation to land in use by local RFS brigades as per point 6.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

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	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.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

[1] Grandfathering is a provision in the Ministerial Investment Order (12 January 2011) that allows Council to hold investments which would otherwise be non-compliant with Council’s new Investment Policy and the Ministerial Investment Order.

1
CEO 02	Investment Report July 2022
Attachment 1	Investment Portfolio July 2022

1
PLAN 04	Proposed Harry Hunt Memorial Bridge
Attachment 2	Letter of support from Hunt Family

1
COM 01	Report Back Mimosa Park (22 Box Road, Casula)
Attachment 3	Mimosa Park Concept Design Cost

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Place customer satisfaction, innovation and best practice at the centre of all operations
File Ref	262314.2022
Report By	Renee Morris-Scott - Personal Assistant
Approved By	Matthew Morris - Acting Director City Presentation

1
PRES 01	Heavy Vehicle Chain of Responsibility Policy
Attachment 1	Heavy Vehicle Chain of Responsibility Policy

Economic	Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Deliver and maintain a range of transport, building and open space related infrastructure.
Environment	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Provide safe and accessible transport facilities. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Operate a well developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Clause 211 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 applies.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. The carryover is necessary to allow contractor payments to be made for ongoing works

1
INF 04	2021-22 Capital Works Carryover of Projects
Attachment 1	2021-22 Carryovers

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 01	Minutes of the Liverpool Sports Committee meeting held on 15 June 2022
Attachment 1	Liverpool Sports Committee Minutes of meeting held 15 June 2022

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Protect and enhance our natural environment and increase the city’s resilience to the effects of natural hazards, shocks and stresses
File Ref	238231.2022
Report By	Michael Zengovski - Manager City Environment
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure & Environment

1
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 June 2022
Attachment 1	Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting held on 27 June 2022

1
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Companion Animals Advisory Committee meeting held on 14 June 2022
Attachment 1	Companion Animals Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 14 June 2022

Economic	Culture and creative industries.
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. Support community organisations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community.
Civic Leadership	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. 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. 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 04	Minutes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meeting held 12 July 2022
Attachment 1	Minutes Liverpool Youth Council 12 July 2022

1
CTTE 06	Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 25 July 2022
Attachment 1	Final Minutes - ARIC 25 July 2022

1
NOM 03	NSW Local Government Annual Conference - Cat Confinement
Attachment 1	Correspondence to the Minister for Local Government