Agenda of Council - 15 March 2017

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 1993 and Office 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 1993 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

* Note: Under the provisions of Section 451(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (pecuniary interests) and Part 4 of the Model Code of Conduct prescribed by the Local Government (Discipline) Regulation (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

15 March 2017

Agenda

Statement of Commencement of Live Streaming

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners of Bega Valley Shire

1 Apologies and requests for leave of absence

2 Confirmation Of Minutes

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 22 February 2017 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.

3 Declarations

Pecuniary, Non-Pecuniary and Political Donation Disclosures to be declared and tabled. Declarations also to be prior to discussion on each item.

4 Deputations (by prior arrangement)

4.1 Salvestro Development Pty Ltd regarding Item 8.1 Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision - Lot 172 DP 1189258 - 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula Subdivision DA 2016.293.................. 9

5 Petitions

6 Mayoral Minutes

6.1 Council support for 'No balloon release'.................................................................................... 11

7 Urgent Business

8 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.

9 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 Seckold.

9.1 Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision - Lot 172 DP 1189258 - 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula....................................................................................................................................................... 19

9.2 Replacement signage of petrol pricing advertising sign - 39 Quondola Street, Pambula.. 64

9.3 Request for support to extend funding to NCCARF.................................................................. 72

10 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 Griff.

10.1 Former Community Health Building - Bemboka........................................................................ 78

11 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 Nadin.

11.1 Licence Agreement to Bega Valley Bridge Club........................................................................ 96

11.2 Bega Pioneers' Museum............................................................................................................. 105

12 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 Fitzpatrick.

12.1 RFT 1402152 Merimbula Ocean Outfall Consultancy for Environmental Impact Assessment and Concept Design......................................................................................................................................... 130

12.2 Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study Final Findings.................................................. 152

12.3 West Pambula Sewerage Infrastructure.................................................................................. 287

12.4 Tathra Wharf Condition Assessment......................................................................................... 289

12.5 Tender 117/16 for the Merimbula Airport Airside Infrastructure Consultancy............... 293

12.6 Tender 02/17 for the Merimbula Airport Terminal Extension Consultancy...................... 296

12.7 Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee......................................................................................... 299

12.8 Purchase of replacement equipment for the Works Sealed Road Maintenance Program, Plant number 341101....................................................................................................................................... 302

13 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 Tapscott.

13.1 Community Service Medallions - Appointment of Committee Members........................... 306

14 Staff Reports – Finance (Leading Organisation)

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

14.1 Certificate of Investments made under Section 625 of the Local Government Act, 1993 309

15 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.

16 Delegates Reports

16.1 Canberra Regions Joint Organisation Meeting 17 February 2017....................................... 314

17 Rescission/alteration Motions

18 Notices of Motion

18.1 Investigation into provision of reticulated water to Council owned or managed sporting facilities..................................................................................................................................................... 316

19 Questions On Notice

19.1 Costs of a hard waste collection run ........................................................................................ 318

20 Questions for the Next Meeting

21 Confidential Business

Representations by members of the public regarding closure of part of meeting

Adjournment Into Closed Session, exclusion of the media and public......................... 319

21.1 Water Treatment Facility Proposal at South Bega

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Statement of Cessation of Live Streaming for the period of the Closed Session.

Statement of Re-Commencement of Live Streaming

22 Adoption of reports from Closed Session

23 Resolutions to declassify reports considered in closed session

Council 15 March 2017

Item 9.1

9.1. DA No. 2016.293: Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision - Lot 172 DP 1189258 - 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula

Director Planning and Environment

Applicant	Salvestro Developments c/- Dabyne Planning Pty Ltd
Owner	Kirsty Cleverley
Site	Lot 172 DP 1189258, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula
Zone	R3 Medium Density
Site area	1,364m²
Proposed development	Detached Dual Occupancy and Strata Subdivision

Precis

Council is in receipt of a Development Application (DA) for the erection of a detached dual occupancy at 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula.

Council officers have assessed the proposal and conclude that the development would have adverse and unacceptable impacts on an adjoining property and as such the development is recommended for refusal.

The DA generated a total of 17 submissions during the public exhibition process.

Background

The DA as originally lodged with Council, sought approval for the creation of a multi-unit development comprising two, 3 bedroom dwellings and two, 1 bedroom units within 2 separate buildings, with a detached two space carport.

In assessing the proposal, Council officers concluded the construction of four units on the site could not comply with the relevant provisions of Council’s adopted Development Control Plan.

Additional information was also requested from the applicant to detail the potential impact that overshadowing from the development would have on adjoining allotments, as the initial shadow diagrams detailed no overshadowing.

On 27 September 2016, the applicant amended the plans to a detached dual occupancy comprising two, 4 bedroom dwellings and a separate 2 space carport. The overall design of the development including floor layout, building heights, facades and setbacks were not changed from the original plans. The applicant provided revised shadow diagrams for the development.

On 8 November 2016, the applicant provided revised plans providing an increase to the setback of both dwellings to the southern boundary by 1.5 metres with a 4.33 metre setback for Unit 1 and a 4 metre setback for Unit 2. The revised plans also deleted the two carparking spaces located at the front of each dwelling. The overall design of the development, including floor layout, building heights and facades, except for the deletion of one verandah from proposed Unit 2 remained substantially the same. The applicant also provided revised shadow diagrams for the development.

Description of the proposal

The revised DA currently before Council seeks approval for the erection of a detached dual occupancy. Both dwellings are similar in design, being two storeys, with similar layouts and facades and comprising 4 bedrooms each. At the rear of the site, a separate two space carport is proposed.

The development would require additional cut and fill to cater for the development and the buildings would be strata subdivided upon completion.

The development plans are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

Description of the site

The site is described as Lot 172 DP 1189258 and is located at 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula approximately 1.4 kilometres west of the Merimbula town centre. The allotment is 1,364m² in area, battle-axe in shape, with access via a 3 metre wide concrete driveway off Lakewood Drive.

The land is undulating in topography, with the land modified from previous cut and fills and includes a timber retaining wall located along the southern boundary. The rear of the lot slopes up and retains three large trees and some undergrowth.

A Council maintained drainage reserve runs along the south eastern boundary of the site. The site is located within an established residential area, and is surrounded by allotments which accommodate single dwellings that are either single or two storey in design, placed on allotments ranging in area from 836m² through to 1,260m². The existing character of the area is regarded as low density.

A locality plan is provided as Attachment 2.

Planning assessment

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Staff highlight the key issues of the proposal in this report for Council’s consideration.

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

Zoning

The land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and Detached Dual Occupancy developments are permissible in the zone subject to Development Consent.

The objectives of the R3 zone are as follows;

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

In assessing the DA, Council officers conclude the development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

Issues

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

Compliance with plans and policies

The plans submitted to Council have been assessed in accordance with all relevant provisions under Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013) and Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 (BVDCP 2013).

The development complies with the maximum building height and floor space ratio specified for the site under BVLEP 2013, and complies with the minimum setbacks, parking and design requirements provided under BVDCP 2013, with the exception of two key assessment areas – overshadowing and privacy.

BVDCP 2013 requires the Consent Authority to have consideration to the impact developments may have on adjoining premises. In this regard, Council officer assessment has identified there would be an adverse and unacceptable impact associated with overshadowing and loss of privacy for an adjoining premises. These concerns were also raised in submissions. Both matters are discussed in more detail below.

Overshadowing

The applicant was asked for revised shadow diagrams as the originals submitted with the DA did not detail any overshadowing on the adjoining allotment located at 5 Salmon Court. Revised shadow diagrams where provided on 27 September 2016 and 8 November 2016. Unfortunately the plans still did not accurately locate the dwelling on 5 Salmon Court in relation to the proposed development, provide any contours beyond the subject site, nor provide shadow effects from the existing fence lines or the dwelling itself located at 5 Salmon Court.

The applicant provided additional comments on the effect overshadowing would have on the premises at 5 Salmon Court. The applicant submits that “the main open space for the dwelling is the balcony located on the southern side of the dwelling as it is directly accessible from the living areas. This balcony would not be overshadowed by the development……. The paved area located to the north east of the dwelling cannot be considered the principle private open space as it is underutilised and is not directly adjacent to the living area of the dwelling, being connected by a balcony on a lower level.”

The applicant identified the paved area located to the north east of the dwelling has an area of 47m² and undertook a calculation of the percentages of additional area to be overshadowed by the development. The applicant identified the paved area located to the north east would be impacted upon with this area losing anywhere from 0% up to 45% of sunlight, taking into consideration the existing vegetation on-site, the intervening fence line and the house itself located at 5 Salmon Court.

The applicant also provided additional overshadowing information detailing the impact that existing trees located on-site have on 5 Salmon Court. It was submitted these trees would be removed and therefore would reduce overshadowing on 5 Salmon Court during the morning period.

The impact of the existing trees was considered by Council officers in analysing existing site conditions. Generally, having considerations of the established Planning Principle set by the Land and Environment Court in relation to overshadowing, shadows cast by vegetation should be ignored, except where that vegetation can be taken into account in a qualitative way (for example – where dense hedges appear like a solid fence).

The trees to be removed from the site are three Eucalypts, and their vegetation is not considered dense like a hedge that appears like a solid fence, and therefore their effect of overshadowing is not considered significant and is discounted from this assessment.

Council’s assessing officer raised concerns in relation to the overshadowing calculations, as the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show erroneous diagrams and do not provide contours over 5 Salmon Court sufficient to provide the definitive extent of shadow effects by the proposed buildings nor do they include the full extent of the paved area at 5 Salmon Court.

During the assessment on the revised shadow diagrams, Council’s assessing officer prepared scaled plans detailing a more representative location of the dwelling at 5 Salmon Court. A copy of the assessing officer’s overshadowing assessment is provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

The revised plans detail the extent of overshadowing affecting the rear of 5 Salmon Court by the proposed development and show there would be a significant impact to what is considered the principle open space afforded the residence at 5 Salmon Court during the winter period. This private open space area is a level area north east of the dwelling that is paved and utilised by its occupants. The assessment also identified that the remaining level area at the rear of the dwelling would also be significantly impacted during the winter period.

