Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Wednesday, 28 September 2022

Order of Business

PAGE TAB

Opening

Acknowledgment of Country and Prayer

National Anthem

Apologies

Condolences

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting held on 31 August 2022................................................................. 7

Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 15 September 2022................................................. 78

Declarations of Interest

Public Forum

Mayoral Report

NIL

Notices of Motion Of Rescission

NIL

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01 NSW Grants Commission - Financial Assistance Grants Policy................... 82......... 1

CEO 02 Election of Deputy Mayor............................................................................. 101......... 2

CEO 03 Councillor representatives on Committees.................................................. 105......... 3

CEO 04 Investment Report August 2022................................................................... 120......... 4

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 01 Lot 6 Newbridge Road, Moorebank - Issues and Options Report............... 131......... 5

PLAN 02 NSW Government Employment Zones Reform - Post Exhibition Report.... 145......... 6

PLAN 03 Street Light Audits in the Liverpool City Centre........................................... 179......... 7

PLAN 04 Dwelling Density, Variety, and Odour in the Liverpool Growth Centres Precincts 182 8

Community & Culture Report

COM 01 Draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines - Bi-annual Review 192 9

COM 02 2168 Children's Parliament........................................................................... 196....... 10

COM 03 Sister City Relationship between Liverpool and Toda, Japan..................... 202....... 11

Corporate Services Report

NIL

City Presentation Report

NIL

Infrastructure & Environment Report

INF 01 2021-22 Capital Works Carryover of Projects.............................................. 207....... 12

INF 02 Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan......................... 213....... 13

Economy & Commercial Development Report

NIL

Committee Reports

CTTE 01 Minutes of Liverpool Youth Council held on Tuesday 9 August 2022......... 220....... 14

CTTE 02 Minutes of the Intermodal Precinct Committee meeting held on 1 August 2022 228 15

CTTE 03 Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee meeting 23 August 2022...... 235....... 16

CTTE 04 Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee meeting held on 11 August 2022 245 17

Questions with Notice

QWN 01 Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty - Speed and Red Light Cameras.......... 253....... 18

QWN 02 Question with Notice - Clr Harle - Compliance Matters............................... 255....... 19

QWN 03 Question with Notice - Clr Hagarty - Public Interest Disclosure Bill............. 261....... 20

QWN 04 Question with Notice - Clr Macnaught - Status of the VPA - New Brighton Golf Club, Brickmakers Drive, Moorebank........................................................... 263....... 21

QWN 05 Question with Notice - Clr Rhodes - The NSW Anti-Racism Working Group, an initiative of the Local Government Multicultural Workers’ Network Campaigns 264 22

QWN 06 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Potential cancellation of free shuttle bus 267 23

QWN 07 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Benchmarks for apprenticeships, cadetships and trainees.................................................................................................. 269....... 24

QWN 08 Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Rollout of FOGO............................. 270....... 25

Presentations by Councillors

Notices of Motion

NOM 01 Private Certifiers........................................................................................... 272....... 26

NOM 02 Local Heritage Publication Grant and Digital Information Booths................ 276....... 27

NOM 03 Photographic History of Lurnea.................................................................... 279....... 28

NOM 04 Edmondson Park High School...................................................................... 281....... 29

NOM 05 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Impact on Planning Controls................. 284....... 30

NOM 06 Signage on public property........................................................................... 286....... 31

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 members to Liverpool Heritage Advisory 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 Transfer of former closed road areas along Governor Macquarie Drive in Warwick Farm in accordance with the provisions of the Inglis, Coopers Paddock, Warwick Farm Voluntary Planning Agreement

Reason: Item CONF 02 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 03 Proposed Acquisition for Road Widening along Part of Hume Highway and Governor Macquarie Drive, Warwick Farm

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

CONF 04 Order of Liverpool Awards 2022

Reason: Item CONF 04 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10(A)(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

CONF 05 Proposed Acquisition of Lot 153 DP17134, 47 Rickard Road, Chipping Norton under the Moorebank Voluntary Acquisition Scheme

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

Close

MINUTES OF THE Ordinary Meeting

HELD ON 31 August 2022

PRESENT:

Mayor Ned Mannoun

Councillor Ammoun

Councillor Goodman (online)

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 David Galpin, General Counsel, Manager Governance, Legal & Procurement

Ms Ellen Whittingstall, Internal Ombudsman

Mr Vishwa Nadan, Chief Financial Officer

Mr George Hampouris, Head or Audit, Risk & Improvement

Mr Charles Wiafe, Manager Transport Management

Ms Galavizh Ahmadi Nia, Manager Community Development & Planning

Mr George Georgakis, Manager Council and Executive Services

The meeting commenced at 2.03pm.

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 Anthony Morgan from St George and Prince Tadros Coptic Orthodox Church.
NATIONAL ANTHEM	The National Anthem was played will be played at the meeting.
COUNCILLORS ATTENDING REMOTELY Clr Goodman and Clr Karnib requested permission to attend this meeting via MS Teams. Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Hagarty That Clr Goodman and 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 Hadid Seconded: Clr Harle

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 27 July 2022 and Extraordinary Meeting held on 9 August 2022 be confirmed as a true record of those meetings.

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

Declarations of Interest

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

Item: COM 01 Report Back Mimosa Park (22 Box Road, Casula)

Reason: Clr Goodman resides close to this location.

Clr Goodman left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

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

Item: COM 01 Report Back Mimosa Park (22 Box Road, Casula)

Reason: Clr Hadid has family who reside close to this location.

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

Public Forum

Presentation – items not on agenda

1. Ms Kerrie Fitzgibbon addressed Council on the following item:

DA Matter.

Representation – items on agenda

Nil.

ITEM NO: QWN 02

FILE NO: 273438.2022

SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Kaliyanda - Adherence to White Ribbon Accreditation

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.

Notices of Motion

ITEM NO: NOM 01

FILE NO: 258449.2022

SUBJECT: Accounting Treatment of Rural Fire Service 'Red Fleet' Assets

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 (submitted by Clr Hagarty)

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.

COUNCIL DECISION

Foreshadowed Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Rhodes

That Council:

Re-affirms its complete support of and commitment to local RFS brigades;

Affirms its support to Local Government NSW (LGNSW) and notify LGNSW of Council’s support for this matter, and requests LGNSW continue advocating on Council’s behalf to get clarification from the State Government about the accounting treatment of RFS assets and submit a motion to the LGNSW conference;

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.

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

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 01

NSW Grants Commission - Financial Assistance Grants Policy

Strategic Direction	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Ensure Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic management of assets and resources
File Ref	296936.2022
Report By	Earl Paradeza - Senior Management Accountant
Approved By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer

Executive Summary

The report outlines the NSW Grants Commission’s methodology which is used to calculate the Financial Assistance Grant paid to NSW councils every year.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

Financial assistance grants are paid to councils under a Commonwealth scheme established under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. The Commonwealth provides financial assistance to the States for their grants commissions to allocate to local governing bodies. The objective is to improve the following for local governing bodies:

· financial capacity,

· capacity to provide an equitable level of services to residents,

· certainty of funding,

· efficiency and effectiveness, and

· services to aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The assistance is provided to the States in the form of general grants and additional funding and on the basis of national principles. Councils may use the allocated funds at their discretion and are accountable to their ratepayers.

In accordance with its policy framework, the NSW Grants Commission wrote to Council on 16

August 2022 outlining the methodology used to calculate the $9.418 million Financial Assistance Grant which Council will receive in 2022-23. The NSW Grants Commission letter and supporting information is attached.

In addition, the letter included an invitation to Council to make a special submission for consideration in determining the 2022-23 grant allocation. The submission provides Council with the opportunity to present information on the financial impact of inherent expenditure disabilities beyond Council’s control that are not generally recognised in the current methodology. Disability in this instance means for example, Council’s circumstances to raise income due to lower than State average population.

The NSW Grants Commission’s current methodology for allocating the Financial Assistance Grant is in principle driven by the key factors discussed below as compared to the NSW State standard.

1. General purpose component is measured by the following:

a) Population – There will be no disadvantage allowance where the population is greater than the NSW State standard. Liverpool’s estimated resident population of 234,917 is greater than the State standard of 63,967. The population estimate provided is correct as per the profile.id.com.au website and is current as of 30 June 2021. The population estimates are likewise used to determine eligibility based on several expenditure factors.

b) Pensioner Rebate Allowance – Where the NSW State standard is greater than the LGA % of pensioner rebates, no allowance is applicable. Liverpool’s pensioner rebates of 13.3% is less than the 14.8% NSW State standard.

c) Revenue Allowance – No allowance will be given where the LGA’s land values are greater than the NSW State standard. On both urban and non-urban properties, Liverpool’s values were greater than the average NSW State values.

2. Local Roads Component

Liverpool Council currently receives an allowance under the local road’s component as its local road length of 923km is less than the 1,573km NSW State standard.

Council staff have not identified any other disability factor that can be put forward for consideration by the NSW Grants Commission.

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	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	The financial assistance grants scheme operates under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. NSW Grants Commission Letter Dated 16 August 2022

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 02

Election of Deputy Mayor

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Demonstrate a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive governance framework
File Ref	309700.2022
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	George Hampouris - Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement

Executive Summary

Section 231 of the Local Government Act allows Councillors to elect a person from among their numbers to be the Deputy Mayor. The report recommends that Council proceeds with the election of the Deputy Mayor to be conducted by the Returning Officer.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Determines the method of voting to be used for the election of Deputy Mayor and;

2. Once determined, at this meeting proceeds with the election of the Deputy Mayor to be conducted by the Returning Officer for the 28 September 2022 – September 2023 period.

REPORT

Section 231 of the Local Government Act 1993 allows Councillors to elect a person from among their numbers to be the Deputy Mayor. Section 231(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 states that “the person may be elected for the Mayoral term or a shorter period”.

Traditionally for Liverpool, terms are for one year with the election occurring annually in September. At the 2 February 2022 Council meeting, Council resolved that the initial term for the Deputy Mayor for this Council term be from February – September 2022.

Schedule 7 Clause 2 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 provides that nominations for the Deputy Mayor must be in writing signed by at least two Councillors, one of whom may be the nominee. The nominee must consent in writing to the nomination. Completed nomination forms may be delivered or emailed to the Returning Officer prior to or during the meeting. The nomination form is attached.

The Acting CEO is the Returning Officer for the election of the Deputy Mayor.

Council is to determine the method of voting to be used for the election of Deputy Mayor.

If only one Councillor is nominated, that Councillor is duly elected. If more than one Councillor is nominated, Schedule 7 Clause 3(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 provides that Council is to resolve whether the election is to proceed by:

· Open voting (i.e. show of hands);

· Ordinary ballot (i.e. a secret ballot (place an “x” on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate of their choice); or

· Preferential ballot (i.e. place 1, 2, 3 etc on the ballot paper against each candidate).

Ballot papers will be available at the meeting if required.

If one or more Councillors are participating in the meeting online via Microsoft Teams, Council must resolve to conduct the election of Deputy Mayor by open voting.

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	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	Section 231 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Schedule 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low and considered to be within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Nomination Form - Election of Deputy Mayor

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 03

Councillor representatives on Committees

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Demonstrate a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive governance framework
File Ref	311912.2022
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	George Hampouris - Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement

Executive Summary

Each year (traditionally in September) Council appoints representatives to internal Committees and external affiliated bodies where nominations are required.

Council staff will be tabling a Council report (anticipated for October 2022 meeting) which will be providing recommendations on a revised committee governance structure (including its membership structure). On this basis it is recommended that Council maintains the current Councillor representatives to its current internal Committees until the review of Committees is determined and implemented.

In relation to the external Committees, it is recommended that Council appoints representatives for the period to September 2023.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Maintain the current Councillor representatives to its current Committees until the review of Committees is determined and implemented; and

2. Appoints Councillors as representatives to the following community committees and affiliated bodies and notifies them of their representatives for the period to September 2023 (except for Civic Risk Ltd Members Assembly where the appointment is for the duration of this Council term):

a. Civic Risk Mutual Ltd Members Assembly (Council to endorse the current representative (Mayor Mannoun) for the duration of this Council term).

b. Georges River Combined Councils Committee

c. Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee

d. Macarthur Bushfire Management Committee

e. NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association

f. Sydney Western City Planning Panel

g. South West Sydney Academy of Sport (SWSAS)

h. Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC)

REPORT

Council at its first meeting on 2 February 2022 considered a report on the Council Committees and external Committees and appointed representatives to the Committees for the period to September 2022.

Each year (traditionally in September) Council appoints representatives to Committees and affiliated bodies where nominations are required for a period of 12 months.

The following provides an outline of Committees established by Council. The list in the table below also includes the following four Committees of which all Councillors are members.

· Budget Review Committee

· Strategic Panel

· Civic Advisory Committee

· Community and Safety Prevention Committee

It should also be noted that for internal Council Committees. All Councillors are entitled to attend, speak and participate in Committee deliberations.

