Agenda of Governance Committee Meeting - Tuesday, 18 February 2025

Governance Committee Meeting

18 February 2025

Infrastructure and Planning Committee Report

ITEM 01

Inclusion of a Minimum Lot Width for Dual Occupancies in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008

Strategic Objective	Liveable, Sustainable, Resilient Deliver effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best outcomes for a growing city
File Ref	016978.2025
Report By	Lilyan Abosh - Acting Senior Strategic Planner
Approved By	Lina Kakish - Director Planning & Compliance

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 December 2024, a Report (Attachment 1) was tabled in response to the commencement of the NSW Low- and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms, which permitted dual occupancies in the R2 zone of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008. The Report recommended the implementation of a minimum lot size of 600m² and minimum lot width of 15m for dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

At the Meeting, Council resolved to implement a minimum lot size of 600m² for dual occupancies and to double the current minimum lot size where the lot size for subdivision is greater than 300m² currently.

Additionally, Council resolved to further investigate a minimum lot width varying between 15m and 20m in the R2 Low Density Residential (R2) zone. Accordingly, this Report provides Council with the additional information regarding various lot widths and their impacts on the R2 zone.

As a result of the Council Resolution, Council staff conducted a manual investigation into lot various widths in the R2 zone. The investigation found that in addition to having a minimum lot size of 600m²:

· Approximately 29% (or 9,198) lots have a minimum lot width of 15m

· Approximately 21% (or 6,714) lots have a minimum lot width of 18m

· Approximately 14% (or 4,388) lots have a minimum lot width of 20m

Given Council resolved to apply a larger minimum lot size than 600m² for dual occupancies within certain locations (e.g. R2 zoned land in Pleasure Point and Voyager Point, R2 zoned lots along Orange Grove Road etc), it is noted some of the lots captured in the data above may not meet the revised lot size requirements for these specific locations. This is also likely to further lower (slightly) the above percentages.

It is recommended that Council proceed with a minimum lot width of 15 metres in the R2 zone. This width is also consistent with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008, which requires a minimum lot width of 15m for dual occupancies in most development scenarios.

It should be noted that Council staff met with representatives from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) on 20 January 2025 to discuss the proposed minimum lot size and minimum lot width options for the R2 zone. At the Meeting, the DPHI advised they would be willing to consider the inclusion of a minimum lot width for the R2 zone, subject to a merit assessment.

Accordingly, Council staff have requested an extension to the submission on the minimum lot size and minimum lot width in the R2 zone until 7 March 2025 to enable a final response to be submitted following Council consideration of this Report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes this Report; and

2. Endorses a single minimum lot width of 15 metres for all Dual Occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.

REPORT

Background

On 1 July 2024, the NSW Government introduced Stage 1 of the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms which made dual occupancies a permitted land use within all R2 Low Density Residential (R2) zones in NSW.

Prior to this Reform, dual occupancies were prohibited in the R2 zone of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008). As a result, there is currently no minimum lot size requirement applying to this type of development. Most Councils, however, implement this control to ensure a lot can adequately accommodate for landscaping, private open space, car parking and meet solar access requirements.

As a result of the Reforms, the DPHI wrote to Council on 25 September 2024 to advise they would be willing to amend the LLEP 2008 to insert a minimum lot size requirement.

The nominated minimum lot size would apply to dual occupancy Development Applications, as well as Complying Development Certificate (CDC) applications.

Accordingly, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 10 December 2024, a Report (Attachment 1) was tabled for Council consideration regarding the implementation of a minimum lot size of 600m² for dual occupancies in the R2 zone. In addition, Council staff also proposed a minimum lot width requirement of 15m be included in the LLEP 2008. At this Meeting, Council resolved the following:

That Council:

1. Notes the formal correspondence received from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure at Attachment 2 regarding the nomination of a minimum lot size for Dual Occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone;

2. Endorses the draft submission at Attachment 3 for a proposed minimum lot size requirement of 600m² and a minimum lot width varying between 15 metres and 20 metres subject to further council consideration for Dual Occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 and also subject to the following changes made to the draft submission:

a. Double the minimum lot size for dual occupancies where the current minimum lot size for subdivision is greater than 300m²;

3. Forwards the submission to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure; and

4. Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) to amend the draft submission for any typographical and other minor errors / amendments if required.

