COUNCIL AGENDA
Ordinary Council Meeting
23 April 2025
BOOK
1
Liverpool Civic Tower
COUNCIL CHAMBER, LEVEL 1, 50 Scott Street, LIVERPOOL
You are hereby notified
that an Ordinary Council Meeting of Liverpool City Council will be held
at the Liverpool Civic Tower council
chamber, level 1, 50 Scott Street , LIVERPOOL NSW 2170 on Wednesday,
23 April 2025 commencing at 6:00 PM. Doors to the Chamber will open at 5.50pm.
Liverpool City Council
Meetings are livestreamed onto Council’s website and remain on
Council’s website for a period of 12 months. If you have any enquiries, please contact Council
and Executive Services on 8711 7493.
Mr Jason Breton
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
Statement of
Ethical Obligations
Oath or
Affirmation of Office
In taking the Oath
or Affirmation of Office, each Councillor has made a commitment to undertake
the duties of the office of councillor in the best interests of the people of
Liverpool and Liverpool City Council and that they will faithfully and
impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested
in them under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act to the best of
their ability and judgment.
Conflicts of
Interest
A councillor who has
a conflict of interest in any matter with which the council is concerned, and
who is present at a meeting of the council when the matter is being considered,
must disclose the interest and the nature of the interest to the meeting as
soon as practicable. Both the disclosure and the nature of the interest must be
recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting where the conflict of interest
arises. Councillors should ensure that they are familiar with Parts 4 and 5 of
the Code of Conduct in relation to their obligations to declare and manage
conflicts of interests.
Opening
Acknowledgment of Country and Prayer
National Anthem
Apologies
Condolences
Confirmation of Minutes
Ordinary
Council Meeting held on 26 March 2025.................................................................. 7
Extraordinary
Council Meeting held on 15 April 2025
(to be
provided in the Addendum later in the week)
Declarations of Interest
Public Forum
Mayoral Minutes
Notices of Motion Of Rescission
A Notice of Motion of Rescission was received for item: MOU
02 Public Inquiry from the 26 March 2025 Council meeting but it has since been
withdrawn.
Chief Executive Officer Reports
NIL
Planning & Compliance
Reports
PLAN 01 Planning
Proposal - 1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly............................... 93......... 1
PLAN 02 Liverpool
Heritage Advisory Committee - Charter and Memberships......... 105......... 2
Community & Lifestyle
Reports
COM 01 Liverpool
Powerhouse Board Charter.......................................................... 163......... 3
Corporate Support Reports
CORP 01 Complaints
and Compliments Management Policy..................................... 180......... 4
CORP 02 Investment
Report March 2025.................................................................... 193......... 5
Customer Experience &
Business Performance Reports
CEBP 01 Customer
Experience Policy........................................................................ 204......... 6
City Futures Reports
CFD 01 Tourism
and CBD Committee Charter Review............................................ 213......... 7
Operations Reports
OPER 01 Review of
Street Sweeping Program........................................................... 225......... 8
OPER 02 Repairs
to Macquarie Mall Water Feature................................................... 251......... 9
Committee Reports
CTTE 01 Minutes
of the Tourism and CBD Committee held 4 March 2025............... 265....... 10
Questions with Notice
QWN 01 Question
with Notice - Clr Karnib - Infrastructure Grants............................ 278....... 11
QWN 02 Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Approved Limits for Moorebank Intermodals 280 12
QWN 03 Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Road Maintenance Modelling for Liverpool 303 13
QWN 04 Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Traffic Modelling for Moore Point..... 307....... 14
QWN 05 Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Biobanked Land in Liverpool LGA... 317....... 15
QWN 06 Question
with Notice - Clr Ibrahim - Park Cleaning Schedule and Safety Concerns 319 16
QWN 07 Question
with Notice - Clr Ibrahim - Street Rubbish and Cleanliness in Liverpool 320 17
QWN 08 Question
with Notice - Clr Harle - Council's Strategic Plan......................... 321....... 18
QWN 09 Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski............................................................. 322....... 19
QWN 10 Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Clarification to responses for item QWN 03 -
Financial Information from 26 March 2025 Council Meeting....................... 326....... 20
Presentations
by Councillors
Notices of Motion
NOM 01 Motion
to Standardise Representation in Council Advertisements.............. 327....... 21
NOM 02 Public
Inquiry Hearings................................................................................. 329....... 22
NOM 03 Motion
to Employ Security Guards Directly.................................................. 331....... 23
NOM 04 Motion
for Restructuring of the Illegal Waste Rangers Division.................. 333....... 24
NOM 05 Reducing
Abandoned Shopping Trolleys through a Subsidised Personal Trolley Trial............................................................................................................... 336....... 25
NOM 06 Legal
fees and Expenses with regards to Public Inquiry............................. 339....... 26
NOM 07 Proposal
to Show Waste Management Education Video Before Citizenship Ceremonies................................................................................................... 341....... 27
NOM 08 Search
Dogs Sydney.................................................................................... 343....... 28
NOM 09 Restriction
of Donations Outside Liverpool Local Government Area.......... 344....... 29
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 Purchase of part 65 Edmondson Avenue, Austral for road
widening
Reason: Item
CONF 01 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local
Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer
a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or
proposes to conduct) business.
CONF
02 Subdivision of part Lot 1137 DP 2475 and Lot 8 DP 1203671,
Scott Memorial Park, 380 Bringelly Road, Austral for road widening
Reason: Item
CONF 02 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) of the Local
Government Act because it contains information that would, if disclosed, confer
a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or
proposes to conduct) business.
CONF
03 Proposed purchase part 542 Bringelly Road Austral for
public recreation
Reason: Item
CONF 03 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(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
04 Legal Affairs
Reason: Item
CONF 04 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(c) (d ii) (g) of
the Local Government Act because it contains information that would, if
disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is
conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; AND commercial information of a
confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a
competitor of the Council; AND advice concerning litigation, or advice that
would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the
ground of legal professional privilege.
CONF
05 Proposed dedication as Public Road of strips of Council
land to provide access to Lot 101 DP 1213451 (1895 Camden Valley Way,
Horningsea Park) DA-707/2022
Reason: Item
CONF 05 is confidential pursuant to the provisions of s10A(2)(a) of the Local
Government Act because it contains personal matters concerning particular
individuals (other than councillors).
Close
MINUTES OF THE Ordinary
Meeting
HELD ON 26 March 2025
PRESENT:
Deputy Mayor Harle
Councillor Adjei
Councillor Ammoun
Councillor Dr Green
Councillor Harte
Councillor Ibrahim
Councillor Karnib
Councillor Macnaught
Councillor Monaghan
Councillor Ristevski
Mr Jason Breton,
Acting Chief Executive
Officer
Mr David Galpin,
Acting Director Corporate Support
Ms Tina Bono, Director Community &
Lifestyle
Ms Lina Kakish,
Director Planning & Compliance
Ms Michelle Mcilvenny, Director Customer Experience & Business Performance
Mr Shayne Mallard, Director City Futures
Mr Peter Scicluna, Acting Director Operations
Ms Suzanne Kendall,
Acting General Counsel,
Manager Governance, Legal & Procurement
Mr Vishwa Nadan, Chief Financial Officer
Ms Emily Tinson,
Program Manager WSIG Program
Ms Justine Young,
Acting Manager Civic and Executive Services
Ms Katrina Harvey, Councillor Executive and
Support Officer
Ms Susan Ranieri,
Coordinator Council and Executive Services
The meeting commenced at
6.00pm.
Deputy Mayor Harle advised that Mayor Mannoun
was an apology.
|
STATEMENT REGARDING
WEBCASTING OF MEETING
|
The Deputy Mayor read the following:
“In accordance with clause 5.34 of
Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, I inform the persons attending this
meeting that:
(a)
the meeting is being recorded, livestreamed
and made publicly available on the council’s website, and
(b) persons attending the meeting should refrain from
making any defamatory statements.”
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
COUNTRY, PRAYER OF COUNCIL AND AFFIRMATION
|
The prayer of the Council was read by Reverend Bruce
Hammonds from Liverpool Presbyterian Church.
|
|
NATIONAL ANTHEM
|
The
National Anthem was played at the meeting.
|
|
COUNCILLORS ATTENDING REMOTELY
NIL. ed
permission to attend this meeting via MS Teams.
|
APOLOGIES
Mayor Mannoun.
CONDOLENCES
|
ITEM NO:
|
COND 01
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Condolence Motion for the victims of the Kocani
Nightclub incident
|
|
Clr Ristevski read
the below condolence motion for the victims of the Kocani
Nightclub Incident
Motion:
I hereby move that Liverpool
City Council express its deepest condolences to the families and friends of
the 59 young lives tragically lost in the recent nightclub fire incident in
Kocani, Macedonia. This devastating event has profoundly affected the Macedonian
community, both locally and abroad,
and it is vital that we stand in
solidarity with them during this time of mourning.
In recognition of this tragic
loss, I propose that the Council formally write to the Premier of New South
Wales, requesting that the iconic Sydney Opera House be illuminated in the
colours of Macedonia. This gesture would serve as a poignant symbol of respect
and compassion, acknowledging the grief experienced by the Macedonian
community in Liverpool and beyond during this 40-day mourning period.
Let us come together as a
Council to show our support and solidarity with the victims' families and the
Macedonian community, demonstrating our collective commitment to compassion
and community spirit.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
That Liverpool City
Council expresses its condolences to the families affected by the Kocani
nightclub incident.
2.
Council write to the
Premier of New South Wales, requesting the illumination of the Sydney Opera
House in the colours of Macedonia as a mark of respect during the mourning
period.
COUNCIL DECISION:
Motion: Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded: Clr Monaghan
That the recommendation be adopted.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
A one minute silence was then observed for the victims
of the Kocani
nightclub incident.
|
|
ITEM NO:
|
COND 02
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Condolence Motion for
(Nick) Nickola Lalich
former member for Cabramatta
|
|
Read by Clr Karnib
Nick Lalich migrated here when he was three
years old.
He served a significant time
serving the local people of Western Sydney, in particular being the Mayor of
Fairfield City for a period of time after he was elected a councillor for a
period of time, I believe it was
in1987 and then became the mayor. He was elected Member of the New South
Wales Legislative Assembly for Cabramatta in 2008 where he spent a large
portion of his life devoted
to the people
of Cabramatta, to the people
of Fairfield, and for a lot of those people, at some point in
time, whether they resided in Liverpool in the catchment would have come across
Mr. Nick Lalich
and it's a shocking loss and he will be remembered.
I pass my condolences on
behalf of myself, and I hope the Council supports me in this, to his immediate family and his extended
family.
An additional condolence comment was made by Deputy
Mayor Harle.
A one minute silence was observed for Nick Lalich.
|
|
|
|
Confirmation
of Minutes
Motion: Moved:
Clr Ammoun Seconded:
Clr Karnib
|
That the minutes of the
Ordinary Meeting held on 26 February 2025 be confirmed as a true record of
that meeting with the exception that for item COM 04 – Mayoral
Attendance at the 5th Annual Aerotropolis Conference, 7-8 May 2025
in Hong Kong all the commentary be taken out and only the voting recorded.
On being put to the meeting
the motion was declared CARRIED.
|
Declarations
of Interest
Clr Adjei declared
a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:
Item: NOM 05 –
Liverpool Olympic
Reason: His children play for Liverpool Olympic.
Clr Adjei left the Chamber
for the duration of this item.
Clr Karnib declared
a non-pecuniary, less than significant interest in the following item:
Item: NOM 05 –
Liverpool Olympic
Reason: His children play for a club that is referred
to in NOM 05.
Clr Karnib left the Chamber for the
duration of this item.
Public
Forum
Presentation – items not on agenda
1.
Mr John Anderson
addressed Council on the following
item:
Item: Moorebank Intermodal Realignment and Electricity.
A
three minute extension was granted to Mr Anderson.
2.
Mr Ben Kamenjas
addressed Council on the following item:
Item: 65 Seventeenth Avenue,
Austral.
3.
Mr Aldo Virtich
on behalf of Mr Carmine
Colalillo addressed Council on the
following item:
Item: Building
next door to 136A Reilly Street, Lurnea
and safety.
A
three minute extension was granted to Mr Virtich.
4.
Ms Mary Casey addressed Council
on the following item:
Item: DA 348/2022- 443 Hume Highway,
Casula.
A
three minute extension was granted to Ms Casey.
5.
Ms Maria (Susie) Kneipp on behalf of the Casula Community Group addressed
Council on the following item:
Item: DA 348/2022 –
443 Hume Highway,
Casula.
A
three minute extension was granted to Ms Kneipp.
6.
Dr Criss Moore addressed Council
on the following item:
Item: DA 348/2022 –
443 Hume Highway,
Casula.
Representation –
items on agenda
1.
Mr Spiros Missiakos of Liverpool Olympic
addressed Council on the following item:
Item: NOM 05 –
Liverpool Olympic and delivering vibrant
parks, places and facilities.
2. Mr Mohammed
Azim addressed Council
on the following item:
Item:
NOM 06 – Festivals.
A three minute extension was granted to Mr Azim.
3.
Mr Eric North addressed Council
on the following item:
Item:
QWN 03 – Financial Information.
A three minute
extension was granted
to Mr North.
4. Mr Eric North addressed Council on the following item:
Item:
OPER 02 – Road Condition.
A three minute
extension was granted
to Mr North.
Clr Macnaught left the Chamber
at 6.59pm
Clr Macnaught returned
to the Chamber at 7.00pm.
Clr Harte left the Chamber
at 7.01pm.
Clr Harte returned
to the Chamber at 7.02pm.
Clr Karnib requested Deputy
Mayor Harle consider a motion of urgency due to recent attacks. Clr Karnib
stated that the Australian Islamic House is only a recently established mosque in the community
and the fact that an incident has occurred in a short period
of time, Clr Karnib stated
was of urgency .
Deputy Mayor Harle accepted the motion of
urgency as urgent and as such it was dealt with as shown below:
RECESS
Deputy Mayor Harle
called a recess
of meeting at 7.20pm.
RESUMPTION OF MEETING
Deputy Mayor Harle resumed the meeting in open session
at 7.41pm with all Councillors present.
|
MOTION OF URGENCY
|
|
ITEM: MOU
01
SUBJECT: RECENT
ATTACKS
|
|
Motion: Moved: Clr Karnib Seconded Clr
Ammoun
That Council:
1. Condemns the disgusting Islamophobic
threats made against Australian Islamic House Mosque in Edmondson Park and
Masjid Ali ibn Abi Talib Mosque.
- Reaffirms its commitment to a safe and welcoming multicultural community.
3. Extends its gratitude for the support
from the State and Commonwealth Governments for supporting Australian Islamic
House and our community.
4. Thanks the former councillor Mr Mazhar
Hadid OAM, the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister, Anne Stanley MP,
Tony Burke MP, Ed Husic MP, Anoulack Chanthivong MP, Steve Kamper MP, Nathan
Hagarty MP, Charishma Kaliyanda MP, Mark Coure MP and Tina Ayyad MP for their
support for our community.
5. Condemns all forms of racism, bigotry,
hatred and particularly this Islamophobic attack.
6. Write to the Australian Islamic House and
the Lakemba Muslim Association (LMA).
On being put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors
voted unanimously for this motion.
|
MOTION OF URGENCY
|
Clr Dr Green requested Deputy
Mayor Harle consider a motion of urgency regarding the Public Inquiry. Clr Dr
Green stated that an issue has arisen that requires urgent attention of
Council at this meeting and that
it cannot be dealt with at the
next Ordinary Council meeting.
She stated that on the 18th
March 2025, Mr Chris Rath MLC gave notice in the NSW Legislative Council of a
motion calling for the release of all documents relating to the s430
investigation and the public inquiry into Liverpool Council.
Clr Dr Green read
her proposed motion
as follows:
That Council:
1.
Condemns Chris Rath MLC for tabling Private Members’
Business Item No. 1762 in the NSW Legislative Council, which seeks to:
a.
Undermine the integrity of the ongoing investigation and
inquiry into Liverpool City Council;
b.
Risk exposing the personal details of staff and members of the
public who have made Public Interest Disclosures (PIDs) and submissions
regarding Liverpool City Council;
c.
Weaken the principles of the whistleblower protections in New South Wales.
2.
Reaffirms its commitment
to upholding strong whistleblower
protections ensuring that all
individuals who provide information in the public interest can do so without
fear of reprisal or intimidation.
Deputy Mayor Harle accepted
the motion of urgency as urgent and as such it was dealt with as shown below:
|
|
ITEM: MOU
02
SUBJECT: PUBLIC
INQUIRY
|
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion Moved: Clr Dr Green Seconded Clr
Monaghan
That Council:
1.
Condemns Chris Rath
MLC for tabling Private Members’ Business Item No. 1762 in the NSW
Legislative Council, which seeks to:
a.
Undermine the
integrity of the ongoing investigation and inquiry into Liverpool City
Council;
b.
Risk exposing the
personal details of staff and members of the public who have made Public
Interest Disclosures (PIDs) and submissions regarding Liverpool City Council;
c.
Continue to support
the principles of whistleblower protections in New South Wales.
2.
Reaffirms its commitment to upholding strong whistleblower protections
ensuring that all individuals who
provide information in the public interest can do so without fear of reprisal
or intimidation.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
Division
Vote for: Clr Dr Green, Deputy Mayor Harle, Clr Ibrahim, Clr Karnib,
Clr Monaghan and Clr Ristevski
Vote against: Clr Adjei, Clr Ammoun, Clr Harte and
Clr Macnaught.
Note: A
Notice of Rescission has since been received for MOU 02 – Public Inquiry and will be dealt with at the
next Ordinary Council meeting being 23 April 2025
|
Planning & Compliance
Reports
ITEM NO: PLAN 01
FILE NO: 050694.2025
SUBJECT: Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee - Charter and
Membership
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Dr Green Seconded: Clr Macnaught
That this item be deferred for the proposed Charter to be reissued in track changes.
On being put to the meeting
the motion was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: PLAN 02
FILE NO: 369444.2024
SUBJECT: Post-Exhibition Report - 60 Gurner Avenue, Austral
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Dr Green
That Council:
1.
Receives and notes
this Report.
2.
Proceeds with Map Amendment 10 to the State Environmental
Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021 including
post-exhibition amendments.
3. Delegates authority to the Chief
Executive Officer (or
delegate) to liaise with the NSW
Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and the Department of Planning, Housing and
Infrastructure to finalise Map Amendment 10.
4. Notifies the Proponent and those
representatives who made a submission on the Planning Proposal during the
public exhibition of Council’s decision.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
Community & Lifestyle
Reports
ITEM NO: COM 01
FILE NO: 050922.2025
SUBJECT: Council Financial Contribution to Sydney West Academy
of Sport
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Adjei Seconded: Clr Karnib
That Council:
1.
Receives and notes
this report;
2.
Confirms its ongoing commitment to the South West Sydney
Academy of Sport (SWSAS) for the next financial year (25/26 budget period)
for $32,674.53 ex GST; and
3.
Enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with South West
Sydney Academy of Sport (SWSAS) that outlines the service obligations to be
provided to Liverpool resident by South West Sydney Academy of Sport (SWSAS)
and the contributions, both cash and in-kind, to be provided by Liverpool
City Council.
On being put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this
motion.
|
ITEM NO: COM 02
FILE NO: 071422.2025
SUBJECT: Library Collection Development Policy
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Dr Green
That Council:
1.
Endorses the Library Collection Development Policy;
2.
Notes the support available to local
authors through the
library; and
3.
Notes the provision of library collections in community languages that reflect the whole community.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: COM 03
FILE NO: 077125.2025
SUBJECT: Liverpool Powerhouse and Board Charter
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Monaghan Seconded: Clr Karnib
That Council:
1.
Prepare and receive a draft Cultural Events & Advisory Board Charter; and
2.
Receive an updated
Charter for the Liverpool Powerhouse Arts Centre Board.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: COM 04
FILE NO: 077488.2025
SUBJECT: Council Grants Donations and Sponsorship Report
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Dr Green Seconded: Clr Macnaught
That Council:
1. Endorses the
funding recommendation of $5,000 (GST exclusive) under the Sustainable
Environment Grant Program for the following project:
|
Applicant
|
Project
|
Recommended
|
|
Thomas Hassall Anglican College
|
Sparkle Club
|
$5,000
|
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.
|
Corporate Support Reports
ITEM NO: CORP 01
FILE NO: 070936.2025
SUBJECT: Code of conduct complaints
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Monaghan Seconded: Clr Karnib
That Council receive and consider the report.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: CORP 02
FILE NO: 072392.2025
SUBJECT: Investment Report February 2025
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Monaghan Seconded: Clr Karnib
That the Council
receives and notes
this report.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
Operations Reports
ITEM NO: OPER 01
FILE NO: 069625.2025
SUBJECT: Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) Rollout - Update
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved:
Clr Monaghan Seconded: Clr
Macnaught
That Council note
the report.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: OPER 02
FILE NO: 070889.2025
SUBJECT: Road Condition Information
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved:
Clr Adjei Seconded:
Clr Ristevski
That:
1.
Council receives and notes this
report.
2.
Council seek additional funding through the:
·
Black Spot funding
program
·
Safer Local Roads
and Infrastructure Program
·
Roads to Recovery program.
3.
Council identify $15m towards road renewal funding in the 2026
financial year as per the report.
4.
A Councillor budget
workshop be organised in the month
of April.
On being put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this
motion.
|
ITEM NO: OPER 03
FILE NO: 075647.2025
SUBJECT: Light Horse Park Plan of Management for Adoption
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved:
Clr Harte Seconded:
Clr Dr Green
That Council:
1. Notes the Light Horse Park Public
Exhibition, Hearing and Submissions Report; and
2. Endorses the Light Horse Park
Plan of Management for the purpose of adoption and implementation, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Local Government Act
1993 (LG Act) and Crown Land Act.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
|
Committee Reports
ITEM NO: CTTE 01
FILE NO: 064027.2025
SUBJECT: Meeting Notes of the Liverpool Youth Council meeting
held 11 December 2024 and the Meeting Notes of the Liverpool Youth Council
meeting held 11 February 2025.
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved:
Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr
Monaghan
That Council receives and
notes the Meeting Notes of the Liverpool Youth Council Meetings held on Wednesday
11 December 2024 and Tuesday 11 February 2025.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
|
Clr Ibrahim left the Chamber
at 8.34pm.
Clr Ibrahim returned
to the Chamber 8.38pm.
Clr Ammoun left the Chamber at 8.38pm.
Clr Ammoun returned
to Chamber at 8.39pm.
ITEM NO: CTTE
02
FILE NO: 064284.2025
SUBJECT: Minutes of
the Governance Committee meeting held on 25 February 2025
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded: Clr Karnib
That Council:
1. Receives and notes the
Minutes of the Governance
Committee meeting held on 25 February 2025; and
2. Endorse the recommendations
in the Minutes with the exception
of point 3 (as shown below) of the Committee’s
decision as follows:
Point 3
3. Supports
the discontinuation of the council resolution from 20 November 2024, which required that a copy
of the grant
application be provided as an addendum to future grant reports.
On being put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this
motion.
|
ITEM NO: CTTE
03
FILE NO: 073025.2025
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Environment
Advisory Committee Meeting held on 17 June 2024
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr
Macnaught Seconded: Clr Karnib
That Council receives and
notes the Minutes of the Environment
Advisory Committee Meeting held on 17 June
2024.
On being put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this
motion.
|
Clr Macnaught left the Chambers
at 8:41pm.
Clr Macnaught returned
to the Chambers at 8:43pm.
Questions with Notice
ITEM NO: QWN 01
FILE NO: 073629.2025
SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Monaghan - Contractors
|
Please address the following:
1.
a.
Since January 1 2022 how many staff have been employed by Liverpool City
Council on contracts of 12 months or fewer for the following:
i.
Existing positions; or
ii. New positions
b. What is the breakdown of each of the contractors referred to above
per Organisation Unit?
c. How many staff on 12 month
contracts awarded since
January 1 2022 been
seconded to another Organisation Unit?
d. How many staff on 12 month
contracts awarded since
January 1 2022 were
subsequently employed on a permanent basis in either of the following:
i.
Their contracted role;
or
ii. A different role?
Responses (provided by Corporate Support)
1.
a. Since January
1 2022 how many staff have been employed by Liverpool City
Council on contracts of 12 months or fewer for the following:
i.
Existing positions; or
ii. New positions
b. What is the breakdown of each of the contractors referred to above
per Organisation Unit?
Response 1 a. and 1b.
|
Directorate
|
External temporary staff appointments*
|
|
Customer Experience and Business Performance
|
3
|
|
City Futures
|
14
|
|
Community and
Lifestyle
|
24
|
|
Corporate Support
|
17
|
|
Operations
|
9
|
|
Planning and
Compliance
|
17
|
|
Total
|
84
|
*Split between existing and new
positions, would require going through every
individual employment contract.
c. How many staff on 12-month contracts awarded since January
1 2022 been seconded to another Organisation
Unit?
Response:
Eleven (11)
d. How many staff on 12-month contracts awarded since January
1 2022 were subsequently
employed on a permanent basis in either of the following:
i.
Their contracted role;
or
ii. A different role?
Response:
|
Directorate
|
Employed permanently into contracted role
|
Employed permanently into a different role
|
|
Customer Experience and Business Performance
|
1
|
0
|
|
City Futures
|
2
|
1
|
|
Community and
Lifestyle
|
4
|
1
|
|
Corporate Support
|
5
|
4
|
|
Operations
|
1
|
2
|
|
Planning and
Compliance
|
3
|
3
|
|
Total
|
16
|
11
|
|
|
|
ITEM NO: QWN 02
FILE NO: 065747.2025
SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Proposal to Redirect
Councillor Pay to Frontline Services
|
Question regarding the recent
council meeting where several councillors left prematurely. In light of this,
I propose that the council considers a policy to dock the pay of councillors
who do not fulfill their obligations during council meetings.
1.
Can council implement a pay docking policy for councillors who
leave meetings early without valid reason?
2.
If such a policy were to be considered, would the council
commit to reallocating the funds saved from these deductions directly into
frontline services that benefit our community?
3.
What measures would the council put in place to ensure
transparency and accountability in this process?
4.
Can the council provide information on how other councils have
approached similar situations, and any outcomes from those decisions?
I believe that ensuring our
councillors are present and engaged during meetings is vital for effective
governance, and directing any funds saved into frontline services could
greatly benefit our community.
Responses (provided by Corporate Support)
All
councillors are entitled to payment of an annual fee under s248 of the Local
Government Act (LGA) 1993.
The only provisions under
legislation whereby a councillor can (or must) have their annual fees reduced
or withheld exist in the following circumstances.
1.
A council may resolve that an
annual fee will not be paid or reduced where a councillor absent, with or without leave,
from an ordinary meeting or ordinary meetings of the council for any period
of 3 months or less.
If a councillor is absent
from ordinary meetings with or without leave, for more than 3 months, council
must not pay any annual fee (or part thereof) for the period in excess of 3
months (LGA 1993 s254A).
2.
A council must not at any time pay any fee or other
remuneration, or any expenses, to which a councillor would otherwise be
entitled as the holder of a civic office, in respect of any period during
which the councillor is suspended from civic office or the councillors right
to be paid is otherwise suspended unless otherwise permitted under the Act.
(LGA s248A).
3.
Council may resolve
to not pay or reduce
an annual fee where both the following conditions exist:
(a) the payment
of the annual fee adversely affects the councillor’s entitlement to a
pension, benefit or allowance under any legislation of the Commonwealth, a
Territory or a State (including New South Wales), and
(b) the
councillor agrees to the non-payment or reduction. (s404 Local Government
(General) Regulation 2021.
There is
no specific provision for Council to suspend or reduce an annual fee paid to
a councillor for leaving a meeting before its completion.
Accordingly, the answers to the specific questions raised in this QWN
are:
1. No
2. Not applicable
3. Not applicable
4. Not applicable
|
ITEM NO: QWN 03
FILE NO: 072268.2025
SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Financial
Information
|
1.
Noting file reference 043430.2022 as NOM 04 for Council Meeting
23 February 2022 (attached
overleaf), specifically items (3) and (4), please advise:
(a)
Were “quarterly performance reports outlining funds
received, spent, and the
balance” conducted over the past 2 years as per the resolution?
Response: Yes
(b)
Where have these
reports been made
available to Councillors for review?