Aboriginal Consultative Committee
Purpose	The Aboriginal Consultative Committee has been established primarily to provide an open line of communication between Council and the Aboriginal community.
Meeting Information	Quarterly, first Thursday, 6.00pm-8.00pm
Representatives	Mayor (or delegate) and one Councillor
2022 Representatives	Mayor Mannoun and Clr Green

Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee
Purpose	The objective of the ARIC is to review the following aspects of Council’s operations: compliance; risk management; fraud control; financial management; governance; implementation of Council’s strategic plan, delivery program and strategies; service reviews; collection of performance measurement data by Council; provide information to Council for the purpose of improving Council’s performance of its functions; and external accountability.
Meeting Information	Quarterly on a Friday. This is a mandatory Committee required under the Local Government Act 1993.
Representatives	The Office of Local Guidelines state that one – two Councillors are to be appointed, and that the Mayor is not to be appointed. In addition, two to three external independent members, at least one with financial expertise and one of whom is to be the Chair. Council’s current Charter states that the Deputy Mayor and one Councillor is to be appointed. The Mayor and other Councillors can attend, however do not have voting rights.
2022 Representatives	Deputy Mayor Rhodes and Clr Harle

Budget Review Panel
Purpose	The Budget Review Panel has been established: a. to primarily coordinate the strategic financial planning of Council; and b. to develop the long-term financial plan and operational budgets to support the delivery of infrastructure and services to the community.
Meeting Information	Quarterly
2022 Representatives	Mayor and all Councillors

Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre (CPAC) Advisory Committee.
Purpose	To oversee and guide CPAC programming and operations at a high level, providing strategic advice and support for the successful production and promotion of the artistic, cultural and entertainment offerings of the Centre. Providing an ongoing dialogue between the Centre, Liverpool City Council and the community, the Committee can also provide leadership in further developing engagement, partnerships, sponsorships and philanthropic support for the Centre and its programs.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly, 4:30-6:00pm on a Thursday. Not currently meeting. A recent independent review of Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre conducted by the Institute for Public Policy and Governance made a series of recommendations including: a. Design and implement a robust, tiered CPAC governance model including investigate establishing a CPAC Advisory Committee to oversee and guide CPAC programming and operations at a high level. It would be comprised of the Mayor (or Mayor’s representative), Deputy Mayor, one Councillor, the Director Community and Culture and two (or more) independent representatives with expertise in the arts/culture/entertainment space. It would meet using the protocols and processes of the other Council Advisory Committees.
Representatives	Mayor (or delegate), Deputy Mayor, and one Councillor
2022 Representatives	Deputy Mayor Rhodes, Clr Goodman and Clr Kaliyanda.

Civic Advisory Committee
Purpose	The Civic Advisory Committee has been established: a. to highlight the wonderful work that is being done by members of the Liverpool local government area; and b. to promote mechanisms that serve to acknowledge the contributions of members of the Liverpool local government area to the City of Liverpool and to humanity as a whole.
Meeting Information	Quarterly or as required
2022 Representatives	Mayor and all Councillors

Companion Animal Advisory Committee
Purpose	This is a Council community advisory committee and reports to Council. Its purpose it to bring together interested community members to provide a consultative forum to raise issues relating to Companion Animals. To enable Council to engage with its community by listening to and responding to their needs and concerns. The group will not involve itself with individual aspects or issues of specific animal operational/regulatory matters.
Meeting Information	Quarterly at 4.30pm on the first Tuesday of the month
Representatives	Mayor (or delegate), and one Councillor
2022 Representatives	Mayor Mannoun and Deputy Mayor Rhodes.

Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee
Purpose	The Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee has been established to: a. make relevant advice and recommendations to Council which relate to community safety and crime prevention matters in the Liverpool local government area including the Liverpool City Centre. The crime and safety matters include the improvement of perceptions of safety, drug and alcohol issues, injury prevention, implementation of recommendations through safety audits, and hotspots improvement through delivery of various projects and programs; b. improve the perception of crime and safety in the area that will have a positive impact on economic and social development; c. promote an integrated strategic approach to deal with local crime and safety issues; and d. maximise the skills and expertise that exist in the community to complement the role of Council in planning and policy-making.
Meeting Information	Quarterly
2022 Representatives	Mayor and all Councillors

District Forums
Purpose	For residents to come along and: contribute to Council plans and decision-making; share ideas to help solve local issues; participate in community-led projects; and be informed on Council services and operations.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly for Rural and Eastern Forums; and Quarterly for New Release/Established and 2168 Forums.
Representatives	One Councillor to chair.
2022 Rural District Chairperson	Clr Harle
2022 New Release/Established District Chairperson	Clr Hagarty
2022 - 2168 District Chairperson	Clr Green
2022 Eastern District Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Rhodes

Environment Advisory Committee
Purpose	This committee has been established primarily to consider and provide input to Council’s environment programs by making recommendations to Council.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly, 5:30pm on a Monday.
Representatives	Two Councillors
2022 Representatives	Clr Harle, Clr Ammoun and Clr Kaliyanda

Heritage Advisory Committee
Purpose	This committee has been established primarily to support the conservation and promotion of heritage within the Liverpool Local Government Area by providing relevant community based advice and assistance.
Meeting Information	Quarterly, 6:00-7:00pm on a Tuesday.
Representatives	Two Councillors
2022 Representatives	Clrs Harle and Hadid

Intermodal Precinct Committee
Purpose	The Intermodal Committee has been established to respond to the opportunities presented by the improved Intermodal at Moorebank.
Meeting Information	Quarterly, 6:00pm–7:30pm on the first Monday of the month.
2022 Representatives	Deputy Mayor Rhodes and Clr Macnaught

Liverpool Access Committee
Purpose	This committee has been established primarily to provide advice to Council which will effectively improve and alleviate access difficulties experienced by people with disabilities in Liverpool.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly, 1.00pm – 3.00pm on the second Thursday of the month.
Most recent Representatives	Mayor (or delegate) and one Councillor
2022 Representatives	Clr Harle

Liverpool Sports Committee
Purpose	The committee has been established to: a) Provide a forum for representing the views of sporting organisation members, clubs and associations to Council relating to sporting matters; and b) Assist with the promotion, coordination and growth of sporting codes within the Liverpool LGA.
Meeting Information	Quarterly, 7:00pm-9:00pm on the last Thursday of the month
Most recent Representatives	Mayor (or delegate)
2022 Representatives	Clr Ammoun and Clr Goodman

Strategic Panel
Purpose	The Strategic Panel has been established to provide relevant advice and recommendations to Council relating to: a. the long-term strategic direction of Liverpool city, in particular in the areas of planning, economic and social development; b. the development and delivery of a range of city centre revitalisation initiatives, projects and events; and c. development which impacts Liverpool city.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly
2022 Representatives	Mayor and all Councillors

Tourism & CBD Committee
Purpose and Meeting information	The Committee has been established to provide relevant advice and recommendations to Council relating to: a) The development of the visitor economy in the Liverpool LGA, including through recreation, tourism, activations and major events; b) Council initiatives to enhance tourism, encourage business growth, attract visitors and boost economic development in the Liverpool LGA; and c) Council initiatives to drive economic, social and cultural development in the CBD.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly, 10:00am–12noon on a Thursday
Most recent Representatives	Mayor (or delegate) and four Councillors
2022 Representatives	Deputy Mayor Rhodes, Clr Ammoun, Clr Goodman, Clr Macnaught, Clr Hadid and Clr Hagarty.

Youth Council
Purpose	The Liverpool Youth Council has been established primarily to provide advice to Council about issues relating to young people, to act as a consultative mechanism for young people and to promote the interests of young people in Liverpool.
Meeting Information	Monthly, 6.00pm – 8.00pm on the second Tuesday of the month.
Most recent Representatives	Mayor (or delegate) and two Councillors
2022 Representatives	Clr Kaliyanda, Clr Hagarty and Clr Macnaught

Appointment of Councillors to Community Committees and Affiliated Bodies

Each year Council also nominates its Councillor representatives for various community committees and affiliated bodies. Those nominated to be representatives must be endorsed by a resolution of Council.

The following information provides an outline of bodies currently affiliated with Council:

Civic Risk Mutual Ltd Members Assembly
Purpose	Civic Risk Mutual is a Local Government self insurance scheme established to help stabilise insurance premium costs and achieve significant cost savings and long term benefits for member Councils through effective risk management.
Meeting Information	Three times a year.
Representatives	One Councillor and a senior staff member. Note: Civic Risk Mutual encourages Councils to appoint its representative for the duration of the Council term.
2022 Representative	Mayor Mannoun Alternate – Clr Hagarty

Georges River Combined Councils Committee (GRCCC)
Purpose	The primary role of the Georges River Combined Councils Committee (GRCCC) is to develop programs and partnerships, and to lobby government organisations and other stakeholders in order to protect, conserve and enhance the Georges River.
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly, 6pm on a Thursday
Representatives	Two Councillors
2022 Representatives	Clrs Harle and Macnaught

Liverpool Pedestrian, Active Transport and Traffic Committee
Purpose	To provide advice on regulatory traffic facilities, line marking or signage to Council
Meeting Information	Bi-monthly, 9:30am-12:30pm on a Wednesday
Representative	Mayor (or delegate)
2022 Representative	Mayor Mannoun

Macarthur Bushfire Management Committee
Purpose	The Bushfire Management Committee is responsible for planning for and advising in relation to bush fire prevention and coordinating firefighting.
Meeting Information	Quarterly, 10:00am – 12:00noon
Representative	One Councillor
2022 Representative	Clr Harle

NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (NSW MPLA)
Purpose	The NSW MPLA is the peak body that represents the interests and development of public libraries in metropolitan areas and is aimed at “positioning, sustaining and developing public libraries in the greater Sydney region for the social, cultural and economic benefit of their communities”.
Meeting Information	Quarterly
Representatives	Two representatives, one of whom shall be an elected Councillor and the other generally being a Library Manager.
2022 Representatives	Clr Green

Sydney Western City Planning Panel
Purpose	The primary function of the Sydney Western City Planning Panel is to determine regionally significant development applications.
Meeting Information	Monthly
Representatives	Two council appointed members, with at least one of whom is required to have expertise in one or more of the following areas: planning, architecture, heritage, environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering or tourism. Expertise may be demonstrated by formal qualifications or relevant skills, knowledge and practical experience. The Planning Panel Secretariat has recommended that Council nominate two alternate members for the Panel in the instance the delegated permanent representatives are not available.
2022 Representatives	Mayor Mannoun and Clr Harle.

South West Sydney Academy of Sport (SWSAS)
Purpose	The SWSAS provides talented athlete identification and development programs which assist athletes to successfully realise their sporting potential.
Meeting Information	Board meets six times per year, varies between 5:30 – 6:00pm, Thursday
Representative	One Councillor
2022 Representative	Clr Kaliyanda

Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC)
Purpose	WSROC is run by a board that represents member councils in Sydney, and supports business improvement, research and partnerships
Meeting Information	Bi monthly, on a Thursday, venues and timing vary
Representatives	Mayor and one Councillor
2022 Representatives	Mayor Mannoun and Deputy Mayor Rhodes with Clrs Kaliyanda and Harle as alternates.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations. A separate report is on the 28 September 2022 Council Agenda relating to the review of Council’s Committees.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Deliver services that are customer focused. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) which provides that a Council function my be exercised by a Committee of the Council. The Council may be resolution delegate functions to a body under Section 377 of the LGA, which would include a Committee. The Council must appoint an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee under Section 428A of the LGA. The Council may appoint members to other bodies if that would assist the exercise of its functions (LGA, Section 23).
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low and is considered to be within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Chief Executive Officer Report

CEO 04

Investment Report August 2022

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Ensure Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic management of assets and resources
File Ref	314161.2022
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 August 2022. Key highlights include:

· Council held investments with a market value of $464 million.

· The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has raised the official cash rate from 1.85 per cent to 2.35 per cent.

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

· The portfolio yield (for the year to August 2022) was 157 basis points above the benchmark (AusBond Bank Bill Index)

	AusBond Bank Bill Index (ABBI)
Benchmark	0.37%
Portfolio yield	1.94%
Performance above benchmark	1.57%

· Year-to-date, Council’s investment income was $1.17 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 $522 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 22.66 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 August 2022, Council held investments with a market value of $464 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 22.66 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 $522 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 August 2022 exceeded the ABBI index by 157 basis points (portfolio yield: 1.94%; ABBI: 0.37%)

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 $1.17 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	$0.75m	$1.54m	$0.79m
Fair value market movement	$0m	$0.38m	$0.38m
Total	$0.75m	$1.92m	$1.17m

Investment portfolio at a glance

Portfolio Performance

The portfolio yield for the month of August 2022 exceeded the AusBond Bank Bill index by 157 basis points (portfolio yield: 1.94%; ABBI: 0.37%).

Annual Income vs. Budget

Council’s investment income was $1.17 million higher than the original budget at 31 August 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 2.35 per cent in its meeting on 6 September 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 $1.17 million higher than the original budget at 31 August 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 August 2022

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 01

Lot 6 Newbridge Road, Moorebank - Issues and Options Report

Strategic Direction	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Implement planning controls and best practice urban design to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	271280.2022
Report By	Luke Oste - Coordinator Strategic Planning
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

Lot 6 Newbridge Road, Moorebank is subject to a planning proposal request that proposes residential apartments, community facilities, retail and open space on the site. However, the proposal has not demonstrated strategic or site-specific merit and, due to flood constraints, it is unlikely that any residential development can be supported on the site.

The site has an historical development approval for a concrete recycling facility. However, Council is strongly opposed to development of this facility on the site, and is therefore investigating other suitable uses that could be facilitated through the planning proposal process.

At its meeting of 29 June 2022, Council resolved to prepare on issues and options report on a suitable employment zone given the constraints on residential development. At its meeting of 27 July 2022, Council further resolved to narrow the scope of report to investigate two scenarios:

i. Place based retail type scenario; and

ii. Modern business park type scenario.

This report provides an overview of the strategic and site-specific merit for each of these options. A modern business park development has greater strategic merit than a retail development and is better able to address site-specific constraints.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

Background

On 5 March 2020, Council received a planning proposal request for land at Lot 6 Newbridge Road, Moorebank (EQ Riverside, or Site E) to facilitate the development of residential apartments, community facilities, retail and open space on the site.

