Agenda of Council - 18 December 2013

Council 18 December 2013 Item 8.1

8.1. DA No. 2013.199: Demolition of existing building and construction of new supermarket, liquor store, speciality retail tenancy and associated signage

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Applicant	Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd
Owner	AAP Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd
Site	Lot 14 DP 250841 142-144 Imlay Street Eden
Zone	2(e) Urban Zone – Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 (application lodged prior to gazettal of BVLEP 2013)
Site area	2,886m²
Proposed development	Demolition of existing building and construction of new supermarket, liquor store, specialty retail shop and associated signage

Precis

Council is in receipt of an application for the demolition of the existing Hotel Australasia and accommodation building and the construction of a new supermarket, liquor store, speciality retail shop and associated signage.

The heritage significance of the existing building was considered at Council’s meeting of 24 July 2013.

The application is reported to Council for determination due to the public interest in the future of the hotel and as 10 submissions and a petition were received.

The proposal is recommended for approval.

Background

Council at its meeting held on 24 July 2013 gave consideration to a staff report on the request for nomination of the Hotel Australasia, 142-144 Imlay Street, Eden as a Heritage Item under Schedule 5 of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 and resolved the following:

“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.

“3. That Council negotiate with the developer to incorporate the recommendations of the heritage advisor in the design of the proposed redevelopment.”

A further report was submitted to the Council meeting on 25 September 2013 reporting the outcomes of discussions with the proponent to incorporate recommendations of Council’s Heritage Advisor into redevelopment of the Hotel Australasia, Eden.

The report outlined three options submitted by the applicant in response to the meeting and recommended the following:

1. That Council consider the options submitted by Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd as a result of the Council resolution of 24 July 2013 in respect of the proposed redevelopment of the Hotel Australasia, 142-144 Imlay Street, Eden.

2. That Council advise Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd of the outcome of consideration of the submitted options.

Council resolved the following:

“1. That for any development application for the redevelopment of the Hotel Australasia site incorporating the appropriate retention and restoration of the 1904/05 section of the building in the design, Council would consider a reduction in carparking requirements in recognition of the additional development costs associated with the retention and restoration.

“2. This resolution of Council must not be construed as support for any development application for the redevelopment of the Hotel site.

“3. That Council advise Great Southern Developments Pty Ltd of this resolution.”

The applicant subsequently advised Council by email dated 17 October 2013 that they would await the outcome of the determination of DA No. 2013.199 before further consideration of the Council resolution.

Description of the proposal

The application provides for the demolition of the existing hotel and accommodation building and the construction of a new contemporary designed retail facility comprising:

i. Ground floor supermarket (1,098m²) and first floor office (225m²), storage area (141m²), plant room (160m²) and staff facilities (72m²).

ii. Ground floor Liquor shop (200m²).

iii. Speciality retail shop (587m²).

iv. Common loading dock, enclosed bin storage area and lift lobby and stairs.

v. On-site carparking for 7 vehicles and utilisation of carparking in Council’s adjoining carpark.

vi. Bicycle rack and seating.

vii. Pedestrian walkway linking Imlay Street and Council’s carparking area to the rear.

viii. Associated signage.

Customer access to the proposed development would be provided from both Imlay Street and from Council’s carparking area to the rear. Service vehicles would access the site via Council’s carpark entering from Bass Street and exiting to Calle Calle Street over existing unnamed laneways.

An extract from the development plans is provided as Attachment 1. A full set of the plans will be available for viewing at the Council meeting.

Description of the site and adjoining lands

The site is located on the eastern side of Imlay Street and immediately adjoins Council’s carparking area to the rear (see Attachment 2).

The site is relatively flat and has a total site area of 2,886m².

The site is currently occupied by a two storey building known as the Hotel Australasia which ceased trading in 2010. The building comprises a hotel component, residential accommodation and drive through bottle shop.

A large sealed informal carpark/driveway area exists to the rear of the building together with a fenced children’s play area.

At present, the site has an informal sealed vehicle/pedestrian corridor linking Imlay Street and Council’s carpark area. The link formed the driveway to the bottle shop component of the hotel when trading.

The site is located within the Eden Town Centre commercial/retail precinct. The commercial and retail activities within the Centre are generally orientated and focused along the Imlay Street frontage. Adjoining and nearby properties are mostly characterised by commercial/retail land uses.

The Eden Post Office is located immediately to the north. A residence has been constructed to the rear of the post office building and has a contemporary two storey design and well maintained landscaped surrounds.

A number of other dwellings are located within the immediate area.

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 fully copy of the assessing officer’s Section 79C assessment will be available at the meeting.

Zoning

Bega Valley local Environmental Plan 2002 (BVLEP 2002)

The application was lodged with Council prior to the gazettal of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) and in accordance with Clause 7 of BVLEP 2013 the development application is to be assessed as if the plan had not commenced.

Accordingly the application is assessed under the provisions of BVLEP 2002 with BVLEP 2013 also given consideration as it was imminent at the time of lodgement.

The subject land is located within a 2(e) Urban Zone. The proposed development would constitute a “shop” by definition and as such, would be permissible with Council consent.

The objectives of the Zone are as follows:

(a) To provide a flexible framework for future development within and adjoining the Eden urban area,

(b) To allow a range of land uses within the town to stimulate the local economy without reducing the amenity or changing the character of the Eden urban area,

(c) To provide for a range of housing opportunities appropriate in context and location of the Eden urban area.

The objectives of the Zone have been considered in the assessment of the current application. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives in that:

· The proposed development would contribute to and help maintain the compact nature of Eden’s commercial/retail precinct by improving the accessibility of supermarket facilities, by offering a greater variety in food and grocery shopping and by promoting price competition.

· The additional retail floor space would be consistent with the commercial strategy for Eden - Bega Valley Shire Commercial Strategy – 2006. The strategy identifies Eden as a Local Centre. The role of a Local Centre is distinct in that it provides most local needs for residents and visitors of the district essentially on a week to week basis.

· The subject land is suitably located so as not to impact on the development/re-development of commercial sites and/or restrict the expansion of business activities within the Centre.

· The proposed supermarket development would provide extended services to the travelling public and tourists alike.

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 – considered imminent

The subject land is located within a B2 Local Centre Zone. The proposed development would be defined as a ‘shop’ which would be a permissible use within the zone with Council consent.

The Objectives of the Zone are:

i. To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that service the needs of people who live in, and visit the local area.

ii. To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

iii. To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

iv. To enable other land uses that are complementary to and do not detract from the viability of commercial uses within the zone.

v. To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

vi. To strengthen the viability of the Shire’s existing business centres as places for investment, employment and cultural activity.

It is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the zone in that:

· The proposed development would extend and contribute to the range of business activity within the Eden commercial/retail precinct and service the needs of the local area.

· The development site is located within an established business precinct having suitable access to vehicles and pedestrians and which is serviced by public transport. Bicycle racks are to be provided in the development.

· The proposal would not detract from the viability of existing commercial/retail land uses within Eden.

· The siting and design elements of the proposed development minimise the impacts on adjoining lands and streetscape characteristics.

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

issues

Height of Building – State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards

Clause 85 of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 specifies a maximum building height of 10 metres. The proposed building would have a maximum height ranging between 11.52m to 12.09m across its rear elevation. The departure is directly attributed to the slope of the land and the need to accommodate a rear loading/unloading dock and first floor office into the design of the building.

This represents a departure from the standard ranging between 1.52m (15.2%) to 2.09m (20.9%).

The application is supported by a submission lodged according to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) – Development Standards objecting to the 10 metre development standard. SEPP1 enables Council discretion to depart from a development standard where such departure is justified.

In this instance, the height of the proposed building at its rear would not result in any unreasonable adverse environmental and/or amenity impacts on adjoining land in terms of overlooking, shadowing and visual amenity. Accordingly, the departure from the 10 metre height standard is considered reasonable and would not create any undesirable precedent.

It should be noted that Council has resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the maximum height of buildings in the Eden CBD which would result in a 13 metre height limit for the subject land.

A maximum 10 metre height would be maintained across the Imlay Street frontage.

Eden’s Strategic Direction

Council’s strategic direction for Eden has been well documented through a number of strategic planning reports namely:

i. The Bega Valley Shire Land Use Planning Strategy 2008

ii. Port of Eden Urban Design Blueprint and Design Principles

iii. Bega Valley Commercial Strategy 2006

iv. Eden Structure Report 2006

v. South Coast Regional Strategy 2007

Also, Council’s adopted Local Environmental Plans 1987, 2002 and 2013 and Development Control Plan 34 – Eden Urban Area and Development Control Plan 40 – Port of Eden Town Centre are relevant.

The subject land has been effectively zoned for commercial purposes since 1987 which has been carried through into Plans 2002 and 2013.

The zoning of the land over that time has been reflective of the long established commercial precinct and Council and community aspirations to maintain a well service compact commercial sector in which daily needs and services are within a reasonable distance from each other.

Eden has been classified as a Local Centre under the Bega Valley Commercial Strategy 2006. The role of Eden as a local centre is to service the weekly commercial needs of people within the Eden area.

Development Control Plans 34 and 40 have been developed and adopted for the purpose of governing the orderly development of Eden. Since the lodgement of the application, Council has adopted the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013.

Council staff are of the opinion that the proposed supermarket development is consistent with the past and present adopted strategic directions for Eden.

Development Control Plan 40 – Port of Eden Town Centre

The application was lodged prior to the adoption of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013. Accordingly, the proposed development is assessed in accordance with DCP 40 – Port of Eden Town Centre.

The purpose of Development Control Plan 40 is to encourage and facilitate the realisation of the vision for the Port of Eden as documented in the “Port of Eden Urban Design Blueprint and Design Principles and Statement of Desired Future Character”. This is achieved by providing development principles and design criteria or requirements which focus on achieving built forms and quality design solutions that complement and integrate with the public domain and amenity of the area.

The Plan is also designed to provide applicants with guidance as to the form of development that is considered appropriate with the Port of Eden.

On review it is considered that the development proposal satisfies the requirements of the DCP in that:

· The development has been designed to achieve energy efficiency and best practice environmental outcomes in context with the characteristics of the site and that of adjoining and nearby lands.

· The proposed development will not obstruct any significant view corridors from Imlay Street or at the rear of the site. The upper level of the development has been designed to preserve existing coastal view corridors enjoyed by the immediately adjoining land to the north.

· The footprint and setbacks of the proposed development are compliant and balance the operational requirements of the individual tenancies within the development with pedestrian/vehicle access requirements and the amenity (commercial/residential) of adjoining lands. Overall, a positive enhanced streetscape character would be achieved.

· The proposed building would present a high quality elevation treatment to Imlay Street through the use of a co-ordinated mix of external materials and finishes that complement the streetscape character and which focus on Eden’s maritime heritage. The height of the proposed building is responsive to development on adjoining and nearby lands and has an appropriate bulk and scale in keeping with the commercial character of the street. The inclusion of awnings will provide an improved level of pedestrian comfort which is not currently provided across the property frontage.

· The design of the roof to the proposed building would be relatively flat (2 degrees) and would be hidden behind a parapet. The Imlay Street façade incorporates an architectural roof/awning feature which would create visual interest in the streetscape which, together with the use of vertical/horizontal timber elements, distinguishes the individual tenancies within the building. Plant and equipment would be contained within a plant room which would be integrated into the design of the building.

· Proposed building materials, colours, textures and style would be reflective of the “distinctive Australian contemporary, country and coastal port character”.

· The height of the building would be consistent with Council’s resolved position on a maximum height limit of 13 metres. (Additional comment has been provided earlier in this report).

· The ground floor areas to each tenancy within the building and the pedestrian walkway actively relate to the Imlay Street frontage. Large glazed shop fronts providing views into the individual tenancies from the public domain are proposed. The internal layout of the supermarket would include an internal forecourt/ foyer area for the convenience of shoppers.

· The siting and design of the building would be reflective of the desired maritime theme and presents an attractive, high quality interface with the Imlay Street frontage and public domain. (Streetscape improvements are planned and budgeted under Council’s adopted ‘Action on Imlay’ Plan to be re-enforced by design work currently being undertaken by SPIIRE Landscape Architects).

· Proposed signage has been integrated into the design of the building and is generally reflective of the scale of development. The signage would not detract from the architectural character of the building and/or the streetscape.

· Adequate, convenient and accessible parking would be provided, albeit within Council’s carparking area to the rear of the development. Vehicle access to and from the carpark is simple, safe and direct. (The provision and availability of carparking is discussed later in this report).

· The proposed development reinforces the role of Imlay Street as an “accessible spine”. Its design optimises “overlooking” and “passive surveillance” of public spaces and caters for a wide, highly visible and well lit covered pedestrian walkway linking Imlay Street and Council’s carpark area. Pedestrian and vehicle access would be separated thus limiting potential conflict. Access to carparking and loading/unloading facilities would be provided from a secondary road network. Provision for bicycle parking, scooter recharge point and seating would be incorporated into the design of the development. The development would be compliant with the provisions of the Building Code of Australian as it relates to the provision of access for people with disabilities.