In accordance with Point 2 of the Council Resolution, this Report provides Council with the additional information regarding various lot widths and their impacts on the R2 zone.

Purpose of Lot Width Control

The minimum lot width control is a useful tool to define and establish the relationship of the development to the street. It is particularly effective in the following ways:

· Managing the visual impacts of garages on the streetscape by reducing its dominance;

· Providing flexibility to deliver favourable building layouts, including suitably dimensioned living areas;

· Maximising doors and windows overlooking the street for passive surveillance;

· Increasing opportunities for on-street parking (e.g. in-between driveways); and

· Facilitating adequate space for deep soil planting including trees in the front and rear setbacks, as well as required servicing.

The inclusion of a minimum lot width specifically in the LLEP 2008 will ensure the development standard is given more weight than if it were included in a Development Control Plan. Under Clause 4.6 of the LLEP 2008, variations to the minimum lot width can still occur if sufficiently justified.

Lot Width Analysis for Dual Occupancies

The Liverpool LGA currently comprises approximately 32,000 lots zoned R2 within land covered by the LLEP 2008. Furthermore, work undertaken as part of the LEP Review Project found there to be approximately 9,301 R2 zoned lots with a lot size of 600m² or greater, and a corresponding lot width of at least 15m.

As part of this exercise, further refinement of the data was undertaken manually, to exclude duplicated data entries, sites marked as schools or public reserves, and other lots considered undevelopable for the purpose of a dual occupancy. This data was manually sourced from Councils GIS system and rounded up/down to the nearest whole number. The findings of this exercise are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 – Lot width analysis of R2 lots with a lot size greater than 600m²

Proposed Minimum Lot Width	Approximate Number of R2 Lots unlocked
15m	9,198 (29%)
16m	8,371 (26%)
17m	7,621 (24%)
18m	6,714 (21%)
19m	5,250 (16%)
20m	4,388 (14%)

As shown in Table 1, the analysis identified that for properties within the R2 zone with a minimum lot size of 600m², application of a corresponding minimum lot width of 15 metres would limit dual occupancy development introduced under the NSW Government’s Housing Reforms to approximately 9,198 lots (or 29% of the total) where the LLEP 2008 applies.

At the other end of the scale, a corresponding minimum lot width of 20 metres would unlock dual occupancy development introduced under the NSW Government’s Housing Reforms for approximately 4,388 lots (or 14% of the total) where the LLEP 2008 applies.

At the December Council meeting, Council resolved to apply a larger minimum lot size than 600m² for dual occupancies proposed within certain locations (e.g. R2 zoned land in Pleasure Point and Voyager Point, R2 zoned lots along Orange Grove Road etc). In light of this, it is noted some of the lots captured in the data above may not meet the revised lot size requirements for these specific locations. This is also likely to further lower (slightly) the above percentages.

Further Lot Width Considerations

1. Complying Development Certificate Applications

From 1 July 2025, Complying Development Certificate (CDC) applications for dual occupancies in Liverpool will be allowed. The CDC will need to comply with the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP), which requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres on most occasions.

If the car parking space for the parent lot however is accessed only from a secondary road (i.e. a corner lot), parallel road or lane, then the minimum lot width needed is reduced to 12m. This scenario will only apply to a minority of lots however in the Liverpool LGA. Dual occupancies with double garages will also dictate larger minimum lot widths to accommodate the garage dimensions.

