Ordinary

 

Meeting Notice and Agenda

 

An Ordinary Meeting of the Bega Valley Shire Council will be held at Council Chambers, Bega on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 commencing at 2.00 pm to consider and resolve on the matters set out in the attached Agenda.

 

4 August 2015

 

TO:

Cr Michael Britten, Mayor

Cr Liz Seckold, Deputy Mayor

Cr Tony Allen

Cr Russell Fitzpatrick

Cr Keith Hughes

Cr Ann Mawhinney

Cr Kristy McBain

Cr Sharon Tapscott

Cr Bill Taylor

 

COPY:

General Manager, Ms Leanne Barnes

Group Manager Transport and Utilities, Mr Wayne Sartori

Group Manager Planning and Environment, Mr Andrew Woodley

Group Manager Community Relations and Leisure, Mr Anthony Basford

Group Manager Strategy and Business Services, Mr Lucas Scarpin

Executive Manager Organisational Development and Governance, Ms Nina Churchward

Minute Secretary Janelle Curtis

 

 

 


Publishing Of Agendas And Minutes

The Agendas for Council Meetings and Council Reports for each meeting are available from 5.00 pm one week prior to each Ordinary Meeting, on Council’s website.  A hard copy is also made available to each Library Branch and at the Bega Administration Building reception desk.

The Minutes of Committee and Council Meetings are available from 5.00pm on Council's Web Site on the Friday after the Meeting on Councils website and hard copies distributed with the Agenda for the following meeting.

1.        Please be aware that the recommendations in the Council Meeting Agenda are recommendations to the Council for consideration.  They are not the resolutions (decisions) of Council.

2.        Background for reports is provided by staff to the General Manager for  presentation to Council.

3.        The Council may adopt these recommendations, amend the recommendations, determine a completely different course of action, or it may decline to pursue any course of action.

4.        The decision of the Council becomes the resolution of the Council, and is recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.

5.        The Minutes of each Council meeting are published in draft format, and are confirmed, with amendments by Councillors if necessary, at the next available Council Meeting.

If you require any further information or clarification regarding a report to Counci, please contact Council’s Executive Assistant who can provide you with the appropriate contact details

    Phone (6499 2104) or email execassist@begavalley.nsw.gov.au.


Ethical Decision Making and Conflicts of Interest

A guiding checklist for Councillors, officers and community committees

Ethical decision making

·      Is the decision or conduct legal?

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

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

·      Does it raise a conflict of interest?

·      Do you stand to gain personally at public expense?

·      Can the decision be justified in terms of public interest?

·      Would it withstand public scrutiny?

Conflict of interest

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

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

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

The test for conflict of interest

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

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

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

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

Identifying problems

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

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

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

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

Agency advice

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

Contact

Phone

Email

Website

Bega Valley Shire Council

(02) 6499 2222

council@begavalley.nsw.gov.au

www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au

ICAC

8281 5999

Toll Free 1800 463 909

icac@icac.nsw.gov.au

www.icac.nsw.gov.au

Office of Local Government

(02) 4428 4100

olg@olg.nsw.gov.au

http://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/

NSW Ombudsman

(02) 8286 1000

Toll Free 1800 451 524

nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au

www.ombo.nsw.gov.au

 


TO:      The General Manager
Bega Valley Shire Council

 

Disclosure of pecuniary interests / non-pecuniary conflict of interests

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

Ordinary meeting held on _____ / _____ / 20___

dd            mm         yy

Item no & subject

 

Interest (tick one)

Pecuniary interest                  Non-pecuniary conflict of interest

* Nature of interest

 

If Non-pecuniary  (tick one)

 Disclose & vote        Disclose & not vote          Leave chamber

 

 

 

Item no & subject

 

Interest (tick one)

Pecuniary interest                 Non-pecuniary conflict of interest

* Nature of interest

 

If Non-pecuniary  (tick one)

 Disclose & vote        Disclose & not vote          Leave chamber

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Print Name

Councillor

 

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

 

 


Council

12 August 2015

 

Agenda

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners of Bega Valley Shire

I would like to commence by acknowledging, on behalf of Bega Valley Shire Council the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Shire – the people of Yuin nation and show our respect to elders past and present.

1       Confirmation Of Minutes

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 22 July 2015 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

2       Apologies and requests for leave of absence

Recommendation

That an apology from Cr McBain be accepted for their inability to attend the meeting.

3       Declarations

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

4       Deputations (by prior arrangement)

The following persons have been granted permission to address Council and to respond to questions from Councillors:

Regarding Community, Culture and Leisure (Liveability) Report No 9.1 Tathra Headland Walk Proposal:

·        Mr Garret Barry

·        Christine Hamilton on behalf of Tathra Wharf and Headland Access Group

 

5       Petitions

 

6       Mayoral Minutes

 

7       Adjournment to Standing Committees

Recommendation

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

8       Staff Reports – Planning and Environment (Sustainability)

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

8.1                   Establishment of Weekly Markets for up to 40 stallholders - Littleton Gardens, Bega...... 10

8.2                   Proposed Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2013: boundary adjustments and subdivision of land with split zones................................................................................................................................ 19

8.3                   Draft Clean Air Procedure............................................................................................................ 23

8.4                   Draft Environmental and Public Health Policy........................................................................... 30

8.5                   Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and construction of a new dwelling - Lot 1 DP 247553, 30 Coraki Drive, Pambula Beach ................................................................................................................... 34

8.6                   Minor Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2013.......................................................... 51

8.7                   Draft Policy for Heritage Works of a Minor Nature.................................................................. 57

8.8                   Unauthorised use of land - Junkyard at Lot 3 DP 735201, 27 Darcy Lane, Jellat Jellat....... 65

9       Staff Reports – Community, Culture and Leisure (Liveability)

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

9.1                   Tathra Headland Walk Proposal................................................................................................... 72

9.2                   Management of Narira Facility .................................................................................................... 95

9.3                   Management of Bega Civic Centre............................................................................................ 135

9.4                   Appoinment to Access Advisory Committee........................................................................... 138

10   Staff Reports –Economic Development and Business Growth (Enterprising)

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

10.1                 Classification of land recently acquired by Council................................................................ 142

10.2                 Land Use Options for 142-144 Imlay St Eden.......................................................................... 144

10.3                 Economic Development Symposium......................................................................................... 149

11     Staff Reports – Infrastructure Waste and Water (Accessibility)

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

11.1                 Tender recommendation for Tilba Dam Remediation Project............................................. 152

11.2                 Drinking Water Quality Management System......................................................................... 155

11.3                 Proposed naming of unnamed road in Eden .......................................................................... 338

11.4                 Bega and Brogo Rivers Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan - Tender RFT 39/15 357

11.5                 Tender RFT 26/15 construction tender for Bega Civic Centre Council Chamber fitout.. 361

11.6                 Tender RFT 24/15 Civil & Landscape Works for Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place, Littleton gardens & adjacent                                                                                                                                                          363

12   Staff Reports – Governance and Strategy (Leading Organisation)

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

12.1                 LGNSW Annual Conference 2015 Business Session Submission Draft Motion............... 368 .

13     Staff Reports – Finance (Leading Organisation)

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

13.1                 Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993 371.

14     Adoption of Reports from Standing Committees

Recommendation

That all motions recorded in the Standing Committees, including votes for and against, and acknowledging declarations of interest already made, be adopted in by the Ordinary Council meeting.

 

15     Delegates Reports

                Cr Britten - ICTC and Main Street Conference – Wollongong.

“People Places and Partnerships – Creating Liveable and Loveable Places”

16     Rescission/alteration Motions

 

17     Notices of Motion

 

18     Urgent Business

 

19     Questions On Notice

19.1                 Lucas Brothers Memorial............................................................................................................ 377

19.2                 Potential uses - Tura Beach Library Lower Level.................................................................... 379

 

20     Questions for the Next Meeting

 

21     Items of Interest Relating to Council Business

 

22     Confidential Business 

 

23     Adoption of reports from Closed Session

24     Resolutions to declassify reports considered in closed session  

 


Council

12 August 2015

 

 

Staff Reports –Planning And Environment (Sustainability)

 

12 August 2015

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Fitzpatrick.  

8.1              Establishment of Weekly Markets for up to 40 stallholders - Littleton Gardens, Bega 10

8.2              Proposed Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2013: boundary adjustments and subdivision of land with split zones........................................................................................ 19

8.3              Draft Clean Air Procedure................................................................................... 23

8.4              Draft Environmental and Public Health Policy.................................................... 30

8.5              Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and construction of a new dwelling - Lot 1 DP 247553, 30 Coraki Drive, Pambula Beach ....................................................................... 34

8.6              Minor Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2013..................................... 51

8.7              Draft Policy for Heritage Works of a Minor Nature........................................... 57

8.8              Unauthorised use of land - Junkyard at Lot 3 DP 735201, 27 Darcy Lane, Jellat Jellat  65


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.1

 

8.1. DA No. 2014.346:   Establishment of Weekly Markets for up to 40 stallholders - Littleton Gardens, Bega        

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

 

Applicant

Sapphire Coast Producers Association

Owner

Bega Valley Shire Council

Site

Lot 104 DP 1151462, Part Lots 10-13 DP 758076, Littleton Gardens, Bega

Proposed development

Weekly farmers market – maximum 40 stalls

Precis

The application seeks approval to operate the market on a weekly basis with a maximum of 40 stalls.

The application was placed on public exhibition with four (4) submissions received raising objection to the proposal.

Further, Council’s Transport and Utilities Group does not support the proposal due to the potential impact on the improvements to Littleton Gardens, in particular the grass.

The application is recommended for refusal.

Background

Development consent was granted, by Council resolution, on 19 June 2002 for a Farmers Market. The original consent limited the number of stalls to 30 with stallholders to be members of the Sapphire Coast Producers Association (SCPA). All products sold had to be grown or produced locally. The markets were approved on a monthly basis. The original consent was for a trial period of 6 months. These limitations were imposed to reflect the nature of the markets as presented to Council by the applicant and to address the issues raised in public submissions, including the Bega Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The consent was modified in May 2004 to allow the market to continue indefinitely after it was deemed the markets were successfully operating with minimal impacts on the reserve or businesses within the town.

In April 2005 the consent was further amended to remove the requirement for stallholders to be members of SCPA after the association submitted to Council they were experiencing a decline in stall numbers and the success of the markets might be improved if the market was broadened to permit non-SCPA members. Products offered for sale, however, were still required to be grown or produced locally.

In June 2007 the consent was again amended to increase the number of market days from one to two per month, to be held on the 1st and 3rd Friday of the month. The maximum number of stalls remained at 30.

The approval was further modified on 27 March 2013 to permit fortnightly markets.

In summary, the current approval is for a market to be held fortnightly for a maximum of 30 stalls offering products that are gown or produced in the Bega Valley Shire or within 250kms of the township of Bega.

Description of the proposal

The application seeks approval for a farmers market to operate one day per week with a maximum of 40 stalls.

In support of the proposal the applicant submitted the following:

“The SCPA Markets have been in operation in Littleton Gardens in Bega for over 12 years. They were set up to provide an outlet for the sale of locally grown/made produce/products direct form producer to consumer. This is still the express purpose of the Markets. SCPA considers this outlet to be of vital importance to the community, as it is a unique opportunity for local people to sell fresh, locally grown produce or locally made crafts.

“The current definition of ‘local’ is 250km from Bega, as specified in the SCPA Market Policy and Rules (attached). SCPA is in the process of revising the Market Policy and Rules to further tighten up the definition of ‘local’ to produce/products from specific Shires (less than 250km from Bega).

“The markets provide a unique opportunity for local producers and craftspeople to sell their products directly to consumers. This supports the local economy, as well as significantly reducing the environmental and social impacts associated with food production, ie, it reduces food miles, and it provides fresher, more nutritious produce to local people. A survey conducted by TAFE students this year has indicated that most people come to the SCPA Markets to buy fresh, locally grown fruit and vegetables. The markets attract people who are looking for a particular kind of product (“local”, “organic”, “chemical-free”), not available at most retail outlets in town, so the markets continue to provide a unique outlet for these goods.”

It is proposed that the market would operate between the hours of 8.00am till 1.00pm every Friday, except Public Holidays.

Description of the site

It is proposed that the market would continue to operate from the grassed area of Littleton Gardens as identified on the map in Attachment 1.

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. Council staff has highlighted the key issues of the proposal in this report for Council’s consideration.

Zoning

The land is zoned RE1 “Public Recreation” under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP2013) - a market is a permitted use with development consent.

Issues

The main issues of concern relate to the impact of a weekly market with up to 40 stalls on the surface of Littleton Gardens and also the objections raised on the impacts on public car parking and existing permanent retailers in the Bega Town Centre.

The potential impact on Littleton Gardens is discussed below.

The issues raised in the submissions are discussed under the separate “Submissions” section.

Impact on Littleton Gardens

The application was referred to Council’s Transport and Utilities Group for comment with the following received:

“1.  Number of stall positions proposed (40) is simply too many for the following reasons:

·    there are a number of items still to be installed in the Stage 1 area during the next stage(s) of Littleton Gardens including furniture, rocks, plaques, plinths and memorials – exact positions still be determined;

·    they have indicated stalls where trees are currently located;

·    stall positions are placed too close to existing immature trees – with risk of driving pegs into root growth, damage to growing foliage and bark.

“2.  Holding the markets every Friday will exceed the wear and tear capacity of the grass:

·    the once a fortnight period is already testing the recovery capacity of the grass;

·    this issue will be especially the case in drier and warmer weather.

“We simply cannot have the grass worn out, as once gone it is very difficult to re-establish, unless we close off those parts needing regrowth from foot traffic altogether for an extended period (which would defeat the whole purpose of having a grassed area available).”

Asset

The potential impact on Littleton Gardens is outlined above.

Submissions

The development application was placed on exhibition for a period of 14 days from 8 October until 22 October 2014. A total of four (4) submissions were received, including one from the Bega Chamber of Commerce.

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

A copy of the submissions will be available at the Council meeting.

We are greatly concerned by the proposal to expand the Farmers Markets from 30 to 40 stalls and the change from fortnightly to weekly markets. This letter is to object to approval of this application unless additional car parking is provided as part of any approval.

It is extremely difficult to find parking spaces close to our buildings when the markets are on. Our tenants receive regular complaints about inadequate parking on market days. Stall holders park in this car park from 8.30am to 1.30pm taking up at least 30 spaces at present. This will increase to at least 40 if the markets are expanded plus customer car parking.

Expansion of the markets in size and frequency is part of a larger problem with respect to adequate parking for our business and those of our tenants. As previously stated, parking near our shops is inadequate on market days. Re-opening of the Town Hall in combination with the proposal to remove 40 car spaces from the Littleton Gardens area will create a significant shortfall in parking available for our customers. It is pointed out that Friday is the busiest trading day of the week.

The proposal to create additional car spaces near the Bowling Club is of little use to our tenants as such parking is so far removed from our property that our customers won’t park there. A medium to large size event at the Town Hall in combination with the Farmers Markets will in our opinion render the CBD unworkable, particularly if the markets are larger and car parking numbers in Littleton Gardens are reduced. This could happen up to 26 times a year with fortnightly markets and up to 52 times a year with weekly markets.

What is now a significant fortnightly problem for our business will become a weekly problem if this application is approved and the shortfall of car parking spaces will become even more critical with an expanded market. Expansion of the markets will involve the need for an additional 15-20 car spaces, 10 for the stall holders and 5-10 for their customers.

We are business ratepayers and believe that our requirements are being made subservient to people who are not business ratepayers and may not even be ratepayers of the Shire at all. It is our opinion that retailers and CBD property owners are being treated as collateral damage in a plan to reinvent the purpose of the CBD of Bega.

Comment: The consent for the current markets includes the following condition:

“That the parking of vehicles on the grassed area is prohibited and the parking of all vehicles shall be in accordance with the parking restrictions existing where stall holders vehicles are parked.”

There is no requirement for the provision of customer parking for the proposed development and therefore all vehicles including stallholders and customers would park within the existing public parking available in Bega, which is consistent with the current market consent.