The Council is the planning proposal authority for changes to the Liverpool LEP by virtue of section 3.32 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It has been approached by the owner of the subject land with a request to prepare a planning proposal, as the first step in amending the LEP to change the permitted use of the land (see section 3.33(2) of the Act). When it is approached in this way, the Council may require the owner to carry out studies or provide information concerning the proposal and to pay the Council’s costs, to assist in deciding whether to bring forward a proposal and what it should contain.

Council staff and the Liverpool Local Planning Panel (LPP) determined that the proposal did not demonstrate strategic and site-specific merit and was unlikely to receive a Gateway determination from DPE. Additionally, following the completion of the Georges River Regional Flood Evacuation Study, there are significant constraints for residential development on the site.

The subject site currently has development approval for a concrete recycling facility. The Planning Assessment Commission (as it was then known) issued a development consent on 11 September 2015 for a materials recycling facility on the site, which was confirmed by the Land and Environment Court on 14 July 2017 after Council appealed the approval.

Council remains strongly opposed to a concrete recycling facility on the site, and is therefore investigating other suitable uses that could be facilitated through the planning proposal process.

At its meeting of 29 June 2022, Council resolved to:

Direct the A/CEO to prepare an issues and options report to the September 2022 Council meeting on the potential rezoning of the site by Council to a suitable employment zone given the constraints for residential development on this site identified in the report (PLAN03) from the 23 February 2022 Council meeting including timeframes, whether there is strategic and site-specific merit in doing so, the views of the landowner and identifying any budgetary impacts.

At its meeting of 27 July 2022, Council further resolved to:

Narrow the scope of the Issues & Options report to investigate two scenarios being:

i. Place based retail type scenario; and

ii. Modern business park type scenario.

Site context

Moorebank East Precinct

The Moorebank East Precinct is a collection of largely undeveloped sites located along the western bank of the Georges River on the eastern border of the Liverpool LGA. The precinct is bounded by the Georges River to the east, Brighton Lakes Golf Club to the south, Wurrungwuri Reserve to the west and Newbridge Road to the north.

§ Figure 1 - Context Map of the Subject Precinct (Source: Near Map)

The precinct has been divided into five distinct sites in accordance with the varying developments being proposed as part of both planning proposal requests and development applications (DAs).

§ Figure 2 - Aerial Map of the Subject Precinct and Sites A – E (Source: Near Map)

The subject site is identified as Site E within the Moorebank East precinct. It is located at Lot 6 Newbridge Road and is legally described as Lot 6 in DP 1065574. The site is currently zoned C2 (Environmental Conservation). Within the site is a disused non-putrescible landfill that operated across the site between 1972 and 1979. Along the site’s borders and to the west within the Wurrungwuri Reserve is good condition vegetation that includes threatened ecological communities and some coastal wetlands along the banks of the river. The subject site includes a narrow access handle that runs to the north and connects with Newbridge Road.

§ Figure 3 – Current zoning (Geocortex)

Current planning proposal

A planning proposal request was lodged with Council on 5 March 2020 that sought to achieve the proponent’s vision, ‘to provide a diverse, vibrant, active and accessible residential neighbourhood, bound by the banks of the Georges River and surrounding river woodland, to create an attractive place to live and play’. The proposal sought to facilitate the following development:

· 2,000 apartments;

· 800m² of community facilities;

· 1,700m² of retail, restaurant, and associated uses;

· 730m of foreshore walkway/activation waterfront, facilitating open space linkage to adjoining residential and recreational sites; and

· A series of ecological and recreational parks.

§ Figure 4 – Site E (RZ-2/2020) extract from Urban Design Report (Source: DEM)

Council staff and the LPP concluded that the proposal lacked both strategic and site-specific merit. The proposal was inconsistent with several objectives and priorities in the Greater Sydney Region Plan, Western City District Plan and Liverpool Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

Key site-specific issues with the proposal included:

· Flooding;

· Flood evacuation;

· Site contamination;

· Biodiversity impacts; and

· Density and supporting infrastructure.

In light of the constraints and following the findings of the Georges River Flood Evacuation Study, residential development cannot be supported on this site, thus Council has resolved to investigate options for either a place-based retail development or a modern business park development.

Either option will need to demonstrate sufficient strategic and site-specific merit to progress through the planning system, otherwise it is unlikely any change will be supported by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and relevant state agencies.

Option 1: Place-based retail type scenario

Overview

A placed-based retail proposal is an option that has been proposed as a potential use for the site, akin to a development such as Birkenhead Point or a Direct Factory Outlet (DFO). Such a proposal would utilise the amenity of the site to create a distinctive and attractive destination, which could complement the nearby residential area. Such a development would allow for a large array of retail uses, and could include supermarkets, food and drink premises, other specialty retail, and some commercial uses such as offices.

Zoning for the site would most appropriately be B2 Local Centre. Due to the upcoming Employment Zone Reforms, this will likely be changed to E1 Local Centre, which is a merging of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones. If this zone was used however, residential development would need to be restricted given the flood risk present at the site.

Strategic merit

In terms of assessing the strategic merit of such a proposal, the most relevant strategy to assess against is the Liverpool Centres and Corridors Strategy.

The Liverpool Centres and Corridors Strategy classes such a retail development as a stand-alone centre, which refers to centres “which provide for the convenience and specialised retail needs of the local community, but do not act as mixed-use centres”.

The Centres and Corridors Study states that out-of-centre retail developments should be limited as there is limited demand for new centres. The Strategy indicates that the creation of out-of-centre developments are not encouraged as they typically cannot take a broader place-based role and could have an impact on the turnover of existing centres.

The creation of a place-based centre would require a high level of social infrastructure, and integration with the developed areas of the district. However, the highly isolated nature of this particular site and its significant access issues would not promote a high degree of walkability, and would result in a car-based centre, which, given current flood evacuation constraints, would be unlikely to gain support from DPE and relevant state agencies.

Further, the vision for Liverpool Centres in the Centres and Corridors Strategy states that centres should be “well serviced by fast and reliable public transport and … easily accessible by a network of pathways, cycleways and open space”. Given the location and configuration of the site, it is unlikely to be well-serviced by public transport into the future.

Suggestions of creating a new town centre and relocating Moorebank Town Centre to this site would not likely be supported due to the above constraints.

A retail-based proposal may struggle to meet Ministerial Directions relating to flooding due to the high vehicle traffic such a development would induce. As noted in Transport for NSW’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, retail uses generate greater vehicle traffic per square metre than a business park or industrial development.

It is not recommended that this option is supported due to the lack of strategic merit. If the option for a place-based retail centre were to be progressed, an Economic Impact Assessment would be required to demonstrate the proposed development would not have an impact on the retail operation of any town centres, and a traffic impact assessment, green travel plan and detailed flood evacuation strategy would also need to be produced to ensure that traffic generated could be appropriately addressed.

Option 2: Modern business park scenario

Overview

A modern business park style development has also been suggested for the site, akin to Norwest Business Park, with office, and modern, low-impact industrial uses and other supporting uses permissible, such as some limited retail or industrial retail outlets. This proposal could potentially be facilitated with a B7 Business Park zoning (noting that B5, B6 and B7 zones are proposed to be merged into the E3 Productivity Support zone through the Employment Zone Reforms being undertaken by DPE).

Strategic merit

Council’s Employment and Industrial Lands Strategy Action 8 states: Introduce Innovation Precincts within the LGA. The action refers to B7 Business Park zoning being investigated for suitably located industrial areas surrounding the Liverpool City Centre. While the focus in the Strategy is on the transformation of existing industrial lands, pursuing a new business park development is not inconsistent with the Strategy.

However, the Strategy also indicates that planning proposals “are to demonstrate that new development will facilitate sustainable transport choices”. This may be difficult to demonstrate on the site given its isolated nature. A green travel plan would need to accompany any planning proposal request to address this.

The proponent has suggested uses on-site could include business premises, centre-based childcare, food and drink, hotel, or accommodation. Having commercial and higher order, low-impact industrial uses on site may have strategic merit and may be able to resolve site-specific issues such as flood affectation and evacuation more successfully than development that generates more car traffic, such as a retail centre. However, uses such as childcare are seen as inappropriate given the flood risk and constraints on-site. Uses such as hotel and motel accommodation may also prove problematic and would require further testing through a traffic impact assessment and flood studies.

An economic impact assessment will be required to address how the proposal will affect other employment areas, particularly the Liverpool CBD and wider Liverpool Innovation Precinct. A business park could detract from development of the Liverpool City Centre in relation to office-type uses. Given Council’s plans for the redevelopment of the Liverpool City Centre, plans for the redevelopment of Moore Point, and the desire to grow the Liverpool Innovation Precinct as stated in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), there may be limited office space demand outside the city centre, particularly considering the decline in demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a shift towards more flexible working arrangements.

However, with Council’s Industrial and Employment Lands Study pointing to a deficit of industrial land – particularly light industrial land – there would be strategic merit in providing more floor space for industrial uses on site, so an appropriate balance between light industrial and other employment uses may be able to be achieved with further investigation.

Ministerial Directions

The Minister for Planning has issued Directions under Section 9.1(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which apply to planning proposals lodged on or after the date a particular Direction was issued and commenced. Regardless of the option pursued, the following Directions must be addressed:

· 1.1 Implementation of Regional Plans

· 3.1 Conservation Zones

· 4.1 Flooding

· 4.2 Coastal Management

· 4.3 Planning for Bushfire Protection

· 4.4 Remediation of Contaminated Land

· 4.5 Acid Sulfate Soils

· 5.1 Integrating Land Use and Transport

· 5.3 Development Near Regulated Airports and Defence Airfields

· 7.1 Business and Industrial Zones

Both options are similar in their ability to meet the relevant Ministerial Directions, however, as indicated above, a business park and industrial development may be better able to address the flood evacuation requirements of Ministerial Direction 4.1 Flooding. This style of development generates less vehicle traffic per square metre than office blocks, shopping centres and bulky goods retail stores.

Key site-specific constraints

Flooding

The nature of the site, being within a high hazard flood zone, requires significant flood mitigation measures to enable any development, and to allow for safe evacuation. The development currently will require significant fill up to the flood planning level, or above, and therefore will require substantial compensatory flood storage. Flood impact assessments must be provided to ensure that the flood mitigation strategy complies with Council’s flood planning requirements and does not increase flood risk to neighbouring sites. It is noted that the 2022 NSW Flood Inquiry may have implications in terms of what can be supported on flood prone land along the Georges River.

Contamination

There remains a level of uncertainty around the contaminated state of the site and the required remediation pathways to be followed by the proponent to enable development on this site. Council will require a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation as outlined within the contaminated land planning guidelines. Council generally discourages on-site containment and encapsulation of contamination, which was identified as a remediation option in the previous planning proposal.

Biodiversity

Development will need to carefully manage biodiversity assets on the site. It is acknowledged that significant work has been undertaken to identify the biodiversity value of the site, however the previous planning proposal contained insufficient strategies and mechanisms to ensure these ecological values are protected and failed to demonstrate consistency with key Ministerial Directions. Any revised planning proposal will need to address this issue comprehensively. As part of a series of workshops held with the proponent, which were reported to Council at the 27 July 2022, it was recognised that land marked as Environmentally Significant Land (ESL) is to be avoided and development limited to non-ESL land.

Timeframes

Due to the 2022 NSW Flood Inquiry recommendation that the NSW Government review flood planning levels of the Georges River as a matter of priority, it is suggested that work on a planning proposal for the site be deferred until there is further certainty from the NSW Government regarding its response to this recommendation and its associated timeframes for completion.

It is highly likely that changes to the flood planning level in the catchment could have significant consequences for any future development in the area. Council has written to DPE (Attachment 1) requesting further clarification regarding its response to the Flood Inquiry recommendations, and how planning proposals in the flood planning area of the Georges River catchment are to be treated in the interim. As Council is still awaiting a response, no indicative timeframe can be provided at this stage.

Budgetary impact

There is no budgetary impact of a proponent-led planning proposal outside of the normal costs associated with assessing a planning proposal, which Council recovers through its typical fees and charges.

Conclusion

The use of the site for a modern business park type development has greater strategic and site-specific merit than use for a place-based retail centre. A place-based retail centre contradicts Council’s Corridors and Centres Strategy and will be subject to greater site-specific challenges due to the type of development generating greater traffic than a business park, as evidenced by Transport for NSW’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

Conversely, a business park style development is not inconsistent with Council’s Industrial and Employment Lands Strategy and will be better able to overcome constraints such as flood evacuation requirements due to its lower traffic generation (on a per sq m basis).

As such, it is recommended that out of the two options proposed, further investigation of a business park development is progressed by the proponent, though it should be noted that such a development still has significant strategic merit issues to overcome in relation to competition with the Liverpool City Centre and Innovation Precinct, challenges with integrating transport, and addressing site-specific constraints, such as flood, contamination and biodiversity.

It is considered prudent that any planning proposal await further response from DPE on how it is addressing the recommendations of the NSW Flood Inquiry before lodgement. The Inquiry recommends that flood planning levels are revised in high-risk catchments, including the Georges River, as a matter of priority. Any changes to the planning framework may impact upon planning proposals and development applications in the area.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Facilitate economic development.
Environment	Manage the environmental health of waterways. Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution. Protect, enhance and maintain areas of endangered ecological communities and high quality bushland as part of an attractive mix of land uses.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Sections 3.31 to 3.37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low. There is a risk that the suggested option will not be able to overcome strategic and site-specific merit issues, which may lead the landowners to pursue an already approved concrete crushing facility for which Council is opposed. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Letter to DPE - Flood Inquiry

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 02

NSW Government Employment Zones Reform - Post Exhibition Report

Strategic Direction	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Implement planning controls and best practice urban design to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	289374.2022
Report By	Riz Afzal - Senior Strategic Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

The NSW Government is reviewing and rationalising the business and industrial zones under the Standard Instrument Principal Local Environmental Plan (SI Principal LEP). The stated purpose of this employment zones reform is to support a productive economy by enabling business and jobs in the locations where they are needed.