Response:
Details of Cash Reserves is
provided quarterly to Councillors and also included in the Audited Annual Financial Statements. In a chronological order, the following reports on respective Council meetings
were presented to Councillors after the referenced resolution and reasons why
and why not Moorebank Intermodal Reserve was included and shown.
|
Council
Meeting Dates
|
Report
|
Included
|
Comments
|
|
23 Feb 22
|
|
|
Council resolves to
create an
internal reserve
|
|
10 May 22
|
Q3 Budget Report
|
No
|
Nil balance at 31 March
2022. Ex-gratia was
paid in
June 2022
|
|
26 Oct 22
|
Annual
financial Report 2021/22
|
No
|
Balance $316k
but was not disclosed
|
|
16 Nov 22
|
Q1 Budget Report
|
No
|
Nil balance at
30 September
2022. Ex-gratia was paid in April 2023
|
|
01 Mar 23
|
Q2 Budget Report
|
No
|
Nil balance at
31 December
2022. Ex-gratia was
paid in April 2023
|
|
31 May 23
|
Q3 Budget Report
|
No
|
Nil balance at 31 March
2023. Ex-gratia was
paid in
April 2023
|
|
25 Oct 23
|
Annual
Financial Report
2022/23
|
Yes
|
Balance of $525k
|
|
22 Nov 23
|
Q1 Budget Report
|
Yes
|
|
|
28 Feb 24
|
Q2 Budget Report
|
Yes
|
|
|
29 May 24
|
Q3 Budget Report
|
Yes
|
|
|
16 Oct 24
|
Annual
Financial Report 2023/24
|
Yes
|
Nil balance
|
|
20 Nov 24
|
Q1 Budget Report
|
Yes
|
Nil balance
|
(a)
From what date
has the eastern
site of the DNSDC come Intermodal (83ha)
by SIMTA been paying rates?
I.
From 2003 when the land
was sold to Westpac or
II.
From 2013 when
the leaseback with
Defence ended.
III.
If neither, why
not?
IV.
If one, then
which, and how
much? Please list annual revenues for MPE.
Response
Since 2003. See
table below.
(b)
Given that the eastern project (per the original instrument of consent
pictured here) consists in a total of 15
lots and 2 references what is its rates valuation based on?
I. All of these lots?
II. Just some of these
lots?
III.
Which ones were
included and or excluded from
valuation? And Why?
Response:
Rates are based on the
privately owned parcels of land. The land quoted
in the QWN
are either old descriptions that have been superseded or Commonwealth
land. The current description of the rateable land is as follows
·
Lots 12 & 13 DP
1251885
·
Lots 21, 22, 23 DP 1256178
·
Lots 26 DP 1253673
1.
Noting that Moorebank Intermodal Company Ltd was registered in
late 2012 and became operational sometime in 2013, and noting the
Commonwealth Competitive Neutrality Policy Statement, which states:
“Competitive
neutrality requires that governments should not use their legislative or fiscal powers to advantage their own
businesses over the private sector.”
“As
a consequence of this policy statement, competitive neutrality arrangements
will be explicitly required for designated Commonwealth businesses.” Including “all Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) and their
subsidiaries” such as the aforesaid
National Intermodal Corporation Ltd (nee MIC Ltd) and WSA Co Limited.
“Taxation
neutrality will be achieved by removing taxation exemptions from identified
organisations where this can be achieved in a cost effective and
administratively simple manner.”
“Regulatory
neutrality will be achieved by subjecting, where appropriate, all identified
organisations to the same regulatory environment as private sector businesses.”
1.
Why were rates for the western site, of the SME come Intermodal
(243ha) by MICL (come Qube ,come Logos ,come ESR) paid from 2019 (back paid
to 2017) onwards, instead of from FY 13/14 onwards?
Response:
MIC didn’t start operations on the day of its registration as an entity.
This goes for effectively any business entity.
MIC started paying rate
equivalent amounts its host departments from 1 January 2017. Council, through
a fee for service proposal was able to get these funds re-directed.
2.
Doesn’t a 3-to-4-year exemption from (base) rates go against the
CNPS as quoted above; as this would constituent a comparative and competitive
advantage?
Response:
Agreed but Council
cannot claim for funds to which it is not entitled.
3.
Given that the western project (per the original instrument of consent
pictured overleaf) consists in a total of 10 lots what is its rates valuation
based on?
I.
All of these
lots ?
II.
Just some of these lots?
III.
Which ones were
included and or excluded from
valuation? And Why?
Response:
Ex-gratia Rates on the
Western side of the Intermodal (Commonwealth land) are based on the valuation for the whole
site (being Lots
5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10,
11, 12,13 &
14
DP 1299137
4. Why
were payments for base rate land value tied to, and or, permitted by Council
to be tied to the company’s project and its stage success, as opposed
to being directly and appropriately tied to land ownership and management as
would be the case for any other private company?
Response:
MIC is levied and paying same amount of
rates as it would apply to any other private company.
5. Did
Council thus confer an undue advantage on MIC Ltd by treating it as though it
was the Federal Government, when it ought to have been treated like any other
corporation and landowner within the LGA?
Response:
No, Council does
not believe so.
 
Noting that per Council
Financial Statements and email correspondence from LOGOS (attached herein),
as at the end of June 2024 Liverpool City Council had collected (and earned) $27,707,126
in contributions, ex gratia rates, (and interest) from the Moorebank
Intermodal Company come
National Intermodal Company (NIC) and (SIMTA) Qube Holdings et
al, with regard to the twin container terminals and intermodals.
Summarised here:
|
|
|
Ex Gratia
Rates
|
Dev Contributions
|
Interest
|
Expenses
|
|
2017
|
$ -
|
$ 644,000.00
|
$ -
|
$ -
|
|
2018
|
$ -
|
$ 3,578,000.00
|
$ 15,000.00
|
$ -
|
|
2019
|
$ 5,447,000.00
|
$ -
|
$ 108,000.00
|
$ 13,000.00
|
|
2020
|
$ 2,200,000.00
|
$ -
|
$ 78,000.00
|
$ 4,000.00
|
|
2021
|
$ 2,081,000.00
|
$ 5,330,000.00
|
$ 78,000.00
|
$ -
|
|
2022
|
$ 2,124,000.00
|
$ -
|
$ 76,000.00
|
$ 491,000.00
|
|
2023
|
$ 2,167,000.00
|
$ -
|
$ 270,000.00
|
$ 3,271,000.00
|
|
2024
|
$ 2,284,000.00
|
$ 999,126.00 *
|
$ 228,000.00
|
$ 3,880,000.00
|
|
Totals
|
$ 16,303,000.00 ^
|
$ 10,551,126.00
|
$ 853,000.00
|
$ 7,659,000.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
Please confirm receipt
of $16,303,000 in
Ex Gratia Rates for FY16/17
to FY23/24 per statements.
Response
Confirming that Council by 30
June 2024 received an aggregate sum of $15,691,785. The difference between this
amount and the total $16,303,000 reported in the financial statements is $611k
and not $543,533 as stated and relates to a credit adjustment that was made in
FY2020-21 due to incorrect lot # and valuation used in calculation of ex-gratia
amount. As this related to previous years, the gross amount, $2.081m, was
disclosed as revenue and $611k was shown as other expenses included under Note
B3-2. From cash perspective Council only received $1.461m in FY 2020/21.
(b)
Please confirm receipt
of $10,551,126 in Developer Contributions for FY16/17 to FY23/24 per statements and email
correspondence.
Response
Council received $9,550,927
monetary contribution for the Moorebank Intermodal Site as a State significant
development. The difference of $999,126 is a s7.12 developer contribution
towards construction of 3 warehouses on a staged
development. This amount is not included
in the original agreement and is collected under the Established Areas
Contribution Plan 2018.
|
|
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
|
|
p.11
|
6 x Pages from Financial Statements – Other Revenue 2019 – 2024
|
|
p.17
|
8 x Pages from
Financial Statements –
Developer Contributions 2017 – 2024
|
|
p.21
|
Email from LOGOS –
Developer Contributions 2024
|
(a)
Per file reference
043430.2022 at QWN 01 please itemise the expenditure of Ex Gratia
Rates from MIC Ltd either:
I.
via the projects
and initiatives undertaken around the intermodals; or
II.
via its allocation to general revenue
with a full list of transactions
Response
Table below includes
total ex-gratia payments
received and expenditure by project. Notice Council had an unspent amount of $524,796,
as reported in the financial statements.
|
Liverpool City Council
Reconciliation Ex-Gratia Rates MIC
|
|
|
|
FY 2016-17
|
FY 2017-18
|
FY 2018-19
|
FY 2019-20
|
FY 2020-21
|
FY 2021-22
|
FY 2022-23
|
Totals
|
FY 2023-24
|
Total Annual
|
|
|
Annual
|
Annual
|
Annual
|
Annual
|
Annual
|
Annual
|
Annual
|
FY 2016-17 to FY
|
Annual
|
Actual
|
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
2022-23
|
Actual
|
|
|
Ex-gratia
Rates
|
(989,560)
|
(1,980,052)
|
(2,025,953)
|
(2,041,191)
|
(2,080,932)
|
(2,124,028)
|
(2,166,535)
|
(13,408,251)
|
(2,283,534)
|
(15,691,785)
|
|
Operating Costs:
|
22,331
|
78,823
|
174,370
|
290,365
|
238,444
|
216,983
|
119,064
|
1,140,379
|
264,178
|
1,404,557
|
|
Staffing and Support
|
18,791
|
27,493
|
28,239
|
83,863
|
139,563
|
148,683
|
56,599
|
503,231
|
98,226
|
601,457
|
|
City Economy
|
4,300
|
22,115
|
20,402
|
37,776
|
97,366
|
100,666
|
7,094
|
289,719
|
37,417
|
327,136
|
|
Marketing and Communications
|
9,948
|
790
|
1,105
|
39,874
|
35,960
|
42,358
|
44,575
|
174,611
|
53,758
|
228,369
|
|
Strategic Planning
|
4,543
|
4,588
|
6,732
|
6,212
|
6,237
|
5,659
|
4,930
|
38,901
|
7,051
|
45,952
|
|
Environmental Monitoring
|
3,540
|
51,330
|
146,131
|
206,502
|
98,881
|
68,300
|
62,465
|
637,148
|
165,951
|
803,099
|
|
Floodplain and Water Management
|
3,540
|
9,080
|
26,546
|
16,140
|
500
|
0
|
0
|
55,806
|
97,356
|
153,163
|
|
Water Quality Monitoring of Georges River
|
|
42,250
|
119,585
|
190,362
|
98,381
|
68,300
|
62,465
|
581,342
|
68,595
|
649,937
|
|
Maintenance Costs:
|
490,391
|
468,229
|
473,921
|
519,388
|
749,997
|
835,432
|
618,973
|
4,156,330
|
1,616,135
|
5,772,465
|
|
Roads Infrastructure
|
422,145
|
397,880
|
386,608
|
436,310
|
602,342
|
674,660
|
520,337
|
3,440,283
|
1,276,214
|
4,716,497
|
|
Footpath, Cycle
ways and Kerb & Gutter
|
77,812
|
90,313
|
93,117
|
92,405
|
135,879
|
131,611
|
143,160
|
764,297
|
371,119
|
1,135,416
|
|
Maintenance Response – Road Assets
|
11,851
|
12,433
|
12,481
|
12,994
|
19,200
|
17,202
|
10,619
|
96,780
|
35,335
|
132,115
|
|
Roads & Road Associated Structures
|
332,482
|
295,135
|
281,010
|
330,911
|
447,263
|
525,847
|
366,559
|
2,579,206
|
869,759
|
3,448,965
|
|
Other Infrastructure
|
68,246
|
70,349
|
87,313
|
83,078
|
147,655
|
160,771
|
98,635
|
716,047
|
339,921
|
1,055,968
|
|
Bridges
|
246
|
1,348
|
1,581
|
0
|
1,720
|
1,870
|
0
|
6,765
|
|
6,765
|
|
Street Furniture
|
15,071
|
15,178
|
13,410
|
14,641
|
18,576
|
27,014
|
17,895
|
121,783
|
81,357
|
203,140
|
|
Drainage Systems
|
52,930
|
53,822
|
72,322
|
68,437
|
127,359
|
131,888
|
80,741
|
587,499
|
258,564
|
846,063
|
|
Capital Expenditure:
|
426,406
|
497,344
|
936,846
|
1,280,490
|
894,250
|
701,011
|
1,041,637
|
5,777,985
|
696,841
|
6,474,826
|
|
Installation of pollution traps
|
|
|
|
126,839
|
39,100
|
117,901
|
106,450
|
390,290
|
2,000
|
392,290
|
|
Installation of erosion protection controls
|
|
|
|
|
19,280
|
|
35,186
|
54,466
|
29,007
|
83,473
|
|
Other infrastructure
|
426,406
|
497,344
|
936,846
|
1,153,651
|
835,871
|
583,110
|
900,001
|
5,333,229
|
665,834
|
5,999,063
|
|
Other Expenses:
|
376,823
|
161,332
|
172,432
|
282,004
|
462,625
|
175,460
|
178,085
|
1,808,762
|
257,838
|
2,066,599
|
|
Wattle Grove Intermodal (RAID)
|
257,191
|
51,720
|
12,653
|
66,346
|
249,415
|
107
|
107
|
637,538
|
111
|
637,649
|
|
Administration Costs (10%)
|
119,632
|
109,612
|
159,779
|
215,659
|
213,211
|
175,353
|
177,978
|
1,171,223
|
257,727
|
1,428,950
|
|
Total Expenses
|
1,315,951
|
1,205,727
|
1,757,569
|
2,372,248
|
2,345,317
|
1,928,885
|
1,957,759
|
12,883,455
|
2,834,992
|
15,718,447
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deficit / (Surplus)
|
326,391
|
(774,324)
|
(268,385)
|
331,056
|
264,385
|
(195,142)
|
(208,776)
|
(524,796)
|
551,457
|
26,662
|
(b)
Noting the summary table (p.7) for QWN 03 identifies there should
be $543,533 in remainder for Ex Gratia Rates from MIC Ltd,
please advise the current balance
and where it is currently held.
Response
The amount $543,533 stated
above can’t be substantiated, however,
as can be seen from table above, council had spent all
ex-gratia funds on 30 June 2024 and actually used $26,662 of its
own funds on these projects.
(a)
Per financial statements provided at QWN 03 please itemise the expenditure of Developer
Contributions of $ 7,659,000 from the $ 10,551,126 collected
either:
I.
via the specific
projects and initiatives undertaken around the intermodals in Moorebank, Wattle Grove, Hammondville
and Casula; or
II.
via the specific
projects and initiatives undertaken across the LGA.
Response:
Table below itemises expenditure from
$9.551m. Notice only $7.585m was funded from Intermodal Monetary Contribution. Council
had a balance of $2.773m
at 30 June 2024 as disclosed in the financial statements.
(a) When was the last time Council
reviewed the Contributions Plan with regard to the twin container terminals and intermodals?
(b) Separate
to any legal implications, noting that LOGOS and DPHI are quoting traffic
generation figures at near double (10,798 HV, 9337 LV) the heavy vehicles
assessed and approved (5,639 HV, 8,664 LV) in 2014 – 2016 does this not
render any Contributions Plan from that time a nullity?
(c) In
light of a near doubling of the impact on Liverpool what steps has Council
taken to ensure:
I.
The Contributions Plan is updated
and fit for purpose?
II.
An amendment to the default rate (1% CIV) can be pursued to cater
for these non-standard, non-residential developments; the biggest of their kind
anywhere in the country?
Response (provided by Planning
and Compliance)
The Liverpool
Contributions Plan 2018 – Established Areas covers the Moorebank
Intermodal Terminal (MIT), as well as land immediately surrounding the MIT.
The Liverpool Contributions Plan 2018 – Established Areas was
adopted by Council in December 2018 and last updated in June 2020.
At the Governance Committee
Meeting in July 2024, Council endorsed the reform of Council’s
Contributions Planning Framework. Analysis has shown that a portion of the
existing Framework no longer aligns with Council’s infrastructure
priorities. Furthermore, the development yields and/or trends that informed the
Plans at the time of their preparation are either no longer applicable or have
shifted to such an extent that the contributions being collected are not
sufficient to deliver the identified Plan initiatives.
To address this issue, City
Planning will commence work on a program to transform Council’s
Contributions Planning Framework to ensure consistency with industry best
practice, effectively meets the infrastructure and services needs
of our growing communities,
and provides the financial stability required to fund the essential
infrastructure and services.
Reform of the Framework
will be phased over multiple
years, with the initial focus (Phase 1) being
on the review and reform of the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2009, Liverpool Contributions
Plan 2018 – Established Areas, and Liverpool Liverpool
Contributions Plan 2018 – Liverpool City Centre. As part of the reform, Council will consider the change in infrastructure
needs for each Contributions Plan triggered by changes in population, new and
proposed development, and demand for essential services.
(a)
Noting cl7.36 of the LLEP requires “satisfactory
arrangements” for infrastructure what steps has Council taken to
execution of these arrangements and concomitant road infrastructure promised by
the MITRA Strategy (2016/17) and VPA (2018/19, specifically:
I. Upgrades
to Moorebank Ave & Heathcote Rd and Heathcote Rd & Newbridge Rd,
which have operated at LoS F since 2012 and were required by CoCs by 2020, only
to be pushed by to 2026 for design only (which
is now horrendously complicated by Moore Point).
II.
Upgrades of West and Eastbound Weave / Merge Areas on the M5 Georges
River Bridge, which is now four plus
years behind the MITRA Timetable; and or
III. In
absence of an Eastbound M5 Weave Upgrade, the acceleration of the West
Liverpool Brickmakers Creek Bypass (with full merge lanes added to the M5)
which is due sometime between 2024 and 2030 according to the MITRA Timetable.
IV. Grade Separation of Hume Hwy and Hoxton
Park Rd
(b)
Particularly as these road upgrades and corridor protection need
to be pinned down prior to any progress with Moore Point and Woodwark Park.
Response
State Roads under the
jurisdiction of Transport for NSW (TfNSW) on behalf of the NSW Government.
There is no Council “VPA” – rather the Proponent entered into
a State Voluntary Planning Agreement (SVPA) with TfNSW on behalf of the NSW
Government. A copy of the SVPA can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/svpa/executed/moorebank-intermodal-simta
The SVPA committed to a
monetary contribution for Regional Road Upgrade Works and upgrades to State
Road infrastructure surrounding the MIT – given Council was not a
signatory to the SVPA, nor responsible for the administration of the SVPA or
the State Road network (a TfNSW responsibility), Council has no visibility of
the current status of this Agreement. Council
has no responsibility for the SVPA or the delivery of the items listed in the
SVPA given we’re not signatories to the Agreement and the infrastructure
committed will be assets for TfNSW rather than Council, it is unclear what this
QWN is actually asking.
(a)
Noting cl7.36 of the LLEP requires “satisfactory
arrangements” for infrastructure and that this is based on the
“form and scale” of the concept assessed and approved in 2014
– 2016 (SSD 5066). Further noting that with the advent of the SEPP
introduced by DPHI and LOGOS and that each is now quoting traffic generation
figures at near double the heavy vehicles; and GFA at double (600,000 sqm to
1,220,000 sqm) and HOB at double to triple that assessed 3(2 – 40m) and
approved in 2014 – 2016, what steps has Council undertaken to ascertain
if breaches of CoCs have already, and or will occur, and concomitantly what
steps has Council undertaken to ascertain if Civil Enforcement is now required
in view of our duty under the Local Government Act to work in the best interests
of our residents and ratepayers?
(b)
Specifically, what steps has Council undertaken to ascertain if
the 2022 SEPP was the appropriate pathway to so significantly modify existing
approvals and conditions or instead constitutes a contravention and thus breach
of CoCs (and or the decision of the
LEC Court, in proceedings Council provided funds to)?
(c)
Furthermore, given the NSW Government (T Corp) became part owner
in 2021 – 22, what steps has Council undertaken to ascertain if the 2022
SEPP and DPHI’s further proposed Amendment (EIE) 2024 is consistent with
relevant legislation and the state’s own competitive neutrality policy,
given the obvious impression that the state is now self-dealing by rendering a
project it now partly owns exempt from all environmental assessment?
I.
Particularly in light of the fact that the 2021 – 22 SEPP offered no EIS or REF for uprating warehousing from
600,000sqm to 850.000sqm or 40% of
‘Area A’ to HOB of 40m or the claim to 10,798 HV, 9337 LV at +5159
HV over 5,639 HV, 8,664 LV.
II.
And in light of the fact that the proposed 2024 EIE Amendment of
the SEPP offered no EIS or REF for uprating
warehousing from the assumed
850,000sqm to 1,220.000sqm or uprating all of the remaining unbuild warehouses
to HOB of 32 – 40m and claiming ‘significant beneficial
efficiencies’ while not explaining how all of the above would not
increase traffic generation due to
370,000sqm of extra warehousing.
Response
The planning approval pathway
for the Terminal was via an SSDA with the then Department of Planning, Industry
and Environment (DPIE) the Consent Authority on behalf of the NSW Government,
not Council.
Council’s website makes
it clear that “Council has limited power to influence or control
operations at the site”.
https://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/development/major-projects/moorebank-intermodal
(a) Noting
QWN 03 & 04 regarding the appropriate amount and timeframe for paying rates or ex gratia payments in lieu of rates, and
that additional lots may need to be added and valued for base rates, and or
additional years ought to be added from FY13/14 (3.5) rendering a minimum +$
7mil to be pursued, has Council ever:
I.
Consulted and corresponded with the Federal
Minister of Finance to query if
MIC Ltd has appropriately applied the letter and intent of the CNPS?
II.
Consulted and corresponded with the Productivity Commission
regarding the making of a complaint
due to MIC Ltd not appropriately applying the letter and intent of the CNPS?
Response:
There are no outstanding ex gratia payment
to be pursued.
(a) Noting
QWN 06 & 07, and noting 2024 NSW guidance on “local
infrastructure” what steps and processes need to be undertaken for
Council to undertake an amendment application for the intermodal contributions
plan with IPART?
Response (provided by Planning
and Compliance)
As noted in the response to QWN
06, City Planning is reforming Council’s Contributions Planning Framework
to ensure consistency with industry best practice, effectively meets the
infrastructure and services needs of our growing communities, and provides the
financial stability required to fund the essential infrastructure and services.
Phase 1 of the
Reform Project will include the review and reform of the Liverpool
Contributions Plan 2018 – Established Areas which covers the
Moorebank Intermodal Terminal (MIT), as well as land immediately surrounding
the MIT.
Although Council is not
considering preparation of a site-specific Contributions Plan for the MIT, the review and reform of the Liverpool Contributions
Plan 2018 – Established Areas will
consider the change in infrastructure needs of the land where the Contributions Plan applies. Changes
in infrastructure needs are generally triggered by changes in population,
existing (like the MIT) and proposed development, and demand for essential
services.
ITEM NO: QWN
04
FILE NO: 065737.2025
SUBJECT: Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Dedication of the New Library
|
Please address the following:
1.
Will the Council consider dedicating the new library to the
hardworking members of our community who are facing cost-of-living pressures?
2.
How does the Council plan to ensure that its initiatives
promote unity and inclusivity within our community, rather
than division that
was reported in the Australian newspaper regarding the library dedication?
3.
Is the Council willing to reassess its previous decision
regarding the library's dedication in order to reflect a more balanced
perspective on global issues?
Responses (provided by Community &
Lifestyle)
1.
Will the Council consider dedicating the new library to
the hardworking members of our community who are facing cost-of-living
pressures?
The
current dedication of Yellamundie Library and Gallery was passed as a Council
resolution, following a Mayoral Minute at the Council Meeting 25 October
2023.
The Mayoral minute requested:
“Yellamundie
be dedicated to the innocent children of the world who are killed in conflict”.
The Mayoral Minute covered
issues of international conflict and the need to protect children, but in inclusive
terms with no specific nation or conflict named. The Mayoral Minute and
council resolution is attached for reference.
In celebration of the 1-year anniversary of Yellamundie
Library and Gallery in December
2024 Council held an exhibition and launch event acknowledging the October
2023 resolution to dedicate the library to the innocent children of the world
who are killed in conflict.
Portraits and oral histories
of community members were commissioned as an initiative of the dedication. These have become part of the local
history archive and were the basis an exhibition in Yellamundie gallery.
The exhibition “Faces of Liverpool –
Stories of hope, home and friendship” told
stories of a diverse range of Liverpool’s community, who are building successful lives and families in Liverpool.
2.
‘How does the
Council plan to ensure that its initiatives promote unity and inclusivity
within our community, rather than division that was reported in the
Australian newspaper regarding the library dedication?
Council’s Library &
Museum Service is considered a best practice service in delivery of services
and programs that support inclusion for our multicultural community.
Council delivers among the
largest collection of materials in community languages in NSW. In February
this year Council hosted the NSW Multicultural Librarian’s network
workshop in partnership with the State Library of NSW and Macquarie
University on research to improve CALD services in NSW in 2024.
The library’s recurrent program
includes:
·
Tech Savy Seniors
– teaching seniors
basic computer skills
in a range of community
languages;
·
Social Boards games – where people with different
cultural backgrounds meet to play games and practice their conservational
English;
·
Conversation Café – conversational English classes led by volunteer teachers;
·
Vote Talk – in partnership with Ethnic Communities
Council of NSW and Australian
Electoral Commission. Information sessions in Arabic and Hindi on federal
election voting processes;
·
Community led group exhibitions in the Yellamundie preview
gallery, for Filipino & Serbian cultural groups;
·
Aboriginal art workshop for children and
youth in school
holiday programs;
·
Multicultural Playgroup delivered in partnership with Liverpool
Migrant resource centre. Bringing
families from diverse backgrounds together to form friendships through play.
In addition, the Liverpool
Regional Museum presents community partnered exhibitions, providing community cultural groups
a place to share stories and
understanding with the wider
Liverpool Community.
Examples include:
·
Turbans for Australia - Our South West Sikhs. Which is now touring at Grifith Museum
and Gallery.
·
Exilio (Exhiled) Chile to South-West Sydney. Award winner at
the Museum & Galleries NSW IMAGEine awards in 2024.
3.
Is the Council willing
to reassess its previous decision regarding the library's dedication in order to reflect
a more balanced perspective on global issues?
Should the above Notice
of Motion be resolved, Council
will:
1. Pass a new resolution on the dedication of Yellamundie Library
and Gallery.
2. Specify whether
the previous dedication should continue or cease.
3.
Outline the program and activities required to action the
new dedication. To facilitate
development of a budget to deliver.
|
ITEM NO: QWN 05
FILE NO: 080011.2025
SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Karnib - Infrastructure
Grants
|
Please address the following:
1. Has Liverpool City Council returned any money to either the NSW State
Government or the Federal Government that it received from
infrastructure grants since 1 July 2021?
a. If so, how has this occurred?
b. If so,
why has this occurred?
c. If so, what is the exact
dollar figure of infrastructure grants
that Liverpool Council has applied for and received
from both State and Federal Governments?
i. From this
sum, what is the exact
dollar figure that
Liverpool Council has returned to:
ii. NSW State
Government
iii. Federal Government
d. If this
has occurred, what
specific projects by title and area in the Liverpool LGA have not been able to commence or complete as a result of
this?
2. If not,
does Liverpool City Council intend
to return back
any infrastructure funding from either state or federal
governments?
a. If so,
why?
b. If so, what are the financial implications for Liverpool City Council?
c. If so, what specific projects by title
and area in the Liverpool LGA that had grant
funding approved are now not able to commence?
d. If so,
why has the funding grants
received for infrastructure not been returned already?
Response (provided by Operations)
Consultation occurred with Council’s Project Delivery, WSIG,
Grants and Partnership and Development Engineering teams.
1. Council has
not returned any money received from infrastructure grants since 1 July 2021.
2. Council does
not intend to return back any infrastructure funding from either state or
federal government.
These Questions with Notice
will be resubmitted to the 23 April 2025 Council meeting with additional
information to be provided. The wording “money” to be referred to
as “funds” and to clarify grants being the grants that Council
has had approved and subsequently returned.
|
ITEM NO: QWN 06
FILE NO: 081630.2025
SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Clr Dr Green - Outstanding
Voluntary Planning Agreements
|
Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) refer
to common legal agreements between developers and planning authorities e.g.
Councils which can fund or deliver community infrastructure.
Could Council please provide a detailed
list of outstanding VPAs of agreed works between developers and Council that
are yet to be completed including:
1. The location of agreed VPA
negotiated works.
2. The year the VPA was made.
3. The details
of the works
the VPA included.
4. The date
and year the VPA was agreed for commencement.