Should a weekly market for 40 stalls be approved, it is considered that this would result in a minimum of 40 car parking spaces being occupied by stallholders. It is difficult to gauge the number of spaces that would be impacted by customers parking to attend the market only.

·    The original concept of the farmers market was that it be held monthly and that only local products be by Bega Valley based producers. Products sold were not to be competing with existing Bega retailers. It has become evident over recent years that the range of products being sold has expanded and is now in some cases failing to meet the original local product standard. Some products appear to now be in direct competition with products in local stores.

Comment: As part of the submission supporting the application SCPA included the following:

                “The SCPA Markets have been in operation in Littleton Gardens in Bega for over 12 years. They were set up to provide an outlet for the sale of locally grown/made product/products direct from producer to consumer. This is still the express purpose of the Markets. SCPA considers this outlet to be of vital importance to the community, as it is a unique opportunity for local people to sell fresh locally grown produce or locally made crafts.”

A recent inspection of the market revealed that products were offered for sale that did not meet this requirement. They were in direct competition to existing retailers in Bega.

The market was originally approved as a ‘monthly market’ which was consistent with the other market approvals in the Shire. The markets were seen as a good opportunity for local produce and products to be showcased and offered for sale, with minimal impact on existing retailers, within the Shire. The approvals for the current weekend markets elsewhere in the Shire were issued with the approved weekend identified to ensure there was not a clash between markets to enable the stall holders to attend all markets.

A weekly market is a more permanent arrangement which customers might rely upon to purchase goods on a regular basis that they might otherwise purchase from existing retailers in Bega or from the other markets in the Shire.

It is considered that a weekly market would have the potential to impact on retailers in the Bega CBD who offer similar products for sale.

Two of the submissions received suggested alternative arrangements, should the expansion of the market proceed being:

·    A self-certification process to be put in place by Council to meet set standards such as local suppliers, local products, non-competition with existing retailers and removal of cars from the Gardens area once stalls have been set up. This would need to be undertaken every market day.

·    Moving the markets to Saturdays when parking is not an issue. This would attract people into Bega on what is a quiet retailing day and would also enable workers to attend the markets. This wouldn’t solve the local supplier versus retailer issue; however the Chamber would support weekly markets if they were held on a Saturday.

·    If the markets remain on a Friday, that they relocate to the Recreation Ground, Showground or old racecourse as increased frequency and size of the markets would, in combination with the Littleton Gardens Masterplan, make Littleton Gardens unsuitable for both the markets and other existing users of this area.

Response from South Coast Producers Association (SCPA)

The details of the issues raised in the submission, as well as the advice of Council’s Transport and Utilities Group, were provided to SCPA for comment.

The response from SCPA is included at Attachment 2 to the report and addresses the following issues:

·    Parking

·    Day and location of the market

·    Competition

·    Management of Littleton Gardens

·    The importance of weekly local produce markets

Conclusion

The application seeks approval for a farmers market to operate one day per week with a maximum of 40 stalls. The current approval allows for a fortnightly market with a maximum of 30 stall holders.

The DA was referred to Council’s Transport and Utilities Group who advised that the application is not supported due to the potential impact a weekly market could have on the surface of Littleton Gardens. There is evidence that the fortnightly markets are already impacting on the surface and this would only be exacerbated.

The DA was placed on public exhibition with four (4) submissions received objecting to the proposal. The grounds for objection relate to impact on public carparking and existing retailers in Bega.

In the response to the submissions received SCPA advice included the following;

“Fortnightly does not fit the bill. It is an in-between solution. It becomes a ‘novelty market’ rather than a regular shopping option.”

Cleary, SCPA sees weekly markets as an option for shopping in Bega - this is considered to be directly competing with existing retailers in Bega who offer similar products.

The application for a weekly market is not supported for the reasons outlined in the recommendation to Council.

 

Attachments

1.            Littleton Gardens proposed layout plan with 40 market stalls

2.            SCPA letter in response to submissions

 

Recommendation

        That Development Application No. 2014.346 being for a weekly market (40 stalls) at Lot 104 DP 1151462, Part Lots 10-13 DP 758076, Littleton Gardens, Bega be refused for the following reasons:

a.    The proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the surface of the land and is not a compatible land use.

b.    The proposal would limit the opportunity for the land to be used for public recreation.

c.     The proposal would have an adverse economic impact on the existing retailers within the Bega Central Business District.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.1 - Attachment 1

Littleton Gardens proposed layout plan with 40 market stalls

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.1 - Attachment 2

SCPA letter in response to submissions

 


 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.2

 

8.2Proposed Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2013: boundary adjustments and subdivision of land with split zones.     

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend two amendments to BVLEP 2013 to enable Council to consider development applications for boundary adjustments and the subdivision of land with split zones.

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

Background

The Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) was based on the NSW Government’s Standard Instrument and came into effect in August 2013. Since that date, two issues involving the inability to approve boundary adjustments and the creation of lots resulting from land with split zones have affected a number of councils in NSW.

These issues have been recognised by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment through the approval of amendments to a number of other councils’ LEPs. Accordingly, Council staff has drafted two clauses for inclusion in BVLEP 2013 based on the wording and formatting of clauses that have been approved by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in other LEPs. The aim of these new clauses is to enable Council to consider development applications for boundary adjustments and the creation of lots resulting from land with split zones (that is, one lot with two or more zones).

The following is a discussion of the two issues and the draft clauses proposed for inclusion in BVLEP 2013.

Discussion

Boundary adjustments

Boundary adjustments are a minor form of development involving relatively small changes to existing lot boundaries that do not create any additional lots. Boundary adjustments result in positive planning outcomes by creating more logical lot boundaries that are better aligned with the inherent constraints or ownership of land.

Previously, most boundary adjustments were classed as exempt development under the Exempt and Complying Development Codes State Environmental Planning Policy (Codes SEPP) and did not require development approval by Council. However, recent changes to the Codes SEPP have made the application of the exempt provisions for boundary adjustments very restrictive.

BVLEP 2013 does not currently contain provisions that enable Council to approve boundary adjustments where the resulting lots are smaller than the specified minimum lot size. It is proposed to amend BVLEP 2013 to enable the consideration of development applications for boundary adjustments by including the following clause:

4.2E     Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size for boundary adjustments

(1)      The objective of this clause is to permit the boundary between 2 or more lots to be altered in certain circumstances, to give landowners a greater opportunity to achieve the objectives of a zone.

(2)      This clause applies to all land within the Bega Valley Local Government Area.

(3)      Despite clause 4.1 (3), development consent may be granted to the subdivision of 2 or more adjoining lots, being land to which this clause applies, if the consent authority is satisfied that the subdivision:

a)      will not result in an increase in the number of lots, and

b)      will not result in an increase in the number of dwellings that may be erected on any of the lots, and

c)      will not result in lots that are inconsistent with the uses for which the existing allotments were originally created.

(4)      In determining whether to grant development consent for the subdivision of land under this clause, the consent authority must consider the following:

a)      whether or not the subdivision will maintain or improve the environmental values and agricultural viability of the land,

b)      potential impact on the natural and physical constraints affecting the land, taking into account the long-term maintenance, management and protection of any lots,

c)      compatibility with existing or potential land uses and measures that are deemed necessary to avoid or minimise any potential impact.

(5)      This clause does not apply in relation to a subdivision under the Community Land Development Act 1989, the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 or the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act 1986.

Split zones and resulting lots

Some of the larger parcels of land in the Shire contain multiple zones with differing subdivision potential, depending on the characteristics of the land and minimum lot size requirements.

Under the current provisions of BVLEP 2013, Council is unable to approve the subdivision of land unless each lot meets the minimum lot size requirements for that zone.

Since the coming into force of BVLEP 2013 an anomaly has become evident where split zoned land is unable to be developed as one of the ‘resultant lots’ would be below the minimum lot size requirement.

A typical example of this is a lot that is partially zoned rural and partially zoned residential where the rural zoned land has an area that is less than the minimum lot size of 120ha. Under the current provisions of BVLEP 2013 the residential component of the land is unable to be developed as the resultant rural lot would be less than the minimum area requirement. As a result a number of planned residential subdivisions have not been able to proceed.

To rectify this issue, the following clause is proposed for inclusion in BVLEP 2013:

4.2F     Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for resulting lots

(1)      The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)     to provide for the subdivision of lots that are within more than one zone but cannot be subdivided under clause 4.1,

(b)     to ensure that the subdivision occurs in a manner that promotes suitable land uses and development.

(2)        This clause applies to each lot (an "original lot") that may contain land within any zone.

(3)        Despite clause 4.1, development consent may be granted to subdivide an original lot to create other lots (the "resulting lots") if:

(a)     one of the resulting lots will contain all of the land within a rural or environmental zone, and:

(i)      an existing dwelling, or

(ii)     Land within any other zone that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land, and

(b)     all other resulting lots will contain land that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

 

 

 
Examples of subdivision of lots with split zonings

Figure 1: Scenario 1 – Existing dwelling on lot with split zoning

Current Scenario under BVLEP 2013

·      70ha parcel comprising 50ha RU2(min. lot size 120ha), and 20ha R5 (min. lot size 5ha)

·      Existing dwelling

·      R5 land cannot be subdivided out of parcel as it will deliver a resulting lot of 50ha (RU2) smaller than minimum lot size of 120ha.

Outcome of clause 4.2F(3)(a) (i)

·      Total of 5 lots/dwellings possible from lot size map

·      Result in 4 x 5ha R5 lots and 1 x 50ha  lot

·      Result in 4 additional dwelling entitlements

5ha

 

5ha

 

5ha

 

5ha

 

 

 

 

 
Figure 2: Scenario 2 – Vacant Lot with split zoning

Current Scenario under BVLEP 2013

·      70ha parcel comprising 50ha RU2 (min. lot size 120ha), and 20ha R5 (min. lot size 5ha)

·      No existing dwelling

·      R5 land cannot be subdivided out of parcel as it will deliver a resulting lot of 50ha (RU2) smaller than minimum lot size of 120ha.

Outcome of clause 4.2F(3)(a) (ii)

·      Total of 4 lots/dwellings possible from lot size map

·      To enable subdivision of R5 land, a section of R5 land must be incorporated with RU2 land.

·      Result in 3 x 5ha R5 lots and 1 x 55ha split zoned lot

·      Result in 4 additional dwelling entitlements

 

 

 

 

 

Community consultation

It is proposed to undertake consultation of the recommended amendments in accordance with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway Determination, which is likely to include a public exhibition period of at least 14 days. Consultation will involve notification in local newspapers and posting the details of the proposed amendments on Council’s website.

Conclusion

Currently the ability to undertake boundary adjustments or subdivide land with multiple zones is restricted by BVLEP 2013. To rectify this, Council staff has developed clauses for inclusion in BVLEP 2013 based on wording and formatting which is consistent with other LEPs across the State and supported by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

The proposed amendments are compatible with the aims of BVLEP 2013 and would not to alter the subdivision potential of land or existing dwelling entitlements, or have a negative impact on agricultural production, environmental values or surrounding land uses.

Attachments

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.    That Council staff prepare a planning proposal to amend Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 to include the draft clauses detailed in the body of this report to enable Council to consider development applications for boundary adjustments and subdivision of land with split zonings.

2.    That the planning proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway Panel for determination.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.3

 

8.3Draft Clean Air Procedure      

 

The draft Clean Air Procedure has been placed on public exhibition as resolved by Council at the 18 March 2015 meeting. This report recommends adoption of the draft procedure with minor modifications based on submissions received.

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

Background

Council resolved at the meeting of 18 March 2015 to place the draft Clean Air Procedure on exhibition following a review of the document by Council’s Communications Team. At the end of the exhibition period three submissions were received. Two submissions requested clarification regarding the need to seek permission from neighbouring property owners. One submission was received from Forestry Corporation of NSW seeking clarification regarding exemptions under the Forestry Act 2012 for certain forestry activities.

The draft procedure has been modified to clarify that permission is not required from neighbours, rather adjacent property owners or occupiers must be given 24 hours’ notice (verbal or written) of an intention to burn.

An additional note has been incorporated in the draft procedure to exempt (from Council approval) bush fire hazard reduction work or regeneration burning authorised by an Integrated Forestry Operations Approval issued under the NSW Forestry Act 2012.

A further meeting was then held with Fire and Rescue NSW and the NSW Rural Fire Service to review the modified draft procedure. All relevant agencies are now satisfied with the modified draft procedure.

Conclusion

It is anticipated the introduction of the procedure will reduce the incidence of open burning in the Bega Valley, resulting in an improvement in public health and environmental outcomes and a reduction in the potential for nuisance fires impacting upon local firefighting resources.

 

Attachments

1.            Draft Clean Air Procedure 3.16.1

 

Recommendation

That Council adopt the Clean Air Procedure and schedule a review of this procedure no later than November 2017.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.3 - Attachment 1

Draft Clean Air Procedure 3.16.1

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.4

 

8.4Draft Environmental and Public Health Policy     

 

A draft Environmental and Public Health Policy has been prepared by Council staff. It is proposed to place the draft policy on public exhibition for 42 days.

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

Background

Bega Valley Shire Council provides a range of legislated environmental and public health programs and initiatives, including food surveillance; on-site sewage system inspections; skin penetration premises inspections; drinking water monitoring; open air burning controls and others.

The primary direction on the management of Council’s environmental and public health responsibilities is provided through legislated requirements set out under various related State Acts and Regulations.

The draft Environmental Health Policy has been developed to address the following matters:

·    respond to a policy gap; and

·    define Bega Valley Shire Council’s role in providing, promoting and maintaining proper standards of environmental and public health for the local community, businesses and visitors.

Issues

Policy

The implementation of the Environmental and Public Health Policy will complement other Council policies within the environmental field.

Strategic

The Environmental and Public Health Policy sets out a strategic framework for Council with regard to local environmental and public health programs and initiatives.

Consultation

Council staff has liaised with other councils' Environmental Health Officers during the development of the draft policy and with internal stakeholders. It is recommended that it be placed on public exhibition for 42 days.

Financial

The implementation of the Environmental and Public Health Policy will not impose any additional costs on Council’s environmental health or administrative staff.

Conclusion

The draft Environmental and Public Health Policy sets out a strategic framework regarding local environmental and public health programs and initiatives.

 

Attachments

1.            Draft Policy 3.15 Environmental and Public Health

 

Recommendation

1.    That Council place the draft Environmental and Public Health Policy on public exhibition for a period of 42 days.

2.    That following the exhibition period, the policy be adopted or, if feedback is received, a further report be presented to Council for consideration.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.4 - Attachment 1

Draft Policy 3.15 Environmental and Public Health

 


 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.5

 

8.5. DA No. 2014.439: Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and construction of a new dwelling - Lot 1 DP 247553, 30 Coraki Drive, Pambula Beach         

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

 

Applicant

Baenziger Coles Pty Ltd

Owner

Fiona McMaster and Michael Dixon

Site

Lot 1 DP 247553, 30 Coraki Drive, Pambula Beach

Zone

R2 Low Density Residential

Site area

746.1m2 (by deposited plan)

Proposed development

Demolition of an existing two storey dwelling and construction of a three storey dwelling

Precis

Council is in receipt of a development application for what the applicant describes as “Demolition of the existing 2 storey dwelling and construction of a 3 storey dwelling”. The application seeks a variation to the maximum building height development standard and was also the subject of objections from adjoining landowners. As such the application is being reported to Council for determination.

The application is recommended for refusal.

Background

Development Application 2014.439 (the DA) was submitted to Council on 5 November 2014. The application was notified to adjoining and adjacent residents and objections were received. The applicant provided additional information in relation to view impact and the characterisation of the development, on 4 May and 13 May 2015 respectively.

As a determination of the DA was not able to be made within 6 months of lodgement, the Applicant elected to lodge a Class 1 appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court against Council's ‘deemed refusal’ of the application.