It is noted that if Council implements a minimum lot size in the LLEP 2008, this figure will not

override the lot width controls contained in the Codes SEPP. The application of a minimum lot width of 15m would therefore align with the most common lot width scenario under the Codes SEPP and ensure general consistency between applications approved by Council and private certifiers.

2. Consultation with DPHI Representatives on NSW Government Housing Reforms

On 20 January 2025, Council staff met with representatives from the DPHI responsible for introducing the NSW Government Housing Reforms. At the Meeting, the DPHI advised they would be willing to consider the inclusion of a minimum lot width for the R2 zone, subject to a merit assessment. DPHI representatives also noted that the policy direction of the Housing Reforms is to aim for 50% of R2-zoned lots within an LGA to be dual occupancy developable.

3. LEP Review Project

Although the investigated widths will unlock no more than a third of R2 zoned lots, it is noted that significant housing uplift is already proposed under the LEP Review Project. The LEP Review Project, and resulting Principal Planning Proposal, was endorsed by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 29 May 2024 (Item PLAN 05). The Proposal is currently being assessed by the DPHI for a Gateway determination.

A key focus of this Project is to encourage the delivery of medium density housing in appropriate locations, including the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. This is because this zone is widespread in its application and is land located within 800 metres of a centre. Consequently, it is considered the most suitable location for more density and significant changes have been proposed to the planning controls in this zone, as summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Proposed R3 Zone Development Standards under the LEP Review Project

R3 Development Standards	LLEP 2008	New LEP
Height of Building (HOB)	8.5m	9m
Floor Space Ratio (FSR)	0.55:1	Nil
Landscaping	Nil (in LEP)	25%
Minimum Lot Size Medium Density (Torrens)	250sqm	200sqm
Minimum Lot Size Single Dwellings	300sqm	400sqm (to discourage single dwellings and encourage medium density development)
Corner / End Block Sites (requires amalgamation)	-	RFB Permissible, Bonus 11.5m HOB and 10% Landscaping

Recommendation

It is recommended that Council proceed with a minimum lot width of 15m, which aligns with the most commonly used lot width in the Codes SEPP for dual occupancies. This will ensure general consistency between applications approved by Council and private certifiers. In addition to this, a minimum lot width of 15m is more likely to be implemented by the DPHI than a larger lot width, given the policy direction of the Housing Reforms.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

cONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes. Facilitate economic development.
Environment	Enhance the environmental performance of buildings and homes.
Social	Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban development takes place. Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Part 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low. If Council does not endorse a minimum lot width/s at this stage, it may not be able to be included within DPHI’s amendment to the LLEP 2008 (subject to their assessment).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Report - 10 December 2024

2. Minutes of Council Meeting - 10 December 2024

Governance Committee Meeting

18 February 2025

Infrastructure and Planning Committee Report

ITEM 02

School Access and Safety

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Support active and healthy lifestyles by improving footpaths, cycleways and walkways and other infrastructure that promotes and supports active transport
File Ref	403616.2024
Report By	Daniel Riley - Manager Development Engineering
Approved By	Lina Kakish - Director Planning & Compliance

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to respond to the 14 December 2022 Council notice of motion on parking arrangements around schools in the LGA, resolved as follows:

1. A further report be presented to a future Council meeting containing professional advice on how on-street parking concerns during drop off and pick up times around schools in the LGA are being addressed by Council staff including the possibility of a rostered ranger compliance check for parking issues at all schools within the LGA during drop off and pick up times starting with reported problem schools;

2. Hold a number of individual consultation meetings with the community and all schools within the Liverpool LGA where there are reported traffic problems regarding the drop off and pick up of students to investigate ways of addressing issues on our public roads; and

3. Write to the NSW Department of Planning the State Minister for Education, and Transport NSW, after the 2023 State Election, urging co-operation and collaboration to deliver possible changes through Planning instruments and Legislation in order to provide safer access to school drop off and pick up zones that are contained inside the school property boundaries and not on public roads and or public footpaths.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Governance Committee note the issues and activities by Council around schools in the LGA to maintain safe and efficient traffic movements, encourage safe driver behaviour, encourage parking turning over and minimise illegal parking, and what we are working toward for better school site planning, transport services to schools and travel behaviour change incentives.

