Agenda of Council - 24 July 2013

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

A GUIDING CHECKLIST FOR COUNCILLORS, OFFICERS AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEES

Ethical decision making

Is the decision or conduct legal?

Is it consistent with Government policy, Council’s objectives and Code of Conduct?

What will the outcome be for you, your colleagues, the Council, anyone else?

Does it raise a conflict of interest?

Do you stand to gain personally at public expense?

Can the decision be justified in terms of public interest?

Would it withstand public scrutiny?

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest is a clash between private interest and public duty. There are two types of conflict:

Pecuniary – regulated by the Local Government Act and Department of Local Government

Non-pecuniary – regulated by Codes of Conduct and policy. ICAC, Ombudsman, Department of Local Government (advice only). If declaring a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest, Councillors can choose to either disclose and vote, disclose and not vote or leave the Chamber.

The test for conflict of interest

Is it likely I could be influenced by personal interest in carrying out my public duty?

Would a fair and reasonable person believe I could be so influenced?

Conflict of interest is closely tied to the layperson’s definition of ‘corruption’ – using public office for private gain.

Important to consider public perceptions of whether you have a conflict of interest.

Identifying problems

1st Do I have private interests affected by a matter I am officially involved in?

2nd Is my official role one of influence or perceived influence over the matter?

3rd Do my private interests conflict with my official role?

Whilst seeking advice is generally useful, the ultimate decision rests with the person concerned.

Agency advice

Officers of the following agencies are available during office hours to discuss the obligations placed on Councillors, officers and community committee members by various pieces of legislation, regulation and codes.

Contact	Phone	Email	Website
Bega Valley Shire Council	(02) 6499 2222	council@begavalley.nsw.gov.au	www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au
ICAC	8281 5999 Toll Free 1800 463 909	icac@icac.nsw.gov.au	www.icac.nsw.gov.au
Division of Local Government (DPC)	(02) 4428 4100	dlg@dlg.nsw.gov.au	www.dlg.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman	(02) 8286 1000 Toll Free 1800 451 524	nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au	www.ombo.nsw.gov.au

TO: The General Manager
Bega Valley Shire Council

Disclosure of pecuniary interests / non-pecuniary conflict of interests

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and the requirements of the Local Government Act and regulations or dispensation issued by the Division of Local Government I hereby disclose the following pecuniary interests and/or non-pecuniary conflict of interests at the meeting as indicated below:

Ordinary meeting held on _____ / _____ / 20___

dd mm yy

	Item no & subject
	Interest (tick one)	Pecuniary interest Non-pecuniary conflict of interest
	* Nature of interest
	If Non-pecuniary (tick one)	Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber

	Item no & subject
	Interest (tick one)	Pecuniary interest Non-pecuniary conflict of interest
	* Nature of interest
	If Non-pecuniary (tick one)	Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber

Signed
Print Name	Councillor

* Note: Under the provisions of Section 451(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (pecuniary interests) and Part 6.11 of the Model Code of Conduct prescribed by the Local Government (Discipline) Regulation 2004 (conflict of interests) it is necessary for you to disclose the nature of the interest when making a disclosure of a pecuniary interest or a non-pecuniary conflict of interest at a meeting.

Council 24 July 2013

AGENDA

1 Confirmation Of Minutes

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 3 July 2013 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

2 Apologies and requests for leave of absence

That the request for leave of absence by Cr Britten from 13 September to 18 October 2013 be approved and confirmed.

3 Declarations

Pecuniary, Non-Pecuniary and Political Donation Disclosures to be declared and tabled.

4 Deputations (by prior arrangement)

5 Petitions

6 Mayoral Minutes

7 Adjournment to Standing Committees

RECOMMENDATION

That the Ordinary meeting of the Council be adjourned for the purpose of dealing with staff reports to Standing Committees.

8 Staff Reports – Planning and Environment (Sustainability)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Britten

8.1 Request for nomination of the Hotel Australasia,142-144 Imlay Street, Eden as a Heritage Item 9

8.2 Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program.................................................... 85

8.3 Clay Target Shooting Range - Lot 101 DP1172182, Murrah River Road, via Bermagui - Proposed modification to Condition 4............................................................................ 91

8.4 Clay Target Shooting Range - Lot 101 DP1172182, Murrah River Road, via Bermagui - Proposed Modification of Condition 4.......................................................................... 101

8.5 4 Lot subdivision Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive Merimbula................. 106

8.6 Rectification of Encroachment onto Council Road Reserve............................ 128

9 Staff Reports – Community and Relationships (Liveability)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice , this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Seckold.

9.1 Youth Council Nominations 2013-14.............................................................. 134

10 Staff Reports – Economic (Enterprising)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor McBain.

Nil Reports

11 Staff Reports – Infrastructure Waste and Water (Accessibility)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Fitzpatrick.

11.1 RFT 13/13 Supply and Delivery of One CCF Class 25/30 Landfill Compactor.. 138

11.2 LGP BUS198-0410 Supply and Delivery of Two Twin Steer Water Trucks........ 141

11.3 Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee Meeting 3 July 2013.............................. 143

11.4 Littleton Gardens Tree Removal.................................................................... 145

11.5 Acquisition of Fitness Centre Assets for Sapphire Aquatic Centre.................. 151

12 Staff Reports – Governance and Strategy (Leading Organisation)

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Councillor Mawhinney

12.1 Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 156

12.2 Southern Councils Group Code of Conduct Review Panel Tenders................. 160

12.3 Tender 25/13 External Auditing Services....................................................... 164

12.4 Local Government NSW Annual Conference 1-3 October 2013: Selection of Bega Valley Shire Council Voting Delegates............................................................................. 166

12.5 Organisation Structure and Resourcing Review............................................ 168 .

13 Adoption of Reports from Standing Committees

RECOMMENDATION

That all motions recorded in the Standing Committees, including votes for and against, be adopted in by the Ordinary Council meeting.

14 Delegates Reports

15 Rescission/alteration Motions

16 Notices of Motion

16.1 Wyndham Rural Fire Service Handover......................................................... 189

17 Urgent Business

18 Questions On Notice

19 Questions for the Next Meeting

20.. Confidential Business

21 Adoption of reports from Closed Session

22 Resolutions to declassify reports considered in closed session

Council 24 July 2013 Item 8.1

8.1. Request for nomination of the Hotel Australasia,142-144 Imlay Street, Eden as a Heritage Item

Reporting on request for nomination of the Hotel Australasia, Imlay Street, Eden as a Heritage Item under the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2013.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

Council has received seven (7) requests, including from the Eden Killer Whale Museum Committee, for the inclusion of the Hotel Australasia as a Heritage Item under the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (CLEP 2013). The catalyst for the requests would appear to have been local media articles on the sale of the hotel and possible redevelopment, including demolition (now subject to a recently lodged development application).

The request for nomination was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who has provided a detailed report for Council’s consideration.

The request for nomination of the building as a Heritage Item has been assessed by staff not only on the heritage value of the building, but also in terms of the 20 year vision set out in the Port of Eden Town Centre Development Control Plan No. 40, and how the building would contribute to this vision.

The recommendation of the Heritage Advisor to list the original section of the building as a Heritage Item has been carefully considered. However, based on the future vision for the Town Centre and its ‘maritime’ theme, it is recommended that the building not be included as a Heritage Item under the CLEP 2013.

What is a Heritage Item?

Under the CLEP 2013 a Heritage Item is defined as:

“a building, work, place, relic, tree, object or archaeological site the location and nature of which is described in Schedule 5”.

Clause 5.10 of the CLEP 2013 relates to Heritage Conservation with the objectives outlined in 5.10(1) being:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Bega Valley Shire Council,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

If a site or item is listed as a Heritage Item in Schedule 5, development consent is required for the following:

· demolishing or alterations

· disturbing or excavating an archaeological site

· disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of Heritage significance

· erecting a building on land on which a heritage item is located

· subdividing land on which a heritage item is located.

As part of the consent process the applicant may be required to submit a Heritage Management report assessing the impact on the Heritage Item and supporting any proposed works, including demolition.

Further Clause 5.10(10) of the CLEP outlines Conservation Incentives for Heritage Items which enable development to be carried out that would normally be prohibited under the CLEP.

Current status of building

The building is not listed as a Heritage Item or Interim Heritage Item under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002.

The building is not listed as a Heritage Item under the Draft CLEP 2013.

In total, there are 428 items listed in the CLEP across the whole of the Bega Valley, including 26 items in Eden. There are 17 hotels and inns (or former hotels or inns) listed across the Bega Valley, including the Great Southern Inn and the Crown & Anchor Inn both located in Imlay Street Eden. The process of heritage listing in the new CLEP has been extensive across many years in terms of professional research, community input and Councillor deliberations. This culminated in mid 2012 with Council’s adoption of the draft CLEP and referral to the Director-General of NSW Planning & Infrastructure.

The 2006 Heritage Study of Eden conducted by Council’s Heritage Advisor and members of the Eden Community did not identify the Australasian Hotel as having historic value worthy of listing as part of the CLEP process.

Advice from Office of Environment and Heritage

The Heritage Branch of the Office of Environment and Heritage also recently received a request for the granting of an Interim Heritage Order over the site. As part of the assessment of the request the Heritage Branch contacted Council staff and a copy of Council’s Heritage Advisor’s report was provided. Council was formally advised on 7 June 2013 that the Hotel was not considered to be of State Heritage significance and that it was a local matter the responsibility of which rests with Council.

Heritage Advisor’s Assessment

Council’s Heritage Advisor was requested to assess the building’s heritage status and value and provide recommendations for Council’s consideration.

The Heritage Advisor’s report is included in full as Attachment 1 to this report.

As part of his report, regarding Heritage Significance, Council’s Heritage Advisor states:

“The building was not assessed as part of the 2006 heritage study of Eden because its appearance from the street was of a building that had been extensively compromised by the 1960s modifications. Furthermore there had been no recommendation from the community to pursue further study or assessment.

“In Australia, places are assessed against a set of criteria to determine the nature and extent of their heritage significance. The Hotel Australasia is assessed against the NSW heritage criteria below.”

The NSW Heritage Assessment Criteria are outlined below:

· An item is important in the course, or pattern, of the cultural or natural history of the local area;

· An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in the cultural or natural history of the local area;

· An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in the local area;

· An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the local area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

· An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the cultural or natural history of the local area;

· An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of the local area’s cultural or natural environments.