Conciliation and hearing dates have been set for 27 and 28 August 2015 at Pambula Beach. Council's expert witness reports are currently being prepared, which will be filed with the Registrar of the Court by 12 August 2015. The two points of contention raised in the appeal by Council's expert are:

1.    Characterisation of the development; and

2.    Height, bulk and scale, and outlook.

Description of the proposal

The proposed development is for the demolition of the existing two storey dwelling and construction of a new building, being a maximum three storeys at any one point. The floor layout is proposed over four levels, being;

Basement – which contains two car garage, bathroom, games room with bar, entry/lobby and lift access.

Lower ground floor – which contains 3 bedrooms, bathroom, separate WC, kitchen, dining, living room with outdoor terrace.

Upper ground floor – which contains master bedroom, ensuite, study, kitchen, dining, living room, outdoor balcony, separate WC and laundry.

First floor – which contains a ‘gym room’ and balcony.

The development also includes a large outdoor courtyard with spa and BBQ area and ‘green roof’ garden over the garage.

A copy of the floor plans and elevations is provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

Description of the site

The subject site is known as 30 Coraki Drive Pambula Beach. The site covers an area of 746.1m2 and is located opposite the north-western end of ‘Lions Park’, reserve land to the west and adjoins residential dwellings to the south and east.

The land generally has a north-east orientation and rises up from the road frontage with Coraki Drive.

An existing two storey brick veneer dwelling is located on the site that retains an existing driveway and established landscaping.

The locality is characterised as an established lower density residential area with an aging housing stock comprising predominately single detached dwellings, mostly two storeys, with some larger three storey dwellings.

A locality plan is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

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 has highlighted the key issues of the proposal in this report for Council’s consideration.

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

Zoning

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density residential under the provisions of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) and Dwelling Houses are permissible with consent in the zone.

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

·    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Issues

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

Characterisation of the development

The proposal was the subject of pre-lodgement discussions with Council staff in July 2014 at which time staff indicated that the proposal would likely be considered by Council as a dual occupancy development. The configuration of the submitted development is very similar to that presented in pre-lodgement.

The proposed layout is considered to constitute a dual occupancy (attached) for the purpose of BVLEP 2013, and although dual occupancy is permissible with development consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under BVLEP 2013, the development application seeks consent for a single detached dwelling.

‘Dual occupancy (attached)’ is defined in the dictionary to BVLEP 2013 as “2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other, but does not include a secondary dwelling”.

A ‘dwelling’ is also defined in the dictionary to BVLEP 2013 as “a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile”.

The proposed development is considered to comprise two parts, each of which are capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile, those being; the basement/lower ground floor and the upper ground/first floor.

The applicant (by way of letter to Bega Valley Shire Council) dated 13 May 2015 to DA 2014.439 provides the following description of the proposed development;

“Designed with a dual purpose, the proposed dwelling will be used more as a fine holiday home in the first instance eventually becoming the owners’ principle residence in the long term during their retirement. It has been purposefully designed to enable the owners to live alone when the rest of the family are not in residence and can be opened up and filled with the greater family unit during holiday periods.

In providing this flexibility of use, the owners have been conscious about energy use and have insisted on the ability to be able to zone the home so that areas that are not occupied can be effectively closed off to reduce heating and cooling loads. Notwithstanding the ability to zone off areas, with one primary entry/exit point, a single open stairway that traverses all levels, one lift accessing each level, single meters for water, power and telephone, central electronic locking and a single driveway, we consider that the proposal clearly constitutes a single ‘dwelling’ and which is a permissible use in the zone with consent of Council”.

Ii is considered the design and configuration of the building results in two distinct occupancies, that being, the basement/lower ground floor and the upper ground/first floor.

The basement/lower ground floor part of the building contains facilities and services required for individual occupation as a home; being kitchen, dining, bedrooms and bathrooms. The entry to this area of the building would reasonably be through the ‘entry/lobby’ indicated on Baenziger Coles Plan Sheet DA100 Rev A.

Whilst the basement/lower ground floor component of the building does not indicate a laundry, it is considered that the absence of such a facility does not mean it is not capable of occupation as a domicile, as the area marked “WC2” could easily be adapted for use as a laundry.

The upper ground/first floor contains kitchen, dining, bedroom, bathroom and laundry facilities. Access to this section of the building could either be via the external stairs from the driveway and along the western boundary of the site to the rear courtyard area or through the lift facility located in the ‘entry/lobby’.

There is various case law in relation to how to characterise a dwelling and a dual occupancy. Staff consider that the Court's findings in Elbaf and Anor v Campbelltown City Council [2014], NSWLEC 1074 closely resembles the building as proposed here. In Elbaf, the Court found that:

 “In determining whether the building is a dwelling, the definition does not include the subjective intention of the applicant to use it in a particular manner. To be a dwelling, it must be a room or suite of rooms occupied or used, or so constructed or adapted as to be capable (emphasis added) of being used, as a separate domicile.”

It is considered the proposal before Council has the capability of being used as two separate dwellings and therefore staff conclude the development is best characterised as a dual occupancy and not a single dwelling.

As such, it is considered that Council cannot approve the development in its current configuration given the applicant describes the development as a single detached dwelling. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Height, bulk and scale, and outlook

Height

The proposal exceeds the maximum building height development standard of Clause 4.3 of the BVLEP 2013 by up to 800mm which is contained predominantly within the first floor ‘gym room’. As such this would result in a built form which unreasonably contributes to the bulk and scale of the development, results in an adverse impact on the streetscape character of the locality and unreasonably impacts on the outlook from adjoining properties.

The applicant has submitted a request to vary the development standard under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of BVLEP 2013. For the purpose of Clause 4.6, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority is satisfied there is adequate justification to vary the standard, and the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone.

The objectives of BVLEP 2013 Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings are as follows;

“(1)(a)  to retain the existing character and landscape of the locality and to encourage a low-set building form,

      (b)    to protect residential amenity, views, privacy and solar access”.

As mentioned above, the subject land has a maximum building height development standard of 7.5m. The majority of the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land at Pambula Beach has this maximum building height standard, as evidenced by Figure 1 below.

The maximum building height is measured as the “vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building…” as per the BVLEP 2013 definition.

Figure 1 - Extract from Height of Buildings Map – BVLEP 2013 [Key: Green = 7.5m, Yellow = 10m]

It is noted the height of building development standard has not been varied by Council since adoption of BVLEP 2013 on 2 August 2013.

Further, Pambula Beach has had specific building height precinct controls in place since 2003 and the Council has sought to encourage a low-set building form in Pambula Beach since that time in recognition of the topography and prominence of the village in a coastal setting.

The variation to the building height development standard (800mm) in isolation may represent a minor component of the overall building, however the cumulative effect of the ‘first floor’ component of the building, that is in terms of bulk, scale, streetscape character, height and visual amenity for the affected properties to the rear, results in the development being unreasonable.

As such, the proposed height variation is not supported by assessing staff.

Bulk and scale

The proposed development is one of a split level design, with a maximum of three storeys at any one point. However due to the topography and orientation of the site, the proposal would have the appearance of a four storey building from Coraki Drive (that being the northern elevation, as seen in the Baenziger Coles Plan Sheet DA500 Rev A). The inclusion of the ‘first floor’ gym adds to the general bulk and scale of the building and equates to an additional visual element to the building which is uncharacteristic of the locality.

The predominant existing character of Coraki Drive can be described as containing larger two and three storey dwellings and some more modest older cottages. The section of Coraki Drive in which the proposed building would be located (that being between Winnunga Street and Taleeban Street) predominantly contains two storey and split level single detached dwellings.

The proposed development will present as a four storey building from the street.

The desired future character statement for Pambula Beach is established in Clause 3.1.13.2 of BVDCP 2013, and states “New dwellings addressing the ocean in Pambula Beach are responsive to site orientation and solar access, the available view, the effect on dwellings adjacent to and behind the site also seeking of a view, the climate and prevailing winds and the topography”.

It is accepted that the proposed development is site responsive in terms of maximising the outlook, topography and orientation for the occupants of the development, however the bulk and scale of the building would have an effect on dwellings behind the site.

It is considered the inclusion of the ‘first floor’ gym room is not consistent with the existing character of the locality and as such would not result in a low-set building form, as required by the BVLEP 2013 Clause 4.3(1)(a).

There is an ageing housing stock in Pambula Beach and it is considered that allowing the variation to the building height development standard could set a precedent for future redevelopment in the locality.

The proposal has also been considered with reference to the established Height and Bulk Planning Principle (as established in Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428). It is considered the massing of the building as proposed could be redistributed so as to reduce the impacts of height and bulk by incorporating a gym room within the main footprint of the building and removing the ‘first floor’ altogether.

Outlook

The impact of the proposed development on the outlook from adjoining properties is also considered to be unreasonable. In undertaking an assessment of the proposed development, a view impact assessment was undertaken from the adjoining residents at 13, 15 and 17 Weemilah Drive.

Having considered the proposal with reference to the principles of view sharing as established in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 (which are also adopted in Clause 3.2.2.6 of BVDCP 2013) it is concluded the most affected property is 17 Weemilah Drive, which would experience a ‘moderate’ view loss.

The outlook from the living room and deck areas of 17 Weemilah Drive is currently framed by vegetation in the foreground, ocean in the mid-ground and headlands in the background.

The placement of the ‘first floor’ of the proposed building would unreasonably diminish this view, as the building projects into the centre of this vista and would become a visual focus for the residents of 17 Weemilah Drive. In this respect, the non-compliance with the building height development standard unnecessarily contributes to the overall bulk and scale of the development and as such results in this component of the development being unreasonable.

It is submitted that the same development potential could be achieved without the inclusion of the ‘first floor’ gym. The resulting built form would then have a suitable bulk, scale, and height in the context of the existing and desired streetscape character of Coraki Drive.

Submissions

The development application was placed on exhibition for a period of 14 days from 14 November 2014 until 28 November 2014. A total of five (5) submissions were received in relation to the development.

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

A copy of the submissions will be available at the Council meeting.

This development has the potential to interfere with the views from our house. This would adversely impact the value of our property and our enjoyment of that property.

We object to the fourth floor boxed room that sits on the roof of the new dwelling. We can see it will totally obscure our present view.

We believe that the fourth level projecting above the proposed roof line is not in visual conformity with the surrounding houses. It will also impinge on our views, which I believe will be further diminished by various roof additions, including solar panels.

…we would like to lodge our objection to the proposed structure based on the likely height of the top structure and its likely interference with our presently unobstructed view to Merimbula. We believe any structure that diminishes our view will have negative impact on our property value.

Comment:

Four of the five submissions raised as their key objection the height of the proposed building and the resulting impacts of view loss, effect on outlook and the resulting reduced amenity. A view impact analysis was undertaken by assessing officers as part of the assessment of this proposal. It was concluded that there would be a negligible view impact for 13 and 19 Weemilah Drive but the residents at 15 and particularly 17 would be the most affected.

It was concluded that the inclusion of the fourth level (described as the First Floor gym room) would project into the centre of this vista and would become a visual focus for the residents of 17 Weemilah Drive. In this respect, the non-compliance with the building height development standard unnecessarily contributes to the overall bulk and scale of the development and as such results in this component of the development being unreasonable.

As detailed earlier in this report, it is submitted that the same development potential could be achieved without the inclusion of the ‘first floor’ gym. The resulting built form would then have a suitable bulk, scale, and height in the context of the existing and desired streetscape character of Coraki Drive.

I cannot tell from the plans supplied how close the new building will be to our boundary. I fear it is 1 metre. If this is the case, sitting in our backyard we will have a huge wall up against our house. Blocking afternoon sunlight. The existing house sits on the other side of the drive way. I would be happy if the new premises could be the same distance from our boundary as it is now.

Comment:

The proposed development complies with the setback development standards of BVDCP 2013. BVDCP 2013 also contains standards in relation to overshadowing. Clause 3.2.2.3 specifies that:

“Living areas and principal open space areas of adjoining dwelling must not be overshadowed for more than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on June 21”.

Overshadowing of the adjoining residence at 28 Coraki Drive will occur from approximately 1.00pm on June 21. It is noted that 28 Coraki Drive is already overshadowed by the existing dwelling and the new building will increase the amount of overshadowing. However the proposal meets the minimum standards specified in BVDCP 2013.

Can we tag the trees on our boundary, especially the Carab tree to make sure these are not removed during excavation? There has been an issue in the past, when one of the trees on our side of the boundary was chopped down when we were not around. I fear this may happen again. I would like to keep as many trees as possible to block out the massive building being proposed.

Comment:

Should the development be approved a suitable condition of consent could be included requiring tagging of all trees to be retained and pegging of the boundaries of the site prior to installation of the required construction fencing to ensure contractors are aware of the confines of the site.

Does this building meet the requirements for side setback?

Comment:

BVDCP 2013 Clause 3.2.2.7 contains the development standards for setbacks which specific 900mm for 1 and 2 storey components of the building and 2.5 metres for 3 storey components. The proposed development complies with these development standards.

Conclusion

The proposed development is considered to be characterised as a dual occupancy (attached) which, whilst permissible in the zone, is not what has been described in the development application. The opinion of Council staff, in considering the layout of the building to constitute a dual occupancy, was provided to the applicant in pre-lodgement discussions prior to the application being submitted to Council in its current form. 

Whilst the desired use of the building by the owners is noted, the Court has previously ruled that in determining whether a building is a dwelling, the definition does not include the subjective intention of the applicant to use it in a particular manner. To be a dwelling, it must be a room or suite of rooms occupied or used, or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being used, as a separate domicile. The development is considered to contain two dwellings and hence is a dual occupancy.

The additional building element of the first floor gym room also contributes unnecessarily and unreasonably to the bulk and scale of the building and consequently would have an adverse impact on the outlook currently enjoyed from properties to the rear of the development site, predominately 15 and 17 Weemilah Drive.

As such the application is recommended for refusal, for the reasons contained in the recommendation below.

 

Attachments

1.            Development Plans

2.            Locality Plan

 

Recommendation

1.         That the request to vary the BVLEP 2013 Clause 4.3 building height development standard under BVLEP 2013 Clause 4.6 is not supported as the application fails to demonstrate that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and varying the standard would not be in the public interest.

2.         That Development Application 2014.439 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a three storey dwelling at Lot 1 DP 247553, 30 Coraki Drive, Pambula Beach be refused for the following reasons:

a.       The proposed development fails to comply with the maximum building height development standard set by Clause 4.3 of BVLEP 2013 and is inconsistent with the objectives of the Clause in that the development would not retain the existing character and landscape of the locality and would not result in a low-set building form. Further the development fails to protect the residential amenity of adjoining residences.

b.       The proposed development would have an unacceptable and unreasonable impact on the amenity of adjoining residences in terms of height, bulk and scale and outlook.

c.        The proposed development is characterised as a dual occupancy (attached) due to the configuration of the building and the fact that the building is capable of being occupied as two separate domiciles. As such the application cannot be approved given the proposed development described in the application is for a single detached dwelling.

d.       The proposal would not be in the public interest.

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

4.         That Council’s solicitor acting in relation to NSW Land and Environment Court proceedings 15/10493 be advised of Council’s determination in relation to this matter.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.5 - Attachment 1

Development Plans

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.5 - Attachment 2

Locality Plan

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.6

 

8.6Minor Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2013     

 

Since the commencement of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 a number of minor matters have arisen that require amendment. This report outlines those matters and recommends the process for rectification.

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

Background

The Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) came into effect in August 2013. Since that date, several minor issues and errors have come to light. Council has previously addressed seven of these matters through the processing of two amendments to the BVLEP 2013, dealing with miscellaneous minor matters. This report recommends Council consider the preparation of a third “minor matters” amendment to BVLEP 2013, to rectify four minor mapping errors and changes to two land use tables as detailed below.

Details of Sites and Recommended Actions

Wonboyn: Lot size

Wonboyn is a small coastal village located approximately 30 kilometres to the southeast of Eden which is not serviced with reticulated sewer. Clause 4.1A of BVLEP 2013 specifies that development consent for a dwelling house may not be granted on a site area less than 2,000sqm if it is not serviced by a reticulated sewerage system.