· Waste management through the demolition stage and the operation/occupation of the development would be conditioned to be compliant with Council’s requirements. A bin storage room has been incorporated into the design of the development and is located off the loading/unloading dock.

· Community safety has been assessed in accordance with the principles of “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design”. (This matter is discussed later in this report).

· Soil and water management controls will be required through the construction stages of the development to Council’s satisfaction.

Awning treatment

The design of the front façade of the proposed building incorporates awnings over the individual shop fronts and, most noticeably, over the supermarket component of the building. The awning to the supermarket is not typical of the standard awning. Its function is to establish the identity of the building within the streetscape and to provide a sheltered pedestrian area in front of the supermarket.

It would be a visually prominent architectural element within the streetscape and significantly contributes to the design/articulation of the building. Coupled with the use of light weight and heavy timber elements and large glazed areas, the building would present a high standard of design and visual character in keeping with the design standards in DCP 40.

It will be necessary to ensure the structural integrity of all awnings and architectural features which project out and over Council’s footpath areas. The structures would need to be covered by public risk insurance to the value of $20,000,000 and Council would need to be indemnified against any action or claim in the event of a mishap. Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Economic

The provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 require Council to consider the likely impacts of a development on both the natural and built environments and the social and economic impacts in the locality.

It should be noted that the extent to which Council can consider economic impact on existing business is well established and documented in planning case law.

In Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council (1997) LGERA, Justice Lloyd noted:

“Economic competition between individual trade competitors is not an environmental or planning consideration to which the economic effect described in s90(1)(d) is directed. The trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) are the appropriate vehicles for regulating competition. Neither the Council nor this Court is concerned with the mere threat of economic competition between competing businesses…. It seems to me that the only relevance of economic impact of a development is its effect in the locality…”

In Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty ltd v Gantidid (1979) 140 CLR 675 at 687, Justice Stephen noted that:

“If the shopping facilities presently enjoyed by a community or planned for it in the future are put in jeopardy by some proposed development, whether that jeopardy be due to physical or financial causes, and if the resultant community detriment will not be made good by the proposed development itself, that appears to me to be a consideration properly to be taken into account as a matter of town planning…..However, the mere threat of competition to existing businesses if not accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with, will not be a relevant town planning consideration.”

The application is supported by a detailed economic impact assessment prepared by consultants Location IQ Pty Ltd. Council will recall that the consultancy prepared the economic impact assessment for the Bermagui Woolworths development which was subject to a peer review by Hill PDA and was found to be creditable in its methodology and findings.

The Location IQ report presents an assessment of the likely economic impacts associated with the proposed supermarket development on the economic fabric of the Eden commercial centre and other centres within the Shire/region. A summary of the key findings is provided below:

· The addition of a supermarket will add competition and choice for local residents.

· The supermarket will be convenience based and will provide additional choice and competition in food and grocery shopping.

· There is strong need for convenience shopping facilities and a wider choice of facilities within close proximity to the homes of main trade area residents. Consumers visit supermarkets, on average, two to three times a week.

· The projected impacts of the proposed supermarket on other retailers will not threaten the viability or continued operation of any centres.

· The most impact is likely to fall on the existing supermarkets within Eden. However, both these supermarkets will continue to trade at viable levels.

· The impacts of the proposed supermarket are only likely to be experienced by other facilities in the short term and these centres stand to benefit from market growth after any impact has been absorbed.

· The proposed supermarket would occupy a high profile location within the Eden commercial centre. The store would receive excellent exposure to passing trade and would be conveniently located to allow cross shopping with other retail speciality shopping provided in the town.

· The proposed supermarket would be ideally located within the Eden commercial centre, thus preventing the need to fragment retail opportunity allowing retail floor space to be provided in one easy accessible, highly identifiable location, strengthening the precinct as the major food and grocery destination for main trade area residents.

· The proposed supermarket development will create further employment, both during the construction period and, more importantly, on an ongoing basis once the development is complete and operational.

The report concludes, that the combination of the substantial positive economic impacts serve to more than offset trading impacts that could be anticipated for a small number of existing retail stores in the region.

Based on the findings of the report, Council staff are of the opinion that the likely economic impact of the proposed development would not put in jeopardy the continued availability of shopping facilities currently enjoyed in Eden and/or other local centres by local residents and tourists. Therefore, refusal of the application based on economic impact is not warranted.

Traffic generation and parking impacts

The application was lodged prior to the adoption of Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013. Accordingly, the proposed development is assessed in accordance with DCP 7 – Off-street Car Parking.

Under the Plan, the proposed development would require the provision of 87 on-site carparking spaces, however only 7 on-site carparking spaces are proposed leaving a short fall of 80 spaces.

The DCP also recognises carparking credits which have been applied in this instance. Based on the floor area of the existing building, a credit of 33 spaces applies reducing the short fall in on-site carparking to 47 spaces.

In addition, the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles into the loading dock area would result in the loss of 4 carparking spaces located within Council’s carpark area. In total this would equate to a shortfall of 51 spaces which. The applicant has submitted that there is adequate parking available in Council’s carpark to meet this shortfall. Further that a contribution in lieu of the provision of parking could be imposed by Council.

Council’s carpark is fully sealed and provides parking for 127 cars. It is accessed from Bass Street and Calle Calle Streets. It has no legal access to Imlay Street or Chandos Street.

The current application is supported by a detailed traffic report prepared by traffic consultants Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes P/L June 2013. As part their report, the consultants undertook parking surveys which included Council’s carpark. The survey results found, a peak demand for 21 spaces on a Friday and 10 spaces on Saturday and that at least 100 vacant spaces are available on a typical weekday.

The report also recognised that the 4 parking spaces lost in the carpark could be accommodated by re-line marking the Council carpark.

Council’s engineering staff have advised that the re-line marking of the carpark may be achievable. However, the responsibility of the re-line marking should be subject to the submission of a detailed parking plan by the applicant and that the applicant would be responsible for undertaking the works as part of the development if approved.

Given the circumstances of the case the departure from DCP 7 would appear reasonable. However, the extent of the departure in terms of carparking numbers would not be known until a detailed parking plan has been prepared and endorsed by Council.

Section 94 Contribution Plan 2 – Parking enables Council to levy a contribution in lieu of the provision of on-site carparking, but only where off-site parking is acceptable to Council given the circumstances of the case.

In this particular case, Council’s carparking area immediately adjoins the subject land and the proposed development has been sited and designed in recognition of its potential use. The carpark is currently underutilised and, as such, it would appear reasonable to levy a contribution in this instance.

In accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges for 2013/14, a contribution based on $9,345 per space is appropriate. This equates to a total contribution of $476,595 (51 x $9,345). However, this figure may be adjusted to $439,215 (47 x $9,345) if the carpark is re-line marked as discussed above.

Under the Plan, contributions levied would be expended as needed in the future by increasing carparking yield in the local area. Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Service vehicle route

In assessing the application, Council’s engineering staff considered it necessary to upgrade the access pavement through the site to a suitable engineering standard to ensure that the access laneways and manoeuvring areas within Council’s carpark are effectively used with a minimum of maintenance. The standard is generally applied to commercial/industrial land uses.

The applicant’s engineer has questioned the appropriateness of the pavement standard and has sought a lesser standard given the current use of the laneways and the minor increase that can be attributed to the proposed development. A standard equivalent to that of a local street was requested.

Council’s Group Manager Infrastructure Waste and Water has reviewed the facts and has proposed a standard equivalent to a collector street. In this instance, the proposed standard is greater than that considered warranted by the applicant’s engineer but less than that initially considered by Council staff. A suitable condition has been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Bicycle racks, seating and scooter recharge point

As submitted, bicycle racks, seating and a scooter recharge point were proposed to be provided on a small irregular shaped area of land within Council’s carpark. The land involved is classified as ‘public road’ and is located to the rear of the site immediately adjoining the proposed covered pedestrian walkway linking Imlay Street with the carpark.

On review, Council’s engineering staff rejected the use of the area as proposed.

The issue has been discussed with the applicant and in response, no objection has been raised to the relocation of the bicycle racks, seating and scooter recharge point to be within the boundaries of the private land, but immediately adjoining the section of the public road identified above.

This would require a minor redesign of the pedestrian walkway and its finished level out into Council’s carpark area. The submitted plans have been amended in red by Council staff.

In addition, Council staff are of the opinion that the area should be covered to ensure its effective use. The roofing of the area has been discussed with the applicant and was considered acceptable. In doing so, the applicant advised Council staff that no objection would be raised to the imposition of a development condition on any subsequent consent.

A suitable condition has been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Action on Imlay

The ‘Action on Imlay’ Plan proposes a pedestrian walkway through the subject property linking Imlay Street and Council’s carpark to the rear. Footpath improvements are also proposed along the Imlay Street frontage.

The proposed supermarket development includes a covered pedestrian walkway linking Imlay Street to Council’s carpark. No details have been submitted in the current application as to the pavement design for the walkway. Council staff are of the opinion that the pavement design should properly integrate with the footpath improvement works to be undertaken by Council along Imlay Street.

A suitable condition has been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

View Impact

The adjoining property to the north is occupied by the Eden Post Office and residence.

The two story residence is located to the rear of the post office building and is approximately 10 years. The top storey has internal and external living areas which enjoy extensive views to the south/south east towards Boyd’s Tower and beyond.

The proposed supermarket development has been designed to ensure the retention of the majority of the view corridor currently enjoyed by the occupants of the residence.

Acoustic Impacts

The application is supported by a detailed acoustic impact assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic Pty Ltd. The report has been reviewed by Council Staff and suitable conditions have been recommended for inclusion in any draft consent to ensure the acoustic amenity of residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the development. The conditions generally reflect the recommendations of the acoustic report.

Trading Hours

The proposed trading hours across each of the retail tenancies are nominated in the application as 7am to 10pm, 7 days a week.

Council staff are of the opinion that the proposed trading hours for the supermarket are acceptable. However, to apply trading hours in this application for the occupation of the speciality retail tenancy when the actual retail use has not been nominated is not supported.

Council has, in similar applications, required the lodgement of separate development applications for the subsequent occupation of retail uses within larger retail developments (eg Tura Beach Woolworths). On lodgement of such a future application, proposed trading hours can be assessed and regulated as necessary.

In relation to the liquor store, Council staff are of the opinion that more restrictive trading hours are appropriate given potential associated noise impacts and the conduct of anti-social activity in the general locality. Accordingly, trading hours should be restricted to 9am to 9pm Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and 10am to 8pm Sunday. This is similar to the approved trading hours for Dan Murphy’s liquor store in Bega.

Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Environmental – Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

The proposed supermarket development incorporates a number of energy efficient and environmental measures in building design and operation to reduce energy consumption.

Rainwater harvesting

The application is supported by a detailed hydraulic report prepared by Insync Services Pty Ltd.

The development is to be serviced by Council’s reticulated water system. However, a rain water tank(s) having a capacity of 40,000 litres is also proposed. The rain water storage system is to be designed and connected to all non-potable water uses within the development, thus limiting reliance on the reticulated system.

Solar passive design

Due to lot orientation and the nature and extent of adjoining development, the proposed supermarket development has limited options in terms of solar passive design. Despite this, the natural light provided by the proposed orientation of the building is considered reasonable. The following has been integrated into the design of the building:

· A continuous wide awning is proposed along the Imlay Street frontage above shop entrances to provide protection from solar gain during summer months which will assist in reducing energy consumption.

· Extensive glazing is proposed to the south west (ground level) and north east (first floor) elevations of the building to provide maximum natural light whilst minimising direct sunlight and associated heat load.

· Building fabric is to satisfy the provisions of the Building Code of Australia and specifically Section J – Energy Efficiency.

Energy

All tenancies within the proposed supermarket development are to be serviced with high efficiency lighting to reduce electricity consumption and air conditioning load. Entry/exit airlocks are proposed within each tenancy to minimise air loss and energy consumption. Within the proposed supermarket, freezer lids would be installed to all freezer units to minimise chilled air loss. All outdoor lighting and signage would be fitted with automatic time switches to restrict their illumination to night time hours.

The application as submitted relies on natural gas for the supply of hot water to the development. Natural gas is not available. The issue was discussed with the applicant’s consultant and advice that the development should be serviced with solar hot water. In response, the consultant advised that solar hot water has not been factored into the cost of the development.

Council staff also note that the installation of a solar photo voltaic (PV) system is not proposed as part of this application. However, the design of the building does not preclude the installation of a PV system in the future.