The Heritage Advisor’s report reaches the following conclusion:

“Statement of Significance

“The Hotel Australasia is historically significant for having been constructed in 1904-05, at a time when there was optimism in the Eden’s bright future. It is associated with notable local identity Sabina Pike and builder John Hines and was used by dignitaries Australia’s Governor General Lord Northcote and NSW State Governor Sir Harry Rawson. The building in its current form has some aesthetic value for its scale in the main street however it has much greater significance for its restoration potential and its ability to reinstate a dramatic architectural and historic presence back into Imlay Street. In this capacity it is rare. The 1904-05 part of the building would reach the threshold for listing in a local heritage schedule.

“Options

“The preferred heritage option for this site is to ultimately restore the façade to its ‘as built’ condition. This is technically and realistically feasible as virtually all windows and doors remain in-tact as do most of the parapet renderings. The timber and cast iron verandah would need to be rebuilt however this is a standard procedure for which the components are readily available. Ideally the render would be removed from those parts not rendered initially, however if removal proved problematic, it could remain in place, as many buildings from the time were in fact rendered.

“This option would not only reinstate the historic connections to the past, but would have a dramatic and positive impact on the aesthetic value of Imlay Street, making it much more attractive to tourists. It is a big building and its restoration would reinstate a sense of solidity and scale into the streetscape that is at risk of being lost.

“The restoration would not have to be done immediately as the historic part of the structure is stable, notwithstanding some minor leaks in the roof. This strategy suggests that a restoration of the façade could be done when it is economically prudent, which could be in years or even decades. For example if tourist ships started visiting Twofold Bay on a regular basis there would not only be increased wealth in the community, but also very good reasons to present the main street and its history in the most attractive light possible.

“Some areas of the downstairs are in good original condition (entry foyer and gaming room) and others such as the bar and dining room, have been extensively modified and would be suited to further adaption. Much of the rear building has not heritage value and could be demolished and redeveloped. Upstairs, the 1904-05 part of the building is in surprisingly good original condition and could be successfully restored or adapted with relatively little effort. Some of the walls are up to two bricks thick and represent considerable embodied energy in addition to their beneficial thermal mass.

“The former drive through bottle-shop creates an excellent opportunity for a supermarket entry directly from Imlay Street with ground levels rising slightly such that a supermarket floor level would be the same as that of the hotel. Retaining the historic hotel building and locating the proposed supermarket behind it could impact on available parking spaces. However it could be possible for Council to waive some of the parking requirements in recognition of the urban design benefits that would result from retaining the building. After all, there appears to be extensive existing parking behind the site.

“Full restoration of the building to a hotel is unlikely to occur given the fact that no one purchased the building for such a purpose over the last few years. It is understood not to be the current owner’s intention.

“Full demolition of all buildings on the site would not address heritage values or community expectations. It would lose an important urban design element from the Imlay Street streetscape and would deny the option for a future owner to restore the building and reinstate a potentially very valuable tourist element into the town. This last point is very important as it is often the historic buildings that are sought for restoration and adaption when towns such as Eden cycle into economically more prosperous times. The recent restoration of the Royal Hotel in Queanbeyan is an excellent example.

“Retaining the historic front part of the building and erecting a supermarket behind would appear to be a workable strategy. A similar example of this approach is currently being done in Gipps Street Bega, where the historic Central Hotel is being retained as a two storey frontage behind which is the main supermarket accessed via the former carriageway. The rear of the supermarket will have a sympathetic frontage to the Coles carpark.”

Port of Eden Town Centre – Development Control Plan No. 40

The Port of Eden Town Centre DCP was adopted by Council on 16 May 2007 with its aim being:

“to encourage and facilitate the realisation of the vision for the Port of Eden (POE) as developed and documented in the “Port of Eden Urban Design Blueprint and Design Principles and Statement of Desired Future Character”. This is to be achieved by providing development principles and design criteria or requirements which focus on achieving built forms and quality urban design solutions that complement and integrate with the public domain and amenity of the area.”

The development principles include:

· Built Character and Form

· Urban Design and Image

· Accessibility

· Economic

· Employment

· Environment

· Quality of Life and Amenity

· Strategic Policy Lifestyle

· Equity

The theme of the DCP is “to promote a distinctive and memorable Maritime Port character and sense of place”.

The vision for the new Port of Eden is outlined in Section 1.2 of the Plan:

“There is a strong desire for Eden to maintain its maritime influence and to strongly reflect it in a vibrant contemporary manner in the emergence of the new Port of Eden.

“The Port of Eden has evolved as a dynamic, mixed-use centre, which respects its environmental and heritage contexts and capitalises upon its coastal setting. It highlights a reinvigorated working Port and functions as a service centre for an expanded and diversified local and broader hinterland population and business interests. It caters for an ever expanding tourist trade and retirees looking for a convenient, vibrant “downtown” residential setting.

“A tree lines Princes Highway leads to focal point at the termination of Imlay Street, in the form of an embellished roundabout, which in turn invites people with eye-catching directional signage and enticing framework and lower profile planting.

“Rationalised service infrastructure, new kerb aligned streetlights and enhanced central median masts, integrated parking provision and footpath widening with enhanced paced and street furniture, contribute to the level of attraction of a revitalised maritime centre.

“This enhanced public realm context shall complement a rejuvenated largely two-storey mixed-use commercial strip dominated by a continuous colonnade and awning treatment of street aligned buildings of maritime architectural influence. Existing lower stature buildings shall be enhanced and heightened or redeveloped as part of realising this new built form image.

“Radiating out from Imlay Street, the public realm context retains the same qualities, but with somewhat lesser stature. The colonnade effect is similarly diminished.

“The ‘downtown’ shopping precinct is a lively place to be and is enhanced by shop top housing and direct resident interaction. Mixed-use activities dominate this precinct, grading away to medium density residential precincts, which thrive upon proximity to the centre core and capture the magnificent views. Isolated higher density residential apartment blocks command sensitive sites.

“Glimpses of the sparkling waters of Twofold Bay and the Pacific Ocean and the working port, together with filtered views of the forested surrounding hills, provide an ever present captivating and relaxing and energising context.

“Improved vehicle and pedestrian movement and connectivity underpin the introduction of a ‘finer grained’ accessibility network servicing the developed centre. An important long term addition is an accessway between Bass and Chandos Streets and ultimately Mitchell Street servicing a redeveloped carpark precinct. Opportunities to improve vehicle/pedestrian access in the vicinity of the ‘Killer Whale’ Museum have been pursued. Warren’s Walk is embellished as a heritage trail and integrated with the Museum Precinct and a potential Maritime Discovery Centre.

“Convenient accessible parking is fostered throughout the Centre. Imlay Street is the focus of a rationalised parking scheme, which sees the retention of kerbside parking and centre island parking in a reconfigured manner that integrates with footpath widening and integrated landscape treatment to define groups of spaces.”

Section 3 of the Plan outlines the controls that apply to development in the Town Centre to achieve the vision of a ‘Maritime Theme’ via:

· Views and vistas

· Building setbacks

· Building form

· Building appearance, materials and finishes

· Landmark features

· Heritage

· Public domain

The Hotel Australasia is not identified in the Plan as a ‘landmark’ site or heritage item.

The Port of Eden Town Centre DCP is included as Attachment 2 to this report.

Discussion

Heritage Advisor concludes that the 1904-05 section of the building would meet the threshold for listing as a local heritage item when assessed against the NSW Heritage Assessment Criteria. Key elements in reaching this conclusion include:

· The hotel played an important role in the course of the cultural history of the Town, having been a major component of Eden’s hospitality over 100yrs from 1904-2010 and playing a major role as establishing Eden as a tourist location in the early part of the 20^th century

· The hotel is historically important for being erected in anticipation of Twofold Bay becoming a Federal Port

· The hotel has a strong or special association for the people who used the Hotel for hospitality purposes or who recognise the hotel for it being an important part of the heritage fabric of the town

· The hotel is one of the largest surviving historic structures in Eden.

His preferred option for the site is to ultimately restore the façade to its ‘as built’ condition and he considers this to be technically and realistically feasible.

Included as Attachment 3 to this report is an impression of the restored façade submitted with one of the requests for nomination and provided to Council’s Heritage Advisor.

The building has ceased to operate as a hotel and is contracted for sale. The new owners have lodged a development application with Council for demolition of the building and erection of a commercial development comprising supermarket, mini major and liquor store. Even if the retention and restoration of the 1904-5 section of the Hotel was incorporated into the development proposal, the link between the use of the building as a hotel and its social and cultural significance would not be restored.

Therefore critical consideration should be given to the value of a restored (or partially restored) façade and the contribution this would make to the streetscape and the future vision for the Town Centre – it is this consideration that should ultimately determine whether the hotel is listed as a Heritage Item.

There is a clear vision for the Port of Eden Town Centre which sets out community expectations for the next 20 years and this is adopted in DCP No. 40.

The pictures below are from the DCP, comparing the existing streetscape to the new streetscape for the future of Eden based on a strong maritime theme.

It is considered that the retention and restoration of the existing façade of the hotel would not contribute to the vision for the new streetscape. Conversely, demolition of the building will enable a new development to make a clear statement about the future vision for the Town Centre and Port of Eden.

Conclusion

Council‘s Heritage Advisor has assessed the Hotel Australasia and provided reasons for the listing of the building as a heritage item. These include strong links with the cultural and tourist development of Eden and the social relationship with residents and visitors. Options for restoration of the 1904-5 section of the building are proposed.

The building is currently not listed as a Heritage Item under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 or the Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2013. The building was not nominated or included in the 2006 Heritage Study of Eden for listing.

There is a clear 20 year vision for the Port of Eden Town Centre with a ‘maritime’ theme. This is presented in the Port of Eden Town Centre Development Control Plan No. 40 along with development standards and principles to achieve the vision and community expectations.

Whilst it has been identified that the façade could be restored, it is considered that such action would not contribute to the ‘maritime’ theme outlined in the 20 year vision of the DCP. Moreover, the site is located such that it would break continuity of a ‘maritime’ façade extending along this section of Imlay Street.

It is recommended that the Hotel Australasia not be included as a Heritage Item in Schedule 5 of the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2013.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Heritage Advisor's Report

2 View. Port of Eden Town Centre DCP No. 40

3 View. Impression of Restored Facade

Recommendation

1. That the Hotel Australasia located at 142-144 Imlay Street Eden not be included in Schedule 5 of the Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan 2013 as a heritage item.

2. That those persons who requested nomination of the Hotel Australasia as a heritage item be advised of Council’s decision.

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.2 - Attachment 1*	*Draft Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program*

Draft Swimming Pool Barrier Inspection Program

Program Objective

To implement an inspection program that effectively meets Council's obligations under the Swimming Pools Act and Regulation, increases pool safety awareness and reduces infant drowning and near drowning events within the Bega Valley Shire.

