Liverpool Council meets tomorrow night, and this is not a blink-and-you-miss-it agenda.
The Wednesday 29 April Ordinary Council Meeting brings together a string of live local issues: Project 26, a major Glenfield planning proposal, East Leppington infrastructure delays, Woodward Park, the CT Lewis Centre, Civic Place, traffic questions, public funding questions and a long list of confidential land, legal and community facility matters.
The public forum starts at 5.00pm, with the Ordinary Council Meeting starting at 5.30pm. The meeting will be held at the Liverpool Civic Tower Council Chamber, Level 1, 50 Scott Street, Liverpool. Council’s agenda confirms the meeting time and says that doors to the chamber will open at 3.50pm. Council also says meetings are livestreamed and remain available online for the remainder of the Council term or for 12 months, whichever is later.
The Public Forum appears first on the order of business, followed by the usual opening items, confirmation of minutes, declarations of interest, reports to Council, notices of motion, questions with notice and closed session. Those declarations of interest will be worth watching closely. Council’s own agenda papers remind councillors that conflicts must be disclosed, and that both the disclosure and the nature of the interest must be recorded in the minutes.
Project 26 returns to the agenda
The first major report, CEO01 – Stakeholder Engagement and Strategic Membership – Review and Update, might sound like a fairly routine memberships report.
It is not quite that simple.
The report says Council’s stakeholder engagement should move from broad-based advocacy to more targeted, outcomes-driven engagement with industry, investors and key economic institutions. It also links that approach to Liverpool 2050, the Economic Development Strategy and Project 26.
Council describes Project 26 as supporting long-term financial sustainability and economic growth by driving “revenue generation, asset optimisation and operational efficiency”, with reinvestment into community infrastructure and services.
That makes CEO01 worth more than a quick nod.
Project 26 has already become part of the broader debate about Council assets, commercial opportunity, revenue and what exactly gets described as “optimisation”.
The question for residents is simple: when Council talks about strategic memberships and stakeholder engagement, is this just networking, or is it part of a bigger strategy about how Liverpool’s land, assets and investment pipeline will be managed?
Glenfield industrial rezoning proposal
One of the biggest planning items is PD02 – Planning Proposal – 2 Cambridge Avenue, Glenfield.
The proposal relates to land near the Liverpool and Campbelltown local government boundary. For the Liverpool side, the proposal seeks to change land from RE1 Public Recreation to E4 General Industrial, introduce a 19 metre height-of-building standard and remove a land reservation acquisition layer for regional open space. The related planning proposal documents describe the broader site as approximately 91.55 hectares across both LGAs.
This does not mean the rezoning is approved tomorrow night.
Council staff are recommending that Council endorse the proponent-led planning proposal “in principle” and send it to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for Gateway Determination, subject to changes including a minimum lot size of 8,000 square metres and a minimum landscaping requirement of 10 per cent. If Gateway is issued, the proposal would go to formal public exhibition and come back to Council later.
But it is still a major step.
The public interest is obvious. Land currently zoned for public recreation could move toward industrial use. The site sits near the Moorebank freight and logistics corridor, Glenfield, Casula, the Georges River and major road and rail infrastructure.
Council’s report says preliminary exhibition ran from 3 February to 3 March 2025, with about 1,700 property owners and occupiers notified. It received 18 community submissions, all objecting. The concerns included loss of recreational land, environmental and biodiversity impacts, traffic and access, and the cumulative effect of another industrial precinct near the site.
Residents will want to know what this means for traffic, open space, environmental protection, industrial expansion, and whether Liverpool receives enough public benefit in return.
East Leppington infrastructure delays
PD04 – East Leppington – Infrastructure Delivery is another item that should matter to residents, especially in the growth areas.
This report follows a March notice of motion about delays to Leppington Park, East Leppington green space and the fourth leg of Camden Valley Way, Old Cowpasture Road and Guide Avenue. The March motion referred to a petition with more than 170 resident signatures and concerns that traffic signals previously expected in 2025 remained outstanding in 2026.
This is exactly the sort of issue residents in growth suburbs keep raising: homes arrive first, but parks, roads, drainage and traffic solutions too often feel like they are chasing from behind.
The April report is recommended to be noted. Whether councillors are satisfied with that answer is another question.
For East Leppington residents, the key issue is whether Council can provide clear dates, clear responsibility and clear interim safety measures, not just an explanation of why delivery is complicated.
Woodward Park next step
Woodward Park is also back before Council, this time through OPER01 – Woodward Park Draft Plan of Management.
Council’s report says the Draft Plan of Management is intended to guide the use, maintenance, management and improvement of Woodward Park for the next 10 years. It would also authorise leases and licences, and guide future uses and development. The report says the plan is needed because Woodward Park includes both Crown land and Council-owned community land, with a variety of uses requiring more detailed management.
Council is being asked to place the draft plan on public exhibition for at least 42 days, including a public hearing, and receive a further report after exhibition.
That makes this more than paperwork.