The applicant should be required to install a solar hot water system into the building and be encouraged to install a solar photo voltaic system. It is noted that these systems are economically viable and well matched to the consumption patterns of commercial buildings. Furthermore, the Bega Valley Shire region has one of the highest penetrations of solar PV in the State and as such, community expectation of a commitment in this area is significant.

A suitable condition and additional note have been included on the draft consent attached to this report.

Light Spill impacts

The proposed lighting systems would need to comply with the Australian Standards for interior lighting and road lighting (pedestrian areas) whilst ensuring appropriate shielding and direction of lighting so as not to cause annoyance to owners or occupiers of adjoining premises or glare to motorists.

A suitable condition has been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Consultation

The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services with no objection raised to the proposed supermarket development.

The application was also referred to NSW Police Services for assessment in accordance with the principles of ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’.

In response, Police Services has advised the following:

i. “We note the development proposal will include a liquor outlet. Police will address licensing issues through our licensing co-ordinator when the liquor licensing application is made.

ii. Lighting to the public carpark area should meet Australian Standard AS/NZS 1158 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces during operational hours. This is to ensure the safety of the public utilising the store as well as staff.

iii. Closed Circuit television (CCTV) can deter and detect criminal activity. Shoplifting is a typical offence that occurs in shopping precincts. It’s recommended that the development incorporate CCTV at critical locations as a crime reduction strategy. Cameras should be located at all entry and exit points for the complex, cash handling locations (registers, cash office) and within the liquor store. This serves to reduce the potential for crime as well as providing security and the police with the ability to review footage to investigate criminal activity.”

Lighting of the site would need to be appropriately design whilst minimising disturbance to adjoining lands as detailed previously in this report.

Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

Liquor licencing

Concern has been expressed in the submissions lodged over the proposal to introduce an additional liquor outlet in Eden. Comments from the NSW Police Services relating to this issue have been documented previously in this report.

As part of the liquor licence application, the applicant would need to a Community Impact Statement to the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing which would address social impacts associated with an additional liquor outlet in the community.

For the purpose of assessment of the development application, a liquor store is a permissible use in the land use zone, suitable crime prevention through environmental design provisions would be incorporated into the development and a limitation on trading hours is considered reasonable to minimise any potential social impact on the community.

For many years the site was a hotel with a bottle shop.

Submissions

The development application was placed on exhibition for a period of 14 days from 17-31 July 2013. A total of 10 submissions were received.

An email has also been received with an attached petition. The email suggests that the petition contains 340 signatures. On inspection, the petition appears to contain 40 signatures from individuals as far afield as Ireland, Queensland, Sydney and Melbourne. As to whether any of the signatures belong to Eden or Bega Valley Shire residents cannot be verified.

The petition calls for the retention of the existing building for the purpose of preserving Eden’s culture and heritage and that the proposed development has little support in the local community.

The key issues raised in submissions are discussed below followed by staff comment.

· The existing building has a significant heritage value in the local community and as such, should be retained and appropriately listed as a heritage item within Council’s strategic plans.

8 Comment
This matter was addressed by Council at its meeting of 24 July 2013 as documented earlier in this report.

· The design of the proposed development is not consistent with the design standards adopted by Council in DCP 40 – Port of Eden Town Centre.

8 Comment
This matter has been addressed earlier in this report.

· The proposed supermarket development will have a significant detrimental impact on the long established retail land use within the commercial sector of Eden and other local centres in the region.

8 Comment
This matter has been addressed earlier in this report.

· The proposed development fails to provide a through road linking Bass and Chandos Streets.

8 Comment
Access to the rear of the development would be provided over existing laneways from Bass and Calle Calle Streets. There is no opportunity to create a through link to Chandos Street. To do so would involve land fronting Chandos Street which is in separate private ownership and not part of the land subject to the application.

· The standard of construction within the access laneways and Council’s carpark area are not designed to cater for the heavy vehicles. The manoeuvring of trucks having a length of 19 metres will impact on the number of available carparking spaces within the carpark.

8 Comment
This matter has been addressed earlier in this report. Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

· The ownership and maintenance responsibilities over the proposed covered pedestrian walkway are silent in the application. Ownership and maintenance responsibility should rest with Council.

8 Comment
The proposed covered walkway is contained wholly within the boundaries of the development. Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report which ensures public access over the walkway but with maintenance responsibilities resting with the land owner.

· The proposed development will have adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining residential properties by reason of light spill and noise.

8 Comment
These matters have been addressed earlier in this report. Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent.

· Works associated with the demolition and construction of the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining lands by reason of dust and noise.

8 Comment
Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report to mitigate the any potential impacts.

· The existing sewer and stormwater system servicing the area are inadequate and have been subject to failure in the past. The proposed supermarket development would place a greater demand on the systems and the systems would be more prone to failure to the detriment of adjoining lands.

8 Comment
The matter was referred to Council’s Engineering Staff for assessment. In response, advice has been received that the existing systems are operating effectively. Notwithstanding, the existing infrastructure is to be upgraded to cater for the demands of the proposed supermarket development.

Suitable conditions have been imposed on the draft consent attached to this report.

· The economic impact assessment is based on inaccurate data which distorts the true economic impact of the proposed supermarket development.

8 Comment
The economic impact assessment was prepared by Location IQ Pty Ltd. Council will recall that the consultancy prepared the economic impact assessment for the Bermagui Woolworths development which was subject to a peer review by Hill PDA and was found to be creditable in its methodology and findings.

Notwithstanding the above, the submission comments were referred to the proponent’s consultant for consideration. Location IQ disputes the claim that the data and methodology detailed throughout the report is inaccurate.

Location IQ has advised that as a consultancy, it prepares economic impact assessments for planning authorities throughout Australia and including the preparation of expert evidence in a number of Planning Tribunals and Courts. Location IQ further advised that the methodology has been subject to scrutiny and proven to be one of the most accurate methods of analysing impacts from new and proposed supermarket developments.

· The application is not supported by a Community Impact Statement which would address social impacts associated with an additional liquor outlet in the community.

8 Comment
This matter has been addressed earlier in this report.

· The on-site carparking designed to service the proposed supermarket development is totally inadequate to cater for the demand generated by the development.

8 Comment
This matter has been addressed earlier in this report.

· The proposed signs for the development are excessive in number and are out of context with existing outdoor advertising in the commercial centre.

8 Comment
Proposed signage has been integrated into the design of the building and is in keeping with the scale of the proposed development. The signage would not significantly detract from the architectural character of the building and/or streetscape.

· The existing road network is inadequate to cater for 19 metre long articulated delivery trucks.

8 Comment
The application has been referred to both Council’s Engineering Staff and Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) and concluded that the proposed supermarket development would have a minor impact on the function and capacity of the local road network.

As previously advised RMS has raised no objection to the proposed development.

Council’s Engineering Staff have also raised no objection, but have recommended the upgrade of the standard of construction for the access laneways servicing the development and the loading/unloading dock manoeuvring paths over Council’s carpark area.

· The proposed supermarket development would have a significant impact on existing view corridors enjoyed by adjoining residential properties.

8 Comment
This matter has been addressed earlier in this report.

conclusion

The proposed development complies with the provisions of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002. It is considered that the proposed development achieves the orderly and economic use and development of land (as per the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) and is consistent with the strategic direction for Eden being a local centre having a strong maritime character.

A number of submissions have been received by Council in response to the public exhibition of the application. The content of the submissions have been documented and addressed within the body of this report. It is considered that the grounds of objection would not sustain a refusal of the application.

A wide range of issues have been addressed in the assessment of the application and suitable conditions have been recommended for inclusion on any subsequent consent.

Approval is recommended subject to conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Development Plans

2 View. Locality map

3 View. Draft Development Consent

Recommendation

1. That Development Application No. 2013.199 for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new supermarket, liquor store, speciality retail tenancy, on-site carparking, landscaping and associated signage on Lot 14 DP 250841 (No. 142-144) Imlay Street, Eden be approved subject to conditions as detailed in the draft consent.

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

Council 18 December 2013 Item 8.2

8.2. DA No. 2012.217: Construction of an educational establishment - primary school

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Applicant	Michael Francis Lyons
Owner	As above
Site	Lot 112 DP 844918 and Lots 113 & 115 DP 1118389, Kulbardi Close, Bournda
Zone	1(a) Rural General Zone under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 (application lodged prior to gazettal of BVLEP 2013)
Site area	72.97 hectares
Proposed development	Construction of an educational establishment – primary school

Precis

Council is in receipt of an application for the establishment of a primary school at Kulbardi Close, Bournda, to cater for up to 250 students.

As part of the assessment process Council received advice from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) advising that it does not support the proposed location given the significant risks to the road safety of children attending the proposed school.

The application has been assessed in accordance with Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 and Council’s adopted codes and policies.

It is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the zone nor is it compatible with the rural amenity of the area.

Three submissions were received raising objection to the proposed development.

The application is recommended for refusal.

Background

The application was lodged on 21 June 2012 and was subject to Council’s normal referral and public exhibition process.

Responses were received from the RMS dated 17 July 2012 and 2 August 2012, advising Council that it had significant concerns over the appropriateness of the school location and advised Council that it objected to the application in its current form.

The response from RMS dated 2 August 2012 provided comment for Council’s consideration and advice to the proponent. A copy of RMS response was forwarded to the proponent for consideration on 6 August 2012.

This process culminated in a lengthy consultation exercise between the proponent and RMS in an attempt to satisfy the concerns expressed by RMS regarding road safety and for the purpose of resolving on an appropriate course of action to enable the assessment and determination of the application by Council.

By letter dated 20 June 2013, the RMS advised Council that it still had fundamental concerns over the suitability of the site and road safety concerns. However, RMS advised that should Council resolve to approve the application, specific conditions would have to be imposed on any subsequent consent.

A copy of the RMS letter was referred to the applicant on 21 June 2013 for consideration and comment. The RMS response and applicant’s comments will be discussed in more detail latter in this report.

The application was placed on public exhibition on two occasions; the first occasion for a 14 day period between 27 June 2012 and 11 July 2012 with no submissions received.

The second occasion, prompted by minor changes to the detail in the application and submitted plans, was for a 14 day period between 4 June 2013 and 18 June 2013 with three submissions received.

Copies of the submissions were referred to the applicant for consideration and comment. The content of the submissions will be discussed in more detail later in this report.

Description of the proposal

The application provides for the construction and establishment of a primary school designed to cater for an enrolment of up to 250 students and 20 staff over an eight year period.

Access to the proposed school would be provided from Kulbardi Close. The road is constructed to a 6 metre wide gravel formation and is maintained by Council. The application proposes the upgrade of the road and its intersection with Sapphire Coast Drive in accordance with the requirements of Council and the RMS.

Student access to the proposed school would be limited to private vehicle or bus only with pedestrian/cycle access not being permitted. The applicant has submitted that a school enrolment contract will be required to be signed by parents stipulating that all children must be transported to and from the school by private car or bus. Children of parents who do not accept the contract will not be enrolled at the school. The applicant has submitted that such a contract is legally binding for private schools.

Internal access to the school site would be provided over the existing gravel driveway servicing the subject lands. The driveway access would be upgraded to a fully sealed standard catering for cars and buses. A ‘kiss and drop’ zone for at least 6 vehicles would also be integrated into the design of the driveway to lessen potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts arising from children being dropped/collected from the Kulbardi Close frontage.

On site sealed carparking for 70 vehicles is proposed. The applicant has submitted that the proposed carparking would far exceed that normally required on a day to day basis during the school term. As a comparison, Council’s requirements under Development Control Plan 7 – Off Street Car Parking would require the provision of 22 on-site spaces.

The proposed school building would be located on a minimum building setback of 117 metres from Kulbardi Close and 97 metres from Sapphire Coast Drive. The proposed building site would be excavated to a depth of approximately 1.5 metres to provide a level building platform and to help accommodate outdoor open space/ playground areas. Equitable access for people with disabilities is to be provided.

The proposed school building would be single storey construction, with a maximum height of 5.7m to the ridgeline of the roof and configured in a ‘horse shoe’ shape. The building would comprise 7 individual classrooms, toilet facilities, temporary canteen, clerical offices, staff facilities, temporary library and hall.

The applicant has advised that sustainable building construction and standards would be incorporated into the siting and design of the building with the ambition to “achieve a high standard of sustainability and best practice design principles to promote a productive and enriched learning and teaching environment”.

The applicant has submitted that the proposed buildings would be constructed using environmentally sustainable masonry blockwork with a curved rough sandstone finish. The roof would be constructed in clay tiles. Colour treatments would be chosen to blend the building into the natural environment.

The proposed building would incorporate a verandah and covered walkways designed to provide shelter during periods of hot and inclement weather. A covered outdoor assembly/ learning area is proposed together with large areas of open play space.

The proposed building and immediate outdoor areas would be fenced to ensure security. In addition, and in the interest of road safety, the property frontages to Kulbardi Close and Sapphire Coast Drive are also to be fenced to preclude direct pedestrian access.