A report was prepared to inform Council about these employment zones reform and resulting amendments to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP) earlier this year. Council considered this report at its Ordinary Meeting on 27 April 2022 and resolved to support the public exhibition of the proposed amendments under the Governments employment zones reform. Council was also informed that these reforms are led by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and they will make all the arrangements for public exhibition.

DPE exhibited the proposed changes under these reforms from Tuesday 31 May 2022 until Tuesday 12 July 2022. During the exhibition period more than 400 submissions were received. Eleven of these submissions are relevant to the Liverpool LGA.

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the outcomes of public exhibition, proposed changes as a result of submissions and next steps for these reforms. DPE has advised that there is no expectation that councils will formally endorse final land use tables or mapping and that the reforms will be finalised regardless.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the outcomes of the public exhibition of employment zones reform; and

2. Supports the proposed changes post exhibition as outlined in this report.

REPORT

Background

In July 2020, the NSW Government announced the NSW Planning Reform Action Plan to deliver long term structural reform of the planning system and unlock the productivity of NSW.

This action plan intends to respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on initiatives that accelerate the delivery of projects that create jobs and keep the economy moving. This action plan includes a suite of planning reforms led by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) including, but not limited to, complying development reforms, building business back better initiatives, and employment zones reforms.

The employment zones reform will result in the following amendments to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP):

· Replacing the existing Business (B) and Industrial (IN) zones with new consolidated employment zones (E);

· Introduction of new land uses;

· Amendments to the objectives of various zones;

· Amendments to Land Use Tables (LUTs) of various zones;

· Amendments to Part 7 – Additional local provisions;

· Amendments to Schedule 1 – Additional permitted uses; and

· Changes to the Land Zoning Map.

Council resolution

At its Ordinary Meeting on 27 April 2022, Council considered a report on the proposed NSW Government’s employment zones reform. Council resolved to support the public exhibition of the proposed reforms. This Council report and resolution is provided in Attachment 1.

Council’s resolution also requested for the following actions.

No.	Actions from Council resolution	Comments
1.	The ‘food and drink premises’ remain permissible with development consent in the stand-alone centre at Orange Grove.	Council made a submission during the exhibition period to retain ‘food and drink premises’ as a permitted land use with consent in the stand-alone centre at Orange Grove (currently zoned B5 and B6). A copy of this submission is provided in Attachment 2.
2.	A further report to be provided to Council on the outcomes of public exhibition and community consultation	This report is provided to inform Council about the outcomes of public exhibition and community consultation.
3.	Investigate whether local distribution centres in the proposed E1 zone will be allowed under these amendments.	‘Local distribution premises’ will be a permitted land use with consent in proposed E1-Local Centre. Refer to the ‘Translation of the employment zones land use tables’ provided in Attachment 3 for further detail.

Employment zones reform exhibition

1. Suggested to minimise the number of additional permitted uses in the LLEP;

2. Objected to removal of ‘centre based child care facilities’ and ‘hotel or motel accommodation’ from proposed E4-General Industrial zone;

3. No land should be down zoned and existing permitted uses should be retained;

4. Suggested further broadening of permissible uses in proposed employment zones; and

5. The proposed reform must not result in unintended consequences that may arise from the effective “up-zoning” of land.

A detailed response to these submissions in provided in Attachment 4.

Proposed changes post exhibition

Savings and transitional provisions (suggested by DPE)

After considering the general feedback from public exhibition, DPE have advised that the existing permitted uses will be retained through savings and transitional provisions for a 24-month period. This means, for example, if a site was previously zoned B2 Local Centre and has translated to an E1 Local Centre, all previously permitted uses in the B2 zone are to be maintained for 24-month period.

Note: Council has raised concerns that the 24-month period for saving and transitional provisions will unnecessarily delay the implementation of the reform and potentially create land use conflicts for areas transitioning to the new employment zones. It was suggested that a 12-month savings provision would be more appropriate.

Permitting ‘Centre-based child care facilities’ in E4 - General Industrial zone (suggested by Council)

‘Centre-based child care’ was identified as non-mandatory land use for E4 zone in the preliminary land use table provided by DPE. This land use was considered inappropriate as conflicts could occur with industrial uses given the nature of these areas. Also, under these reforms, ‘Centre-based child care’ is to be permitted with consent in multiple zones including E1 (Local Centre), E2 (Commercial Centre), E3 (Productivity Support), and MU1 (Mixed Use). Given that, Council recommended the exclusion of this land use from the E4 zone.

During public exhibition of these reforms, multiple landowners and local businesses have requested this land use be retained in the E4 zone as it is critical for functioning of this employment zone. After reviewing these submissions, Council supports the inclusion of ‘Centre-based child care facilities’ in the E4 zone. It is noted that ‘Chapter 3 Educational establishments and child care facilities’ of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 includes provisions to ensure the safety and health of people using or visiting a centre-based child care facility on land in industrial zones.

Timeline and implementation phases

The timeline of employment zones reforms is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Timeline for implementation (Source: DPE)

Next Steps

DPE will prepare instructions for the self-repealing SEPP which will make the required amendments to the LLEP to give effect to these reforms. DPE have stated that there is no expectation that Council will endorse final land use tables or mapping and that the reforms will be finalised regardless.

The reform to employment zones will be implemented in two ways. First, a State environmental planning policy will be made that changes local environmental plans across the State, including the LLEP. This removes the need for the Council to prepare a planning proposal to amend the LLEP. Secondly, the new zones will be included in the Principal Standard Instrument – Local Environmental Plan to promote consistency in planning instruments going forward. DPE will also prepare a housekeeping amendment through a self-repealing SEPP to rectify any potential anomalies and inconsistencies as required following finalisation.

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	Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Sections 3.20 and 3.29 to 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006
Risk	The risk is deemed to be low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council report and resolution - 27 April 2022

2. Council submission

3. Translation of the employment zones land use tables

4. Response to public submissions - Employment zones reform

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 03

Street Light Audits in the Liverpool City Centre

Strategic Direction	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Improve liveability and quality of life for the community by delivering vibrant parks, places and facilities
File Ref	302868.2022
Report By	Alex Helderman - Parking Services Coordinator
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting held on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 resolved to direct the CEO to conduct monthly audits, using existing staff resources, to identify faulty streetlights in the Liverpool CBD and report them to the appropriate responsible authorities, including Endeavour Energy.

Monthly audits have been carried out since the resolution and have proven to be beneficial in holding Endeavour Energy to account for repairing faulty streetlights within a reasonable timeframe. Endeavour Energy under their service charter are required to conduct a street light audit once a year.

As the number of faulty lights detected during the audits has stabilised, audits every two months are considered more appropriate than monthly.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Conducts street light audits in the Liverpool City Centre every two months, rather than monthly, using existing staff resources to identify streetlights that are not working and reporting those lights to Endeavour Energy for rectification.

2. Notes that for the purpose of the audit, the Liverpool CBD is bounded by Hume Highway between Macquarie Street and Governor Macquarie Drive, Macquarie/Terminus Streets/Newbridge Road and the Main Southern Railway line.

3. Receive future updates through the Councillor update on the outcome of the audits.

REPORT

Council at its meeting held on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 resolved:

That Council:

1. Direct the CEO to conduct a monthly audit, using existing staff resources, on what street lights are not working in the CBD and report them to the appropriate responsible authorities. For the purpose of this motion the CBD is defined by:

- Starting from the intersection of Moorebank Ave and Newbridge Road leading to Terminus St and Lighthorse Bridge

- Bounded by Copeland St to the west and Campbell St to the north Terminus to the south and Bigge St the east including Lighthorse Bridge

2. Provide a monthly report to Councillors on the outcomes of the audit.

Upon commencing the CBD streetlight audits in 2014, eleven percent (11%) of the lights were found not to be working, representing 106 lights. Following each audit, a list of faulty streetlights were referred to Endeavour Energy for rectification. Consequently, the number of faulty lights detected during the audits reduced to an average of 55 and at times as low as 20.

The audits not only focused on the CBD streetlights, but gave special emphasis to high-risk areas such as pedestrian crossings near the hospital, railway station, Westfield, streets with a minimal number of streetlights and Light Horse Bridge. In addition to undertaking the monthly street light audits, customer street light complaints were also investigated and referred to Endeavor Energy for action were appropriate.

The street light audits conducted by Council have proven beneficial for improving the livability of the Liverpool CBD. Under the current agreement between Council and Endeavour Energy, the Liverpool CBD streetlights are audited annually by Endeavour Energy. This is deemed insufficient as audits have shown that some streetlights did not work for extended periods of time and by Council maintaining scrutiny on Endeavour Energy, the lights were rectified with minimal delay.

Although monthly audits have proven beneficial in managing the number of faulty streetlights, audits every two months are considered more appropriate than monthly. This change will also reduce overtime costs for staff undertaking the audit.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There will be a reduction in staff overtime. This would represent a saving of approximately $4,600 per year.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Support policies and plans that prevent crime.
Civic Leadership	Deliver services that are customer focused.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993, section 24.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Planning & Compliance Report

PLAN 04

Dwelling Density, Variety, and Odour in the Liverpool Growth Centres Precincts

Strategic Direction	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Implement planning controls and best practice urban design to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	304597.2022
Report By	Jerard Tungcab - Strategic Planner
Approved By	David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council at its meeting on 31 March 2021 resolved to:

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

This report primarily investigates the ongoing planning issues of dwelling density and variety within the Austral/Leppington North Precinct (ALN Precinct). Specifically, the report provides detail of the on-going development occurring at higher densities than initially planned and the subsequent increased demand for social infrastructure such as open space and community facilities.

The report recommends amendments to the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts -Western Parkland City) 2021 (Growth SEPP) and the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Development Control Plan (Growth DCP) to replace the existing minimum dwelling density controls with a sliding scale density band. This would include a new maximum dwelling density control within the Growth DCP to reflect proposed Growth SEPP changes. Furthermore, amendments are recommended to existing maps to clarify these controls more transparently. Finally, it is recommended that odour inducing industries are mapped for public viewing to improve outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and note this report.

2. Receive a further report including a draft planning proposal and DCP amendment that seeks to:

a) Replace the SEPP minimum dwelling density controls/maps with a dwelling density band, which specifies both a minimum and maximum dwelling density.

b) Align any relevant DCP controls with the dwelling density/variety band and character areas of each area;

c) Amend Table 3-1 (Typical Characteristics of Residential Net Densities) to reflect proposed density/variety band ranges and appropriate typical characteristics;

d) Amend Table 3-2 (Minimum lot size by density bands) to reflect proposed dwelling density/variety band ranges and to clarify controls for “increased density fronting open space”;

e) Align any other DCP Control that refer to or is affected by the proposed dwelling density band; and

f) Plots odour inducing industries on a map and allow the information to be publicly available, including a process to periodically review industries decommissioned or reduced in impact

REPORT

Dwelling Density

On 15 March 2013, the Department of Planning, & Environment (DPE) rezoned Austral and Leppington North as part of the South-West Growth Area (SWGA). East Leppington was subsequently rezoned on 8 August 2014. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 and its associated Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Development Control Plan (Growth DCP) accompanied this.

These policies were introduced at a time where there was seldom broad market acceptance for smaller lot sizes (up to 350m²). As such, density controls for the ALN Precinct were based on a minimum (‘floor’) without concern for a maximum (‘ceiling’). DPE anticipated that the average residential lot would be in the order of 550sqm, as this was the observed trend of other growth areas at the time.

This was also implemented as:

· There was a need to ensure that the precincts would at least meet its dwelling target.

· There was a need to provide for a variety of housing typologies, in which denser areas typically provide for a greater variety of dwelling typologies, sizes and price points.

· There is a need to define the character of certain areas, in which lot size and density plays a major role in creating the feel for a streetscape.

It should be noted that most infrastructure provision in the ALN Precinct was planned based on the notion that the precinct would only meet its minimum precinct housing target (e.g. meeting the minimum required density). This minimum quantity of infrastructure planned for the ALN & East Leppington Precincts means that these precincts will have insufficient public infrastructure if substantially increased density is developed without also identifying additional infrastructure.

In the years following the rezoning of the precincts, there has been growing market acceptance of smaller lot sizes, and even units, particularly as the price of land has risen significantly. The pressure to provide smaller lot sizes has now reached the point where small lots (up to 350m²) are now the standard and larger lot (400m² or more) production is rarely provided.

Providing smaller lots means that more lots can be created, which has an effect of increasing the number of homes which can be built and increasing dwelling density. This trend has now reached a point where the vast majority of residential developments are greater than the minimum density, with extreme cases exceeding the minimum by more than 800%. The resulting increase in residential density has clear flow on impacts on the demands for open space and other infrastructure provision.

Several solutions have been explored to address this density challenge; however, these are ultimately not recommended as discussed in the following points:

· Council to Cater for Additional Infrastructure

Whilst Council could provide for enhanced facilities on identified lands, this approach would be ad-hoc and disrupt the existing planning priorities and implementation plans in place. For instance, it would logistically be difficult to implement road widening if surrounding development has already taken place (potentially requiring costly demolition of new dwellings). Similarly, additional open space would need to be zoned on land that is already zoned for urban purposes such as residential development. This is further compounded by the rising costs of land acquisition and the finite availability of land. This is seen as a reactive response, and Council would continually be behind the market in terms of supplementing infrastructure demands. Furthermore, the cost to Council would be significant and likely beyond its capacity financially.