Background

A comprehensive review of swimming pool legislation has been undertaken by the NSW Department of Local Government. The change in legislation has been brought about because of the rate of preventable drownings and near drownings in privately owned swimming pools and the high rate of non-compliance of swimming pool barriers in NSW.

The resulting amendments to the Swimming Pools Act require NSW councils to develop and implement a locally appropriate swimming pool barrier inspection program for privately owned swimming pools in consultation with the community.

Definitions

Certificate of Compliance - in respect of swimming pools means a certificate issued under section 220 of the Swimming Pools Act.

Multi-occupancy development - a building or buildings that are situated on premises that consist of two or more dwellings.

Relevant occupation certificate - in respect of a swimming pool, which means an occupation certificate issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

that is less than 3 years old and that authorises the use of the swimming pool.

Swimming pool means an excavation, structure or vessel:

a) that is capable of being filled with water to a depth greater than 300 millimetres,

and

b) that is solely or principally used, or that is designed, manufactured or adapted to be solely or principally used, for the purpose of swimming, wading, paddling or any other human aquatic activity, and includes a spa pool, but does not include a spa bath, anything that is situated within a bathroom or anything declared by the regulations not to be a swimming pool for the purposes of this Act.

Tourist and Visitor Accommodation - means a building or place that provides temporary or short term accommodation on a commercial basis and includes back packers accommodation, bed and breakfast accommodation, farm stay accommodation and serviced apartments.

Inspection Program Requirements

a) As of and from 29 April 2014, Council shall inspect all swimming pools associated with tourist and visitor accommodation and multi-occupancy developments at a maximum of 3 yearly intervals (inspection fees apply).

b) As of and from 29 April 2014, when requested by the property owner or on behalf of the property owner, Council shall inspect within reasonable time, all properties which have a swimming pool prior to their sale or lease (inspection fees apply).

c) When requested by the owner of a private residential pool, Council will inspect pool barrier fencing within a reasonable time and, if necessary, provide direction to the owner about areas of non-compliance (no inspection fee).

d) Council shall inspect and take appropriate regulatory action in respect of swimming pools that have been constructed without development consent, or that are installed or are being used in contravention of conditions of development consent or other legislative requirements (inspection fees apply).
(Note: This action will commonly occur as a result of complaint or review of Council files).

Inspection Fees

The Swimming Pools Act provides that Council may charge a fee for inspection conducted by an authorised officer, being a fee that is not greater than the maximum fee prescribed by the Swimming Pools Regulation.

Council will charge a fee of $150 for an initial inspection (which includes the issue of a certificate of compliance for complying pool fences) and $100 for one follow up inspection. Council will not charge additional fees for the conduct of subsequent inspections.

Requests for inspection by the owners of private residential swimming pools shall be undertaken at no cost, except where a compliance certificate is requested. Should the owner require a compliance certificate the fee shall be as per Council’s schedule of fees and charges.

Inspection fees will be reviewed annually and determined as per Council’s schedule of fees and charges.

Enforcement

Council aims to achieve compliance through effective education and engagement of pool owners and the community. Council acknowledges the ultimate effectiveness of any pool safety barrier relies upon the awareness of the property owner and their willingness to ensure compliance and ongoing maintenance.

The Swimming Pool Act does provide mechanisms, such as notices, directions and penalty provisions, which are used to actively encourage compliance where deemed necessary and appropriate.

Education and Awareness

Pool owner education and awareness is essential in contributing to the success of the inspection program.

An ongoing and complementary community education and awareness program will be delivered through community publications, media releases, web site information, owner self- assessment pool fence checklists and pool safety officer interaction with the public.

The importance of pool barrier maintenance and adult supervision are key messages to be delivered within the program.

The rates of pool barrier compliance are expected to progressively increase as a result of the inspection program and the gradual improvement of the level of community education and awareness.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 8.3

8.3. 1999.1438 Clay Target Shooting Range - Lot 101 DP1172182, Murrah River Road, via Bermagui - Proposed modification to Condition 4

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Applicant	Bermagui Field and Game Inc
Owner	Bermagui Field and Game Inc
Site	Lot 101 DP1172182 (formally part of Lot 10 DP849934), Murrah River Road, via Bermagui
Zone	1(a) General Rural
Site area	24.6 hectares
Proposed development	Section 96 Application to Modify condition 4 of Development Consent 1999.1438

Precis

Council at its meeting held on 22 May 2013 gave consideration to a staff report on the Section 96 Application and resolved to defer a decision on the matter.

The decision to defer was in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice as there were three deputations and Councillors requested further information from Council staff.

The additional information requested related to consequences of deleting condition 12, impact of lead shot on the environment and noise impacts. The Council resolution also required a report outlining grounds for refusal of the Section 96 Application.

This report addresses that part of the Council resolution dealing with condition 12, lead shot and noise. A separate report has been submitted to the Council meeting from the General Manager outlining reasons for refusal.

The Section 96 Application to Modify condition 4 is recommended for approval.

Background

A staff report on the proposed Section 96 application to modify Condition 4 of Development Consent 1999.1438 was presented to the Council meeting held on 22 May 2013 with the following recommendations:

1. That the Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent 1999.1438 for the Clay Target Shooting Range on Lot 101 DP 1172182 Murrah River Road, via Bermagui, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the attached draft modified consent.

2. That those persons who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

Council received three deputations; two from objectors and one from a representative of the applicant and resolved the following:

1. That the matter be deferred to enable advice to be provided in a report to the next practicable meeting on the consequences of deletion of draft condition 12.

2. That report also provide further advice on the impact of lead shot on the environment, including potential remediation costs and liability.

3. That report also provide further advice on the impact of noise at distances greater than those assessed in the Acoustic Report.

4. Further, that the General Manager provide a report to the next practicable meeting advising Council of matters under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, if any, that would enable consideration to be given by Council to the refusal of the proposed modification of Condition 4 of DA 1999.1438.

5. That the General Manager’s report include reasons for refusal of the proposed modification in the event that Council ultimately determines to refuse the Section 96 application.

This report deals with resolutions 1, 2 and 3 with a separate report prepared by the General Manager in respect to resolutions 4 and 5.

Description of the proposal

The applicant has lodged a Section 96 Application to modify Condition 4 of the consent.

Condition 4 currently states:

“The use shall be restricted to a maximum of 12 days (between the hours of 10.00am and 5.00pm) in any one calendar year unless otherwise approved by Council. There shall not be less than 20 days between any event.”

The application is sought to allow one training day per month, which would be the second Saturday of each month, between the hours of 11am and 4pm. The Club advises that it would enable it to conduct skills training, junior development, safety training, an introduction to firearms for new shooters and Firearms Licence Tests. The applicant has detailed that the increased days would not be used for competition and the number of shots fired would be in the region of 1-3% of a competition day.

The applicant seeks to modify Condition 4 to read:

“Use for the audible firing of firearms will be limited to Competition and training days. The use, for the purposes of competition, shall be restricted to a maximum of 12 days (between the hours of 10.00am and 5.00pm) in any one calendar year, unless otherwise approved by Council. There shall not be less than 20 days between any competition event. The use, for the purposes of training days, shall be restricted to a maximum of 1 day per month (between the hours of 11.00am and 4.00pm).”

In support of the request the applicant provided additional information from noise consultants Renzo Tonin.

Description of the site

The site is described as Lot 101 DP 1172182 (formally part of Lot 10 DP 849934) and is approximately 10 kilometres south of Bermagui (see Appendix 1 Locality Plan).

The site occupies an area of 24.6 hectares that is well vegetated with access through State Forest land via Murrah River Road. The site is described as hilly with a small ridgeline traversing the site in a north-south direction. The site retains a number of free standing structures including shipping containers that accommodate the storage needs of the Club.

Deputations to Council AND ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

There were three (3) deputations to the Council meeting held on 22 May 2013 being Ms Suzanne Foulkes (objector), Mr Peter Redmile (objector) and Mr Neville Brady (on behalf of the Applicant).

The deputations raised the following issues:

- Noise impacts on surrounding residences associated with the existing operation of the Shooting Range and also the impact the additional day shooting would have; and

- Potential for additional contamination from lead shot on the site and the downstream environment.

- Suitability of Condition 12 in the draft modified consent

Since the application was reported to Council on 22 May 2013, a further two submissions have been received objecting to the proposal. Copies of these submissions are attached to the DA file and available at the meeting. The concerns raised in the two submissions relate to both potential noise and contamination impacts which are addressed in this report.

Impact of Lead Shot

The impact of lead shot has been reviewed by the Manager of Building Services and the Manager of Environmental Services. The following advice is provided by them in relation to this issue.

“There should be no argument that the use of lead shot will contaminate the site and any future change of use will require careful assessment to identify the extent of impact and remediation. It is conceivable that the use of the site will remain for the foreseeable future as a shooting range.

“The assessment of the application has been undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines available at the time of assessment, and this would provide justification for liability defence if that was necessary in the future. In any event the use of the range has existing consent and impacts associated with the additional use as proposed would have a minor bearing of any case to answer in respect to remediation and potential liability.

“While there are no specific guidelines for consideration of impact of lead shot in these circumstances, advice received from the EPA on best practice suggests that carefully placed sediment fences will aid in limiting any off site migration of lead both in its solid form and impact of oxidation over time. It is also recognised that the topography and vegetation cover assists in the reduction of contamination runoff. The shooting range is confined to ridge locations that in rain events lessen the extent of overland water flow - there is no large catchment that can produce large water flows over the shooting areas. Undisturbed vegetation cover acts to retain and reduce rainfall flows across the site while providing cover to the lead shot as it settles into the ground cover. It is likely that this natural cover lessens the impact of oxidation.

“Given the concerns raised at the last meeting of Council, the Gun Club have engaged a company to undertake water and soil analysis of samples taken from the site. The report produced is unsigned and staff have not undertaken any in-depth scrutiny of the document. The test results however are from a recognised laboratory and provide an indication from short term analysis (one sample grab) that indicate that there are no specific concerns in regard to lead contamination at this point in time. If there were concerns it is highly likely that these samples would have identified issues given the operation of the range over the past fifteen years.”

Council staff inspected the site on the 11 June 2013 and identified that all approved sedimentation fencing required from the original approval are in place.

Noise

The impact of noise has been reviewed by the Manager of Health & Building Services and the Manager of Environmental Services. The following advice is provided by them in relation to this issue.

“It has been suggested that on some days and depending on location, the noise generated from the shooting range is louder and has a greater impact.

“Weather conditions such as wind direction and temperature inversion can enhance noise levels produced to some receivers. It would be fair to conclude that there would be greater impact on some receivers that might be downwind of the range and on days where there may be a temperature inversion and as such noise produced may be more audible in a wider spread of locations. Prevailing wind direction is of course very seasonal also.