REPORT

Context

The Liverpool LGA currently has 75 public and private primary and secondary schools. The Department of Education through School Infrastructure NSW (SINSW), manages construction of public schools on behalf of the State Government. Private schools are constructed by various religious and non-denominational organisations.

Issues

Safety

Drop-off and pick-up at schools causes safety issues for everyone. The issues are driven by a range of factors including, but not limited to road design, traffic volume, access points to schools, driver behaviour, pedestrian behaviour, time management and changing student populations. Influencing these factors is not always within the control of Council and making significant improvement in behavioural change takes time and requires consistent and coordinated effort between Council and State Government.

Congestion

A high percentage of students are driven to and from school resulting in congested streets around the school, particularly in the afternoon when drivers converge at the same time (in the morning drop off tends to be more staggered).

Limited on-site parking

Most of the existing schools in the LGA have limited on-site parking, even for staff, and rely on kerbside parking along neighbourhood streets near schools. For new school developments, SINSW has adopted an approach of providing limited on-site parking to discourage driving and minimise safety risks within school grounds.

Illegal parking

People often ignore the parking restrictions and choose to park illegally resulting in greater safety risks and worsening congestion.

Lack of options

Most new school developments in the LGA have set public transport mode share targets of 50% or higher in their operational green travel plans. However, these ambitious vehicle trip reduction targets are not supported by the necessary services and incentives to encourage behaviour change. People drive students to school partly for lack of public transport options and lack of safe routes to walk and ride to school.

Activities by Council

On-street parking management

Council installs timed No Parking restrictions to facilitate efficient pick-up and drop-off around the schools. Council is not responsible for providing parking to schools. Our role is to manage the availability of on-street spaces and work with the schools to ensure efficient use.

Rostered patrols

Council’s Compliance Team conducts rostered patrols across all schools in the LGA to encourage safe driver behaviour and minimise illegal parking. While it is not possible to have a presence at every school every day, the team strives to ensure a regular presence to encourage safe driving behaviour and remind drivers that existing traffic regulatory signs and line marking are enforced regularly.

Observations in school zones indicate that when everyone follows the rules the system works well. Feedback from the community is that when Rangers or Police are in attendance both the traffic flow and driver behaviour improve. This means that the existing road environment is not always the problem, and driver compliance affects its operational efficiency and safety.

Crossings and Traffic calming treatments

Council installs pedestrian facilities and traffic calming devices, where appropriate, to improve safety. These treatments may include:

· pedestrian priority crossing on a raised threshold to slow vehicle speed

· a children’s crossing only active during school hours

· median refuge to enable pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic and wait in the middle of the road to cross the other direction of traffic

· road linemarking

School Road Safety Education

Council’s Road Safety Officer is responsible for the strategic development of a local road safety program with key stakeholders in the community. The road safety program identifies local road safety issues and risks to vulnerable people and develops and implements road safety behavioural programs that integrate a combination of education, engineering and enforcement to address the issues and support vulnerable people.

Our Road Safety Officer works directly with school communities to encourage safe behaviour. They meet with school principals, school communities and residents to discuss and address safety and school access issues including on-street drop-off and pick-up, as well as parking.

Recent initiatives include:

· Shared responsibility campaign - The initiative included distribution of letters and corflute signs with road safety and no parking messages, and follow-up emails reminding schools to display the corflutes, and digital images to promote road safety around to all schools within the LGA.

· No Stopping campaign - Every school with an appropriate No Stopping zone received several corflutes to place along their school fence next to the No Stopping zone. These corflutes explain the rule for No Stopping and the associated safety hazard for non-compliance.