· Developers to Cater for Additional Infrastructure

A typical solution to catering for higher-than-expected development may be to amend a contributions plan, or to consider a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). Typically, this occurs for large or unique development applications, or planning proposals.

The fragmentation of land holdings within the ALN & East Leppington Precincts would preclude this option as it is difficult to draw a relationship between infrastructure demand and individual applications, which may only be seeking a few lots above what was anticipated. Cumulative impacts are not dealt with effectively by individual CP amendments or VPAs and may lead to equity issues in instances where a single development may trigger, for example, widening of a local road, which would also benefit many others.

Putting the onus onto developers for infrastructure provision would also be difficult as it would be difficult to draw a relationship between and individual development and the demand of an item such as a district park (as multiple cumulative developments would demand such infrastructure).

· Introduce Restricted Dwelling Yield Controls on Undeveloped Parcels

Large undeveloped parcels remain within the ALN & East Leppington Precinct. This remaining undeveloped land could be controlled by placing a numerical limit on the number of dwellings which can be developed. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts -Western Parkland City) 2021 (Growth SEPP) could introduce a control like that implemented through Clause 7.12 of the Liverpool LEP that restricts dwelling yield on certain parcels:

Cl 7.12 – Maximum number of lots

“The total number of lots created by the subdivision of land in an area of land identified as “Restricted Lot Yield” on the Dwelling Density Map must not exceed the number shown on that map for that area”

An implication of introducing this yield control would prevent future landowners from further subdividing their land even if they otherwise met other panning controls in relation to aspects such as minimum lot sizes. Additionally, existing developments would have been approved at higher densities than those needing to comply with this new lot yield control, creating a perceived equity issue.

· Instrument Provision to Limit Number of Lots Used for Residential Purposes

Another approach, not dissimilar to the option above, would be to implement a system (through the Growth SEPP or restrictions on the use of land created under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919) where any lots over and above the minimum yield are required to provide non-residential uses (i.e., childcare centre, places of public worship, neighbourhood shops etc.)

Both SEPP provisions and section 88B restrictions will override planning controls that have historically been implemented. This would likely cause frustrations and inequities for landowners and developers. It would also undermine the centres hierarchy by encouraging a large amount of development which should be provided within centre in out-of-centre locations.

Recommendation – Dwelling Density

The preferred approach is to implement a dwelling density band system. This would be integrated within the Growth SEPP maps and detailed further in the DCP. This ensures both a minimum and maximum dwelling density standard.

Implementing a maximum density control would entail the introduction of a Dwelling Density Band system. There is precedent for this; Camden Council has implemented a similar outcome in some of their precincts within the Growth SEPP:

· 10 Dwellings (Minimum) – 20 Dwellings (Maximum) per hectare (K2);

· 12.5 Dwellings (Minimum) – 16.5 Dwellings (Maximum) per hectare (O2);

· 20 Dwellings (Minimum) – 25 Dwellings (Maximum) per hectare (Q2);

· 25 Dwellings (Minimum) – 35 Dwellings (Maximum) per hectare (T2); and

· 35 Dwellings (Minimum) – 60 Dwellings (Maximum) per hectare (V).

Numerical provisions in both the SEPP and DCP should then be aligned so that there is a clear relationship between them. All references to the singular dwelling density minimum will then be replaced by the proposed dwelling density bands in Part 4 of the SEPP.

Dwelling Variety

During the exhibition of Liverpool LEP 2008 (Amendment 75) Austral, Council received written submissions advocating for clarity of the dwelling variety controls.

Council’s housing strategy, and the background housing report for the growth centre precincts acknowledge that there is (or will be) demand for medium density housing typologies, such as semi-detached dwellings and attached dwellings. These housing typologies are suited to smaller, young, or older households, who may not need a large home, and/or may have a smaller budget.

A variety of dwelling typologies within the same suburb is important in allowing for persons to move houses (in accordance with how their housing needs may change over time) without having to leave their community and social connections behind.

Failing to provide for a variety of dwelling typologies could lead to a lack of housing suited to first homebuyers, childless couples, lone person households, downsizers, single parent families, and other smaller households. It may also stifle economic development and attraction of skilled jobs, as young professionals and migrants would typically seek out smaller, more affordable homes with lower maintenance compared to a traditional house and land package.

It is important to note that the Growth SEPP does not have provisions that relate to dwelling variety other than minimum lot sizes and minimum dwelling density controls. The controls currently in the DCP are not clear as to whether dwelling variety is to be achieved on a site-by-site basis or at the precinct level.

The following options were explored to refine the current approach to providing for housing diversity, but which have been excluded from the recommendation due to various shortcomings as detailed in the following points:

· Remove Controls Relating to Housing Variety on Each Site

Removing controls for housing variety would provide the ultimate flexibility for developers. However, rather than allowing that all dwelling typologies are provided on all greenfield lots, it is more appropriate to locate higher density potentials within places near public transport, open space, centres, and other areas which provide additional amenities.

The risk of this option is that some developers may only seek to produce a single product (i.e., lots for detached dwellings) or other development typologies which result in the highest return on investment, rather than the housing needs of the community. There is a risk that rather than providing for flexibility, a lack of controls would result in a monoculture of single dwelling homes catering for families, as is typical in recently developed release areas. Areas of higher density would, likely, similarly be developed for the purpose of residential flat buildings. This approach would propagate the issues across most of Sydney in relation to a lack of smaller homes which are not units, such as duplexes or terrace homes, otherwise characterised as the missing middle.

· Specify a Maximum Number of Detached Dwellings/Lots Sold within each large subdivision application

A blunt option in providing certainty in dwelling variety is to stipulate the number of lots in a subdivision which are to provide for housing forms that are not detached dwellings. This could either be limited to specific dwelling density areas or all residential zoned areas.

This would involve implementing a DCP Control that requires that a minimum percentage of lots to be created in a subdivision are to be something other than the typical detached dwellings seen most commonly developed within growth areas at present.

Whilst this guarantees that dwelling variety output is met, it could be more onerous for developers to adhere to. There would be additional costs involved as a variety of dwelling types would need to be designed, built, and sold within a single large lot. Furthermore, there would need to be a way of ensuring that dwellings developed at a later date on approved lots were aligned with original intent of that subdivision. Simply, that dwelling variety required at the subdivisions stage was honored throughout the development process after lots were sold.

· Re-Introduce Older Lot Variety Controls

Prior to amendments in 2016, the DCP used to have greater controls with regards to providing a variety of lot sizes. The primary control of which is as follows “In density bands ≤20dw/Ha no more than 40% of the total residential lots proposed in a subdivision development application may be of the same lot type.

This was a standard control that ignored aspects such as site context (e.g., solar access or frontage to open space), which is important in determining appropriate lot size/widths. The variety of lot sizes was also limited. Whilst some larger lots could cater for dual occupancies, there were no controls to guarantee this outcome. Ultimately it could only guarantee a variety of lot widths, and not lot sizes (due to no controls on lot depths), and ultimately couldn’t effectively promote a diversity of dwelling typologies.

Recommendation – Dwelling Variety

The preferred approach to dwelling variety would be to integrate the proposed dwelling density band minimum and maximum standards (as discussed above) within Table 3-1 (Typical Characteristics of Residential Net Densities) and Table 3-2 (Minimum lot size by density bands) in the Growth DCP. Objectives and controls describing built form characteristics would then be required to be consistent with the desired and anticipated outcomes and controls within the Growth SEPP.

The naming of each dwelling-density control in the DCP would also provide indication as to the desired character of the area. However, care would need to be taken when labelling dwelling density bands to avoid any conflict with any other nomenclature in both instruments. This will clarify the desired character of an area, including aspects such as lot sizes, and the expectation for dwelling variety.

This would also integrate the residential structure map of Schedule 1 that provides for “increased density fronting open space” in some locations (in which the DCP Main Body makes few references to). This would make it clear to both the development industry and assessment officers as to where different dwelling typologies are best located.

Inconsistencies Between SEPP & DCP

Dwelling Density and Dwelling Variety are inherently interlinked with one another. These two aspects are made more complex due to the Growth SEPP and Growth DCP failing to have an integrated approach where consistency prevails. Therefore, in resolving dwelling density and variety issues, a consolidated solution approach is best.

Council staff are aware of inconsistencies between SEPP provisions (statutory controls), and DCP provisions (controls which provide guidance to align with the SEPP controls) with regards to controlling both dwelling density and dwelling variety. Staff typically use the SEPP objectives, and broader intent of the DCP controls as appropriate to address this; however, the mismatched nature of some of these controls makes it difficult to provide clarity as to what is and what is not appropriate. This can slow down the DA process and provide for inconsistent and ultimately poor outcomes.

The development industry provided comments on these issues during exhibition of Liverpool LEP 2008 Amendment 75, a widespread housekeeping amendment to the Indicative Layout Plan of the Austral and Leppington North Precinct. These comments reinforced that there was inconsistencies and a lack of transparency around the character of different densities of residential development.

Currently, the dwelling density control in the Growth SEPP is a minimum lot yield standard for residential development in zones ‘R2 Low Density Residential’ and ‘R3 – Medium Density Residential’. There are four separate minimum dwelling density controls:

· 10 Dwellings per hectare (K1);

· 15 Dwellings per hectare(O1);

· 20 Dwellings per hectare (Q1); and

· 25 Dwellings per hectare (T1).

Table 3-1 of the DCP provides consideration of dwelling typologies in Net Residential Density dw/ha areas (noting this is not a specific reference to the minimum residential density area as per the SEPP):

Text

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Current Table 3-1 of the Growth DCP

The issue with this DCP Table is that the SEPP does not provide dwelling density bands that correspond with the numerals in the left column. It also does not specify that a residential subdivision needs to be developed in accordance with the characteristics most alike with the SEPP density control applying to the land (i.e., there is nothing to specify that a 15dw/ha site should reflect 15-20dw/ha area characteristics). A lack of relationship between the SEPP control and this DCP table causes confusion and inconsistent assessment of DAs. The controls should be aligned to ensure that desired outcomes are clear.

In summary, the DCP and SEPP require amendments to align their respective dwelling density bands, maps, and character area statements / controls to be consistent with one another. These references will provide greater clarity for both developers and assessment officers in relation to where different forms of housing should be provided. It will also provide sufficient statutory weight to controls which require that a variety of dwelling typologies be provided, ultimately helping to provide for the housing needs of the community.

The actions and recommendations outlined earlier in this report for Dwelling Density and Dwelling Variety would ensure that development is more closely aligned to the planned infrastructure delivery, and that a variety of dwelling typologies are provided in suitable areas. This will provide clarity and equity for landowners/developers and should be relatively easy to administer and understand.

Odour Controls

There are several poultry farms and other odour emanating industries operating within or adjacent to the growth centre precincts, which requires management of growth when new homes, or other sensitive uses, would be impacted by odour.

The standards which govern odour impacts in NSW generally provide for exclusion zones around industries such as poultry farms to limit the number of sensitive receivers in areas most likely to be severely impacted. The breadth of this exclusion zone depends on the intensity of the industry, and for operations, such as poultry farms, this includes the number of birds, ventilation management, micro-climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Issues arise when there is a lack of up-to-date information on where odour emanating industries are located.

At present, Council has received DAs where either certain odour emanating operations were not identified, or the number of birds (in the case of poultry farms) varied for the same facilities (e.g., due to birds being transported at different lifecycle stages, or during quarantine periods between batches). Controls in the DCP are very basic at present, only requiring that an odour impact assessment is provided at the DA stage when Council suspects the development will be impacted by odour. Council currently relies upon studies which identified odour emanating industries at the precinct planning stage, with this often being out of date with current operations.

Recommendation – Odour Controls

It is recommended that the current odour maps are updated and the locations of odour emanating industries are published on Council’s ePlanning Portal. Council staff have knowledge as to where these facilities are located and could plot these industries on an online map to ensure this information is publicly accessible. This would allow developers to access updated mapping that includes facilities in adjoining areas. Council officers would need to periodically review and update the maps as needed.

It is suggested that updated requirements are drafted, outlining that any odour assessments need to account for the ‘worst-case scenario’ that such facilities may operate under (i.e., facilities are operating at maximum capacity with unfavourable microclimate). This would address issues relating to conflicting odour impact assessment, which are typically derived on the operational conditions of the facility at a point in time in which the study is being prepared.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to the recommendations of this report. Existing staff resources within the City Planning department will be utilised.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Environment	Manage air, water, noise and chemical pollution. Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Raise community awareness and support action in relation to environmental issues.
Social	Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership	Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes.
Legislative	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts—Western Parkland City) 2021.
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. There is a low risk that if nothing is done to address the issues identified within this report, further impacts to current and future residents within the Austral and Leppington North Growth Areas will continue. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Community & Culture Report

COM 01

Draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines - Bi-annual Review

Strategic Direction	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Implement planning controls and best practice urban design to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments
File Ref	288252.2022
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

The draft Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Policy and Guidelines are the key mechanisms for Council to identify and manage the potential social impacts of proposed developments, policies, and planning instruments. It aims to maximise the social outcomes, community benefits and social sustainability of developments within the Liverpool LGA.

The draft SIA Policy and Guidelines are grounded in the five main principles of social justice including access to resources, equity, participation, diversity, and human rights. Council has a statutory obligation under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to consider the social impacts of development applications.

