{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":4,"sheets":["Instructions & Definition","General Council Data","Variations data","Lists&Validations"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":16,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Instructions & Definition","index":0,"n_rows":57,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":57,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[40,0,40,2],[39,0,39,2],[43,2,56,2],[41,0,41,2],[16,0,16,3],[18,0,18,3],[20,0,20,3],[17,0,17,3],[19,0,19,3],[0,0,0,8],[2,0,2,2],[3,0,3,2],[4,0,4,2],[9,0,9,8],[12,0,12,1],[13,0,13,2],[14,0,14,3],[15,0,15,1],[11,0,11,3]]}
["VARIATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Instructions and Definitions"]
[]
["CONTENTS"]
[]
["1. General instructions"]
["2. File structure"]
["3. Variation data - explanation of requirements for each field including answers to frequently asked questions"]
["4. Categories of development"]
[]
["1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS"]
["ALL data should be emailed to: developmentstandards@planning.nsw.gov.au"]
["Please follow these instructions carefully. This will avoid / minimise errors in your  report and extra work in addressing any errors. If you are unsure about any aspect of these instructions, please contact the Department."]
[]
["2. FILE STRUCTURE AND WORKSHEET NAMES"]
["Your data must be submitted in ONE excel file. "]
[]
["Your single excel file must contain the following two worksheets:"]
["       General Council Data"]
["       Variation Data"]
[]
["The column order in the Variation Data worksheet must be the same as the Department's template, even if some columns are left blank and even if you are exporting data from your database."]
[]
["General Council Information"]
[]
["Council Information"]
["Field","Explanation","Data Format (field type, maximum size)"]
["Council name","Name of the council - see dropdown list.\n","Character - maximum 40 letters"]
[]
["Variation Data"]
["Field","Explanation","Data Format (field type, maximum size)"]
["Category of development\n      (see table below)","See Table \"Categories of development\" below for guidance on classifications.\n","Characters - maximum 255 letters OR number and words (ie. \"1: Residential - Alterations & additions\" OR just a number - \"1\" will be taken as Residential - Alterations & additions)"]
["Environmental planning instrument\n","Identify the LEP or SEPP by correct name\n","\n"]
["Zoning of land","Identify zone exactly as it appears in planning instrument"]
["Development standard to be varied","Identify the correct development standard in the appropriate environmental planning instrument (eg floor space ratio, height, minimum lot size)"]
["Justification of variation","Briefly identify reason for variation (eg slope of land means it would be difficult to meet standard and there will be no impact on amenity of neighbours)"]
["Extent of variation","Set out the exact percentage of variation from the standard (eg 10%).  If the development standard is not numerical, briefly describe the nature of the variation in words"]
["Concurring authority","Identify who the concurring authority is (eg council under assumed concurrence or the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment)"]
["Date determined","Date must be between first date of quarter and last date of quarter\n","Date format ie. DD/MM/YYYY"]
[]
["Categories of development "]
["§      Classification is for principal purpose of the development.  Do not classify the same \n     application under more than one development type."]
["§        Use the definitions below.  For any detailed information on these development types, \n      refer to Standard Instrument land use terms (see LEP Practice Note: Definitions)."]