The curtilage of the school would be landscaped for the benefit of the school environment and to reduce the visual impact of buildings and carpark areas. All existing mature trees would be retained.

Electricity and telecommunication reticulation is available, but would be upgraded as necessary.

On-site sewage management is proposed in accordance with Council’s requirements. Roof rainwater for school use would be collected, channelled into 2 x 140,000 litre underground tanks and suitably filtered and purified to acceptable standards. Twenty thousand litres would be reserved specifically for firefighting purposes.

Description of the site and surrounding lands

The subject land is located approximately 4 kilometres to the north-west of the Tura Beach estate on the northern side of Sapphire Coast Drive at its intersection with Kulbardi Close.

The land generally rises up from its road frontages to a relatively level plateau area before falling to the north/north west towards Sandy Creek. The land has been extensively cleared and, for many years, used for light grazing purposes. The land contains two single storey dwellings and farm buildings. All are located on large building setbacks from either Sapphire Coast Drive and/or Kulbardi Close. The buildings sit well in the natural environment and have negligible visual impact.

The land supports corridors of mature vegetation along Sandy Beach Creek, Kulbardi Close and Sapphire Coast Drive.

The land immediately adjoins the Bournda National Park to the north.

Privately owned lands having frontage to Sapphire Coast Drive are located directly opposite. These lands are characterised by rural residential type development and significant uncleared areas of native vegetation.

To the east/south-east of the subject land and fronting Kulbardi Close are a number of concessional lots. These lots maintain a rural residential character and support single storey dwellings and outbuildings. Dwellings on these lots have been sited to take advantage of the visual character and rural amenity enjoyed over adjoining land to the east/south-east. Accordingly, indoor/outdoor private living areas are largely orientated away from the school site.

Planning assessment

A copy of the assessing officer’s Section 79C assessment will be available at the meeting.

Zoning

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 (BVLEP 2002)

The application was lodged prior to the gazettal of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) and in accordance with clause 7 of BVLEP 2013 the development application is to be assessed as if the Plan had not commenced.

Accordingly the application is assessed under the provisions of BVLEP 2002 with BVLEP 2013 also given consideration as it was imminent at the time of lodgement.

The subject land is located within a 1(a) Rural General Zone in which educational establishments are permissible with consent.

Educational establishment is defined as:

“a building used for a school, college, tertiary institution, adult or community education, training facility, gallery, museum, display centre or the like, whether or not accommodation for staff or students is provided there or whether or not it is used for the purpose of gain.”

The objectives of the 1(a) zone and the compatibility of the proposed development with those objectives will be discussed later in this report.

Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013

The land is located within an RU2 – Rural Landscape Zone with educational establishments a prohibited use in the zone.

Notwithstanding the above, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (at the present time) would permit the development of the land for the purposes of an educational establishment with Council consent. Under the Policy, Council would be obligated to consult with the NSW Rural Fire Service on the basis that the subject land is mapped as ‘fire prone’.

Issues

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

Noise

Traffic noise from Sapphire Coast Drive is the major noise source in the area. It has a varying degree of impact on acoustic amenity and is dependent on relative location, siting and design of dwellings/outbuildings, land improvements and environmental conditions.

In recognition that the development of a school may have noise impacts (operational/traffic) on adjoining and nearby properties, the applicant engaged acoustical consultants (Rudds Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd) to prepare a noise impact assessment.

The report is based on the projected maximum operating characteristics of the school at year eight (250 students and 20 teachers) and acknowledges that lower noise levels will be experienced in the years leading up to year eight.

The findings of the assessment are as follows:

i. The predicted increase in the road traffic noise level is acceptable and meets the requirements of the NSW Road Noise Policy.

ii. Noise from the proposed carpark is acceptable and complies with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy intrusiveness criteria 35dB(A). Predicted noise levels from the carpark would be less than 30dB(A).

iii. Playground noise will be acceptable when quiet play occurs and noise modelling indicates that the Industrial Noise Policy intrusiveness criteria 35dB(A) will be met at all dwellings in Kulbardi Close when the playground is in use.

iv. The predicted noise levels satisfy the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy amenity criteria. In addition, the likelihood of additional industrial/commercial noise sources in this locality is minimal, so future exceedance of the limits due to cumulative impact is also unlikely.

v. Noise from mechanical equipment at the site has not been assessed. However, given the buffer distances and room layout, the selection of quiet equipment and placement in locations that provide shielding to residences will be sufficient to achieve compliance.

Associated traffic noise impacts would be mostly confined to the morning and afternoon peak periods. The normal peak period, typical of school environments, is 8.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.00pm during the school term. However, this would be dependent on actual start/finishing times of the school and as such, a concentrated peak period may well be experienced. Accordingly, any impact would be experienced and confined to a concentrated time line during daytime hours.

In addition, the consultant’s report notes that Kulbardi Close would be upgraded to a sealed standard to Council’s satisfaction and would be subject to a reduced speed environment, reflective of other school zones, being 40kph.

The acoustic report was referred to Council’s Manager Environmental Services who has confirmed that the form and content of the report is acceptable.

Traffic impacts

At present there are seven dwellings which have frontage and direct access to Kulbardi Close. These dwellings would generate in total approximately 126 vehicle movements (departure and return) per day according to the RTA’s “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002”.

The application includes a detailed traffic impact assessment prepared by a local road design consultant. The report confirms that there is limited documented technical information available which addresses the traffic generating potential of primary schools. The report draws on data produced by the Western Australian Planning Commission publication “Transport Assessment Guidelines 2006”. These guidelines suggest a traffic generation rate of 0.5 vehicle trips per pupil during the peak period.

As a comparison, the traffic generating characteristics of Pambula Primary School was subject to investigation by the consultant. It was established that the generation rate (cars and buses) in peak period equated to 0.46 vehicle trips per pupil – thus very similar to the Western Australian guidelines.

However, it is considered that the ratio would more than likely be higher for the proposed school as all access is to be via private car or bus with no pedestrian or bicycle access (which is normally available at other schools including Pambula).

Based on a projected student enrolment of 250 students at year eight of operation and a generation rate of 0.46 vehicle trips per pupil, the proposed school would generate approximately 115 vehicle (bus and car) trips (arrival and departure) at both the morning and afternoon peak periods. As a consequence, adjoining and adjacent lands will experience a significant increase in the amount of traffic at the start and finish of the school day during the school term.

Consultation

Roads and Maritime Services

Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, Council was required to refer the application to RMS for comment and/or requirements.

RMS has raised significant concerns with the road safety and general suitability of the site and does not support a school in this location given its remoteness and proximity to a high speed road (Sapphire Coast Drive).

RMS is of the view that the applicant’s intent to condition the travel behaviour of students by way of an enrolment contract, prohibiting student arrival/departure by means other than by private motor vehicle or bus, raises compliance and enforcement issues. Enforcement would be left to the discretion of parents and, as students get older, to the discretion of the students themselves. RMS is of the opinion that compliance with the behavioural conditions/rules on parents and students are matters for Council’s consideration. In addition, RMS has suggested that the applicant’s intent to condition the travel behaviour of students is contrary to the active transport and land use planning integration goals of State Government.

Notwithstanding the above, RMS has advised that if Council determines the behavioural conditions proposed by the applicant are practical, reasonable and enforceable on an ongoing basis to ameliorate the potential road safety risks associated with students walking and cycling to school, then specific conditions, as detailed, would need to be imposed in any subsequent consent including prohibiting any direct vehicular, pedestrian and/or cycle access to Sapphire Coast Drive given the speed environment at this location.

Applicant’s Response

In recognition of the RMS concerns the applicant has committed to the following:

i. There is to be no direct vehicular/pedestrian access to Sapphire Coast Drive with the exception of an emergency access which is to be fenced and gated to preclude general use. All access would be provided from Kulbardi Close.

ii. Major upgrades to Kulbardi Close and its intersection with Sapphire Coast Drive are proposed.

iii. Introduction of a 40kph school zone along Kulbardi Close

iv. Adequate on-site car and bus parking and a student drop off zone are proposed.

v. Man proof fencing would be erected along the Sapphire Coast Drive and Kulbardi Close frontages of the property. Internal fencing, securing the school precinct, would also be erected.

vi. The proponent’s propose to preclude, by way of an enrolment contract, student arrival and departures by means other than by private vehicle or bus.

Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority

The application was referred to the Authority as part of Council’s notification process. In response, the Authority advised that the proposal would not involve the removal of native vegetation and that the school development site mostly consists of ground cover dominated by introduced species. Accordingly, the preparation of a property vegetation plan was not considered warranted.

NSW Rural Fire Service

Council referred the application to the RFS under the integrated development provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In response, the Service has issued a bush fire safety authority over the development subject to a number of conditions which must be inserted into any subsequent development approval.

MANAGER PLANNING SERVICES COMMENTS

Objectives of the 1(a) zone

In accordance with clause 8(3) of BVLEP 2002:

“Consent must not be granted to development proposed within a zone unless the consent authority has taken into consideration such of the objectives of the zone as are relevant to the proposal and is satisfied that the development is consistent with those objectives.”

The land is zoned 1(a) Rural General with the objectives of the zone being:

(a) to encourage continued growth in the area’s rural economic base,

(b) to encourage other forms of development, including tourism, that are compatible with agricultural activities and do not create undesirable environmental and cultural impacts,

(c) to protect and conserve the productive potential of prime crop and pasture land,

(d) to maintain the scenic amenity and landscape quality of the area,

(e) to promote the protection, and the preservation and enhancement, of natural ecological systems and processes,

(f) to provide proper and coordinated use and protection of rivers, riparian corridors and water catchment areas,

(g) to promote the economic provision of services compatible with the nature and intensity of development and the character of the area,

(h) to ensure that development and management of the land has minimal impact on water quality and environmental flows of receiving waters,

(i) to maintain significant features of natural and cultural heritage.

The subject land is located in a rural area dominated by open grazing and forested land containing single dwelling-houses of low scale, which sit within the landscape. It is this low scale development and rural outlook that characterises the amenity of the area.

This is reinforced by the RU2 Rural Landscape zoning of the land under BVLEP 2013 with the objectives of the zone being:

Ÿ To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

Ÿ To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

Ÿ To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

A key consideration in assessing the suitability of the subject land for a school is the potential impact on the rural amenity currently enjoyed by residents, in particular along Kulbardi Close, and the scenic and landscape quality of the area.

As previously outlined, the existing amenity and scenic quality of the area is characterized by grazing land and low scale residential development (single dwelling houses). It is considered that the establishment of a school, with potential for up to 250 students and 20 staff, would not be consistent or compatible with the existing amenity of the area.

A proposed school would result in a significant increase in traffic movements along Kulbardi Close, including buses, which is not currently associated with the existing rural character of the area or to be expected having regard to the rural residential nature of the area.

Whilst the applicant’s acoustic report indicates that noise generation would be in accordance with accepted standards, it is considered that the increased traffic movements, in particular during the drop off and pick up times, would result in increased noise impacts which would adversely affect the amenity currently enjoyed by those residents in Kulbardi Close.

Therefore it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the 1(a) zone as:

Ÿ the proposal would create undesirable environmental and cultural impacts.

Ÿ the proposal would not maintain the scenic amenity and landscape quality of the area.

Ÿ the proposal would not promote the economic provision of services compatible with the nature and intensity of development and character of the area.

Clause 65 of BVLEP 2002 outlines the general principles for development and use of land and building and states:

(1) Before granting consent for development within any zone, consideration shall be given by the consent authority to such of the following as are relevant to the proposed development:

(a) the impact of that development on:

(i) the water quality of waterbodies, and

(ii) the ability of rural land to be used for agricultural production or industry, or both, and

(iii) soil resources, and

(iv) existing vegetation, native flora and fauna and riparian corridors, and

(v) the topography and setting of the land, and

(vi) the streetscape character of the locality, and

(vii) the scale and design of neighbouring development, and

(viii) significant views enjoyed from parks, reserves, roadways, footpaths and other public places, and

(ix) the energy efficiency of the site and any buildings on the site, and

(x) the availability of a water supply to adequately provide for domestic, agricultural and firefighting purposes and, where that proposed water supply is from a river, creek, dam or other waterway, the effect upon the other users of that water supply, and

(xi) waste generation, and

(xii) the cultural significance of the land, and

(xiii) the treatment of stormwater prior to discharge or the use of stormwater, and

(xiv) traffic generation and appropriate vehicular access into and around the site, and

(xv) any measures necessary to mitigate any of these impacts,

(b) the cumulative impact on the environment of:

(i) the development, and

(ii) other development in the vicinity of the proposed development.

In assessment of the application (a) (v), (vi), (vii) and (xiv) are of particular relevance.

It is considered that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the rural character of the locality; would not be in keeping with the scale, design and character of the neighbouring development; and would result in a significant increase in traffic movements, both in the morning and afternoon, along Kulbardi Close which currently services seven low scale dwelling houses set in a rural residential environment.