· Digital Road Safety Education materials – Council regularly supplies every school in the LGA with a suite of digital road safety educational materials. The schools can use these across all of their social media platforms, newsletters and emails to their school community. These online materials also complement the messages on the corflutes from other programs. The distribution of this educational material is also complemented by the regular roster of visits by Council’s Rangers to School to support in the promoting of road safety and enforce as required.

NSW Police support

The Liverpool Local Traffic Committee supports implementing solutions to maintain safe traffic conditions around schools in the LGA. This includes raising issues with NSW Police regarding road safety around schools. The NSW police support all our school programs and provide support and enforcement when resourcing allows.

Advocacy

We wrote to the NSW Department of Planning, the State Minister for Education, and Transport NSW urging co-operation and collaboration to deliver possible changes through Planning instruments and Legislation to provide safer access to school drop off and pick up zones that are contained inside the school property boundaries and not on public roads and or public footpaths. We are waiting for responses.

What Council is working toward

Council continues to work to influence better outcomes at schools.

Improvements at existing schools

We are working to improve and increase communication and support from within schools regarding road safety (i.e. Department of Education, Catholic Education Office, Australian Independent Schools Association). This includes advocating for:

· Review of access points for schools, i.e. can more be provided to redistribute the students on arrival and departure

· Increased provision when student numbers increase, i.e. staff parking, additional crossings and/or upgrade

· Staggered arrival and departure times for schools with large student populations. An example of this working was during covid with students were released at staggered times

· Ensuring arrival and departure times are different for schools near each other

· System to manage senior students who drive to school

Enforcement

More collaboration is needed between Council and NSW Police to ensure adequate resources are provided for consistent and increased patrols at schools. We advocate for TfNSW to provide traffic management in addition to school crossing supervisors for locations that experience elevated levels of congestion, including high schools. The management of traffic at some crossing locations would improve safety in these areas.

New school planning and development

As new schools are now larger developments they are often put through as State Significant Development (SSD). This means Council is only commenting on the development and its effect on the surrounding area.

However, School Infrastructure NSW convenes a monthly Transport Working Group with Council, Transport for NSW and area bus operators to discuss school projects in advance of student demand and to meet student travel demand safely, efficiently and sustainably.

We use this forum to advocate for more onsite parking at schools to better accommodate school staff, onsite provisions for students with additional mobility access needs (disabled parking) and better street design adjacent to schools. For example, Council raised issues with NSW School Infrastructure in the development of the new Edmondson High School resulting in the agency agreeing to widen the surrounding streets to provide additional on-street parking in-lieu of parking on-site.

School bus service

We advocate for school bus service expansion prior to the start of a new school or increase of student numbers, including proper provision and priority for bus zones.

The current School Student Transport Scheme (SSTS) prevents most students who attend their local school from qualifying for free public transport services to school. However, students living within walking distance often are forced to cross unsafe large high-speed roads. Allowing more students to travel by bus would significantly decrease the number of single vehicle trips made to and from schools.

Kiss and drop

Kiss and drop zones are not always the solution. Existing kiss and drop provisions, both on-street and on-site, create queueing. In the AM peaks they work well as the drop off to school is always more staggered. In the PM peaks we see vehicles arriving too early for the expected use of these areas. Replacing them in PM peak with unrestricted parking may prevent misuse.

We advocate for greater consideration to how many vehicles can be accommodated, how to reduce the queueing on local roads and traffic management support to properly monitor and improve school access and circulation.

Encourage other ways to travel to school

School Green Travel Plans have commendable mode shift targets, but greater State investment in transport services, infrastructure and incentives is needed to enable and encourage other ways of travel to school. Schools are best placed to analyse school travel data and communicate with the students and carers using existing communication channels.