Woodward Park is one of Liverpool’s most important public spaces. It connects sport, recreation, community use, major events, public land, future investment and the long-running debate around the Whitlam and Oasis precinct.
The issue for residents is not whether Woodward Park should improve. It should. The question is what kind of place it becomes, who gets access, what community uses are protected, and what future commercial or long-term investment arrangements may be opened up.
CT Lewis Centre sale process under scrutiny
The CT Lewis Centre in Lurnea appears across several parts of the agenda.
NOM01, lodged by Councillor Peter Ristevski, calls for the immediate suspension of any process relating to the potential sale or disposal of the CT Lewis Centre until a full report is presented to Council.
The motion describes the centre as a ratepayer-owned asset and calls for details about the appointment of CBRE Group as selling agent, whether there was a public tender process, what probity advice was obtained, communications between Council representatives and CBRE, and whether any conflict-of-interest declarations were made.
A related question with notice, QWN04, asks how CBRE was selected, who made the final decision, whether the Mayor had any direct or indirect involvement given his previous employment with CBRE, whether any probity advice was sought, and why councillors were not formally briefed or provided with documentation.
A further CT Lewis item, QWN12 – CT Lewis – Sale Price and Purchaser, is listed for closed session because Council says it contains confidential commercial information.
This is likely to be one of the most closely watched parts of the meeting.
The issue is not only whether the building should be sold. It is also about process. Who authorised what? Was the community consulted? What was the role of the selling agent? What information was given to councillors? And has Council followed its own previous direction on the future of the site?
For Lurnea residents, this is not an abstract governance question. It is about a local community asset.
Civic Place coffee shop lease
Another public asset question appears in QWN05 – Commercial Lease – Coffee Shop at Liverpool Civic Place.
The item concerns the coffee shop at Liverpool Civic Place, 52 Scott Street. It sits on the same agenda as broader questions about commercial use of Council-owned or Council-managed assets.
This may not attract the same attention as Glenfield or CT Lewis, but it still matters.
Council-owned buildings are public assets. Residents are entitled to understand how leases are structured, what incentives are offered, and how Council ensures fair value for ratepayers.
Traffic, public funds and Austral development questions
There are several other questions with notice worth watching.
QWN06, from Deputy Mayor Peter Harle, deals with traffic-related items. The title alone does not tell residents much, but traffic remains one of the most consistent complaints across Liverpool, especially in growth suburbs and around major development corridors.
QWN07, from Councillor Ristevski, deals with equity, non-discrimination and the allocation of public funds. This is a sensitive item and should be reported carefully, based on the exact question, Council’s response and any debate in the chamber. The broader principle is legitimate: public money should be allocated fairly, transparently and without discrimination.
QWN08 concerns DA-224/2025 at 990 Fifteenth Avenue, Rossmore, described in the agenda as being at the corner of Fifteenth Avenue and Ramsay Road, Austral. Council’s written response says the application was for demolition of existing structures and construction of an indoor and outdoor recreational facility, including a football field, basketball court, two tennis courts, indoor recreation building, community space, parking, landscaping and site works. The response also says the application was withdrawn on 5 March 2026 and is no longer under assessment.
Economic development and “Invest Liverpool”
The agenda also includes CEO02, dealing with the Liverpool Innovation Precinct Business Delegation and Western Sydney International Airport, and NOM03, which proposes the development of an “Invest Liverpool” economic investment prospectus.
Read together with CEO01 and Project 26, these items show Council is sharpening its economic development pitch around the airport, investment attraction, innovation and Liverpool’s role as the capital of South West Sydney.
That ambition is not automatically a problem. Liverpool should be ambitious.
But residents should also ask what the benefit looks like locally. Jobs where? Investment for whom? Public land on what terms? And how will Council measure whether these strategies deliver real returns for the community, not just glossy brochures and delegation photos?
A long closed session
The closed-session list is also significant.
It includes land acquisitions in Austral and Horningsea Park, a follow-up report on the Michael Wenden Aquatic Centre, the Railway Street and Bigge Street streetscape and intersection upgrade tender, confidential litigation, a legal affairs report, secondary employment, grants, donations and sponsorship, a Liverpool Olympic capital works proposal, and the CT Lewis sale price and purchaser question.
Closed session does not automatically mean something improper. Councils can deal with commercial, legal, personal and security matters confidentially.
But when closed-session business includes public land, public facilities, public funds, legal affairs and community assets, residents should pay attention to what Council later reports back in open session.
Why this meeting matters
This meeting brings together several live Liverpool threads at once.
Project 26. Public assets. Industrial rezoning. Growth-area infrastructure. Woodward Park. CT Lewis. Civic Place. Traffic. Public funds. Closed-session land and legal matters.
Not every item will become a headline. Some will be noted and move on. Others may be deferred, amended or sent out for further process.
But taken together, the agenda shows the scale of decisions now sitting in front of Liverpool Council.
Residents do not have to agree on every issue. But they should know what is being decided, what remains confidential, who is asking questions, and how councillors vote.
Local Pulse Press will follow the meeting and report on the outcomes.
Sources: Liverpool City Council.