Ecologically Sustainable Development

Clause 79 of BVLEP is also relevant:

Before determining an application for consent to development, consideration shall be given by the consent authority to the following in so far as they are relevant to the proposed development and may promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development:

a) building and allotment orientation,

b) conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources (including riparian areas and remnant native vegetation),

c) optimisation of the use of the natural features of the site,

d) reduction of car dependence,

e) use of landscaping to improve air, soil and water quality,

f) optimisation of energy efficiency,

g) waste minimisation.

The applicant has advised that sustainable building construction and standards would be incorporated into the siting and design of the building with the ambition to achieve a high standard of sustainability.

However, the operation of the school would be totally car and bus dependent which directly contradicts the reduction of car dependence (clause 79d).

Consideration has also been given to the guidelines prepared the (then) Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, (then) Roads & Traffic Authority and Transport NSW entitled ‘Integrating Land Use and Transport’ dated August 2001. The publication provides “principles, initiatives and best practise for locating and designing development that encourages the use of public transport, walking and cycling and which limits/reduces the dependence on the private motor car”.

Under the guidelines, schools should:

i. Be located as near as possible to neighbourhood and community centres which are connected to pedestrian, bicycle and public transport networks.

ii. Be sited and designed taking into account the importance of balancing the need for close proximity to public transport routes with the need to avoid disturbance from noise or vibration and optimise road safety.

iii. Have sufficient off-street space to accommodate the movement of all transport modes – cars, bicycles, pedestrians, service and emergency vehicles and buses. Safe pick-up/set down areas away from major roads should be provided for new facilities.

iv. Be designed to constrain the provision of staff parking to encourage the use of public transport, but only where public transport services are well provided.

v. Have an exclusive school bus loading/unloading zone, separate from other vehicles. There should be adequate manoeuvring space, and the pickup/ drop off should be on the same side of the road as the school.

vi. Provide a safe ‘kiss and drop’ space which avoids the use of bus stops, pedestrian crossings and unsafe driveways.

vii. Be serviced with maintained footpaths along nearby streets and within the site.

viii. Be serviced by good bicycle storage facilities or shared with other uses.

It is considered that the proposed location of the school is not consistent with these guidelines in that;

· The proposed school would be located 4km from the nearest neighbourhood/community of Tura Beach; and

· There would be no pedestrian/bicycle access to Tura Beach with parents required to sign an enrolment contract requiring access only by private car or bus prior to their child being accepted as an enrolment.

Submissions

The application was subject to two separate notification periods which involved the individual notification of all adjoining and nearby land owners and residents. In response to the first notification (June/July 2012), no submissions were received.

The applicant, in response to specific issues raised by the Roads and Marine Services submitted an amended statement of environmental effects, supplementary traffic report and amended plans. The amended application did not change any of the development characteristics/design standards for the school.

The amended application was subject to re-notification (June 2013). In response, three submissions have been received by Council. Copies of each submission are attached to Council’s development application file and will be available at the meeting.

A summary of the submissions together with a planning comment are provided below.

· The proposed school both during construction and once operating will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining lands by reason of loss of privacy, noise and increased traffic.

8 Comment
The proposed development would increase traffic numbers on Kulbardi Close by 115 or more vehicle movements during both the morning and afternoon. Buses would also be introduced into Kulbardi Close. It is considered that this significant traffic increase associated with the proposed school is unacceptable and would result in a loss of amenity, privacy and enjoyment currently experienced by residents in the area. The potential increase in traffic would not normally be expected for such a rural area characterised by single dwellings and grazing lands. Further, when considering the demographics of the Shire, it is not unreasonable to expect that some residents in the area would be at home during the morning and afternoon drop off and pick up times for the proposed school.

· Access to the school would be via Kulbardi Close, the standard of which would not support a school.

8 Comment
Kulbardi Close at the present time is constructed to a two lane gravel standard. If the application is approved, the road formation would be upgraded to a bitumen sealed 6.0 metre wide standard to cater for increased vehicular traffic generated by the proposed school.

· The standard of the intersection of Kulbardi Close and Sapphire Coast Drive is not suitable to support the traffic generating characteristic of a school of any size.

8 Comment
if the application is approved, the intersection would be upgraded to Council’s satisfaction as per the standards specified in the Road Design Guidelines published by the NSW Roads and Marine Services.

· The presence of the school would have an adverse impact on native fauna and flora.

8 Comment
The application is supported by a flora and fauna impact assessment prepared by a local consultancy. The report concludes that the proposed development is unlikely to have any deleterious effects on any threatened fauna species which may occur in the area. The report also confirms that there is no threatened flora or endangered ecological communities found in the vicinity of the proposal, nor are any likely to be present based on the knowledge of species and their habitat requirements.

· There is potential for the school, if approved, to expand in terms of student enrolment, buildings and associated infrastructure to the detriment of the adjoining and adjacent lands.

8 Comment
The current application is supported by a master plan prepared by the proponent showing potential expansion opportunities for the school in the future. It only proposes a primary school component having a growth period over eight years. Should the school be approved by Council, any further development would be subject to a further development application and assessment.

· The school would cause an increase in rates (Council, electricity, telecommunications) in the area.

8 Comment
This is not a planning consideration.

· Noise associated with the occupation of the land as a school will have an adverse impact on pets and livestock.

8 Comment
A school would introduce a new audible noise source to the area. However, it is unlikely that those noise levels would have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of pets and livestock.

· The proposed school would pose a security risk to existing properties in the immediate area. Existing residents would have to secure their properties at considerable cost.

8 Comment
The proposed school site would be secured with appropriate fencing to deter unlawful access. Furthermore, the owners/proponents of the proposed school would continue to reside on the property offering passive security and surveillance.

No evidence has been submitted to support this objection.

· The school will produce pollution (dust, vehicle exhaust, on-site sewage treatment) in its construction and once operating to the detriment of roof water quality in the area.

8 Comment
The main source of potential contamination would be dust generated by the use of Kulbardi Close and the internal access driveway/carparking areas during the construction period. Its potential impact on the school and adjoining and nearby land has been acknowledged by the applicant. In response, the applicant is committed to a fully sealed upgrade of Kulbardi Close and sealed internal driveway and carpark areas.

Council would require dust suppression during construction. This would involve the operation of a water tanker on-site at all times during construction.

The application is supported by a detailed on-site sewage management assessment prepared by a local consultancy and confirms the suitability of the site to dispose of effluent that would be generated by the proposed school.

· The school will produce large amounts of rubbish which will end up on adjoining and adjacent lands.

8 Comment
The proponent has advised that rubbish will be disposed of in accordance with best practice and that the proposed internal securing fencing will act as a screen to any windblown litter.

· The school poses an unacceptable risk to Sandy Beach Creek and Bournda National Park by reason of pollution.

8 Comment
The school site would be located approximately 350 metres from Sandy Beach Creek at its closest point, is separated by managed pasture land and would sit within a separate water catchment. Accordingly, is unlikely that the environmental integrity of the creek would be compromised by the presence of a school should it be approved.

Bournda National Park is approximately 600 metres to the north of the proposed school site at its closest point and is separated by managed pasture land. Accordingly it is considered that the environmental integrity of the Park and its management requirements would not be compromised.

· The appearance of the school would have an adverse visual impact on the existing rural residential characteristics of the locality.

8 Comment
As previously outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposed school is out of character with the existing rural residential characteristics of the locality.

· A school in this location is not in keeping with the rural zoning of the land.

8 Comment
As previously outlined in the report, it is considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the zone or appropriate in the location proposed.

conclusion

The application provides for the construction and establishment of a primary school designed to cater for an enrolment of 250 students, teachers and staff over an eight year period.

The proposed development would result in 115 or more additional vehicle movements along Kulbardi Close each morning and afternoon, including bus traffic.

The locality is rural in nature and characterised by grazing land, forested areas and low scale rural residential development.

The land is zoned Rural General 1(a) under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 and, whilst an educational establishment is a permitted use in the zone with consent, it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the zone as:

· the proposal would create undesirable environmental and cultural impacts.

· the proposal would not maintain the scenic amenity and landscape quality of the area.

Ÿ the proposal would not promote the economic provisions of services compatible with the nature and intensity of development and character of the area.

· the proposed development would not be consistent with the rural amenity of the area and would result in a loss of amenity and lifestyle for residents of Kulbardi Close.

The land is zoned RU2 ‘Rural Landscape’ under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013. Whilst the development application was lodged prior to gazettal of the Plan Council is still required to have regard to the Plan as it was imminent.

The objectives of the RU2 zone are:

Ÿ To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

Ÿ To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

Ÿ To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

The RU2 zoning reflects the rural landscape and amenity of the area and it is considered that the proposed school would not maintain this rural amenity due to increased traffic movements, increase in noise and the proposal being out of character with the existing development in the area.

Further, the application is inconsistent with the guidelines “Integrating Land Use and Transport” dated August 2001. The development does not encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling and does not limit/reduce the dependence on the private motor car.

The guidelines outline a number of principles for schools including the need to be located as near as possible to neighbourhoods and community centres which are connected to pedestrian, bicycle and transport networks. The proposed school would be located approximately 4km from Tura Beach with access to be via private car or bus with pedestrian and bicycle access prohibited. The applicant proposes that parents of children enrolling at the school will have to sign an enrolment contract to this effect.

The application was referred to Roads and Maritime Services who has consistently raised significant concerns with the road safety and general suitability of the site. The RMS does not support a school in this location given its remote location and proximity to a high speed road (Sapphire Coast Drive).

The application was placed on public exhibition with three submissions received from residents of Kulbardi Close all raising objection to the proposed development.

The proposed school is not supported in the location proposed for the reasons outlined in this report and is recommended for refusal.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Locality Plan

2 View. Proposed Development Plans

3 View. RMS Letter

Recommendation

1. That Development Application 2012.217 for the construction and establishment of a primary school on lot 112 DP 844918 and lots 113 & 115 DP 11188389 Kulbardi Close, Bournda be refused for the following reasons:

· The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the Rural 1(a) zone as required by Clause 8(3) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002.

· The proposal is contrary to Clause 12(2)(b) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 as it would create undesirable environmental and cultural impacts by way of traffic impacts and the development being out of character with the rural landscape and existing development of the locality.

· The proposal is contrary to Clause 12(2)(d) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 as the scenic amenity and landscape quality of the area would not be maintained by way of traffic impacts and the development being out of character with the rural landscape and existing development of the locality.

· The proposal is contrary to Clause 12(2)(g) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 as it does not promote the economic provision of services compatible with the nature and intensity of development and character of the area as pedestrian and bicycle access to the site is to be prohibited due to road safety issues and distance from the nearest residential community.

· The development is contrary to Clause 65(1)(a)(v), (vi) & (vii) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 as it is not in keeping with the rural setting and character of the locality and not in keeping or scale with neighbouring development.

· The development is contrary to Clause 65(1)(a)(xiv) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 as it would result in a significant increase in traffic generation along Kulbardi Close which would result in a loss of amenity and enjoyment to existing residents in the area.

· The intensity and nature of the increased traffic generation would be incompatible with the existing rural amenity of the locality.

· The proposed development is contrary to the zone objectives of the RU2 “Rural Landscape” Zone of the land under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 as it would not maintain the rural landscape character of the locality and is not a compatible land use.

· The location of the proposed development is not consistent with the guidelines for the location of schools outlined in the publication “Integrating Land Use and Transport” dated August 2001 as the nearest neighbourhood/community is 4km away. Furthermore, pedestrian and bicycle access would be prohibited.

· The proposal does not promote ecologically sustainable development principles due to the total reliance on private vehicles and buses for access to the school.

2. That those parties who made a submission during the exhibition period be formally notified of Council’s decision.

Council 18 December 2013 Item 8.3

8.3. Draft Eden Port (Snug Cove) Master Plan Update

Presenting the 2013 Eden Port (Snug Cove) Master Plan Update report following exhibition and consideration of submissions.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

In 2005 a Master Plan for Eden Port (Snug Cove) and Environs (2005 Master Plan) was prepared under a partnership agreement between the Bega Valley Shire Council and the (then) NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. Since 2005 there have been changes in the use of the Snug Cove Precinct and a number of development opportunities have emerged.

In 2013, as part of preparation for application for federal and state regional development funding to support proposed infrastructure development in Snug Cove, Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) commissioned GHD to:

• Review the 2005 Master Plan in response to changed conditions on site, key policy changes and infrastructure development opportunities identified by BVSC;

• Undertake a consultation process with a group of stakeholders identified by BVSC to obtain information about the identified development opportunities and key issues to be considered in the review of the master plan; and

• Update the 2005 Master Plan concept plan and modify the principles and controls for Snug Cove to reflect the updated concept plan.