The dwelling located at 5 Salmon Court was built in 1998, with the balcony being added onto the house in 2013. The use of the balcony as a private open space area during the winter period would be significantly limited as this area is overshadowed by the dwelling itself.

The space containing the paved area is located from stairs off the front balcony with a total area calculated at 50m², consistent with the provisions of private open space requirements detailed under BVDCP 2013. The remaining level ground at the rear of the dwelling (which also contains the dwelling’s clothes drying area) totals 206m² in area.

The proposed development as a whole would overshadow more than 48% of the rear of the dwelling at 5 Salmon Court throughout the day (in winter). The identified Private Open Space area (located to the north east of the No. 5 Salmon Court dwelling) would be overshadowed by between 20% and 92% by the proposed development. These percentages would increase when considering the shadow effect of the existing dwelling itself and the intervening fence line.

The impact of overshadowing is considered unreasonable as the Private Open Space at 5 Salmon Court would be overshadowed by more than 20% of its total 50m² area between the hours of 9am to 3pm on June 21. The shadow diagram also detailed the private open space cannot be relocated without also being affected by overshadowing from the proposed development.

BVDCP 2013 states that “a design will be amended where a minor change would significantly reduce the impact on overshadowing and an alternative design is practical”. The applicant had modified the plans once by increasing the setback to the southern boundary by 1.5 metres. A review of the shadow diagram provided minimal improvement to the loss of overshadowing of the development from the original plans submitted.

It is considered the design of the development could be further modified to reduce the impacts of overshadowing on 5 Salmon Court. The applicant could modify the building footprint, creating a greater setback for the eastern section of each dwelling to the southern boundary and subsequently reducing the impact of overshadowing on the adjoining residence.

The DA was also assessed in accordance with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle relating to this issue. One of the points detailed in the Planning Principle is that “Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.”

The design of the dual occupancy could be more sensitive, especially having regard to the design, positioning and layout for proposed Unit 2. Redesign of the building footprint would not only reduce overshadowing, but also mitigate impacts associated with loss of privacy for the dwelling at 5 Salmon Court.

Privacy

Concerns were raised in submissions regarding the impact the development would have on adjoining properties through the loss of privacy. In assessing the impact of loss of privacy for the residence at 5 Salmon Court to its Private Open Space, the DA was assessed in accordance with the provisions detailed in the BVDCP and also the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle relating to this issue.

The site is battle-axe in shape, with the area for a building envelope narrow and elongated. The main views afforded from the site are to the south west towards Merimbula Lake over adjoining residential properties.

The residence at 5 Salmon Court has private open space on the front balcony which has been a recent addition to the dwelling and a level open space located to the north east of the dwelling that is paved and achieves good solar access for its occupants with connection from the front balcony that is directly off the main living areas.

It is considered the design of the dual occupancy, particularly the position and design of proposed Unit 2, would impact on the privacy of the residence located at 5 Salmon Court.

The design of the dual occupancy provides for all balconies and verandahs being placed on the southern façade of each dwelling facing the private open space for 5 Salmon Court. It is acknowledged the revised plans submitted by the applicant on the 8 November 2016 did provide an increase in setback to the southern boundary by 1.5 metres and the deletion of one verandah for proposed Unit 2.

The ground floor of each proposed dwelling would be above the existing ground level and would commence at the top height of the intervening fence line with 5 Salmon Court (with a setback of verandahs and balconies to the fenceline of 4.33 metres and 4 metres respectively). The rear verandahs and balcony from Unit 2 would look directly into and over the Private Open Space for 5 Salmon Court.

No vegetation or the use of privacy screens could be considered without further impacting on the residence at 5 Salmon Court with further reduction in solar access.

The Land and Environment Court Planning Principle for Privacy provides that when visual privacy is referred to in the context of residential design, it means the freedom of one dwelling and its private open space from being overlooked by another dwelling and its private open space. Council’s planning instrument and development control plans acknowledges the need for privacy, but leave it to be assessed qualitatively.

The following principles were used to assist in the assessment of this DA.

· The ease with which privacy can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low-densities there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its private open space will remain private. At high-densities it is more difficult to protect privacy.

· Privacy can be achieved by separation. The required distance depends upon density and whether windows are at the same level and directly facing each other. Privacy is hardest to achieve in developments that face each other at the same level. Even in high-density development it is unacceptable to have windows at the same level close to each other. Conversely, in a low-density area, the objective should be to achieve separation between windows that exceed the numerical standards above. (Objectives are, of course, not always achievable.)

· The use of a space determines the importance of its privacy. Within a dwelling, the privacy of living areas, including kitchens, is more important than that of bedrooms. Conversely, overlooking from a living area is more objectionable than overlooking from a bedroom where people tend to spend less waking time.

· Overlooking of neighbours that arises out of poor design is not acceptable. A poor design is demonstrated where an alternative design, that provides the same amenity to the applicant at no additional cost, has a reduced impact on privacy.

· Where the whole or most of a private open space cannot be protected from overlooking, the part adjoining the living area of a dwelling should be given the highest level of protection.

· Apart from adequate separation, the most effective way to protect privacy is by the skewed arrangement of windows and the use of devices such as fixed louvres, high and/or deep sills and planter boxes. The use of obscure glass and privacy screens, while sometimes being the only solution, is less desirable.

· Landscaping should not be relied on as the sole protection against overlooking. While existing dense vegetation within a development is valuable, planting proposed in a landscaping plan should be given little weight.

· In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites, as well as the existing development, should be considered.

The surrounding allotments retain single dwellings that are either single or two storey in design, placed on allotments ranging in area from 836m² through to 1,260m². The existing character of the area is regarded as low density. Whilst the site and adjoining allotments are zoned R3 Medium Density, the age of existing dwellings, their positioning and topography would make any additional dwellings on those allotments to create higher densities, difficult.

The location of both proposed dwellings would be situated on land already modified by cut and fill, with further fill proposed for the erection of proposed Unit 2, lifting the height of the building to above the intervening fenceline height.

It is considered the design of the dual occupancy, particularly the positioning of verandahs and balcony of Unit 2, would adversely impact on the privacy of the private open space afforded the residence located at 5 Salmon Court.

It is considered a redesign could be achieved. A more sensitive design for both dwellings is possible by moving the footprint for half of each dwelling further forward and away from the southern boundary.

To mitigate concerns relating to privacy further, a redesign should be considered by removing the ground floor verandahs from proposed Unit 2 and the eastern lower verandah from Unit 1. It is considered these changes would reduce privacy impacts on the private open space at 5 Salmon Court without substantial additional cost.

Restrictive covenant

The subject land retains a restrictive covenant on title in favour of Bega Valley Shire Council. The restriction on the use is in regard to habitable buildings not being constructed within the area designated (D) on the Deposited Plan, being an area 20 meters from the eastern boundary. The restriction was created when the land was first subdivided to mitigate bushfire risk on the site for future residences.

Under the restriction, Bega Valley Shire Council has the power to remove or modify the restriction.

The applicant has requested the restriction as to User be Modified, as the application seeks approval to build within the area designated (D). The DA was accompanied with a Bushfire Report, detailing bushfire risk and what works would be necessary to protect the buildings. The DA was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for comment. The NSW Rural Fire Service reviewed the DA and provided a Section 100B authority, granting consent to the proposed development subject to conditions.

It is considered reasonable the Restriction as to User in Favour of Council be removed from the title of the land. The applicant’s Bushfire Report has adequately addressed the potential bushfire risk to the site and the NSW Rural Fire Service has provided its approval to ensure the development would comply with the Planning for Bushfire Guidelines 2006.

Community engagement and/or consultation

The DA was integrated development with the NSW Rural Fire Service providing their Section 100B Authority on the revised building plans on 13 January 2017.

The DA was placed on public exhibition for a period of 14 days from 27 July 2016 until 10 August 2016. A total of 17 submissions were received in relation to the development. All submissions objected to the proposal and were submitted prior to the application being amended to a detached dual occupancy.

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.

Height/Sunlight/Health – Concerns were raised in respect to the overall design of the development, in particular the height of the buildings with the potential to overshadow adjoining private open space and living areas within dwellings. Submissions also detailed that overshadowing could lead to health risks through increased mould growth.

Comment: The assessment of the DA has identified that the development would create overshadowing on the rear yard and private open space for the residence at 5 Salmon Court. An inspection identified the residence at 5 Salmon Court includes a level paved area that is utilised by the occupants with good solar access.

Discussions held with the resident at 5 Salmon Court identified their main concerns relate to the location and design of proposed Unit 2. The dwelling will be built up with additional fill material being utilised to lift the ground floor level higher above natural ground level.

Council officers concur that the resulting overshadowing impacts on 5 Salmon Court are unacceptable for the reasons outlined in this report.

Carparking/driveway/traffic – Concerns were raised with the lack of parking located on-site, especially concerning the site’s ability to accommodate potential visitors and also the potential need for boat/tailer parking. Concerns were raised with the potential for overflow parking to occur in Lakewood Drive in front of adjoining dwellings. Concerns were raised with the amount of noise associated with the number of vehicle movements that this many cars may generate, in terms of traffic along the driveway, in the street, and on the property itself. Concerns were raised that the additional traffic could be a danger to school children by the additional traffic entering and exiting the site on Lakewood Drive.

Comment: The DA was amended from 4 units down to two, 4 bedroom dwellings. The development could not originally demonstrate adequate carparking on-site for the 4 dwellings, however, the amendment down to two dwellings now complies with the provisions of DCP 2013 which requires one space per dwelling.

The access handle from Lakewood Drive is 3.5 metre wide, with an existing 3 metre wide concrete driveway. It is considered the driveway can suitably cater for the traffic two dwellings would generate.