["Development category","Definition","Answers to frequently asked questions"]
[" 1: Residential - Alterations & additions","Alteration or addition to existing residential development.  Includes additional ancillary development to dwelling houses eg. swimming pools, garages etc.  Also include alterations and additions to other types of housing (multi unit etc) that does not involve the creation of additional dwellings.\n","Q: Council's development categories do not match the Department's - what should council do?\nA: Council can provide the Department with a key showing how your categories match the Department's if that is possible eg. council's category \"a\" and \"b\" are the same as the Department's category \"c\". \n"]
[" 2: Residential - Single new dwelling","A new single detached house on a single lot.\n"]
[" 3: Residential - New second occupancy","Granny flats, dual occupancies (attached or detached).\n"]
[" 4: Residential - New multi unit","Includes residential flat buildings, multi dwelling housing (but not seniors housing), townhouses and villa developments.\n"]
[" 5: Residential - Seniors Living","Any development approved under the Seniors Living SEPP or previous versions of this SEPP.\n"]
[" 6: Residential - Other","Includes boarding houses, group homes, caravan parks and manufactured home estates if accommodation is of a permanent nature.\n "]
[" 7: Tourist","Includes tourist and visitor accommodation, and other development primarily related to tourism.\n"]
[" 8: Commercial / retail / office","Office, business or retail premises.\n"]
[" 9: Mixed","Any mix or all of residential, commercial, tourism, retail.\n"]
["10: Infrastructure","Includes transport, utilities, telecommunications proposals.\n"]
["11: Industrial","Includes rural industry, warehouse and storage facilities, extractive industry.\n"]
["12: Community facility","Includes educational establishments, libraries, public recreation facilities etc.\n"]
["13: Subdivision only","Includes applications for subdivision only and does not involve the construction of new residential or commercial development etc."]
["14: Other","Development not covered by categories above.\n"]

{"sheet":"General Council Data","index":1,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[5,1,5,2]]}
["General Council Data"]
[]
[]
[]
["COUNCIL INFORMATION"]
["Council name:","Liverpool City Council"]
["Contact name:","Sharon Zunic"]
["Phone:","8711 7598"]
["E-mail:","zunicS@liverpool.nsw.gov.au"]
["Start Date dd/mm/yyyy:","2019-04-01"]
["End date dd/mm/yyyy:","2019-06-30"]
["Please enter NIL for no variations to standards:"]

{"sheet":"Variations data","index":2,"n_rows":8,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":8,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Council DA reference number","Lot number","DP number","Apartment/Unit number","Street number","Street name","Suburb/Town","Postcode","Category of development","Environmental planning instrument","Zoning of land","Development standard to be varied","Justification of variation","Extent of variation","Concurring authority","Date DA determined\ndd/mm/yyyy"]
["DA-1248/2016",101,601256,null,101,"NUWARRA ROAD","MOOREBANK",2170,"Mixed","LLEP 2008","B2 Local Centre","Cl 4.3 - Height of Buildings, Cl 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio","Height \r\n\r\nAs the sites topography falls from east to west, the roof begins to encroach into the building height limit as the natural ground level falls from east to west of the subject site. \r\n\r\nFSR\r\n\r\nThe applicant proposes a numerical variation to the FSR in the B2 Zoned portion of the site of 58sqm or 1%. However, it should be noted that the part of the development within the R4 zoned portion of the site is 64sqm under the allowable FSR. In this regard, the gross floor area of the whole development is less than the total allowable gross floor area permitted across the site.","Height\r\n\r\nA maximum height of 21.8m to roof in the B2 zoned land which represents a numerical variation of 800mm or 4%; and \r\n\r\nA maximum height of 20.6m to lift overrun in the R4 zoned land which represents a numerical variation of 2600mm or 14%. \r\n\r\nFSR\r\n\r\nThe development proposes a FSR of 1.71:1 in the B2 zoned portion of the site and a FSR of 1.1:1 in the R4 zoned portion of the site. Accordingly, the applicant proposes a numerical variation to the FSR in the B2 Zone of 58sqm or 1%.","Council under assumed concurrence","2019-05-01"]