The BVLEP 2013 Lot Size Map for the RU5 Village zoned portion of Wonboyn currently contains areas with 1000, 2000 and 4,000sqm minimum lot sizes (see Map 1). The 1,000sqm lot size is contrary to the provisions of clause 4.1A which requires a 2,000sqm minimum lot size.

It should be noted that a 2,000sqm lot size for unsewered residential land applied under the previous BVLEP 2002.

·    It is recommended the part of Wonboyn village that currently has a 1,000sqm minimum lot size (outlined in blue in Map 1) be amended to a minimum lot size of 2,000sqm consistent with clause 4.1A and Council’s adopted minimum lot size for all unsewered residential land.

Map 1: Subject land Wonboyn village minimum lot size map amendment (affected land outlined in blue)

Glen Mia: Lot size

The Glen Mia Estate on the south-eastern boundary of the Bega urban area covers an area of approximately 38 hectares. In October 2003 consent was granted by Council for a 138 lot subdivision with residential lot sizes ranging from approximately 850sqm to 6,500sq. At the time, the proposed subdivision was the subject of extensive environmental reporting and discussion, including with the then Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. The approved lot yield and configuration was a result of this reporting and discussion and directly reflected the land’s capability to support residential development.

The estate has subsequently been developed in accordance with the consent. When BVLEP 2013 was adopted, the land was zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the 550sqm minimum lot size was applied in accordance with Council’s mapping protocol for R2 zoned land. The history of the subdivision process which resulted in the lot yield and layout was not reflected in the lot sizing.

The current minimum lot size of 550sqm would allow the larger lots to be subdivided which would significantly change the density of the subdivision and amenity of existing residents.

Staff are of the opinion that the lot sizing should be amended, for those lots over 1,000sqm, from 550sqm to 4,000sqm. This amended lot size would not permit the further subdivision of the larger lots and so maintain the amenity of the existing residents and the approved lot yield and layout.

·    It is recommended the minimum lot size for that portion of the Glen Mia Estate with lot sizes in excess of 1,000sqm (outlined in blue in Map 2) is amended from 550sqm to 4,000sqm to reflect the intention of the original consent and give a clear indication of the subdivision development potential of the land.

Map 2: Subject land Glen Mia Estate, Bega minimum lot size map amendment (affected land outlined in blue)

Bega: RE1 Public Recreation zone

Lot 1 DP 377455 is located in High Street, Bega and currently contains a dwelling. The land is privately owned but has been erroneously zoned RE1 Public Recreation in BVLEP 2013 (see Map 3).

·    It is recommended Lot 1 DP 377455 be rezoned from RE1 Public Recreation with no minimum lot size to R2 Low Density Residential with a 550sqm minimum lot size in keeping with the surrounding land and to accurately reflect the tenure and use of the land.

Map 3: Subject land High St, Bega zone and minimum lot size map amendments (affected land outlined in blue)

Mogareeka: E1 National Park zone

Lot 304 DP 821500 is a privately owned lot in Bay Drive, Mogareeka. The lot is currently partially developed for a dwelling which also covers the two adjoining lots to the south. As shown in Map 4, the lot has been incorrectly zoned E1 National Park.

·    It is recommended the zoning of Lot 304 DP 821500 is amended from E1 National Park with no minimum lot size to E4 Environmental Living with a 2,000sqm lot size in keeping with the surrounding land and to accurately reflect the tenure and use of the land.

Map 4: Subject land Bay Drive, Mogareeka zone and lot size amendments (affected land outlined in blue)

R2 Low Density Residential zone: land use table

The land use table for the R2 Low Density Residential zone currently permits consideration of development for the purpose of Health Consulting Rooms with Council consent. Health Consulting Rooms is defined as “premises comprising one or more rooms within (or within the curtilage of) a dwelling house used by not more than 3 health care professionals at any one time”. The use was permitted in the equivalent zone under BVLEP 2002 and was automatically “rolled over” in the BVLEP 2013.

Council recently received a development application (DA) for a health consulting room in a R2 zone. In the initial assessment of the application, staff has formed a broader view that Health Consulting Rooms may not be an appropriate use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Notwithstanding, the DA must be treated on merit having regard to the particular circumstances of the site and BVLEP 2013 as it currently stands.

In the broader context across the Shire, it is considered the use may not be consistent with the character of the Bega Valley’s low density urban areas and could cause land use conflicts, particularly increases in traffic generation. As such, it is recommended the use is removed from the land use table for the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The implementation of BVLEP 2013 included the adoption of the new B4 Mixed Use zone. This zone permits both residential and commercial development (including Health Consulting Rooms) and has been applied broadly around the town centres of Bega and Merimbula and is currently proposed for a large area surrounding the town centre of Eden. The application and extent of the B4 zone, as well as the permissibility of Health Consulting Rooms in the R3 Medium Density Residential, B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones, will ensure there is ample supply of ongoing opportunities for these types of development in more appropriate areas of the Shire.

For example, as part of the BVLEP 2013 process, Council zoned a large section of land as R3 Medium Density Residential at the corner of Taronga Crescent and Tathra Road, which is in close proximity to the new Regional Hospital, and permits Health Consulting Rooms.

Home Businesses and Home Occupations are permitted uses within the R2 zone and provide some flexibility to work from home, albeit at a smaller scale than that permitted by the definition of a Health Consulting Room.

·    It is recommended that Health Consulting Rooms is removed from the land use table for the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

R3 Medium Density Residential zone: land use table

The land use table for the R3 Medium Density Residential zone permits consideration of development for the purpose of Businesses Premises with Council consent. The use was not intentionally included in the zone, but was inadvertently omitted from the list of uses prohibited in the zone and is therefore permitted with consent. According to the BVLEP 2013 Dictionary, Business Premises includes (but is not limited to) funeral homes, banks, post offices, hairdressers, dry cleaners, travel agencies, internet access facilities, betting agencies and the like.

Council staff considers this use is not appropriate in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone as it can involve development of a scale and nature that is not in keeping with the character of the Shire’s R3 Medium Density Residential zones. This approach is also contrary to Council’s desire to consolidate commercial uses within and around the Shire’s CBDs to encourage vibrant and viable town centres.

·    It is recommended that Businesses Premises is removed from the land use table for the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

Conclusion

The implementation and application of BVLEP 2013 has inadvertently resulted in four minor zone and lot size map errors and two anomalies within the land use tables which require rectification.

It is recommended Council staff prepare a Planning Proposal to enable amendments to BVLEP 2013 and associated maps to resolve minor errors and to prohibit certain inappropriate uses occurring in some residential zones in order to reflect the existing and desired future character of the Shire’s urban areas.

 

Attachments

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.    That Council staff prepare a Planning Proposal to amend Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 and associated maps in accordance with the recommendations contained in the body of this report.

2.    That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway Panel for determination.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.7

 

8.7Draft Policy for Heritage Works of a Minor Nature     

 

Council staff has prepared a draft Policy and procedure to streamline the approval of works of a minor nature to heritage items and places within heritage conservation areas. The purpose of this report is to present the draft Policy and procedure for Council’s consideration and to permit public exhibition for 42 days.

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

Background

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (the Codes SEPP) identifies types of development that are of minimal environmental impact that may be carried out as exempt development, that is without the need for development consent.

Heritage items, draft heritage items or places located within a heritage conservation area or draft heritage conservation area are excluded from the exempt development provisions for a number of development types within the Codes SEPP. As such, development consent under the provisions of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) is required for works solely because the land has heritage values.

Clause 5.10(3) of BVLEP 2013 permits works of a minor nature to heritage items, draft heritage items, and within heritage conservation areas or draft heritage conservation areas without development consent, if written notification of the proposed works is received and certain requirements are met. Council can then waive the necessity for development consent to be obtained, provided the works are of a minor nature or maintenance and would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the item.

Draft Policy and procedure for heritage works of a minor nature

Council staff, in consultation with Council’s Heritage Advisor, has developed a draft Policy ‘Heritage Works of a Minor Nature’ and accompanying procedure ‘Assessment of Works of a Minor Nature for Heritage Items or Within Heritage Conservation Areas’ (see Attachments 1 and 2).

The draft Policy and procedure will clarify and simplify approval of works of a minor nature to heritage items or places within heritage conservation areas. The draft Policy and procedure do not apply to Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

Under the draft Policy, works of a minor nature will be permitted to heritage items and places within heritage conservation areas without obtaining development consent provided:

·    the proposed works comply with all other relevant development standards identified for the type of exempt development in the Codes SEPP, and

·    they are deemed by Council’s planning staff or Council’s Heritage Advisor to have no adverse impact on the heritage significance of the item or heritage conservation area.

The draft Policy and procedure will help conserve the heritage significance of a heritage item or heritage conservation area including associated fabric, settings and views while simplifying the approval process for the owners of affected places for works of a minor nature and maintenance that would otherwise require development consent.

It is anticipated that in most cases applications for heritage works of a minor nature (see Attachment 3) can be processed within 10 days. No fee is proposed to apply to such applications.

Conclusion

The draft policy for Heritage Works of a Minor Nature has been prepared for public exhibition. The policy will help conserve the significance of the Shire’s heritage and the procedure will simplify the approval process for works of a minor nature and for maintenance.

 

Attachments

1.            Draft Policy - Heritage Works of a Minor Nature

2.            Draft Procedure - Assessment of Heritage Works of a Minor Nature

3.            Application for Minor Works to a Heritage Item

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council place the draft policy for Heritage Works of a Minor Nature on public exhibition for a period of 42 days.

2.    That following the exhibition period, the policy be adopted or, if feedback is received, a further report be presented to Council for consideration.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.7 - Attachment 1

Draft Policy - Heritage Works of a Minor Nature

 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.7 - Attachment 2

Draft Procedure - Assessment of Heritage Works of a Minor Nature

 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.7 - Attachment 3

Application for Minor Works to a Heritage Item

 


 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 8.8

 

8.8Unauthorised use of land - Junkyard at Lot 3 DP 735201, 27 Darcy Lane, Jellat Jellat     

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend a course of action in response to the unauthorised use of the land.

 

Group Manager Planning and Environment  

 

Precis

A response to a question on notice from Cr Taylor regarding the unauthorised use of land at Darcy Lane, Jellat Jellat was provided to the Council meeting on 29 April 2015.

The response included advice that a report would be presented to Council on the options available with a course of action recommended.

This report outlines the options available to Council as detailed in the legal advice received from Council’s Solicitor M.E. McMahon and Associates.

It is recommended that Council resolves to proceed in accordance with Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1993 to enter the site, with the agreement of the owner, to remove the material at a fee determined by Council.

Background

The site in question relates to Lot 3 DP 735201, 27 Darcy Lane, Jellat Jellat, which is owned by Laidley and Ellen Russell. Since 2005 a junkyard has operated at the site, both with and without consent. Whilst the junkyard has now been closed to the public, there remains a significant quantity of ferrous and non-ferrous articles being stored at the site which are visible from public areas and adjoining properties.

This matter has been the subject of multiple actions by Council staff and is an ongoing compliance matter.

A Chronology of Events is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

Issues

Details of Legal Advice

Staff sought legal advice on the matter from M.E. McMahon and Associates on the options for the way forward to resolve the matter.

The options outlined in the advice are as follows:

1.    Do nothing. This is the cheapest option, but the problem continues.

2.    Issue a Penalty Notice in the amount of $1,500.

3.    Use the powers available to enter the land and remove the junk and recover the costs.

4.    Use the powers available to do the work for free. This is a policy decision for Council.

A copy of the legal advice has been included as a Confidential Attachment which outlines the options available in detail and the action required.

Manager Planning Services – Comments

The Development Application for the proposed junkyard was refused by Council on 14 August 2012.

The refusal of the application by Council was subject to an appeal to the Land and Environment Court with the appeal dismissed by the Court on 23 January 2013.

The chronology of events, included as Attachment 1 to this report, includes an outline of the actions of Council staff since the date of the appeal and efforts to seek a resolution of the matter and removal of the material. This includes the issue of an Order 10 under Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993, on 28 May 2014, to remove the ferrous and non-ferrous material from the site.

Council staff are of the opinion the site has ceased to operate as a junkyard, however the site retains significant amount of material that was associated with the unauthorised use.

The most recent inspection of the site by staff on 16 April 2015 noted material had been removed from the site since the previous inspection in September 2014, with the Russell’s advising a total of 31.04 tonnes has been removed. However the site still retains a large amount of ferrous and non-ferrous material.

A total of 14 months have now elapsed since the issue of the Order and whilst some material has been removed, the Order has not been complied with.

The owners of the property advised Council’s Planning Coordinator on 20 July 2015 that a person had been engaged two days per week to assist in the removal of the material.

However, based on the total amount and current rate of removal, as well as the history of the matter, it is considered unlikely the material will be removed from the site in a timely manner.

The retention of the material on-site in breach of the Order has a significant impact on the scenic landscape of the area which was a key consideration in the refusal of the application.

The legal advice from M.E. McMahon and Associates identifies the options available to Council in this matter.

Having regard to Council resources expended in this matter to date and time elapsed, a course of action which would result in the material being removed from the site at the owners’ cost is recommended.

Conclusion

The unauthorised use of the land as a junkyard and the material stored on site in conjunction with the use has been an ongoing compliance matter since the NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against Council’s refusal of Development Application No. 2010.502.

Significant staff resources have been expended to date in having the unauthorised use cease and seeking compliance with the Order issued on 28 May 2014.

Further, the objectors to the development application continually seek explanation from staff regarding the ongoing non-compliance and lack of progress by Council since the refusal of the development application on 14 August 2012, some 3 years ago.

Legal advice was sought from Council’s Solicitor M.E. McMahon and Associates and the advice received outlines the options available to Council in the matter and actions required.

It is recommended that Council proceeds in accordance with Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1993 and authorises the General Manager (or her nominee) to seek agreement with the owner to enter the site and remove the material for a fee based on full cost recovery.

 

Attachments

1.            Chronology of Events

2.            Confidential Attachment - Legal Advice (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council proceeds in accordance with Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1993 and authorises the General Manager (or her nominee) to seek agreement with the owner to enter the site and remove the material for a fee based on full cost recovery.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 8.8 - Attachment 1

Chronology of Events

 


 

 

 


 

Staff Reports – Community, Culture and Leisure (Liveability)

 

12 August 2015

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Tapscott.  

9.1              Tathra Headland Walk Proposal......................................................................... 72

9.2              Management of Narira Facility .......................................................................... 95

9.3              Management of Bega Civic Centre................................................................... 135

9.4              Appoinment to Access Advisory Committee..................................................... 138


Council 12 August 2015

Item 9.1

 

9.1Tathra Headland Walk Proposal     

 

The report outlines the information gathered following a Notice of Motion seeking a report on the feasibility of constructing a walking track at the Tathra Headland.

 

Group Manager Community, Relations and Leisure  

 

Background

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of the 25 February 2015 resolved:

1.         That Council receive a report on the feasibility of constructing a 100m walking track adjacent to the Tathra Wharf up to the Tathra Headland and Tathra Memorial Gardens within the footprint of the original Tathra Ring Road.

2.         That Council undertake community consultation in relation to the proposal.

3.         That a report be provided to Council if further funds are required to conduct the feasibility report.

Previous Engineering Investigations

A detailed geotechnical and engineering investigations by Worley Parsons, Tasman Engineering and ACT Geotechnical of the Tathra Headland were carried out by Council 2009 to 2013. Various options were evaluated with the most economic option for a Ring Road a staged solution estimated in 2013 at over $2m. All options for a road were expected to involve a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), complying with a wide range of stringent environmental conditions and likely to require approval from the relevant Ministers at both Federal and State level and also materially affecting Aboriginal midden sites along the Tathra cliff top.

Issues

Legal

There is a range of legislation that will apply to undertake works on the site. The legislation relates to planning, environmental management, coastal zone management, heritage, and Crown Lands management. A ‘Review of Environmental Factors’ for the project would be required, given its scale and location, which would provide a detailed analysis of issues to be taken into consideration.

Policy

The area of the proposed walking track is included in the Tathra Foreshore Reserves Plan of Management (POM). It is identified as Tathra Headland. The key actions identified in the POM are consistent with the development of a pedestrian path and include:

·    Improve access to the wharf

·    Install interpretive signage; and

·    Conserve and enhance remnant vegetation.