5. Identified
VPAs where the agreed works has not been commenced or completed and
reasons why
Response (provided by Planning and Compliance)
The Voluntary Planning
Agreements Quarterly report was tabled at the Governance Committee held Tuesday
18th March 2025, during which a response to QWN 06 - Question with Notice -
Clr Dr Green - Outstanding Voluntary Planning Agreements was provided.
|
ITEM NO: QWN
07
FILE NO: 080578.2025
SUBJECT: Question with Notice - Deputy
Mayor Harle - Rangers for Extended Hours
|
Council trialled Rangers and
Compliance Staff working after hours to address relevant issues of illegal parking and
anti-social behaviour in problem areas.
Please address the following:
1. Could Council provide
the previous reports
that evaluated Rangers
and Compliance staff working after normal hours and the results of the
trial and any recommendations?
Responses (provided by Planning and Compliance)
Background
At its meeting of 26 February 2020, Council resolved:
That Council:
1.
Provide a costing report to the March 2020 Council
Meeting for providing on the ground services by compliance officers during,
and between 7am – 9am and 4pm – 10pm seven days a week each year.
2. Consider:
a.
Cost to employ directly such officers under stipulated
agreement to the hours needed by Council and not subject to overtime rates;
and / or
b.
Cost in overtime to utilise existing compliance officers
on a rotation basis to service the out of hours requirements of Council; and
/ or
c.
Contractual agreement through a local business with
payment on invoice to Council for services supplied in responding to
incidences within the outlined times.
Following this resolution, on
25 November 2020, Council resolved to trial an after-hours on- call
compliance service to assess its effectiveness. The service commenced in
April 2021, operating on a 24-hour on-call roster. However, due to COVID-19
lockdowns, the service was suspended from July to October 2021. It resumed in
November 2021 and continued until
February 2022.
Findings from the
Trial
During the trial period, Council received an average
of six complaints per month over
the last five months. The
majority of complaints related to illegal parking, building work outside
approved hours, heavy vehicle parking, and occasional animal-related
incidents.
The cost of operating the
on-call service was balanced by revenue generated through fines issued, with
a significant portion of fines being paid. This ensured that the service
remained financially sustainable without requiring additional funding.
Council
recommended that Council receive and note the findings
and determine whether the service should continue.
Council
resolved to continue the after-hours compliance service. The motion was moved
by Councillor Hadid, seconded by Councillor Rhodes, and carried at the
meeting.
Current After-Hours Compliance Operation
The on-call roster remains in
place; however, due to workplace health and safety requirements, it can only
be staffed when a full complement of officers is available. Currently, rangers prioritise roaming dog incidents and
are rostered after
hours specifically to respond to these calls.
In the meantime, after-hours
compliance requests are being managed through a structured rostering system
operating twice per week. This approach allows
rangers to address multiple
complaints received throughout the week, rather than responding to isolated
incidents as they arise. The structured system also enables proactive patrols
targeting heavy vehicle compliance, proving to be more effective and
cost-efficient compared to the on-call roster, which only responds to one
request at a time.
Previous Reports
Previous Council reports
on this matter
are attached:
1. Council Report
- 29 April 2020 - EGROW 09 Out of Office Hours
Compliance Officers
2.
Confidential Report – 25 November 2020 ––
CONF 01 – Report Back – Out of
Office Hours Compliance Officers
3. Confidential Report
– 30 March
2022 – CONF
02 – Report
Back – Out
of Hours Compliance
Officers
|
|
ITEM NO:
|
CTTE 04
|
|
FILE NO:
|
064308.2025
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Minutes of the Governance Committee
Meeting held on 18 March 2025
|
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Adjei
That Council:
1.
Receives and notes
the Minutes of the Governance Committee meeting held on 18 March 2025; and
2.
Endorse the recommendations in the Minutes.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
PRESENTATIONS BY COUNCILLORS
Clr Ibrahim had the pleasure of
recently attending and supporting the Mama
Africa Women’s Group event on
International Women’s Day at the Whitlam Leisure Centre.
Mama Africa Women Group requested Clr
Ibrahim share their message of appreciation for the support they have received
from Liverpool City Council as follows.
“On
behalf of Multicultural African Communities Network and Mama Africa women group
in Liverpool, I thank you for your presence at our International Women’s
Day at Whitlam leisure centre and of course for the encouraging and supportive
speech you delivered to us.
Liverpool is a home to Africa
Australians that face diverse challenges related to migration,
integration as other communities in similar situation and we couldn't find true
words to express the thanksgiving to Liverpool City Council that provided us
with a grant to implement the mama Africa sewing program that help, especially
Sally the new arrival refugees and seniors women and men.
With that grant we were able to celebrate
that milestone that brought
the participants from isolation, risk of mental health
deterioration while learning new skills and getting so needed information about
different services available, health system navigation and parenting style in
their new home Australia.
Your
presence showed us again that Liverpool embraced for ever conclusion, cohesion
and supports community based initiatives such as Mama Africa program!
I thank you
again and hope you will share our thanks and call for more support to/from
Liverpool City Council.”
|
Notices of Motion
ITEM NO: NOM 01
FILE NO: 065756.2025
SUBJECT: Establish a 30-Day Response Time for Councillor Requests
BACKGROUND
Councillors play a critical
role in representing the concerns and needs of our constituents. However, the
prolonged response time to requests undermines our ability to address issues
promptly and effectively.
Establishing a standard response time of 30 days
will:
·
Enhance accountability
within the Council.
·
Improve communication and
transparency with constituents.
·
Ensure that urgent matters
are prioritised and resolved in a timely manner.
NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by
Clr Ristevski)
That all requests made by
Councillors be actioned and responded to within 30 days of submission. It is
unacceptable for these requests to remain outstanding for longer than this
period, as timely responses are essential for effective governance and service
delivery.
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved:
Clr Ristevski Seconded: Clr Monaghan
That:
1.
All requests made by
Councillors be substantively responded to within 30 days of submission.
2.
Every email
sent to an external stakeholder should include a copy to the relevant
Councillor.
3.
Council agree:
i.
Risk
assessments of the workload of the Councillor Support Team be conducted to
ensure psychosocial injuries are unlikely to occur.
ii.
The Acting
CEO review the workload of the Councillor Support Team to ensure the workload
does not have the possibility of causing a psychosocial injury.
iii.
The Acting
CEO review the current structure of the Councillor Support Team.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
|
ITEM NO: NOM 02
FILE NO: 075798.2025
SUBJECT: Cease Memberships to External Committees and
Redirect Funds to Frontline Services
BACKGROUND
Rationale: Liverpool City Council is currently
facing some financial challenges, which necessitates a careful reassessment
of our budget priorities. In these challenging times, it is imperative that
we allocate our financial resources towards essential services that directly
benefit our community.
The memberships to the
aforementioned organisations, while potentially valuable, do not provide
immediate or tangible benefits to our residents, particularly in the context
of the current economic climate. The funds expended on these memberships
could be more effectively utilised in enhancing our frontline services,
especially in the critical area of city cleanliness.
Investing in directly
employed council staff to maintain and enhance the cleanliness of our city
will not only improve the quality
of life for our residents but also foster
a sense of pride in our community. Clean and well-maintained public
spaces are essential for resident well- being and can also contribute to
attracting visitors and businesses to our area.
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Submitted by Clr
Ristevski)
That Council:
1. Ceases its
membership to the
following internal and
external organisations:
i. Committee for Liverpool
ii. Business Western
Sydney
iii. Liverpool Chamber of Commerce
iv. Western Sydney
Leadership Dialogue
2.
Redirect the annual savings of $163,392 from these memberships
into frontline services by directly employing council staff, with a
particular focus on maintaining and
enhancing the cleanliness of our city.
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded: Clr Monaghan
That Council direct the
Acting CEO that a report be produced and provided at the first budget workshop detailing the benefits
and any successful outcomes achieved for Liverpool local government area
through advocacy by Council’s memberships and strategic alliances.
On being
put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors
voted unanimously for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: NOM
03
FILE NO: 075799.2025
SUBJECT: Motion to
Seek Advice from the Minister of Local Government Regarding the Mayor's Role as
Spokesperson During Public Inquiry Period
|
BACKGROUND
 As the Council navigates this critical Public
Inquiry period, it is imperative that our communications are clear, effective, and reflective of the community's concerns.
This ongoing negative
sentiment poses potential challenges to the Council's ability to engage constructively with the public
and could hinder the overall perception of the Council during this sensitive
time.
Rationale:
Community Trust: It is crucial to maintain the community's
trust and confidence in the Council's leadership. Given the current
atmosphere, it may be prudent to assess whether a different spokesperson
would better serve this purpose.
Strategic Communication: Seeking the Minister's advice will ensure
that the Council is aligned with best practices in communication, especially
during a period that requires transparency and accountability.
NOTICE OF
MOTION (Submitted by Clr Ristevski)
That
Council seeks advice from the Minister of Local Government on whether the
Mayor should continue to serve as the spokesperson for the Council during the
current Public Inquiry period., given the
prevailing negative sentiment expressed by the community on social media
platforms.
|
|
Clr Ristevski withdrew this item.
|
ITEM NO: NOM
04
FILE NO: 075800.2025
SUBJECT: Legal fees
and Expenses with regards to Public Inquiry
|
BACKGROUND
With Liverpool Council having
just generated a $11 million loss in its recent audited financial statements
and current unrestricted cash reserves sitting at near zero, as Councillors
we have a fiduciary duty to ensure
that ratepayers money is used to its maximum benefit for the community.
The recent court case against
the New South Wales government to prevent the public inquiry into Liverpool Council has not been the best usage
of ratepayers’ money and as such I propose the following:-
NOTICE OF
MOTION (Submitted by Clr Ristevski)
That Council agree:
1. A report be given at the earliest
possible Council meeting so that ratepayers are aware of the total legal fees
and expenses and staff time in terms of dollars. The same report to also
include the NSW Government legal fees that ratepayers will need to pay for
losing the case.
2. Council’s legal team seek advice
whether these legal fees can be recovered personally from the Councillors
that voted in favour of taking legal action against the New South Wales
Government. This report to be tabled at the earliest possible Council
meeting.
|
|
Clr Ristevski withdrew this item.
|
Clrs Adjei and Karnib left the Chamber
at 9:15pm.
ITEM NO: NOM
05
FILE NO: 075795.2025
SUBJECT: Liverpool
Olympic
|
BACKGROUND
Liverpool Olympic are one of Liverpool
leading football clubs, with an
expanding player base that now exceeds 638 registered players.
Significantly, the club has
grown in female representation to 177 players. Liverpool Olympic now have the highest female participation
rate in terms of aggregate numbers of any soccer club in Liverpool.
To accommodate the growth in
membership the club has undertaken significant renovations to the Clubhouse. These changes are intended to provide a more child-friendly environment and to
ensure that the facilities provided met the
needs of its growing feal participation base. The Club has undertaken these works at its own expanse, however, was relying on the
contribution of $50,000 for female friendly changeroom upgrades contained in
the urgency motion moved by the Councillor Harle and Seconded by Councill
Macnaught in July 2025. (Minutes of Ordinary Meeting -
Thursday, 25 July 2024).
These funds were deferred by Council in December 2024 to the
2025/26 budget.
Given that the Club has
already undertaken these works, this motion proposes to bring forward the contribution of $50,000 to Liverpool
Olympic as a contribution for the works undertaken.
NOTICE OF
MOTION (Submitted by Clr
Ristevski)
That Council contributes an
amount of $50,000 to Liverpool Olympic for the capital works undertaken at
Hoxton Park Road to improve amenities to its female participation base.
That amount be made
available through general revenue.
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Harte Seconded: Clr Ristevski
That Council thanks
Liverpool Olympic for their cooperation through this process
and congratulates them on
the capital works they have undertaken.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
Clrs Adjei and Karnib returned
to the Chamber at 9:18pm.
ITEM NO: NOM
06
FILE NO: 075797.2025
SUBJECT: Festivals
|
Background Rationale:
Financial Responsibility: Considering current budget constraints and the need to prioritise
essential services, it is
imperative that we reassess our spending. By cancelling these festivals, we
can allocate funds more effectively where they are needed most.
Enhanced Cleanliness: The
cleanliness of our city significantly impacts the quality of life for
our residents and the overall attractiveness for visitors. Investing in
frontline services will allow us to maintain and enhance our
community’s cleanliness, ensuring a healthier and more pleasant
environment.
Job Creation: Redirecting these funds towards the direct
employment of council staff not only addresses cleanliness but also
contributes to local job creation, supporting our community during
economically challenging times.
NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr
Ristevski)
That:
1. Council to cancel all
festivals funded through operational funds for the 2025/2026 financial year
that are not self-funded except for Family Fun Days, Australia Day,
Liverpool‘s birthday, Anzac Day, Christmas, and New Year’s Eve celebrations;
2. All remaining festivals to be
reconsidered once Council reaches its unrestricted cash reserve target of
$25m; and
3. The savings from cancelling
those festivals to be redirected into frontline services specifically
focusing on the direct employment of council staff to enhance and maintain
the cleanliness of our city.
|
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Ristevski Seconded: Clr Monaghan
That:
1.
Council acknowledges the
social and cultural benefits to the community in the festival program
2.
A report be produced and provided at the first budget workshop
detailing the expenditure on the festival program forecasted for financial
year 2025/2026 and also explore the following:
i.
the current fees and charges for vendors and consider an alternate fee model/s to ensure financial
sustainability and longevity of the festival program.
ii.
consider alternative options to decrease councils financial output in
conducting these festivals through other alternatives such as grants,
sponsorships or a revised business model to decrease the cost in the
2025/2026 finance budget
On being put to the
meeting the motion
was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this
motion.
|
RECESS
Deputy Mayor Harle
called a recess
of meeting at 9.19pm
RESUMPTION OF MEETING
Deputy Mayor Harle resumed the meeting in Open Session
at 9.33pm with all Councillors present except Clr Ammoun.
Clr Ammoun returned
to the Chamber at 9.34pm
Confidential Items
ITEM NO: CONF
01
FILE NO: 056629.2025
SUBJECT: Carnes
Hill investigation
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Dr Green Seconded: Clr Ibrahim
That Council notes
the contents of the report.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
|
ITEM NO: CONF
02
FILE NO: 070110.2025
SUBJECT: Proposed
purchase 75 Eleventh Ave Austral Lot 785 DP 2475, Open Space and Drainage
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Harte Seconded: Clr Adjei
That Council:
1.
Approves the purchase Lot 785 DP 2475, 75 Eleventh Ave Austral
being land identified for contribution items; Local Park LP59 and stormwater
Detention Basin B23 for the price and terms outlined in this report.
2.
Upon settlement classifies the subject land as operational in
accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.
3.
Authorises the CEO or their delegate to execute any document,
under power of Attorney necessary to give effect to this decision.
4.
Keeps confidential this report pursuant to the provisions of
Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information could
if disclosed give a commercial advantage to a person with whom the Council is
conducting (or proposes to conduct)
business with.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: CONF
03
FILE NO: 078925.2025
SUBJECT: Minutes
of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee meeting held on 26 February 2025
|
COUNCIL
DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Adjei
That Council notes the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 26 February 2025.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: CONF
04
FILE NO: 075711.2025
SUBJECT: Procurement
Exemption - Jemena Gas Network for investigation and relocation of gas asset -
Intersection Upgrade Works at Kurrajong Road and Lyn Parade
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Dr Green Seconded: Clr Harte
That Council:
1.
Approves, for the purposes of the tendering requirements under
s.55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, the engagement of Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd to undertake remediation and
relocation of their assets as a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders
because of the following extenuating circumstances:
·
Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd is the sole
owner of their
assets;
·
Only Jemena Gas can approve modification, remediation and
relocation works of their assets.
2.
Authorise the CEO or delegate to execute all documents
necessary to give effect to this resolution.
On being put to the meeting the motion was
declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously
for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: CONF
05
FILE NO: 079719.2025
SUBJECT: Project
26: CT Lewis
CONF 05 was dealt with later in
the meeting in Closed Session and the resolution is shown
at the end of these minutes.
ITEM NO: CONF
06
FILE NO: 083523.2025
SUBJECT: Civic
Place Developer Works
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Harte Seconded: Clr Macnaught
That Council:
1. Agrees
to give owner’s consent to submission of a development application for
the Modified Developer Works.
2. Authorises the CEO to give notice
of commencement of the Call Offer Period.
3.
Authorises the CEO to agree
to waive a requirement of the PDA in relation to commencement of
the Call Offer Period, subject to legal advice.
4. Authorises
the CEO to agree changes to the Contract for Sale outlined in the report,
subject to legal advice.
5. Authorises the CEO to provide Council’s agreement under the PDA to the plan of
stratum subdivision.
6. Authorises the CEO to take all
necessary steps to give effect
to these resolutions.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
Councillors voted unanimously for this motion.
|
ITEM NO: CONF
07
FILE NO: 075796.2025
SUBJECT: Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski
|
Questions with Notice were responded and provided to the Mayor
and Councillors via Confidential Book
|
ITEM NO: CONF
08
FILE NO: 080979.2025
SUBJECT: Memorandum
of Understanding - National Intermodal Company Ltd
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Macnaught Seconded: Clr Dr Green
That Council receives and notes the report.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
|
CLOSED SESSION
Motion: Moved Clr Harte Seconded Clr Macnaught
That Council move into Closed
Session pursuant to s10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 because it
contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the
Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.
On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.
CLOSED SESSION:
The gallery left the Chamber.
Council moved into Closed Session
at 9.48pm.
OPEN SESSION:
Motion: Moved Clr Monaghan Seconded Clr Harte
That Council move into Open Session.
On being put to the meeting
the motion was declared CARRIED.
Council moved into Open Session
at 9.51pm.
|
ITEM NO:
|
CONF 05
|
|
FILE NO:
|
079719.2025
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Project 26: CT Lewis
|
|
COUNCIL DECISION
Motion: Moved: Clr Monaghan Seconded: Clr Karnib
That Council:
1. Agrees not to sell
the asset.
2.
Direct the Acting CEO to prepare a report to engage students
from the local TAFE NSW through its apprenticeship programs with an aim to
revitalising the asset. The report to include the funding source.
3.
Direct the Acting CEO to prepare a report as to the cost of
revistalising the asset for the purpose of considering alternative public use
infrastructure such as for e.g. halls or rooms for lease for community
groups.
4.
Take immediate action to secure and make safe the premises with
funding to come from general funds.
On being put to the meeting the motion
(moved by Clr Monaghan) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadowed Motion
(moved by Clr Harte) therefore lapsed.
Division (for the motion
moved by Clr Monaghan)
Vote for: Clr Dr
Green, Deputy Mayor Harle, Clr
Ibrahim, Clr Karnib, Clr
Monaghan and Clr Ristevski.
Vote against: Clr Adjei,
Clr Ammoun, Clr Harte and Clr Macnaught.
Foreshadowed motion: Moved: Clr Harte Seconded: Clr Macnaught
That the recommendation in the Confidential Book be adopted.
|
THE MEETING CLOSED AT
10.06pm.
<Signature>
Name: Ned Mannoun
Title: Mayor
Date: 23 April 2025
I have
authorised a stamp bearing my signature to be affixed to the pages of the
Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 March 2025. I confirm
that Council has adopted these Minutes as a true and accurate record of the
meeting.
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
Planning & Compliance Report
|
PLAN 01
|
Planning Proposal - 1411 The Northern
Road, Bringelly
|
|
Strategic
Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver
effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best
outcomes for a growing city
|
|
File Ref
|
043970.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Danielle
Hijazi - Strategic Planner
|
|
Approved
By
|
Lina Kakish
- Director Planning & Compliance
|
|
Property
|
1411 The
Northern Road, Bringelly
|
|
Owner
|
MR A A DE
NATALE
|
|
Applicant
|
EG PROPERTY
GROUP PTY LTD
|
In June 2023, EG Property Group Pty Ltd submitted a Planning
Proposal request to Liverpool City Council (“Council”) via the NSW
Planning Portal. The Planning Proposal sought to amend Schedule 1 Clause 9 of the Liverpool
Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008), a Clause which permits
‘service stations’ and ‘take away food and drink
premises’ on certain sites within the Liverpool Local Government Area
(LGA). The
Proponent sought to amend the Clause to include light industry, and to amend
the key sites map to apply the Clause at 1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly (Lot
6 DP1217784).
Several meetings and correspondence between Council and the
Proponent were held advising that the Planning Proposal lacked strategic merit,
would result in unintended implications, and lacked insufficient technical
information to support the Proposal in its current form.
In October 2024, the Planning Proposal was updated by
the Proponent (Attachment
1) to remove the takeaway ‘food and drink premises’ and
‘industrial units’ component from the proposal and to
proceed with a proposal to allow an additional permitted use to facilitate the
development of a ‘service station’ only.
The Planning Proposal has been submitted pursuant to Section 3.33
of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A
Act”) and is broadly
consistent with various Planning Frameworks including the Greater Sydney Region
Plan, Western City District Plan, and Council’s Local Strategic Planning
Statement (LSPS). It achieves this by generating economic growth, whilst
maintaining sufficient consistency with the surrounding context and emerging
character of the area.
The subject site is located along The Northern Road, a key State
Road corridor in Western Sydney in close proximity to the Western Sydney
International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport and broader Aerotropolis Precinct.
This position makes it an opportunistic refuelling point for vehicles
travelling to and from the Aerotropolis Precinct, enhancing convenience for
both local and regional trips. The proposed development can be designed to be
complimentary with surrounding land uses, ensuring compatibility and supporting
the overall functionality of the area.
The Planning Proposal was considered by the Liverpool Local
Planning Panel (LPP) on 25 November 2024. Following consideration of the
Proposal, the Liverpool LPP advised that the Proposal has both strategic and
site-specific merit and supported the Proposal proceeding to Gateway
Determination. A copy of the advice provided by the Liverpool LPP is included
in Attachment 2.
In accordance with Section 7.4 of the
EP&A Act 1979, the Proponent has committed to enter into a Planning
Agreement with Council. A formal Letter of Offer (LOO) was received from the
Proponent in January 2025 (see Attachment 3).
Following receipt of the LOO, Council and
the Proponent have worked collaboratively to prepare a Draft Planning Agreement
(VPA-60) based on the elements of the LOO. A copy of the Draft Planning
Agreement is provided in Attachment 4.
On the basis that the Planning Proposal
demonstrates strategic and site-specific merit, this Report recommends that
the:
· Planning Proposal be submitted
to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) for Gateway
Determination; and
· Draft Planning Agreement be
publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days.
That Council:
1. Notes the advice of the Liverpool Local
Planning Panel.
3. Endorses “in principle” the
Planning Proposal request to amend Schedule 1 of the Liverpool Local
Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP 2008) to permit the use with development
consent to facilitate the future development of a ‘service station’
at Lot 6 DP1217784, 1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly;
3. Forwards the Planning Proposal to the Department of
Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI), pursuant to Section 3.33 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 seeking Gateway Determination;
4. Subject to a Gateway Determination, undertakes public
exhibition and community consultation in accordance with the conditions of the
Gateway Determination and the Liverpool Community Participation Plan 2022;
5. Subject to a Gateway Determination, endorses the
public exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 4) for a
minimum of 28 days concurrently with the Planning Proposal pursuant to Clause
204 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 and Section 7.5 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
6. Receives a Post-Exhibition Report on the outcomes of
the public exhibition period for both the Planning Proposal and Draft Planning
Agreement; and
7. Delegates to the CEO (or delegate) to amend the draft
Planning Proposal and attachments for any typographical and other minor errors
/ amendments if required.
Background
Subject Site
The Planning Proposal relates to land located at Lot 6 DP 1217784,
1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly (see Figure 1).
The subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land and covers
approximately 2.1 hectares, with a frontage of approximately 186 metres to The
Northern Road.
A detached dwelling currently occupies the subject site located at
the north-eastern corner as well as a dam on the south-western corner, whilst
the remainder of the site consists of cleared land.
The subject site is bounded by The Northern Road (a classified
Road) to the north, rural
dwelling houses to the east and west and cleared rural land to the south.
The subject site is zoned RU4 Primary Production Small lots under
the LLEP 2008 (see Figure
2), with the adjacent
area (across The Northern Road) zoned Enterprise under the State Environmental Planning
Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021.
Figure 1 – Subject site highlighted
in yellow
Source: Geocortex
Figure 2 – Land Use Zoning Map
Source: Geocortex
As shown in Figure 3, the subject site is also identified
in a future Enterprise zone in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Precinct Plan.
Figure 3 – Western Sydney
Aerotropolis Precinct Plan
Source: DPHI
Locality
The locality contains rural and agricultural land and features predominantly
low-density residential dwellings. The northern side of The Northern Road is zoned ENT (Enterprise)
as per the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021. As such, it is anticipated that the
rural character of those lands will transition to a more urban industrial
character in the years to come.
The subject site is located on The Northern Road (classified
road), a major arterial route connecting to the M12 motorway (under
construction), Badgerys Creek Road, and the future Western Sydney International
(Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport.
Figure 4 – Locality Map
Source: Nearmap
Planning Proposal Assessment
The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 – Additional
Permitted Uses of the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP
2008) to permit
the use with Development Consent to facilitate the future development of a
‘service station’ at Lot 6 DP1217784, 1411 The Northern Road,
Bringelly.
Local Planning Panel (LPP) Advice
The draft Planning Proposal was referred to the
Liverpool LPP for advice on 25 November 2024. A summary of the LPP advice and
staff responses is provided in Table 1, while the LPP Minutes are
provided in Attachment 2.
Table 1 – Summary of
LPP Advice and Staff Responses
|
Local Planning Panel Comment
|
Council Response
|
|
The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the Greater
Sydney Region Plan, District Plan, Council’s Local Strategic Planning
Statement (LSPS) and Section 9.1 of the Ministerial Directions.
|
Noted.
|
|
The Planning Proposal will create local employment
opportunities, contributing to economic growth in the locality, particularly
as the population increases with the development of the Aerotropolis and
South-West Growth Area.
|
Noted.
|
|
Recommend
the Planning Proposal is forwarded to the Department of Planning, Housing and
Infrastructure for Gateway Determination.
|
Noted.
|
Strategic Merit
Strategic merit considerations are summarised in Table
2.
Table 2 – Strategic merit
considerations for the Planning Proposal
|
Issue
|
Consideration
|
Strategic Merit (Y/N)
|
|
Dwyer Road
Precinct – Aerotropolis Framework
|
The Dwyer Road Precinct is identified as
a non-initial precinct in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Plan 2020 (WSAP)
and includes parts of Greendale and Bringelly. The Precinct is generally
bounded by Greendale Road in the south, The Northern Road to the east, the
Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport to the north and
pastoral land holdings to the west.
The WSAP indicates that the future
land-use vision for the Dwyer Road Precinct is that of Enterprise zoning, a
Semi-Industrial / Business Park-oriented zone unique to the Aerotropolis
Precincts. Being a non-initial precinct, the site retains its existing zoning
as per the LLEP 2008 until such a time as it is rezoned.
|
Yes
|
|
Dwyer Road Precinct – LLEP 2008 and Rural
Lands Strategy Framework
|
Under the LLEP 2008, the Precinct is
largely zoned R5 – Large Lot Residential, RU1 – Primary
Production and RU4 – Primary Production Small Lots, with smaller
portions being zoned RE1 – Public Recreation and SP2 –
Educational Establishment.
The Liverpool
Rural Lands Strategy applies to land within the Dwyer Road Precinct. In
summary, the future vision for the Precinct is to maintain the existing
character until land is rezoned for urban uses as part of the Western Sydney
Aerotropolis.
Whilst a service station is considered
more commercial than agricultural in nature, the scale and significance of a
single service station in the context of the Precinct is considered a minor
departure from that vision. The remainder of the site can still be used for
agricultural uses, and the provision of a service station will also improve
access and convenience for agricultural land-users to refuel plant, vehicles,
and equipment.
|
Yes
|
Based on the analysis presented in Table 2, it
has been determined that the Planning Proposal demonstrates strategic merit, as
it aligns with the future broader vision for the area while providing essential
services to support the future Aerotropolis Precinct.
Site-Specific Merit
Site-specific merit considerations are
summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 – Site-specific merit
considerations for the Planning Proposal
|
Issue
|
Consideration
|
Strategic Merit (Y/N)
|
|
Strategic
Location and Accessibility
|
The
subject site is connected to the surrounding road network, particularly The
Northern Road, a key north-south arterial road corridor through Western
Sydney. The presence of three nearby signalised intersections (Badgerys Creek
Road, Derwent Road, Mersey Road), which include U-turn bays enhances access
to the site for both local and passing traffic.