["DA-270/2017",16,228850,null,100,"CROATIA AVENUE","EDMONDSON PARK",2174,"Subdivision only","LLEP 2008, SEPP - Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006","R1 General Residential","Cl 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size","The location of the zone boundary does not impact on the development potential of each lot development.\r\nOverall, the proposed lot layout will accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose and consistent with relevant development controls. The proposal lot layout will enable Urban Transition style development along the western (Croatia Avenue) side of the site and Suburban style housing – consistent with adjoining development parcels on the eastern side of the site.",2.5999999999999999E-2,"Council under assumed concurrence","2019-05-03"]
["DA-440/2018",28,2819,null,33,"CHARLES STREET","LIVERPOOL",2170,"Residential - Other","SEPP - Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006","R4 High Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential","Cl 4.3 - Height of Buildings","Planning Comment on the Clause 4.6 Exception for Height  \r\n\r\nDespite the building height resulting in non-compliance with the development standard, the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Residential zone and the objectives of the building height standard. The following comments are provided in relation to how the proposed development satisfies the objectives of Clause 4.3:\r\n\r\n(a)\tto establish the maximum height limit in which buildings can be designed and floor space can be achieved,\r\nThe additional height does not increase the floor space of the development, and does not result in the addition of any storeys other than expected for a site with a 24m height limit. The floor space ratio is within the maximum allowed. The addition of a lift overrun on the rooftop is required to service the elevator shaft which provides access to a large Communal Open Space area, and is therefore an important element of the building design. Overall, the additional height is considered not to unreasonably add to the bulk and scale of the development.   \r\n\r\n(b)\t to permit building heights that encourage high quality urban form,\r\nThe proposal delivers quality urban form despite the numerical variation. The proposed height non-compliance occurs towards the front of the site and relates to the natural slope of land beneath the building footprint, which falls from the rear to front of the site approximately 3.3m. Overall the design provides the opportunity for an 8 level residential flat building as desired within the high density residential zone, within the Liverpool City Centre.  A complying scheme would either restrict the building to a 7 level building with no rooftop Communal Open Space, or would restrict internal floor to ceiling dimensions on each floor to less than 2.7m which although fully complying for habitable rooms, would result in less quality design outcomes for future residents. \r\n\r\n(c)\tto ensure buildings and public areas continue to receive satisfactory exposure to the sky and sunlight,\r\nThe additional height provides a minor additional overshadowing impact than could be reasonably expected for the adjoining site. As part of its approval, DEP required the removing of building mass from the top floor at the western and eastern ends of the building, and sought an expansion of the rooftop Communal Open Space, than originally proposed. Even so, the building envelope is within the compliant rear and side setbacks so as to not exacerbate the minor variation. The proposed development meets the solar access requirements to adjoining sites and has no impact on public open space other than a road reserve. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to maintain a good level of solar access in the locality.\r\n\r\n(d)\tto nominate heights that will provide an appropriate transition in built form and land use intensity.\r\nLiverpool City Council’s future vision for this area is buildings at a maximum height of 24m, with this proposed development the second in the locality to respond in transitioning to high-density residential buildings due to more recent rezoning of land.  Although providing a variation to the maximum allowed height, the design overall responds well to the topography of the site and is not entirely above the height maximum. It is considered this results in an appropriate bulk and scale for the land use, consistent with the desired future height of the area.\r\n\r\nThe proposed variation to building height control is reasonable and appropriate in the particular circumstances on the basis that:\r\n\r\n•\tThe Ground Level is dictated by the level of the basement of the adjoining RFB which was approved by DA-469/2015, and which is to be consolidated with a shared basement entry, as one development. As such, the design of the proposed building could not be lowered through excavation, to achieve full compliance.   \r\n•\tThe height achieved is lower than the approved adjoining RFB which was approved by with a height of 28.98m to accommodate a lift overrun and Communal Open Space.  \r\n•\tThe variation is realised from the central to front part of the site which has a depth of 56.36m and falls 3.3m from the rear to the front. As such, the building is compliant in the rear portion of its footprint. \r\n•\tIt is considered an appropriate building solution in order to achieve a coherent built form, for the proposed building to not respond to the slope by way of stepping down as this would cause issues with accessibility on each level.\r\n•\tThe proposed development will not impose any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining development as a result of the height. The area of non-compliance is not excessive and relates primarily to the lift overrun and rooftop Communal Open Space facilities, which enhance the level of amenity for future residents.\r\n•\tAs demonstrated above, the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the building height control, notwithstanding the numerical variation.\r\nGiven the circumstances of the case, the provision of a strict numerical compliance would be unreasonable on the basis that the proposed development achieves compliance with the objectives of the standard, and is compatible with the anticipated scale of new development within this section of the Liverpool.\r\n\r\nIt is considered that the proposal satisfies the provisions of the Liverpool LEP. \r\n","9.58%  (2.3m over maximum of 24m)","Council under assumed concurrence","2019-06-28"]
["DA-687/2018",193,2475,null,75,"SEVENTEENTH AVE EAST","MIDDLETON GRANGE",2171,"Subdivision only","LLEP 2008","R1 General Residential","Cl 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size","The departure from the development standard is only 5.3% and the proposal achieves compliance with all other requirements of the LEP and DCP. It is noted that the proposed variation is considered minor in nature in this instance and the proposed variation is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the development itself and adjoining properties. Therefore, strict compliance to the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Minimum Lot Size Standard. The proposed lot 33 is able to accommodate a dwelling that is suitable for its purpose and comply with the FSR. The variation sought is acceptable considering the fact that proposal has addressed the requirements of Clause 4.6 of LLEP 2008, and is consistent with the objectives of the control and zone.","Proposed Lot Size is 378.5sqm\r\nRequired Lot size is 400.00sqm\r\nExtent of Variation proposed 5.3%","Council under assumed concurrence","2019-05-10"]
["DA-91/2019",4327,1186769,null,4,"SAMUEL COURT","CARNES HILL",2171,"Residential - Single new dwelling","LLEP 1997, LLEP 2008","R2 Low Density Residential","Cl 7.13 - Minimum Lot Width In R1 R2 R3 R4 Zones","* The site has sufficient dimensions and area that is suitable to accommodate the proposed development. The proposal is generally consistent with relevant planning controls despite the reduced rear boundary.","15% or 545mm to the standard","Council under assumed concurrence","2019-06-20"]
["DA-930/2016",19,217227,null,37,"COPELAND STREET","LIVERPOOL",2170,"Residential - Other","LLEP 2008","R4 High Density Residential","Cl 7.14 - Minimum Building Street Frontage (Gen)","•\tThe applicant has attempted to amalgamate with the adjoining northern and southern site in order to achieve the minimum building street frontage of 24m. The applicant has commissioned evaluation reports and made multiple official offers to the adjoining landowners without any positive responses to those offers. Accordingly, it considered unreasonable to sterilise the development of the site for high density purposes, as proposed, where the applicant has made reasonable attempts to amalgamate sites. \r\n•\tIn order to provide a development onsite that is commensurate with the site frontage of 15.24m the applicant significantly reduced the original proposal from 7 stories with 46 boarding rooms to 5 stories with 25 boarding rooms. The applicable building height onsite is 21m with a 24m frontage. The development proposes a 15.79m high building on a 15.24 frontage. Proportionally, the proposed building height is 25% less than the allowable height limit and the proposed street frontage is 36.5% less than the minimum building street frontage. Accordingly, it is