Privacy – Concerns were raised with the loss of privacy generated by the development. The loss of privacy would be due to windows/balconies facing adjoining private open space and windows on adjoining residences and from vehicles looking into windows with the driveway adjacent to dwellings

Comment: The design of each dwelling has orientated verandahs and balconies to the southern facades and would overlook directly into the private open space at 5 Salmon Court. The applicant has amended the plans by deleting one verandah for Unit 2.

The assessment has identified that proposed Unit 1 would generally have a minimal impact on the privacy of 5 Salmon Court, if the ground level eastern verandah on the southern façade for Unit 1 was removed to protect the privacy for 5 Salmon Court (given that its location and orientation looks directly into the rear of 5 Salmon Court).

Proposed Unit 2 is considered to have the most significant impact to the privacy for the residents at 5 Salmon Court. The positioning of the building has the verandah and balcony located to the north east of the dwelling at 5 Salmon Court, with views directly into the rear private open space. The removal of the rear verandah would mitigate privacy impacts. Further, a relocation of the balconies for both dwellings to the western facades would not only provide additional solar access to them, but would still retain views back to north west towards Merimbula Lake.

Adjoining residential land uses – Submissions raised concerns that 4 dwellings on one lot is out of character with the existing residential area that is predominately comprised of single dwellings.

Comment: The DA was modified to reduce the development to a detached dual occupancy comprising two, 4 bedroom dwellings. It is considered the amendment is consistent with developments within the Lakewood Drive area where dual occupancies have been integrated within the relatively low density single dwelling residential development.

The integration of dual occupancy dwellings into the surrounding area have been undertaken having due regard to site constraints and the protection of solar access, privacy and views. A redesign of the development would provide a development that is more in keeping with the existing residential character of the area.

Stormwater – Concerns were raised having regard to additional stormwater being generated due to additional hard stand areas and affecting adjoining properties.

Comment: The site abuts a Council drainage reserve located along its south eastern boundary. It is considered any additional stormwater generated by the development could be adequately addressed within that drainage reserve.

Overdevelopment of the site – Submissions indicated that the lack of parking, traffic generation and other issues will give rise to an overdevelopment of the site. A submission detailed that the proposal would set a precedence for future developments…this type of planning has destroyed quality neighbourhoods in the past and building multiple dwellings on such a small and restricted block will only cause frustration and congestion to the surrounding properties and environment.

Comment: The land is zoned Medium Density Residential and the design of the development as a detached dual occupancy is consistent with the zone provisions. However, the development is still considered an overdevelopment for the site in terms of the design impacts associated with overshadowing and loss of privacy for the residents at 5 Salmon Court.

Devaluation of adjoining properties - Submissions identified that the development may have a detrimental effect on property values.

Comment: The impact on property values as a result of the development is not a matter for Council in its planning Consent Authority role.

Conclusion

The DA is being recommended for refusal due to the impact the proposal would have through the overshadowing and loss of privacy for the residence located at 5 Salmon Court.

The issues raised in the objections have been assessed by Council officers and the matters relating to overshadowing and loss of privacy on 5 Salmon Court are considered relevant in the assessment of this DA.

Whilst it is acknowledged the applicant has made a number of amendments to the design of the DA, the resulting design of the development would have unacceptable adverse impacts on the adjoining residence.

The assessment of the DA identified the design of the development, particularly that of proposed Unit 2, could be suitably amended to mitigate the impacts of overshadowing and loss of privacy. The applicant has requested the matter be determined based on the plans as submitted and therefore Council officers recommend the DA be refused.

Attachments

1. Proposed development plans

2. Locality plan

3 . Council revised shadow diagram

Recommendation

1. That the Development Application 2016.293 for the erection of a detached dual occupancy and carport on Lot 172 DP 1189258, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula be refused for the following reasons:

a. The development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 3.2.2.3 of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 in terms of maintaining adequate solar access to principle private open space areas of the adjoining residence.

b. The development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 3.2.2.1 of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 as the development design does not affordable adequate and reasonable privacy to the adjoining residence.

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

Council 15 March 2017

Item 9.2

9.2. DA No. 2016.505: Replacement signage of petrol pricing advertising sign - 39 Quondola Street, Pambula

Director Planning and Environment

Applicant	SHA Premier Constructions
Owner	Retast Pty Ltd & Mottisfont Pty Ltd
Site	Lot 1 Section 33 DP 758825 - 39 Quondola Street, Pambula
Zone	B2 Local Centre
Site area	2,023sqm
Proposed development	Replacement Signage – Petrol Pricing Advertising Sign

Precis

Council is in receipt of a Development Application (DA) for replacement signage (a petrol pricing advertising sign).

In assessing the DA, Council officers have concluded the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP) and Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 (BVDCP), as the development does not conserve the heritage significance of the designated Heritage Conservation Area.

The DA is recommended for refusal.

Background

The service station at 39 Quondola Street Pambula was previously operated by Shell until United Petroleum acquired the business in 2012. Some external alterations to the existing building were undertaken along with the replacement of the existing Shell signage (which included an illuminated pole sign and an unilluminated petrol pricing sign) with an illuminated United Petroleum petrol pricing sign.

At that time, Council's Exempt and Complying DCP 4 (now repealed) permitted the replacement of messages on existing signage structures; however the changes did not meet the provisions of DCP 4 and subsequently required Development Consent. The painting of the canopy façade also required approval (due to the site being located in a draft Heritage Conservation Area under the then exhibited Draft BVLEP 2010).

The owner was contacted and was asked to submit a DA to regularise the signage (which was assessed under DA 2013.156). This DA was refused on the basis that the proposed illuminated signage was contrary to the aims and objectives of DCP No. 39 Pambula Village (as applied at the time), and was considered contrary to the objectives of heritage provisions in the Draft BVLEP 2010.

The illuminated sign was subsequently removed and replaced with an unilluminated sign of similar design (as presently exists on the site). The painting of the building in the corporate colours of red/blue to the canopy façade was not approved. This remains as a compliance matter.

The subject of the DA currently before Council is for a replacement sign proposing an illuminated sign of similar design to the one proposed (and refused) in the previous DA; with the exception this sign is to be fitted with light sensors to control the level of illumination.

The applicant has been encouraged to consider amending the DA to remove the use of corporate colours from the background of the sign and use this as an opportunity to regularise the painting of the canopy façade by removing the corporate colours (red/blue) and repainting it to match the existing building.

The applicant has declined to amend the proposal and seeks determination of the DA before Council.

Description of the proposal

The proposal is for a replacement petrol pricing advertising sign. The proposed dimensions for the sign are 2.7m high, 1.45m wide and 0.33m deep. The sign has been designed with the United Petroleum logo at the top and petrol pricing underneath and is to be internally illuminated by LED technology and fitted with light sensors that adjust the level of illumination, based on the level of available daylight.

The design proposes to use United Petroleum corporate colours being red, blue and white.

A copy of the development plans are provided as Attachment 1.

Description of the site

The site is 2,023sqm in area and is located of the corner of Quondola and Bullara Streets, Pambula. The site contains an existing service station currently operated by United Petroleum.

Adjoining the site is a hotel and liquor outlet to the north and a commercial premises to the east. Adjacent is a bulky goods premises (furniture store) to the south (along Bullara Street), and the Anglican Church along Quondola Street, to the west.

The site is located at the southern entrance of the main street Heritage Conservation Area and is within close proximity to a number of heritage listed items including the Anglican Church, Covingtons Retreat building and a number of retail buildings, located within 100m located along Quondola Street.

Figure 1 Aerial photo of the subject site

Planning assessment

The DA has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Council officers highlight the key issues of the DA 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 B2 Local Centre under BVLEP 2013 and ‘signage’ is a permissible land use in the zone with Development Consent.

The objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone are as follows:

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area

• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations

• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling

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

• To minimise conflict between land uses on land in the zone and land uses on land in adjoining zones

• To strengthen the viability of existing business centres as places for investment, employment and cultural activity.

In assessing the DA, Council officers concluded the development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone.

Issues

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

Desired Future Character of Pambula

The BVDCP 2013 establishes desired future character statements for each of its towns and villages. Pambula’s desired future character statement reads as follows;

“Pambula’s local heritage significance is conserved by protecting heritage items and ensuring that future development does not detract from the heritage character of the town… The management of the town's streetscapes is consistent with the town's historic character, and the management of the town's perimeter and setting is consistent with its historic and aesthetic values… Future business development is in keeping with the heritage character of Pambula, in particular, development in the commercial area of Quondola and parts of Toallo Street will strongly reflect the existing distinctive heritage character in the streets.”

The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage also set objectives and considerations when assessing proposals for advertising signage. Council officers consider the proposed replacement signage would be inconsistent with those objectives, as the resulting development would not be compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the conservation area.

The proposal would detract from the value of the nearby heritage items, considering their existing setting and relationship to the streetscape.

It is also concluded the proposal is not compatible with the specific desired future character of Precinct 1 Main Street Commercial area, as specified by BVDCP 2013.

BVDCP 2013 identifies precinct specific objectives for the Pambula town centre. Clause 2.5.3 identifies the following objective;

“The historical character of the main and adjacent streets and the contributory and individual significance of the individual heritage items within it is conserved, development in the vicinity of buildings with historical importance is in harmony with the form and scale of those buildings, and the location of retailing, office space, and other commercial enterprises which service local, regional and tourism needs is encouraged.”

The development site is prominent, being located at the southern entrance of the Pambula Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed illuminated sign is 2.7m high, with bright blue colouring and the United Petroleum logo along the top of the sign. The use of the bright red/blue colours on the proposed sign is compounded by the use of the same colours on the existing building. This would result in a visually dominant element within the streetscape.

It is considered the proposal is inconsistent with the current and desired future character of the Pambula main street precinct.