A
Traffic Assessment has been undertaken, advising the site’s frontage
provides ample space for safe access and egress, facilitating smooth traffic
flow. The proposed left-in, left-out configuration is supported by traffic
studies showing it has the lowest level of incidents, enhancing safety for
all road users. Traffic and access considerations will be further refined in
consultation with Transport for NSW at the post-Gateway stage.
|
Yes
|
|
Land Use
Compatibility
|
The Planning
Proposal aims to allow the use of a service station on the subject site which
would offer a transitional use from the Enterprise and Light Industrial uses
on the opposite side of The Northern Road, thereby enhancing overall land use
compatibility to the locality.
Whilst
service stations are not considered as specifically aligned with the
objectives of a rural zone, it is recognised that service stations provide
for the day-to-day needs of residents and agricultural land-uses, and
therefore an exception for a single service station can be considered of
minor significance.
|
Yes
|
|
Market
Demand and Service Gaps
|
The
absence of service stations within and around the locality creates a service
gap for commuters and freight traffic, underscoring the demand for the
proposed facility. By situating a service station on the western side of The
Northern Road, the Proposal addresses the current lack of facilities serving
northbound traffic.
|
Yes
|
|
Public Infrastructure
|
The subject site is serviced by
essential public services including electricity, telecommunications and gas.
There are constraints relating to the servicing of sewerage infrastructure
however it is Council’s understanding that the development can initially accommodate a
temporary on-site sewage wastewater management system until Sydney Water
infrastructure is available.
Temporary pump-out of wastewater is feasible with
Council support, although it is unlikely to be necessary given the site area
available for an on-site effluent disposal system. Connection to Sydney
Water’s reticulated sewer is expected to be available around 2030/31,
at which point the development would connect to this infrastructure.
This issue will be further explored at the
post-Gateway stage with Sydney Water
|
Yes
|
Based on the analysis presented in Table
3, it has been determined that the Planning Proposal demonstrates site-specific
merit with strategic location, strong accessibility, and compatibility with
surrounding land uses. The identified market demand and service gaps, coupled
with adequate infrastructure provisions, support the feasibility and long-term
viability of the development.
Local Infrastructure Contributions
The
development is in an area which is subject to the Liverpool Contributions
Plan 2009 (section 2.10 Rural Areas). The Plan only anticipates rural and
residential development and as such, there is no nexus between the
Contributions Plan and the Planning Proposal.
The site is adjacent to the ENT (Enterprise) zone as per the
Aerotropolis Planning Framework. The applicable Contributions Plan in the ENT
zone is the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2024 – Aerotropolis s7.12.
Given the commercial nature of the
Planning Proposal is complimentary to the Aerotropolis Planning Framework, it
was negotiated with the Proponent to utilise a Planning Agreement to apply the
same contribution rate (i.e. 4.6%) that applies for the adjacent land within
the Aerotropolis Precinct. This approach ensures consistency and equity in
contributions planning across the Aerotropolis Precincts.
A
copy of the Draft Planning Agreement (VPA-60) is provided in Attachment 4.
Subject to the DPHI issuing a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal,
it is proposed to publicly exhibit the Draft Planning Agreement concurrently
with the Planning Proposal for a minimum of 28 days pursuant to Clause 204 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 and Section 7.5 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Next Steps
It is recommended that Council endorses “in
principle” the Planning Proposal request and that the Planning Proposal
be forwarded to the DPHI for Gateway Determination. This is supported by the
advice of the Liverpool LPP and Council’s assessment that the Proposal
has sufficiently demonstrated both strategic and site-specific merit.
Upon receipt of a Gateway Determination, public
exhibition and community consultation of both the Planning Proposal and Draft
Planning Agreement will be undertaken for a minimum of 28 days in accordance
with the Liverpool
Community Participation Plan 2022 and Section
7.5 of the EP&A
Act 1979.
NSW Government Agency
consultation on the Planning Proposal will also occur post-Gateway
Determination.
It is however noted that the provision of
various additional studies and clarification may be required by the DPHI as a
result of the Gateway Determination that may need to be addressed prior to
public exhibition.
At the conclusion of the public exhibition, a
Post-Exhibition Report will be prepared summarising the outcome of the public
exhibition of both the Planning Proposal and Draft Planning Agreement and
include any
possible amendments resulting from the consultation process. The
Post-Exhibition Report will then be referred to the next available Ordinary
Meeting of Council seeking endorsement of the Planning Proposal and execution
of the Final Planning Agreement for 1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly.
|
Economic
|
Facilitate economic development.
|
|
Environment
|
There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
|
Social
|
There are no social and cultural considerations.
|
Civic
Leadership
|
There are no civic leadership and
governance considerations.
|
|
Legislative
|
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation
2021
State Environmental Planning
Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021
|
|
Risk
|
The risk is deemed to be low.
Landowners and the community will have a further
opportunity to comment on the Planning Proposal if and after a Gateway
Determination in favour of the Proposal is issued.
Further community feedback, as well as requirements
from the DPHI, will then be presented to Council in the form of a
Post-Exhibition Report for consideration at a future Ordinary Meeting of
Council prior to finalisation of the Planning Proposal and execution of the
Final Planning Agreement.
The risk is considered within Council’s risk
appetite.
|
1. Attachment
1 - Planning Proposal Justification Report - 1411 Northern Road, Bringelly -
November 2024 (Under
separate cover)
2. Attachment
2 - Liverpool Local Planning Panel - Meeting Minutes - 25 November 2024 (Under separate cover)
3. Attachment
3 - Proponent Letter of Offer - 1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly - January
2025 (Under separate
cover)
4. Attachment
4 - Draft Planning Agreement (VPA-60) - 1411 The Northern Road, Bringelly (Under separate cover)
5. Attachment
5 - ASIC Extract (Under separate cover) - Confidential
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
Planning & Compliance Report
|
PLAN 02
|
Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee -
Charter and Memberships
|
|
Strategic
Objective
|
Healthy,
Inclusive, Engaging
Embrace the
city’s heritage and history
|
|
File Ref
|
112610.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Thomas
Wheeler - Heritage Officer
|
|
Approved
By
|
Lina Kakish
- Director Planning & Compliance
|
The
Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee (“Committee”) is a community
advisory Committee formed under the Local Government Act 1993. The
purpose of the Committee is to assist Liverpool City Council
(“Council”) through the provision of advice and support in the
conservation and preservation of the history and heritage of the Liverpool
Local Government Area (LGA).
The
previously endorsed Committee Charter (Attachment 1) requires Council
to:
1. undertake a review of the current Charter every two
(2) years; and
2. dissolve and seek new membership through an open
Expression of Interest (EOI) process, with the proposed membership subsequently
presented to Council for endorsement.
Membership
of the previous iteration of the Committee was dissolved on 20 September 2024.
Since
dissolving the previous Committee, a review of the Charter has been undertaken.
A copy of the updated Charter is provided in Attachment 2.
Key
amendments to the updated Charter include:
· Renaming of the Committee to reflect its
purpose;
· Extending the term of the Committee from
two (2) years to four (4) years to better align with the term of Council;
· Extending the Charter review period from
two (2) years to four (4) years;
· Inclusion of responsibilities for Council
and Committee members;
· Redefine membership eligibility; and
· Refine the purpose, functions and scope of
the Committee.
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 March 2025, Council deferred
this Report to enable the inclusion of an updated Charter with track changes.
An updated Charter with track changes has now been included for consideration
in Attachment 3.
This
Report is presented for consideration with the additional information and seeks
Council endorsement of the updated Committee Charter, as well as approval to
seek membership applications through an open EOI process for the next two-year
term of the Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee.
That Council:
1. Receives and notes this Report.
2. Endorses the updated Charter (Attachment
2) of the Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee.
3. Endorses the commencement of an open
Expression of Interest process to seek membership applications for
the next term of the Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee.
4. Receives a further Report on
the outcomes of the Expression
of Interest process at a future Ordinary Meeting of
Council.
Background
The Liverpool Heritage Advisory
Committee (“Committee”) was established in 2005 as a community
Committee with the functions and purpose of guiding and advising Council on
matters relating to cultural heritage, inclusive of the operations and collections
of Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre (CPAC) and Liverpool Regional Museum.
The Committee provides Council
with an avenue to directly engage with the relevant sections of the community,
to ensure Councils processes and practices reflect the desires of the community
and the heritage outcomes expected.
Since 2017, various amendments
to the Charter have been made to diversify the membership of the Committee and
attract new members. This has resulted in a more diverse Committee which has
also included representatives from the First Nations community, which further
assists Council in ensuring the wider aspects of the LGA’s heritage are
both identified and protected.
The proposed new Charter
continues this process of review and evolution, further working towards a more
efficient and effective Committee which can better contribute to the
identification, management and promotion of the history and heritage of
Liverpool. The new Charter aims to also ensure that the purpose and actions of
the Committee are in keeping with its original intent and reflect what is
expected of Council.
Charter Amendments
The endorsed
Committee Charter requires Council to:
1. undertake a review of the current Charter every two
(2) years; and
2. dissolve and seek new membership through an open
Expression of Interest (EOI) process, with the proposed membership subsequently
presented to Council for endorsement.
In accordance with these
requirements, the existing Committee Charter was reviewed by Council staff
after dissolving the previous Committee.
A summary of the key proposed Charter amendments is provided in Table 1.
The proposed Charter amendments will improve the governance and operation of the
Committee, as well as ensuring future Committee members have clarity on what is
expected of them as Committee members.
To help inform potential
amendments to the current Charter, a benchmarking exercise was undertaken of
neighbouring Councils with similar Heritage Advisory Committees to ensure best
practice. A summary of the benchmarking exercise is provided in Attachment 4.
Committee Membership
As noted previously, with the
previous Committee membership dissolved, the Council is required to seek new membership applications through an open EOI process
for the next term of the Committee. Members of the previous Committee iteration
will be invited to re-submit applications for the new iteration of the
Committee.
Through the EOI process, the
Council is hoping to receive membership interest from a diverse range of
community representatives. The broader the membership, the greater the
opportunity for diverse opinions and new ideas which could benefit Council and
the conservation and management of heritage within the Liverpool LGA.
As noted in Table 1, it
is proposed to extend the Committee term from two (2) years to four (4) years
to ensure the Committee is fully operational for the full term of Council.
Should the proposed change be endorsed, once established the new Committee
would continue through until the next Local Government Election in 2028.
It should be noted that
Committee participation is voluntary in nature and as such, no renumeration is
provided for Committee member participation.
Table 1 – Summary of the key
proposed Charter amendments
|
#
|
Proposed Amendment
|
Reasoning
|
|
1
|
Committee Name
|
To better reflect the purpose and focus
of the Committee, it is proposed to rename the Committee as the
“Liverpool Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee”.
This new name better reflects the
Committee’s advisory role not just towards the built heritage of
Liverpool but also intangible heritage associated with the Liverpool Regional
Museum and CPAC.
|
|
2
|
Committee Term
|
To better align the Committee term with
the term of Council, it is proposed to extend the Committee term from two (2)
years to four (4) years. This would ensure the Committee is fully operational
for the full term of Council rather than the current practice of dissolving
the Committee after two years and having a period of no Committee –
generally 4-6 months – while the EOI process for new membership
proceeds.
Should the proposed change be endorsed,
once established the new Committee would continue through until the next
Local Government Election in 2028.
|
|
3
|
Charter
Review Period
|
In line with the proposed extension to
the Committee term, it is also proposed to extend the Charter review period
from two (2) years to four (4) years.
Should a change of legislation,
governance requirements, policy changes, etc. necessitate the need to bring
forward a review of the Charter in advance of the revised review period, then
this would occur as and when required.
|
|
4
|
Interpretation
|
The definitions within the Charter have
been updated to align with the standard industry definitions outlined in the
Burra Charter and other nationally endorsed guidelines and frameworks.
|
|
5
|
Purpose
|
The purpose of the Committee has been
refined to better align with Council’s needs and provide clear guidance
to the Committee as to matters for discussion during meetings.
|
|
6
|
Functions
|
The functions of the Committee have been
refined to better align with Council’s operational needs.
|
|
#
|
Proposed Amendment
|
Reasoning
|
|
7
|
Outcomes
|
This section has been renamed
“Objectives”, and the objectives have been refined to align with
the functions and purpose of the Committee and provide clear direction to the
members of the Committee.
|
|
8
|
Membership Structure
|
The structure of the membership has been
refined to remove any potential impediments for people joining or taking part
in the functions of the Committee.
|
|
9
|
Duties and Responsibilities
|
A new section has been added which
outlines the duties and responsibilities of the membership of the Committee
and that of the Committee Convenor and Secretariat. The intent is to provide
clear boundaries for functions within the Committee and improve the
operations of the Committee.
|
Next Steps
Should the proposed Charter be
endorsed by Council, an EOI would be undertaken to seek applications for new
Committee members.
Following completion of the EOI
process and review of applications, a further Report
on the outcomes of the EOI process will be tabled at a future Ordinary Meeting of Council for Council
consideration and endorsement.
It is anticipated
that the first meeting of the new Committee would be held in Q3 2025.
There
are no financial implications relating to this recommendation.
|
Economic
|
There are no economic and financial
considerations.
|
|
Environment
|
There are no environmental and
sustainability considerations.
|
Social
|
Preserve and maintain heritage, both landscape and cultural as urban
development takes place.
|
Civic
Leadership
|
Undertake communication practices with the community and stakeholders
across a range of media.
Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.
Facilitate the development of community leaders.
Encourage the community to engage in Council initiatives and actions.
|
|
Legislative
|
Council may do all such things as are
supplemental or incidental to, or consequential on, the exercise of its
functions (LGA, section 23). This includes establishing an advisory committee
to assist Council discharge its heritage-related functions.
Council is subject to guiding principles
when exercising its functions, as set out in section 8A of the LGA. The
proposal to establish the committee and call for expressions of interest in
membership of the committee is consistent with the principles.
|
|
Risk
|
The risk is deemed to be Low.
|
1. Attachment
1 - Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee Charter 2022
2. Attachment
2 - Draft Heritage Advisory Committee Charter 2025 (without track changes)
3. Attachment
3 - Draft Heritage Advisory Committee Charter 2025 (with track changes)
4. Attachment
4 - Benchmarking Summary of Other Councils' Heritage Advisory Committee
Charters
|
1
|
|
PLAN
02
|
Liverpool
Heritage Advisory Committee - Charter and Memberships
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Attachment
1 - Liverpool Heritage Advisory Committee Charter 2022
|
|
1
|
|
PLAN
02
|
Liverpool
Heritage Advisory Committee - Charter and Memberships
|
|
Attachment
2
|
Attachment
2 - Draft Heritage Advisory Committee Charter 2025 (without track changes)
|
|
1
|
|
PLAN
02
|
Liverpool
Heritage Advisory Committee - Charter and Memberships
|
|
Attachment
3
|
Attachment
3 - Draft Heritage Advisory Committee Charter 2025 (with track changes)
|
|
1
|
|
PLAN
02
|
Liverpool
Heritage Advisory Committee - Charter and Memberships
|
|
Attachment
4
|
Attachment
4 - Benchmarking Summary of Other Councils' Heritage Advisory Committee
Charters
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
Community & Lifestyle Report
|
COM 01
|
Liverpool Powerhouse Board Charter
|
|
Strategic
Objective
|
Healthy,
Inclusive, Engaging
Deliver
great and exciting events and programs for our people and visitors
|
|
File Ref
|
120184.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Clara
McGuirk - Manager Cultural Venues and Events
|
|
Approved
By
|
Tina Bono -
Director Community & Lifestyle
|
At
the 20 November 2024 Council meeting, Council endorsed a review and amendment
of the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Charter to ensure it remains fit for
purpose. This decision was made in response to proposals aimed at redefining
the Centre’s strategic direction to encompass a broader focus on the
creative industries.
Following
feedback from Council at the 26 March Council Meeting, the Liverpool Powerhouse
Board will be established as its own independent entity, with an Events
Advisory Committee Charter to be drafted and submitted to Council for review
for June Council meeting.
The revised Liverpool Powerhouse Board and
Charter aim to support Council’s strategic development of the venue by
providing stronger governance and a broader vision for its future. This
includes ensuring the Centre continues to grow as a hub of activity, with a
focus on the broader creative industries, while aligning with Liverpool’s
wider cultural and creative ambitions.
That Council:
1. Endorse the revised Liverpool Powerhouse
Board Charter; and
2. Council appoints two Councillors as representatives to the Liverpool
Powerhouse Board.
At
the 20 November 2024 Council meeting, Council endorsed a review and amendment
of the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board Charter to ensure it remains fit for
purpose. This decision was made in response to proposals aimed at redefining
the Centre’s strategic direction to encompass a broader focus on the
creative industries.
After
feedback from Council at the 26 March Council Meeting, the Liverpool Powerhouse
Board will be established as its own independent entity, with an Events
Advisory Committee Charter to be drafted and submitted to Council for review
for June Council meeting.
This
has now been redrafted and attached for Council’s review and endorsement.
The revised Liverpool Powerhouse Board and Charter aim
to support Council’s strategic development of the venue by providing
stronger governance and a broader vision for its future. This includes ensuring
the Centre continues to grow as a hub of activity, with a focus on the broader
creative industries, while aligning with Liverpool’s wider cultural and
creative ambitions.
The
Board Charter
The
Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board was originally established in 1996 to
support the Centre in delivering a wide range of cultural programs, spanning
multiple creative disciplines.
The
Charter set a framework to clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and
authorities of the Board, as well as the role of Council representatives in
shaping the Centre’s cultural direction. Through its exhibitions,
performances, and community development initiatives, the Board played a vital
role in the Centre's formative years.
However,
over time, the role of the Board has diminished, and despite efforts to
revitalise it through Expressions of Interest, there was insufficient response
from suitably qualified community representatives to advise on arts and
cultural programming.
Given the Powerhouse is undergoing a strategic
repositioning and refreshed public identity, the revival of the Board and its
Charter is timely and reflects a shift in focus toward enhancing its profile
within the broader creative industries. This board would help drive and support
key partnerships, current operations, audience expectations, and regional
cultural objectives.
The Board will support a cohesive and strategic
approach to positioning Liverpool Powerhouse, ensuring its activities,
partnerships, and public profile deliver clear and measurable outcomes for the
community, stakeholders, and the broader creative sector.
Through this process, Liverpool Powerhouse aims to
strengthen its connection to the wider cultural landscape while maintaining its
core commitment to accessible, high-quality arts and cultural programming that
reflects the interests of the local community.
At the 20 November 2024 Council meeting, Council
endorsed a review and amendment of the Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board
Charter to ensure it remains fit for purpose. This decision was made in
response to proposals aimed at redefining the Centre’s strategic
direction to encompass a broader focus on the creative industries.
Following
feedback from Council at the 26 March Council Meeting, the Liverpool Powerhouse
Board will be established as its own independent entity, with an Events
Advisory Committee Charter to be drafted and submitted to Council for review
for June Council meeting.
This
has now been redrafted and attached for Council’s review and endorsement.
The revised Liverpool Powerhouse Board and Charter aim
to support Council’s strategic development of the venue by providing
stronger governance and a broader vision for its future. This includes ensuring
the Centre continues to grow as a hub of activity, with a focus on the broader
creative industries, while aligning with Liverpool’s wider cultural and
creative ambitions.
The
Board Charter
The
Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre Board was originally established in 1996 to
support the Centre in delivering a wide range of cultural programs, spanning
multiple creative disciplines.
The
Charter set a framework to clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and
authorities of the Board, as well as the role of Council representatives in
shaping the Centre’s cultural direction. Through its exhibitions,
performances, and community development initiatives, the Board played a vital
role in the Centre's formative years.
However,
over time, the role of the Board has diminished, and despite efforts to
revitalise it through Expressions of Interest, there was insufficient response
from suitably qualified community representatives to advise on arts and
cultural programming.
Given the Powerhouse is undergoing a strategic
repositioning and refreshed public identity, the revival of the Board and its
Charter is timely and reflects a shift in focus toward enhancing its profile
within the broader creative industries. This board would help drive and support
key partnerships, current operations, audience expectations, and regional
cultural objectives.
The Board will support a cohesive and strategic
approach to positioning Liverpool Powerhouse, ensuring its activities,
partnerships, and public profile deliver clear and measurable outcomes for the
community, stakeholders, and the broader creative sector.
Through this process, Liverpool Powerhouse aims to
strengthen its connection to the wider cultural landscape while maintaining its
core commitment to accessible, high-quality arts and cultural programming that
reflects the interests of the local community.
Costs
associated with this recommendation have been included in Council’s
budget for the current year and long-term financial plan.
|
Economic
|
Facilitate the development of new tourism based on local attractions,
culture and creative industries.
|
|
Environment
|
There are no environmental and
sustainability considerations.
|
Social
|
Raise awareness in the community about the available services and
facilities.
Provide cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts.
Promote community harmony and address discrimination.
|
Civic Leadership
|
Foster neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.
|
|
Legislative
|
Local Government Act 1993 (LGA)
Council may do all such things as are
supplemental or incidental to, or consequential on, the exercise of its
functions (LGA, section 23). This includes establishing an advisory committee
to assist Council discharge its heritage-related functions.
Council may exercise its functions
through a committee (LGA, section 355) and may delegate its functions to a
committee for this purpose (LGA, section 377). In this case, however, the
committee is intended to be advisory and not have delegated functions.
Council is subject to guiding principles
when exercising its functions, as set out in section 8A of the LGA. The
proposal to establish the committee and call for expressions of interest in
membership of the committee is consistent with the principles.
|
|
Risk
|
The risk is deemed Low.
The risk is considered within
Council’s risk appetite.
|
1. Liverpool
Powerhouse Board and Charter
|
1
|
|
COM
01
|
Liverpool
Powerhouse Board Charter
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Liverpool
Powerhouse Board and Charter
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
CORP 01
|
Complaints and Compliments Management
Policy
|
|
Strategic
Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Demonstrate
a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive
governance framework
|
|
File Ref
|
086795.2025
|
|
Report By
|
David Day -
Head of Governance
|
|
Approved
By
|
Farooq
Portelli - Director Corporate Support
|
Council
at its meeting of the 20 November 2024 resolved to place the Draft Complaints and
Compliments Management Policy on public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days and
that a further report be presented if there were any representations received.
That Council:
1. Adopt the Draft
Complaints and Compliments Management Policy.
2. Authorise the CEO to make minor amendments
and updates to the Policy, including the preparation of any operational
procedures on the basis that they do not materially change the intention of the
Policy.
Council’s current Customer Service and Communication Policy was last adopted in May
2014. Following a review of the policy, it was proposed to replace the policy
with the following separate and distinct policies:
· Customer Experience Policy; and
· Complaints and Compliments Management
Policy.
This report deals with the Complaints and
Compliments Management Policy. A separate report on the same agenda addresses
the Customer Experience Policy.
The draft Complaints and Compliments
Management Policy updates Council’s approach to dealing with complaints
and compliments. It is based on the NSW Ombudsman guidelines for complaint
handling.
The policy:
a) sets clear expectations for how complaints
and compliments will be handled and requires that people are treated with
respect,
b) proposes the recording of compliments and
complaints in Council’s Customer Request Management System and /or
Electronic Document Management system (EDMS),
c) establishes a process for dealing with
complaints which reflects the NSW Ombudsman guidelines,
d) outlines a proportionate approach to
responding to complaints, whereby Council first endeavours to resolve matters
at the service delivery level and provides for appropriate internal escalation
if that does not work, initially to the relevant Director and then to the CEO,
e) provides guidance to all involved in the
process as to what is expected of them,
f) recognises that customers can sometimes be
unreasonable in their demands of Council and in their conduct with Council
staff and identifies options available to Council where customer conduct is
considered unreasonable, which includes restricting customer access and
services in the most extreme situations, and
g) calls for six-monthly reporting to
Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee.
The Draft Complaints and Compliments Management
Policy was placed on public exhibition from 1 December 2024 to 31 January 2025. The exhibition
period was extended to allow for Christmas.
Submissions:
Council received one (1) public
submission which suggested that the name of the policy be amended to the
“compliments and observations policy”. This was suggested to remove
negative connotations and that members of the community may wish to make an
observation rather than a complaint.
Council response:
Council has in place a
mechanism for members of the community to provide “observations”
through its overarching Draft Customer Experience Policy and Customer Request
Management System (CRMS). The purpose of the Draft Complaints and Compliments Management Policy is to
specifically respond to complaints and compliments. It may confuse people if
the policy did not refer to complaints and, accordingly, it is not recommended
that the title of the draft Policy is changed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There will be an annual staff cost of implementing the amended
policy and assessing and responding to complaints from the community. This cost
is expected to be met from Council’s budget for the current year and
long-term financial plan.
It is estimated that the governance staff time involved in stage 3
complaints and reporting will cost around $22,000 per annum. Better reporting
should assist with quantifying the staff costs of dealing with complaints.
|
Economic
|
There are no economic and financial considerations.
|
|
Environment
|
There are no environmental and sustainability
considerations.
|
Social
|
There are no social and cultural considerations.
|
Civic
Leadership
|
Provide information about Council’s services, roles and decision
making processes.
Deliver services that are customer focused.
Operate a well-developed governance system that
demonstrates accountability, transparency and ethical conduct.
|
|
Legislative
|
Local Government Act 1993
Section 23 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides
that Council may do all such things as are supplemental or incidental to, or
consequential on, the exercise of its functions. It is within this power for
Council to develop and implement a complaints and compliments management
policy.
|
|
Risk
|
The risk is deemed to be Low and having a
clear policy on Complaints and Compliments Management demonstrates that
Council has good governance policies in place.
|
1. Draft
Complaints and Compliments Management Policy
|
1
|
|
CORP
01
|
Complaints
and Compliments Management Policy
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Draft
Complaints and Compliments Management Policy
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
CORP 02
|
Investment Report March 2025
|
|
Strategic
Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Ensure
Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic
management of assets and resources
|
|
File Ref
|
116282.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Vishwa Nadan
- Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Approved
By
|
Farooq
Portelli - Director Corporate Support
|
This report presents Council’s
investment portfolio and its performance at 31 March 2025. Key highlights
include:
· Council held investments with a market
value of $390 million (see Attachment 1 for details).
· The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)’s
official cash rate remains at 4.10 per cent.
· The portfolio yield (for the year to March
2025) was 7 basis points above the benchmark (AusBond Bank Bill Index)
|
|
AusBond Bank Bill Index (ABBI)
|
|
Benchmark
|
4.45%
|
|
Portfolio yield
|
4.52%
|
|
Performance above benchmark
|
0.07%
|
· Council’s investment portfolio is
performing slightly better than ABBI benchmark. Council still has $19.35m in
low-yielding (returning less than 2%) investments and not maturing till
2026. These investments will continue to impact on Council’s
overall portfolio performance.
· Year-to-date, Council’s investment
income was $3.4 million higher than the original budget. This is due to a
combination of increase in market interest rates and unrealised gain in fair
value of Floating Rate Notes (FRNs).
· Year-to-date, Council’s investment in
mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) is valued at $358 thousand below face value.
Council’s investment advisor continues to review Council’s
investment in MBSs and recommends Council continue to hold its investments in
the Class A and Class C securities. There is significant uncertainty associated
with these investments, however presently Council’s 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 section 212 of the Local Government (General)
Regulation 2021.
· 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 19.65 per cent of its portfolio in ADIs
rated BBB and below.
· Reserve balances were as follows (see Attachment
2 for details):
|
|
Opening
balance
1 July 2024
|
Actual
Balances
31 Mar 2025
|
Projected
balances
to 30 June 2025
|
|
Externally
restricted
|
$353.2m
|
$379.9m
|
$339.3m
|
|
Internally
restricted
|
$6.9m
|
$9.9m
|
$39.4m
|
|
Unrestricted
(General)
|
-
|
-
|
$4.2m
|
|
Total
|
$360.1m
|
$389.8m
|
$382.9m
|
That the Council receives and notes this report.
Section 212 of the Local Government
(General) Regulation 2021 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 March 2025, Council held investments
with a market value of $390 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).
Council continues to closely monitor the
investments in its portfolio to ensure continued compliance and minimal
exposure to risk.
Council is committed to NSW TCorp’s balanced
investment framework and held 19.65 per cent of its portfolio in ADIs rated BBB
and below.