considered that the applicant has made reasonable attempts to reduce the building height of the development to be proportional to the reduced street frontage. \r\n•\tThe amended building design was presented to Council’s DEP. They considered the variation sought by the applicant and endorsed proposed the building’s height and design in the context of the limited site frontage, subject to consistency with ADG setbacks and building separation. \r\n•\tAs discussed below, one the objectives of Clause 7.14 is to ensure that visually, buildings have an appropriate horizontal proportion compared to their vertical proportions. Considering the applicable building height and frontage required with the height and frontage proposed, these factors are at a 1:1.03 ratio; meaning the proposed building height is almost one to one with the site frontage. In this regard, the amended development is considered proportional to the site with regards to height compared to site frontage.  \r\n•\tConditions are recommended to be imposed to remove a fifth storey POS area and increase the fifth level building setback to the side boundaries from 3m to 4.5m. This will ensure the building would not compromise any adjoining sites ability to development RFB’s in accordance with the ADG. This is also consistent with the comments of the DEP regarding acceptable building separation and setbacks.\r\n•\tThe applicant has provided shadow diagrams for the amended development that demonstrate that the adjoining southern neighbour will receive acceptable solar access to the POS area and the building between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter. \r\n•\tThe amended proposal was referred to the RMS and Council’s Traffic Engineers who supported the development, the proposed vehicle access arrangement onsite and vehicle impacts associated with the proposal, despite the variation to the minimum building street frontage. Accordingly, there is considered to be sufficient building frontage to accommodate the vehicles required service the proposal without adversely impacting the locality. \r\n•\tThe amended development is fully compliant with the provisions of the ARH SEPP 2009, with regards to boarding house standards. \r\n•\tThe amended boarding house has been specifically designed to mitigate any potential privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. No windows have been provided on the southern and northern (side) building elevations, which is considered to uphold visual and acoustic amenity to these neighbours. As discussed previously, conditions are recommended that would ensure the fifth storey is further setback from the boundaries to ensure greater separation to surrounding properties. \r\n•\tThe amended boarding house has been designed to comply with the local FSR provisions contained in the LLEP 2008 and not with the additional FSR awarded under the ARH SEPP 2009. Accordingly the proposal is considered to be sympathetic to the desired density for the locality. As such, the development is not considered to be an over development of the site with regards to its density characteristics and is commensurate with the limited site frontage. \r\n•\tThe development is fully consistent with the LDCP 2008, except in the case where controls have come into effect significantly after the subject DA was lodged with Council. This is discussed further in this report as part of the DCP assessment.  \r\n•\tThe development of the site for a boarding house will assist in providing affordable housing options in walking distance to Liverpool City Centre which hosts a range of services and community facilities for future occupants. \r\n","36.5% or 8.76m","Council under assumed concurrence","2019-04-29"]
["DA-1212/2016",44,2475,null,null,"TWENTIETH AVENUE","HOXTON PARK",2171,"Subdivision only","LLEP 2008","E2 Environmental Conservation","Cl 7.13 - Minimum Lot Width In R1 R2 R3 R4 Zones","Planning Comment on Clause 7.13 Minimum Lot Width  \r\n\r\nDespite the non-compliance with the development standard, the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the objectives of the minimum lot width. The following comments are provided in relation to how the proposed development satisfies the objectives of Clause 7.13:\r\n\r\n(a)\tto ensure that lot dimensions are able to accommodate residential development that is suitable for its purpose and is consistent with relevant development controls.