Heritage Conservation Area

Whilst the subject site does not contain a listed heritage Item; it is located within the vicinity of a number of heritage items along Quondola Street (being to the north and west). As mentioned previously, the subject site is also located within the Heritage Conservation Area, on the corner of Quondola and Bullara Streets (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Map of current Heritage Conservation Area in relation to the subject site

Clause 5.10(4) of BVLEP 2013 states that before granting consent to a development within a heritage conservation area, the Consent Authority must “consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned”.

Further, Objective 1(b) of Clause 5.10 is “to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views”. It is the consideration of the setting and views to the subject site that is of most concern in relation to this development proposal.

The proposed replacement signage would detract from the amenity and character of the Heritage Conservation Area, adversely impacting upon the setting and views enjoyed by the public when approaching the Pambula main shopping district.

As previously stated, the proposed use of bright corporate branding colours (red/blue) is considered to be inappropriate for this location, as it would result in a visually dominant element within the streetscape.

Streetscape and Amenity

The established and desired character of the precinct is also important when considering the resulting impact of the proposal on streetscape character and amenity.

Clause 2.5.4.1 of BVDCP 2013 details the assessment criteria for development with the main street precinct of Pambula. Developments in this precinct must not be visually dominant in the streetscape and must adopt a palette of materials that is evident elsewhere in the street.

Clause 5.11.1.1 of the BVDCP 2013 also specifies requirements for signage and advertising in terms of amenity considerations. In determining any DA for signage and advertising, the Consent Authority must have consideration to the following requirements;

· Signage must be planned and integrated to avoid the appearance of clutter, add-ons and afterthoughts

· Materials, colours and placement of signage must be compatible with the existing building and streetscape

· The use of corporate colours as advertising will be limited to an appropriate section of a building façade and not dominate the streetscape.

· Colour schemes are to be compatible with the character of the adjoining and nearby buildings in the surrounding area.

As previously stated, the use of the bright blue coloured background is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings, nor common colour themes within the Heritage Conservation Area. The historic built form evident in the main street has a common background colour theme of neutrals and cream, which is in contrast to the proposed corporate branding primary colour blue. The proposed colour palette is considered unsympathetic to and inconsistent with the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Area.

Whilst there are other buildings that utilise bright vibrant colours both as an external treatment of the building and incorporated in signage design within the Heritage Conservation Area, the use has been limited to small sections of the façade (e.g. 7-9 Bennett Lane) or are examples of non-compliance and will have to be further investigated by Council officers (e.g. 24 Quondola Street).

It is also noted the canopy fascia of the existing building has been painted in the United Petroleum colours, without Council approval. It is considered the addition of the illuminated sign in the proposed colours would further adversely impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape.

It is considered the design and dominant appearance of the proposed development is not compatible with the historical importance and character of the Quondola Street area, would detract from the heritage character of the town and is not consistent with Pambula’s historic and aesthetic values.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

The DA was placed on exhibition from 14 December 2016 until 6 January 2017. No submissions were received in relation to the proposed development.

Conclusion

It is considered the proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013, in particular the specific objectives of the ‘Pambula Town Centre, Precinct 1 – Main Street Commercial’ area, as the design and appearance is inconsistent with the heritage character of Quondola Street and the heritage items located within that area.

It is considered the proposed colour scheme of the development would detract from the heritage character of the town and the proposed design and appearance of the proposed development is not compatible with the historical importance and character of Quondola Street area.

The proposed development is also contrary to the objectives of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013, as the development does not conserve the heritage significance of the designated heritage conservation area.

For these reasons, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

Attachments

1. Development Plans

Recommendation

That Development Application No. 2016.505, being for replacement signage at Lot 1 Section 33 DP 758825, 39 Quondola Street, Pambula be refused for the following reasons:

a) The proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 as the design and appearance of the proposed development would detract from the heritage character of the town and is not consistent with Pambula’s historic and aesthetic values.

b) The proposed development is contrary to the specific objectives of Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 ‘Pambula Town Centre, Precinct 1 – Main Street Commercial’ as the proposed development is inconsistent with the heritage character of Quondola Street and heritage items within.

c) The proposed development is contrary to the objectives of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 as the development does not conserve the heritage significance of the designated Heritage Conservation Area.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 10.1

10.1. Former Community Health Building - Bemboka

Council is the owner of a former community health building in Bemboka following transfer of the asset from the Department of Health to Council in 2007. The building is in need of major capital investment in order to be used by the community and Council is therefore being asked to determine its future.

Director Community, Relations and Leisure

Background

As a result of representation made by members of the Bemboka community in 2006, the former bush nursing home on Hoskins Street was transferred to Council’s ownership by the Department of Health in 2007. It was intended the facility would be managed on behalf of the community by a local committee with the aim of reinstating local health services to the township of Bemboka.

The two previous Council reports regarding this matter are attached in order to provide further background information.

The initial Resolution of Council on 10 October 2006 is as follows:

1. That Council formally accept the offer from NSW Department of Health to transfer the former bush nursing home, Hoskins Street, Bemboka, being Lot 5 Section 7 DP 758087 to Council ownership.

2. That upon transfer, the property be classified as Community land.

3. That on completion of the handover of the facility staff commence the preparation of a Plan of Management and conduct formal lease negotiations with the Bemboka Community Health Centre Committee and that the result of these negotiations be reported to the Council for is further consideration.

Ongoing attempts by Council officers since that time to achieve the third item in the above Resolution have failed to produce results. A formal committee was never established and the site has continued to deteriorate since that time. A quotation obtained from a licensed builder in 2012 indicated an amount of $60,000 would be required to rectify immediate issues with the building and ensure its compliance with Building Code of Australia standards before it could be used as a public facility. Council was unable to fund the works required at that time.

A further report was presented to Council on 2 September 2015. That report sought approval to engage the services of a consultant to prepare a planning proposal to reclassify the land from Community to Operational under Schedule 4 of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013. Council also resolved to formally request NSW Health Infrastructure to remove a positive covenant from the title which referred to the land and improvements being used for the purposes of providing a facility for community use by the residents of Bemboka. This would enable a proposed sale of the site, as one of the future options, with the proceeds of any sale to be redirected to other buildings in Bemboka.

Zenith Town Planning were engaged to carry out the community consultation and public hearings required to finalise the planning proposal. As a result of that process, several members of the Bemboka community made representations for Council not to sell the building and attempts have been made to establish a committee to manage the site until its future could be determined.

The newly formed Bemboka Community Cottage Group wrote to Councillors recently requesting the consideration of Council to retain the property and assist the group in restoring the building for various community uses.

Issues

Legal /Policy

If Council’s intention is to sell the property, now that reclassification of the property has been approved and formally gazetted by the Department of Planning, Council will be required to lodge a formal request for the Department of Health to extinguish the positive covenant. Council already has the in-principle support of the Department to do this if required.

Council’s Acquisition and Disposal of Land Procedure allows for the divestment of Council owned property for strategic purposes and to achieve better community outcomes.

Strategic

If Council choose to continue with the divestment of the property, it is recommended any funds realised be invested into the existing Bemboka Community Hall in order to achieve one well maintained, multi-use facility for all groups to utilise and to address some of the aspirations of the Group.

Social / Cultural

The former community health building was once used by a visiting community nurse; however it has been more than 10 years since the house was used for that purpose.

The Bemboka Community Cottage Group has expressed an interest in the house remaining a community asset and has written to Council outlining their ideas. This correspondence is attached and includes suggestions such as community meeting spaces, community gardens and the preservation of the historical items in the original nurses’ room at the house as a museum.

The Group have expressed to Council their preference is for Council to retain ownership as per Option 1 below, but would consider Option 2.

Should the Community Cottage not be a viable option, a number of the suggestions put forward by the Group could be facilitated elsewhere in Bemboka if funding is identified, and Council officers would be able to work with the members to facilitate some of these outcomes.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

A number of the Bemboka community attended the public hearing conducted as part of the planning proposal process. Although there were concerns raised about a possible sale of the building at that time, the majority of those in attendance were supportive of the idea on the condition that all funds achieved from the sale of the asset be reinvested back into the Bemboka community.

Financial and resource considerations

Council is aware that its ability to maintain its current building asset portfolio is a financial challenge and will be required to make decisions into the future about how to meet the needs of the community, whilst balancing its budget.

The community health building has recently been assessed by external consultants and is nearing the end of its useful life. Substantial investment is required in order to renew the building, which is not currently funded under Council’s Building Asset Management Plan.

Risk

The building condition assessment has raised some serious concerns about the building and the preliminary report suggests significant building issues, including the presumed presence of asbestos fibro cladding which is in poor condition. The building is not considered fit for occupation or use in its current form.

Any further deterioration of the asset is also a risk for Council and one that should be taken seriously. Accordingly, the Bemboka Community Cottage Group has been advised the building is not to be accessed until further notice.

Options

The options available to Council are as follows:-

1. Retain: Council identify funds to renew the building to a standard which would allow the Bemboka Community Cottage Group to occupy the building under lease agreement and manage the facility on behalf of the community. Any community group would need to become incorporated and registered with Fair Trading NSW in order to enter into such a lease. All maintenance and operational costs would need to be funded by the lessee going forward. The Cottage would remain a Council asset as part of our Buildings Asset Management Plan.

2. Divest to Community: Council divest of the property to a Community Group or Family Trust, who originally donated the site to the Department of Health, for a nominal sum. The positive covenant currently registered on title would not need to be removed and would ensure the building is used for community purposes under new ownership. The community group or Trust would take ownership of an asset that requires significant investment and Council would have an obligation to ensure they understood fully the ramifications of ownership.

3. Sale: Following the recent reclassification of the property to “operational land”, Council now seek formal consent from the Department of Health to the removal of the positive covenant and list the property for sale on the open market, with all proceeds from the sale to be reinvested into the Bemboka community.

Conclusion

Council is requested to make a formal decision on the future of the Bemboka Community House by way of financial investment or divestment of the property from Council’s ownership. Council staff support either option 2 or 3 as option 1 has impacts on Council’s budget and building portfolio.