Mortgaged-backed securities
Council’s investment advisor
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, Council’s investment advisor 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 MBSs is
valued at $358 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
Compliance
with Investment policy – In summary
|
Legislative requirements
|
ü
|
Fully compliant, noting exception applicable to grandfathered
mortgaged-backed investments.
|
|
Portfolio credit rating limit
|
ü
|
Fully compliant
|
|
Institutional exposure limits
|
ü
|
Fully compliant
|
|
Overall portfolio credit limits
|
ü
|
Fully compliant
|
|
Term to maturity limits
|
ü
|
Fully compliant
|
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.
Council’s investment portfolio is
performing slightly better than ABBI benchmark. Council still has $19.35m in
low-yielding (returning less than 2%) investments and not maturing till
2026. These investments will continue to impact on Council’s
overall portfolio performance.
The portfolio yield for the year to March 2025 was above the ABBI index by 7 basis points (portfolio
yield: 4.52%; ABBI: 4.45%).
Comparative yields for the previous months
are charted below:
Performance of portfolio returns against
budget
Year-to-date, Council’s
investment income was $3.42m 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
|
$10.70m
|
$12.84m
|
$2.14m
|
|
Fair value market movement
|
$0.00m
|
$1.28m
|
$1.28m
|
|
Total
|
$10.70m
|
$14.12m
|
$3.42m
|
Economic outlook – Reserve Bank of
Australia
The Reserve Bank of Australia kept the official cash rate at 4.10
per cent in its meeting on 1 April 2025.
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, section 212 of the Local Government (General)
Regulation 2021 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.
|
Economic
|
Council’s investment income was
$3.42 million higher than the original budget at 31 March 2025.
|
|
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
|
Local Government Act 1993, section 625
Local Government (General) Regulation
2021, section 212
Council is empowered by section 625 of
the Local Government Act 1993 to invest money that is not, for the time
being, required by Council for any other purpose. Council may invest money in
a form of investment notified by order of the Minister.
The Minister has published the Local
Government Act 1993 – Investment Order which specifies the forms of
investment that a council may make. It makes clear that Council must have an
investment policy and invest in accordance with that policy. Council is
required to invest prudently and must consider:
· the risk of capital or income loss or depreciation,
· the likely income return and the timing
of income return,
· the length of the term of the proposed
investment,
· the liquidity and marketability of the
proposed investment,
· the likelihood of inflation affecting the
value of the proposed investment, and
· the costs of making the proposed
investment.
The responsible accounting officer must
provide Council with a written report setting out details of money invested
at its ordinary meetings (but only at one meeting in a month): section 212 of
the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021. The report must include a certificate as to whether
the investment has been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and
Council’s investment policies.
|
|
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.
|
1. Investment
Portfolio - March 2025
2. Schedule
of Reserves - March 2025
|
1
|
|
CORP
02
|
Investment
Report March 2025
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Investment
Portfolio - March 2025
|
|
1
|
|
CORP
02
|
Investment
Report March 2025
|
|
Attachment
2
|
Schedule
of Reserves - March 2025
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
Customer Experience & Business Performance Report
|
CEBP 01
|
Customer Experience Policy
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Place
customer satisfaction, innovation and best practice at the centre of all operations
|
|
File Ref
|
090979.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Anna Rizos - Manager
Customer Experience
|
|
Approved By
|
Michelle Mcilvenny -
Director Customer & Business Performance
|
Council at its meeting of the 20
November 2024 resolved to place the Draft Customer
Experience Policy on public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days
and that a further report be presented if there were any representations
received.
That Council:
1. Revoke
the Customer Service and Communications Policy (Attachment 2);
2. Adopt
the Customer Experience Policy; and
3. Authorise
the CEO to make minor amendments and updates to the Policy, including the preparation
of any operational procedures on the basis that they do not materially change
the intention of the Policy.
Council’s
Customer Service and Communication Policy
was last adopted in May 2014. Following a review of the policy, it has been
replaced with the following separate and distinct policies:
· Customer
Experience Policy; and
· Complaints
and Compliments Management Policy.
This report
deals with the revision of the Customer Experience Policy. A separate report on
the same agenda addresses the Complaints and Compliments Policy.
This Policy:
a) Set’s a clear commitment
to Council’s customers with seamless quality experiences by understanding
and prioritising the needs of the customer, while engaging meaningfully and
delivering service, operational and planning excellence
b) Applies to Councillors, Council
staff and persons carrying out work on behalf of Council
c) Is based on
Council’s Customer Experience Framework.
The Draft Customer Experience was placed on public exhibition from 1 December 2024 to the 31 January 2025
(extended period due to Christmas). The document was available online at
Council’s website and feedback was encouraged via Council’s social
media platforms.
Submissions:
The Council received nil public submissions.
A tracked
changes version of the Policy can be found in Attachment 1. The only feedback
and resulting changes to the Policy have come from internal submissions.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
|
Economic
|
There are no economic and financial considerations.
|
|
Environment
|
There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
|
Social
|
There are no social and cultural considerations.
|
Civic Leadership
|
Provide
information about Council’s services, roles and decision making
processes.
Deliver
services that are customer focused.
Operate
a well-developed governance system that demonstrates accountability,
transparency and ethical conduct.
|
|
Legislative
|
There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
|
|
Risk
|
The risk is deemed to be low. A current policy
will highlight Council’s commitment to placing the customer at the
centre of what we do setting a commitment to Councils customer
|
1. Customer
Experience Policy with track changes
|
1
|
|
CEBP
01
|
Customer
Experience Policy
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Customer
Experience Policy with track changes
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
CFD 01
|
Tourism and CBD Committee Charter
Review
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Evolving,
Prosperous, Innovative
Maintain
strong relationships with agencies, stakeholders and businesses to achieve
beneficial outcomes for the city
|
|
File Ref
|
110947.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Susana Freitas -
Coordinator Innovation, Grants and Partnerships
|
|
Approved By
|
Shayne Mallard -
Director City Futures
|
The Tourism and CBD Committee is an
advisory body to Council and provides recommendations on enhancing Liverpool’s
visitor economy and activating the city centre.
At the March 2025 Tourism and CBD
Committee Meeting, the committee reviewed and discussed potential changes to
its Charter, with no changes proposed to its delegation.
Key updates include:
· Functions:
Enhancing the night-time economy and providing industry updates to Council from
community representatives
· Membership:
A reduction in community representatives from 20 to 10, with an increased
quorum of half plus one (increasing from 4 to 8 members)
· Meeting
Schedule: A shift to quarterly meetings (February, May, August, November)
with additional meetings as required by the Mayor and Council
That Council endorses the update Tourism and CBD Committee
Charter
The Tourism
and CBD Committee is an advisory committee of Council. The committee was
established to provide relevant advice and recommendations to Council relating
to:
A) The development of the visitor economy
in the Liverpool LGA, through opportunities including recreation, tourism,
activation 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.
At the March
2025 Tourism and CBD Committee meeting, the committee was consulted on the
relevance of the current Charter and any potential changes to the charter. The
marked-up Charter was circulated to all committee members for feedback and
proposed amendments. There are no changes to the delegation of the committee.
Functions:
Changes to the function of the Committee include:
- Amendment to the
functions to advise on the economic activities and activations occurring in the
Liverpool CBD and LGA
- Create, seek and
lobby for opportunities to enhance the nighttime economy
- Committee
members to provide industry updates to Council
Membership:
Changes to the membership guidelines of the Committee include:
- A reduction from 20
community representatives to 10 community representatives to better reflective
of key stakeholder engagement
- Quorum
to be half the committee members, including Councillors, plus one (increase
from 4 to 8 attendees)
Timetable
for meetings:
The Committee
members discussed the frequency of Committee meetings, the commitment required
from each member to attend on a bi-monthly basis and the challenges for new
updates from Council at each meeting, especially around holiday periods
(December-January).
The amended
timetable includes quarterly meetings in February, May, August and November and
as determined by the Mayor and Council.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
|
Economic
|
Further
develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment
opportunities.
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
|
Raise
awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Provide
cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts.
|
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.
|
|
Legislative
|
There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
|
|
Risk
|
There is no risk associated with this report.
|
1. Tourism
and CBD Committee Charter - March 2025 review
|
1
|
|
CFD
01
|
Tourism
and CBD Committee Charter Review
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Tourism
and CBD Committee Charter - March 2025 review
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
OPER 01
|
Review of Street Sweeping Program
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver a
beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
|
|
File Ref
|
123669.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Justin Hudson - Acting
Manager Waste Services
|
|
Approved By
|
Peter Scicluna - Acting
Director Operations
|
Liverpool City Council is
committed to maintaining clean and safe public spaces through its Street
Sweeper Program. As Liverpool undergoes significant urban growth, the demand
for street sweeping services has increased. This report provides a
comprehensive analysis of the current street sweeping program, identifies
operational gaps, and presents a Five-Year Resourcing Plan to ensure efficient
and sustainable service delivery.
· The current fleet of three (3) street sweepers
operates on a 16-week rotation, which is insufficient to maintain the required
standard of cleanliness across the LGA.
· Team shortages and the existing shift structure limit
the full utilisation of the fleet, leading to extended turnaround times
and inconsistent service delivery.
· Increasing urban development and population growth
have resulted in higher service demands, exceeding the operational capacity of
the current resources.
· Equipment downtime and maintenance issues further impact service efficiency, with the fleet
experiencing an average of 25% downtime due to repairs and servicing.
· Fleet Capacity and Utilisation: The current fleet is insufficient to meet the
growing service demand, and extended turnaround times negatively impact
cleanliness.
· Staffing and Workforce Gaps: The existing workforce is inadequate to cover all
necessary shifts, leading to inefficient fleet usage.
· Service Frequency and Coverage: The 16-week service frequency is significantly
longer than comparable councils, reducing community satisfaction.
· Maintenance and Downtime: High dependency on a small fleet increases wear and
tear, causing unplanned service disruptions.
· Budget Constraints: Limited funding restricts fleet expansion, workforce growth, and
technological improvements.
That Council:
1. Adopt new Street Sweeping
Standards
· Implement
a 6 to 8-week sweeping frequency for residential streets, aligning with
industry best practices. Further details for this implementation timeline are
provided within the body of this report.
· Maintain
high frequency sweeping for CBD, commercial precincts, and school zones to
ensure consistent cleanliness.
· Establish
further Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to track service efficiency and
performance.
2. Improve
Utilisation of Existing Fleet
· Introduce
two additional shifts to enable full utilisation of the current three sweepers.
· Recruit
two additional operators to support the increased workload and ensure seamless
service delivery.
· Improve
workforce management and training programs to enhance operational efficiency.
3. Investigate the viability to
establish a Tipping Ramp at the Western Depot
· Providing
tipping ramps to facilitate efficient disposal of collected debris.
· Providing
hook lift bins at the Western Depot for sweepers to tip directly into,
streamlining the disposal process.
· Regular
emptying and maintenance of hook lift bins to ensure uninterrupted service and
prevent overflow or operational delays.
4. Implement
Fleet Replacement and Expansion
· Implement
a fleet replacement schedule to replace the existing three sweepers at the end
of their 5 to 7-year lifespan.
· Procure
two additional sweepers over the next five years to support increased service
demands and meet the new sweeping frequency standards.
5. Endorse Financial and Budgetary
Considerations
· Explore
grant opportunities and intergovernmental funding for infrastructure and
environmental initiatives.
· Implement
cost-saving measures through route optimisation, preventative maintenance, and
sustainable fleet management.
6. Consider Technological and
Operational Improvements
· Invest
in GPS planning systems to optimise route planning and fleet efficiency.
· Evaluate
the feasibility of electric or hybrid street sweepers to reduce environmental
impact and operational costs.
7. Consider Workforce Development
and Training
· Enhance
training programs for operators to ensure safety, efficiency, and compliance
with operational standards.
· Implement
cross-training initiatives to build workforce flexibility and resilience.
· Develop
a succession plan to address team turnover and maintain continuity in service
delivery.
8. Consider
Community Engagement and Performance Monitoring
· Improve
community awareness of street sweeping schedules and allow residents to request
sweeping services in high-demand areas.
· Conduct
annual satisfaction surveys to gather feedback and assess public perception of
service quality.
· Establish
a performance benchmarking framework to ensure continuous improvement and
alignment with industry best practices.
Liverpool City Council plays a vital role in
maintaining clean and safe public spaces for the community. A critical
component of this responsibility is the efficient operation of its Street
Sweeper Program. This program ensures that roads and public spaces remain clean
and safe, contributing to environmental sustainability, public health, and
overall urban liveability.
Over the past decade, Liverpool has experienced
significant population growth and urban development, resulting in increased
demand for street sweeping services. However, the current resources, including
three street sweepers and a team of five, are insufficient to keep up with the
growing workload. This has led to delays in service delivery, with the
turnaround time for some programs extending from 10 weeks to 16 weeks.
The current assets and staffing levels are under
strain due to the growing workload, leading to increased turnaround times and
challenges in maintaining service quality.
Recognising these challenges, Liverpool City Council
has identified the need for a comprehensive analysis of its street sweeping
operations. This report aims to address key operational gaps, assess financial
sustainability, and develop a robust five-year resourcing plan to ensure the
program can meet current and future demands.
At the Council meeting on 10 December 2024, Liverpool
City Council resolved to endorse a strategic approach to enhance its street
sweeper operations. The resolution directed the team to undertake the
following:
· Conduct a gap analysis to identify operational
shortcomings and areas for improvement.
· Perform a financial assessment to evaluate current and
projected costs associated with street sweeping services.
· Develop a five-year plan to resource street sweeper
operations and other frontline maintenance services effectively.
· Assess whether the existing street sweeping machines
are being utilised to their full capacity.
· Determine how many staff are trained to operate the
equipment and identify training gaps.
This report responds directly to the Council’s
resolution and aims to provide actionable recommendations to optimise street
sweeping operations, improve efficiency, and align resources with the growing
needs of the Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA).
Liverpool City Council's local government area (LGA)
is situated 27 kilometres southwest of Sydney's Central Business District,
encompassing an area of 305.5 square kilometres. According to the 2021 Census,
the population of Liverpool LGA was 233,446 residents.
Forecasts indicate that this number is expected to
rise to approximately 352,811 by 2046.
In 2021, there were 77,898 dwellings within the LGA,
with separate houses comprising 70.4% (54,822 dwellings), medium-density
dwellings accounting for 14.0% (10,874 dwellings), and high-density dwellings
making up 15.2% (11,835 dwellings).
This distribution reflects a lower proportion of
medium and high-density housing compared to Greater Sydney, where such
dwellings constitute 46% of the housing stock.
The anticipated population growth and urban
development, as outlined in the Greater Sydney Commission's plan for a
"Metropolis of Three Cities," suggests a significant increase in
medium and high-density multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) within Liverpool LGA.
According to the Office of Local Government NSW
Report, in 2021-2022, Liverpool City Council had a total of 906.8 kilometres of
road. This total comprises 635.2 kilometres of urban sealed roads, 196.4
kilometres of rural sealed roads, and 7.4 kilometres of unsealed roads.
Liverpool City Council’s Street Sweeper Program
currently operates with the following assets and resources:
· Street Sweepers: The fleet comprises three (3) street sweepers. These machines are
essential for maintaining cleanliness across the Liverpool LGA and are
scheduled for use in various programs.
· Street Sweeper Operators: The program is supported by a team of five (5)
operators who work across multiple shifts:
o Morning Shifts: Two (2) operators work from Monday to Thursday.
o Afternoon Shifts: Two (2) operators work from Monday to Thursday.
o Weekend Shift: One (1) operator covers Friday to Monday.
This structure is adopted to maximise continuous
street sweeping coverage throughout the week, with shifts tailored to meet
demand across high-traffic and residential areas.
|
Street Sweeper
|
Age of Street Sweeper
|
Approximate Cost (Inc GST)
|
|
Plant 851
|
June 2021 (3.5 years old)
|
$345,809.00
|
|
Plant 848
|
December 2021 (3 years old)
|
$345,642.15
|
|
Plant 858
|
December 2022 (2 years old)
|
$344,809.00
|
All three Plants are Isuzu FSR140 truck with Schwarze
GS6 Sweeper attachment. The Schwarze GS6 Sweeper is powered by a John Deere
motor.
The Schwarze GS6 Tempest is a heavy-duty, chassis
mounted, regenerative air street sweeper with a 6.0 m3 hopper.
The Liverpool City Council Street Sweeper Program is
structured to operate efficiently over a four-day cycle using the available
fleet and team resources. The current operations are as follows:
· Plant 851:
o Operates two shifts per day, covering both AM and PM
shifts.
o Active from Monday to Thursday.
· Plant 848:
o Operates two shifts per day, covering both AM and PM
shifts.
o Active from Tuesday to Friday.
· Plant 858:
o Operates one shift per day.
o Active from Friday to Monday.
This operational schedule ensures that street sweeping
services are conducted throughout the week, prioritising high-traffic areas and
maintaining service across all designated zones. Each plant is strategically
deployed to maximise coverage and minimise service gaps. Despite these efforts,
the growing demand and current resource limitations result in extended
turnaround times, highlighting the need for additional resources and improved
operational efficiency.
The
operations of all three Street Sweepers are shown in the table below.
|
|
|
Mon
|
Tue
|
Wed
|
Thu
|
Fri
|
Sat
|
Sun
|
|
Plant 851
|
AM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant 848
|
AM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant 858
|
AM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council
currently has 5 team members dedicated to the Street Sweeper Program, operating
3 Street Sweepers. All 5 team members are on a 4 days per week work pattern.
|
|
|
Mon
|
Tue
|
Wed
|
Thu
|
Fri
|
Sat
|
Sun
|
|
Operator 1
|
AM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 2
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 3
|
AM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 4
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 5
|
AM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liverpool City Council’s Street Sweeper Program
employs a total of five (5) operators who work across a structured shift
schedule to ensure service coverage throughout the week. The remuneration
structure for these staff members is outlined below:
· Standard Shifts (Monday to Thursday, Tuesday to
Friday): Four (4) operators are
employed on a standard 4-day week schedule. Each operator earns an annual base
salary of $77,546.
· Weekend Shift (Friday to Monday): One (1) operator is employed on the weekend shift.
This operator also earns a base salary of $77,546 annually, with an additional
loading of 50% for Saturday shifts and 100% for Sunday shifts.
The following table provides
a detailed breakdown of the rostered shifts and remuneration for each team
member:
|
Staff
|
Rostered Shift
|
Remuneration
|
|
|
|
Wages
|
Superannuation
|
Total
|
|
Operator 1
|
Monday to Thursday (AM)
|
$77,546
|
$8,917.79
|
$86,464
|
|
Operator 2
|
Monday to Thursday (PM)
|
$77,546
|
$8,917.79
|
$86,464
|
|
Operator 3
|
Tuesday to Friday (AM)
|
$77,546
|
$8,917.79
|
$86,464
|
|
Operator 4
|
Tuesday to Friday (PM)
|
$77,546
|
$8,917.79
|
$86,464
|
|
Operator 5
|
Friday to Monday
|
$105,250.75
|
$12,103.84
|
$117,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
$463,210
|
Weekend Shift Remuneration
Breakdown
· Saturday Loading (50%): Applied to the base daily rate
for work performed on Saturdays.
· Sunday Loading (100%): Applied to the base daily rate
for work performed on Sundays.
Council maintains training for the workforce to ensure
there are sufficient back-up operators for the street sweeper. However, these operators
have regular responsibilities in their own positions.
Liverpool City Council ensures that street sweeper
operators are adequately trained to perform their duties safely and
efficiently:
Training Programs:
· Operators receive both in-house and external training,
with Schwarze providing specialised training for street sweeper operation.
· To date, 15 staff members have completed Schwarze
training. Each training session lasts 4 hours per participant, with a cost of
approximately $800 per session during which 3 operators are trained.
· Operators
are required to hold a truck licence to operate the Council’s fleet of
three street sweepers. The minimum requirement is a Medium Rigid (MR) licence;
however, staff are encouraged to hold a Heavy Rigid (HR) licence to enhance
versatility and operational capacity.
Team Turnover and Retention
The
Council has experienced low team member turnover in its Street Sweeper Program
over the past five years:
· Retention:
o One operator retired, and one operator left during
this period, indicating stable workforce retention.
· Challenges in Recruitment:
o Recruiting for street sweeper operator positions is
challenging due to the specialised nature of the role. Candidates must possess:
§ Experience in operating heavy vehicles.
§ A comprehensive understanding of safety requirements.
§ Familiarity with local roads and areas, which is addressed through
in-house training.
· Safety Training:
o Operators receive training on workplace safety
standards and operational procedures to ensure compliance with regulations and
minimise risks.
· Local Area Knowledge:
o Council provides training on the specific routes and
zones within the Liverpool LGA, equipping operators with the local knowledge
required for efficient service delivery.
Based on the information available, the table below
shows the downtime of each of the Street Sweepers over the 6 months. These
downtimes have been due to maintenance (scheduled and unscheduled) and staff
being on leave.
|
Street Sweeper
|
Days out of Service
|
Percent Downtime
|
|
Plant 851
|
63 days
|
31.5%
|
|
Plant 848
|
57 days
|
28.5%
|
|
Plant 858
|
31 days
|
15.5%
|
|
Average
|
50.33 days
|
25.17%
|
There are 251 working days in a year with 4-day work
week, there are approximately 200 working days that are utilised by the
workforce. Therefore, on average each Street Sweeper is out for approximately
50 days or 25% of the time.
The
fleet of Street Sweepers is serviced once every 6 months as shown in the table
below.
|
Plant
|
Street Sweeper Description
|
Cost
|
|
XO94DA
|
ISUZU FSR140 - SCHWARZE
GS6 40000KM/24MONTH
|
$1,560.50
|
|
XN17ZC
|
ISUZU FSR140 - SCHWARZE
GS6 10000KM/6MONTH
|
$1,014.39
|
|
XO67NY
|
ISUZU FSR140 - SCHWARZE
GS6 20000KM/12MONTH
|
$1,502.29
|
|
|
Average Cost of
Servicing per Sweeper
|
$1,359.08
|
Fuel Cost
|
Plant
|
Street Sweeper Fuel Usage
|
Cost
|
|
Plant 851
|
1 January 2024 to 31
December 2024
|
$11,476.77
|
|
Plant 848
|
1 January 2024 to 31
December 2024
|
$13,663.21
|
|
Plant 858
|
1 January 2024 to 31
December 2024
|
$24,193.01
|
|
|
Average Annual Cost
of Fuel per Sweeper
|
$16,444.33
|
Current Annual Operational Cost
Based
on the information gathered, the annual cost of operation of each Street
Sweeper are as follows:
|
Plant
|
Fuel Cost
|
Labour
|
Servicing
|
Brush
|
|
Plant 851 (Fri - Mon)
1 Shift per day
|
$11,477
|
$117,355
|
$2,500
|
$4,500
|
|
Plant 848 (Mon – Thu)
2 Shifts per day
|
$13,663
|
$172,928
|
$2,500
|
$4,500
|
|
Plant 858 (Tue – Fri)
2 Shifts per day
|
$24,193
|
$172,928
|
$2,500
|
$4,500
|
|
|
$49,333
|
$463,211
|
$7,500
|
$13,500
|
The
total current operational cost with three Street Sweepers on the current roster
is $533,544.00.
A thorough review of Liverpool City Council’s
Street Sweeper Program operations has revealed several critical gaps that
hinder the program’s ability to meet current and future service demands
effectively. These gaps are outlined below:
· The current fleet of three (3) street sweepers is
insufficient to handle the increasing workload driven by Liverpool’s
population growth and urban development. As new residential and commercial
areas emerge, the demand for street sweeping services has increased
significantly.
· Comparisons with other similar councils indicate that
Liverpool City Council operates with fewer street sweepers relative to its
geographic size and population density.
· Currently, some residential areas experience a
turnaround of up to 16 weeks between street sweeps, making it difficult to
maintain a consistent level of cleanliness across the LGA.
· This delay in sweeping frequency contributes to
increased litter accumulation, leading to higher levels of debris, pollutants,
and community dissatisfaction.
· Many comparable councils operate on more frequent
sweeping cycles, ensuring that high-traffic and residential areas remain
well-maintained.
· Existing machines are operating near or at full
capacity, leaving little room to accommodate unplanned maintenance or
breakdowns without further disrupting the sweeping schedule.
· A lack of spare equipment means that any downtime due
to repairs results in significant service interruptions, exacerbating the
existing backlog of street sweeping.
· Preventative maintenance scheduling could be improved
to reduce the likelihood of unexpected failures and extend the lifespan of the
current fleet.
· The current team of five (5) operators is not
sufficient to meet the increasing operational requirements, particularly during
peak demand periods and when covering staff absences due to sick leave or
annual leave.
· A workforce of this size does not provide the
flexibility needed to manage unexpected absences without disrupting scheduled
operations.
· Comparable councils with larger LGAs or similar
populations often employ a higher number of street sweeper operators to ensure
adequate coverage.
· The weekend shift is currently managed by a single
operator, extending from Friday to Monday, leading to a bottleneck in service
delivery.
· If the weekend operator is unavailable, sweeping
services may be delayed, impacting on the cleanliness of key areas requiring
regular maintenance.
· A reliance on one individual for weekend operations
introduces operational risks and limits the ability to scale up services in
response to increased demand.
· There is currently minimal cross-training among
operators, reducing the ability to rotate teams efficiently or redeploy
operators when necessary.
· A lack of workforce redundancy means that if an operator is unavailable,
there are no backup personnel trained to take over, leading to potential gaps
in service delivery.
· Investing in cross-training programs and
multi-skilling employees would improve resilience and allow for better
workforce adaptability.
· The role of a street sweeper operator is highly
specialised, requiring experience in operating heavy vehicles, adherence to
safety protocols, and knowledge of the local road network.
· The requirement for a Medium Rigid (MR) or Heavy Rigid
(HR) truck licence further narrows the pool of potential recruits, making it
difficult to fill vacant positions quickly.
· Attracting new candidates requires targeted
recruitment efforts, such as collaborating with training institutions or
offering incentives for employees to upskill and qualify for the role.
· Delays in service turnaround times result in inconsistent cleanliness,
particularly in lower-priority areas where sweeping occurs less frequently.
· Some residential areas experience extended waiting periods between
sweeps, leading to the accumulation of debris, dust, and organic waste.
· Compared to similar councils, Liverpool’s sweeping schedule lags
behind in meeting public cleanliness expectations.
· Major roads, commercial zones, and high-visibility locations are
prioritised, often at the expense of residential streets and lower-density
areas.
· While this prioritisation helps maintain city aesthetics and business
districts, it can lead to dissatisfaction among residents who feel neglected.
· Other councils have adopted balanced approaches that allocate sweeping
schedules more equitably across all areas.
· Liverpool’s ongoing residential and commercial expansion has not
been matched with a corresponding increase in street sweeping resources.
· New estates and developing precincts introduce additional road networks,
increasing the demand for sweeping services without an expansion in operational
capacity.
· Failure to align service growth with urban expansion risks increased
public complaints and service inefficiencies.
· Increased reliance on a small fleet intensifies wear and tear, leading to
higher maintenance needs and potential downtime.
· The heavy workload on three (3) street sweepers accelerates mechanical
degradation, increasing the risk of unexpected failures.
· Preventative maintenance is necessary but is often delayed due to
continuous operational demands, exacerbating equipment failures.
· A lack of spare equipment means any machine undergoing maintenance
directly impacts service delivery.
· When a sweeper is out of operation, there is no backup unit, causing
further delays and negatively affecting the cleanliness of high-priority areas.
· The absence of alternative units limits the ability to meet service
commitments, leading to longer turnaround times between sweeps.
· Currently, there is limited use of performance metrics
or tracking tools to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of street sweeping
operations.
· Without detailed data analysis, it is difficult to
determine if existing routes, schedules, and operational practices are
optimised for maximum efficiency.
· The absence of a structured data collection system
makes it challenging to benchmark Liverpool City Council’s performance
against similar councils.
1. Inconsistent Reporting and Community
Feedback Mechanisms
· The absence of a systematic reporting framework means
that service effectiveness is not regularly reviewed or adjusted based on
data-driven insights.
· Community feedback mechanisms, while available, are
not fully integrated with operational reviews, limiting the ability to adjust
services based on resident concerns.
· A more structured feedback and performance review
system would allow Liverpool City Council to proactively address issues and
enhance service satisfaction.
2. Potential Solutions and Recommendations
· Continue the GPS-based fleet tracking system to monitor real-time
operations and improve route efficiency.
· Develop a digital performance dashboard to assess sweeping coverage,
machine utilisation, and service gaps.
· Introduce key performance indicators (KPIs) such as response time, route
efficiency, and machine downtime to measure operational success.