Environmental

There is a broad range of environmental aspects that need to be considered in development of detailed works for the site. These include heritage, biodiversity and coastal management issues. More detailed analysis of the environmental aspects is undertaken through a Review of Environmental Factors and would be required for this project.

Asset

At present there is an informal path from the wharf along the old roadway linking to the memorial reserve. The informal path is popular and well used. While the problems and issues with the path and public access to the site are acknowledged, they are difficult to manage due to the area being so popular. Formalising a pedestrian path will help to acknowledge the requirements to formally manage the area in the future.

In undertaking works on the site it needs to be noted those facilities will require ongoing management and upkeep. This will come at a cost to Council to oversee the facilities are kept in a condition that meets the expectations of the community. These costs relate to regular inspections, regular operational works and reactive maintenance. 

Engineering Comments

The proposed walking track would generally follow the route of the old road, but with appropriate design, detail and engineering, largely avoid the cliff stabilisation, stormwater drainage, retaining wall, construction access and constructability challenges. Also could potentially avoid disturbing the Aboriginal midden sites along the cliff edge altogether.

Although incorporating a suspended platform for some distance at the lower end (nearest the Wharf) the much reduced scale of the walking track versus the road may well avoid most of the environmental impact associated with the more extensive civil works involved in forming a road to accommodate cars and buses.

The proposed walking track would be of appropriate width (approx. 2.5m) and grade for most of the 250m length to meet accessibility requirements. Further design work would be required. The lower approx. 90m (nearest the Wharf) would be a light weight suspended deck on minimal footings with the remainder basically a concrete path poured at or close to existing profile. Handrails and viewing platforms would be incorporated as appropriate.

Depending on the risk profile closure regime and asset protection taken by Council the following also may not be necessary:

•     major overflow channel for storm surge; or

•     wave deflection structure.

However this would need to be confirmed in any final design work.

Social / Cultural

The area is very popular. A pedestrian path will provide an important link between popular meeting places and also provide an informal recreation opportunity for residents and visitors. The surrounding area includes a number of cultural heritage elements, both Aboriginal and European. 

A search of the Office of the Environment and Heritage Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) Web Services  has shown there is an Aboriginal site recorded on or near the proposed project area. More detailed analysis of the cultural aspects is undertaken through the Review of Environmental Factors for the project.

Strategic

Outlined in Council's Community Strategic Plan is a broad reference to accessibility and the benefits of recreation. The project has the potential to link to tourism and flow on economic benefits.

Past significant storm and wave events do point to future events that may damage infrastructure or adversely affect people in the vicinity should such an event re-occur. This can be managed as access to the wharves is currently managed; however it is still possible that any investment in this area may be negatively impacted on by environmental factors. Managing that risk is an important element to this project.

Consultation

Council staff undertook community consultation to specifically gauge the level of support amongst the community for the construction of the walking track, as per the resolution. A listening post was conducted at Tathra Hall on 14 May 2015 and a survey was developed for people to complete. The survey was also made available on-line using Survey Monkey. More than 50 people attended the listening post and a total of 218 surveys were completed. 

The survey asked if respondents considered the walking track to be the priority community project for Tathra; 74% stated that it was. The remaining 26% identified other projects as a priority including, but not limited to, pedestrian linkages from the top of Tathra to Andy Poole Drive and the ring road option.

The survey also asked questions on visitation, frequency of use if the walking track was constructed, attraction to tourists and important elements to include in the design if the project went ahead.

A summary of results for both consultation methods is attached.

A meeting was held with Tathra Wharf and Headland Access Group on 14 May 2015, following their submission to Council in January 2015 in support of the walking track project. The detailed submission from that group is attached; the main points of that submission and discussion at the meeting were:

·    Strong support for the construction of a formalised walking track as the best outcome for the headland;

·    Importance of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage;

·    The need to consider the walking track, not in isolation, but as part of broader master planning for the headland area; and

·    Identifying opportunities for community involvement in the project if it proceeds.

The Bega Local Aboriginal Lands Council (LALC) was also consulted and identified the headland as having significant Aboriginal cultural heritage value and a place of significance to the local Koori community.  The Bega LALC was, in principle, supportive of a formalised walking track rather than a road for vehicles and highlighted the need for a comprehensive plan of management for the headland to minimise the impact of future development on heritage values. The submission from the LALC is attached.

In addition, the Bega District News ran an on-line poll that asked the community their preference for the Headland; a walking path or ring road. The poll ran for several weeks in April this year and 340 people responded: 58% of respondents were in favour of the walking track option; 32% for the ring road; and 10% preferred the headland be left as it is.

Financial

Expenditure on a walking track would be more feasible due to the much lower cost than a road; however it has to be made clear that there is no budget allocation in the long term financial plan for this initiative and no funds have been secured from external parties. There were previously verbal offers made to contribute towards the costs of a road, but not to fund the whole amount.

The figure below is an estimate of an indicative cost based on current projects, material rates used in the recently adopted Asset Management Plans and previous estimates made for a road construction. As the work is based in a marine environment and cliff top/side location works need to be to a standard and done safely to reflect this location.

Funding source

 

Amount

To be confirmed

$

600k (approx.)

 

The proposal put forward by the community looked at the headland walking track as part of a larger track network that links into the coastal path to Kianniny and Tathra Beach, as well as improved parking and viewing platforms along the path. These as well as interpretive and directional signage would be additional to the cost estimate above.

Resources (including staff)

If Council were to proceed with this project internal resources would need to be identified and allocated to the project. This is likely to have an impact on the current works plan or project delivery timeframe.

Conclusion

The Tathra Headland is a well utilised and frequented area for locals and visitors alike. Consultation by Council and others suggests that the concept of a walking track is considered a good project proposal and is supported by a majority of the community. There is clearly a cost estimate difference in constructing a walking track compared to a road; however both come at a significant cost, which is not budgeted.

The connection of the proposed walking track into a broader network of paths and facilities for residents and locals should be considered and would be an important part in making it a destination for people.

There is already an informal walking track essentially along the old road reserve alignment on which a safer and formal walking track could be constructed. There may be opportunities to phase construction of a walking track as funds become available and seeking community input and volunteers to progress the proposal.

Officers were asked to investigate the feasibility of a walking track and the findings outlined in this report demonstrate that it is feasible and that there is community support.

 

Attachments

1.            BLALC-Tathra Headland Comments_150611 - Response to proposed walking track/pathway

2.            Tathra Headland Walking track survey report June 2015

3.            Hamilton Christine Marshman Pip Tathra Headland proposed walking track

4.            Tathra Headland Aerial Photos

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council note the report.

2.         That Council refer the Tathra Headland walking track proposal to the discussion about ‘headline projects’ to determine its priority against all significant proposed projects as part of the review of the Council’s community strategic plan over the next twelve months.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.1 - Attachment 1

BLALC-Tathra Headland Comments_150611 - Response to proposed walking track/pathway

 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.1 - Attachment 2

Tathra Headland Walking track survey report June 2015

 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.1 - Attachment 3

Hamilton Christine Marshman Pip Tathra Headland proposed walking track

 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.1 - Attachment 3

Hamilton Christine Marshman Pip Tathra Headland proposed walking track

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.1 - Attachment 3

Hamilton Christine Marshman Pip Tathra Headland proposed walking track

 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.1 - Attachment 4

Tathra Headland Aerial Photos

 

 

 

Aerial showing road reserve and existing track

 

 

 

 

Aerial showing  broader headland context


Council 12 August 2015

Item 9.2

 

9.2Management of Narira Facility       

 

The Narira Village in Cobargo is currently managed by Sapphire Coast Tenancy Scheme. The management agreement has expired and is currently in hold over. Officers are seeking authority from Council to enter into a further agreement for management of the facility.

Group Manager Community, Relations and Leisure  

 

Background

The Narira Village Facility in Cobargo is a development consisting of ten one bedroom units for community housing. The units were built through funds raised by the community, Council’s voluntary management committee and additional funds from the NSW Department of Housing. The Committee through Council purchased land adjacent to the facility and there is a reserve fund in excess of $80,000 held by Council.

In 2009, an assessment of the ongoing risks regarding the management of community housing was conducted by Council staff. These were reported to Council and on 16 June 2009 Council at its ordinary Meeting resolved to call for expressions of interest from locally based organisations to manage the facility on behalf of Council and the community.  Applicants were required to demonstrate:

·    Accreditation with the Office of Community Housing

·    Not for Profit status

·    An ability to provide management and support services to the Narira Facility in Cobargo

·    Financial and Governance Structures

·    Evidence of all public and professional liability insurance cover; and

·    A business plan that sets out how the organisation plans to operate the facility, with particular attention to the rents to be charged and how these funds will be used to ensure the future development of the Narira Village facility.

In January 2010 Council resolved to enter into a management agreement with Sapphire Coast Tenancy Scheme (SCTS) to manage the community housing facility at Cobargo. The agreement was finalised in consultation with the committee and reported to Council for adoption in June 2011. These negotiations were protracted due to the complex nature of delivering community housing, ensuring the new management arrangements were workable for both SCTS and Council, and that both the interests of the committee and the tenants were considered.

Since July 2011 SCTS has been managing the Narira Facility under the terms of that agreement. The agreement is now due for renewal.

SCTS are locally based and are managed by a community management committee, they have more than 20 years’ experience in delivering community housing in the Bega Valley.  SCTS has been accredited since 2003 with Housing NSW and have been registered as a Community Housing Provider under the Housing Act 2001 (NSW) and the Housing Regulation 2009 (NSW).

Issues

Legal

Legal advice was sought in the development of the original agreement. The content of the agreement remains relevant and there are no changes recommended by either SCTS or Council.  The original agreement is attached.

The current agreement is in over hold.

Asset

Under the terms of the agreement the Council is responsible for any major structural maintenance/repairs as owner of the facility, SCTS is responsible for planned and responsive maintenance and renewal works at Narira.

An initial amount of $46,000 of accumulated funds was spent on the asset in the 2011 and 2012 in order to meet regulations and to allow SCTS to build a reserve. In the 12/13 and 13/14 financial years SCTS has undertaken $28,800 dollars of planned maintenance including the renewal of a number of kitchens/bathrooms/laundries as required in line with the asset management plan prepared by SCTS. A summary of the maintenance work carried out to June 2014 is attached.

During the past four years SCTS has maintained an occupancy rate of more than 90% which has underpinned their ability to make improvements to the facility.

Social / Cultural

The provision of social or community housing is of significant benefit for the community of the Bega Valley, particularly in our smaller villages. The ability for people to move into accommodation that is more manageable or affordable but maintain their links to community can contribute significantly to their wellbeing.

As part of the agreement, an eligibility and priority ranking process for tenancies was developed to ensure that in addition to the required process of tenancy allocations, consideration was given to people that had a connection to the Cobargo community. This will remain as part of any ongoing agreement.

Consultation

Council staff consulted with the tenants of Narira, independent of SCTS, in June 2014, to assess their level of satisfaction with the service provided. The tenants of the time participated in a survey and follow up phone call, the level of satisfaction with the service provided by SCTS was generally positive.  A summary of the feedback is attached for Councillors information. 

Another independent consultation with tenants will be conducted in the final year of any new agreement entered into with SCTS.

Financial

There is no financial burden on Bega Valley Shire Council, other than the responsibilities as owners of the property, there is a reserve currently held by Council for Narira of $82,000 for this purpose. These funds were accumulated over time by the S355 Committee up to June 2011. SCTS provides for the operations and maintenance of the property, via rent and Government rent assistance payments.

SCTS are required to independently audit Narira funds each year, the financial statement for the 13/14 financial year is attached. At 30 June 2014 SCTS had accumulated $47, 047.45 in trust, held by SCTS, for the ongoing maintenance renewal at Narira.

Resources (including staff)

Council does not have the staffing resources to directly manage the facility at Narira. The management of units of community housing is highly regulated and organisations that provide it have to go through a regular and vigorous accreditation process.

The liaison with SCTS and oversight of the management agreement will be the responsibility of the Community, Culture and Information section of Council's Community Relations and Leisure Group.

Conclusion

The provision of social or community housing is of significant benefit for the community of the Bega Valley, particularly in our smaller villages. While it is appropriate Council maintains ownership on behalf of the community, it is beneficial in terms of the risk, the asset and the tenants, current and future, that an appropriately accredited organisation is engaged to manage the facility at Cobargo.

Sapphire Coast Tenancy Scheme has excellent credentials, accreditation with Housing NSW and has professionally managed Narira over the past four years. It would be appropriate to continue this arrangement into the future.

 

Attachments

1.            Audit Narira 1314 financial year

2.            Narira Village Complex lease and Property Management agreement as at 11 July 2011

3.            Narira Council maintenance review 2014

4.            Narira SCTS work completed 2011 to 2014

5.            Narira 10 year draft budget 2011 to 2021

 

Recommendation

1.       That Council note the report.

2.       That Council acknowledge the work of Sapphire Tenancy Scheme in managing the Narira Facility over the past four years.

3.       That Council authorise the General Manager to execute a further agreement with Sapphire Tenancy Scheme for up to five years.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.2 - Attachment 1

Audit Narira 1314 financial year

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.2 - Attachment 2

Narira Village Complex lease and Property Management agreement as at 11 July 2011

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.2 - Attachment 3

Narira Council maintenance review 2014

 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.2 - Attachment 4

Narira SCTS work completed 2011 to 2014

 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 9.2 - Attachment 5

Narira 10 year draft budget 2011 to 2021

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 9.3

 

9.3Management of Bega Civic Centre     

 

This report presents information for Council to consider on the future management model for the Bega Civic Centre.

 

Group Manager Community, Relations and Leisure  

 

Background

The Bega Civic Centre (working title) is one of the most significant pieces of community infrastructure that Council has constructed in recent times. When complete the Centre will be a regional facility that has the capacity to attract a range of local, regional, interstate and international acts as well as provide a venue for a range of community uses, including conferences, graduations, civic events and Council meetings.  The facility is on track to be completed towards the end of 2015 and a management model needs to be put in place to ensure the facility reaches its full potential and realises the investment.

Two models of management have been investigated and workshopped with Councillors. The two models are external management and direct management.

External management

At its meeting of 9 July 2014 Council resolved to call for expressions of interest (EoI) from suitably qualified organisations to manage the Centre on behalf of the Council and the community. The EoI process was conducted in early 2015, five interested parties attended a briefing at Council on March 5 and one expression of interest was received at the conclusion of the process. That organisation was invited to present to Councillors and the Bega Civic Centre Community Reference Panel in May 2015.

Following this presentation Officers conducted a range of checks and gathered information to complete due diligence, including referee checks and financial data review, and this is outlined in the attached confidential memo. The memo and the initial proposal (also attached) is confidential as it contains “…commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed: (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.”

Direct management

The direct management model (DRM) requires specialist staff no different to any other area of Council where specialist is employed to undertake specific functions i.e. Regional gallery Curator.  Council does not currently have people with these skills on staff. To ensure the Centre meets its full potential under a DRM, additional staff would need to be employed and new systems and processes developed for venue/event management, ticketing, food and beverage, marketing, WH&S etc. Whilst this is possible, there will be a longer lead in time to set up the model.

It is important that the Centre is managed well. The costs for Council to manage the Centre (as a fully functioning and activated venue) would potentially mirror any management fee charged by a third party and would not include the systems, processes or industry contacts that the third party could bring. The Centre would raise income through fees and charges to off-set some of these costs, but not all.


 

Issues

Legal

The management of the Centre will require consideration of a number of pieces of Local, State and Federal legislation and regulation including but not limited to the Local Government Act 1993, Workplace Health & Safety 2011, Liquor Licensing Regulations, Food Act 2003, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as well as well as conditions under the development consent.

Asset

Responsibility for the asset, including maintenance and utilities will remain with Council regardless of the management model adopted. The Centre is included as part of Council’s Buildings Asset Management Plan.

Social / Cultural

The Centre is a facility that has the potential to offer a unique experience to not only the people of Bega but the Shire and the broader region.