Attachments

1. Council Report of 10 October 2006

2. Council Report of 2 September 2015

3. Letter from Bemboka Community Cottage Group

Recommendation

1. That Council note the report.

2. That Council determine the future course of action for the building formerly known as Community Health Building, Hoskins Street Bemboka.

3. That Council advise the Bemboka Community Cottage Group of its decision.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 11.1

11.1. Licence Agreement to Bega Valley Bridge Club

The Licence Agreement for Bega Valley Bridge Club to occupy the Green Shed building located on Crown Land managed by the Tathra Beach (R79310) Reserve Trust is due for renewal.

Acting Director Strategy and Business Services

Background

The Bega Valley Bridge Club currently occupies the Green Shed building located on Andy Poole Drive, Tathra. Their occupation of the site has been authorised by way of a three year Licence Agreement (LA) which is due to expire on 30 April 2017.

Prior to their current LA being entered into, Council carried out a public Expression of Interest (EOI) process for the use of the building with the results of the EOI being presented to Council on 24 July 2012. Council resolved at that meeting to negotiate a suitable three year LA with the Tathra and District Chamber of Commerce Inc. for the establishment of a small visitor information centre display with a provision for the Bega Valley Bridge Club to continue to use the facility for members to play bridge.

The Tathra and District Chamber of Commerce Inc. was not able to proceed with the establishment of the visitor information centre proposal due to lack of available funding and the Bega Valley Bridge Club were therefore offered to take over the head licence of the facility. Crown Lands provided their approval on 15 May 2014 for Council as Reserve Trust Manager of Tathra Beach (R79310) Reserve to enter into a three year LA with Bega Valley Bridge Club.

A site plan of the Bega Valley Bridge Club location appears below for the information of Councillors.

8728627

Issues

Legal /Policy

The Bega Valley Bridge Club has indicated they are very happy with the current arrangement and wish to continue with their occupation of the site for a further three year term.

In line with Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Guidelines, to maintain transparency and avoid any suggestion of impropriety, Council property officers have considered whether direct negotiation with the current occupant is appropriate in this instance. It is recommended that a further public EOI process not be conducted for the following reasons:

1. The proposed LA is to be granted to a not-for-profit community sporting group who have a voluntary management committee comprising of local representatives and the term of the proposed LA is three years only

2. To comply with the reserve purpose, any occupation needs to be for public recreational purposes only. As a community sporting group, the Bega Valley Bridge Club complies with the reserve purpose

3. The group has been providing an important social activity to the community from the Green Shed building for the past 22 years

4. The Bega Valley Bridge Club has been responsible for all ongoing structural and reactive maintenance over the term of their current LA

5. A market rental assessment was commissioned by Council in February 2014 and provides a market rental of $4,125 per annum. The costs involved in carrying out a market testing/public competition process would be greater than the rental achievable once the Crown Lands rebate is applied

6. Council property officers are required to complete Pecuniary Interest returns annually and no conflict of interest has been disclosed

7. The Reserve is now under a recently lodged Aboriginal Land Claim and only existing, low impact uses will receive authorisation until that claim has been assessed.

Strategic

Crown Lands have a departmental policy position for rents generally applying to tenures for single interest sporting groups that are non-profit and provide a benefit to the general community. A rebate of 50% off the assessed market rent may be applied. The Bega Valley Bridge Club are considered a category 2 (single interest sporting group) under this policy and are therefore entitled to the 50% rebate off market rental.

Operational / Asset Management Plan

The Green Shed building is listed on Council’s Building Asset Management Plan, however in order to continue to occupy the site, the Licensee was made responsible for all maintenance and structural repairs to the building as Council does not have any budget available to maintain two public halls within the small township of Tathra. The other option considered three years ago was to demolish the building which is nearing the end of its useful life. The further proposed three year LA will also place all responsibility for maintenance of the asset onto the licensee, as is the case with all other community buildings.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

The Bega Valley Bridge Club representatives have been consulted regarding their future tenure and have indicated they wish to enter into a further three year licence for their continued occupation of the site. As occupation is to be authorised by way of LA rather than exclusive lease, advertising the proposal is not required.

Financial and resource considerations

The market rental assessment which was commissioned by Council in 2014 for the building indicated a rental figure in the order of $4,125 per annum could be achieved if it were to be leased on a commercial basis. Due to limitations of Crown Reservation, being for public recreational purposes only, it is recommended a further three year licence be entered into with the Bega Valley Bridge Club for their continued occupation of the site and the Crown Lands Rebate Policy for Crown Land tenures be applied. Sporting organisations are classed as Category 2 (single interest sporting group) under that Policy and are eligible for a 50% rebate off market rent. The annual licence fee payable by the Bridge Club over the past three years has increased each year by CPI, with an annual licence fee of $2,164.06 now payable. All licence fees collected assist with maintenance costs of the surrounding Reserve by the Trust.

Staff time has been required to consult with the licensee and Crown Lands regarding the requirement for a new LA. Further liaison with Crown Lands will also be required to arrange execution of the new agreement and seek endorsement of Minister’s consent. Ongoing management of the LA during its term will also require Council officer resources as required.

Risk

There are no adverse risks in allowing the building to be occupied by the current tenant as long as the use is authorised by way of a formal agreement which contains appropriate indemnity and insurance clauses.

Options

Council officers could carry out another public Expression of Interest (EOI) process for the use of the building. However in light of the limitations of the Crown Reservation as well as the recent Aboriginal Land Claim lodged by the NSW Aboriginal Land Council over all South Coast Crown Reserves, continuing with the current occupancy arrangements in the short term is the preferred option.

Conclusion

The Bega Valley Bridge Club has occupied the green shed building at Tathra for over 22 years. They are responsible for all on-going maintenance as well as the structural integrity of the building and for this reason it is recommended that a further licence for a period of three years be offered.

Attachments

1. Council report from 24 July 2012 Licence to Bega Valley Bridge Club

Recommendation

1. That Council, as Reserve Trust Manager of the Tathra Beach (R79310) Reserve Trust, approve a further three year Licence Agreement to the Bega Valley Bridge Club Inc. for their continued occupation of the green shed building located on Crown Reserve 79310 at Tathra at the annual rental fee of $2,164.06 per annum increased annually by CPI.

2. That authority is given for the Mayor and General Manager to execute the Licence Agreement.

3. That in accordance with the requirements of the Crown Lands Act, Council obtains the Minister’s formal consent to enter into the Licence Agreement.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 11.2

11.2. Bega Pioneers' Museum

A request has been received from the Bega Valley Historical Society for Council’s consideration regarding the transfer of the Bega Pioneers’ Museum asset to the Society’s ownership.

Acting Director Strategy and Business Services

Background

In 1976, the former Council of the Municipality of Bega (now Bega Valley Shire Council) assisted the Bega Valley Historical Society Incorporated (the Society) to purchase property located at 87 Bega Street in Bega for the purpose of establishing a museum. Council records show the purchase price of the asset to be $35,000, with a further $5,000 loan approval to the Society to carry out improvements and renovations to the building. The $40,000 loan was to be given on the understanding the Society would repay Council the principal amount plus interest.

The property was acquired on 2 November 1976, with the Title registered in the name of Council. The minutes of the Council meeting of 13 September 1977 confirm the Society only drew down a total loan amount of $36,000, rather than the $40,000 offered.

In 2010, the Society was considering relocation of the museum to a more prominent location off the highway at North Bega. Members of the Society met with Council officers to determine the ownership of the asset and whether it could be sold in order to fund a proposed new facility. At that time, the museum site was classified as ‘community land’ under the Local Government Act 1993, which prevented a sale by Council. The proposal therefore did not proceed however, as part of the new Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (CLEP) process in 2012/13, Council moved to reclassify the site from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ land to facilitate a sale if required in the future.

The Society wrote to Council on 14 September 2015 seeking Council’s consideration to transfer ownership of the asset to the Bega Valley Historical Society Incorporated. The matter was the subject of a Councillor workshop in November 2015, at which time the preference of Councillors was for the Title to remain in Council’s ownership to ensure it was retained on behalf of the community.

Bega Valley Historical Society engaged the services of Peter Tierney and Associates in early 2016, who formally wrote to Council asking Council to reconsider its position and provide an explanation for the grounds of its denial to a transfer in Title. Council’s Group Manager of Strategy and Business Services wrote to Peter Tierney and Associates requesting copies of the documentation supporting their claims that the asset was in fact only held in trust by Council, so that information could be presented to Council formally for further consideration.

That information was received on 20 May 2016, however due to the lead up to the Council elections the matter was deferred for consideration until after the Council elections in September 2016.

A copy of all previous information in relation to this matter is attached for the information of Councillors.

Issues

Legal /Policy

Various items of correspondence have been provided by the Society's legal representative, which includes a copy of an Epitome of Mortgage dated 11 August 1977.

An annual repayment of $4,822.90 was agreed to with the loan and interest repaid fully to Council by 12 March 1992, from lease fees received by the Society for occupation and operation of the Lunch Stop Museum Café which was part of the museum premises. The Society however requested at that time, the Title remains in Council’s name in Trust for the Society. Such action was taken to ensure the long term viability of the facility and to protect it against any possible mismanagement or sale by any future committee for personal gain. There is no item registered in the Second Schedule of the Title which indicates it is held in Trust only.

If Council resolve to transfer ownership of the asset to the Society, it is recommended a restriction and/or covenant is registered on Title by Bega Valley Shire Council in order to:

a) protect the ongoing use of the building for the purpose of a public museum;

b) prevent any future sale of the asset without Council’s formal consent.

Such action would not prevent any possible relocation of the museum in the future if that was in the best strategic interests of the museum to do so. The restriction/covenant would simply enable Council to ensure that any proceeds from such a sale were reinvested into another museum facility for the benefit of the local community.

Council’s Acquisition and Disposal of Land Procedure may be varied to meet the needs of a particular matter, by Resolution of the Council. The reasons for the proposed disposal of an asset below market value must be clearly articulated within the report submitted for consideration by the Council. On the basis that evidence available confirms the building was purchased on behalf of the Society by way of a loan now repaid in full, it is considered the proposed transfer for a nominal sum only is appropriate in this instance.