Snug Cove Precinct Study Area

ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW

In undertaking the review of the 2005 Master Plan, the following major issues were identified:

· Completion of Fuel Storage Depot Reclamation

· Fishing Fleet Requirements

· Australia’s Coastal Wilderness National Landscape Experiences Development Strategy

· Sapphire Coast Marine Discovery Centre (SCMDC) Proposed Expansion;

· Proposed Breakwater Wharf Extension

· Cattle Bay Resort

· Proposed Facilities for Recreational Yachting

· Slipway relocation or enhancement; and

· Safety issues associated with vehicle and pedestrian movement through the port area.

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE 2005 MASTER PLAN

The 2005 Master Plan for Eden Port (Snug Cove) and Environs was prepared under a partnership agreement between the BVSC and the (then) Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

The 2005 Master Plan was intended to provide a comprehensive approach to the development of the precinct of Snug Cove and its environs. The 2005 Master Plan provides detailed design principles to encourage development that responds to its context and contributes to the quality of the built and natural environment, the desired future character and the cultural significance of the site.

The 2005 Master Plan deals predominantly with future land-based planning as water-based operations (e.g. navigation) are the responsibility of Eden Port Harbour Master. Crown Land covers the bed of Twofold Bay and any occupation by lease or licence is assessed in accordance with the Crown Lands Act 1989.

The 2005 Concept Plan provided an overview of the layout and distribution of open space and built form that could occur within the parameters of the 2005 Master Plan.

The 2005 Concept Plan was indicative only. The Character Statements, Principles and Controls sections illustrate in greater detail the rationale behind this concept. It was intended that minor variations and alternative design solutions for Snug Cove from the layout and scale shown on the Concept Plan could be considered as part of the Development Application process, providing they were consistent with the objectives, principles and controls of the 2005 Master Plan. Detailed environmental assessments are required for any development proposals in accordance with the Master Plan provisions, and other legislation and regulations.

The 2005 Concept Plan shows extensions to the Breakwater Unloading Wharf, Multipurpose Jetty and Mooring Jetty. The slipway land is identified for potential future reclamation within the port. These proposals reflected the Department of Lands’ long term plans for Snug Cove, as identified in the Snug Cove Port Management Plan (Department of Lands, 2004).

The 2005 Master Plan was guided by the following objectives:

a. ensuring that primarily Snug Cove will remain a working port;

b. the maintenance of a working port character and functions by retaining key waterfront industrial sites or, at a minimum, the integration of facilities for maritime activities into development;

c. increasing public access to, and use of, land on the foreshore and in particular

– foreshore land made available for public access and use to be in public ownership wherever possible, particularly land with proximity to the foreshore area,

– if public ownership of foreshore land is not possible, the use of appropriate legal mechanisms to safeguard public access to, and public use of, that land and to ensure the rights of public,

– authorities to determine the design of, use of, and amenities on, the land over time,

– maintaining safety in the public domain,

– the retention and enhancement of public access links between existing foreshore open space areas;

d. conserving of remnant vegetation and other natural features along the foreshore, and their availability for public use and enjoyment;

e. protecting natural and cultural heritage values;

f. ensuring that future development considers and is consistent with marine ecological values and coastal processes;

g. protecting and improving of visual and aesthetic qualities of the Port, Eden and its foreshores; and

h. enhancing the relationship between use of the water and foreshore activities.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION FOR THE REVIEW

BVSC identified the following key stakeholders to participate in the consultation process:

· NSW Crown Lands

· Eden Chamber of Commerce

· Cruise Eden

· Sapphire Coast Marine Discovery Centre

· Port of Eden Marina (POEM) group

· Eden Resorts Hotel Pty Ltd

· Eden Port Harbourmaster (Sydney Ports Authority)

A number of representatives of the abovementioned organisations were connected to other groups through direct participation or due to business relationships and were able to provide information on other users requirements or issues.

In addition to the above, GHD contacted Exxon Mobil with regard to its site and were contacted by the owners of the former BP site.

As a result of the consultation undertaken with these stakeholders and BVSC representatives, the issues for consideration in the review of the master plan were confirmed.

Opportunity for public comment on the Draft Eden Port (Snug Cove) Master Plan Update 2013 Report was provided with 10 submissions received.

A public community consultation meeting was held on 11 June 2013 to provide opportunity for comment on the draft report with approximately 40 people in attendance.

As discussed with Councillors at the workshop with GHD considering the submissions, the key issues raised were:

· Sydney Ports and Carnival - navigational channel to the Breakwater wharf for future access for larger cruise vessels

· Support for public access via designated pedestrian access routes to Ross Bay in lieu of the proposed access road

· Concern that car parking might be reduced overall and particularly about removal of parking at the existing wharf

· BP site proponent built form comments, particularly capacity to work with contours on steeper slopes, proposed streetscape character and definition on Imlay Street and Weecoon Street

· Indicative provision for future enhancement or possible redevelopment of the slipway caused concern for the existing lessee; and

· Consideration of a road extension to Cattle Bay via Victoria Terrace was requested in some submissions.

All submissions and comments have been reviewed and appropriate adjustments to the Master Plan 2013 are recommended to be made.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE 2013 MASTER PLAN

The following amendments are proposed:

· The specific location and detailed layout for the public marina has been removed. The final location is subject to further design, consultation of stakeholders and preparation of a detailed development application. The updated Master Plan supports the future opportunity for a marina.

· The proposed Cattle Bay marina layout has been removed and designated in a note only. The Cattle Bay marina project is complementary to a separately approved Master Plan.

· Street hierarchy has been reviewed and the proposed access road to Ross Bay has been removed and replaced with a public car park and landscaped pedestrian access to the Bay. The public park on the ocean foreshore is retained.

· Illustrative building footprint to BP site east indicates an orientation to better suit the slope. A reduced setback requirement to Weecoon Street is retained.

· Public car park provision is actually increased under the 2013 Master Plan from 147 existing spaces to 273 proposed spaces. With changes to the street hierarchy, the proposed distribution has been modified to lessen the requirement on the BP site and provide limited parking at the existing wharf. Parking is retained on the Snug Cove frontage and available for shared use or closed off for community events and for Cruise Eden activities.

· The Cattle Bay / Victoria Terrace access road is outside the scope of this study and requires detailed consideration by NSW Crown Lands.

Conclusion

Attachment 1 to this report is the 2013 Master Plan Update report including the revised concept plan reflecting community and agency submissions and comments. These diagrams and the 2013 Concept Plan are proposed to replace those in the 2005 Master Plan for Eden Port (Snug Cove) and Environs. The 2005 Master Plan for Eden Port (Snug Cove) and Environs and the 2013 Eden Snug Cove Master Plan Update are intended to be read together.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. 2013 Master Plan Update Report

Recommendation

1. That Council adopts the 2103 Eden Port (Snug Cove) Master Plan Update report in principle.

2. That Council advises the Minister for Planning & Infrastructure of the resolution and requests the Minister’s endorsement of the recommended changes to the Eden Port (Snug Cove) Master Plan 2005.

Council 18 December 2013 Item 8.5

8.5. Request for zoning of Lots 33 and 34 DP 243029 Tura Beach Drive,Tura Beach to a B5 Business Development zone

Council has received a submission to rezone certain land in Tura Beach to B5 Business Development to facilitate a bulky goods / hardware development. This report reviews the proposed zoning of the land including the appropriateness of a B5 Business Development zone.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

Lots 33 & 34 DP 243029 Tura Beach Drive, Tura Beach are located on the south-eastern corner of the Tura Beach Drive and Sapphire Coast Drive intersection and are in the one ownership. The properties have a combined total area of approximately 4.5 hectares and are currently vacant and largely cleared.

Existing developments within the immediate area comprise a Seniors’ Living Development to the south-east (zoned R2 Low Density Residential), a large lot residential parcel to the west (zoned R5 Large Lot Residential), and a shopping complex, service station and nursery on the opposite side of Tura Beach Drive (zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre).

Under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 (BVLEP 2002), Lots 33 & 34 DP 243029 were zoned 1(c) Rural Small Holdings. In draft Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2010 (draft BVLEP 2010) the properties were proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential Zone (Lot 33) and R5 Large Lot Residential Zone (Lot 34).

A submission was received during the exhibition of the draft BVLEP 2010 requesting a R3 Medium Density Residential zone for both lots. Council resolved to support the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and recognised the opportunity to make use of the existing infrastructure and services and to enable future development that is compatible with the surrounding area. It was considered that development of the land for medium density housing would assist in delivering housing choices in the area that are affordable, sustainable and suited to the needs of the community. The site is within close proximity to existing urban areas, public services and existing infrastructure. Development consent exists for the site for a seniors’ housing development comprising of 34 units and three rural small holdings lots.

The land was included in Appendix 2 for the preparation of a Planning Proposal and identified as a ‘deferred matter’ under BVLEP 2013 when gazetted.

A Planning Proposal to rezone the land from 1(c) to R3 was prepared and lodged with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoP). Agency and public consultation was approved by the DoP Gateway Panel; however, prior to the commencement of the public exhibition, Council received a request from the owners to withdraw the land from the planning proposal.

At the Council Meeting of 27 November 2013 Council gave consideration to the owners’ request and resolved the following:

· That the land identified as Lots 33 & 34 DP 243029 Tura Beach Drive, Tura Beach included in the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 Planning Proposal ‘Residential Zones’ dated September 2013, be withdrawn from the Planning Proposal.

· That staff review the proposed zoning of the land, including the appropriateness of a B5 zoning, and a further report be submitted to Council for consideration.

· That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be advised of Councils’ decision.

The following is a discussion of the recent submission from the owners and a staff review of the submission.

Submission to zone the land B5 Business Development

The submission recently received from the owners of Lots 33 & 34 DP 243029 states that they “have been approached by a national company that wishes to purchase the corner lot [Lot 33] for a use that might best be described as for bulky goods or hardware”. They request the application of the B5 Business Development Zone that was recently adopted by Council (and that is yet to be approved by the Minister for Planning & Infrastructure) on the basis that the proposed use will provide an economic boost to the region and is located on a prominent corner opposite an established B1 zone.

The B5 Land Use Table proposed for LEP 2013 including appropriate zone objectives and nominated permissible land uses is as follows:

Zone B5 Business Development

1 Objectives of zone

• To enable a mix of business and warehouse uses, and bulky goods premises that require a large floor area, in locations that are close to, and that support the viability of, centres.

• To cater specifically for uses that require a high degree of visibility and accessibility to passing traffic and that generate a high proportion of single purpose vehicle trips.

• To enable the establishment of an aquaculture, agricultural produce and tourist precinct at Arthur Kaine Drive, Merimbula.

2 Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works

3 Permitted with consent

Agricultural produce industry; Building identification sign; Bulky goods premises; Business identification sign; Child care centres; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Function centres; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Highway service centres; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Passenger transport facilities; Public administration buildings; Recreation facilities (indoor); Research stations; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Service stations; Sewerage systems; Storage premises; Transport depots; vehicle body repair workshop; Vehicle repair station; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Water supply systems.

4 Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

The submission states that the B5 zone is the most appropriate zone for the land because:

· the site is high visibly

· the high levels of existing development (where permissible) on adjacent land will restrict additional business development to the two proposed lots

· the uses permitted in the zone will not substantially impact on adjoining properties

· the proposed use meets the objectives of the zone.

Staff Discussion of Submission

Prior to lodging the new submission, the owners held discussions with Council staff regarding the potential for zoning the land to B1 Neighbourhood Centre to accommodate the proposed bulky goods/hardware use. Staff confirmed previous advice that the zoning of the land to support commercial development was not considered appropriate. Support for the Council resolved position of R3 Medium Density Residential was reaffirmed.

A business zone for the land is not supported on the basis that it would permit retail development which has been deliberately limited in the Tura Beach area by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure and is contrary to Councils’ adopted policy of restricting future higher order retail development to the four Town Centres of the Shire.

Further, a commercial zone, whether B1 or B5, is not considered compatible with the adjoining residential style development.

Tura Beach is one of the Shires’ 13 Neighbourhood Centres. In terms of commercial development, Neighbourhood Centres meet basic day to day services and shopping requirements of local residents. The hierarchy of commercial centres was endorsed by Council in the 2006 Bega Valley Shire Commercial Strategy which states that Tura Beach is to remain a local servicing centre, and by the South Coast Regional Strategy in 2006, which additionally identified Bega as the Regional Centre for the Shire.

The Commercial Strategy supported the expansion of the then existing commercial area to include the site of the new Tura Beach Woolworths Shopping Centre. The rezoning of this land was supported by the Minister for Planning at that time on the basis that retail floorspace on the rezoned land was limited to 5000sqm to be in keeping with Tura Beach being designated as a Neighbourhood Centre. This potential has been exhausted by the existing development.