Providing the local community users with adequate access to the Centre and a sense of ownership will be important to its success. The management model adopted will need to ensure that the Centre can balance the needs of the local community and commercial potential.

Economic

It will be imperative that an effective management model is identified to ensure that the Centre operates as efficiently as it can to meet operational/maintenance requirements and enable the activities of the Centre to drive and add value to other economic outcomes in the Shire.

The Centre will continue to build on the development of the cultural and civic precinct around Littleton Gardens, where people will be able to enjoy the park and open space, public art, library, regional gallery, shopping, dining and access to Council services.

Strategic

Managing a facility such as the Centre requires specialist knowledge in public venue operations, venue specific technology, human resource management and contemporary marketing techniques. Officers are of the view that the organisation that submitted a proposal based on the EoI has the capacity and background to successfully undertake management of the Centre.

Consultation

The Bega Civic Centre Community Reference Panel has been consulted throughout the expression of interest process to ensure that the broader community perspective is considered.

Financial

An annual budget allocation will need to be determined in order to effectively manage and operate the civic centre.

Funding source

 

Amount

Council

$

250,000

 

Resources (including staff)

Community, Relations & Leisure staff would be responsible for the ongoing liaison with any third party organisation engaged to manage the Centre on behalf of Council.

Conclusion

The management model adopted for the Bega Civic Centre will set the platform for the Centre’s success or otherwise into the future. The engagement of a professional venue management company to work with Council will help achieve the Centre’s full potential.

 

Attachments

1.            Confidential Memo Civic Centre Management 20151208 (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2.            Civic Centre EOI Submission - 20.03.15 (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

3.            Preferred supplier finanacial statements (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.         That the report be noted.

2.         That Council provide in-principle support for the external management of the Bega Civic Centre.

3.         That Council authorise the General Manager to enter into negotiations for development of a management agreement for the Bega Civic Centre with [name to be inserted].

4.         That a proposed management agreement be bought back to a future Council meeting for resolution.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 9.4

 

9.4Appoinment to Access Advisory Committee     

 

The current term of the Bega Valley Shire Council Access Advisory Committee (AAC) commenced in July 2014 and concludes in June 2016. As outlined in the AAC Guidelines the Committee is comprised of ten community members. A community member of the AAC has resigned creating a vacancy. An expression of interest was advertised through the local newspapers for a new member.

 

Group Manager Community, Relations and Leisure  

 

Background

The Access Advisory Committee (AAC) is a formal Committee of Council that operates to assist Council in the development of strategies to reduce barriers and improve access to Council’s facilities and services across the Bega Valley Shire.

On 30 July 2014 Council at its Ordinary Meeting appointed ten new community members to the AAC. The term of the Committee is two years, finishing in June 2016.

One community member has resigned from the AAC leaving a vacancy. On 23 June 2015 Council sought nominations to fill the vacancy by advertising on Council’s website and also in the local newspapers for a period of two weeks from 23 June 2015 to 3 July 2015.

Nominations closed on Friday 10 July 2015. All nominations received have been summarised in a separate confidential memorandum to Councillors.

Issues

Legal

The AAC is a Section 355 Committee under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

Policy

The AAC is governed by a set of Guidelines adopted by Council. The Guidelines outline the role and function of the AAC, which is broadly set up to provide advice and input on:

·    issues of access in relation to Council services and facilities;

·    development of the Bega Valley Shire Inclusion Plan;

·    relevant Policy, procedures and processes; and

·    relevant Development Applications.

Social / Cultural

The AAC advises and makes recommendations to Council on matters relating not only to access for people with a disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth), but also on practical matters affecting access for older people, individuals with short and long-term injuries, parents and children, and visitors to the area.

Conclusion

The AAC is an important Committee in assisting Council to reduce barriers faced by members of the community when accessing community and Council services and facilities. The nominees represent a strong cross section of experience, skills and diversity in background.

 

Attachments

1.            Confidential Memo to Councillors - Access Advisory Committee Nominations (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2.            Access Advisory Committee Nomination Forms (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1          That Council endorse [name to be inserted] as the tenth member of the AAC from August 2015 until June 2016 and the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to thank all applicants for their interest in becoming a member of the Access Advisory Committee.

  

 


Council

12 August 2015

 

 

Staff Reports – Economic Develoment and Business Growth (Enterprising)

 

12 August 2015

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr McBain.  

10.1            Classification of land recently acquired by Council.......................................... 142

10.2            Land Use Options for 142-144 Imlay St Eden.................................................... 144

10.3            Economic Development Symposium................................................................. 149


Council 12 August 2015

Item 10.1

 

10.1. Classification of land recently acquired by Council     

 

Council has recently completed the acquisition of land at Wolumla and Bemboka.  Final approval is being sought to classify each site as operation land.

 

Group Manager Strategy and Business Services  

 

Background

Council originally resolved to compulsory acquire the relevant land at Wolumla for the purpose of a Sewage Treatment Plant and associated infrastructure on 22 March 2005.  The acquisition of Lot 1 DP 1200639 at Wolumla has now been finalised and as the site is being used for the purpose of providing water and sewer infrastructure, it is recommended that it should be appropriately classified as operational land under the Local Government Act 1993.

Council also approved the acquisition by agreement of Lot 12 DP 1093627 at Bemboka on 8 April 2015 for the purpose of constructing a water filtration plant for the township of Bemboka.  The acquisition of the site has recently been completed and as the site is being used for the purpose of providing water infrastructure, it is recommended that it should be also be appropriately classified as operational land under the Local Government Act 1993.

As each of the acquisitions have now been finalised and public notification processes completed, a final report to Council is required in order to classify the lands as operational.

Issues

Legal

Council’s solicitor has recently confirmed that each of the acquisitions have now been finalised with the issue of Certificates of Title imminent.

Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a property must be classified within three months of acquisition by Council resolution or it automatically defaults to community land.  Section 34 of the Act further provides that a public notice of such a proposed resolution must be advertised giving 28 days for receipt of public submissions.

Consultation

The public notice advertisement regarding the proposed classification of Lot 1 DP 1200639 at Wolumla for the purpose of constructing a new sewer treatment plant and of Lot 12 DP 1093627 at Bemboka for the purpose of constructing a new water filtration plant appeared in the local papers on Friday, 3 July 2015, with the submission period closing on Friday, 31 July 2015.  No submissions were received objecting (or otherwise) to the proposal.

Conclusion

In order to comply with the requirement that classification should occur within three months of acquisition under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council resolution is sought to classify the lands recently acquired at Wolumla and Bemboka as operational land.

 

Attachments

Nil

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council note that a 28 day public notification process was completed regarding the proposal to classify each of the parcels of land acquired at Wolumla and Bemboka, with no submissions received.

2.         That Council resolve to classify Lot 1 DP 1200639 at Wolumla and Lot 12 DP 1093627 at Bemboka as operational land under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 10.2

 

10.2. Land Use Options for 142-144 Imlay St Eden     

 

Council staff have been asked to investigate the feasibility of acquiring the Hotel Australasia site in Eden to restore and preserve the historical significance of the site as requested by members of the Eden community.

 

Group Manager Strategy and Business Services  

 

Background

Subsequent to a development approval being granted on the Hotel Australasia site (142-144 Imlay Street, Eden) some members of the Eden community have raised the issue of the heritage significance of the building to the town of Eden and requested that Council consider acquiring the site to preserve these elements into the future.

The purpose of this report is not no restate the facts in relation to the development proposal but to deal specifically with the request from the Eden community to assess Council’s options if it resolved to consider acquisition of the site to restore and preservation of the heritage elements of the current building.

Council staff have met with the current owner of the site to ascertain whether they were willing to discuss the possibility of Council acquiring the site. On Friday 19 June 2015 the Mayor, General Manager and Group Manager for Strategy and Business Services met with the owner of the site where he indicated that if a suitable price was offered he would be willing to dispose of the site to Council.

The Property:

Council engaged its property valuer to undertake a full commercial valuation of the site. This report is attached as a Confidential Attachment.

The Hotel Australasia site is located at 142-144 Imlay Street Eden. The site is 2,886m2 and is zoned B2 (Local Centre). It is currently not heritage listed.

1754317

The property consists of a two storey traditional hotel. The ground floor held the Public Bar and its associated rooms (kitchen, cellar, restaurant, laundry, toilets, etc). The 1st floor held 21 hotel rooms, the Manager's residence, verandas, etc. The building occupies a combined building size of 1,470m2. The property is in very poor condition and will require significant works to restore it to a useable condition.

 

The property shares a boundary with the public carpark to the east of Imlay Street, and has main street frontage to the western boundary. The property has good views of the ocean to the east and Mount Imlay to the west.

Council's valuer noted in their report that:

 

“We have not sighted a building report, however based on our inspection there are considerable repairs and maintenance issues that need immediate attention if it is to be used and not demolished. Further, the building requires significant refurbishment to improve its appearance and functionality if it is to be utilised commercially rather than demolished.”

 

The valuer's assessment as to the value of the property can be viewed by Councillors in the Confidential Attachment.

 

Issues with the Site:

 

The community desire is to see the site returned to its original condition including the façade and the original interiors.

 

Wellings, C. E. (Charles Eden), -195- Hotel Australasia, Imlay Street, Eden, ca. 1940 [picture]

The Hotel Australasia as it appeared in 1940 (photo courtesy of National Library of Australia).

There are currently a number of competing views in the community as to the cost of restoring the building to its original condition. Estimates have ranged from $100,000 to over $900,000. There are also significant regulatory issues particularly relating to uses and compliance with Building Codes, that will need to be overcome before the building could be made operational. 

In terms of making the building operational, the original configuration makes adapting the space to suit modern purposes difficult.

Possibilities for the site:

Council recently acquired a property on Chandos Street Eden to facilitate better traffic movements through into the public carpark that borders this site. At the time, it was noted there are no public access points from that carpark onto the main street of Eden. There are currently a number of access points between the carpark and Imlay Street but all are through private land and could be closed off at any time. A benefit to securing this site would be the access it could provide linking the carpark to Imlay Street.

With the Eden Port development and the expected increase in visitors to Eden, having a significant heritage building in the main street would prove a drawcard to visitors looking for authentic experiences. Visitor related activities could be prioritised in the building to add to the historic feel of the facility.

The site is of sufficient size that a number of activities could be established showcasing the history and heritage of the Eden township.

Over the course of the community action focussed on the protection of the site, a number of offers were made by members of the community noting that they would be willing to fund the restoration of the site through donations. A community group also commenced preparation of a business plan for the building.

Issues

Asset

The site if acquired, would be incorporated into Council's Building Asset Management Plan. The restoration and ongoing operational costs, maintenance costs, and renewals would need to be factored into Council's Long Term Financial Plan.

Social / Cultural

The development application process for the site has proved the catalyst for significant community activity in support of the restoration and preservation of the original building and its heritage elements. There is a high level of community interest in the site and its future.

Economic

An element of consideration in any plans to acquire the site would be how to minimise the ongoing costs of operating the building. The most effective means of minimising the operational costs of the building would be to identify sustainable uses for the building that provide meaningful tenancy to a mixed use of businesses and community groups. The rental contributions could then be used to offset the ongoing maintenance.

Strategic

The acquisition of this site is not listed in any of Council's current Integrated Planning and Reporting documents.

Consultation

If Council resolves to pursue the acquisition of this site then extensive media and community consultation would need to occur. An engagement plan would be drafted outlining the intent of Council to consult with the community on this project.

Financial

The ongoing operational costs of the facility would need to be considered in due course.

In terms of the capital acquisition costs, it is recommended Council consider the cost of the restoration works in determining an offer price.

Any acquisition costs would need to be incorporated into the Long Term Financial Plan. The acquisition of the site will result in less funds being available for other planned works and capital projects. Council will need to consider re-prioritising its planned works when the Headline Projects process is presented to Council later in the year. If it resolves to consider this option

Conclusion

Council can resolve to either:

1.         Choose to not pursue the acquisition of 142-144 Imlay Street Eden any further. The current landowner holds an approved development consent to demolish the current site and erect a new supermarket development.

2.         Choose to pursue the acquisition of 142-144 Imlay St Eden, seeking to restore and preserve the heritage value of the site and request staff to prepare a report for consideration.

Should Council choose to pursue the acquisition of the site, Council staff recommends the following actions:

·    That Council look to place an option (at an approved value) on the site for a period no less than 6 months. This option would allow Council time to conduct investigations into the costs of restoration and the ongoing use of the site. An option to purchase would not be binding.

·    That Council engage a suitably qualified architect to draft a masterplan for the site, including the assessment of possible uses, maintenance and renewal estimates, ongoing operational costs and resources, the restoration and retention of the heritage items, linkages to the main street, and the upgrading of the site to meet current BCA standards. It is expected that significant community engagement would need to occur during this project.

·    That Council engage a suitable qualified quantity surveyor to provide a cost estimate to undertake the works agreed to in the Masterplan.

·    That once fully planned and costed, Council consult with the community seeking input as to the future of the site. An agreed level of community financial support should be established.

·    If at this time the project is to proceed, a social fundraising endeavour be launched (Kick Starter or similar) seeking community donations. Restoration work to commence only when agreed funding target has been achieved.

 

Attachments

1.            Valuation report (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2.            Councillor Memo options for acquisition (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

That Council resolve its position in relation to the possible acquisition of 142-144 Imlay Street Eden, known locally as the Hotel Australasia site.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 10.3

 

10.3. Economic Development Symposium     

 

The Economic Development Symposium as identified in the Economic Development Strategy is proposed to be held on November 26-28, 2015. The event will be held at the Bega Civic Centre and will be sponsored by the Bendigo Bank. 

 

Group Manager Strategy and Business Services  

 

Background

Bega Valley Shire Council in conjunction with our major sponsor for the event, Bendigo Bank, will be holding the inaugural Economic Development Symposium from Thursday November 26 through to Saturday November 28 2015.

The objective of this event is to bring people together to forge new business opportunities, grow existing businesses, and to showcase local business talent and ideas. As with the Tourism Summit, held in 2014, the goal for the Economic Development Symposium is to provide tangible connections for local businesses and to provide them with meaningful information that will assist them in growing their businesses. Council also hopes to showcase the extensive array of businesses and products being produced locally that may not be well known within the region.

The three day event will focus on a number of key topics facing the region’s economy and will bring together people who share a passion for particular topics to workshop tangible solutions that the Council and the community can implement to achieve positive results. Council aims to then use those solutions to inform its ongoing approach to Economic Development for the region over the next five years.

Topics are still being finalised but will include sessions on youth unemployment, improved aviation services, access to business capital, freight movement to and from the region, tourism opportunities, agricultural technology, building an entrepreneurial ecosystem, marketing, raising finance and financial management. Each session is expected to run for half a day with a number running concurrently. Expert speakers/facilitators are being sought for each topic and session.

The event will include a dinner on the Friday night hosted by Bendigo Bank. The dinner will include guest speakers from the international business community, and a business expo.

Council will be holding the event in the soon to be opened Bega Civic Centre as one of the opening month’s activities. Council believes the venue will showcase the professionalism of our local operators and will provide a wonderful backdrop to the discussions taking place during the symposium.

Further information will be provided through the media over the coming months.

Issues

Economic

Councils Economic Development Strategy includes reference under the Connections stream to holding events that showcase the talents and professionalism of our local business community and to develop connections between parties to take advantage of opportunities that may present themselves.

Financial

This event is budgeted under Council’s Economic Development section. A more detailed event plan and a detailed budget will be brought before Council in October.

Bendigo Bank has generously offered to sponsor the event through sponsorship of $7,500. Council will be seeking additional sponsorship for the topics of discussion workshops and the evening events will be ticketed for sale to interested members of the community.

Resources (including staff)

While Council will engage the assistance of an event planner to assist with the event co-ordination, the liaison with the business community and the overall responsibility for the event will reside with the Economic Development Manager. An organising committee comprising the Chair of Council’s Economic Committee, Cr McBain, the Mayor and Cr Fitzpatrick with staff and representatives from the Bendigo Bank will meet regularly to ensure the successful running of the event. This model was very successful with last year’s Tourism Summit.