Council adopted the SIA Policy and Guidelines first in 2012, with a review cycle of every two years. This report presents the updated SIA Policy and Guidelines for Council’s consideration to place on public exhibition. Key changes in this review cycle include:

· A revision of policy statement to align better with the SIA requirements and scope;

· Update of SIA Triggers and SIA Types sections – to correctly reference new and current legislative changes and development proposal types;

· Update of SIA Assessment Form to better assist applicants - inclusion of a scoping question and referral to relevant strategies or websites for further information; and

· General text formatting and editing.

The Draft SIA Policy and Guidelines has been developed in consultation with various Council departments. Additionally, an independent industry expert was engaged to undertake a peer review to ensure the Policy is on par with industry best practice and relevant planning guidelines.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and notes this report;

2. Endorses the draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines for public exhibition for a period of 28 days; and

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

REPORT

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the process of assessing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions including policies, legislations and development proposals.

When undertaken as part of a Development Approval process, an SIA is prepared to assist the relevant consent authority to make an informed decision. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more social, culturally, ecologically and economically sustainable and equitable environment. Although a SIA is used as an impact prediction mechanism and decision-making tool in regulatory processes, the role of SIA in contributing to the ongoing management of social issues throughout the whole project development cycle, from conception to post-closure, is equally important.

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

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

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

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

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

Review process and highlights of Key Changes

Building on the current SIA Policy and Guidelines, the draft SIA Policy and Guidelines has been updated following a comprehensive review of international best practice guidance, emerging trends in the field of social impact assessment and an analysis of Liverpool’s local context regarding specific pressures, gaps and requirements. These changes reflect:

· The type of development proposals assessed by Council in recent times;

· Feedback from key internal departments - Strategic Planning, Development Assessment, Legal Services and Urban Design departments;

· Benchmarking of the work of other councils through the Social Planners Network of Local Government NSW (LGNSW); and

· Feedback from external consultant undertaking a peer review.

The key changes are summarised as follows:

· A revision of policy statement to align better with the SIA requirements and scope;

· Update of SIA Triggers and SIA Types sections – to correctly reference new and current legislative changes and development proposal types;

· Update of SIA Assessment Form to better assist applicants - inclusion of a scoping question and referral to relevant strategies or websites for further information; and

· General text formatting and editing.

Recommendation

This report recommends that Council endorses placing the draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines on public exhibition for a period of 28 day.

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	Support policies and plans that prevent crime. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people. Support community organizations, groups and volunteers to deliver coordinated services to the community. Promote community harmony and address discrimination. Support access and services for people with a disability. Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership	Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of media. Foster neighborhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision-making processes.
Legislative	Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Local Government Act, 1993 Gaming Machines Act, 2001 / Liquor Act, 2007 Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 Liverpool Development Control Plan (DCP), 2008 State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 Liverpool City Council Social Justice Policy, 2018 Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Connected Liverpool 2050
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. The risk is considered within Council’s risk appetite.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Social Impact Assessment Policy and Guidelines 2022 for Public Exhibition September 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Community & Culture Report

COM 02

2168 Children's Parliament

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Communicate, listen, engage and respond to the community by encouraging community participation
File Ref	306490.2022
Report By	Galavizh Ahmadi Nia - Manager Community Development and Planning
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

The 2168 Children’s Parliament (the Parliament) is a unique child-centered deliberative democracy initiative. Established in 2016, it aims to raise children’s awareness and understanding of their rights and to encourage civic participation by providing a platform for children to develop and voice their opinions and ideas on matters that are important to them. The Parliament is a core activity of the Strong Children, Strong Communities Project (SCCP), funded by the Commonwealth Government’s Communities 4 Children (C4C) program and administered by Mission Australia - Miller Pathways (Mission Australia).

The Parliament is made up of children 9-12 years of age from eleven primary schools in the 2168 postcode area and Lurnea Primary School and engages children through child friendly platforms. As one of Liverpool’s most socioeconomically disadvantaged and culturally diverse postcodes, the Parliament assist children and families in disadvantaged locations to actively participate in their community and decision-making processes.

The Children’s Parliament has contributed to planning and decision making about children’s needs and aspirations, relevant to Council and other government agencies. They include, but not limited to:

· Providing feedback on planning and delivery of parks, open space and facilities such as Casula Parklands and Miller Park, with consultation for McGirr Park Stage two development being the next activity;

· Having a say through a Writing Competition in 2021 about children’s experiences in learning from home and their vision for Liverpool to inform the Community Strategic Plan;

· Research and presentations on key community issues and their impact on children such as poverty, mental health, community safety, equity and participation; and

· Advocacy and representation at state and national levels on matters important to children at home, school and community.

A recent project evaluation has found that the Parliament’s impact on Parliamentarians has been overwhelmingly positive on their knowledge, skills, behaviour and values.

This report provides an overview of the Parliament program more broadly and highlights opportunities for Council to better engage with children and young people to ensure positive outcomes for the community and encourage greater participation for children and young people in civic life.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes this report.

REPORT

Background

The Parliament is a core activity of the Strong Children, Strong Communities Project (SCCP), funded by the Commonwealth Government’s Communities 4 Children (C4C) program and administered by Mission Australia - Miller Pathways (Mission Australia). Council is the Facilitating Partner in this project and delivers the Parliament on behalf of these partners.

Drawing on the model of the Scottish Children’s Parliament and informed by Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); which stipulates that children have the right to participate in the decision-making that affects their lives; the Parliament has the following principles guiding its activities:

· Education, health and wellbeing;

· Civic participation, active citizenship;

· Political participation, democracy, and human rights; and

· Community connectedness and inclusion.

The Parliament intends to do this through a formalised, age-appropriate platform that enables children aged 9-12 to:

· Develop the skills and competencies to participate in deliberative processes;

· Participate in policy-making forums;

· Facilitate dialogue between children and policy-makers (Ambassadors);

· Task adult advocates with taking meaningful action on children’s behalf and reporting back to Parliament on the outcomes of these actions.

The Project Scope and Framework

The Parliament is focused on supporting children in the 2168 postcode area of Liverpool. As one of Liverpool’s most socioeconomically disadvantaged and culturally diverse postcodes, the Parliament focuses on this area to meet the primary aim of the C4C Program – to assist children and families in disadvantaged locations to actively participate in their community and decision-making processes.

Eleven schools currently participate in the Parliament:

· Ashcroft Public School;

· Busby Public School;

· Busby West Public School;

· Cartwright Public School;

· Green Valley Public School;

· Heckenberg Public School;

· Hinchinbrook Public School;

· Miller Public School;

· Sadleir Public School;

· Saint Therese Catholic School; and

· Lurnea Public School.

Each participating school appoints four students aged 9-12 (Years 5-6) as Parliamentarians via an annual school wide democratic election process, creating a Parliament of 44 members.

Parliamentarians take part in a scheduled program of activities throughout the year, which are focussed on building their capacity to deliver their findings to the Ambassadors Panel at the first Parliament sitting of the year (usually held in June). These activities include:

· Workshops and training: 3 workshops are held per term each year. Workshops are facilitated by external experts and staff, covering topics such as children’s rights, policy and advocacy, speech writing and public speaking, environmental sustainability, resilience, cultural understanding and cohesive societies. Parliamentarians also take part in an excursion to NSW Parliament House to learn more about government and passing of legislations;

· School surveys: During the first workshop of the year, Parliamentarians choose which issues are important to them to present at the sittings. A school survey is then administered to years 4-6 students at all participating schools which collects data on the Parliamentarians’ chosen issues. On average, each year over 700 students participate in this survey, which provides the evidence-base for Parliamentarians’ speeches and calls to action to Ambassadors; and

· Parliament Sittings: Parliament sittings are held in June and November each year. During the June sitting, Parliamentarians present their concerns and ideas to the panel of Ambassadors at the Council Chambers. The presentations are one of the central facets of the sittings and discuss the findings of the school surveys, related issues of concern for Parliamentarians, and their requests for action to the Ambassadors. The November sitting focuses on the actions and advocacy that Ambassadors have taken on the children’s issues since the last sitting.

The project has established a Panel of Ambassadors comprised of influential community, educational and political representatives including Liverpool City Mayor, Federal Member for Werriwa, Western Sydney University, Department of Education, National Children Commissioner and NSW Advocate for Children and Young People. Their role is to listen, respond to and advocate for the Parliamentarians views on a broader scale, such as to local, state and federal governments and organisations.

Project Highlights and Opportunities

The matters presented by the children at each Parliament sitting are identified by the Parliamentarians following extensive research and consultations with their peers. Since its inception, the Parliament has addressed several important social and cultural issues, including:

· Having a say through a Writing Competition in 2021 about children’s experiences in learning from home and their vision for Liverpool to inform the Community Strategic Plan;

· Research and present on key community issues and their impact on children such as poverty, mental health, community safety, COVID-19, diversity and inclusion; and

· Advocacy and representation at state and national levels on matters important to children at home, school and community.

In 2022, the Children’s Parliament focussed on:

· Age-appropriate play areas and parks in their local community;

· Affordability of extra-curricular sport; and

· Access to information by CALD families who often call on their young children to serve as interpreters of information/forms written in English.

The perspectives shared by the Parliamentarians often have far-reaching implications and feature a call-to-action to local, state and federal governments, relevant institutions such as health and education services, and community organisations to respond and take steps to create better services, facilities and programs for the community.

The most recent Parliament sitting in June 2022 emphasised the need for Council to consult children on matters that affect them and their local community. Particularly, the topic of age-appropriate parks and play spaces demonstrated the need for Council to regularly consult the Parliament and children and young people more broadly on matters that are important to them. This is to support greater engagement and participation in the community for children and young people. Additionally, it highlighted the need for local solutions to address barriers to sport participation for children from locational disadvantage areas.

The Parliamentarian feedback on age-appropriate parks and play spaces and barriers to sport participations have been presented to various Council departments for consideration. To date several consultation opportunities and initiatives have been identified that respond to enhancing children participation in having a say and improve sport participation. They include:

· Consultation with Children’s Parliament on planning or renewal program in the 2168 area including McGirr Park, Cabramatta Creek, and Ron Darcy Oval;

· Discussion of barriers to sport participation and promotion of Active Kids Vouchers with the NSW Office of Sport;

· Working with Belgravia Leisure to establish an after-school girls’ sports program from spring, at low or no cost;

· Encouraging sporting clubs and other providers to support families who can’t afford fees with reduced or no fee programs; and

· Engagement of Children’s Parliament for renewal or development of all social infrastructure.

Council officers will continue working on the above initiatives and will further explore other opportunities with the Children’s Parliament. Additionally, the Ambassadors Panel have acknowledged the complexity of some of the issues; and are making representations on matters discussed.

Conclusion

The Children’s Parliament provides a platform to build children’s civic engagement and knowledge of their rights and responsibilities through a structured program of capacity building activities and formal parliament sittings. The Parliament delivers a range of significant positive impacts and outcomes for individual participants, participating institutions and the broader community. Additionally, the Parliament represents a unique opportunity for Council to gain an understanding on the needs of children and young people to ensure their community is safe, accessible, and relevant to their needs. By utilising the Parliament as a key platform of engagement and consultation with children and young people, Council can ensure that the perspectives of all community members are considered in decision-making processes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this report.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Deliver high quality services for children and their families.
Civic Leadership	Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility. Facilitate the development of community leaders. Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision making processes. Actively advocate for federal and state government support, funding and services.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993, section 24.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Community & Culture Report

COM 03

Sister City Relationship between Liverpool and Toda, Japan

Strategic Objective	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Promote and deliver an innovative, thriving and internationally recognised city
File Ref	311014.2022
Report By	Craig Donarski - Director Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Culture

Executive Summary

Toda City and Liverpool City will be commemorating 30 years of their Sister City relationship at a virtual meeting in October 2022.

A resulting Sister City student exchange program commenced in 1993 with aims of promoting understanding and tolerance of cultural diversity while enhancing economic ties between Liverpool City and Toda City.

Liverpool student visits to Toda have not occurred since 2012, except for one visit by nine local students in 2019. This situation will not be likely to change in the short to medium term. Visits by Toda students to Liverpool continued up to and including 2019 but were then ceased due to COVID pandemic restrictions.

During the 2020 and 2021 Covid lockdowns, Countries and global companies had to make pivotal changes in how they delivered export and trade activities including the usual F2F Trade and civic delegations that occurred to facilitate global exchange opportunities.

Australia including Liverpool moved to hosting inward delegations and trade meetings online which opened a new, more efficient way of connecting business to new markets. Over that period, Council hosted virtual delegations with Business Sweden, Israeli Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise Singapore resulting in over a dozen new trade agreements and partnerships being entered.

Though travel has now re-opened for most trading countries, several countries have chosen to keep the virtual and hybrid models in place to save travel time, expenses on travel and accommodation and the restrictions on the number of participants in attendance.

Most councils have also adopted this approach with their global counterparts, and it is understood that Toda also has a preference for this model.

The ambitions for the exchange program to enhance economic ties between Liverpool and Toda have not been realised, with no known economic outcomes for either Liverpool or Toda arising from the relationship.

Since COVID it has become apparent that the relationship between the two cities can be maintained through virtual meetings and other forms of online interaction.

Due to the continuing economic conditions and the obstacles surrounding reciprocal international student exchanges, it is recommended that the funding for the international exchange program between Liverpool and Toda be discontinued while still maintaining the Sister City relationship in a virtual/online form.

The $100,000 annual budget currently allocated to the Toda exchange program can be more effectively repurposed towards promoting Liverpool as an innovative, thriving and internationally recognised city via the Council Major Events program.