Better coordination is needed between TfNSW and NSW Schools to ensure safe routes to walk and cycle to school and encourage greater use of public transport.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues.
Environment	Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. Support the delivery of a range of transport options.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
Legislative	Roads Act 1993.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Governance Committee Meeting

18 February 2025

Strategic Priorities Committee Report

ITEM 04

Grants Donations and Sponsorship Program

Strategic Objective	Healthy, Inclusive, Engaging Promote a harmonious community that celebrates its diversity
File Ref	035210.2025
Report By	Javeria Hoda - Acting Coordinator Community Development
Approved By	Tina Bono - Director Community & Lifestyle

Executive Summary

Council is committed to building strong and resilient communities in the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA) and maximising social wellbeing. Council’s Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship program helps achieve these goals by providing financial support to local community groups and not for profit organisations to develop leadership skills, increase participation in community activities and address identified social issues with financial contributions to deliver projects that benefit residents, build, or enhance the reputation of Liverpool City Council and support delivery of local priorities as outlined in Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

This report recommends the changes to the Grants Donations and Sponsorship Program and the Policy to include an assessment on financial capacity as a key component of the assessment criteria. It is proposed that organisations with the financial capacity to fund proposed events, based on an assessment of annual turnover, operating surpluses and net asset value, would be ineligible for funding under the policy changes.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship Program, Policy, and the Grant management process;

2. Provides feedback on the inclusion of additional eligibility criteria in an amendment to the Community Grants, Donations and Sponsorship Policy :

- Applicants must have an annual financial turnover of less than $3,000,000 as indicated in the previous years audited financial statements; and

- Applicants must an annual operating surplus no greater than $150,000 as indicated in the previous years audited financial statements.

REPORT

Background

Council’s Community Grants programs provide a coordinated and integrated approach to growing Liverpool socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally.

The purpose of the program is to provide financial support to local community organisations and other entities seeking to deliver important community services, programs and activities to the Liverpool Community. The program has been successful in targeting the delivery of these programs by small locally based groups supporting vulnerable community groups and persons access programs and deliver activities not offered by the Council or corporate markets.

In 2023/24, Council’s community grants program provided financial support through 82 approved applications, delivering $460,834 in financial support towards community program, events and activities. Council estimates that 80,000 residents have benefited through Council’s community grants program.

In 2024/25 Council Officers indicated that, given the significant growth in popularity of the program, that the budgeted spend of $477,000 will be exhausted by March 2025.

Current Eligibility Criteria

Council’s Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy (the Policy) provides the framework for the implementation and management of the grants program. The Policy defies eligibility criteria that includes:

· Applicants must incorporated or auspice by an incorporated organisation;

· Applicants must be a non-profit community service organisation or group located in the LGA and/or principally providing services to the residents of Liverpool;

· Applicants must supply a copy of their most recent financial statements and public liability documents; and

· Applicants must have acquitted all previous Council grants and have no outstanding debts to Council.

In its current form, the eligibility criteria contained within the Policy only considers financial capability of the applicant to the extent that it acts to demonstrate the applicant’s financial capacity to delivery on the project or activity.

At the 10 December 2024 Council meeting, Council resolved:

“That the Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy come to a Governance Committee meeting for review and discussion in 2025.”

Proposed Eligibility Criteria

Consistent with this resolution, Council Officers have reviewed the Policy and included additional eligibility criteria to the Policy that considers an applicant’s financial capacity. The inclusion of this criteria is intended to ensure that beneficiaries of financial support through its Community Grants program is limited to organisations that have limited financial capacity. An organisation that has high financial turnover, profitability or net Aset value are exempt from financial support through Councils Grants program.

It is proposed that Council’s Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy be amended to include the following eligibility criteria:

Organisations must:

a) Be an organisation that is based in Liverpool and/or providing services activities and/or programs within the local government area;

b) Incorporated and not-for-profit or under auspice of an incorporated organisation and not for profit organisation;

c) A non-funded community group or a registered charity providing services, including programs, activities, or outcomes to marginalised or vulnerable members of the community;

d) Not afforded any other Council subsidies, by way of Grants, Donations or other financial support for the use of community or sporting facilities to deliver the defined programs;

e) Have an annual financial turnover of less than $3,000,000;

f) Have an annual operating surplus (based on the audited financial statements of the previous financial year) of greater than $150,000;and

Council Officers have given due consideration to including Net Asset (less than $500,000) as an additional criteria, however an analysis of that criteria would have substantial impact on past recipients that have deliver quality community facing programs such as PCYC, Western Sydney Community Forum and Western Sydney university.