Conclusion

The Economic Development Symposium is an exciting event for our Shire. The event will provide valuable insights into key issues and opportunities in our local economy and an opportunity for local businesses to network and gather information which will help them to enhance their businesses.

 

Attachments

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council note the Economic Development Symposium for information.

 

   

 


Council

12 August 2015

 

 

Staff Reports – Infrastructure Waste And Water(Accessibility)

 

12 August 2015

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Taylor.  

11.1            Tender recommendation for Tilba Dam Remediation Project......................... 152

11.2            Drinking Water Quality Management System.................................................. 155

11.3            Proposed naming of unnamed road in Eden .................................................... 338

11.4            Bega and Brogo Rivers Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan - Tender RFT 39/15       357

11.5            Tender RFT 26/15 construction tender for Bega Civic Centre Council Chamber fitout 361

11.6            Tender RFT 24/15 Civil & Landscape Works for Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place, Littleton gardens & adjacent......................................................................................................... 363


Council 12 August 2015

Item 11.1

 

11.1. Tender recommendation for Tilba Dam Remediation Project     

 

This report details the tender evaluation of RFT 50/15 – Tilba Dam - Outlet Pipeline Grouting and Spillway Remediation.

 

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Background

Tilba Dam provides a source of water for use during drought conditions and other emergency water quality events. The dam has two significant problems that need to be rectified to ensure long term reliability of the main embankment structure as follows:

·    The outlet pipe that delivers water to Bermagui was constructed in a manner that results in an unacceptable ‘piping failure’ risk to the main embankment wall.

·    The rock spillway cutting is subject to significant spalling erosion resulting in frequent partial blockage of the spillway and rock falls also presenting an unacceptable risk to safety of BVSC personnel. 

 

The Tender for this rectification work was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, Local newspapers and on the E-tender webpage with tender documents were issued on the 4 May 2015.  At the close on the 2 June 2015 three tender submissions were received, from the firms listed below:

 

•     Beckhaus Civil Engineering Pty Ltd

•     Dale and Hitchcock Civil Engineering and Landscaping Pty Ltd

•     Silver Raven Pty Ltd

 

The tender evaluation criteria and weighting were as follows:

Criteria

Description

Weighting

Non-Financial Criteria

Experience in works of a similar nature and value, as a company and with proposed individuals

similar recent grouting projects

proven track record

qualifications and experience of project and site manager personnel

15%

Previous Contractual Performance

Referee and previous job performance

15%

Work Methodology and Program

Establishment of worksite, safety and buildability of works.

10%

 

Non –Financial Criteria Subtotal

40%

Financial Criteria

Total Extended Schedule of Rates and Lump Sum Items

Total offered within Tender Schedules with on schedule of rates and lump sum items

60%

 

Financial Criteria Subtotal

60%

Issues

Legal

The tendering process was undertaken in compliance with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. 

Environmental

The proposed works will provide a positive environmental impact by reducing the chance of an environmentally damaging dam failure.

Asset

Bega Valley Shire Council has a number of dams that are subject to annual inspections by the NSW Dam Safety Committee. As a result of design issues, risk assessments and aging infrastructure, consultant recommendations for ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation works are proposed from time to time. In this case, remediation works have been proposed for outlet pipeline grouting and spillway remediation at Tilba Dam.

The works outlined in this report will ensure long term structural integrity of the asset.

Strategic

The planned works will enable the goals of the Water and Sewer Strategic Business Plan to be achieved.

Financial

The work will be funded from the 2015/16 renewals budget

Resources (including staff)

Substantial staff and consultant resources have been devoted to the project. Construction works will require staff, consultant and contractor resources to achieve successful completion.

Operational Plan

The works will help achieve Operational Plan objectives

Conclusion

Works on the outlet pipe and spillway are required to ensure the long term structural integrity of the Tilba Dam. On this basis it is recommended the works commence utilising specialist contractor resources the subject of this tender process.

Attachments

1.            RFT 50.15 Tilba Dam Remediation Councillors Memorandum (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2.            RFT 50.15 Assessment Tilba Dam Remediation (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council accept the recommendations as outlined in the confidential attachment.

2.         That Council accept the tender submission from <insert> in relation to the tender for RFT 50/15 Tilba Dam - Outlet Grouting and Spillway Remediation in the amount of <insert> (including GST), subject to variations, provisional sums and prime cost items.

3.         That authority is delegated to the General Manager to execute all necessary documentation.

4.         That other tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 11.2

 

11.2. Drinking Water Quality Management System      

 

This report presents a draft Drinking Water Quality Policy for Council consideration, in the context of a Drinking Water Quality Management System developed in accordance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011. 

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Background

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (ADWG) provide a framework for the management of drinking water supplies that, when implemented, assures safety at the point of use. An important element of the framework is formalising our commitment to providing safe, high quality drinking water drinking water through the adoption of a Drinking Water Quality Policy.

Attached to this report is:

·      draft Drinking Water Quality Policy (DWQP)

·      Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS)

The DWQMS has been developed in accordance with the “Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality” in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (ADWG) and complies with the NSW Public Health Act 2010 (the Act) requirement to develop a Quality Assurance Plan for drinking water supply.

The main objectives of the DWQMS are to:

·    Provide safer drinking water to our customers

·    Establish due diligence and credibility through a common, standard and holistic approach to drinking water quality management

·    Foster an understanding of drinking water quality management amongst employees

·    Fulfil our obligations under the Act  

Issues

Legal

The DWQMS has been undertaken to assist in the provision of high quality drinking water to our customers and also to fulfil our obligations under the Act.

Policy

Attached to this report is a draft Drinking Water Quality Policy that defines our commitment to and priorities for providing safe, high quality drinking water to our customers.

Environmental

The DWQMS contributes to positive environmental outcomes in terms of enhanced source water monitoring, chemical management and incident response.

Asset

The DWQMS compliments the existing Asset Management Plan objectives for water supply.

Social / Cultural

DWQP will ensure quality safe and secure drinking water for residents of the Shire.

Strategic

The DWQMS compliments existing Strategic Business Plan objectives for water supply. The key outcome moving forward will be construction of water treatment facilities in accordance with the Long Term Financial Plan.

Consultation

The DWQMS is an operational document that has been produced in consultation with NSW Health, specialist consultants and Council staff.

Financial

The DWQMS has cost in the order of $90k to complete. These funds have been drawn from water fund operations.

Resources (including staff)

Significant staff, consultant and agency resources have been devoted to the project.

Operational Plan

The DWQMS will assist in achieving the Levels of Service defined in Council’s Operational Plan.

Conclusion

The DWQMS has been developed in accordance with the “Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality” in the ADWG and complies with the Act's requirement to develop a Quality Assurance Plan for drinking water supply.

The DWQMS is presented to Council for information. The draft Drinking Water Quality Policy is presented for Council consideration and adoption.

Attachments

1.            BVSC DWQ Policy 4.09

2.            Drinking Water Quality Management System

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council adopt Policy 4.09 – Drinking Water Quality to formalise our commitment to and priorities for providing safe, high quality drinking water to our customers.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 1

BVSC DWQ Policy 4.09

 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 2

Drinking Water Quality Management System

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 2

Drinking Water Quality Management System

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 2

Drinking Water Quality Management System

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 2

Drinking Water Quality Management System

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 2

Drinking Water Quality Management System

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.2 - Attachment 2

Drinking Water Quality Management System

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 11.3

 

11.3. Proposed naming of unnamed road in Eden       

 

It is proposed to name an unnamed section of road in Eden to Lindwall Road.

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Background

The unnamed road is located on the Western side of the Princes Highway opposite the intersection to Government Road in Eden.  The name proposed is Lindwall Road which complies with Councils Road naming policy.  The name was selected from the next available name in Bega Valley Shire Council Procedure 2.2.1(b) Schedule 1 – names of war service men and women who have died in or as a result of active service for the Eden area.  The name was provided to Council by the Eden sub branch of the Returned Service League of Australia and complies with BVSC Policy Procedure 2.2.1(b) – Road Naming criteria under section (i), (iii) and (vi) as follows:

“(i) Names of war service men and women who have died in or as a result of active service and those names nominated and their respective localities are attached to Schedule 1.

(iii) Either full names or surnames may be used for roads as appropriate names that acknowledge eminent persons within the locality or historical property in the area or of an historical background. Such names may include long term property owners, early explorers, settlers or persons who have excelled in some community oriented or other activity.

(vi) Names that are part of a common theme for road names in a locality.”

The Geographical Names Board (GNB), Surveyor General (SG) and Registrar General (RG) have reviewed the name under the GNB Guidelines for the Name of Roads and there is no objection to its use.  As the name Lindwall was already an approved name under Council's Road Naming Procedure the Group Manager of Transport and Utilities approved under Council's Delegation Register the proposed naming and community consultation commenced.  As a result of local advertising, staff received a submission to the road naming proposal and a suggestion the unnamed road to be named Palestine Road.  The submission is attached for the information of Councillors.

Property staff have investigated the name Palestine and have found a Palestine Creek and Palestine Creek Trail in the near vicinity of the proposed Lindwall Road, and with this in mind consider the name Palestine is already recognised in the area and the name Lindwall Road should be approved.  However, if Council choose to uphold the objection then the suggested name would need to be re-advertised, referred to GNB, SG, RG and advise the Eden RSL sub-branch of Council’s decision.

1990451

Issues

Social / Cultural

The area was once known as Palestine although not as a formal locality. The history as outlined in the submission provides background. The area provides some recognition with Palestine Creek and Palestine Trail. The extent to which Council wish to further recognise the area is up to Council. Mindful that calling for names to be included on further listings would be a preferred approach, particularly given the opportunity to include aboriginal heritage.  

Consultation

The proposed road name of Lindwall Road has been advertised in local newspapers, allowing twenty eight days for submissions, with only the one submission received.  Once the submission has been addressed the Geographical Names Board will be advised to arrange gazettal. Note also the proposed name formed part of Council’s adopted street names for the Eden area.

Financial

An amount of $283 has been expended by Council advertising the proposal to name the section of unnamed road Lindwall Road, however if Council choose to uphold the objection further advertising fees and addition costs will be required.

Resources (including staff)

Council property staff will be required to complete the formal road naming process and arrange new signage.

Conclusion

Formalisation of the road name is in accordance with Council's road naming procedure and it is recommended that Council continue with the road naming as Lindwall Road.

 

Attachments

1.            Submission received to the proposed name of Lindwall Road.

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council approve the proposal to name the unnamed road on the Western side of the Princes Highway, opposite the intersection to Government Road in Eden as Lindwall Road.

2.         That the Geographical Names Board be requested to formally gazette the name Lindwall Road.

             OR

3.         That Council uphold the objection and give authority to recommence the notification process to advertise Palestine Road.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.3 - Attachment 1

Submission received to the proposed name of Lindwall Road.

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 11.3 - Attachment 1

Submission received to the proposed name of Lindwall Road.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 11.4

 

11.4. Bega and Brogo Rivers Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan - Tender RFT 39/15     

 

This report details the outcomes of evaluation of Tender 39/15 for the Bega and Brogo Rivers Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan and recommends award to the preferred tender.

 

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Background

Council successfully completed the Bega and Brogo Rivers Flood Study, including its data collection in June 2014 with the assistance of consultants SMEC and grant funding from the Ministry of Police and Emergency Services (MPES) and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) under the NSW State Government’s Floodplain Management Grants Scheme.

Council made a successful application to the NSW State Government’s Floodplain Management grants scheme in 2014/2015 for further funding to undertake the subsequent Bega and Brogo River Catchments Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

The Floodplain Risk Management Study (FRMS) and Plan (FRMP) form the typical 2nd and 3rd stage projects in the floodplain risk management process outlined below in Figure 2.1 of the current NSW Government 2005 Floodplain Development Manual (FDM) for the Management of Flood Liable Land.

The current FDM outlines the primary objective of the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy is to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on individual owners and occupiers of flood prone property, and to reduce private and public losses resulting from floods.  The policy highlights that primary responsibility for floodplain risk management rests with Councils, which are provided with financial and technical support by the State Government.

A FRMS is a major multi-disciplinary process involving high levels of skill in engineering, planning, the sciences (social and environmental), economics and emergency management.  A FRMS aims to identify all relevant issues, quantify them and weigh them appropriately into an overall management plan by which the community as a whole is better off, though some groups may perceive themselves as disadvantaged.  Like any social planning process, completing a FRMS and the subsequent formulation of an appropriate FRMP involves discussions and trade-offs with various groups within the community to gain acceptance of the management plan dealing with all types of flood risk.  The steering of FRMS requires a significant effort from the Floodplain Risk Management Focus Group that Council finalised in 2014. 

A FRMP is the formalisation of an effective floodplain risk management process.  It is based on a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of all factors that affect and are affected by the use of flood prone land.  It represents the considered opinion of the local community on how to best manage its flood risk and its flood prone land.  The FRMP may apply to the whole local government area or a specific area of the floodplain.  The FRMP will consist of a co-ordinated mix of measures that address existing, future and continuing risks.  The FRMS and the subsequent FRMP are integrally linked. 

Council invited tenders from suitably qualified contractors to undertake the Bega and Brogo Rivers Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan. Tenders were advertised in local media on 17 June 2015 and in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 June 2015.  At the close on 8 July 2015 at 12:00pm, 26 documents were issued, with 3 submissions received from the following:

·    Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty. Ltd.

·    G.O. Engineering Consultants Pty. Ltd.

·    WMAwater Pty. Ltd.

The tender submissions were assessed against the following evaluation criteria

Criteria

Weighting

Tender value

55%

Experience

20%

Study Methodology

20%

Local Community Benefit

5%

WH&S

Compliant/ Non-Compliant

Total

100%

Issues

Legal

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993.

Council will be required to comply with the conditions of the Funding Agreement for Financial Assistance under the 2014/2015 Natural Disaster Resilience Program’s Floodplain Risk Management Grants Scheme dated 19 January 2015.

Adoption and subsequent implementation of the consequent FRMP will allow Council to meet its statutory obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, Fisheries Management Act, 1994, National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 and the Local Government Act, 1993 as they apply to floodplain risk management.

Environmental

Some of the objectives of the floodplain risk management process include, but are not limited to:

·    protecting and where possible enhancing the river and floodplain environment and be consistent with the objectives of relevant State Government policies

·    ensuring actions arising out of the management plan meet with ecologically sustainable design principles

·    allowing consideration of the environmental impact of existing and potential future developments and floodplain risk management measures

·    allowing consideration of broad scale catchment issues such as water quality, riverine and floodplain enhancement and land management

·    allowing for the consideration of potential adverse impacts of climate change impacts on flooding behaviour

These and other environmental issues will be considered in the development of the subsequent FRMS and FRMP recommendations and outcomes which will allow Council to meet its statutory obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, Fisheries Management Act, 1994 and National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as they apply to floodplain risk management.

Asset

The outcomes of the project will provide information to allow long term planning and options for protection, management or relocation of Council’s assets to be identified, costed and implemented.

Any identified structural flood mitigation options will become part of Council’s asset base that may require ongoing maintenance and operational resources.

Consultation

Consultation with local residents will occur throughout the project via the Floodplain Risk Management Focus Group, community workshops, media releases and the formal public exhibition of the draft documents.  The Focus Group membership includes Council staff, state agencies, community representatives and elected Councillors; Cr. Hughes and Cr. Mawhinney.

Consultation has also been undertaken with state agencies such as the State Emergency Service (SES) and OEH regarding the need for the project during the grant application process.  SES and OEH are currently members of the Floodplain Risk Management Focus Group and the Floodplain Risk Management Technical sub-committee.

Financial

Council will be required to comply with the conditions of the Funding Agreement for Financial Assistance under the 2014/2015 Natural Disaster Resilience Program’s Floodplain Risk Management Grants Scheme dated 19 January 2015.  The $141 000 grant offer requires Council to provide matching funds at a ratio of 2:1 Government to Council dollars.

This project is funded under the budget for

Funding source

 

Amount

Stormwater operating expenses

$

70,500

 

Resources (including staff)

Council staff will manage this project utilising the services of a consultant as per the conditions of the OEH funding agreement.  Council meeting facilities may also be required during consultation activities.