· Establish a structured reporting framework to track community feedback,
identify trends, and adjust services accordingly.
· Current budget allocations are not sufficient to support the expansion of
the street sweeper fleet or the hiring of additional operators.
· As Liverpool continues to grow, demand for street sweeping services is
increasing, yet financial resources are not scaled accordingly.
· Without additional funding, operational inefficiencies will persist,
leading to continued long turnaround times for residential street sweeping.
· Financial pressures may hinder the timely replacement or upgrading of aging
street sweeping equipment.
· Older sweepers require more frequent repairs and maintenance, increasing
downtime and reducing operational efficiency.
· Some comparable councils have dedicated capital investment plans to
ensure regular equipment renewal, which Liverpool City Council could adopt.
Benchmarking Liverpool City Council’s Street
Sweeping Program against the standards and practices of other councils reveals
key insights and opportunities for improvement. This analysis compares
operational frequencies, resources, and service priorities with comparable
local government areas.
Liverpool City Council:
The current service turnaround time for residential
street sweeping is 16 weeks. High-traffic areas such as the CBD and major
thoroughfares are prioritised with daily sweeping, but residential zones are
significantly less frequent.
Other Councils:
· Northern Beaches Council (NSW): Sweeps residential streets every 10 weeks.
· Burwood Council (NSW): Sweeps residential streets at least every 3 weeks.
· Inner West Council (NSW): Sweeps residential streets approximately every 8
weeks.
· City of Stonnington (VIC): Residential streets are swept between weekly and
every 8 weeks depending on the area.
· City of Burnside (SA): Sweeps residential streets every 5 to 6 weeks.
· City of Melville (WA): Operates on an 8-week cycle for residential streets.
This comparison highlights that Liverpool City
Council’s current frequency for residential street sweeping is
significantly longer than the average of 6 to 10 weeks observed across other
councils. This extended turnaround time may contribute to reduced community
satisfaction and inconsistent cleanliness in residential areas.
Liverpool City Council:
Operates a fleet of three (3) street sweepers covering a large and rapidly
growing LGA. The heavy reliance on a small fleet increases the risk of service
delays due to breakdowns or maintenance.
Comparable Councils:
· Utilises a larger fleet and implements an 8-week cycle
to maintain consistency.
· Operates with a similarly sized fleet but achieves an
8-week residential sweeping frequency by optimising schedules and deploying
additional resources during peak times.
Liverpool’s
fleet size is insufficient to achieve competitive service frequencies and
maintain consistent operations during periods of high demand or equipment
downtime.
Liverpool City Council: Employs five (5) street sweeper operators working
across multiple shifts, with gaps in weekend and emergency coverage.
Other Councils:
· Implements structured scheduling and utilises seasonal
staff to manage increased demand during leaf-fall periods.
· Integrates additional shifts during high-demand
seasons to maintain service levels.
This comparison suggests that Liverpool City Council
would benefit from expanding its workforce and improving shift flexibility to
enhance service consistency and responsiveness.
With
its current fleet of street sweepers and operations, the default standard is
sweeping of each street once every 16 weeks.
To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
Liverpool City Council’s Street Sweeper Program, it is essential to adopt
a formalised street sweeping standard aligned with best practices observed in
comparable councils. The current sweeping frequency of approximately 16 weeks
is insufficient to maintain a high standard of cleanliness, particularly given
the growth in population and urban development. A structured standard with
defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will ensure consistency, accountability,
and improved service delivery.
Based on benchmarking against other councils,
Liverpool City Council will adopt the following street sweeping frequencies:
|
Area Type
|
Sweeping Frequency
|
|
CBD / High Traffic Areas
|
Daily sweeping
|
|
Commercial Areas
|
Weekly sweeping
|
|
Residential Areas
|
Every 6-8 weeks
|
|
Industrial Areas
|
Every 4 weeks
|
|
Parks & Public Spaces
|
Monthly sweeping
|
|
Shopping Precincts
|
Weekly sweeping
|
|
School Zones
|
Every 2 weeks (term time)
|
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
To monitor the effectiveness of the Street Sweeping Program,
the following KPIs will be established:
1. Sweeping Frequency Compliance
· Ensure
that 90% of scheduled street sweeping services are completed on time within the
established frequency.
2. Response Time for Urgent Sweeping
Requests
· Address
urgent street sweeping requests (e.g., spills, storm debris) within 24-48 hours
of notification. This ignores severe weather events.
3. Community Satisfaction Rate
· Achieve
a 75% or higher satisfaction rating in annual community surveys regarding
street cleanliness.
4. Fleet Utilisation Efficiency
· Maintain
at least 85% operational uptime for street sweeping equipment to ensure minimal
downtime.
5. Waste Collection Metrics
· Measure
and report on the tonnage of debris collected per month, with targeted
reductions in litter levels over time.
6. Environmental Impact Reduction
· Track
and report on fuel usage per kilometre swept and explore sustainable
alternatives such as electric or hybrid sweepers.
Additional standards will be
phased in over 12-18 months, with an initial review at the 6-month
mark to assess implementation progress. This review will involve:
· Analysing
compliance rates with the new sweeping schedule.
· Evaluating
feedback from the community and operational teams.
· Identifying
any logistical or budgetary constraints that may require adjustments.
Quarterly performance
reports will be prepared to track
progress against KPIs and identify areas for improvement. These reports will
include:
· A
breakdown of completed vs. scheduled sweeps.
· Performance
data on response times for urgent requests.
· Operational
efficiency statistics, including fleet uptime and cost per kilometre swept.
· Community
feedback trends and satisfaction levels.
Annual reviews will ensure the standards remain aligned with
community needs, technological advancements, and budget considerations. The
annual review process will involve:
· Benchmarking
against other councils to assess best practices and opportunities for
improvement.
· Reviewing
equipment and fleet performance to determine if additional investments or
replacements are required.
· Analysing
environmental impacts and considering sustainability initiatives, such as
electric sweepers or alternative fuel sources.
· Adjusting
sweeping schedules based on evolving urban development and traffic patterns.
Stakeholder Engagement to get regular feedback for improvement of the
services:
· Regular
meetings with operational staff to review challenges and refine processes.
· Engagement
with the community through surveys and public consultations to gauge
satisfaction and identify priority areas.
· Collaboration
with local and state government agencies for potential funding and strategic
support.
For
the purpose of this report, the Five-Year Resourcing Plan is considered to
commence on 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2030.
Liverpool
City Council currently operates three (3) street sweepers with a structured
shift allocation. However, an opportunity exists to enhance operational
efficiency by introducing two additional shifts, ensuring full utilisation of
the fleet. The extra shifts would allow for a more effective deployment of
resources, improving service delivery without requiring immediate investment in
new street sweeping machines.
Currently, the three sweepers
are allocated as follows:
· Sweeper 1:
Operates Monday to Thursday on two shifts per day (AM & PM).
· Sweeper 2:
Operates Tuesday to Friday on two shifts per day (AM & PM).
· Sweeper 3:
Operates Friday to Monday on a single shift per day (AM only).
By adding two extra shifts
during the week, the weekend sweeper (Sweeper 3) can be fully
integrated into weekday operations.
This
would allow Council to run additional shifts from Monday to Thursday or
Tuesday to Friday, bringing its utilisation in line with the other two
machines. Sweeper 3 is currently available from Tuesday to Thursday (3 days).
If Council commits to Monday to Thursday, the Monday can be covered by Sweeper
2 which is available on Mondays, however, if Council commits to Tuesday to
Friday, then on Friday, Sweeper 1 can be used which is available on Fridays.
This can be demonstrated as outlined in the table below.
|
|
|
Mon
|
Tue
|
Wed
|
Thu
|
Fri
|
Sat
|
Sun
|
|
Operator 1
|
AM Shift
|
SW1
|
SW1
|
SW1
|
SW1
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 2
|
PM Shift
|
SW1
|
SW1
|
SW1
|
SW1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 3
|
AM Shift
|
|
SW2
|
SW2
|
SW2
|
SW2
|
|
|
|
Operator 4
|
PM Shift
|
|
SW2
|
SW2
|
SW2
|
SW2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 5
|
AM Shift
|
SW3
|
|
|
|
SW3
|
SW3
|
SW3
|
|
PM Shift
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday to Thursday
|
|
|
|
|
Operator 6
|
AM Shift
|
SW2
|
SW3
|
SW3
|
SW3
|
SW1
|
|
|
|
Operator 7
|
PM Shift
|
SW2
|
SW3
|
SW3
|
SW3
|
SW1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday to Friday
|
|
|
With the proposed additional
shifts, each sweeper will be utilised as follows:
· Sweeper 1 – Monday
to Friday with a total of 10 shifts (if new Operators are working from Tuesday
to Thursday.
· Sweeper 2 – Monday
to Friday with a total of 10 shifts (if new Operators are working from Monday
to Thursday.
· Sweeper 3 – Monday
to Sunday with a total of 10 shifts (Single shifts on the weekend run Friday to
Monday, but double shifts on Tuesday to Wednesday).
This model provides all 3
Sweepers with the same number of shifts if they are rotated to accommodate any
downtime.
Additional Staffing
Requirement
To
support this enhanced schedule, Liverpool City Council would need to employ two
additional operators. These new operators would work four-day shifts
from either Monday to Thursday or Tuesday to Friday, ensuring that all
three sweepers operate at full capacity throughout the week.
The additional 2 Operators
will cost Council $172,928 in salary + oncosts and $25,000 in fuel and
maintenance.
· Maximising Existing Fleet Without Additional Capital
Investment
o No immediate need to purchase new sweepers as the
current fleet can be fully utilised.
o Extends service reach without increasing the number of
vehicles in operation.
· Increased Service Frequency and Coverage
o Reduces turnaround time between sweeps in residential
and commercial areas.
o Enhance street cleanliness and improve community
satisfaction by ensuring a more consistent service.
· Operational Efficiency and Workforce Balance
o Reduces the reliance on a single weekend shift for
Sweeper 3, balancing workloads across all sweepers.
o Ensures optimal workforce distribution, mitigating
risks associated with staff absences or peak demand periods.
· Cost-Effective Service Expansion
o It is a cost-efficient way to increase sweeping
frequency without the immediate need for large capital expenditure on new
machinery.
o Additional staff costs are offset by improved service
delivery and reduced maintenance costs through balanced fleet usage.
· Improved Resilience and Future Planning
o Provides flexibility for Liverpool City Council to
respond to seasonal increases in demand (e.g., autumn leaf falls, storms, and
community events).
o Establishes a structured, scalable workforce model to
support future operational growth.
As
Liverpool’s western suburbs continue to expand, the operational
efficiency of street sweeping services is increasingly impacted by longer
travel distances. The existing street sweeper depot at 99 Rose St, Liverpool
serves as the primary tipping location for all collected debris. However, with
significant urban growth in the western areas of the Liverpool LGA, sweepers
are required to travel extended distances, reducing productivity and increasing
operational costs.
Current challenges include:
· Extended
Travel Times: Sweepers servicing the western growth areas must return to 99
Rose St, Liverpool to tip collected materials. This results in longer travel
times, reducing the number of streets that can be cleaned per shift.
· Reduced
Sweeping Efficiency: The time spent travelling to and from the depot reduces
effective sweeping hours, limiting the ability to maintain service frequency in
new urban areas.
· Increased
Fuel and Maintenance Costs: Additional kilometres travelled per day lead to
higher fuel consumption, increased wear and tear, and greater maintenance costs
for the street sweeper fleet.
Benefits of a Western Depot
tipping location will include:
· Reduced Travel Time and
Increased Productivity
o By tipping at
245 Devonshire Rd, sweepers will be able to return to service faster, covering
more streets per shift.
o Travel time
savings will allow the council to maintain a consistent 6 to 8-week sweeping
frequency, aligning with service standards.
· Lower Operational Costs
o Reduced travel distances will lead to
fuel savings and lower maintenance expenses.
o Decreasing
wear and tear on sweepers will help extend vehicle lifespan and reduce
long-term replacement costs.
· Improved Service to
Western Growth Areas
o The western suburbs will receive more
consistent and efficient street sweeping services.
o New
developments in these areas will be adequately maintained, reducing community
concerns regarding street cleanliness.
· Environmental Benefits
o Less travel
means lower carbon emissions, contributing to Liverpool City Council’s
environmental sustainability goals.
o Efficient tipping locations reduce
idle time and unnecessary vehicle movement, helping to improve air quality and
reduce congestion.
Liverpool City Council currently operates a fleet of
three (3) street sweepers, each performing daily cleaning operations across
different shifts. The lifespan of a street sweeper is typically between 5 to 7
years, depending on its usage, maintenance history, and wear and tear.
The table below shows the 5-year lifespan of each of
the Street Sweepers from the time it was purchased to when 5 years will be up.
|
2021
|
2022
|
2023
|
2024
|
2025
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
SW1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SW2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SW3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replace SW1
|
Replace SW1
|
Replace SW3
|
|
Replacement Cost
|
|
|
|
$400,000
|
$400,000
|
$400,000
|
Council
needs to consider the replacement of the fleet when they reach their 5-year
lifespan. This can, however, be extended to 6 years if the Street Sweepers
still have low maintenance and manageable downtime.
Over
the next 5 years, commencing from 1 July 2025, Council will need to replace the
three current Street Sweepers.
Liverpool City Council Local Government Area (LGA) is
experiencing significant urban growth, establishing itself as one of the fastest-growing
regions in New South Wales. The city's population is projected to nearly double
over the next two decades, reaching more than 320,000 residents. This surge is
driven by substantial development in both new urban release areas and the revitalisation
of established neighbourhood’s. The transformation of Liverpool into
Sydney's third Central Business District (CBD) underscores its emergence as a
pivotal hub for commerce and innovation.
In addition to the replacement of the three Street
Sweepers, it is pertinent that Council gets addition 2 Street Sweepers that
will assist Council with the growth over the last few years and going forward
over the next five years.
The table below shows the timelines of when the new
Street Sweepers are to be purchased.
|
2023
|
2024
|
2025
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
|
SW1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SW2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SW3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replace SW1
|
Replace SW2
|
Replace SW3
|
|
|
|
Replacement Cost
|
|
|
$400,000
|
$400,000
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SW4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SW5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Fleet
|
|
|
New SW4
|
|
New SW5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$400,000
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
Given
Liverpool City Council's rapid urban expansion, the current fleet of three
street sweepers operating on a 16-week rotation is insufficient
to meet the desired standards of street cleanliness. To address this, the
following key points justify the purchase of two additional street sweepers
over the next five years:
1. Insufficient Capacity of the Current
Fleet
· The current fleet of three sweepers is unable
to service the growing number of urban streets efficiently, resulting in a long
16-week rotation cycle for residential areas.
· With significant new road infrastructure being
developed in Liverpool’s urban release areas, the existing fleet is already
operating at near-full capacity with little flexibility for additional
coverage.
· Equipment downtime for maintenance further
strains resources, leading to delays in scheduled sweeps and impacting
overall service effectiveness.
2. Achieving the Targeted 6 to 8-Week
Sweeping Frequency
· Liverpool City Council aims to improve its service
standard by reducing street sweeping cycles from 16 weeks to 6 to 8
weeks, over the next 12 months, aligning with best practices from
comparable councils.
· By procuring two additional sweepers, the fleet
will have the capacity to increase coverage, ensuring that streets are
cleaned more frequently.
· A shorter sweeping cycle will improve roadside
aesthetics, reduce debris buildup, and enhance public satisfaction
with the Council’s services.
3. Addressing the Needs of a Growing
Community
· Liverpool’s population growth and urban
expansion have significantly increased the number of roads requiring
street sweeping, particularly in newly developed residential and commercial
areas.
· Additional sweepers will enable equitable service
distribution, ensuring both new and established suburbs receive regular
cleaning to maintain a consistent standard across the LGA.
· Investing in fleet expansion now will future-proof
Council services, allowing for scalable street sweeping operations
as Liverpool continues to grow.
4. Environmental and Public Health
Benefits
· More frequent sweeping will remove pollutants such
as dust, litter, leaves, and organic debris, reducing the risk of these
materials entering stormwater systems and contaminating local waterways.
· Studies show that increased street sweeping helps to prevent
nutrient buildup, which can contribute to algae blooms and poor
water quality in local creeks and rivers.
· A cleaner street environment leads to improved air
quality, reducing airborne dust and particulate matter that can affect respiratory
health, particularly in high-density areas.
5. Long-Term Cost Savings and Operational
Efficiency
· Expanding the fleet will reduce reliance on
emergency or ad-hoc street sweeping requests, which are often more
expensive to manage.
· Spreading the workload across five sweepers instead
of three will help prolong the lifespan of the existing fleet,
reducing the frequency of costly repairs and downtime.
· Additional units will create more flexible
scheduling options, reducing inefficiencies caused by mechanical
breakdowns or staffing shortages.
Investing
in two new street sweepers over the next five years is a necessary and
strategic move for Liverpool City Council. It will allow the Council to meet
its new 6 to 8-week sweeping target, adapt to the demands of urban expansion,
and enhance environmental and public health outcomes. By addressing the growing
need for cleaner streets and improving service delivery efficiency, this
investment will ensure that Liverpool’s streets remain well-maintained
and future ready.
Costs associated with this
recommendation are outside of Council’s current budget and long-term
financial plan. The impact on the budget and long-term financial plan are
outlined in the table below.
Over
the next five years Council will need to invest in two additional Street
Sweepers and also replace the current 3 Street Sweepers at the end of 5-year
life for each one.
The
table below shows the financial commitments for running the Street Sweepers
program over the next five years.
|
|
2025/2026
|
2026/2027
|
2027/2028
|
2028/2029
|
2029/2030
|
|
Capital Cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replacement
SW1
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replacement
SW2
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
|
Replacement
SW3
|
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
New
Sweeper SW4
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
New
Sweeper SW5
|
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
Establish
Tipping Ramp
|
|
$250,000
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital Cost
|
$800,000
|
$650,000
|
$800,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Cost
|
4 Sweepers
|
4 Sweepers
|
5 Sweepers
|
5 Sweepers
|
5 Sweepers
|
|
Salaries
|
$809,067
|
$809,067
|
$981,995
|
$981,995
|
$981,995
|
|
Scheduled
Servicing
|
$10,000
|
$10,000
|
$15,000
|
$15,000
|
$15,000
|
|
Fuel
|
$96,722
|
$96,722
|
$120,965
|
$120,965
|
$120,965
|
|
Consumables
(Brushes)
|
$18,000
|
$18,000
|
$22,500
|
$22,500
|
$22,500
|
|
Allow
for Maintenance
|
$20,000
|
$20,000
|
$25,000
|
$25,000
|
$25,000
|
|
Total Operational Cost
|
$953,789
|
$953,789
|
$1,165,460
|
$1,165,460
|
$1,165,460
|
Currently
Council runs three Street Sweepers, of which two are being utilised for 8
shifts each and one is being utilised for 4 shifts. As indicated in section 0,
the utilisation of all three Sweepers fully will result in another 8 shifts
with two additional operators.
|
Economic
|
Deliver
a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure
and management of traffic issues.
|
|
Environment
|
Minimise
household and commercial waste.
|
Social
|
Raise
awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
|
Civic Leadership
|
Deliver
services that are customer focused.
|
|
Legislative
|
There are no legislative considerations relating to
this report.
|
|
Risk
|
There is no risk associated with this report.
|
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
OPER 02
|
Repairs to Macquarie Mall Water Feature
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Healthy,
Inclusive, Engaging
Improve
liveability and quality of life for the community by delivering vibrant
parks, places and facilities
|
|
File Ref
|
123275.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Darren McLeod - Manager
Facilities
|
|
Approved By
|
Peter Scicluna - Acting
Director Operations
|
The Macquarie Mall Water Feature
sustained significant water damage caused by a power failure during a storm.
Council lodged an insurance claim and obtained quotes for the cost of the
works.
That Council approve funding for an amount of money between $61,541.41
and $69,541.41 for the repairs to Macquarie Street Mall Water Feature.
BACKGROUND
Macquarie Mall Water Feature
sustained significant water damage caused by a power failure during a storm.
The storm caused a localised power
failure, which in turn left the drainage pumps inoperable. Consequently, the
pit was flooded (see attached for images) and damaged crucial electronic and
electrical equipment controlling the feature.
SCOPE OF WORKS
The pit was pumped, and a detailed inspection of the damage
has been assessed as follows:
· The
main control panel and the control panels that operate the submersible pumps
within the plant room and the submersible pumps in the stormwater pit above and
outside the plant room are recommended for total upgrade due to irretrievable
components and uneconomical repair to damage and age.
· The
2 main filtration pumps need replacement, and the main feature pump is to be
removed and stripped for repair.
· The
solenoid control valve that allows bromine to be dosed into the circulation
system to disinfect the water needs to be replaced.
· The
ventilation fan in the plant room to be replaced.
· The
perimeter area around the water feature needs to be recalked to prevent injury
to users and passers-by.
· The
stainless-steel feature drain trough needs to be dismantled and cleaned.
· The
balance tank needs to be drained and cleaned
· The
main media filter needs to be stripped, drained and the media replaced.
CRITICAL ISSUES
Under the Public Health Act 2010 &
Public Health Reg 2022 the water features are considered a public swimming
pool/ spa pool. For that reason, there are statutory maintenance requirements
inclusive of water chemistry dosing, testing, logging and cleaning.
It is imperative this equipment be
installed and operated in accordance with the NSW Swimming Pools Act 1992.
REPAIR COSTING
Facilities Management via our Insurance
Team lodged a property damage claim with insurance and the assessor has
accepted flood damage repairs for a portion of the works outlined below.
Detailed scoping and line-item costings can be found in
the body of the two attached quotations:
1. Neverstop
Water Pty Ltd @ $293,065.01 incl. GST.
This amount consists of two
parts.
Quotation
47182: System Repairs rev.4: This quotation is the 4th revision =
$251,698.41
Quotation
47183: System Repairs rev 3 non-flood related repairs: This quotation is
for maintenance / repairs to return the feature to a safe operational state for
public use = $$41,366.60
Sub Total = $293,065.01.
Note: an
amount of $8,000.00 is to be added to the above as contingency.
Total = $301,065.01.
Insurance will reimburse Council
= $231,523.60
Difference between Insurance Reimbursement
and Repairs = $61,541.41
Contingency = $8,000.00
Total cost to Council is between
= $61,541.41 and $69,541.41 (includes contingency).
If approved the final amount up
to this value will occur via Council’s quarterly adjustment review
process. The timeline for completion of the work would be between 6-8 weeks
once the contractor is advised.
2. Trade Wise
Group Pty Ltd @$329,330.71 incl. GST. Providing for comparative purposes
only to meet Council’s Procurement Standard.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
|
Economic
|
Facilitate
the development of new tourism based on local attractions, culture and
creative industries.
|
|
Environment
|
There are no environmental and sustainability considerations.
|
Social
|
Raise
awareness in the community about the available services and facilities.
Deliver
high quality services for children and their families.
|
Civic Leadership
|
There are no civic leadership and governance considerations.
|
|
Legislative
|
There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
|
|
Risk
|
There is no risk associated with this report.
|
1. Neverstop
Water Quote 47182
2. Neverstop
Water Quote 47183
3. Tradewise
Group Quote
|
1
|
|
OPER
02
|
Repairs
to Macquarie Mall Water Feature
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Neverstop
Water Quote 47182
|
|
1
|
|
OPER
02
|
Repairs
to Macquarie Mall Water Feature
|
|
Attachment
2
|
Neverstop
Water Quote 47183
|
|
1
|
|
OPER
02
|
Repairs
to Macquarie Mall Water Feature
|
|
Attachment
3
|
Tradewise
Group Quote
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
CTTE 01
|
Minutes of the Tourism and CBD
Committee held 4 March 2025
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Evolving, Prosperous,
Innovative
Maintain
strong relationships with agencies, stakeholders and businesses to achieve
beneficial outcomes for the city
|
|
File Ref
|
111349.2025
|
|
Report By
|
Susana Freitas -
Coordinator Innovation, Grants and Partnerships
|
|
Approved By
|
Shayne Mallard -
Director City Futures
|
This
report is tabled to present the Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee Meeting held
on 4 March 2025.
That Council:
1.
Receives and notes the Minutes of the Tourism
and CBD Committee Meeting held on 4 March 2025.
2.
Endorse the recommendations in the
Minutes.
The Minutes of the Tourism and CBD Committee held on 4 March 2025 are
attached for the information of Council.
The Minutes contain the following actions or Committee
recommendations:
· Urban
Design Lead, Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants (WSIG) Program, to talk to
shop owners and tenants on Railway Street regarding the WSIG Railway Street
upgrade plans with Mr Khoury.
· Committee
members to provide feedback to the Urban Design Lead WSIG Program if they would
prefer activation spaces or car parking spaces in the Liverpool CBD.
· Council
Staff to organise a briefing from NSW Police regarding community safety at a
future Tourism and CBD Committee meeting.
· Strategic
Events Lead to provide an update to the next Tourism and CBD Committee Meeting
regarding proposed events programmed for the next financial year.
· Council
Staff to update the Expression of Interest for Community Representatives for
the Tourism and CBD Committee and circulate to Committee Members after the May
Committee meeting.
· Council
staff to share a link for the Best of the West Food Lover’s Guide by
Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue to Committee Members.
· Council
Staff to provide an update on the Westfield DA and other DAs in the CBD at the
next Tourism and CBD Committee Meeting.
· Council
Staff to meet with Westfield and provide Westfield with feedback from the
Committee regarding the current issues at the Centre.
· Manager
City Strategy and Performance to provide a briefing to the Committee on
Liverpool2050.
None of the actions contained in the minutes will have a
financial impact on Council.
|
Economic
|
Further
develop a commercial centre that accommodates a variety of employment
opportunities.
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
|
Provide
cultural centres and activities for the enjoyment of the arts.
|
Civic Leadership
|
Undertake
communication practices with the community and stakeholders across a range of
media.
Foster
neighbourhood pride and a sense of responsibility.
Facilitate
the development of community leaders.
|
|
Legislative
|
There are no legislative considerations relating to this report.
|
|
Risk
|
There is no risk associated with this report.
|
1. Minutes
of Tourism and CBD Committee 4 March 2025
|
1
|
|
CTTE
01
|
Minutes
of the Tourism and CBD Committee held 4 March 2025
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Minutes
of Tourism and CBD Committee 4 March 2025
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 01
|
Question with Notice - Clr Karnib -
Infrastructure Grants
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Evolving,
Prosperous, Innovative
Continue to
invest in improving and maintaining Liverpool’s road networks and
infrastructure
|
|
File Ref
|
122183.2025
|
Please address the following:
1. Has Liverpool
City Council returned any money to either the NSW State Government or the
Federal Government that it received from infrastructure grants since 1 July
2021?
a. If so, how has this occurred?
b. If so, why has this occurred?
c. If so, what is the exact dollar figure of infrastructure grants that
Liverpool Council has applied for and received from both State and Federal Governments?
i. From this sum, what is the exact dollar figure that Liverpool
Council has returned to:
ii. NSW
State Government
iii. Federal
Government
d. If this has occurred, what specific projects by title and area in
the Liverpool LGA have not been able to commence or complete as a result of
this?
2. If not, does
Liverpool City Council intend to return back any infrastructure funding from
either state or federal governments?
a. If so, why?
b. If so, what are the financial implications for Liverpool City
Council?
c. If so, what specific projects by title and area in the Liverpool LGA
that had grant funding approved are now not able to commence?
d. If so, why has the funding grants received for infrastructure not
been returned already?
Response
(provided by Operations)
Consultation occurred with
Council’s Project Delivery, WSIG, Grants and Partnership and Development
Engineering teams.
1. Council has not returned any
money received from infrastructure grants since 1 July 2021.
2. Council does not intend to
return back any infrastructure funding from either state or federal government.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 02
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski -
Approved Limits for Moorebank Intermodals
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver
effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best
outcomes for a growing city
|
|
File Ref
|
125651.2025
|
Question
1. Can Council collate and summarise the cumulative
operational parameters and limits set under the relevant concept and staged
approvals for the dual Moorebank Intermodals?
Response from Planning and Compliance
Council was not the consent authority for the Moorebank
Intermodal Terminal. The application was assessed by the Independent Planning
Commission (IPC) who are part of the Department of Planning and Environment
(DPHI). Therefore, any queries regarding the parameters considered during the
assessment should be directed to the DPHI who are the Consent Authority.
Background to questions
Noting Council submissions, file references
2021/5825 and 2024/1653, regarding proposed expansion of the Moorebank
Intermodal Precinct.