Based on the above criteria, any organisation that has an annual financial turnover of more than $3,000,000, an annual operation surplus of more than $150,000 will be deemed ineligible for Councils Grants Donations and Sponsorship Program.

Council should also note that the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy also defines the following projects that are deemed ineligible for funding. There are no proposed changes to ineligible projects.

Applications that are ineligible for funding include:

a. Projects that have already commenced or have been completed;

b. Projects that directly contravene existing Council policies;

c. Projects that duplicate existing Council services or programs or identical projects

d. previously funded by Council;

e. Projects that do not meet the identified priority needs of Liverpool in Council’s Community Strategic Plan;

f. Applications from government departments, political parties, or commercial/profit making/private organisations (excluding Sponsorship which accepts applications from private organisations);

g. Applications from charities for general donations;

h. Application for funding to cover shortfalls from other government departments;

i. Applications for general fundraising activities;

j. Requests for funding general operational expenditure – which includes but is not

k. limited to administration, insurance, office equipment, car parking, transport costs/petrol, or IT costs/equipment;

l. Requests for funding employee salaries/wages or any direct employment costs;

m. Projects that will rely on recurrent funding from Council; and

n. Projects that charge people for participation, including charges to participants through an individual’s NDIS funding plan.

A copy of the Grants, Donations and Community Sponsorship Policy is attached to this Report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	All costs associated with the delivery of the Grants Donations and Community Sponsorship program are contained within the annual operating budget
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	Promote community harmony and address discrimination.
Civic Leadership	Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions. Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct.
Legislative	There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
Risk	There is no risk associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Grants Donations & Sponsorship Policy 2024

Governance Committee Meeting

18 February 2025

Strategic Performance Committee Report

ITEM 05

Review of the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Demonstrate a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive governance framework
File Ref	009689.2025
Report By	David Day - Head of Governance
Approved By	Farooq Portelli - Director Corporate Support

Executive Summary

Council’s current Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures were adopted by resolution of the Council on 31 August 2022. The Local Government Act 1993 provides that:

· councils must adopt a code of conduct that incorporates the provisions of the Model Code of Conduct (or is consistent with the Model Code of Conduct),

· councils must, within 12 months of each ordinary election, review its adopted Code of Conduct and make such adjustments as it considers appropriate (section 440(7)).

· the adopted Code of Conduct may include provisions that supplement the Model Code, but they must not be inconsistent with them (section 440AAA).

· councils must adopt Code of Conduct Procedures for the administration of the Code of Conduct that incorporates the provisions of the Model Code of Conduct Procedures (section 440AA). The Code of Conduct Procedures may include provisions that supplement the Model Code of Conduct Procedures but must not be inconsistent with them.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Governance Committee recommends to Council that the Draft Code of Conduct and Draft Code of Conduct Procedures be reported to the Council meeting of the 26 March 2025 for consideration and adoption.

REPORT

On 5 September 2024, the Office of Local Government (OLG) advised that it was reviewing the Councillor Conduct Framework and released The Councillor conduct and meeting practices – a discussion paper. OLG proposes changes, which include removing the current two-step process for investigating alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and a better definition and response to alleged Councillor misbehavior.

Submissions on the OLG discussion paper closed on 15 November 2024 and no further updates have been provided by the OLG at the time of this report. Given there is no certainty that the discussion paper will result in any changes within 12 months of the previous general election, it is proposed to continue with the current review to comply with section 440(7) of the Local Government Act 1993.