“The criterion that has been used to assess the impact of noise relies on guidelines that are used across the State for assessment. These guidelines do not necessarily take into account the range of climatic conditions that may be applicable to a site. They do recognise however the general impact of noise and, dependant on peak noise, identify acceptable limitations for shooting ranges as previously specified in staff reports.

“Condition 12 of the draft consent is recommended by staff as it provides the basis for site assessment rather than reliance on desk top assessment as provided by the noise consultant. It is considered prudent to field check the assessment given the nature of the continuation of the use and extent of concern raised by a number of objectors to the application for modification of consent.”

Deletion of draft Condition 12

As part of the recommendation for approval of the Section 96 Application staff have recommended the inclusion of draft Condition 12 as an additional condition to be imposed in any draft modified consent. As outlined above, Condition 12 provides the basis for site assessment rather than reliance on desk top assessment as provided by the noise consultant. It is considered prudent to field check the assessment given the nature of the continuation of the use and extent of concern raised by a number of objectors to the application for modification of consent.

It is therefore recommended that this draft condition remains.

conclusion

In accordance with the Council resolution of 22 May 2013, staff have reviewed the potential impacts on lead shot contamination and noise generation of an additional shoot day per month for training purposes.

It is considered that the potential impact from lead shot contamination on the environment produced by one training day per month would be negligible

The potential noise impact from an additional shoot day per month for training purposes has been assessed and is considered to be within accepted guidelines.

Condition 12 of the draft consent is strongly recommended by staff as it provides the basis for site assessment rather than reliance on desk top assessment.

The Section 96 Application to modify condition 4 of the consent to allow an additional shoot day per month is recommended for approval.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Locality Plan

2 View. Draft Modified Consent

Recommendation

1. That this report be considered concurrently with the report of the General Manager on the same matter.

2. That the Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent 1999.1438 being for a Clay Target Shooting Range at Lot 101 DP 1172182 Murrah River Road, via Bermagui, be approved in accordance with the attached draft modified consent.

3. That those persons who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 8.4

8.4. 1999.1438 Clay Target Shooting Range - Lot 101 DP1172182, Murrah River Road, via Bermagui - Proposed Modification of Condition 4

General Manager

Applicant	Bermagui Field and Game Inc
Owner	Bermagui Field and Game Inc
Site	Lot 101 DP 1172182 (formally part of Lot 10 DP 849934), Murrah River Road, via Bermagui
Zone	1(a) General Rural
Site area	24.6 hectares
Proposed development	Section 96 Application to Modify condition 4 of Development Consent 1999.1438

Precis

Council at its meeting held on 22 May 2013 gave consideration to a staff report on the Section 96 Application and resolved to defer a decision on the matter.

As part of the resolution Council resolved that the General Manager provide a report to Council including reasons for refusal in the event that Council ultimately determines to refuse the Section 96 Application.

Attached to this report are draft reasons for refusal. The draft reasons for refusal have been prepared having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the issues raised in submissions received by Council and deputations objecting to the proposed modification application.

It is recommended that Council determine the matter.

Background

2. That those persons who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

Council received three deputations; two from objectors and one from a representative of the applicant and resolved the following:

1. That the matter be deferred to enable advice to be provided in a report to the next practicable meeting on the consequences of deletion of draft condition 12.

2. That report also provide further advice on the impact of lead shot on the environment, including potential remediation costs and liability.

3. That report also provide further advice on the impact of noise at distances greater than those assessed in the Acoustic Report.

5. That the General Manager’s report include reasons for refusal of the proposed modification in the event that Council ultimately determines to refuse the Section 96 application.

This report deals with resolutions 4 and 5 and provides Council with reasons for refusal of the Section 96 Application to modify Condition 4 of development consent 1999.1438.

Description of the proposal

The applicant has lodged a Section 96 Application to modify Condition 4 of the consent.

Condition 4 currently states:

The applicant seeks to modify Condition 4 to read:

In support of the request the applicant provided additional information from noise consultants Renzo Tonin.

Section 79C Assessment

A part of the Council resolution of 22 May 2013 Council deferred the matter to enable the General Manager to prepare a report advising Council of matters under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, if any, that would enable consideration to be given by Council for the refusal of the proposed modification of Condition 4 of DA 1999.1438.

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, requires a consent authority to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of this development application.

(1)(a) the provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument, and

(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

(iii) any development control plan, and

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or any drafting planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

(e) the public interest.

In formulating the draft reasons for refusal, regard has been given to the issues raised in submissions received objecting to the proposed development, comments raised through the deputations to Council and issues raised by Councillors. These matters are particularly relevant when considering Section 79C (1)(b), (d) and (e).

Council staff have recommended that the application be approved as per the separate report of the Group Manager Planning & Environment on the same matter.

conclusion

In accordance with the Council resolution of 22 May 2013 reasons for refusal have been provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

It is recommended that Council determine the application.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Reasons for Refusal - Application to Modify Development Consent 1999.1438

Recommendation

1. That this report be considered concurrently with the report of the Group Manager Planning & Environment on the same matter.

2. That Council determines the Section 96 Application to modify condition 4 of Development Application No 1999.1438.

3. That those persons who made submissions be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 8.5

8.5. 2012.478 4 Lot subdivision Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive Merimbula

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Applicant	M Britten and R Savage
Owner	As above
Site	Lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive Merimbula
Zone	2(c) Residential Tourist Zone
Site area	3.9 hectares
Proposed development	4 lot subdivision

Precis

Council is in receipt of an application for the subdivision of part of the subject land into 3 lots large residential lots and a residue lot.

The application is referred to Council on the basis that Development Control Procedure 4.1.1(p) requires the application to be determined by Council as one of the owners of the land (Michael Britten) is a Councillor.

Approval of the application is recommended.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting held on 31 August 2010 approved the subdivision of Lot 881 into 15 lots subject to conditions outlined in Development Consent 2002.955. The approval included a residue lot of approximately 2.12ha which was identified as suitable for future development. It is this approved residue lot that is subject to this application.

Description of the proposal

The application is for the subdivision of the residue lot (DA 2002.955) into 3 large residential lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) ranging in area from 5342m² to 6839m² and a residue lot (Lot 4) having an area of 1.746 hectares. Building envelopes are proposed to be nominated on each of the residential lots to ensure the appropriate siting of future dwellings given the proximity of Merimbula Lake and foreshore, bush fire hazard and known aboriginal archaeology.

The proposed subdivision would create an easement for conservation purposes designed to preclude development on specific sections of proposed Lots 1 and 2 given the presence of aboriginal archaeology. The proposed easement supports an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage pursuant to the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

In this instance, the AHIP is supplemented by a management plan designed to cover the area of the conservation easement. The plan effectively precludes development from taking place within the easement unless approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage. As part of the subdivision process, the management plan would be registered on the title of proposed Lots 1 and 2.

Access to the subdivision would to be achieved by extending Lakewood Drive. All utility services are available and would be provided to the land as part of the subdivision works.

A copy of the proposed plan of subdivision is attached to this report as Appendix 1.

Description of the site

The land subject to this application is located on the southern side of Lakewood Drive and to the south west of the subdivision approved under Development Consent 2002.955.

The land generally falls from its northern boundary/Lakewood Drive frontage to its southern boundary/Merimbula Lake foreshore. Large areas of the site have been previously cleared as part of the subdivision works associated with the existing residential estate (Mulloway Circuit), site survey works associated with Development Consent 2002.955 and the adjoining Robyn’s Nest tourist development.

Sections of uncleared land still exist along and adjacent to the Lake foreshore. A minor gully traverses the land adjacent its western boundary. These features provide excellent habitat opportunities and contribute to the character and integrity of the lake and foreshore areas.

Planning assessment

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Staff highlight the key issues of the proposal in this report for Council’s consideration. A copy of the assessing officer’s Section 79C assessment will be available at the meeting.

Zoning

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002

The subject land is located within a 2(c) Residential Tourist Zone in which the subdivision of land is permissible with Council consent. The Local Environmental Plan nominates a minimum lot size of 550m² for the purpose of erecting a dwelling. The residential lots within the proposed subdivision would range in size from 5342m² to 6839m².

Draft Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

The subject land, in the main, is to be located within a R3 Medium Density Residential Zone. A small section of the land, adjacent the southern boundary of the proposed lots is to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The Draft Plan nominates a minimum lot size of 1000m² for subdivision. Accordingly, the subdivision is consistent with those provisions.

Development Control Plan No 2 – Residential Subdivision

Clause 12.4 of the Plan requires a minimum lot size of 1000m²in a residential 2(c) and the proposed lot layout is consistent with this clause.

Issues

The assessment of the application has identified several key issues which are discussed in detail below.

Lakewood Drive road reserve width

The subdivision layout approved under Development Consent No 2002.0955, which includes the creation of the residue lot subject to this application, was designed to take into account the requirements of the NSW Rural Fire Service. This required the adoption of a minimum road reserve width of 20 metres across the frontages to those lots fronting the Lakewood Drive extension to provide a suitable standard of access to the subdivision and secure an appropriate asset protection zone (APZ). The standard also satisfied Council’s adopted Subdivision Guidelines and Technical Specifications.

The current application proposes a narrowing of the road reserve width to 16 metres across the frontages to 5 of the 8 lots fronting the extension to Lakewood Drive.

The 20 metre minimum road reserve width should be maintained to meet the required APZ’s for DA 2002.955. A suitable condition has been imposed in the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Environmental

As highlighted in this report there are sections of subject land which contain quality vegetation and habitat opportunities. These areas are adjacent to the Merimbula Lake foreshore and extend into the proposed development site. Some minor clearing will be required within these areas to establish and maintain appropriate asset protection zones to future dwellings.

The remaining areas of vegetation should be preserved to ensure their integrity and contribution to the local environment.

Suitable conditions have been imposed in the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Aboriginal archaeology and cultural heritage

The proponent, acting on the terms and conditions detailed in Development Consent 2002.955, made application to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for the issue of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) to enable investigation and works associated with the subdivision of the subject land.

The issue of such a permit enables, under strict conditions, the displacement/harm of identified aboriginal archaeology at a specific location for a specific reason. It can also preclude specific areas of a site from development.

The AHIP was issued by OEH on the 30 November 2012 and is supplemented by an OEH endorsed management plan specifically covering nominated “no harm” areas within the subject lands. The management plan activated the need for the creation of the proposed easement for conservation purposes as shown on the proposed plan of subdivision.