Strategic

The property is listed in Council’s Building Asset Management Plan, with a current condition rating of four (4) for the museum building and three (3) for the attached display sheds. Full condition reports based on visual inspection is currently being carried out on all Council building assets, however that information has not been received from the consultants at the time of this report being finalised. As the Society would take ownership of an asset that requires significant investment in the near future, Council would have an obligation to ensure the Society understood fully the ramifications of such ownership.

The gross total value of the asset is currently noted as $1.26M to replace to today’s standards, with a remaining useful life of 11 years.

The majority of Council’s building assets were either built or acquired on behalf of the community without any consideration of ongoing operations, maintenance or replacement needs. Council’s building asset stock is ageing and current funding levels are insufficient to continue to provide existing services. In order to resolve funding shortfalls, Council must identify assets surplus to needs for disposal or divestment.

Social / Cultural

Museum collections and exhibits inspire interest in our shared histories and help to educate our community. The Bega Pioneers’ Museum plays an important role in capturing the history of our Shire.

The Society is an organisation of volunteers that have, over many years, built one of the largest historical collections in the region. Through the Pioneers’ Museum they have built a collection that contains every aspect of early life in the Bega Valley - industries, clothing, military, machinery, transport, household effects, as well as family histories. A collection of over 200 framed photographs of pioneers is the largest in NSW and they have a large collection of local militaria from the Boer War, World War I and World War II.

It is important for the community that a museum presence is maintained and developed for future generations.

Financial and resource considerations

As the site is currently in Council’s ownership and managed by the Society on behalf of the community, it is not currently rateable, aside from water usage and waste management charges. If a transfer in ownership to the Society took place, the property would attract rating charges however the Society could apply for an exemption under Council’s Rate Exemption procedure.

The building is also currently insured by Council under its Building Asset Insurance Policy. This would be a requirement of the Society upon transfer of the asset and another cost which they would need to consider.

Risk

The asset is ageing and nearing the end of its useful life. If Council retains ownership of the facility, it will be required to either invest substantially in its renewal or look at divestment options to fund a museum facility elsewhere.

Conclusion

On the basis the Society have provided evidence which substantiates their claim the building was purchased via a fully repaid loan and is held in Trust by Council on their behalf only, Council should consider their request for a transfer in Title. Furthermore, Council does not have any budget allocated for the renewal of this asset so divestment to the Society is recommended.

Prior to any transfer in title however, it is suggested a restriction/covenant be registered on Title prior to transfer as an added protection to ensure the proceeds of any future sale of the asset by the Society are reinvested into providing a museum facility for the benefit of the local community.

Attachments

1. Letter from BVHS 14 September 2015

2 . Confidential Memo to Councillors 30 November 2015 (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

3. Letter to BVHS 17 December 2015

4 . Letter from Peter Tierney & Associates 31 March 2016

5 . Letter to Peter Tierney & Associates 14 April 2016

6 . Letter from Peter Tierney & Associates 20 May 2016

7 . Council Minutes 13 September 1977

Recommendation

1. That Council approve the transfer of ownership of the Bega Pioneers’ Museum (being Lot 1 DP 787591) located at 87 Bega Street, Bega to the Bega Valley Historical Society Incorporated (the Society) for the nominal sum of $1.00.

2. That prior to any transfer, Council ensure the Society fully understand the current condition of the asset and the financial ramifications of transferring the site to their ownership.

3. That a restriction and/or covenant be registered on the Title prior to transfer in order to protect the ongoing use of the building for the purpose of a public museum and prevent any future sale of the asset without Council’s formal consent.

4. That the General Manager and Mayor be authorised to execute the necessary documentation to effect this course of action.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.1

12.1. RFT 1402152 Merimbula Ocean Outfall Consultancy for Environmental Impact Assessment and Concept Design

This report outlines the procurement process RFT. 1402152 and seeks Council's approval to award the tender for the Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade and Deep Ocean Outfall Concept Design and Environmental Assessment.

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

The Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) treats sewage from Merimbula, Pambula, Pambula Beach and South Pambula to an advanced secondary standard. Approximately 75% of the effluent produced is disposed via the existing ocean outfall across the beach or to the exfiltration ponds in the dunes opposite the STP. Approximately 25% is used to beneficially irrigate the Pambula-Merimbula Golf Course and Oaklands Farm.

The existing methods of effluent disposal are unsustainable. The beach face ocean outfall fails to meet community expectations and NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) environmental objectives. The dunal exfiltration ponds are limited by groundwater level impacts and long term sustainability issues.

The Merimbula Effluent Options Investigation Project (2009-2013) completed a number of studies to inform the development of options for effluent disposal (8) and recycled water use (14) from Merimbula STP, including treatment plant upgrades. The options were shortlisted, assessed and ranked by a stakeholder focus group and specialist consultants (AECOM) at four workshops using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) process.

Assessment criteria included public health, receiving water quality and aquatic ecology, Aboriginal cultural heritage, regional economy, aesthetic and recreational amenity, construction impact, operation and maintenance, reliability, greenhouse gas emissions and cost.

In June 2014, Council considered a report which recommended an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for Merimbula Effluent Management Strategy be commenced. The Merimbula Effluent Management Strategy projects to be assessed include upgrading Merimbula STP to improve effluent quality and to construct and operate a deep water ocean outfall for the disposal of effluent unable to be reused. (A copy of the June 2014 report is attached).

Processes undertaken following Council’s 2014 Resolution include:

· An Expression of Interest to identify an approved panel of five firms from which to seek tenders for a Concept Design and EIS for an STP upgrade and deep ocean outfall

· Application to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for the project to be declared State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) under part 5.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

· Monthly water quality monitoring in Merimbula Bay at various locations and depths to collect baseline water quality data for future modelling of water quality impacts

· Deployment of monitoring buoys and equipment for ocean current modelling and the development of a preliminary oceanographic model.

In July 2016 the project was declared State Significant Infrastructure (SSI). The Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEAR’s) were provided as scope for the EIS thereafter. (A copy of the SEAR’s is attached to this report).

In October 2016 formal tenders were sought from the approved panel of five firms and five tenders were received. The five tenders were assessed using Price and non-Price criteria and a preferred tender selected.

Issues

Legal /Policy

Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant operates under NSW EPA License 1741 established under Section 55 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997. (An excerpt from NSW EPA License 1741 is attached to this report).

The procurement process for selection of the preferred consultant was undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Environmental & Sustainability

The EIS process will assess the acceptability of environmental impacts of the STP upgrade and deep water ocean outfall.

The deep water ocean outfall has been established as the effluent disposal option that is likely to provide the greatest relative environmental benefit through improving receiving water quality and ecology, having the least construction impacts and operational greenhouse gas emissions and providing the greatest preservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage, aesthetics and recreational amenity.

It should be clearly understood there is no prospect of a simple reliance on beneficial reuse as the solution to the effluent management challenges at Merimbula. A viable, sustainable disposal option is required.

Asset

The Concept Design and EIS will assess the infrastructure requirements for the STP upgrade and deep water ocean outfall. These assets are expected to include:

· STP process improvement for nutrient reduction

· STP disinfection systems (Chlorination and UV)

· Pumps and pipeline for the deep water ocean outfall

· Multiport diffuser to provide mixing and dilution at the discharge point for the deep water ocean outfall

Social / Cultural

The EIS process will assess the social/cultural implications of the STP upgrade and deep water ocean outfall.

Economic

The EIS will assess the economic implications of the STP upgrade and deep water ocean outfall.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

A major component of the EIS process will be community and stakeholder consultation and communication. Significant allowance has been made for this aspect of the project.

Financial

In excess of $750,000 has already been spent on the project. The cost of completing the Concept Design and EIS phase of the project is expected to be in the order of $3,850,000, sourced from new works reserve.

Funding source

Amount

Capital Works Reserve

3,500,000 (plus a 10% contingency for marine related works)

Total 3,850,000

In the longer term, the total project cost is expected to be in the order of $30million noting that Council is unable to fund the entire amount at this time.

The traditional levels of government subsidy for funding of Regulatory driven capital works projects of this type, have been constrained for many years. It is expected that following the EIS process the subsidy environment may change and allow the project to proceed.

If the EIS and concept design were to not proceed then the prospects of any subsidy funding will be substantially diminished.

Risk

The most significant risk Council faces with the current effluent management practices at Merimbula are reputational and environmental associated with the beach face ocean outfall and unsustainable dunal exfiltration.

The EIS process is the first stage in reducing those risks to levels that both the community and the regulators.

Operational Plan

The Concept Design and EIS process for this project supports delivery of assets that meet long term Operational Plan objectives.

Resources

Substantial Council officer and consultant resources have already been allocated to the project. The Concept Design and EIS will be undertaken by an appropriately resourced and qualified consultant procured by competitive tender.

Conclusion

The key issue to recognize at this stage of the process, is that current effluent management practices are unacceptable to the wider community, beach users, traditional landowners and NSW EPA. The difficulty of solving the current effluent management challenges has been due in large part to the limited number of feasible disposal options.

Tenders were sought from a panel of five pre-qualified firms for RFT 1402152 Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade and Deep Ocean Outfall Concept Design and Environmental Assessment.

Five tenders were received and it is recommended the preferred tender be accepted as it provides the best overall value to Council based on Price and Non-Price criteria.

A Confidential Memorandum detailing the assessment process used to identify the preferred tenderer is attached.

Attachments

1 . Confidential Memorandum to Councillors (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2. Extract of NSW EPA Licence 1741 for Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant, U1 Effluent Management Strategy for Merimbula STP

3. Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Report June 2014

Recommendation

1. That Council accept the recommendations as outlined in the Confidential Memorandum.

2. That Council accept the tender from <insert> for the work described in Tender RFT 1402152 preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment and development of a Concept Design for the Merimbula Ocean Outfall, in the amount of $<insert> (including GST), subject to variations and provisional sums.