The highly successful events already delivered in 2022 have proven themselves to be major drawcards in the Liverpool LGA and beyond, also attracting major local, metropolitan and national media coverage, positioning Liverpool as a vibrant, exciting destination for visitors and business alike.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Maintain the Sister City relationship in a virtual/online forum, and

2. Directs the Acting CEO to discontinue the current funding for the exchange program with Toda, Japan and that the budget be redirected towards events in the Liverpool LGA.

REPORT

Background

In 1991 Liverpool Council was approached by Toda City, Japan, regarding establishing a Sister City relationship. The relationship between Toda City Board of Education and Liverpool Council was formalised in October 1992 by Mark Latham, during his term as Mayor.

The Sister City student exchange program commenced in 1993 with aims of promoting understanding and tolerance of cultural diversity while enhancing economic ties between Liverpool City and Toda.

The budget for maintaining this relationship with Toda is $100,000 per annum. This covers costs associated with the incoming delegations including a welcome and farewell dinner and an activities itinerary with food, beverage, gifts and staffing.

Outcomes

While the Sister City Student Exchange program was certainly enjoyed by its participants when it was operational, the ambitions for the program to enhance economic ties between Liverpool and Toda have not been realised.

There are no known economic outcomes for either Liverpool or Toda arising from the relationship.

Although Toda students continued to visit Liverpool most years between 1993-2019, Liverpool student visits to Toda largely ceased from 2012, with only one further reciprocal visit by nine students in 2019. The COVID pandemic impacts including border closures effectively prevented any further exchanges since then.

Most councils have also adopted this approach with their global counterparts and it understood that Toda also has a preference for this model.

Conclusion

The program in its current form leverages no definable benefit to Council, particularly considering the cost of servicing it in that form.

There are ongoing issues surrounding the possibilities for international student exchanges at both the Department of Education level and that of the individual schools. These are unlikely to be resolved in the short to medium term.

Since COVID it has become apparent that the relationship between the two cities can be maintained through virtual meetings and other forms of online interaction. This is evidenced by successful online exchanges between Toda and Liverpool students, including James Busby and Lurnea high schools in 2021 and 2022.

The 30^th Anniversary of the Sister City relationship falls in October 2022 and Toda has advised they will not be sending a delegation to Liverpool, instead an online meeting has been confirmed for the morning of October 20.

Therefore, due to the continuing economic conditions and the obstacles surrounding reciprocal international student exchanges, it is recommended that the funding for the international exchange program between Liverpool and Toda be discontinued while still maintaining the Sister City relationship in a virtual/online form.

The highly successful events already delivered in 2022, including Most Blessed Nights, Starry Sari Night and Winter Blast, have proven themselves to be major drawcards in the Liverpool LGA and beyond. These have been shown to generate significant local, metropolitan and national media coverage across TV, radio, online and print, positioning Liverpool as a vibrant, exciting destination for visitors and business alike.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The $100,000 allocated to the Toda relationship will be reallocated to other activations.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Facilitate economic development. Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and creative industries.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Promote community harmony and address discrimination.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993, sections 8A and 24. This is on the basis that section 24 empowers the Council to pursue major events as activities appropriate to the current and future needs within the local community because they promote Liverpool and stimulate the economy. Section 8A requires the Council to consider a range of principles in carrying out its functions, including the provision of best possible value for residents and ratepayers, which is a driver in the recommendation in the report.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Infrastructure & Environment Report

INF 02

Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Deliver and advocate for a sustainable, cool and green city
File Ref	313389.2022
Report By	Michael Zengovski - Manager City Environment
Approved By	Raj Autar - Director Infrastructure & Environment

Executive Summary

The Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan have been produced to set a commitment of reaching net-zero emissions and identify actions and priorities to work towards this commitment. The documents also respond to Council’s 100 Day Plan, which aims to progress Council to become a net-zero organisation.

At its May 2022 meeting, Council resolved to place the draft Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan on public exhibition for 28 days.

This report presents the outcomes of the public exhibition and seeks endorsement of the Climate Change Policy and draft Liverpool Climate Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan.

REPORT

Background

Council, at its meeting held on 24 February 2021, resolved that Council moves towards the creation of an evolving, overarching centralised policy document styled in terms of a Climate Action Plan. Council’s 100 Day Plan also includes taking all necessary steps to progress Council to become a Net Zero Council.

The Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan were developed collaboratively through internal workshops, a Councillor workshop (held on 21 May 2021), presentation to the Environment Advisory Committee (at the meeting held on 11 April 2022) and subsequent request for their feedback, and a Councillor briefing (held on 19 May 2022).

At its May 2022 meeting, Council endorsed the draft Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan be placed on public exhibition for 28 days in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. This Policy and Action Plan outlines Council’s commitment and actions towards achieving net-zero emissions, and provision of leadership to the Liverpool community in responding to climate change and building a sustainable city.

The Climate Change Policy sets out Council's commitment principles, which are to:

· Achieve net-zero carbon emissions from Council’s operations.

· Provide effective and strong leadership to the Liverpool community in responding to climate change and building a sustainable city.

· Assist our community to reach the NSW target of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Liverpool Climate Action Plan identifies key actions and priorities to work towards these commitments. It builds on state policy as well as Liverpool’s own net zero pathways to progress climate action.

Public Exhibition

The draft Climate Change Policy and draft Liverpool Climate Action Plan were placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, with submissions for community feedback closing on Thursday 30 June 2022.

The public exhibition of the documents was promoted through Council’s social media. The Youth Council was also notified of the exhibition period.

A single community submission was received, which suggested the consideration of water bottle refill station installations. In this regard, Council has in recent years partnered with Sydney Water to install water bottle refill stations in various locations. The Liverpool Climate Action Plan encompasses overarching water conservation and recycling goals.

Minor amendments were made to the Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan, including updating details such as reference to Council’s current Community Strategic Plan.

The revised Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan are attached to this report.

Next Steps

Once the Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan are endorsed, Council proposes to collaborate with the community for future engagement and delivery of the Climate Action Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of most of the actions included in the Liverpool Climate Action Plan currently have an estimated payback period of 5-7 years and will be progressively delivered as part of Council’s annual Capital Works Program.

The transition to an electric fleet has a longer payback period of more than 40 years. However, the capital cost for electric vehicles is rapidly changing and expected to reach parity with petrol vehicles within 10 years. The timeframe for the transition to electric vehicles has been proposed to be longer term than other actions (10 years), which is anticipated to alleviate financial implications for this proposed action.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Climate Change Policy and Action Plan implementation will focus on actions with a short payback period where possible.
Environment	The Policy and Action Plan guide the delivery of improved environmental outcomes. They identify commitments and priority actions to decrease emissions from Council and the community.
Social	The Action Plan identifies actions that guide how Council can support the community to reduce their emissions.
Civic Leadership	The Policy and Action Plan respond to sustainability goals included in Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2022-2032 such as increased energy efficiency. They prescribe commitments and priority actions to ensure that Council positions itself as a sustainability leader.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Risk	Climate change presents a significant risk to Council and the community. The development of a strategic approach to reduce emissions via the Climate Change Policy and Liverpool Climate Action Plan will help Council fulfil its responsibility to minimise climate change risks.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Climate Change Policy

2. Liverpool Climate Action Plan (Under separate cover)

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Questions with Notice

QWN 02

Question with Notice - Clr Harle - Compliance Matters

Strategic Objective

Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging

Improve liveability and quality of life for the community by delivering vibrant parks, places and facilities

File Ref

316657.2022

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

Please address the following:

1. Elouera – 31 Greendale Rd Bringelly.

a. Could a report be provided regarding the information that led to the investigation of Elouera (31 Greendale Rd Bringelly) outlining Council’s action and status of the matter?

2. YADA – 10 Anderson Ave Liverpool

a. Could a report be provided regarding complaints and investigations that led to enforcement action for the use of 10 Anderson Ave Liverpool by YADA. Could the report also indicate whether YADA is now compliant?

Response (provided by Planning & Compliance)

1. Elouera – 31 Greendale Rd Bringelly.

· On 10 February 2021, Council received a complaint regarding the importation of large amount of fill material onto the property.

· Council officers inspected the property and confirmed that fill material had been imported by the tenant and that the use of the property had no development consent.

· A notice and order were issued to the owners of the land to remove the unauthorised soil and a stop use order was issued to the tenant to cease the unauthorised use as a horse rescue.

· The tenant alleged that the fill was required to deal with stormwater discharge from 80 Greendale Rd (property situated in Camden Council LGA).

· Council’s Compliance Officer notified Camden Council of the allegation by the tenant that their property was being affected by stormwater from 80 Greendale Rd. Camden Council notified Liverpool Council that no adverse water runoff was observed, and their investigation had been closed.

· To assist the tenant, Council’s investigating officer and management met with representatives of Elouera Horse Rescue & Rehabilitation in relation to options moving forward, including the option to lodge a development application seeking to retain the imported fill materials and approve the use of the premises.

· Numerous extensions of time were given to the tenant to prepare documentation to submit a development application. In total, six months of extension was given.

· On 3 December 2021, Development application DA-1410/2021 was lodged for use of the property as veterinary hospital and for the authorization of imported fill.

· The development application is currently under assessment. A request for further information was sent to the applicant who is yet to provide all of the requested information. However, in the meantime, the unauthorised use is continuing as Council has put the compliance matter on hold while the development application is being assessed.

2. YADA – 10 Anderson Ave Liverpool

· There have been over 9 complaints received by Council since 2002, regarding the unauthorised use of the premises, unhygienic conditions of the premises and accumulation of rubbish.

· Council officers over the years commenced investigation but did not complete the enforcement action required to achieved compliance. The premises continued to operate as a recycling business.

· On 26 March 2019, Council received a complaint from a member of the public regarding the use of the premises for recycling waste.

· An inspection was carried out by Council Compliance officers with the inspection revealing the site was being used for a commercial purpose including collection of waste materials for recycling, storage of waste on the footpath, trucks associated with the business parked in nearby streets and machinery to package Styrofoam. The inspection also revealed that large covered awnings had been constructed across the property without approval (refer to photos).

· On 31 May 2019, Council issued a Notice of Proposed Stop Use Order and Demolish Works Order in relation to the use of the premises as a waste or resource management facility and the unauthorised awnings.

· The property is zoned R4 High Density Residential under the LEP and the use of the property for commercial use is prohibited.

· On 26 June 2019, YADA wrote to Council advising that they were willing to comply and amongst other matters: stop any household collections and commence clean-up of premises, including the removal of all goods on premises that relates to recycling and selling off remaining stock and reduce the size and coverage of the awnings so that an application can be submitted.

· Having not complied with the Notice, on 18 September 2019, Council issued a Stop Use Order and Demolish Works Order with an expiry date of 28 days.

· On 22 January 2020, Council’s Compliance officer contacted YADA seeking an update on the outstanding matters. No response was received.

· On 5 March 2020, Council’s Compliance officer issued a 7 day Final Warning to YADA in respect of the non compliance with the Order.

· On 26 March 2020, YADA advised Council’s Compliance officer that they have ceased accepting recycled materials and are in the process of having plans drafted in order to lodge applications for the unauthorised awnings.

· On 13 May 2020, the matter was referred to Council’s Legal Services team for further action as a result of non compliance with the Order.

· On 4 November 2021, Council’s Compliance officer carried out an inspection of the premises which revealed that the unauthorised awnings remained in place, the premises was being used as an “op shop” where household goods are picked up by YADA, sorted and then displayed for retail sale to members of the public and the dwelling house was not being used as a habitable dwelling and now comprises office and storage only.

· Council’s Legal Services team issued 2 Court Attendance Notices to YADA. (Fail to Comply with Development Control Order & Development without development consent).

· On 28 April 2022, Council’s Compliance officer carried out a further inspection of the premises which revealed that the alleged offences were continuing.

· On 2 May 2022, the matter was mentioned at Liverpool Local Court and stood over until the 16 May 2022.

· On 4 July 2022, YADA pleaded guilty for the offence of Fail to Comply with Development Control Order and not guilty for the offence of development without development consent.

· On 20 July 2022, meeting held with YADA, A/CEO and Director Planning and Compliance to discuss the requirements they need to undertake to regularise the use of the property as a home business and that a meeting with Council planning and building staff would be arranged to further discuss these requirements.

· On 25 July 2022, Council’s Legal Services team withdrew both Court Attendance Notices against YADA and the proceedings were discontinued.

· On 25 July 2022, YADA representative met with Council planning and building staff in relation to options moving forward. This included YADA advising that they would be relocating their commercial operations to Ingleburn NSW and that they would like to carry out some material storage, vehicle parking and office activities on the site as well as to retain portions of the awnings.

· On 24 August 2022, Council wrote to YADA outlining the outcome of the meeting including providing a number of options which would allow YADA to undertake certain activities upon the premises, subject to relevant consents.

· To date YADA has not responded to Council’s recent correspondence. The unauthorised works remains on site including continuation of the unauthorised use. Staff are following up a response from YADA.

Photos

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Questions with Notice

QWN 05

Question with Notice - Clr Rhodes - The NSW Anti-Racism Working Group, an initiative of the Local Government Multicultural Workers’ Network Campaigns

Strategic Objective

Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging

Promote a harmonious community that celebrates its diversity

File Ref

318279.2022

QUESTION WITH NOTICE

Background

A motion was resolved at the Council meeting of 28 April 2021 - Racism Not Welcome Here.