The current development application was referred to OEH on the 29 January 2013 in response to issues raised by the NSW Rural Fire Service regarding the clearing of land within the proposed easement for conservation purposes. Clearing within the easement would be required to establish and maintain appropriate asset protection zones to future dwellings within the subdivision.

In response, OEH advised Council on 21 June 2013 that the management plan allows for the manual clearing of the vegetation within the easement for conservation provided it did not involve soil disturbance. Accordingly, OEH would not object to any manual clearing required to establish and maintain asset protection zones.

A suitable condition has been incorporated into the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Bush fire protection

The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service on 3 January 2013.

Following discussions between the proponent, the RFS and OEH, Council received modified plans from the proponent on 12 March 2013 addressing the concerns raised by the RFS. The modified plans were referred to the RFS for comment and/or requirements.

In response, the RFS issued a bush fire safety authority on 14 June 2013 in accordance with Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 which has been incorporated into the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Fisheries Conservation – aquatic habit protection

The application was referred to the NSW Department of Primary Industries on 3 January 2013 given the close proximity of Merimbula Lake. In response, the Department has raised no objection to the proposed subdivision subject to the provision of appropriate stormwater and water quality controls being engineered into the design of the subdivision (refer Draft Consent).

Submissions

In accordance with Council’s adopted Notification Policy adjoining and adjacent land owners were notified of the application with no submissions received.

The application was also referred to the Merimbula Oyster Growers for consideration. In response, concern has been expressed over the potential impact of the subdivision on water quality within the Lake to the detriment of the local oyster industry.

In their submission, the oyster growers requested that appropriate soil and water management controls are installed and maintained as part of the subdivision process and at the time of erecting dwellings.

Comment

Merimbula Lake has been identified as a “priority oyster aquaculture area” by the NSW Department of Industry and Investment’s report “NSW Oyster Industry Sustainability Aquaculture Strategy 2006”.

It is essential that high standards in stormwater management and water quality are achieved.

Suitable conditions have been incorporated into the draft consent attached to this report requiring the preparation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan which, subject to Council endorsement, would ensure the quality of stormwater discharge from the site both during and after the construction of the subdivision.

In addition, Council would require the installation and maintenance of soil and water management controls in the subsequent development of the individual lots for dwelling purposes.

conclusion

The application provides for the subdivision of part of the subject land, the design of which satisfies the requirements of both the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 and Draft Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The proposed subdivision effectively extends the existing residential estate and, subject to maintaining the required 20m wide road width, would be in keeping with the proposed subdivision as approved under Development Consent 2002.955.

Conditions have been imposed in the Draft Consent to satisfy the requirements of State Government agencies and the concerns expressed by the Merimbula Oyster Growers.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Plan of Proposed Subdivision

2 View. Draft Consent 2012.478

Recommendation

1. That Development Application 2012.478 for the subdivision of lot 881 DP 1148672 Lakewood Drive Merimbula into 3 residential lots and residue lot be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the Draft Consent attached to this report.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 11.4

11.4. Littleton Gardens Tree Removal

This report sets out issues regarding the large gum trees in Littleton Gardens and makes recommendation for replacement with more appropriate public park trees.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Council determined on 28 February 2012 and reconfirmed with amendment on 10 April 2012 that the Littleton Gardens (Littleton Square) Master Plan shall be constructed in stages, with Stage 1 to be constructed during the 2012/2013 financial year and other stages to follow.

The approved Master Plan had been designed, detailed and documented by an independent design team headed by Ted Dexter, Landscape Architect and including Tasman Engineers and GHD, among others.

The works involved in Stage 1B were awarded in March 2013 after public tenders were advertised. Notwithstanding a lengthy period of inclement weather, the works have progressed to a point where most of the in-ground services have been completed and pavements are being constructed.

With regard to the existing trees, the approach taken by the design team in the development of the Master Plan was to enhance tree planting throughout the area. This includes replacement of existing trees which have been found to be in poor condition. In particular, to identify a suitable point during the development phase to sequentially replace the gum trees with a more appropriate species for a well patronised public park. The replacement of the gum trees was not planned initially as part of the current Stage 1 works.

Recently there have been a number of incidents and increasing public concern and comment over the potential danger that the gums represent to the public, particularly in respect to the increasing number of people using the park. This concern was particularly vocal during the recent SCPA markets, during a recent wind storm and from Council’s contractors expressing reluctance to work under or near the trees. Informal comment has also been received from community members suggesting that they be removed for safety and amenity reasons.

Therefore, it is suggested Council consider some of the tree replacements be brought forward into the Stage 1 works.

ISSUES

Technical

A tree report was carried out nine years ago (CANOPY Tree Experts Report on Eight Eucalypts, Zingel Place, Bega - 1 March 2004) which described the trees as ‘mature’ and typically 20m high and 18m radius. The species of gum in Littleton Gardens is most probably Flooded Gum ‘eucalyptus grandis’. Although some were assessed to be in good health at that time, there are numerous and variable problems generally which include:

1. Damage to tree from wind, birds and disease:

· Increasing possibility of dropping branches, bark and tree nuts which in turn increases falling object & trip hazards.

2. Poor drainage in ground adjacent to some trees, which in turn is likely to cause:

· Tree drawing subsoil moisture from other sources possibly at some distance;

· Possible loss of root stability.

.... neither of which is directly observable to enable corrective action, prevention and/or maintenance.

3. Root damage and displacement to kerbs, footpaths and pavement resulting in:

· trip hazards with numerous recent incidents of falls;

· significant continuing replacement and maintenance costs.

4. Heaving of ground level around tree(s) with resulting:

· damage and displacement of kerbs, footpaths and road pavement;

· deterioration of ground cover around tree.

5. Over competition with adjacent growth:

· grass grows poorly under the gum trees from both moisture loss and cover from falling leaves and bark;

· other trees have poor growth e.g. the Littleton Sequoia was completely overtaken by the growth of the adjacent gum to the point of non-viability and has had to be removed (it will be replaced).

6. The volume of dropping branches, bark, leaves and nuts:

· causing trip hazards on footpaths

· inhibiting growth of ground cover adjacent

7. Other extant problems include:

· collar rot;

· epicormic growth;

· die back;

· unavoidable root damage during in ground services construction;

· fungal decay;

· ‘poor vigour’;

· approaching senescence.

The Council’s arborist revised the report and trees condition, and is in accord with the tree assessment and strategic approach being taken to Littleton Gardens.

Design

The gum trees are not original and as far as can be ascertained, the trees were planted at random sometime around 1980.

While crews have been able to work around the gum trees to date, it is anticipated the trees will cause increased construction and maintenance costs. There are amenity implications for the design and engineering of the park in terms of:

· Adjacent excavations during installation of ‘in ground’ services;

· Awkward adjustments to levels in the vicinity of the trees and consequent difficulties to comply across the park with disability access requirements;

· Drainage and other in ground services design and construction;

· Kerbs, gutters and pavements.

As a consequence, the designers of the Littleton Gardens Master Plan anticipated a sequential and staged replacement of the gum trees as the works were carried out. The replacement species Manchurian Pear (pyrus ussuriensis) has been selected for the park and has suitable characteristics:

· an attractive and hardy medium size tree (7m high x 6m canopy);

· not having invasive roots or known for dropping tree limbs or heaving ground;

· little bark, branch and leaf litter;

· providing soft green shade canopy in summer, colourful display in autumn and bare branches in winter to permit the sun through onto the grass.

Risk & Liability

The main risks arise from falling tree limbs and the creation of trip and fall hazards from protruding roots, uneven ground, fallen branches, bark and nut litter, as well as lifted kerbs, paths and pavements.

Council’s aborist advises as follows;

A hazard assessment has been conducted and provided the following results (score 12 = highest risk/danger)

· Trees 5, 6 and 8 returned a score of 8/12

· Tree 7 returned a score of 11/12

· Tree 9 a score of 9/12

· Tree 10 scored a low 6/12

These assessments are based on the observable characteristics displayed by the specimen and factored with the high volume of pedestrian access to the areas under the trees. With the exception of tree 7 all specimens show a low level of defects and although tree 5 has a history of failure the recent pruning has alleviated the immediate risk to an acceptable level for this type of public area.

In terms of relative risk associated with similar vegetation it must be considered that as the trees mature the incidence of falling limbs will increase. Generally it is considered that branches of 35mm or less are a normal failure size in mature trees with larger diameter branch failures requiring investigation as to specimen health. Within the confines of the public park if any of these trees are retained it must be accepted that the likelihood of branches up to 35mm in diameter falling will be a regular occurrence.

Tree 7 has returned the highest score due to the presence of a fungal infection that has been present for some time. Canopy’s assessment in 2003 noted the problem and as time passes the amount of internal damage to the tree will increase. Collapse of structure occurs when applied load surpasses the capacity of the remaining wood tissue to bear the load. Resistance drill testing indicates the decay has progressed to approximately 1/3 of the existing tree mass at the point of entry. As this area is at a major limb union (scaffold limb) it provides serious problems to the overall integrity of this specimen that is part of a children’s play enclosure. Raised soil profile is an added hurdle and any attempt to level by excavation or reinstatement can be disastrous for a mature tree as this.

Tree 6 displays the best structure of all the specimens and is a healthy tree at around 50% of its lifespan. Soil upheaval and associated trip hazards are problematic but can generally be addressed by engineering and maintenance procedures.

Observation of trees location is worth some comment and wind load characteristics associated with buildings needs some explanation; a the specimens are emergent i.e. they are now taller than surrounding structures, wind load can often be higher than that of actual wind speed. As wind passes over the surrounding structures the downdraught caused accelerates the wind speed similar to an airplane wing. Turbulence created has a much higher impact than would even wind load in terms of causing structural failures.

Consultation

Councillors would recall the retention of the gums was a sensitive community issue. While they present a pleasant aesthetic and have perhaps some sentimental value, they may have a limited life in the park area due to age of trees, associated risks and their long term setting in the park design. On the basis the playground will be relocated into the park, it is suggested the gum above the current playground be removed as a minimum.

Financial

The current Stage 1 Contractor has provided BVSC with a quotation of $5,500 for ‘out of working hours’ complete removal, stump grind and soil reinstatement per gum tree, as part of the Stage 1B works. Replacement of the trees can take place immediately.

Conclusion

The type of existing gum tree in Littleton Gardens is considered an inappropriate species by the designer and arborist for this particular location. Furthermore, they are perceived as a hazard to community, events and contractors working in the vicinity. The Littleton Gardens Master Plan envisaged sequential replacement of the gum trees, as part of the overall staging of the development.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Plan identifying trees to be removed

Recommendation

1 That Council consider the proposal to remove replace the gum trees with more appropriate park species and that these works be carried out at each stage appropriate to each tree of the Littleton Gardens redevelopment.