\r\n\r\nThe two existing lots to be subdivided are irregular in shape and are significantly affected by a TransGrid transmission line easement 60.96m wide, which traverses the site at an angle of approximately 45 degrees, from the south-east to the north-west. The location of this easement effectively sterilises 6435sqm of R2 zoned land on-site which is within the easement. The irregular alignment of the transmission line through the site with respect to the existing Twentieth Avenue road frontage creates a significant site constraint which the development proposal is required to respond to.\r\n\r\nAs such, it is considered that as the developable land is an irregular shape, that any resultant subdivision proposal of the land will lead to an outcome in which some of the proposed lots are also irregular. \r\n\r\nIn this case, despite this significant site constraint, the applicant has demonstrated that the lots created in the majority (29 of 36 lots proposed) are consistent with the expected size and minimum lot width, and that the irregular shaped lots are of a sufficient size and shape to ensure that future residential development can be suitably accommodated specific to the residential dwelling development controls. \r\n  \r\nOverall, it is considered the proposal provides appropriate lot dimensions as required by the objectives. \r\n\r\nFurther, the proposed variation is reasonable and appropriate in the particular circumstances on the basis that:\r\n\r\n•\tThe variations are minor in nature with the non-complying lots complying in the majority with the 10m minimum width within the site. Further, the 3 lots with triangular elements are considered a technical variation and that each of these lots are of a size which provides for a building area more than sufficient to cater for dwellings which comply with the development controls.\r\n\r\nOverall it is considered the proposal provides appropriate dimensions to accommodate suitable residential development, despite this significant site constraint.    \r\n\r\n•\tTo require full compliance would be unreasonable in this instance as the site is significantly affected, and to comply in full would be an inefficient use of the developable R2 zoned land, otherwise resulting in some very large allotments inconsistent with the desirable character of the zone.  \r\n\r\n•\tThe lots with narrow frontages and wider at the rear boundaries and are designed in response to required compliance with the road alignment and design, which in this part of the site is curved, causing an irregular arcing of the frontages. Despite this, the lots are sufficiently wide enough to ensure an appropriate size and 10m width at the front building alignment of future dwellings.   \r\n\r\n•\tThe proposed development will not impose any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining development as a result of proposed subdivision design, or any resultant future residential development. The non-compliance is considered to be both  technically and reasonably unavoidable, and the applicant has provided additional information to ensure that the likely residential outcomes on-site are consistent with desired residential amenity in the locality (view Figures 11 and 12).\r\n\r\n•\tThe development is in the public interest and will provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment and it is considered that there is no direct measurable private or public benefit in maintaining strict compliance with the development standard.\r\n\r\n•\tThe proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of low density residential development, notwithstanding the technical numerical variation.\r\n\r\nGiven the circumstances of the case, the provision of a strict numerical compliance would be unreasonable on the basis that the proposed development achieves compliance with the objectives of the standard, and is compatible with the anticipated scale of new development within this section of the Local Government Area.\r\n\r\nFollowing the assessment pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LLEP, it is considered the proposal is consistent with the LLEP provisions on merit. \r\n\r\n",1,"Council under assumed concurrence","2019-05-24"]

{"sheet":"Lists&Validations","index":3,"n_rows":178,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":178,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Lists & Validation Management"]
["SELECTION LISTS"]
[]
["category of development list (cat_of_devt_list)",null,"menu contents (named ranges)"]
[" 1: Residential - Alterations & additions",1," 1: Residential - Alterations & additions"]
[" 2: Residential - Single new dwelling",2," 2: Residential - Single new dwelling"]
[" 3: Residential - New second occupancy",3," 3: Residential - New second occupancy"]
[" 4: Residential - New multi unit",4," 4: Residential - New multi unit"]