3. That authority is delegated to the General Manager or the Director of Transport and Utilities in the General Manager’s absence, to execute all necessary documentation.

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

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.2

12.2. Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study Final Findings

The final report findings and recommendations of the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study are now ready for Council’s endorsement.

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

Council engaged consultants Cardno to undertake a flood study for the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchments. The study was undertaken to update current flood mapping, in light of recent flood events during 2010, 2011 and 2012, with the assistance of a grant from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

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

Council has taken the initiative to carry out the flood study to assist with planning for and managing the risk the community faces from flooding.

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) supported Council by providing technical assistance and administering grant funding from the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for the project.

The final flood study report has now been completed and is ready for Council’s consideration and endorsement. The final flood study report will provide the technical basis required for the development of any subsequent future Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

Issues

Legal /Policy

In accordance with Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993, Councils receive indemnity against liability for floodplain risk management in urban and rural areas in NSW guided by the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and its Floodplain Development Manual, the management of flood liable land, April 2005.

Locally, the NSW government policy is implemented through development, adoption and implementation of floodplain risk management plans which inform Council’s adopted Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to flood related development controls.

The final flood study report findings and recommendations will provide the technical basis required for the development of any subsequent Floodplain Risk Management Study (FRMS) and Plan (FRMP). Part of the typical outcomes of a FRMS and FRMP are a review of and recommendations for a range of flood and response modification measures which will reduce flood risk. Some of the typical property modification measures arising from a FRMS and a FRMP include review of flood related planning controls, flood prone land policies and flood related development controls.

The final mix of floodplain risk management measures are developed with the assistance of community consultation at these subsequent stages. These outputs are then incorporated into Council’s Environmental Planning Instruments such as Council’s adopted Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP) and the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) at that later date.

Councils issue planning certificates under Section 149 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to inform potential purchasers of planning controls and policies that then apply to the subject land. If changes to existing, relevant, flood related planning controls, flood related development controls or flood prone land policies do arise from the FRMS and FRMP , the relevant wording for flood related clauses need to be reflected in the Section 149(2) and 149(5) planning certificates.

A number of properties that do not have these flood related planning and development controls currently exist. This may occur because they are actually not flood prone according the definitions of the NSW government’s Flood Prone Land policy or no detailed flood mapping has been undertaken in those areas. As a result of the finalised flood study findings, detailed flood mapping for the select study areas may then eventually lead to a number of these properties having flood related planning and development controls applied or a notation applied to the Section 149(2) and 149(5) certificate. This may occur following the flood study or after the completion of a FRMS and FRMP.

Clause 6.3 of the LEP applies to land ‘below the flood planning level’ and restricts development of that land unless Council is satisfied of certain matters. Clause 6.3(5) provides:

‘In this clause, flood planning level means the level of a 1:100 ARI (average recurrent interval) flood event plus 0.5 metre freeboard.’

Council has no flood mapping as part of its LEP. Also, the LEP does not contain a clause stating a specific height or source such as a FRMP for the flood planning level at any given location such as the Merimbula or Back Lake catchments. Therefore, the definition of the 1:100 ARI, or in current nomenclature, 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), for the Merimbula or Back Lake catchments would now be determined from the 1% AEP event from the flood study findings. In the interim, the 1% AEP event from the flood study would inform the flood planning level as per clause 6.3 of the LEP until a FRMP was put in place.

Strategic

The completed flood study report forms a key technical input document for the completion of a future floodplain risk management study and plan. The completed flood study allows Council to identify the existing flood risk, hydraulic and provisional hazard categories within the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchments. The future floodplain risk management study and plan will quantify options to manage the identified flood risks and true hazards within the flood study report. Strategic responses for land-use planning, asset planning, emergency response planning, environmental, social and economic impact management can then be formulated to address any existing, future and continuing flood risk.

Operational Plan

Council’s endorsement of the final study report findings and recommendations partially completes the operational plan item Emergency Planning A4.1.1 Complete Flood Study and develop floodplain management.

Environmental / Sustainability

Environmental concerns such as climate change, including sea level rise, have been addressed in the final flood study report, in accordance with current NSW government guidelines and requirements for flood study projects. Other environmental concerns are usually addressed in a subsequent flood risk management study and plan following community consultation at a subsequent time.

Social / Cultural

Floodplains are the commercial, social and environmental arteries of the State. Transport and communication infrastructure are often located in floodplains which, generally as the more fertile areas, are a base for a significant proportion of the State’s agricultural business. Regular flooding enhances agricultural productivity by increasing soil moisture, recharging groundwater and depositing fertile silt across the floodplain. However, flooding can also interfere with production, communication, transport, emergency management and agricultural practices. Therefore development and management of floodplains needs to consider a broad range of issues, including balancing the benefits of occupying the floodplain against the costs.

The final flood study findings will form the basis of a future floodplain risk management study and plan that incorporates the management of social, cultural and economic impacts.

Economic

Any future floodplain risk management study and plan is a multi-disciplinary process that balances a number of differing factors to generate recommendations for an appropriate mix of management measures to deal with the different types of flood risk. Some typical factors considered during the management study are the flood behaviour, danger and damage, community costs of flooding, future land-use, a comprehensive range of flood risk management measures, environmental needs of the river and floodplains and environmental and cultural impacts of management measures. Cost-benefit ratios of differing identified risk mitigation options from community consultation are developed during a subsequent floodplain risk management study for inclusion in a floodplain management plan for the catchment. The identified floodplain risk management strategies are aimed at managing and mitigating flood risk where possible to reduce the economic impact on the community. These options are developed from the information contained within the flood study report.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

Community consultation regarding flood study outcomes and findings are a requirement of the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and its Floodplain Development Manual, the management of flood liable land, April 2005.

Community engagement occurred through a variety of communication channels including media releases, radio interviews, a project website, written correspondence, telephone inquiries, onsite visits with residents, project meetings, technical sub-committee meetings and floodplain risk focus group meetings.

Consultation of local residents within the catchments was completed using a community flood questionnaire during April-May 2015. Consultation of relevant State agency stakeholders also occurred during March 2015. Further, consultation was completed throughout the project within the Bega Valley Shire Floodplain Risk Management Focus Group of which the community, State agency and Council are represented.

To promote the exhibition of the draft report, letters with a community questionnaire were sent out to 513 landowners within the identified floodplain areas and a media release prepared, with 46 responses were received. The feedback was used to understand and validate flood behaviour within the two catchments.

Four drop-in sessions with Council’s consultant and staff were arranged during August and September 2016 where 46 residents attended to raise issues and questions during the six week public exhibition period. Two sessions were held during business hours and two sessions after normal business hours. During the public exhibition period, five formal written submissions were received, one online submission and three telephone inquiries. The feedback from the public exhibition of the draft report was utilised and considered in the preparation of the final report findings and recommendations.

Financial and resource considerations

The flood study project was partially subsidised by a floodplain risk management programme grant of $120,000 from the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and administered by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. Floodplain risk management grants are subsidised at a rate of two government dollars per Council dollar. Council’s contribution was funded from Stormwater Operating Expenses.

Funding source		Amount
Stormwater operating expenses	$	60,000

Staff and financial resources have already been expended on delivering the Merimbula and Back Lake Flood Study project which will be completed within the allocated project budget. Other resources required were meeting room facilities whenever any Focus Groups and/or technical sub-committees were convened during the process of completing the flood study project.

Council’s current funding agreement term expires 31 March 2017. Should Council choose to defer the endorsement of the report beyond this date, it will be in breach of the funding agreement terms and will be liable to repay monies to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) in excess of OEH’s liabilities at that date.

Risk

The finalised flood study allows Council to quantify the existing flood risk within the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchments. The information will allow Council to manage its obligations under the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy.

The completed flood study identifies the hydraulic categories (floodway, flood storage or flood fringe) and the provisional hazard categories (high hazard or low hazard) for flood prone land within these two catchments.

The information will be useful to emergency response agencies for planning evacuation and logistics. The information will also be useful to Council for future planning and protection of public infrastructure; the control and assessment of development and mitigating the community costs of flood events.

Options

The options before Council are to:

1. Endorse the findings and recommendations of the final Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study as interim measures and the best available flood information until such time a Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the catchment can be put in place

There are no impediments to this approach and the recommendations align with the current wording and intent of clause 6.3 (5) of Council’s current LEP

2. To wait until such time a Floodplain Risk Management Plan is in place and the true flood hazard is determined before defining the flood planning level for the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchments.

This approach is least preferable as the flood study contains the best available information on which decisions can be made in the interim.

3. To receive a report from Council’s planning officers on how best to incorporate the flood study findings regarding sea level rise projections into current planning processes.

Conclusion

The finalised Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study now forms the best available flood information for the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake catchments. It will form the key technical document for the basis of any subsequent floodplain risk management study and plan. The endorsed flood study will provide Council a strategic advantage for any future application to the Office of Environment’s Floodplain Management Grant Programme. The finalised flood study findings will allow for improved emergency response and asset planning.

Attachments

1. Confidential attachment (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2. Merimbula and Back Lake Flood Study Final Report

3. Summary of Public Submissions

Recommendation

1. That Council endorse the findings and recommendations of the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study as the best available flood information and interim measures for use in developing any subsequent floodplain risk management study and plan; and future emergency response planning.

2. Following endorsement of the Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study findings and recommendations, that Council set aside an amount of $85,000 to support a grant application to the Office of Environment and Heritage’s Floodplain Management Programme for a subsequent Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Floodplain Risk Management Plan and Study.

3. That a copy of the final endorsed Merimbula Lake and Back Lake Flood Study be published on Council’s website and also provided to Council’s Local Emergency Management Committee for its information.