2 If Council determines to remove the trees, that the replacement of the three affected trees be approved in the current Stage 1B works, for safety and amenity reasons.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 11.5

11.5. Acquisition of Fitness Centre Assets for Sapphire Aquatic Centre

To provide Council with an update on the possible acquisition of fitness related assets to be operated as a fitness centre at the Sapphire Aquatic Centre and seek Councils delegation to progress to the acquisition of said assets.

Finance Manager

Background

On June 12, 2013 Council resolved to operate the Sapphire Aquatic centre for a period of 2 years with the aim of making the centre a viable entity that was able to serve the community and provide an all year, all weather aquatic facility for the entire shire.

In reviewing the operations of the Sapphire Aquatic Centre, Council staff undertook a review of all potential revenue streams as well as options to reduce expenditure at the Centre.

One particular item that was identified as a potential revenue stream for the centre was the operation of a fitness centre internally within the Sapphire Aquatic Centre.

It was determined that a functioning fitness centre could cater for fitness classes such as Aerobics, Yoga, Pilates, Zumba, as well as personal training, free weights, X-Training and many other activities.

There are a number of economies of scale that could be realised with a fitness centre operating within the aquatic centre. Staffing, Computer systems, back office support, and many other tasks, can all be shared across the two functions. For the public, memberships and programs can be offered across functions which allows for some exciting prospects, such as triathlon training (Swim, Bike, Run) which utilises both the pool and the fitness equipment.

The revenue generated from the fitness centre could be used to supplement the revenue from the aquatic operations, securing the financial viability of the Aquatic centre as a whole.

Council has also recently approved the construction of a multi-use community space to be potentially used for a number of indoor activities which shares access through the Sapphire Aquatic Centre and more specifically the area used as a fitness centre. Operating the Fitness Centre internally allows for this new structure to be managed and promoted through the Fitness.

The Community group previously operating the Sapphire Aquatic Centre chose to lease the space reserved for a fitness centre to a private operator. That lease is due to expire August 15, 2013. The private operator has run an effective business for the period of the lease with no issues or complaints. However, in order to reinforce the Sapphire Aquatic Centres financial position the preferred option is for the Aquatic Centre to operate its own Fitness centre.

Councillors considered options regarding the operation and integration of the gym with the aquatic centre, and process to potentially acquire the fitness assets, at a workshop on 15 May 2013.

Over the past two months Council engaged Kothes Chartered Accountants to perform an independent due diligence and asset valuation of the assets (including client roll) held by the business known as H20 Gymnasium and Fitness.

The attached confidential report indicates the results of that review. The information is held in confidence as the H20 Gymnasium and Fitness is an ongoing business and would prefer to keep details of their business confidential. If Council actions the purchase of any Assets from H20, at that time the details of the purchase would become public information.

This report seeks Councils delegation to the General Manager to continue the process and conclude the negotiations with H20 Gymnasium and Fitness to purchase their gymnasium assets, and membership base to be operated under the Sapphire Aquatic Centre. Council is not seeking to purchase the entity known as H20 Gymnasium and Fitness, simply the assets held by that entity for use in the fitness centre.

ISSUES

Legal

Once delegation is granted by Council, and negotiations are concluded as to the agreed value of assets. Council’s solicitors will review a contract of sale for said assets which will be duly actioned by the General Manager.

Asset

While retaining the details in confidence, the assets proposed to be purchased largely include fitness equipment and some minor fittings for the gymnasium itself.

Social / Cultural

An important consideration to Councils actions was to ensure the continuation of service for the Pambula area. We are aware that H20 is the only fitness centre operating in the Pambula area at the present time. Councils aim has always been to ensure that the current members of H20 would experience minimal interruption and potential members see a continuity of service.

Economic

Dues to economies of scale, the operation of a fitness centre within the Sapphire Aquatic Centre allows for a much reduced operating cost when compared to a private model. For example, staff, utilities, insurances, security, back office support, can all be shared at minimal additional cost.

The management of the Sapphire Aquatic Centre is hoping to convert the Fitness Centre to a 24hour facility. By making some minor changes to the fitness centre, including equipment and the room itself, patrons can be provided with secure access during out of hours. This would allow members who are unable to use the fitness centre during conventional hours and opportunity to exercise at their convenience. This would be the first 24hour fitness centre in the Bega Valley.

The management of the Sapphire Aquatic Centre is also hoping that by providing “bundled” memberships between the aquatic centre and the fitness centre at a reasonable price will encourage further use of the facility. By bundling the two functions together members can take advantage of the child minding facilities while they access the Fitness centre or while their children is undertaking Learn to Swim.

As presented to Council previously, the viability of the Sapphire Aquatic Centre largely depends on the public frequenting the Centre as much as possible. The more people that attend the Centre the better chance it has of becoming a viable asset to the community. The operation of a Fitness Centre is seen to assist with that goal.

Financial

As outlined in the confidential attachment to Councillors. The equipment being proposed to transfer from H20 to Council has been valued and verified by an independent entity.

This value is significantly cheaper than what Council would have to pay to purchase the equipment new and fit out the fitness centre on its own accord.

The cost of purchasing these assets will be met through a finance lease over 5 years through Councils leasing company. The cost of this lease will be directly paid for by the proceeds generated from the fitness centre. Any additional revenue generated will then be consolidated into the Sapphire Aquatic Centre.

Resources (including staff)

All staff at the Fitness centre will be casual and where possible sourced from existing casual staff at the Aquatic Centre, including the current operator of the gymnasium. While the Fitness Centre will be approved for unsupervised activity, adequate staffing will be provided during the operating hours of the Aquatic Centre. Only out of hours operations will be unsupervised.

Conclusion

The confidential attachment outlines the particulars of the proposed asset purchases. This report seeks Councils delegation to the General Manager to continue and conclude the negotiations with the proprietor of H20 Gymnasium and Fitness for the acquisition of the fitness related equipment and membership roll and action the purchase of those assets as recommended.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Valuation of business - H2O Gymnasium Fitness (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2 . Gym Contract 2012 (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

That the General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate the acquisition of fitness assets up to the value contained in the confidential attachment, and be authorised to execute appropriate documents related to that acquisition.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 12.2

12.2. Southern Councils Group Code of Conduct Review Panel Tenders

Bega Valley Shire Council participated in the Southern Councils Group process to appoint a Panel of 13 consultants to conduct sole or joint Code of Conduct reviews.

Group Manager Community & Relationships

Background

All Councils are required to appoint suitably qualified people/companies to a panel for conducting code of conduct reviews. As a member of the Southern Councils Group (SCG), Bega Valley Shire Council participated in a joint procurement process to identify and assess potential members for consideration by member Councils for appointment to local panels. The Public Officer was appointed by the General Manager to this SCG project team. The project team developed the process, and met, via teleconference, throughout the process. A small team from northern Councils was appointed as the Evaluation Team.

The project team has completed its assessment and the report is now presented to Council for ratification.

Expressions of Interest were invited through the following media in the period 17 to 23 May 2013:

· Sydney Morning Herald

· Illawara Mercury - Saturday and Wednesday

· Southern Highland News

· Kiama Independent

· South Coast Register

· Merimbula News

· Bega District News

· Eden magnet

· Wollongong Advertiser.

In addition, all existing reviewers were notified by email of the EOI.

The EOI was managed through the Kiama Council’s TenderLink portal. All EOI were received electronically through the portal.

The following timetable applied to the Project:

No	Tasks	Date
1.	EOI Advertised	23 May 2013
2.	Tenders Closed	13 June 2013
3.	Tenders Evaluated	19 June 2013
4	Evaluation Report Completed	25 June 2013

Probity, Disclosure of Conflicts Of Interest & Confidentiality

All members of the Evaluation Team have been asked to disclose any conflict of interest or association they might have with the tenderers for the Project. No member has disclosed that she has a conflict of interest or association with any of the tenderers.

All documents and proceedings of the Evaluation Team have been treated as confidential. They are provided via separate confidential memo to Councillors.

Tenders Received

A total of 32 completed Expressions of Interest were received. These were registered by the Kiama Council and released to Southern Councils electronically following the closing of tenders at 2pm on 13 June 2013.

Evaluation

The Evaluation Team comprised members from Wollongong City Council, Shellharbour City Council and Southern Councils Group secretariat.

EOIs were evaluated in accordance with the Project Charter and Procurement Plan with one additional step introduced to ensure the quality applicants appointed to the Panel.

Tenders were first assessed against the mandatory criteria. All were found to comply. All tenderers accepted the proposed terms and conditions of contract.

Tenders were then evaluated against the Assessment Criteria identified in the endorsed Procurement Plan. The evaluation team jointly reviewed all tenders and excluded four from further consideration based on the poor quality of the application and / or the lack of suitable qualifications and experience of the applicant.

The Evaluation Team examined and discussed each Tender and formulated a consensus score out of 10 for each response against each of the 3 criterion.

The agreed Evaluation Team score was then multiplied by the criteria weighting to obtain a weighted score for each criterion for each tender. The individual weighted scores for each criterion were then summed to obtain a total weighted score for each tender. The full report has been provided to Councillors and copies of the tenders are available.

The final evaluation team report accepted by SCG recommends the appointment of 13 individuals/companies be appointed as the Southern Councils Group Code of Conduct Review Panel

ISSUES

Policy

The Council’s key governance policy “Behaviour of Councillors and staff” currently policy 1.1.2 is currently under review, however little proposed change is recommended in the version on public exhibition.

Legal

Council adopted the new model code of conduct in March 2013. The Public Officer was appointed as the Complaints Coordinator. This report outlines the SCG procurement process and recommendations for the appointment of suitably qualified conduct reviewers to be considered for Council Code of Conduct reviews.

The Code of Conduct procedures for the administration of the model code of conduct for local councils in NSW requires each Council to, by way of resolution, establish a panel of conduct reviewers.

The procedures allow for a council to enter into an arrangement with one or more other councils to share a panel of conduct reviewers. The procedure outlines the process by which a panel must be constituted and the process implemented by SCG followed these. A copy of the procedure has been provided to Councillors.

The panel is to be appointed for four years, however a council may by resolution terminate the panel at any time.

Financial

The cost of the EOI process including advertising has been met by the Southern Councils Group. The cost of reviews will be met by individual Councils from their own funds when they engage Panel Members and conduct the required review(s).

Conclusion

The process has been a streamlined one which provides Bega Valley Shire Council with the opportunity of participating with Southern Councils Group Councils in the establishment of a panel of 13 consultants to conduct sole or joint Code of Conduct reviews.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council ratify the appointment of the Southern Councils Group Panel of Conduct Reviewers.