Conclusion

Council recommends that the preferred tenderer be accepted as they have been assessed as providing the best overall value to Council and capable of producing the required project outcomes.

 

Attachments

1.            RFT 39.15 Bega Brogo Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan Council Memo (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2.            RFT 39.15 Evaluation Form (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.            That Council accepts recommendations as outlined in the confidential attachment

2.            That Council accept the tender from <insert> in relation to contract for the works described in Tender RFT 39/15, in the amount of <insert> (excluding GST), subject to variations, provisional sums and prime cost items.

3.            That authority is delegated to the General Manager to execute all necessary documentation.

4.            That other tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 11.5

 

11.5. Tender RFT 26/15 construction tender for Bega Civic Centre Council Chamber fitout     

 

Selective tenders were called for the fit-out of the new Bega Civic Centre Council Chamber.  This report is prepared to advise Council of the outcome of the selective tender.

 

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Background

Council at its ordinary meeting of the 22 July 2015 considered the tender evaluation for RFT 26/15 Bega Civic Centre Council Chamber Fit-out at Zingel Place, Bega.    Council will recall that although publicly advertised and with 19 documents issued, no submissions were received.  As a consequence Council resolved as follows;

That Pursuant to Clause 178 (1) (b), of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (Acceptance of Tenders) Council accepts no tenders on the basis that no tenders were received.

That Pursuant to Clause 178 (3)(d), of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (Acceptance of Tenders) Council invite in accordance with section 169, fresh offers from Grant Dowdle Building Pty Ltd, David Lesser Building Pty Ltd, GJ & C Clarke Building Pty Ltd.

Accordingly, 3 tender documents were issued to the selected tenderers and at the close, all formal submission were assessed in accordance with the following criteria.

Criteria

Weighting

Project Value

50%

Project Experience

30%

Project Objective

15%

Local Community Benefit

5%

WH&S

Compliant/ Non-Compliant

Total

100%

Issues

Legal

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

Financial

 

Funding source

 

Amount

41270.4100.4105 Halls Infrastructure Renewal Buildings

$

$250,000.00

 

Resources (including staff)

Council Transport and Utilities Group staff will manage this project.

Conclusion

The tender process, in this instance has been unsatisfactory with little to no interest being received from local commercial building contractors.   It is also of some concern that when local contractors were directly approached and expressed an interest, Council’s support for a selective tender approach also proved to be troublesome.  Given the outcome of the assessment and the current construction program it is recommended Council adopted the proposed recommendation as detailed in the Confidential Memorandum attached.

 

Attachments

1.            Council Confidential Memo RFT 26_15 Construction tender for the Bega Civic Centre Council Chamber Fitout (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council accepts recommendations as outlined in the Confidential Attachment.

2.         That Council declines to accept any tenders in relation to contract for works as described in RFT26/15 as no tender received complied with the requirements of the tender documents nor offered acceptable value for this project.

3.         That Council not invite fresh tenders having already done so and that inviting of fresh tenders would unacceptably extend the time for commencement of the works.

4.         That Council enter into negotiations with <insert> for the fit out of the new Bega Civic Centre Chamber as this will provide Council with the most direct and cost effective project delivery.

5.         That authority be delegated to the General Manager to execute all necessary documentation following successful negotiation for RFT 26/15 Bega Civic Centre Council Chambers.

6.         That Councillors be notified of the outcome of the negotiations when finalised.

7.         That tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 11.6

 

11.6. Tender RFT 24/15 Civil & Landscape Works for Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place, Littleton gardens & adjacent      

 

This report details the outcomes of evaluation of Tender RFT 24/15 for the Civil and Landscape Works for the Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place and Littleton Gardens and recommends award to the preferred tenderer.

 

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Background

The next stages of the Littleton Gardens project known as Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5 includes the reconstruction of the carpark, extension of the urban design, renewal of Zingel Place and landscaping the forecourt area of the Council Administration Building and new Civic Centre.

At the ordinary Council meeting of the 10 June 2015 Council adopted the 2015/2016 Operational Plan and Budget which included the allocation of funding to complete all future stages of the Littleton Gardens Master Plan.

Accordingly, documentation was prepared and tenders invited from suitably qualified and experienced contractors for RFT 24/15 Civil and Landscape Works for Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place, Littleton Gardens and Adjacent.  Work does not include replacement of the public toilet (yet to be designed) nor to do electrical works (separate contract).

Tenders were advertised via TenderLink, the local media on the 1 July 2015, and the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 June 2015.  At the close on the 29 July 2015, 24 documents had been issued, with 2 submissions being received as follows:

1.   GDB Excavations and Landscaping

2.   R D Miller Pty Ltd

 

The tender submissions were assessed against the following evaluation criteria

Criteria

Weighting

Project Value

75%

Project Experience

10%

Project Functionality

10%

Local Community Benefit

5%

WH&S

Compliant/ Non-Compliant

Total

100%

 

 

Issues

Legal

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993.

Environmental

Review of Environmental Factors has been prepared for works in this area

Asset

Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place and Littleton Gardens are Council owned and/or controlled land.

Consultation

The approved plans for the Bega Civic Centre and Littleton Gardens Master Plan including Zingel Place are the result of a long period of public consultation

Financial

As per Council meeting 10 June 2015 adoption of 2015/2016 Operation Plan and Budget item 12.3 Operating Budget

Funding source

 

Amount

Operating Budget

$

2,000,000

Resources (including staff)

Council's Transport and Utilities Group staff will manage this project.

Conclusion

Public Tenders were called and Council received and assessed 2 acceptable Tenders.  It is recommended that the preferred tenderer be accepted as they have been assessed as providing the best overall value to Council.  The recommended Contractor is considered to be competent, experienced and suitability qualified to undertake the project works described in this contract.

 

 

Attachments

1.            Council Confidential Memo RFT 24.15 Civil & Landscape Works for Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place, Littleton Gardens & Adjacent (Confidential)

 

Recommendation

1.                  That Council accepts recommendations as outlined in the Confidential Attachment.

2.                  That Council accept the tender from <insert> in relation to contract for the works described in Tender RFT 24/15 Civil and Landscape Works for Bega Civic Centre, Zingel Place, Littleton Gardens and Adjacent, in the amount of  <insert>  (incl. GST), subject to variations and provisional sums.

3.                  That authority is delegated to the General Manager to execute all necessary                                documentation.

4.                  That the other tender be advised of Council’s decision.

  

 


Council

12 August 2015

 

Staff Reports –  Governance And Strategy (Leading Organisation)

 

12 August 2015

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Mawhinney.  

12.1            LGNSW Annual Conference 2015 Business Session Submission Draft Motion. 368


Council 12 August 2015

Item 12.1

 

12.1. LGNSW Annual Conference 2015 Business Session Submission Draft Motion     

 

The Local Government NSW annual conference will be held at the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse Sydney from Sunday 11 October 2015 until Tuesday 13 October 2015.

 

General Manager  

 

Background

The Local Government NSW Annual Conference will be held at the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse Sydney from Sunday 11 October until Tuesday 13 October 2015.  The program previous reported to Council.

Local Government NSW has advised Councils can submit proposed motions for the Business Paper for the Conference, and that such motions will be included where they:

1.         are consistent with the objects of the Association (see Rule 4 of the Association's rules)

2.         relate to Local Government in NSW and/or across Australia

3.         concern or are likely to concern Local Government as a sector

4.         seek to advance the Local Government policy agenda of the Association and/or improve governance of the Association

5.         have a lawful purpose (a motion does not have a lawful purpose if its implementation would require or encourage non-compliance with prevailing laws)

6.         are clearly worded and unambiguous in nature

7.         do not express preference for one or several members over one or several other members.

Motions must also be accompanied by evidence for example an extract from Council Minutes that Council has resolved to submit the Motion to the Local Government NSW Conference and be submitted by 24 August 2015.  Motions must be submitted in the recommended format.

Local Government NSW has advised this year the Conference will involve two types of voting.  The Association’s rules mean that two rolls of voters will be developed, one for voting in the elections for Office Bearers and the Board, and a separate roll of voters for voting on motions.  Bega Valley Shire Council is entitled to three delegates who will be able to vote on both Motions and Election of Office Bearers.

Conclusion

Draft recommendation submitted by Cr Britten.

Category

Economic

Heading or Title

Strategic motion on the provision of infrastructure and services for coastal councils

Details of Issue

Coastal councils are required to provide for infrastructure services including water and sewerage to allow for and accommodate peak demands created by the influx of tourist population which often increases the permanent population by up to 50% in any given year.  It is necessary in planning for the provision of these services that government takes the reality of this situation into account in providing and funding those services.

Motion or Proposed Solution

That the state government, its departments and agencies , when planning for services and infrastructure for coastal councils take into account in its planning and funding arrangements the need for coastal councils to accommodate peak demand requirements on its services and infrastructure created by the influx of tourist population

 

Attachments

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council resolve to approve and submit the above recommendation to be presented at the 2015 LGNSW Conference.

   

 


Council

12 August 2015

 

Staff Reports –  Finance (Leading Organisation)

 

12 August 2015

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Hughes.

13.1            Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993         371


Council 12 August 2015

Item 13.1

 

13.1. Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993     

 

Report details Council’s investments during the month of July 2015.

 

Group Manager Strategy and Business Services  

 

Background

Under the legislation and regulations mentioned below, the Responsible Accounting Officer must present to Council on a monthly basis the status of the investments held by Council. The Responsible Accounting Officer must detail the investments held, and their compliance with both internal policy and external regulation under the Ministerial Order of Investments.

In accordance with the recommendations made by the Office of Local Government (OLG) Investment Policy Guidelines published in May 2010, the Strategy and Business Services section has made the monthly Investments Report an attachment to the Business Paper. This allows a stand-alone report to be published on Council’s website for the public to view without having to peruse the Council’s Agenda for the relevant meeting.

Issues

Legal

Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) determines money may only be invested in a type of investment authorised by order of the Minister for Local Government and published in the Local Government Gazette. The most recent Ministerial Order of Investment was published February 17, 2011.

Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 determines the Responsible Accounting Officer must provide Council with a written report setting out details of all money Council has invested under section 625 of the Act.

The report must also include a Certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and the Council’s Investment Policy.

Policy

Council has an Investment Policy published under policy number 5.07. This Policy is reviewed every 4 years by Council and annually by Council staff.

Council’s current Policy allows for investment of funds in cash term deposits only with rated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s). Council does not hold any investments in sub-prime or managed fund products. At this time, Council holds no long term deposits nor any deposits introduced through an agent.

Financial

The attached report indicates a current investment portfolio of $48,000,000.
These funds can be broken into the following Funds:

Table 1: Investments by Fund

Funding source

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

General Fund

$19,004,000

$21,004,000

$16,004,000

Water Fund

$16,796,000

$16,796,000

$16,796,000

Sewer Fund

$15,200,000

$15,200,000

$15,200,000

In addition, there is $2,268,600 in uninvested funds in Council’s operating account.

8 Each fund’s allocation can only be utilised on its specific operations. For example, Water Fund cannot use its financial resources on General Fund projects, etc.

8 Externally Restricted is defined by purposes that are “restricted” by external legislation or regulations, such as unspent grants or loans tied to a specific project, or development contributions held for expenditure in accord with an adopted s94/s64 contributions plan.

8 Internally Restricted is defined by “restrictions” placed upon the use of these funds by Council internally, such as asset replacement, weeds, property, employee entitlements and the like.

8 Unrestricted funds are available for day to day operational uses, or emergencies. Those funds are reviewed daily for short term investment, depending on revenue cycles such as rates instalments.

Table 2: Restricted Cash and Investment by Fund

Funding source

External Restrictions ‘000

Internal Restrictions ‘000

Unrestricted ‘000

Total

‘000

General Fund

$9,528

$10,264

-$1,520

$18,272

Water Fund

$5,099

$11,697

 

$16,796

Sewer Fund

$3,255

$11,945

 

$15,200

The restrictions reported in Table 2 relate to 30 June 2014.

Council formally calculates its Restrictions as at 30 June each year. These Restrictions are not reset until the following year Financial Audit. Any movement of funds during the year, is therefore, shown as movement in unrestricted cash.

You will notice a negative unrestricted balance this is due to year end financials not being audited yet. There have been expenditures between July and year to date that will result in reduced restrictions (for example transfers from reserves to fund capital works), but is not reflected in the above table.

Please also note that due to the timing of the report, the report has been prepared at 29th of July and does not reflect the true balances as at month end.

 

Attachments

1.            2015.08.12 ATTACHMENT certificate of investment

 

Recommendation

1.         That Council receive and note the attached report indicating Council’s Investment position.

2.         That Council note the Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 13.1 - Attachment 1

2015.08.12 ATTACHMENT certificate of investment

 


 

     


Council

12 August 2015

 

 

Questions On Notice

 

12 August 2015

 

19.1            Lucas Brothers Memorial.................................................................................. 377

19.2            Potential uses - Tura Beach Library Lower Level.............................................. 379


Council 12 August 2015

Item 19.1

 

19.1. Lucas Brothers Memorial     

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 29 April 2015, Cr McBain requested a report to Council regarding a proposed memorial for the Lucas family.

The question was taken on notice by the Group Manager, Community, Relations and Leisure.

 

General Manager  

 

Interim update

This is an interim response to the Question on Notice to provide Council with an update on Officers investigations regarding a memorial for the Lucas brothers.

The article referenced in the Council Meeting and provided to Officers was originally contained in the ANZAC Day brochure distributed by the Member for Bega, Mr Andrew Constance MP. See attachment.

Officers have met with Guy Lucas, son of one of the nine Lucas brothers. The family believe this is the most number of sons any Australian family sent to world war one. The family have previously spoken to the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and Guy has also spoken with Rotary. Guy has indicated he will speak with the RSL to ascertain their interest in the story.

The family are seeking support for the development of a memorial (a statue type of a typical Australian Solider) with possibly the story included as part of the memorial. The costs are yet to be confirmed.

There is a lot more information to collect and stakeholders to consult before a full report can be provided to Council. Officers will continue to work on the matter and present a report at a future Council meeting.

 

Attachments

1.            Lucas Family - Brothers in Arms

 


Council

12 August 2015

Item 19.1 - Attachment 1

Lucas Family - Brothers in Arms

 


Council 12 August 2015

Item 19.2

 

19.2. Potential uses - Tura Beach Library Lower Level     

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 22 July 2015, Cr McBain requested information to be provided to Councillors in relation to possible uses for the downstairs area of the Tura Beach Library Building.

The question was taken on notice by the Acting Group Manager Community, Relations & Leisure.

 

Group Manager Transport and Utilities  

 

Tura Beach Library

The old Tura Tavern consisted of two levels; the upper level that housed the main public areas of the business and the lower area that housed the storage and amenity areas.

Under the current plans and development application consent, only the upper level is being modified to be converted into a library, community meeting spaces and exhibition spaces. This essentially related to available funds for the project. There is no current budget allocation or development consent for renovations to the lower section. Work would need to be done to ensure compliance with current Building Code requirements.

The lower level is approx. 300 sqm. This space is distributed through a number of different rooms. As it previously housed storage facilities, as well as a child minding space it would need some modifications to be fit for use. The ceiling height is considerably lower than the upper level. Toilets are available in the lower area.

During the planning phases for the current plans there was discussion about a range of potential uses for the lower level including the use as office accommodation for community services programs. Depending on community need and available resources the lower could be used for a range of purposes including, but not limited to:

·    Community space for meetings, training/education, rehearsals, indoor physical activities (martial arts, dance etc.) or other activities;

·    Arts work space and/or training centre (existing wet areas that may be able to be converted); or

·    Storage space (Council currently has a need for more dedicated storage space).

Further work would need to be undertaken to determine how the floor plan could be modified to accommodate potential uses and comply with Building Code requirements. Officers also strongly recommend that any such work does not interfere with the current development consent or plans.

 

Attachments

1.            Tura Beach Tavern - Lower Level Floor Plan (Councillor Only) (Confidential)