At the time, the Minister specifically refused Council’s request to permit bulky goods retail on the land on the basis that there was adequate zoned floorspace available for such uses elsewhere in the Shire. In making the Tura Beach LEP the Minster cited “the need to support the centres hierarchy in the South Coast Regional Strategy, which identifies Merimbula as a Major Town while still providing retail services for the growing community at Tura Beach.”

Additional commercial land at Tura Beach is also likely to cause unnecessary negative impacts on the future of Bega as the Regional Centre. The role of Bega as the Regional Centre is to provide a range of higher order commercial, retail and public services for the entire Shire. The South Coast Regional Strategy states that Regional Centres provide a “concentration of higher density living, business, employment, professional services, department stores, specialty shops, warehouses, transport logistics and bulky goods operations.” To facilitate this with regard to bulky goods development, suitable land has been zoned within and surrounding Bega in BVLEP 2013.

In addition, Council staff are of the opinion that the proposed use is not appropriate to adjoining land uses and may affect the amenity of the residents of the seniors’ living development to the south-east. The location of the proposed development on a highly visible corner of Tura Beach Drive and Sapphire Coast Drive will negatively affect the visual appeal of the main road in the area which has already been impacted by the existing supermarket on the opposite corner.

The orderly development of the Shire’s commercially zoned land is important to ensure the appropriate scale and character of our towns and neighbourhood centres and to ensure owners of commercially zoned land can operate with relative certainty given land supply conditions. The recent commencement of BVLEP 2013 ensures that sufficient land is zoned to support future commercial development for the Shire in the medium to long term.

Conclusion

Commercial development such as that discussed in this report can provide positive economic benefits in terms of employment and retail opportunities for the Shire’s existing (and future) residents. However, the location proposed in this instance is not ideal and there are opportunities for the location of such a business in more suitable and appropriately zoned locations in the Bega Valley. Zoning and development of the land for medium density residential development is considered a more appropriate use of the land and the recent development approval indicates that such development is possible on the site.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council determines the request to zone Lots 33 and 34 DP 243029 Tura Beach Drive, Tura Beach as B5 Business Development.

Council 18 December 2013 Item 10.1

10.1. Operational Management of Merimbula Airport

Report prepared to evaluate and recommend Council’s preferred option for the future operational management of the Merimbula Airport for publication for comment.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

On 4 September 2013, Council adopted the Merimbula Airport Master Plan. The Plan sets out the aviation, development and commercial context of the airport and establishes a strategic planning framework for its future growth. The Plan also provides aviation research, analysis, growth forecast, infrastructure needs and development potential. This, along with the current lease ending in June 2014, places Council in a position to decide an appropriate model for the future operational management of the airport.

To assist Council in its considerations, there are essentially four basic management models available described as follows:

1. Directly Manage (DM): Council employs professional and operational staff to directly manage the airport’s operation and development. Council bares all risks and responsibilities.

2. Contract Manage (CM): Council engages a qualified and experienced company to operate the airport. While the extent and scope of the contract terms and conditions may vary significantly, this option is essentially a fee for service. Council transfers some of its responsibilities but ultimate responsibility and risk rests with Council.

3. Lease Agreement (LA): Council lease the airport to a qualified and experienced company to operate the airport. Again, the extent and scope can vary significantly, but Council, depending on those conditions, is able to transfer some operational and financial risks. This option includes variations which could include the lease of the airport operations (runway, terminal and associated areas) and the airport business lands as separate parcels.

4. Private Ownership (PO): Council sells the airport and relinquishes ownership to a third party and thereafter has no further responsibilities in regard to the airport. Most but not all risks are transferred to the third party.

Prior to consideration of these management models, it is worth clarifying the context in which the airport currently operates and will operate in the future. The importance of each area and Council’s risk profile will make clearer the collective metrics for decision.

ISSUES

Legal

Regulatory Context

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is the statutory authority that conducts the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia, including the regulation of certified and registered aerodromes. The Manual of Standards (MOS)-Part 139 Aerodromes is made pursuant to Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Part 139 and sets out the regulatory regime for aerodromes used by aircraft conducting air transport operations.

The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and associated Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, establishes a regulatory regime to safeguard against unlawful interference with aviation.

There is of course other legislation that is applicable, such as work health and safety, environmental, traffic, etc however they are not specific to airport operations.

The regulatory risk and compliance costs vary with each of the models proposed but generally speaking it shifts from high for DM to low for PO.

Policy

Council does not have a policy position on the ownership and/or operation of the airport. However, within Council’s Community Strategic Plan the importance of the airport directly relates to the themes - Enterprising Place through support of the local economy and the tourism industry and Accessible Place as part of an integrated transport network and support of emergency services. Indirectly the operations of the airport support Liveable Place by providing access to specialist medical and educational services.

Environmental

Merimbula Airport is located in an environmentally sensitive area, between Merimbula Lake to the west and bushland areas to the east of Arthur Kaine Drive, where extensive foreshore dunes form part of Merimbula Beach. There are also wetland areas to the south, south west and east of the runway and within the airport site itself. The areas are environmentally significant and wetland areas are identified in SEPP14.

While it is arguable that the environmental risk to Council will vary with each model under consideration, it is essentially in line with the regulatory context discussed above and need not be given any additional consideration.

Asset

The airport infrastructure is a significant and capital intensive asset. The ongoing maintenance, renewal and upgrade of the airport are vital for a safe, secure and reliable aviation operation. To this end, there is a need for substantial commitment of resources, particularly capital funding, over a long period of time.

In terms of the management models under consideration, the DM and CM options provide the most reliable outcomes with the risk resting with Council. The transferring or sharing of such risk with a private entity, which will have profit, return on capital and other business pressures, can be problematic.

Social / Cultural

Community benefit is arguably the main reason why Council owns and operates an airport. Airport operations are seen as a vital component of the overall integrated transport network, which links the Bega Valley with capital cities for professional, legal, specialist and medical services, rapid high cost freight, as well as passengers for tourism, employment and business.

In considering the proposed management models, the desirability of outcomes beyond the direct operations of the airport can only be borne by Council. Attempts to transfer responsibility for social, cultural or other community outcomes onto a business based model will be very difficult, if at all possible. However, it could be argued that a strong, vibrant and growing airport, even if based purely on commercial terms, will result in the desired community benefits anyway.

Economic

The economy of the Bega Valley has been traditionally dominated by primary industry including agriculture, forestry and fishing. While these industries are still significant, a number of other key sectors have developed, in particular tourism and remote area employment.

The airport therefore provides significant support to the local economy and at the same time has its own business activity generating economic benefit.

Once again, in terms of the management models being considered, desired outcomes outside the direct airport operations are difficult to include in private business models. See comments above regarding social/cultural outcomes.

Consultation

The airport has been the subject of significant public comment over a number of years. More recently, in regard to the runway renewal, special rate variation application, development of the precinct and master plan. The Merimbula Airport Users Group (MAUG) has also provided input and feedback on these issues, both directly to Council and through the media. However, public opinion and the MAUG have not been directly consulted on the question of the future operational management and Council may consider seeking public comment as appropriate. Therefore, the extent to which additional consultation is required is a matter for Council.

Financial

The financial implications of any operational management model are significant and long term. The financial modelling and analysis was undertaken by a specialist consultant, Hill PDA and has been workshopped separately with Council.

Considerations in this regard should be viewed in three parts:

1. Operational costs: the day to day costs of running and maintaining the airport grounds, aircraft movement areas, passenger terminal, utilities and landside areas such as car parks and obstacle surface. The current annual operating costs are approximately $580,000.

2. Capital costs: the price of infrastructure renewals and upgrades which, when based on the master plan for medium growth of up to 150,000 passengers by 2022, is approaching $30 million.

3. Income from airport operational activities, including passenger head tax (approximately $590,000 p.a.), aircraft parking (no current charge), terminal leasing (café, hire cars), hangar leasing (approximately $23,000 p.a.) and car parking charges (no current charge).

It is important to note that income from supplementary businesses currently being undertaken by the existing lease operator are not included, as they are not nor could they be Council derived income. To be clear, revenues from passenger/baggage handling, security card production and aircraft refuelling are not available to Council.

In terms of the management models proposed, the LA model will necessarily link operating costs and income. The extent to which Council receives a lease fee or payment will be subject to expressions of interest process. Also, it is difficult to envisage Council yielding any ongoing income or dividend in a PO model nor is it possible to determine the likely proceeds from sale. What is clear is that given the rate of return, it is very unlikely that a third party would make any large capital commitment, at least in the medium term.

Resources (including staff)

The extent, to which Council resources are required, depends on the management model ultimately chosen. The DM model would require at minimum two full time staff and two casual staff, with support plant, such as tractor slasher, line marking, workshop, etc. Other models will require administration and management oversight by staff only.

Operational Plan

Maintaining and operating the airport is consistent with Council operation plan as part of its integrated transport network.

Conclusion

The impending termination of the existing operational lease at Merimbula Airport requires Council to decide the appropriate management model going forward. With the adoption of the Airport Master Plan, an opportunity exists to compliment or at the very least avoid contradiction to the strategic growth or development objectives. However, on one hand the operational management model focuses on day to day expenses, income and regulation, while the other focuses on growth, development and capital costs.

Ideally Council would like to have a management model that bares the operational risks (income, expense, regulation) as well as the economic risks (capital cost, growth, development) at the same time providing a dividend and input into strategic decision making. In reality this is not possible and a balance must be struck between these objectives. The four proposed models discussed above essentially reflect this balance.

At one extreme Direct Management results in Council having all the risks while at the other extreme Private Ownership results in no risk or control over future development to Council. The Contract Management and Lease Agreement models are essentially a balance between these two, depending on the risk/reward equation.

It is also clear that with the current revenue/expense balance it is unlikely that any private organisation would be willing to take on the large capital expenses forecast in the Master Plan nor is it likely that a dividend is possible.

The value of subsequent businesses being run in association with either the CM or LA models cannot be determined, as each business in its own right is unprofitable. It is the collective or economy of scale that allows the overall sustainability. However, the value to any successful contractor or lessee from these separate businesses should not be underestimated. At Merimbula these businesses include refuelling, car rental, passenger/freight handling, café and security card production none of which Council has control or access to.

Finally, the income derived from hangar leases is probably better separated and treated as a property matter in line with other leases and license in which Council engages. The inclusion into the airport operations debate confuses the issues and is unnecessary in terms of operational management models.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council note the report into the management operating models for the Merimbula Airport and determine its preferred model.

2. That Council publicly advertise its preferred operating management model seeking public comment, including direct consultation with the airport users.

Council 18 December 2013 Item 11.1

11.1. Merimbula Flood Study grant offer

Council has been offered a grant of $120,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage, under its Floodplain Risk Management Grants Scheme for the 2013/2014 financial year. The grant is to facilitate the preparation of the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake and surrounds Flood Study. The grant requires formal acceptance by Council, by returning the supplied funding agreement to the Office of Environment and Heritage by 20 December 2013.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

Application was made to the NSW Office of Environment Heritage Floodplain Management Program Grants Scheme on 21 March 2013 for the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake and surrounds Flood Study at Merimbula. Council was notified on 20 November 2013 of its successful application and has received a grant offer of $120,000 to complete the proposed project.

The Floodplain Management Program supports the implementation of the NSW Government's Flood Prone Land Policy, as outlined in the NSW Government's Floodplain Development Manual 2005.

The primary objective of the policy is to reduce the impacts of flooding and flood liability on communities, as well as the private and public losses resulting from floods, using ecologically positive methods wherever possible.

The NSW Government recommends that local Councils understand and manage their flood risk through the floodplain risk management process, as outlined in the Manual.

The Floodplain Management Program provides financial support to Councils and eligible public land managers to:

· Make informed decisions on managing flood risk, by preparing Floodplain Risk Management Plans (and associated background studies) under the floodplain risk management process;

· Implement Floodplain Risk Management Plans to reduce flood risk to both existing and future development and reduce losses through a range of property, flood and response modification measures as outlined in the Manual;

· Provide essential information to the State Emergency Service to enable the effective preparation and implementation of local flood plans to deal with flood emergency response.

Assistance under the program is normally offered by the State Government providing $2 for every $1 provided by local Councils.

The flood study forms an initial stage towards development of a comprehensive Floodplain Risk Management Plan, in accordance with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005.

The Office of Environment and Heritage, formerly the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, supports Councils by providing funding and technical assistance for various floodplain management projects like flood studies.

The data acquired during the flood study will be essential for development of detailed rainfall/runoff (hydrology) and flood (hydraulic) models. The models will provide the technical analysis required for the flood study and development of a future Floodplain Risk Management Study and subsequent Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

ISSUES

Legal

The 2013/2014 grant offer will require formal acquittal at project completion, with supporting financial documentation attesting to the full and proper expenditure on approved activities under the funding agreement.