Council 24 July 2013 Item 12.5

12.5. Organisation Structure and Resourcing Review

Presenting report on the recent review of drivers of change, organisation focus and capability, culminating in a recommended new organisation structure and transition process.

General Manager

Background

Council is required to review the structure of the organisation in the first year after an election. Effectively, each year Council considers the resources available to the organisation in setting of budgets and the Operating Plan, which often causes shifts in resources and minor structural adjustments to give effect to that Plan – such as adding dedicated work crews to undertake flood damage works. In the main, the structure has responded to strategic actions and initiatives of the adopted Workforce Strategy, new policy approaches, award refinements or workplace agreements as they emerge. For example, following the resignation of the former Executive Manager Organisation Support in 2011, the Finance and HR Managers took on ICT and Risk, while the Group Manager Community and Relationships, and the General Manager absorbed the customer, records, tourism and business growth functions. While the deferred/non-replacement of the Executive Managers (see attached 1 current structure) saved salary expense, the functions absorbed by the above managers were identified in community surveys and councillor reviews, as needing more attention.

Much of the staff resource has been expended in recent years in the research, planning, consultations, negotiations and reporting for assets, workforce, financials, community and land use – setting the platform for many of the large scale projects, events and construction now underway with the benefit of independent reviews by Review Today, Division of Local Government (DLG), NSW Treasury (TCorp) and INSW. That effort no doubt played a part in the Local Government Review Panel (LGRP) recommendation that Bega Valley Shire Council continue as a standalone local authority and water utility due to its financial and asset management record over the past few years.

However in the current climate of local government sector reform, it is appropriate to outline the system of review of the organisation services, functions, resources and impacts on structure.

In 2012 a community satisfaction survey was conducted to help Council in understanding the communities’ level of satisfaction with existing services and standards and any changes in their priorities over time.

Through this survey, the community has identified the following as priority areas for the future of our shire:

• adequacy and cleanliness of public amenities

• planning and consulting, and responsiveness to community requests

• the adequacy and standard of infrastructure

• the appearance and presentation of town centres

• the promotion of tourism and brand, employment and commercial opportunities

In response to this, Council has identified that some resource effort is required to be shifted to the scheduled management of the infrastructure backlog, the achievement of forecast productivity gains and the recommendations of local government sector reform.

As part of Council’s response to these priorities, $2m has been moved from non-essential services into infrastructure - enabling a doubling of annual renewals, and devoted all the rates to operations and maintenance of infrastructure. Council also scheduled a further $300k each year in procurement and contract productivity gains.

The extent of any redistribution of functions and services between state and local government, any reassigning of decision-making and services to regions, and the push by the government to decentralise, may also impact our structure and resources. Council will continue to work with its neighbouring local governments to share resources and pursue plans and projects that benefit the region.

For example, Council has worked on scoping a mix of roles and functions that may be performed by a county council or councils on behalf of government, under a vertical or horizontal distribution model, to minimise gaps and overlaps between state agency and local government service delivery in the south coast region.

Organisation resources will be progressively shaped to respond to community and government priorities and opportunities, utilising the emergence of high speed broadband and mobile technologies enabling remote delivery of service and self-enquiry, and the transitioning of our ageing workforce.

Council has proposed to manage the organisation by successfully addressing the ageing workforce through the take up of more cadets and apprentices; through investment in good research and data collection; and engaging an appropriate mix of contractors, consultants and staff to strengthen the local economy and utilise the skills and expertise available in the community.

Drawing from the review of assets and services by Council in 2011, this review of the organisation set about:

· identifying gaps and disconnects in services and functions delivered by the organisation

· exploring cultural change opportunities brought by retirements and intake of cadets and apprentices

· examining the skill base and gaps in delivering services, having regard to those gaps and anticipated staff turnover

· shifting focus and accountability to outcomes, rather than outputs

ISSUES

Drivers of Change

Reform Agenda

Councillors are aware of the structural and legislative reform agenda driven by NSW Government. Interpretation of that agenda, and timing for implementation of reform impacting local government, highlighted the organisation should be shaped to accommodate over the next 1-2 years:

1. Role of councils in NSW2021 State Plan, particularly in the themes of:

o renovate infrastructure

o strengthen local environment and communities

o restore accountability to government

2. Destination 2036, particularly the Local Government Review Panel ‘Directions Paper’, noting Bega Valley Shire Council is recommended to stand in its existing geographic, service and financial conjuncture, with:

o Establishment and devolution of higher order regional functions to counties

o Relationship/distribution of functions between state agencies and councils

3. Planning System, particularly the upfront investment in strategic planning and consultation, and migration to 80% of developments to complying or code determinations

4. Red Tape review, including the assessment of the impact of the application of state and local regulations on business, and soon the impact on operations and resourcing of local government, by the application of those regulations

5. Water Utilities review, including assessment of system capacity and organisation capability to design, finance and deliver water and sewer systems that meet health and environment standards

Community Strategic Plan

Similarly, Councillors have been working towards aligning services and standards to reflect the directions adopted in the Community Strategic Plan (CSP) and respective asset plans, and the funding available in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). The CSP was recently modified to accommodate the new findings and approaches around the social and community issues statements. While council meeting agendas have been adjusted to reflect the themes of the CSP, the opportunity to reshape organisation structure and reporting lines was considered accordingly.

It is proposed the Leadership Group will be assigned portfolio management for achievement of CSP theme outcomes; service managers will be accountable for achievement of Delivery Plan output; and function coordinators responsible for Operational Plan inputs.

Community Survey

More significantly though, has been the levels of satisfaction and priorities set by the Community Survey 2012 (see attached 2), summarised as:

· Infrastructure and facility quality

· Engagement with and responsiveness to community

· Economic development and tourism

· Planning for centres and environment

· Towns presentation

Those results also identified the community considered Council’s role to be changing from and between ‘provider, advocate, planner, or funder’ across the service areas.

Shifting organisation resources and management to these areas of focus, enables aggregation of skills and attitudes to outcomes, such as grouping of:

· Staff with community, communications, client, and information roles

· Staff planning and presenting facilities, landscapes and streetscapes

· Staff managing and renewing community infrastructure

· Staff managing accounts and certifying developments and risk

· Staff monitoring performance, and planning for organisation

· Staff building commercial relationships and generating economic returns

Some interim changes are being put in place, such as ‘flying squads’ to attend to unscheduled works requests/complaints, rather than deploy other work crews from scheduled maintenance.

In particular, it is intended to invest in staff FTE in: presentation, asset management and recreation – areas of concern raised by councillors in recent times.

It is proposed the organisation resources and structure be shifted towards those areas of priority, rather than on the guild or professions that local governments are traditionally based. This may require staff FTE and budgetary movements, if adopted.

Service Disconnects

Notwithstanding the local community and business may not clearly see the role council plays in services and facilities in the shire, the organisation review identified a number of services that council management may take greater responsibility in:

· ‘closing the service loop’ – either as a direct service by council, or interacting with other government or service providers

· linking the functions that support those services

· codifying and automating the processes and procedures underpinning the functions

It is acknowledged that often those disconnects or gaps in the ‘system’ prevents staff facilitating the service outcomes required by council and the community.

The attached schematic 3 illustrates the responsibilities and role of management and staff. Position descriptions will be organised around outcomes, outputs and tasks.

It is proposed the systems and processes of services and functions will continue to be codified and automated as mobile and intelligent technologies such as ‘nudge’, are developed. Some shift of resourcing to R&D (business process) is proposed.

Workforce

Council had previously acknowledged the organisation would need to grow by around 20% over the next 10 years to accommodate the increased annual investment in infrastructure maintenance and renewals, noting that investment would be notionally based on a 60/40 contractor-staff split. Reports in recent years highlighted the relationships of works backlogs, revotes, consultants, overtime, LTI and leave liabilities, in part due to low or inappropriately deployed staff resources.

Further, a recent retirement survey of staff signalled around 25% may leave the organisation in the next 5 years. Those potential retirements cover all areas of the organisation, including management (attachment 4 – councillors only).

It has previously been mooted to increase the intake of cadets, apprentices and trainees – notionally at a ratio of 2:1 – to offset those retirements and utilise mentoring to assist the transition to a modern, technology assisted organisation. We have increased the indigenous and disabled staff intake to improve cultural diversity.

Skills and engineering audits have isolated some of the critical capability gaps, and enabled a focus on recruitment or reskilling to narrow those gaps, noting many are short in the local government sector. The competition for those skills often requires market premiums to recruit suitable staff. It is suggested requisite skills and qualifications be progressively upgraded for key positions.

Those gaps have included: property, procurement, project and contract management (required to realise 1% annual productivity gains); and ICT/GIS; risk and audit; and property.

It should be noted a level of resource redundancy is required to enable response to natural disaster/emergency events, and remain a ‘parachute’ for services not taken up by private sector, such as certification of developments.

It is proposed to resource the organisation at 85% peak load (recruiting casuals and consultants for the development or grant peaks, or where specialist skills are not resident); and remunerate at/above Q3 of the annual remuneration surveys to attract and retain suitable staff.

It is proposed to delineate the accountability, responsibility, salary range and qualifications for: Executive Managers (degree/post grad), Service Managers (degree/diploma) and Function Coordinators (diploma/certificate).

It is proposed to continue the take up and training of cadets (professions), apprentices (trades) and trainees (plant/administration/works) at the ratio of 2:1, offset by retirements.

It is proposed to transition the advancement of younger staff into supervisory or specialist areas, with the benefit of in-house and external mentoring, by redesigning and rolling up of staff positions into team leader/coordinator roles.

It is proposed to continue the affirmative take up of indigenous and disabled employees, subject to availability of grants, so that the workforce diversity reflects community diversity ratios of 3% and 2% of the population respectively.

It is proposed to increase the positive profile of working in council, through local and sector media and awards.

Service

Previous services reviews, and those around the local government reform agenda, identified areas of function or service disconnects, overlaps and gaps, as well as pockets where staff were historically homed with certain professions or roles, may no longer be appropriate. Responsibilities and accountabilities need shifting to managers and coordinators to enable the managers to ‘close the service loop’, and draw on the functions and supply chains that support those services.

A number of function and ‘supply chain’ disconnects and risks were identified, or areas where increasing reactive resource was being applied. Those areas included: investigations, volunteers, recreation, quality assurance, ICT/mapping, property, audit and development contributions control.

Further, opportunities to reduce high transaction loads, or to resource areas of high visibility or poor perception was explored. That process considered whether to centralise, decentralise or outsource activities across functions.