Spanning
2010/11 to 2021/22 the Major Project come SSD applications and conditional
approvals for the once competing then cojoined Import / Export and Interstate
Intermodal Container Terminals and associated Warehousing are listed here:
|
— MP10_01G3
|
(MPE)
|
SIMTA
Concept Application (*)
|
|
— SSD_6766
|
(MPE)
|
SIMTA
Stage 1 (Terminal)
|
|
— SSD_7628
|
(MPE)
|
SIMTA
Stage 2 (Warehousing) – Ǫube
|
|
— SSD_5066
|
(MPW)
|
MIC
Ltd Concept C Stage 1 (Demolition)
|
|
— SSD_7709
|
(MPW)
|
MIC Ltd Stage 2 (Terminal C Warehousing) –
Ǫube
|
|
— SSD_10431
|
(MPW)
|
MIC Ltd Stage 3 (Extra Fill C Subdivision) –
Ǫube
|
(*) Note
the first SIMTA Concept Application did not make the transition from the old
NSW DPE Major
Projects website to the later NSW DPIE/DPHI iteration of the website, hence
there is no hyperlink.
Most of these
consents have undergone modification from 0 up to 6 modifications. And notably
the associated enabling SSI_10053
Moorebank Avenue Realignment project currently has a modification
application under assessment. A modification Mod
1 Subdivision that is relevant to previous and follow up financial
information questions regarding ratings and relevant parcels of land. (see
separate ǪWN).
Each of the
six instruments for the six projects were published with either a Determination
Report, Statement of Reasons, or Statement of Commitments. In the case of
SSD_7709 MPW Stage 2 Mod 1 C SSD_5066 MPW Concept C Stage 1 Mod 2 conditional
approval was also accompanied with a Traffic Certification (2008 LLEP cl7.36)
for “satisfactory arrangements” and a Voluntary Planning Agreement
respectively. All this documentation should be read in conjunction with
“plans and documents” enumerated by the instruments.
Taken
together five of the six instruments identify the “plans and documents”
which point to the means to determine the cumulative operational parameters
(for built form or traffic limits etc..). The first and relevant clauses for
each of the five instruments listed below state that “[t]he development
may only be carried out” in accordance with the “plans and
documents” indicated above and within the clauses of the hyperlinked
below:
— p.4
of 12 MP10_0193 Instrument
of Consent
— p.6
of 34 SSD_6766
Instrument of Consent [Superseded by Court consent]
— p.1
of 43 SSD_7628
Consolidated Instrument of Consent
— p.7
of 33 SSD_5066
Consolidated Instrument of Consent
— p.13
of 103 SSD_7709
Superseded C Consolidated Instrument of Consent
For clarity
these initial “Terms” or “Limits of Consent” have been
copied directly herein as Supplementary Information. To summarise these, each
Instrument of consent, (unchanged, superseded and consolidated alike) bares a
list of the relevant “plans and documents” which in turn
identifying the cumulative parameters and limits for development.
Methodologically
identification runs as follows. Where conflict exists between “plans and
documents” the latest version prevails. Where conflict exists between
“plans and documents” and the “Terms” or “Limits
of Consent” the enumerated term of the instrument prevails. Where
conflict exists between a Concept Approval and an associated Staged Approval
the Concept Approval will prevail.
Where invoked
the VPA and s7.36 LLEP Certification reinforce the traffic limits.
Additionally, the Planning Secretary can issue directions having the same
effect (weight and power) as any prevailing enumerated Term of Consent.
Draft Collation
Under the
applicable instruments and associated determination reports, statements of
commitment and voluntary planning agreements, and under the “plans and
documents” enumerated within the applicable instruments, having applied
the method of identification and determination enumerated within the initial
clauses of the applicable instruments the cumulative limits are:
STAGED (2015 –
2020)
[Cumulative East G West Stage 2]
|
|
EAST
|
WEST
|
CUMULATIVE
TOTALS
|
|
IMEX
|
250,000 Teu
|
NIL
|
|
|
INTERSTATE
|
NIL
|
500,000 Teu
|
750,000 Teu
|
|
WAREHOUSING
|
300,000 Sqm
|
215,000 Sqm
|
515,000 Sqm
|
|
HOB
|
15m*
|
21m * ^
|
^45m for Woolworths only
|
|
BUILT FORM
|
13.7m*
|
13.7m *
|
* Gantries missed in EIS
|
|
HEAVY VEHICLES
|
1,232 HV
|
1,458 HV "
|
2,540 HV
|
|
LIGHT VEHICLES
|
3,952 LV
|
2,670 LV
|
6,808 LV
|
|
*Woolworths Mod
|
|
1,C54 HV
|
2,632 HV after Mod
|
Traffic
Certification (2008 LLEP cl7.36) for “satisfactory arrangements” is
tied to the above numbers of Cumulative East C West Stage 2 only. Representing
the limit of Staged Approvals.
See SSD_7C28
Response to Submissions – July 2017 – Appendix C3
SSD_770S Response to
Submissions – July 2017 – Appendix C
* Note this duplicated one page
Appendix (C & C3) appears to be where a key error regarding total full
build traffic limits first originates.
CONCEPT (2014 C 2016)
[Full
Build — Cumulative Scenario B]
|
|
EAST
|
WEST
|
CUMULATIVE
TOTALS
|
|
IMEX
|
1,046,000 Teu
|
NIL
|
|
|
INTERSTATE
|
NIL
|
500,000 Teu
|
1,550,000 Teu
|
|
WAREHOUSING
|
300,000 Sqm
|
300,000 Sqm
|
600,000 Sqm
|
|
HOB
|
15m
|
21m
|
|
|
HEAVY VEHICLES
|
2,638 HV
|
3,001 HV
|
5,63G HV
|
|
LIGHT VEHICLES
|
3,614 LV
|
5,050 LV
|
8,664 LV
|
The Voluntary
Planning Agreement is tied to the above numbers; the above “form and
scale”; of East C West Concept Approvals, as Cumulative Scenario B.
Representing the limit to which the development is bound. A GFA and a Traffic
limit which have not been modified since as per the Additional Supplementary
Information.
See
MP10_01S3 – CoC 1.11: “The maximum GFAs for the following uses apply:
(East)
(a) 300,000m2 for the warehousing and
distribution facilities;
SSD_50CC – CoC 17.A: “The maximum GFAs for the following uses apply:
(West)
(a) 300,000m2 for the warehousing and
distribution facilities;”
SSD 50CC Supplementary
Response to Submissions – August 2015 – Chapter 8 Conclusions p.8-8
(10 of 1C of PDF): “(Scenario B is
the cumulative scenario that aligns to the current masterplan layout);”
(Cumulative)
Key SSD_50CC
Response to Submissions – April 2015 – Appendix E, Figure C-2
and Table C.11 p.C2 (82 of 11S8 of PDF): Total Daily Vehicle Trips 5,C33 HV and 8,CC4 LV
See SSD_50CC
Mod (1) Report – June 2017, p.3 (23 of 108 of PDF):
“No change to the
operational development of the
MPW Project is proposed as part of this modification”
SSD_50CC Mod (2) Report
– July 2020, p.4S of C4 of PDF:
“There is no change
to traffic generation under the subject Modification Application”.
6.2 – Cumulative
Scenario B
150,000m2 + 150,000m2 + 300,000m2
Appendix E – SSD_50CC
MPW Concept Response to Submissions – p.58 (78 of 11S8 of PDF)
Table 6.11 – Cumulative
Scenario B
Appendix E – SSD_50CC
MPW Concept Response to Submissions – p.C2 (82 of 11S8 of PDF)
Supplementary Information
MP10_01G3 (p.4 of 12)
Instrument of Consent
Schedule 2
1. Terms
of Concept Plan Approval
1.1 The
Concept Plan approval shall be undertaken generally in accordance with:
a) Major
Project Application 10_0193;
b) the
Environmental Assessment SIMTA Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance Part 3A Concept
Application, Volumes 1-4, prepared by Urbis and dated March 2012
c) the
Environmental Assessment SIMTA Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance Transitional
Part 3A Concept Application, Volumes 1-4, prepared by Urbis and dated August
2013;
d) the
SIMTA Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance Submissions Report (including final Statement
of Commitments), prepared by Urbis and dated December 2013; and
e) the
terms of this approval.
1.2 In
the event of an inconsistency between:
a) the
terms of this Concept Plan approval and any document listed from term 1a) to
1e) inclusive, the terms of this Concept Plan approval shall
prevail to the extent of the inconsistency; and
b) any
document listed from terms 1a) to 1e) inclusive, and any other document listed from
terms 1a) to 1e) inclusive, the most recent document shall prevail to the
extent of the inconsistency.
1.3 If
there is any inconsistency between this Concept Plan approval and any related approvals
(being those approvals subject to the requirements of this Concept Plan), this
Concept Plan approval shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
SSD_6766 (p.6 of 34)
Instrument of Consent –
Superseded by Court consent
Schedule 2
PART A
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
Development in Accordance
with Plans and Documents
A1. The Applicant shall
carry out the development generally in accordance with the:
a) State Significant Development
Application SSD 6766;
b) SIMTA
Intermodal Terminal Facility – Stage 1 – Environmental Impact
Statement
(Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, May 2014);
c) SIMTA
Intermodal Terminal Facility – Stage 1 – Response to Submissions
(Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, September 2015); and d) The conditions of this
consent.
A2. In the event of an
inconsistency between:
a) the conditions of this
approval and any document listed from condition A1(a) to A1(c) inclusive, the
conditions of this approval shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency;
and
b) any document listed from
condition A1(a) to A1(c) inclusive, and any other document listed from
condition A1(a) to A1(c) inclusive, the most recent document shall prevail to
the extent of the inconsistency.
A3. The Applicant shall comply
with any reasonable requirement(s) of the Secretary arising from the
Department’s assessment of:
a) any reports,
plans or correspondence that are submitted in accordance with this consent; and
b) the implementation of any actions or
measures contained within these documents.
SSD_7628 (p.7 of 33)
Consolidated Instrument of
Consent
Schedule 2
PART A
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
OBLIGATION TO MINIMISE HARM
TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A1. In addition to
meeting the specific performance measures and criteria established under this
consent all reasonable measures must be implemented to prevent, and if
prevention is not reasonable, minimise, any harm to the environment that may
result from the construction and operation of the development, and any
rehabilitation required under this consent.
TERMS OF CONSENT
A2. The development may only be
carried out:
a) in compliance
with the conditions of this consent;
b) in accordance
with all written directions of the Secretary in relation to this consent;
c) in accordance
with the EIS, Submissions Report, Consolidated assessment clarification
responses, and updated Biodiversity Assessment Report;
d) in
accordance with the amended Development Layout Plans and Design Plans, amended
WSUD plans and amended architectural plans to be submitted for the
Secretary’s approval as part of this consent; and
e) in accordance
with the management and mitigation measures at APPENDIX B of this consent; and
f) in
accordance with modification application SSD-7628-Mod-2 and supporting
documentation.; and (g) in accordance with modification application SSD-7628-
Mod-6 and supporting documentation.
A3. The Secretary may make
written directions to the Applicant:
a) as a result of
the Department’s assessment of any strategy, plan, program, review,
audit, notification, report or correspondence submitted under or in relation to
this consent;
b) as a result of
the Department’s assessment of any review, report or audit undertaken or
commissioned by the Department regarding compliance with this consent or in
relation to an incident (whether notified to the Department or not); and
c) in relation to
the implementation of any actions or measures contained in any of the documents
listed in condition A2.
A4. The conditions
of this consent and directions of the Secretary prevail to the extent of any
inconsistency, ambiguity or conflict between them and a document listed in
condition A2(c) or A2(e) to A2(f0. In the event of an inconsistency,
ambiguity or conflict between any of the documents listed in condition A2(c)
and A2(e) to A2(f0 the most recent document prevails to the extent of
the inconsistency, ambiguity or conflict. For the purpose of this condition,
there will be an inconsistency between documents if it is not possible to
comply with both documents, or in the case of a condition of consent or
direction of the Secretary and a document, if it is not possible to comply with
both the condition or direction and the document.
SSD_5066 (p.7 of 33)
Consolidated Instrument of
Consent
Schedule 2
Terms of Approval
1. Except as amended by the
conditions of this consent, development consent is granted only to the Concept
Proposal and Early Works as described in Schedule 1 and the Environmental
Impact Statement dated October 2014, as amended by the Response to Submissions,
dated May 2015 (as further amended by the Supplementary Response to Submissions
dated August 2015), subsequent modifications as outlined in condition 4
below and the conditions contained in this development consent.
[Inserted by
SSD-5066-Mod-1]
Determination of Future
Applications
2. In
accordance with section 83B(3)(a) 4.22 of the EP&A Act, all
future development under the Concept Proposal (for the avoidance of doubt,
excluding the Early Works) shall be the subject of future development
application(s).
[Inserted
by SSD-5066-Mod-1]
3. The
determination of the future development application(s) are to be generally consistent
with the terms of this development consent as described in Schedule 1, and
subject to the conditions in Schedule 4.
Development in Accordance
with Plans and Documents
4. The applicant shall carry out
the development generally in accordance with the:
a) Environmental
Impact Statement titled Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Project Environmental
Impact Statement, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited, dated
October 2014;
b) Response
to Submissions report titled, Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Response to
Submissions Report, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited,
dated May 2015;
c) Supplementary
Submissions report titled, Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Supplementary Response
to Submissions Report, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited,
dated August 2015;
d) MOD
1 Report titled, Moorebank Precinct West Intermodal Terminal Facility Concept
Plan Approval (SSD 5066) Modification, prepared by Arcadis, dated June 2016;
e) MOD
1 Response to Submissions report titled, Moorebank Precinct West –
Concept Modification Response to Submissions – SSD 5066 MOD 1, prepared
by Arcadis, dated December 2016;
f) MOD
1 Supplementary Response to Submission report titled, Moorebank Precinct West
– Concept Modification Supplementary Response to Submissions – SSD
5066 MOD 1, prepared by Arcadis, dated August 2017; and
g) the conditions
of this consent.
[Inserted
by SSD-5066-Mod-1]
5. In
the event of an inconsistency between:
a) the
conditions of this approval and any document listed from condition 4(a) to 4(fe)
inclusive, the conditions of this approval shall prevail to the extent of the
inconsistency; and
b) any
document listed from condition 4(a) to 4(fe) inclusive, and any other
document listed from condition 4(a) to 4(fe) inclusive, the most recent
document shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
[Inserted
by SSD-5066-Mod-1]
SSD_770G (p.13 of 103)
Superseded by Court &
Consolidated Instrument of Consent
Schedule 2
PART A
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
OBLIGATION TO MINIMISE HARM
TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A1. In addition to meeting the specific
performance measures and criteria in this consent, all reasonable and feasible
measures must be implemented to prevent, and if prevention is not reasonable
and feasible, minimise, any material harm to the environment that may result
from the construction and operation of the development, and any rehabilitation
required under this consent.
COMPLIANCE
A2. The Applicant must ensure that all
of its employees, contractors (and their sub-contractors) are made aware of,
and are instructed to comply with, the conditions of this consent relevant to
activities they carry out in respect of the development.
TERMS OF CONSENT
A3. The development may only be
carried out:
a) in compliance
with the conditions of this consent;
b) in accordance
with all written directions of the Planning Secretary;
c) in accordance
with the EIS, Response to Submissions (RtS) and Consolidated assessment
clarification responses; and
d) in accordance
with the modification application SSD-7709-Mod-3 and supporting documentation;
and
e) in
accordance with the management and mitigation measures in Appendix 2.
[Amended
by SSD-7709-Mod-3]
A4. Consistent with the requirements in
this consent, the Planning Secretary may make written directions to the
Applicant in relation to:
a) the
content of any strategy, study, system, plan, program, review, audit,
notification, report or correspondence submitted under or otherwise made in
relation to this consent, including those that are required to be, and have
been, approved by the Planning Secretary; and
b) the
implementation of any actions or measures contained in any such document
referred to in condition A4(a).
A5. The conditions
of this consent and directions of the Planning Secretary prevail to the extent
of any inconsistency, ambiguity or conflict between them and a document listed
in Conditions A3(c) – (d). In the event of an inconsistency,
ambiguity or conflict between any of the documents listed in Conditions
A3(c) – (d), the most recent document prevails to the extent of the
inconsistency, ambiguity or conflict.
Note: For the purposes
of this condition, there will be an inconsistency between documents if it is
not possible to comply with both documents, or in the case of a condition of
consent or direction of the Planning Secretary, and a document, if it is not
possible to comply with both the condition or direction, and the document.
Additional Supplementary
Information
Land and
Environment Court Proceedings (no:
2020/4407) was heard 21st – 29th June and 1st July 2021 with a
decision issued on Christmas Eve 24th December 2021. With the documentation
before the Court during this time (court book) included:
— Schedule
1 of LEC 2020/4407
— Secretary’s
Certificate IRF 18/5852 (under 7.36 of LLEP)
— TfNSW
letter to DPE SYD12/00072/26 regarding Voluntary Planning Agreement
— TfNSW
letter to Ǫube Holdings SYD12/00072 regarding the Secretary’s
Certification and the Voluntary Planning Agreement
Reinforcing
as late as 24 Dec 2021 that the Secretary’s Certification was tied to
SSD_7709 MPW Stage 2 only. Underpinned by the Voluntary Planning Agreement
which was tied to the “form and scale” of joint concept approvals
MP10_0193 and SSD_5066. Which, per Schedule 1 is tied to 300,000 + 300,000 Sqm
and per the relevant “plans and documents” is in turn tied to
Cumulative Scenario B without subsequent modification.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 03
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski -
Road Maintenance Modelling for Liverpool
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver
effective and efficient planning and high-quality design to provide best
outcomes for a growing city
|
|
File Ref
|
125751.2025
|
Noting
representation made in the Public Forum on 26 March 2025 regarding OPER 02 and
Road Condition. Noting the forward projects of $100mil plus and the backlog of
$52mil plus. Noting references to a “pavement management system software
(SMEC PMS) and rating system”.
Please address the following:
(a) Can Operations list the date
inputs for its pavement management and rating system?
i.
Identifying them as desktop (digital) or surveyed (inspected & counted)
inputs.
(b) Can Operations advise if forecasting
in this system and thus road condition assumptions and analysis are based on
strategic models provided by state agencies; or hard traffic counts and pattern
recognition?
(c) If strategic models (SSTM and
similar) provided by state agencies are not representative of much higher
traffic growth in Liverpool, could that augment the pavement management and
rating system, such that real world road condition is worse than the software
assumes?
(d) How often does Council
undertake hard traffic counts?
(e) Can Operations list all hard
traffic counts from 2018 to the present by date location?
Response
(provided by Operations and Planning and Compliance)
(a) Can Operations list the date inputs
for its pavement management and rating system?
From
1993, Liverpool City Council has been using SMEC Pavement Management System
(PMS) software for managing its road pavement network assets and rating system.
Currently, National Transport Research Organisation (NTRO) is the new owner and
sole supplier of the software in Australia. From this point in time LCC then
input updated condition data and information relating to its road network on a
cadence of 4-5 years. Each year LCC undertakes condition reports on 25% of its
road network and therefore 100% of the road network is completed over a 4-year
cycle.
i. Identifying
them as desktop (digital) or surveyed (inspected & counted) inputs.
Council adopts a combination of desktop
and survey methodology to the management of its 991 km road network. As part of
this approach, the Council also conducts regular physical site condition
surveys of the entire road network once in 4-5 years cycle. Collected data is
uploaded, analysed in the Pavement Management System (SMEC PMS) to generate
long term works program based on various budgetary scenarios and operational
constraints.
(b) Can Operations advise if
forecasting in this system and thus road condition assumptions and analysis are
based on strategic models provided by state agencies; or hard traffic counts
and pattern recognition?
The International Study of Highway
Development and Management (ISOHDM) is an internationally funded and executed
project managed by the ISOHDM Project Secretariat based in Paris. ISOHDM
developed a new suite of engineering/economic analysis software known as
HDM-4.SMEC-PMS employs the HDM-4 tool to model, analyse, and predict future
road deterioration patterns based on various road distress parameters such as
structural cracking, rutting, and roughness etc. Council implemented the
Pavement Management System (SMEC PMS), which is an integrated and formalised
set of procedures, standards, and data for planning, implementing, and
performance monitoring road network. This system provides a long-term, holistic
view of whole life cycle road management by considering preventative
maintenance and timely renewals/rehabilitations to ensure value for money. In
addition, hard traffic counts are also conducted to understand traffic volumes
that impact road condition.
(c) If strategic models (SSTM and
similar) provided by state agencies are not representative of much higher
traffic growth in Liverpool, could that augment the pavement management and
rating system, such that real world road condition is worse than the software
assumes?
As outlined above LCC uses both desktop and
surveys to determine road conditions. This includes traffic counts to consider
the uniqueness of Liverpool LGA.
(d) How often does Council
undertake hard traffic counts?
Council
undertakes hard traffic counts on demand based on the data request from
internal stakeholders such as traffic and transport planning unit.
(e) Can Operations list all hard
traffic counts from 2018 to the present by date location?
Following list outlines all hard traffic
counts undertaken internally by Council from 2018 to the present by date
location:
1. Ash Rd 2018/12/14
2. Bathurst St 2018/11/30
3. Festival St 2018/02/19
4. Jedda Rd 2018/12/14
5. Moore St 2018/11/30
6. St Johns St 2018/02/19
7. William Buckly Dr 2018/05/09
8. Memorial Ave 2018/12/05
9. Brain Avenue 2020/10/22
10. Casula Power House 2019/10/10
11. Christie St 2019/10/10
12. Feodore Dr 2020/10/22
13. Flynn Ave 2020/10/22
14. Hall Cct 2020/10/22
15. North of Powerhouse Rd 2019/10/10
16. Powerhouse Rd 2019/02/04
17. Regentville Dd 2020/10/22
18. Sixteenth Ave 2020/10/22
19. Weir Cres 2020/10/22
20. Cartwright Ave 2022/09/16
21. Greendale Rd 2020/10/22
22. Kingsford Smith 2020/10/22
23. Railway Serviceway 2022/09/16
24. Western Rd 2022/09/16
25. Kurrajong Rd various locations
2021/06/23
26. Martin Rd various locations
2021/09/22
27. Balanada St 2022/09/09
28. Green Valley Rd various locations
2022/07/25
29. Mannow Ave 2022/12/05
30. Margaret Dawson Dr 2022/12/05
31. Pacific Palm Cct 2022/12/05
32. Stanwell Cres 2022/02/23
33. George St(From Elizabeth St to
Campbell St)Outside Church 2024/07/03
34. George St(From Elizabeth St to
Campbell St)Outside Westfield 2024/07/03
35. George St(From Moore to Elizabeth
St) 2024/07/02
36. George St(From Scott St to Railway
St) 2024/07/03
37. George Street(from Railway to Moore)
2024/07/02
38. Kennedy St 2024/12/17
39. Macquarie St various locations
2024/06/17
40. Moore St from George to Bigge St
2024/07/03
41. Moore St from Moore St to
Northumberland St Outside 98A 2024/07/03
Moreover, Council’s Traffic and
Transport team also collects Traffic data by engaging external consultants for
reporting purposes.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 04
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski -
Traffic Modelling for Moore Point
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Evolving,
Prosperous, Innovative
Continue to
invest in improving and maintaining Liverpool’s road networks and infrastructure
|
|
File Ref
|
125902.2025
|
Noting Council undertook Public
Exhibition of RZ-6/2015 late last year, and that NSW DPHI has now taken over
the assessment of this Planning Proposal under its newly established State
Significant Rezoning pathway.
Please address the following:
(a) Can
Planning and Compliance advise if Council retained copies of all application
and assessment materials?
(b) Will
Planning and Compliance be undertaking a post exhibition report to Council?
(c) Can
Planning and Compliance advise if DPHI will undertake its own exhibition under
its new process; or if DPHI will merely undertake its assessment based solely
on the submissions lodged with LCC via email and or its eplanning portal?
(d) Can
Planning and Compliance advise if it has thus made a submission to DPHI
regarding RZ-6/215 under its newly established State Significant Rezoning
pathway?
(e) Have
all necessary Directorates had sufficient time to review all the technical
material; particularly for Flooding and Traffic? Has Council retained copies
of:
- Moore
Point – Stage 2 Transport Infrastructure Assessment & TMAP (Aurecon)
- Moore
Point – TIWG – Minutes August 2021
- Moore
Point - Transport Infrastructure Staging (TfNSW Briefing) - 13 July 2022 Final
- Any
and All SIDRA modelling sitting behind RZ-6/2015
See Flood advisory panel
recommendations- Moore Point_PP-2022-1602 (pp.26 – 28 of 28)
RZ-6/2015 Appendix 21 (pp.22 & 25 of 30) and Appendix 19 (pp.25 – 26
& 65 of 85)
(f) Has
Council reviewed and assessed the above Stage 1 and Stage 2 Assessments?
(g) Does Council
have the necessary internal staff and expertise to access files and understand
the SIDRA and AIMSUN Traffic Models for Moore Point and their implications?
(h) Is Council aware
that the intersection upgrades as presented are not fit for purpose and
represent a decrease of existing capacity which is already operating at LoS F (failing)?
Responses will be provided in
the 21 May 2025 Council Agenda.
1. Supplementary
Information
|
1
|
|
QWN
04
|
Question
with Notice - Clr Ristevski - Traffic Modelling for Moore Point
|
|
Attachment
1
|
Supplementary
Information
|
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 05
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski -
Biobanked Land in Liverpool LGA
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Place
customer satisfaction, innovation and best practice at the centre of all
operations
|
|
File Ref
|
126072.2025
|
Noting Council rating standards are set by IPART NSW except as relates to ‘biobanked land’. Noting that Commonwealth Land
is exempt from Council rates except where competitive neutrality arrangements,
such as “taxation neutrality” and “regulatory
neutrality” are “explicitly required for designated Commonwealth
Businesses” under the CCNPS (1996). For example, Moorebank Intermodal
Company Ltd, now National Intermodal Corporation Ltd and Western Sydney Airport
Corporation Ltd.
Please address the following:
(a) Can Council confirm if land set aside for biodiversity
credits or ‘bio banked land’ is liable to pay local government
rates (say based on unimproved value or similar) or are such lots and parcels
exempt?
(b) If exempt, please
cite and supply
the relevant legislation.
(c) If not exempt,
does Council maintain
a registry of such parcels?
(d) Can Council prepare
a list of parcels of ‘bio banked
land’ and the rate applied
for each?
(e) Has Council maintained a list of the specific
‘bio banked’ parcels
created for the purpose of biodiversity offsets by MIC Ltd and WSA Co Ltd
necessary to obtain approval for their respective projects?
I. Please provide said list and itemise the rates collected for each since their creation.
Responses to these Questions with Notice will be provided in the 21 May
2025 Council agenda.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 06
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ibrahim -
Park Cleaning Schedule and Safety Concerns
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver a
beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
|
|
File Ref
|
126131.2025
|
Can the Council provide details
on how often the parks in Liverpool, are cleaned and maintained? Specifically:
1. What is
the current cleaning schedule for parks?
2. How often
are rubbish bins emptied, and general maintenance carried out?
3. Are there
any plans to increase the frequency of cleaning or improve park maintenance in
response to community concerns?
4. What
measures are currently in place to address syringe disposal in parks?
5. Are there
any plans to improve safety and implement additional measures, such as more
regular inspections or disposal units?
A response to these questions
will be provided in the 21 May 2025 Council Agenda.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 07
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ibrahim -
Street Rubbish and Cleanliness in Liverpool
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver a
beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
|
|
File Ref
|
126143.2025
|
Please address the following:
1. Can the council outline the current street cleaning
schedule for Liverpool, including residential areas, commercial precincts, and
high traffic zones?
2. What measures are currently in place to address the growing
issue of litter on our streets?
3. How many reports or complaints has the council received in
the past 12 months regarding rubbish and illegal dumping?
4. What actions is the council taking to enforce anti
littering laws, and how many fines or penalties have been issued in the past
year?
5. Are there any plans to increase rubbish collection
services, install additional bins in problem areas, or introduce more community
education programs to reduce littering?
6. What measures is the council taking to address illegal
dumping, and how effective have these measures been in reducing waste on our
streets?
7. Are there plans to improve lighting in Liverpool’s
parks and public spaces to enhance community safety, particularly at night?