Policy

The acceptance of the 2013/2014 grant offer will allow preparation of the flood study project that will ultimately provide Council with contemporary flood risk mapping and information in accordance with the NSW Floodplain Risk Management Manual 2005 requirements.

Environmental

The outputs of the completed flood study will form a technical input into Council’s current Coastal Hazard Management Study and vice versa.

Asset

Once the flood study is completed, a review of protection of Council assets may be required.

Social / Cultural

Once the flood study is completed a review of emergency response and access issues during flood events may be required.

Economic

Acceptance of the grant offer may lead to some flood study survey activities being sub-contracted to a local surveying business.

Strategic

The acceptance of the 2013/2014 grant offer has a number of strategic implications.

The completed flood study outputs will form further inputs into a subsequent future Floodplain Risk Management Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchments, with their corresponding tributaries of Boggy Creek, Bald Hills Creek and Merimbula Creek.

The proposed flood study outputs, future subsequent proposed Floodplain Risk Management Study and proposed Floodplain Risk Management Plan outputs will together produce inputs into Council’s current Development Control Policy 4.1.1, its underlying procedure 4.1.1(l) Flood Prone Land – Determination, the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 with its underlying Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013.

The flood study outputs also provide essential information in planning emergency response during flood events, planning for disaster resilience prior to flood events and securing further funding from the NSW Government for future potential projects, such as a subsequent Flood Risk Management Study and Floodplain Risk Management Plan and its implementation.

Consultation

Consultation with the community is an integral part of the flood study completion process. Media releases, radio interviews and community flood survey questionnaires are typically undertaken during a flood study project. Consultation with State Government agencies and residents within the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchment areas will be undertaken, using a variety of these activities.

Other consultation activities required typically include public information meetings, public exhibition of the draft flood study, processing of submissions and presentation of the completed report to Council by the flood study consultant.

Financial

The grant offer is made on the basis of 2:1 (State:Council) contribution. Not accepting the grant offer will mean having to source the additional funds of $120,000 from internal Council sources, not yet allocated to the flood study project and may have impacts on other projects commencing as scheduled.

During 2012, the Office of Environment and Heritage changed its grant funding format from annualised funding to project-based funding. Therefore, the grant funding would be available for a maximum period of three years, as per the conditions of the grant to enable the project to be completed. Council would need to ensure that the required matching contribution of $60,000 would be available over the project period, which may extend up to two years in practice. The $60,000 matching contribution is fully available for the current 2013/2014 financial year and any unexpended funding will need to be carried over to subsequent financial years, to ensure the completion of the project.

Resources (including staff)

Council’s 2013/2014 budget allocation for the completion of the proposed flood study project is currently set at $60,000.

Additional resources required will be the efforts of operational staff from within Council’s Infrastructure, Waste and Water and Planning and Environment Groups.

Operational Plan

Completion of the flood study will provide inputs into achieving a number of aims in the Operational Plan, namely:

· L1 Wellbeing and safety

· S1 Valued natural environments

· S2 Sustainable communities

· S3 Character and amenity

· S4 Proactive support and Planning

· A1 Connected communities

· A2 Facilities and services

· A4 Emergency planning

· LO3 Informed and engaged

Conclusion

There are significant policy, strategic and financial advantages to Council by accepting the 2013/2014 grant offer of $120,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage. The study will extend and compliment the Bega and Brogo Rivers flood study already completed.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

That the grant offer of $120,000 from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for preparation of Council’s Merimbula Lake, Back Lake and Surrounds Flood Study be accepted and the funding agreement be executed by the General Manager for return to OEH by the submission date of 20 December 2013.

Council 18 December 2013 Item 12.3

12.3. Special Variation - Sport and Recreation Facilities

In the 2009/2010 financial year, Council successfully applied to the Division of Local Government for a special variation, to be spent on the renewal and upgrade of Council’s sport and recreation facilities. The special variation was approved for a period of five years, concluding at the end of the 2013/2014 financial year. The purpose of this report is to provide a final funding allocation to Council for endorsement that would see the last of the special variation funds allocated and expended in the 2013/2014 financial year.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Waste & Water

Background

In the 2009/2010 financial year, Council successfully applied to the Division of Local Government for a special variation to its rating base, for a variation commencing at $450,000 per annum. The funds raised were to be spent on the renewal and upgrade of Council’s sport and recreation facilities. The special variation was approved for a period of five years, concluding at the end of the 2013/2014 financial year. The total value of special variation funds to be allocated over the five year period was $2,388,405 (including indexation).

On 10 November 2009, Council resolved to form a General Sportsground and Recreation Committee, with representatives from the sporting community who utilised Council’s sport and recreation facilities. The Committee’s purpose was to determine the most effective use of the special variation funds. The Committee assessed potential projects and made recommendations to Council for the allocation of funding. Council subsequently resolved to assist a large number of projects, across a wide range of facilities throughout the Shire.

The purpose of this report is to provide a final funding allocation to Council for endorsement that would see the last of the special variation funds allocated and expended in the 2013/2014 financial year. In addition, this report provides verification to Council that the special variation funds were spent in accordance with the special variation instrument, issued by the Division of Local Government and where discrepancies have been found, address said discrepancies in order to comply.

The application made by Council stipulated a matrix of asset types to be funded from the special variation over its term:

	Approved Program	Amount Funded
1.	Provide physical access to recreation/cultural facilities	$252.889.31
2.	Recreation improvements to playgrounds and swimming pools	$125,000.00
3.	Upgrade of sports playing surfaces, lighting and car parking	$593,144.68
4.	Upgrade change and spectator facilities	$500,000.00
5.	Upgrade of skate park facilities	$100,000.00
6.	Upgrade to swimming pool facilities	$250,000.00
7.	Upgrade and creation of playing courts	$292,371.01
8.	Upgrades to trails and cycleways	$275,000.00
	Total	$2,388,405.00

*the non-rounded values include indexation allocations. The original allocation did not factor indexation in the estimates provided to the Division of Local Government.

The following table outlines the spent allocations from each of the eight nominated categories of expenditure in the table above, as well as the remaining funds to be allocated from each category, to be spent in the 2013/2014 financial year.

	Allocation	Spent/Committed	Final Allocation
1.	$252,889.31	$242,889.31	$10,000.00
2.	$125,000.00	$73,560.17	$51,439.83
3.	$593,144.68	$593,144.68	-
4.	$500,000.00	$135,818.41	$364,181.59
5.	$100,000.00	$59,398.00	$40,602.00
6.	$250,000.00	$150,000.00	$100,000.00
7.	$292,371.01	$174,926.97	$117,444.04
8.	$275,000.00	$93,230.99	$181,769.01
Total	$2,388,405.00	$1,522,968.53	$865,436.47

The final allocation of special variation funds comprises the following projects, from the nominated categories of expenditure outlined in the tables above:

	Project	Value
1.	Berrambool Sporting Complex disabled toilet facilities	$10,000.00*
2.	Contribution to the inclusive playground at Ford Park	$51,439.83
4.	Reconstruction of the clubhouse at Dickinson Oval, Bermagui	$129,000.00*
4.	Contribution to the construction of multi-purpose facility at the Sapphire Aquatic Centre, including new toilet block and spectator viewing area	$200,000.00*
4.	Contribution to purchase of relocatable grandstand seating	$35,181.59*
5.	Contribution to Bermagui Skate Park	$40,602.00
6.	Upgrading of utility infrastructure at Sapphire Aquatic Centre	$100,000.00
7.	Upgrade and resurface Merimbula Tennis Courts	$63,400.00*
7.	Upgrade and resurface Bega Tennis Courts	$50,800.00*
7.	Retain contingency on committed projects	$3,244.04
8.	Contribution towards implementation of Cycleway Strategy	$181,769.01
	Total	$865,436.47

*Funding allocations previously approved by Council

In wrapping up the special variation, staff have identified a small number of projects that had been resolved previously to be allocated from the special variation funds that in fact do not comply with the terms of the variation application. Alternate sources of funding have been identified for these projects. These projects are:

Project	Value	Source of Funds	Why excluded?
Pambula Sportsground	$246,147.20	S94 Recreation Facilities Upgrade	Exceeded category allocation
George Brown Oval Eden	$106,422.38	S94 Recreation Facilities Upgrade	Exceeded category allocation
George Griffin Oval Bega	$46,886.75	S94 Recreation Facilities Upgrade	Exceeded category allocation
Dickinson Oval Bermagui irrigation	$26,859.15	S94 Recreation Facilities Upgrade	Exceeded category allocation
Lawrence Park Tathra training field fencing	$24,506.11	S94 Recreation Facilities Upgrade	Exceeded category allocation
Cobargo Narira Park Trust Sportsground upgrades	$47,032.17	General Revenues	Exceeded category allocation
Upgrades to Pony Club fields in Eden and Wyndham	$41,836.58	General Revenues	Exceeded category allocation
Bega Tennis Club fencing	$20,579.09	S94 Recreation Facilities Upgrade	Exceeded category allocation
Lighting at Candelo Tennis Club and Pambula Sportsground	$12,134.99	General Revenues	Exceeded category allocation
Total	$572,404.42

ISSUES

Legal

This report confirms that funding expenditure has been in accordance with the special variation instrument.

Asset

Sport and recreation infrastructure has greatly improved with the allocation of the special variation funding. The funds have allowed for asset renewals and upgrades across all sporting disciplines and across the whole Shire.

Social / Cultural

Sporting and Recreational infrastructure significantly adds to the health and social wellbeing of the Bega Valley Shire community.

Strategic

Council has been successful in obtaining a new special variation, commencing from the 2014/15 financial year, which allows for the renewal and upgrade of Council’s recreation assets on an ongoing basis, as outlined in Council’s Asset Management Plans.

Consultation

Council previously resolved to disband the General Sportsground and Recreation Committee, which was created to administer the special variation funds. The Committee has worked successfully to allocate funds on a priority needs basis, which was ultimately supported by Council.

This report outlines the final allocation of funds, catering to the compliance of the ministerial instrument governing the application of the special variation, as well as Council’s Asset Management Plans.

Financial

Council holds $865,436.47 in its 2014 operating budget, being the value of projects yet to be completed.

The projects assigned alternate funding sources draw from unallocated funds, therefore providing minimal impact on the Long Term Financial Plan or Operating Budget of Council.

Resources (including staff)

Significant staff time has been involved in administering the funds and managing project delivery.

Operational Plan

At the conclusion of the special variation term on 30 June 2014, Council staff will prepare a concluding summary for inclusion in Council’s Annual Report, detailing the various facilities and community groups assisted throughout the term of the special variation.

Conclusion

The resolution and final allocation of special variation funding would see the successful conclusion of a program, which has resulted in the renewal and upgrade of sport and recreation facilities across the Shire.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council resolved the list of projects for funding from the special variation funds as outlined in the report above.

2. That Council note that the 2009/2010 special variation has been fully allocated and will close as at 30 June 2014.

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

	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

Funding source		Amount
CEFE	$	15 000/yr
BVSC W&SS Budget	$	Approx. 50%

Funding source		Amount
Financial Assistance – S356 resolved by Council	$	10 000 per annum for three years

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 6.1 - Attachment 1*	*DRAFT Refugee Welcome Zone Declaration*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 1*	*Development Plans*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 2*	*Locality map*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 3*	*Draft Development Consent*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.2 - Attachment 1*	*Locality Plan*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.2 - Attachment 2*	*Proposed Development Plans*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.2 - Attachment 3*	*RMS Letter*

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 8.3 - Attachment 1*	*2013 Master Plan Update Report*

Criteria	Weighting
Total tender price	60
Stability of tender price	10
Tenderer’s and proposed subcontractors experience in delivering similar projects	20
Tenderer’s and proposed subcontractors references	15
Preliminary project program	5
Total	110

Criteria	Weighting
Capital Purchase price	40%
Operational Assessment	25%
Mechanical Assessment	15%
Warranty Service and Parts (Inc. WH&S)	10%
Environmental	5%
Trade Value	5%
Total	100%

Signed
Print Name	Councillor

Funding source		Amount
BVSC LTFP 2013/14	$	80,000
BVSC S&R SV Fund	$	129,000
Public Reserves Management Fund Programme	$	50,000
NSW Community Building Programme	$	TBA
Insurance payment	$	137,000
	$	396,000

Funding source	September 2013	October 2013	November 2013
General Fund	$39,906,634	$26,590,826	$28,590,826
Water Fund	$8,749,118	$13,022,303	$13,022,303
Sewer Fund	$5,844,348	$10,886,971	$10,886,971

Funding source	External Restrictions ‘000	Internal Restrictions ‘000	Unrestricted ‘000	Total ‘000
General Fund	$9,800	$18,196	-$1,954	$26,042
Water Fund	$4,228	$8,794	$1,617	$14,639
Sewer Fund	$1,945	$8,942	$3,908	$14,795

Council	18 December 2013
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 1*	*Investment Report November 2013*

RECOMMENDATION