Council’s Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures have been reviewed against the existing Model Codes. Council’s documents are not exactly the same as the Model Codes, but they are consistent and compliant.

For ease of reference, marked up versions of the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures have been prepared using the following legend:

Key	Explanation
Red text	Wording is out of date and has been updated or typographical error
Blue Highlight	LCC addition not contained in the Model Code
Green highlight	Similar to the Model Code but slightly different wording
Yellow highlight	Council’s Policy differs from the Model Code
Red highlight	Contained in the Model Code but not within Council’s version

Changes have been tracked to Council’s Code of Conduct to correct errors and out of date text. Attention is drawn to the following proposed changes and differences identified between Council’s Code of Conduct and the Model Code of Conduct:

· Wording is identified in red that has been updated to because it is out of date or to correct a typographical error.

· Council’s Code has an additional advisory note at page 4 regarding application of the Code to contractors, volunteers etc. This is consistent with the Model Code and is not proposed to be changed.

· Council’s Code includes cryptocurrency in the definition of a cash like gift in paragraph 6.13 at page 4. This is consistent with the Model Code and is not proposed to be changed.

· Council’s Code references the CEO throughout the document rather than the General Manager. It has been made clear in the definitions that Council’s CEO carries out the functions of the General Manager. This is consistent with the Model Code and it is proposed to retain the language.

· Council’s Code identifies at paragraph 6.8 to 6.11 that a gift of more than $50 is not a token gift. Whilst the Model Code has been updated to $100, the OLG has advised Council’s that they have the option to retain the value at $50. It is proposed to retain the $50 threshold.

· Paragraph 6.2(a) provides that items with a value of less than $10 are not gifts or benefits for the purposes of the Code of Conduct. It appears that this was inadvertently omitted from Council’s current version of the Code and it is proposed to insert the missing text.

The same exercise has been conducted in relation to the Model Code of Conduct Procedures and attention is drawn to the following:

· Wording is identified in red that has been updated to because it is out of date or to correct a typographical error.

· Council’s Code has an additional advisory note at page 3 regarding application of the Code to contractors, volunteers etc. This is consistent with the Model Code and is not proposed to be changed.

· It is proposed to delete the word “period” from paragraph 7.8 (c) at page 24 of Council’s Code as it is not included in the Model Code and appears to have been included in error.

· It is proposed to delete paragraph 8.20 at page 33 of Council’s Code as the text was removed from the 2020 version of the Model Code.

· Council’s Code references the CEO throughout the document rather than the General Manager. It is proposed to amend the definition of CEO to make clear that Council’s CEO carries out the functions of the General Manager. This is consistent with the Model Code and it is proposed to retain the language.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications relating to the development and implementation of the Draft Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures and will be undertaken by the Legal and Governance team within existing budgets.

CONSIDERATIONS

Economic	There are no economic and financial considerations.
Environment	There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
Social	There are no social and cultural considerations.
Civic Leadership	Operate a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
Legislative	Local Government Act 1993 Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 Office of Local Government (OLG) Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW Office of Local Government (OLG) Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW
Risk	The risk is deemed to be Low as Councils Draft Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures are consistent with the Model Codes published by the Office of Local Government (OLG).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Code of Conduct with coloured markup January 2025

2. Draft Code of Conduct Procedures with coloured markup January 2025

1
ITEM 03	Budget FY 2025/26 Information: Council Activity Report
Attachment 1	Council Activity Report

1
ITEM 01	Inclusion of a Minimum Lot Width for Dual Occupancies in the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008
Attachment 2	Minutes of Council Meeting - 10 December 2024

Strategic Objective	Visionary, Leading, Responsible Ensure Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic management of assets and resources
File Ref	043108.2025
Report By	Vishwa Nadan - Chief Financial Officer
Approved By	Farooq Portelli - Director Corporate Support

1
ITEM 05	Review of the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Procedures
Attachment 1	Draft Code of Conduct with coloured markup January 2025