A response to these questions will be
provided in the 21 May 2025 Council Agenda.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 08
|
Question with Notice - Clr Harle -
Council's Strategic Plan
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Place
customer satisfaction, innovation and best practice at the centre of all
operations
|
|
File Ref
|
126137.2025
|
Council’s Community
Strategic Plan (CSP) sets out the key priorities and long-term aspirations for
Liverpool. As is the case when a new council is elected, the next iteration of
the CSP is currently being developed to ensure it meets the needs and aspirations
of Council and the Liverpool community.
In addition to the CSP, Council
holds several other strategies and plans which align with and are complimentary
to the CSP. Many of these plans focus on target groups or areas which support
Council in its planning and delivery of the many facets of Council operations.
With several new Councillors
elected in this current term, and considering the raft of strategies and plans
in place, it would be beneficial for Councillors to receive a listing of all
the current plans and strategies which complement the CSP. This will allow our
Council to be well-informed of the full suite of strategies and plans under
which Council operates, and highlight the connection to Council’s broader
strategic position, key priorities, and long-term aspirations.
Please
address the following:
1. Please
provide a list of all relevant strategies and/or plans that complement the CSP,
including the name, a brief description of their purpose, and validity dates of
each.
Response
(provided by City Futures)
A
CSP workshop will be held on 13 May 2025 and a list of the strategies as
requested will be provided at this workshop.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 09
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Demonstrate
a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive
governance framework
|
|
File Ref
|
113154.2025
|
1. Has
there been a significant rise in negative sentiment towards the Council across
various social media channels?
Response (City Futures): Council measures the performance and
sentiment of our social media and website platforms. This process gives
valuable insights into how various issues and posts perform and helps
Council’s team communicate more effectively. For the past six
months, the average of negative sentiment towards Council has been 20%.
Some months record a higher percentage, and this can be easily
attributed. For example, January had 44% negative sentiment, and this is
attributed to the confusion over the second yellow recycling bin pick-up in the
holiday period. Negative sentiment in February was 37% and was attributed
to the negative perceptions about dumped shopping trolleys (even though Council
was cleaning them up). In March, it returned to 23%, aligning with the
average.
2. Have
posts relating to the Council on the Council's official social media pages had
the comments disabled due to the negative nature of the feedback from the
community?
Response (City Futures): Most posts on Council’s social media leave comments
and responses open. Only a small number of official posts are closed to
comments based on industry best practice. The social media guidelines are
on Council’s website and reproduced below for information:
Social
Media Guidelines
Liverpool City
Council’s social media channels are designed to provide communication
about Council services, initiatives, events, programs and news.
Council’s
primary communication is via Facebook and Instagram with select communications
published through LinkedIn, YouTube and Tik Tok.
For a full
list of Council’s communication channels, please click
here.
We’ve
summarised below what you can expect from us and what we expect from you in the
use of Council’s social media channels.
What to
expect from us
· Social
media monitoring: Monday to Friday from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm (excluding public
holidays).
· Outside
of these business hours, our staff do not moderate comments or respond to
enquiries.
· Enquiries
or requests of Council should be directed to our Customer Service Team through
the following channels:
Phone: 1300 36 2170
Email: lcc@liverpool.nsw.gov.au
Online
Enquiries
via social media
While we try
to assist with simple questions or issues, many matters can't be resolved via
social media.
You should
contact Council online, by phone or in writing if you:
· have
an enquiry
· need
to request a service
· would
like to give us official feedback
· wish
to make a complaint
· want
to understand more about our Customer Service and Communication Policy.
For urgent
issues or potential hazards, please call 1300 36 2170 (24/7).
Moderation of
public comments
· Social
media posts and comments must also adhere to that platforms’ own
community guidelines, user agreements and policies.
· Liverpool
City Council does not accept responsibility for community comments – they
are not representative of the opinions of the Council, nor do we make any
warranty to their accuracy.
· Official
communications such as those related to media releases, election information
and announcements, public exhibitions and draft policies will be shared on
Council’s social media channels with comments turned off. If
you wish to share your feedback about these communications, we ask that you do
this through our Customer Service channels.
· Our
team may hide or remove comments if they are considered to breach privacy or
the guidelines listed under What we expect from you.
· We
don’t participate in Facebook groups or respond to any tagging within
these groups.
What we expect from you
We support
the Terms of Service and related policies of the social media
platforms we participate in and request that visitors to our social media pages
do the same.
Council’s
social media channels should be a safe space for everyone.
We encourage
open discussion, and in order to create a positive and engaging environment for
the community we ask all users to treat each other and our social media
moderators with respect.
Users may
disagree with an idea or a person’s viewpoint; however, we ask you remain
respectful when conveying that point of view.
Posts on
Liverpool City Council’s social media pages may be deleted or hidden as
determined at Council’s absolute discretion if they contain:
· violent,
obscene, offensive, profane, hateful, derogatory, racist, homophobic or sexist
language, links or images
· insults,
threats or harassment of other users
· information
that may compromise the safety or security of the public
· any
discussion or promotion of behaviour that is unlawful
· comments
that threaten or defame any person or organisation
· solicitations,
advertisements, endorsements or spam
· off-topic
posts by a single user
· repetitive
posts copied and pasted or duplicated by single or multiple users
· any
other inappropriate content or comments as determined by the Council.
When interacting with our social pages Council requests you:
· exercise
courtesy
· are
respectful to others at all times
· do
not post personal addresses or phone numbers
· acknowledge
that the Council cannot check the accuracy of every comment and does not take
any responsibility for reliance on comments
Users who do
not comply with these social media community guidelines will be blocked from
the page at the absolute discretion of the Council.
Recordkeeping
Council may
record information posted to any of its social media channels for Council
purposes. This includes your public social networking account name.
Disclaimer
Although we
take care in producing the content for social media, we do not guarantee that
the information is accurate, complete or current, and that the data is free
from defects.
We do not
endorse or take responsibility for content posted by third parties. This is
also the case if we like or follow a page. Commenting may be turned off on
content shared from third parties.
3. During
a public inquiry in New South Wales, a mayor can be removed from their position
as a spokesman for the council under the Local Government Act. This could occur
if the mayor's actions undermine the council's integrity.
With this negative
feedback and criticisms directed at the Mayor can this impa
3. Could Council's credibility and effectiveness in
communicating essential information be affected during the Public Inquiry?
Response (Corporate Support):
This is unlikely to occur.
4. In New South Wales, the
relevant section of the Local Government Act that addresses the removal of a
mayor as a spokesperson or their ability to carry out certain functions is
Section 226. This section
outlines the roles and responsibilities of mayors, including provisions for
their removal under certain circumstances.
Additionally, if there are allegations of corruption
or misconduct, the council may also act under Section 440,
which relates to the conduct of inquiries and the powers of councils
to address misconduct.
Seeing
as though that the mayor is a person of interest under investigation under the public
inquiry, this has the ability to undermine the Council’s integrity.
During
a public inquiry in New South Wales, a mayor can be removed from their position
as a spokesman for the council. This could occur if the mayor is found to be acting
inappropriately or if their actions undermine the council's integrity.
4. Does Council measure its integrity with its
ratepayers? If so, how is this measured? If not,
why isn't this measured?
Response (Corporate Support):
As noted in answer to questions 1 and 2, positive
sentiment is monitored.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
QWN 10
|
Question with Notice - Clr Ristevski -
Clarification to responses for item QWN 03 - Financial Information from 26
March 2025 Council Meeting
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Demonstrate
a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive
governance framework
|
|
File Ref
|
130557.2025
|
Questions with Notice as attached.
Responses to these questions will be
provided in the 21 May 2025 Council Agenda.
1. Questions
with Notice (Under separate cover)
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 01
|
Motion to Standardise Representation in
Council Advertisements
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Healthy,
Inclusive, Engaging
Communicate,
listen, engage and respond to the community by encouraging community
participation
|
|
File Ref
|
092793.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
Rationale:
Council advertisements have
prominently featured the Mayor's image while neglecting to acknowledge the
contributions of other councillors. This practice creates a perception that the
Mayor operates independently of the Council, undermining our collective
responsibility and teamwork.
Councillors are elected
representatives of the community, and it is essential that constituents see the
Council as a united body, rather than a hierarchy. By adopting this motion, we
will ensure that all councillors receive equal recognition in all Council
communications, reinforcing our commitment to transparency and collaboration.
That:
1. Council resolves to implement a
policy regarding the use of photographs in Council advertisements and
communications. Specifically:
(a) All
advertisements and official communications featuring images of councillors must
either include photographs of all serving councillors or refrain from including
any photographs altogether.
(b) The
inclusion of the Mayor’s image in promotional materials should not
dominate, as the Mayor does not possess presidential powers and should not be
portrayed as the sole representative of the Council.
(c) This
policy aims to ensure equitable representation of all councillors and to
maintain the integrity of our collective governance, acknowledging that
decisions and achievements are the result of collaborative efforts.
2. Council to review existing
advertising practices and make necessary adjustments within two months of the
adoption of this motion.
ACTING
CEO’S COMMENTS
Under
section 226 of the Local Government Act 1993 No 30 (Role of mayor), it
is the Mayor’s role to be the spokesperson of the governing body who
delivers messages on Council’s behalf. It is also the role of the Mayor
to advance community cohesion and promote civic awareness and be a leader in
the local community. The use of a Mayor’s image in such communications is
standard practice in local government and aligns with the intent of Section
226.
On
26 February 2025 Council resolved to endorse a formal review of its Media
Policy to ensure it aligns with current laws and best practices, including but
not limited to Work, Health and Safety, online bullying, defamation, Fair Work
and any other relevant laws. A draft revised Media Policy is being prepared for
Council’s consideration at a future meeting.
The purpose of Council’s Media Policy is:
To support positive engagement with the media,
including social media, by Councillors and Council staff both in professional
and personal capacities.
a) To protect the reputation of the Council, community
and staff and support key directions outlined in the Operational Plan,
including Creating Connection, Generating Opportunity and Leading through
Collaboration.
The
policy covers: Councillors; Council staff; service providers; contractors
employed by Council; volunteers; apprentices or trainees; and work experience
students. Implementation of the Policy will be monitored by the Mayor, CEO and
Communications Manager.
In
addition to the Media Policy, Councillors and Council staff must adhere to
Liverpool Council’s Code of Conduct when interacting with the media.
When
the revised Media Policy comes to a future meeting of Council, it will be a
matter for Council to determine whether a clause on the use of photographs in
Council advertisements and communications is included.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 02
|
Public Inquiry Hearings
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Demonstrate
a high standard of transparency and accountability through a comprehensive
governance framework
|
|
File Ref
|
092829.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
This motion is put forward in
response to the expressed desires of our residents for increased transparency
and accessibility in local governance.
In recent discussions with
community members, there has been a clear call for greater transparency in the
public inquiry process. Residents have emphasised the importance of being able
to engage with and follow these proceedings in real time, ensuring that all
voices in our community are heard and considered.
Live streaming the public inquiry
hearings would not only enhance transparency but also encourage civic
engagement, allowing those who cannot attend in person to participate in the
democratic process. This aligns with our commitment to fostering an open and
accountable local government.
This initiative is a means to
bolster community trust and participation in local governance.
That Council writes to the Minister for Local Government
requesting that the public inquiry hearings be live streamed.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
Council’s
legal representatives wrote to the team assisting the Commissioner on 4 April
2025 to ask if the hearings will be live streamed. The Commissioner’s
team anticipates that the hearings will be live streamed with access available
through the public inquiry webpage, but this will depend on the capabilities of
the venue that is ultimately chosen to hold the hearing. Further
representations can be made to the Commissioner if Council requires.
If endorsed, the Council
resolution will be implemented by Council staff. To this extent, costs
associated with this recommendation have been included in Council’s
budget for the current year and long-term financial plan.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 03
|
Motion to Employ Security Guards
Directly
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Ensure
Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic
management of assets and resources
|
|
File Ref
|
097191.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
Rationale:
Cost Efficiency: Current
contractor rates for security services have proven to be significantly higher
than the costs associated with employing security personnel directly. This
motion seeks to analyse the financial impact and identify potential savings.
Quality Control: Direct
employment of security staff allows for better oversight and training, ensuring
that personnel are aligned with the Council's standards and values.
Community Engagement: Directly
employed security personnel can foster better relationships with the community,
enhancing the overall effectiveness of security measures and promoting public
trust.
Flexibility and
Responsiveness: Having a directly employed security team enables the
Council to respond more swiftly to emerging security needs and to tailor
services to specific local requirements.
Conclusion:
By adopting this motion, Council
will take a proactive step towards improving security services while ensuring
responsible financial management for the betterment of our community.
That Council direct the Acting CEO that a report come back
to the next Council meeting to explore the feasibility of employing security
personnel directly, rather than continuing to contract security services at
premium rates.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
This is an
operational matter relating to the direct employment of staff or use of
contractors. It will be dealt with as part of the organisational review
process.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 04
|
Motion for Restructuring of the Illegal
Waste Rangers Division
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver a
beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
|
|
File Ref
|
113309.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
Council
acknowledges the ongoing challenges related to waste management and illegal
dumping within our city. Despite the efforts of our current Illegal Waste
Rangers Division, the persistent rubbish issues in Liverpool indicate that a
fundamental change in approach is necessary to effectively address these
concerns.
Ineffectiveness
of Current Structure: The current model, which places the Illegal Waste Rangers
in an office-based role focused on investigations and fines, has proven inadequate.
The increasing volume of litter and illegal dumping suggests that enforcement
alone is insufficient to change behaviours or improve overall waste management.
Community
Impact: The visible presence of waste in our neighbourhoods not only affects
the aesthetic of our city but also has negative implications for public health,
the environment, and local businesses. Residents have expressed frustration
regarding the lack of effective action against littering and illegal dumping.
Need
for Proactive Measures: To create a cleaner Liverpool, we must shift our focus
from solely reactive enforcement to proactive waste management strategies. This
requires reassigning the Illegal Waste Rangers to work more closely with waste
management services, allowing them to engage directly with the community,
educate residents on proper waste disposal, and encourage responsible
behaviours.
Field-Based
Operations:** Deploying Rangers to actively patrol areas prone to illegal
dumping, allowing them to address issues in real time and engage with the
community.
By
restructuring the Illegal Waste Rangers Division and integrating them into the
Waste Management Department, we can create a more effective and holistic
approach to tackling the rubbish issues plaguing Liverpool. This motion aims to
foster a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable environment for all
residents.
That Council agree:
1. That an audit be conducted to show the fines issued by the
illegal waste rangers over the following periods:
a. 1st
June 2018 to 1st March 2019.
b. 1st June 2024 to 1st March 2025.
2. That
a review be conducted on the time spent in the field investigating illegal
waste rangers over the following periods:
a. 1st
June 2018 to 1st March 2019.
b. 1st June 2024 to 1st March 2025.
3. That the Acting CEO review the current structure with a
view of returning the illegal waste officers to the Waste team.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
1. Fines issued by the illegal waste rangers over the following
periods:
a. 1st
June 2018 to 1st March 2019 = $82,113.00
b. 1st
June 2024 to 1st March 2025 = $660.00
Note: Data is drawn from PINForce system.
2. That a review be conducted on the time spent in the field
investigating illegal waste rangers over the following periods:
a. 1st June 2018 to 1st March 2019.
b. 1st June 2024 to 1st March 2025.
Note: This data is not
available.
3. That the Acting CEO review the current structure with a
view of returning the illegal waste officers to the waste team.
The Illegal Waste Rangers already sit within
the Waste Service Delivery unit and report to the Acting Urban Services
Coordinator. So, there is no change required.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 05
|
Reducing Abandoned Shopping Trolleys
through a Subsidised Personal Trolley Trial
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver a
beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
|
|
File Ref
|
119205.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Harle - Councillor
|
Abandoned
shopping trolleys are a persistent environmental and amenity concern across the
Liverpool Local Government Area (LGA). They contribute to visual pollution,
obstruct public spaces and footpaths, block stormwater drains, and are often
dumped in bushland and waterways. Despite regulatory compliance and trolley
retrieval programs in partnership with retailers, the issue remains widespread
and resource-intensive to manage.
In
addition to traditional compliance efforts, a practical and socially responsive
solution is proposed, providing residents with their own personal two wheeled
shopping trolleys. Many residents, particularly pensioners and those without
access to private transport, rely on supermarket trolleys to carry groceries
home, leading to the unintended consequence of trolleys being taken off-site
and later abandoned.
By
enabling and encouraging the use of personal two-wheel shopping trolleys,
Council can reduce the environmental impacts of abandoned trolleys, improve the
local streetscape, and promote responsible behaviour in a supportive and
proactive way.
Proposed
Program Framework:
The initiative proposes that Council:
· Investigate and develop a trial program to supply up to 500
personal two-wheeler shopping trolleys to eligible residents at a subsidised
rate, with a focus on pensioners and individuals without access to private
transport.
· Consider funding options for this initiative, including:
o A potential amendment to the charter of Council’s
Environment Levy to enable funding of this environmental program;
o External funding sources such as applicable grants from the
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) or other relevant State programs.
· Ensure the trolleys are of durable quality, including
features such as:
o Lightweight aluminium frames;
o Rubber-tired metal wheels;
o Canvas body;
o Self-supporting upright design.
· Incorporate branding and messaging on the trolleys to
reflect Council’s support, including the Liverpool City Council logo and
a message such as “Your Environmental Levy at Work.”
· Prepare a report for Council outlining:
o Implementation strategy for the trial including eligibility
criteria, distribution method, and storage/handling;
o Estimated costs, funding sources and revenue from one-off
user contributions;
o Community benefits and
program evaluation criteria to assess effectiveness and potential for future
expansion.
Review of the
Environmental Levy Program
The Environmental Levy has been in place for approximately
25 years and has played an important role in funding bush regeneration and
environmental restoration works within the Liverpool Local Government Area. As
a restricted fund, the Levy must be used solely for the purposes for which it
is collected, with a historical focus on bushland management.
While
the Levy has delivered significant environmental benefits, a review is now
timely to ensure that its objectives remain aligned with the evolving
environmental and social needs of the community. Over the past two decades, the
nature of environmental challenges facing local governments has broadened.
Issues such as illegal dumping in waterways, biodiversity protection in urban
settings, and community participation in sustainability have become
increasingly prominent.
A review of the Environmental Levy would provide an
opportunity to:
· Assess whether the current scope of the Levy meets
contemporary environmental priorities;
· Consider expanding the scope to allow innovative and
preventative environmental programs, such as initiatives to reduce urban
waterways or promote behaviour change;
· Ensure the Levy reflects the changing environmental
expectations of residents, including support for vulnerable groups to
participate in sustainability;
· Enhance transparency and alignment with Council’s
broader strategic environmental objectives, including the Community Strategic
Plan and Sustainability Action Plan;
· Maintain compliance with relevant legislative and financial
governance requirements for restricted funds.
This review would ensure that the Levy continues to deliver
meaningful environmental outcomes and remains responsive to the
community’s current and future needs.
That Council:
1. Undertake a comprehensive review of Council’s
Environmental Levy to expand its uses for the greater benefit of the
environment.
2. Investigate providing a suitable two-wheel shopping
trollies for residents such as pensioners and those who have no easy economical
means of taking their shopping home.
3. Provide a report to the May 2025 Governance Committee
meeting on the cost-benefit analysis of implementing this proposal, including
charging a suitable one-off fee for each trolley.
4. Utilise funds available from the Environmental Levy to
implement the scheme, subject to any required amendments to the levy charter.
5. Investigate alternate funding sources such as the State
Government and relevant grant programs from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
6. Write to local State Members of Parliament seeking
support and potential for subsidising a similar scheme for Councils across New
South Wales.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
Should this
NOM be endorsed by Council, then Operations Directorate would undertake the
research and provide a report to the May 2025 Governance Meeting.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 06
|
Legal fees and Expenses with regards to
Public Inquiry
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary, Leading,
Responsible
Ensure
Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic
management of assets and resources
|
|
File Ref
|
119364.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
With
Liverpool Council having just generated a $11 million loss in its recent
audited financial statements and current unrestricted cash reserves sitting at
near zero, as Councillors we have a fiduciary duty to ensure that ratepayers
money is used to its maximum benefit for the community.
The
recent court case against the New South Wales government to prevent the public inquiry
into Liverpool Council has not been the best usage of ratepayers’ money
and as such I propose the following:-
That Council agree:
1. A report
be given at the earliest possible Council meeting so that ratepayers are aware
of the total legal fees and expenses and staff time in terms of dollars. The
same report to also include the NSW Government legal fees that ratepayers will
need to pay for losing the case.
2. Council’s
legal team seek advice whether these legal fees can be recovered personally
from the Councillors that voted in favour of taking legal action against the
New South Wales Government. This report to be tabled at the earliest possible
Council meeting.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
A report on the costs of the
legal proceedings was provided to Council on 26 November 2024 in response to a
question with notice seeking: “A detailed breakdown by proceedings that
are or have been initiated by Council or Court directed and of all legal costs
incurred by and against Council from the period of January 2024 to
present”. The response to the question provided the legal costs paid by
Council in relation to the proceedings referred to in the motion.
The response did not include the
costs of staff time. A record was not kept of staff time connected with the
proceedings.
If Council so resolves, legal
advice can be provided on potential recovery of legal costs from councillors
who voted in favour of the legal proceedings. Without prejudging such advice, the
following matters may be relevant to Council’s consideration:
(a) The proposed Notice of
Motion does not indicate any grounds upon which it is suggested there would be
a basis for claiming against councillors who voted in favour of the legal
proceedings.
(b) The Minister for Local
Government advised on 18 July 2024 that a public inquiry would be held and that
he intended to suspend the Council, appoint an administrator and postpone the
election in Liverpool. At that time, Council had a services contract for the
election with a price of $1,684,679.16, inclusive of GST, and the first ten
percent of the price had already been paid. The next 75 percent instalment was
due on 28 August 2024. One consequence of the proceedings that Council resolved
on 22 July 2024 to take was that the election was held and monies paid or
required to be paid under the services contract were not wasted.
(c) Section 731 of the Local
Government Act 1993 provides a form of protection for councillors. A councillor
is not personally subject to any action, liability, claim or demand in respect
of a matter or thing done by a councillor in good faith for the purpose of
executing the Local Government Act or any other Act and for and on behalf of
the council.
(d) The provisions on
surcharging in Chapter 13, Part 5, Division 2 provide for surcharging by the
Departmental Chief Executive in specified circumstances, not by Council.
(e) A Council resolution
will be needed. The cost is estimated at $10,000 plus GST and a budget will
need to be allocated.
Costs associated with this
recommendation are outside of Council’s current budget and long-term
financial plan.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 07
|
Proposal to Show Waste Management
Education Video Before Citizenship Ceremonies
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Liveable,
Sustainable, Resilient
Deliver a
beautiful, clean and inviting city for the community to enjoy
|
|
File Ref
|
122788.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
Rationale:
Community
Awareness: As new citizens are welcomed
into our community, it is crucial to instil a sense of responsibility towards
maintaining a clean environment. An educational video can effectively
communicate the importance of proper waste disposal and recycling practices.
Reinforcing
Values: Integrating this video into
citizenship ceremonies emphasizes the values of sustainability and civic
responsibility that are central to our community ethos. It reinforces the idea
that every citizen plays a role in preserving our local environment.
Educational
Impact: A concise, engaging video can
inform new citizens about local waste management services, recycling protocols,
and initiatives aimed at reducing litter. Providing this information at the
outset will empower citizens to contribute positively to our community.
Visual
Engagement: Utilizing visual media will
enhance understanding and retention of information, making it more likely that
new citizens will adopt responsible waste management practices.
Positive
Community Involvement: This initiative
aligns with Liverpool Council's goals of promoting community involvement and
environmental sustainability. It presents an opportunity to engage new citizens
in discussions about local initiatives and encourage them to participate
actively in keeping Liverpool clean.
Implementation:
The
video should be approximately 5-7 minutes in length, suitable for viewing
within the schedule of citizenship ceremonies. Collaboration with the local
waste management authority to develop content that is relevant and informative.
Conclusion:
By
adopting this motion, Council will take a proactive step towards fostering a
culture of environmental responsibility among new citizens. This initiative
will not only educate but also inspire a collective effort towards keeping
Liverpool clean and vibrant.
1. That Council recognises the importance of environmental
stewardship and community engagement in maintaining the cleanliness and
sustainability of Liverpool; and
2. A brief educational video on waste management be shown
to new citizens before citizenship ceremonies.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
Waste
Education is fundamental not only to our overarching waste strategy at Council
but as we roll out our Food Organics Green Organics (FOGO) initiative, some
five years before the mandated requirements are enforceable.
Whilst the
Council will prepare a waste management video suitable for viewing in many
educational environments and circumstances, Citizenship Ceremonies are not
deemed an appropriate nor suitable forum for an educational platform on waste
management.
This is
primarily because these ceremonies are a celebration of citizenship of our
Country, a celebration of Australia itself and finally becoming an Australian
citizen, many of the participants having already lived in this Country and this
LGA for years.
To deliver a
behavioral message at the time would not be in the spirit of the ceremony and
may have a counter-intuitive message around control – a theme many people
from around the world come to Australia to avoid.
After Council
prepare the educational video, it will be displayed to Council before a
schedule is prepared for endorsement as to where and when it is best shown, for
optimal outcomes which include a cleaner and more sustainable
Liverpool.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 08
|
Search Dogs Sydney
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Place
customer satisfaction, innovation and best practice at the centre of all
operations
|
|
File Ref
|
125993.2025
|
|
Author
|
Fiona Macnaught -
Councillor
|
When a
person is reported missing, every moment counts. The ability for search and
rescue agencies to access relevant information swiftly is critical to the
success of their efforts. One key resource in such investigations is CCTV
footage, which may provide vital clues to a person’s last known
movements. By working to remove barriers to accessing this footage,
particularly when held by Council, we can help support timely and effective
responses to missing persons cases.
That Council work with Search
Dogs Sydney to understand their operational requirements for accessing
Council-acquired CCTV footage in missing persons cases, and bring back a report
to Council at the earliest opportunity outlining how this access could be
facilitated and any associated costs.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
The A/Chief
Executive Officer notes the work of Search Dogs Sydney and will come back to
Council with a report in relation to how other organisation’s can access
Council’s CCTV footage, including Search Dogs Sydney.
There are no financial implications for the preparation of the report,
other than staff time.
Nil
Ordinary Meeting
23 April 2025
|
NOM 09
|
Restriction of Donations Outside
Liverpool Local Government Area
|
|
Strategic Objective
|
Visionary,
Leading, Responsible
Ensure
Council is accountable and financially sustainable through the strategic
management of assets and resources
|
|
File Ref
|
130931.2025
|
|
Author
|
Peter Ristevski -
Councillor
|
Considering the recent decision to allocate a $20,000
donation to Lebanon, which has sparked considerable discontent among ratepayers,
it is imperative that we address the priorities of our community. The previous
urgency motion brought forth by Liberal Councillor Rachid Ammoun has
highlighted the concerns of many residents who feel that their contributions
should directly benefit the local area rather than be sent abroad.
Rationale:
Community
Sentiment**: Recent feedback from
ratepayers indicates a strong preference for funds to be utilised within the
Liverpool LGA. Many residents feel that their rates should be invested in local
projects that enhance community welfare, support local businesses, and address
pressing issues within our own neighbourhoods.
Financial
Accountability**: Allocating council
funds to overseas donations raises questions about financial responsibility and
prioritisation. The council has a duty to ensure that ratepayers dollars are
spent where they can have the most direct and beneficial impact on the community.
Local
Needs**: Liverpool is home to diverse
challenges, including infrastructure issues, rubbish dumping concerns, and
community development needs. By focusing our resources locally, we can address
these challenges more effectively and foster a stronger, more resilient
community.
Transparency
and Trust**: Committing to local
donations will enhance transparency in council decision-making and rebuild
trust with ratepayers who feel their voices have been overlooked in recent
decisions.
That:
1. Council prohibits
any future donations from council funds to overseas entities or causes;
2. Council ensure
that all donations are directed exclusively within the Liverpool Local
Government Area (LGA) to support local community initiatives, charities, and
organisations; and
3. The $20,000 be
returned from the Councillors budget.
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S COMMENT
The
motion of urgency that you refer to occurred in November 2024 and was unanimously
endorsed by Council.
However,
should the Council approve recommendation 2, there is no need for
recommendation 1 as it would automatically achieve that outcome.
In
regard to recommendation 3, there is no “Councillors budget” from
which to seek a return of funds. The donation has been made and is not
recoverable.
There are no financial implications
relating to this recommendation.
Nil