At the recent Safety Committee, the NSW Anti-Racism Working Group, an initiative of the Local Government Multicultural Workers’ Network made a presentation on a campaign “Safe Here” that included Liverpool Council staff participating in a video supporting the Safe Here campaign, and outlined the campaign that seemed to be the same as their previous ambitions as presented at the 28 April Council Meeting titled Racism Not Welcome Here.

The previous motion from 28 April 2021 appears below:

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion: Moved: Clr Kaliyanda Seconded: Clr Hagarty

That Council:

1. Note the recent, alarming rise of racism in our community;

2. Receive further information about the “racism not welcome” campaign and continue to encourage advocacy and promotion of the campaign in the local area;

3. Join the NSW Anti-Racism Working Group, an initiative of the Local Government Multicultural Workers’ Network; and

4. Receive a report with recommendations on how the campaign can be implemented.

Questions and Responses (responses provided by Community & Culture for questions 1-4 and Economy & Commercial Development for questions 5-8)

1. Was a further report receive as requested in point 2 and point 4 of the above motion?

The Notice of Motion noted above was resolved at the Council meeting on 31 March 2021 and a report was submitted to the Council meeting of 25 August 2021.

2. If such reports were received were they presented to Council and if so when?

Yes, a report was presented to the Council meeting on 25 August 2021. The report highlights that

“Council’s focus in preventing racism and discrimination has been to invest in building social capital through systems and networks; enhancing the community’s capacity and resilience through projects and the provision of services; and sharing positive stories and messages which encourage acceptance and inclusion.”

The report recommended:

“That Council does not join the ‘Racism Not Welcome’ campaign; rather, continues to work collaboratively on positive community messaging, programs and activities that highlight Liverpool’s uniqueness and cultural diversity.”

3. Could Councillors have a copy of the reports requested in the above motion?

A copy of the report is attached to this response for the information of Councillors.

4. Did Council continue to encourage advocacy of “THE” campaign and if so, what was that campaign?

As noted above, Council did not join the campaign.

5. Did Council approve the “Safe Here” campaign before the organisation presented it to the Safety Committee of Council?

It is understood that the video as created is still in a ‘trial and development stage’ or draft stage so has not been officially approved by Council

6. Did Council check with the Local Police Command on any safety statistics of the Liverpool CBD before approving the Safe Here campaign as presented in its intention to be roll out in the Liverpool CBD?

Local Police Command have supported the program “in principle” and were present during development stages which included the initial stakeholder meeting.

7. Did Council check the intended messaging of the “Safe Here” campaign for any conflict of Council’s advocacy of the Liverpool CBD and our long-term strategies?

The intended message proposed to Council staff essentially was aimed at equipping local businesses with resources and knowledge on how to deal with situations relating to community safety and to further encourage business owners to create safe spaces. The aim being to further support a vibrant night-time economy, business collaboration and public safety.

8. Did Council authorise Council staff to appear in the “Safe Here” video presented to the recent Safety Committee?

The dialogue contained in the video was approved via the normal communications approvals pathways within Council, however staff were unaware of the draft video as presented to the recent Safety Committee Meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Report - COM 03 - Report Back to Council - Racism Not Welcome Campaign (Under Separate Cover)

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Notices of Motion

NOM 01

Private Certifiers

Strategic Objective

Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient

Deliver effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best outcomes for a growing city

File Ref

316680.2022

Author

Nathan Hagarty - Councillor

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council:

1. Commence a campaign to lobby the NSW Government for amendments to the relevant legislation to increase the accountability on development and building sites under the control of private certifiers through greater industry regulation and enforcement;

2. Undertake the following to address the issue:

· Review the information on our website in relation to construction activity and certification to ensure the information is comprehensive, in plain English and clearly outlines the avenues the community member can follow if they have concerns with a site managed by a private certifier;

· Commence a campaign to lobby for greater penalties and regulation of certifiers;

· Request from the Minister the expansion of the penalty notice offence categories and agencies that can issue fines on private certifiers e.g. Council currently cannot issue fines on certifiers who breach DA conditions requiring the payment of fees or the provision of information prior to issuing a Construction Certificate;

· Request from the Minister for the role of the Office of the Building Commissioner be expanded from just residential apartment buildings to include all types of residential accommodation; and

3. Seek the assistance of other Councils in this campaign through LGNSW and WSROC

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

Background

The NSW State Government introduced private certification in 1998. The changes to legislation removed the building approval process from the Local Government Act and included it under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The changes enabled private certification to be used as an alternative to using Council for obtaining building approvals (construction certificates) and to conduct inspections of building works, following the same initiative in other States.

The regulation of the activities and decisions of certifiers as well as their accreditation was initially administered by the Building Surveyors and Allied Professionals Board, then Building Professionals Board (when Council officers were mandated to be accredited, essentially to provide revenue for investigating and pursuing the growing issues with private certifiers) and in more recent times, NSW Fair Trading.

Private certifiers have a legislated responsibility to approve, inspect and notify Council of non-compliances in relation to developments under their certification. Several changes have been made over the years to address inherent issues with the system, such as the potential of pecuniary interests between developers and certifiers. The NSW State Government has indicated a desire to keep private certification and increase Complying Development (which is mostly dealt with by private certifiers). Complying Development was initially introduced to facilitate faster approvals for minor developments but have been continually expanded to now include large significant structures, secondary dwellings, group homes, manor homes, multi dwelling housing and some industrial and commercial works and uses.

The NSW Government introduced new legislation on 1 July 2020 under the control of NSW Fair Trading which imposed requirements for the registration of registered certifiers and introduced Code of Conduct standards. A summary of these reforms is detailed below:-

· Building certifiers will no longer be accredited but must be registered and authorised to carry out certification works. All registered certifiers will be required to undertake annual education and training. There will be different classes of registration based upon, qualifications, experience and knowledge.

· The introduction of a new Code of Conduct for certifiers. A failure to comply with the code may expose certifiers to a maximum penalty of $11,000 for an individual and $22,000 for a body corporate.

· Building certifiers will be subject to new conflict of interest provisions. These provisions effectively prohibit a certifier from providing professional services in relation to design and compliance (under the Building Code of Australia), as well as acting as the principal certifier on the same development and broadens the scope of what will be considered a conflict of interest for certifiers.

· The Act introduces more stringent requirements for professional indemnity insurance. All building certifiers will need to be adequately insured, hold a valid professional indemnity insurance and ensure their policy is in compliance with regulations against any liability to which they may be subject, as a result of carrying out certification work.

Given the recent legislative changes it is unlikely the state government will be considering further changes at this stage.

2. Undertake the following to address the issue:-

A review will be carried out and the website updated were required.

· Commence a campaign to lobby for greater penalties and regulation of certifiers

The Building & Development Certifiers Regulation has a schedule of penalties that can be issued for offences committed varying from $1500 to $5000. Fair Trading can also take prosecution action under the Act against private certifiers in the Local Court or Land & Environment Court. Maximum penalty in the local court is $110,000.

The investigation, penalty and prosecution of private certifiers is not a function of local Councils, but that of State Government. The new legislation introduced in 2020 brought the registration of certifiers (including Council certifiers) and investigation/action under the function of NSW Fair Trading. It’s unlikely this will be expanded to Councils as they will need to deal with Council certifiers as well.

· Request from the Minister for the role of the Office of the Building Commissioner be expanded from just residential apartment buildings to include all types of residential accommodation

This has already been suggested.

3. Seek the assistance of other Councils in this campaign through LGNSW and WSROC

This has been done a number of times in the past, through change consultation, unions and the OLG.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting

28 September 2022

Notices of Motion

NOM 02

Local Heritage Publication Grant and Digital Information Booths

Strategic Objective

Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging

Embrace the city’s heritage and history

File Ref

317220.2022

Author

Karress Rhodes - Councillor

Background

Australia is a world-leading tourist destination. Our tourism sector contributes $152 billion to the Australian economy, supports more than 300,000 businesses and employs more than 660,000 Australians.

In 2019-20, before COVID tourism contributed $37.1 billion (Tourism Consumption) to the NSW economy and employed 256,100 people.

In 2020-21, tourism employed 1 in every 21 jobs in NSW and contributed $20.8 billion to NSW’s gross state product.

The Western Sydney International Airport is set to open in 2026, and will cater to international and domestic flights under one roof, servicing up to 10 million passengers a year,

It is set to become one of the largest gateways to Australia.

The significance of the above facts made more pertinent considering the new airport is in the Liverpool LGA.

Many of our surrounding Councils are already developing innovative to attract their share of that visitation economic boost and Liverpool has to become proactive to be in the game to get our share.

The Sutherland Shire Council has developed a Local Heritage Publication Grant to encourage the provision of local heritage books that promote the area and serves in many ways to enhance the Visitor economy.

A Local Heritage Publication Grant, as part of the Liverpool Council grants program, similar to the Sutherland Council model, could allow the opportunity for locals to transfer their extensive knowledge of our tourism assets into promotional material that can be used immediately, and will become increasingly in demand when the new airport opens in just 4 years.

Encouraging Local Heritage Publications also makes sense in Liverpool, as it is home to the largest self-publishing facility in the southern hemisphere (Amazon), which may present an opportunity for sponsorship of this initiative.

Local production of material such as this can also support local jobs and business here in Liverpool.

In another neighbouring LGA, Wollondilly Council promotes their local area in the Council service foyer with numerous local publications, as well as electronic information display booth.

Website

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Fairfield Council utilises social media to promote tourism in their LGA as a separate entity to Council’s own social media pages. The branding and slogan “Discover Fairfield” is used to highlight opportunities for visitors to the region.

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council investigate and report back to February, 2023 Council meeting on cost and opportunities through the Council Grants program, sponsorship, Government Grants or by other means:

1. To initiate a Local Heritage Publications Grant as a part of the Liverpool Council Grants Program, and or through possible sponsorship with Local Businesses;

2. To Initiate digital local information station/s to be positioned in high visitation locations throughout the Liverpool CBD, and funding sources such as Government Grants and/or sponsorship with Local Businesses; and

3. To build and maintain social media and associated branding around Liverpool’s tourism opportunities, as a separate entity to Councils channels.

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT

Should Council resolve to initiate Liverpool Heritage Publication Grants, the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy will be updated to include Heritage Publications Grants as a new funding category. Council’s Community Development team will work with Library and Museum Services to update the Policy, including development of an eligibility and assessment criteria. Further, Council officers will examine and benchmark the new criteria and assessment process against those of the Sutherland Shire Council and other councils and will develop application and promotion processes. It is recommended that Council:

· determines the amount of funding allocated under this grant (total pool of funds) and the maximum amount available per application, annually;

· Considers initiating a Local Heritage Research Sponsorship to encourage development of broad and diverse publications submitted from cross sections of the community, including the First Nations community; and allocate a maximum amount; and

· The updated Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy is presented to Council in November for consideration and public exhibition.

Council can include the opportunities to explore digital information stations as part of the Destination Management Plan alongside future developments for a visitor destination website. Due to costs associated with both actions, it may be relevant to explore grant options for Liverpool City Council to identify and source funds to create heritage and destination promotional material. Council can deliver on findings to the February Council meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no immediate financial implications associated with the motion. Financial implications will be investigated and reported back to Council for the February 2023 Council meeting.

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 01	NSW Grants Commission - Financial Assistance Grants Policy
Attachment 1	NSW Grants Commission Letter Dated 16 August 2022

1
PLAN 02	NSW Government Employment Zones Reform - Post Exhibition Report
Attachment 2	Council submission

1
PLAN 02	NSW Government Employment Zones Reform - Post Exhibition Report
Attachment 3	Translation of the employment zones land use tables

1
PLAN 02	NSW Government Employment Zones Reform - Post Exhibition Report
Attachment 4	Response to public submissions - Employment zones reform

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	Section 211 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 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 01	2021-22 Capital Works Carryover of Projects
Attachment 1	2021-22 Carryovers

1
CTTE 01	Minutes of Liverpool Youth Council held on Tuesday 9 August 2022
Attachment 1	Minutes Liverpool Youth Council 9 August 2022

Strategic Objective	Evolving, Prosperous, Innovative Maintain strong relationships with agencies, stakeholders and businesses to achieve beneficial outcomes for the city
File Ref	305624.2022
Report By	Chris Guthrie - Coordinator Business Development
Approved By	Julie Scott - Acting Director Economy & Commercial Development

1
CTTE 02	Minutes of the Intermodal Precinct Committee meeting held on 1 August 2022
Attachment 1	Minutes Intermodal Committee Meeting - 1 August 2022

1
CTTE 03	Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee meeting 23 August 2022
Attachment 1	Minutes Tourism and CBD Committee Minutes 23 August 2022

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Promote a harmonious community that celebrates its diversity
File Ref	308863.2022
Report By	George Georgakis - Manager Council and Executive Services
Approved By	George Hampouris - Head of Audit, Risk and Improvement

1
CTTE 04	Minutes of the Civic Advisory Committee meeting held on 11 August 2022
Attachment 1	Civic Advisory Committee Minutes from 11 August 2022 - Excluding Item 4

Red Light Cameras
Suburb	Location	Date of Recent Installations
Liverpool	Copeland Street / Hume Highway and Elizabeth Drive
	Hume Highway and Hoxton Park Road
	Memorial Avenue and Bathurst Street
	Moore Street and Bathurst Street
Hoxton Park	Hoxton Park Road and Cowpasture Road	Added September 2019
Prestons	Camden Valley Way and the M5 South Western Motorway	Added July 2022
Warwick Farm	Hume Highway and Bigge Street
Warwick Farm	Hume Highway and Mannix Parade	Added July 2018

Fixed Speed Camera – School Zone
Liverpool	Bigge Street, between Elizabeth Drive and Campbell Street

ITEM NO: CONF 01