[" 5: Residential - Seniors Living",5," 5: Residential - Seniors Living"]
[" 6: Residential - Other",6," 6: Residential - Other"]
[" 7: Tourist",7," 7: Tourist"]
[" 8: Commercial / retail / office",8," 8: Commercial / retail / office"]
[" 9: Mixed",9," 9: Mixed"]
["10: Infrastructure",10,"10: Infrastructure"]
["11: Industrial",11,"11: Industrial"]
["12: Community facility",12,"12: Community facility"]
["13: Subdivision only",13,"13: Subdivision only"]
["14: Other",14,"14: Other"]
[]
[]
["council name list (council_list)"]
["Albury City Council"]
["Armidale Dumaresq Council"]
["Ashfield Municipal Council"]
["Auburn City Council"]
["Ballina Shire Council"]
["Balranald Shire Council"]
["Bankstown City Council"]
["Bathurst Regional Council"]
["Bega Valley Shire Council"]
["Bellingen Shire Council"]
["Berrigan Shire Council"]
["Blacktown City Council"]
["Bland Shire Council"]
["Blayney Shire Council"]
["Blue Mountains City Council"]
["Bogan Shire Council"]
["Bombala Council"]
["Boorowa Council"]
["Botany Bay City Council"]
["Bourke Shire Council"]
["Brewarrina Shire Council"]
["Broken Hill City Council"]
["Burwood Council"]
["Byron Shire Council"]
["Cabonne Shire Council"]
["Camden Council"]
["Campbelltown City Council"]
["Canterbury City Council"]
["Carrathool Shire Council"]
["Central Darling Shire Council"]
["Cessnock City Council"]
["City of Canada Bay Council"]
["Clarence Valley Council"]
["Cobar Shire Council"]
["Coffs Harbour City Council"]
["Conargo Shire Council"]
["Coolamon Shire Council"]
["Cooma-Monaro Council"]
["Coonamble Shire Council"]
["Cootamundra Shire Council"]
["Corowa Shire Council"]
["Cowra Shire Council"]
["Deniliquin Council"]
["Dubbo City Council"]
["Dungog Shire Council"]
["Eurobodalla Shire Council"]
["Fairfield City Council"]
["Forbes Shire Council"]
["Gilgandra Shire Council"]
["Glen Innes Severn Shire Council"]
["Gloucester Shire Council"]
["Gosford City Council"]
["Goulburn Mulwaree Council"]
["Great Lakes Council"]
["Greater Hume Shire Council"]
["Greater Taree City Council"]
["Griffith City Council"]
["Gundagai Shire Council"]
["Gunnedah Shire Council"]
["Guyra Shire Council"]
["Gwydir Shire Council"]
["Harden Shire Council"]
["Hawkesbury City Council"]
["Hay Shire Council"]
["Holroyd City Council"]
["Hornsby Shire Council"]
["Hunters Hill Municipal Council"]
["Hurstville City Council"]
["Inverell Shire Council"]
["Jerilderie Shire Council"]
["Junee Shire Council"]
["Kempsey Shire Council"]
["Kiama Municipal Council"]
["Kogarah Municipal Council"]
["Ku-ring-gai Council"]
["Kyogle Council"]
["Lachlan Shire Council"]
["Lake Macquarie City Council"]
["Lane Cove Council"]
["Leeton Shire Council"]
["Leichhardt Municipal Council"]
["Lismore City Council"]
["Lithgow City Council"]
["Liverpool City Council"]
["Liverpool Plains Shire Council"]
["Lockhart Shire Council"]
["Maitland City Council"]
["Manly Council"]
["Marrickville Council"]
["Mid-Western Regional Council"]
["Moree Plains Shire Council"]
["Mosman Municipal Council"]
["Murray Shire Council"]
["Murrumbidgee Shire Council"]
["Muswellbrook Shire Council"]
["Nambucca Shire Council"]
["Narrabri Shire Council"]
["Narrandera Shire Council"]
["Narromine Shire Council"]
["Newcastle City Council"]
["North Sydney Council"]
["Oberon Council"]
["Orange City Council"]
["Palerang Council"]
["Parkes Shire Council"]
["Parramatta City Council"]
["Penrith City Council"]
["Pittwater Council"]
["Port Macquarie-Hastings Council"]
["Port Stephens Council"]
["Queanbeyan City Council"]
["Randwick City Council"]
["Richmond Valley Council"]
["Rockdale City Council"]
["Ryde City Council"]
["Shellharbour City Council"]
["Shoalhaven City Council"]
["Singleton Council"]
["Snowy River Shire Council"]
["Strathfield Municipal Council"]
["Sutherland Shire Council"]
["Sydney City Council"]
["Tamworth Regional Council"]
["Temora Shire Council"]
["Tenterfield Shire Council"]
["The Hills Shire Council"]
["Tumbarumba Shire Council"]
["Tumut Council"]
["Tweed Shire Council"]
["Upper Hunter Shire Council"]
["Upper Lachlan Shire Council"]
["Uralla Shire Council"]
["Urana Shire Council"]
["Wagga Wagga City Council"]
["Wakool Shire Council"]
["Walcha Council"]
["Walgett Shire Council"]
["Warren Shire Council"]
["Warringah Council"]
["Warrumbungle Shire Council"]
["Waverley Council"]
["Weddin Shire Council"]
["Wellington Council"]
["Wentworth Shire Council"]
["Willoughby City Council"]
["Wingecarribee Shire Council"]
["Wollondilly Shire Council"]
["Wollongong City Council"]
["Woollahra Municipal Council"]
["Wyong Shire Council"]
["Yass Valley Council"]
["Young Shire Council"]
[]
[]
["Council"]
["Secretary of Department of Planning"]
["JRPP"]