In this way, the services (across infrastructure/accessibility, community/liveability, environment/sustainability and economic/enterprising) have been recast to a hierarchy supported by functions, and marked as ‘deliverers’ or ‘enablers’. The accounting and reporting frameworks can be similarly adjusted.

The schematic opposite illustrates how infrastructure underpins the outcomes delivered by the three themes, all of which are supported/enabled by the organisation effort.

The proposed hierarchy of services and functions is attached 5, around which the Level of Service statement in the Operational Plan, will be revised.

It is proposed the services, functions and activities hierarchy be revised in accord with the attachment.

It is proposed the hierarchy be used to shape organisation structure, together with reporting and accounting lines, and level of service statement.

It is proposed to ‘band’ positions and delineate salary range and qualifications.

It is proposed position descriptions, upon which job evaluations are based, be redesigned to focus on outcomes and outputs at management levels, rather that tasks.

It is proposed opportunities to centralise, decentralise or outsource activities across activities, continue to be explored.

Structure

Councillors considered the structure and organisation transformation process at a workshop on 5 June.

The attached 6 ‘draft organisation structure 2013’ retains the existing Leadership Group with five senior managers, noting two of those positions have been vacant for some time. A spread of control of 3-5 direct reports has been designed at the service manager and function coordinator levels. The structure flattens reporting lines and shifts the responsibilities and accountabilities in accord with the attached 3 schematic, and forms the basis of position descriptions and performance criteria. It also streamlines opportunities for career and succession planning, and through articulation of functions, identifies those capable of expansion or extraction should local government and planning reforms shift responsibility of those functions to or from Council, to counties for example, or if government grant contracts are not retained.

The structure rolls up several positions, including vacancies, through proposed redesign and greater responsibility, and maps out positions likely to be subject of incumbents retiring in next 3 years, to be offset by take of cadets, trainees etc.

With reference to the Financial section of this report, a number of Award-based roles are:

· currently vacant (marked vacant FTE) – to be externally recruited

· proposed for upgrade (marked vacant internal FTE) – to be internally recruited

· capable of redesign – to be re-evaluated, negotiated with current position holder, or internally recruited

New staff FTE positions are proposed in public domain (presentation), asset management (infrastructure backlog/quality assurance) and recreation (level of service).

Roles that are subject to grant contracts or special projects, are recruited as fixed term temporary contracts, and do not form part of the permanent FTE.

Subject to job evaluation and changes to Award, it is proposed the following salary ranges will apply (at Q3 of regional council average):

Position type	Range ($,000)
Service manager	$100-140
Function coordinator	$ 80-110

The graphic at right illustrates the portion of staff FTE funded by rates, grants and fees. It is noted that rates and annual utility charges fund asset operations, maintenance and renewals – and with them, the associated infrastructure and engineering staff. Other staff are funded by grants (sourced by staff) and engaged under contract; by fees and fines directly charged to users; while the remainder are funded by the financial assistance grant.

The table below outlines the shift between organisation layers, pushing responsibility down, including move to new management reports, utilisation of existing vacancies and rolling up of some positions to higher roles, to allow for transition of some staff into retirement and succession planning (primarily cadets etc).

In summary:

	current	proposed
Leadership group	6	6
Service managers	13	10
Function coordinators	41	42
Team leaders	18	20

Of the 78 staff over the age of 65 in 3 years and likely to retire, around two thirds are professional/office based.

As outlined earlier, permanent staff establishment is suggested to increase by 2 to 320 FTE.

Asset

The office and depot accommodation is being revised in accord with funding in the LTFP. While there will be an increase in staff FTE in line with the take up of cadets etc, some of the workspace pressures should be eased by retirements, electronic/offsite storage of documents, and use of mobile apps enabling a reduced reliance on dedicated workspaces, and enabling some staff to work from home.

The rebuilding of the Bega town hall and acquisition of Tura Tavern, enables the reduction of commercial leased office and meeting space.

It is proposed to revise working from home arrangements, expand mobile office opportunities, and redesign office and depot layouts to reduce offsite leased office accommodation.

Transition

The process proposed to follow initial union, group and individual discussions includes:

· Redesign

· Re-evaluate

· Redeploy

· Re-skill

· Rebuild

· Recruit

That process may trigger or identify positions that move to retirement or redundancy. As identified in the Workforce Strategy, a number of roles may transition to retirement, with appropriate staff mentoring the cadets, apprentices and trainees into the organisation.

It is proposed to transition to the new structure over the next 6 months, as legislative changes to local government and planning functions emerge. This allows also the Leadership Group to work through the Award and staff consultative requirements, and progressively move staff into new or redesigned roles.

Workforce Indicators

A number of indicators are in place that signal workforce performance. Annual employee performance reviews will continue to enable progression based on acquisition and demonstration of skills required, the demonstration of satisfactory behaviours against organisation values, and satisfactory performance against work plans derived from the annual Operational Plan.

The workforce indicators include:

· productivity (sick leave, overtime, lost time injury, turnover)

· diversity (demographics, indigenous, disabled, cadets/apprentices)

· skills (certificate IV, diploma etc)

· financial (employment costs as % opex; backroom cost as % opex)

It is proposed the above indicators be used to monitor workforce dynamics.

Strategic

While the current structure has served well, the building of organisation skills in planning, risk, project and contract management has hampered the senior staff focussing on strategic elements of the organisation and council activity. Strengthening the service managers capabilities and responsibilities to ‘close the loop’ and assume greater accountability (including access by and to councillors and community), should enable senior managers to work on the business, rather than in the business – particularly as the organisation goes through the significant sector reform and the senior manager Groups are arranged on areas of focus, rather than profession/guild.

In addition, the emergence of high speed broadband (initially via satellite/fixed wireless networks) and smartphone app technologies, will enable streamlining of manual process and short-run of input/output tasks such as plant/timesheets and inspection/invoicing for example. Further R&D is expected to enable higher levels of self serve/enquiry/lodgement - thus reducing front end interventions and reallocation of resources into higher value roles. The transition of functions to/from county councils (proposed in the local government reform agenda), through aggregation and scale, is also expected to alter the mix of consultancy, contract and proprietary ICT used by council for example - reducing their scoping and monitoring by staff.

R&D is also expected to interface with the ‘strategic’ and ‘business growth’ functions to source and collate data and interpretive tools required for the organisation and community.

It is proposed to continue R&D partnerships and pilots to explore new mobile and broadband apps, and fully utilise existing third party applications and accelerate public access for self serve/enquiry/lodgements.

Consultation

Unions, staff collectives and individuals whose areas, groups or jobs are proposed for change (eg reporting lines, responsibilities, skill sets), will be engaged in an extensive consultation and negotiation phase over the next six months.

Financial

The estimated shifts in costs for the proposed structure are to be accommodated by:

· reduced wages following retirements

· reduction from defined superannuation payments

· utilisation of vacancies for new internal FTEs

· utilisation of ELE reserves (retirements, redundancies if applicable)

· utilisation of Training to assist take up of cadets, trainees etc

· savings from rationalisation of redundant mobile technologies

Initial savings in staff FTE will be offset by costs associated with redesigned/re-evaluated positions.

Resources (including staff)

The Workforce Strategy will be updated to scope the quantum of cadets, apprentices and trainees anticipated to enter the organisation offset by the outflow of retirements and any redundancies once the restructure transition is worked through during 2013/14. Accordingly, there is expected to be an FTE ‘spike’ over the next 5 years, but at minimal cost as the employment cost of trainees are covered by retiring staff. However, some productivity slowing may be evident due to the on-job training and supervision of that group by other staff.

Changes to legislation and licencing has increased the type, frequency and cost of retaining staff with appropriate accreditation to operate plant and issue development and engineering certification for example.

Nonetheless, the take up of young and mature trainees, together with indigenous and disabled staff, should position the organisation well for the next decade to achieve the ambitions and projects contained in the CSP and Delivery Plan.

It is proposed the Corporate Training budget be modified to focus on skills required to equip cadets, trainees; as well as continue to reduce the skill gap identified in the audits.

Conclusion

The organisation review and proposed restructure has been a collaborative effort between the Leadership Group, reflecting on the local government sector reforms and positioning the organisation towards cultural change brought about through retirements and take up of youth, and working to the mix of skills and expertise required to deliver the community strategic planning agenda.

The structure shifts focus to infrastructure renewal and towns presentation, business growth, customer contact, sustainability and a creative culture. It is considered compliance, governance, audit and risk management will be strengthened.

Transition to the new structure will progress over the next six months, with position redesign, staff redeployment, union and individual negotiations, and recruitments (internal and external) expected to be complete to commence the new structure from January 2014.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Attachment 1 - current structure

2 View. Attachment 2 - survey

3 View. Attachment 3 - schematic

4 . Attachment 4 - retirements (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

5 View. Attachment 5 - hierarchy

6 View. Attachment 6 - LEG Organisation Structure

7 . Attachment 7 - NEW Organisation Structure (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That Council note the report on Organisation Structure and Resourcing Review

2. That Council endorse the proposals contained in the report

3. That Council adopt the 2013 Organisation Structure for transition over 2013/14

Criteria	Weighting
Whole of life costs	50%
Operational Assessment	15%
Mechanical Assessment	15%
Warranty Service and Parts (Inc WH&S)	15%
Environmental	5%

Funding source	April 2013	May 2013	June 2013
General Fund	$35,406,634	$36,406,634	$44,406,634
Water Fund	$8,749,118	$8,749,118	$8,749,118
Sewer Fund	$5,844,348	$5,844,348	$5,844,348

Criteria	Weighting
Relevant Experience	20%
Key Personnel skills and experience	20%
Demonstrated Understanding of Local Government	20%
Pricing	40%

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 1*	*Heritage Advisor's Report*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 2*	*Port of Eden Town Centre DCP No. 40*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 3*	*Impression of Restored Facade*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.3 - Attachment 1*	*Locality Plan*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.3 - Attachment 2*	*Draft Modified Consent*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.4 - Attachment 1*	*Reasons for Refusal - Application to Modify Development Consent 1999.1438*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.5 - Attachment 1*	*Plan of Proposed Subdivision*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.5 - Attachment 2*	*Draft Consent 2012.478*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 8.6 - Attachment 1*	*Plan*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 11.4 - Attachment 1*	*Plan identifying trees to be removed*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 1*	*2013.07.24 ATTACH Certificate of Investment Report June 2013*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 1*	*Attachment 1 - current structure*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 2*	*Attachment 2 - survey*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 3*	*Attachment 3 - schematic*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 5*	*Attachment 5 - hierarchy*

Council	24 July 2013
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 6*	*Attachment 6 - LEG Organisation Structure*