4. That Council receive a further report from Council’s planning officers regarding any implementation issues surrounding the sea level rise benchmarks or other related planning implications arising from the final flood study findings

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.4

12.4. Tathra Wharf Condition Assessment

A detailed condition assessment of the Tathra Wharf has identified that over 28% of the over-water piles supporting the Tathra Wharf have deteriorated to such a degree that major replacement or repair works are required within the next 12 months, at a cost in excess of $1 Million.

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

The Tathra Wharf was originally constructed in 1862 and was used for coastal shipping until the mid 1950s. With the cessation of coastal shipping, the wharf fell into disrepair and in 1973 was proposed for demolition by NSW Public Works. Community objection, supported by Council and the National Trust, resulted in the formation of the Tathra Wharf Trust in 1977. Fundraising and grants enabled the wharf to be repaired and restored over the period 1980 to 1986. The wharf is the only deep sea wharf and cargo shed dating from the 1800’s remaining on Australia’s east coast and is listed on the State Heritage Register.

A detailed condition assessment of the entire Tathra Wharf was undertaken as part of the June 2016 East Coast Low storm damage assessment and repair works. The condition assessment was conducted by a specialist marine engineering consultant, including inspection of the under-water structure by a diving contractor. The comprehensive condition assessment report rated the condition of every component of the wharf as Good, Fair, Poor or Failed and prioritised the recommended repair/remediation works as either:

· Priority 1: Complete immediately or as soon as practicable

· Priority 2: Complete within 1 year

· Priority 3: Complete within 2 to 3 years

· Priority 4: Complete within 3 to 5 years or as recommended.

All Priority 1 works were undertaken as part of the June 2016 East Coast Low storm damage repair works.

The condition assessment report has identified a large number of Priority 2 works, principally in relation to the over-water substructure of the wharf. Of the 78 over-water piles, 12 have failed and 10 were assessed as poor and requiring replacement. This represents 28% of the over-water piles and includes several racker (angled) piles which are crucial for the lateral (sideways) stability of the wharf.

A drawing depicting the failed and poor piles is provided as an Attachment to this Council report.

Issues

Legal /Policy

Council is the appointed Corporate Reserve Trust Manager for the Tathra Wharf Reserve, Reserve Number 180056, on behalf of the Department of Industry - Lands (formerly Crown Lands).

Strategic

The Tathra Wharf is a significant heritage asset that is of great importance to the local Tathra and wider community, and a major attraction for visitors to the area.

Operational / Asset Management Plan

The Tathra Wharf is addressed under the following documents:

· Tathra Wharf Conservation Management Plan, January 2004

· Bega Valley Shire Maritime Infrastructure Plan, February 2014

· Maritime Infrastructure Internal Audit Report, January 2017.

The Condition Assessment Report will be used to produce a Tathra Wharf specific Asset Management Plan.

Since the major repair and restoration works were completed in 1986, Council has undertaken the following works on the wharf, with some assistance from State and Federal funding:

· 1994: Pile replacement and encapsulation works x 15 piles

· 2003: Pile works, major (repair) x 17 piles, minor (encapsulation) x 51 piles

· 2006: Pile works, major (concrete encasement/anchor to pile base) x 26 piles

· 2013: Storm damage repair to 2 x piles.

Environmental / Sustainability

The wharf is the only deep sea wharf and cargo shed dating from the 1800’s remaining on Australia’s east coast, and is listed on the State Heritage Register.

Social / Cultural

The Tathra Wharf is a significant heritage asset of great importance to the local Tathra and wider community, and a major attraction for visitors to the area.

Economic

The Tathra Wharf is of major economic importance to the local tourism, accommodation and hospitality industry.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

The overwhelming community support for the repair of the wharf after the 2016 East Coast Low storm damage is indicative of the value the community places on the preservation and continued access to, and use of, the wharf.

Financial and resource considerations

The scope of works associated with repairing or replacing the failed/poor condition piles, identified as Priority 2 in the Condition Assessment Report, is considerable, as is the cost. An accurate cost estimate is not possible without at least undertaking preliminary design work, and obtaining heritage input and approvals, but is likely to be in excess of $1 Million. This amount is currently unfunded and would require a Resolution of Council to proceed, once funding source or sources are able to be determined.

Given Council is the appointed Corporate Reserve Trust Manager for the Tathra Wharf Reserve, on behalf of the Department of Industry - Lands, Council is eligible for funding support through the Public Reserves Management Fund Program (PRMFP). The Program funds projects up to $2M and applications for the current 2017/2018 PRMFP close on 24 March 2017.

Risk

The findings of the condition assessment, specifically in relation to the over-water piles supporting the Tathra Wharf, represent a significant risk that major sections of the over-water structure could be lost in a major ocean storm event.

Options

In order to address the situation of the poor condition of the over-water substructure of the Tathra Wharf, Council has the following options:

· Apply for funding through the PRMFP

· Apply for funding from other Federal, State, Boating and Heritage avenues

· Identify funding from within BVSC resources, preferably as supporting contribution to the above options

· Discontinue managing the Tathra Wharf on behalf of DPI – Lands, and hand responsibility of the asset back to the Crown.

The “do nothing” option is not considered a viable option, given the risks identified.

Conclusion

The Tathra Wharf is an iconic heritage asset for the Bega Valley Shire, of great value to the local community and visitors to the Shire, and important to the economy of the local and wider region. A detailed condition assessment of the Wharf has identified that over 28% of the over-water piles supporting the Tathra Wharf have deteriorated to such a degree that major replacement or repair works are required within the next 12 months, at cost in excess of $1M.

Attachments

1. Tathra Wharf Condition Assessment 2017 - Drawing of required repairs

Recommendation

1. That Council note the findings of the Condition Assessment Report in relation to the poor condition of the over-water substructure of the Tathra Wharf.

2. That approval be granted to undertake preliminary design work, including consultation with NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, in order to adequately scope and cost the works associated with repairing or replacing the failed / poor condition piles, identified as Priority 2 in the Condition Assessment Report.

3. Prepare and submit a funding application for the 2017/2018 Public Reserves Management Fund Program.

4. Investigate funding opportunities through other Federal, State, Boating and Heritage avenues.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.5

12.5. Tender 117/16 for the Merimbula Airport Airside Infrastructure Consultancy

This report details the outcomes of evaluation of Tender 117/16 for the Merimbula Airport Airside Infrastructure Negotiation, Design and Documentation and recommends award to the preferred tenderer

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

In October 2016 Bega Valley Shire Council entered into a funding agreement with the NSW Government to extend the Merimbula Airport runway under the Restart NSW Fund Act 2011 (NSW) program.

The scope of the project is to undertake works on the runway to improve its current usability, flexibility and safety and to look to future use patterns. The project is premised on Council’s approved Master Plan, as previously developed by Rehbein Airport Consulting. It includes consultancy services to support negotiation with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ensure its certification of the airport at the completion of construction, engineering services to design the works and tender the construction works (including associated lighting design) and construction supervision.

Expression of Interest

In November 2016, Expression of Interest 108/16 called for suitably qualified and experienced consultants to design and document the site planning, design and upgrade of the Merimbula Airport runway, terminal apron, terminal building and associated car parking. The works were divided into two sections – those pertaining to the airside and those pertaining to the landside. Consultants were invited to express interest in either or both of the two sections. Consultants were also able to express interest either in the full negotiation, design and construction supervision process, or part.

The call for expressions of interest was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 November 2016, the Bega District News on 18 November 2016, the Merimbula News Weekly on 16 November 2016 and the Eden Magnet on 17 November 2016 and via Tenderlink (e-tendering). The call for expressions of interest closed on 7 December 2016.

Twelve expressions of interest for the airside works were received. They were evaluated by a tender panel and four were accepted for progression to the request for tender.

Tender

The Request for Tender 117/16 issued in December 2016 addressed the consultancy for the works pertaining to the airside: Merimbula Airport Upgrade - Airside Aeronautical Infrastructure Negotiation, Design and Documentation.

The tender period opened on 20 December 2016 and closed on 15 February 2017. Four tenders were received from:

· Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

· GHD Pty Ltd

· Lambert & Rehbein (SEQ) Pty Ltd

· Wood & Grieve Engineers Limited

The tendered amounts were provided in separable portions across the preliminary design, final design, tender documentation, tender analysis and construction phases, as required. Due to the specialised nature of the work – driven by the aviation focus – it is expected that all of the separable portions will be required and the tender assessment has proceeded on that basis.

They were assessed by a tender evaluation panel against the following evaluation criteria:

Non-Price Criteria	Weighting
Proposed methodology	20%
Ability and capacity to undertake the work	5%
Details of similar projects	10%
Skills and experience of key personnel	10%
Local Content	5%
Total	50%
Price Criteria
Tender to completion of final design	30%
Tender documentation and analysis	5%
Construction	10%
Makeup of the cost structure	5%
Total	50%

Issues

Legal /Policy

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993.

Strategic

Merimbula Airport is identified as a key element in support of the region’s economic sustainability and development.

Operational / Asset Management Plan

Merimbula Airport is owned and operated by Council and the works are included in the Asset Management Plan. The project works will commence immediately and will take between three months and twelve months (estimated) depending upon the CASA negotiations, the environmental issues and the pathway to their resolution, both of which will evolve once the negotiation and design process commence. The airport will remain operational whilst the design consultancy is undertaken.

Environmental / Sustainability

Environmental consultancy was not included in the scope of works and will be progressed via a separate procurement process.

Consultation/engagement

Stakeholder consultation (including consultation with CASA) informed the scoping of the works for both the expression of interest and request for tender processes. There will be engagement with key current or potential airport users through the project. This will include organisations such as Regional Express, freight providers and others. Community consultation has not taken place in relation to this portion of the works at Merimbula Airport. This will progress through the review of the Masterplan and development of an airport business plan.

Financial and resource considerations

The project is funded by funding received from the NSW State Government through the Restart NSW Regional Tourism/Regional Airports funding program.

Funding source		Amount
Restart NSW grant	$	4,391,000

The Project Manager for the airport works (water and fire main upgrade, runway extension and terminal upgrade) will manage the Merimbula Airport runway extension project.

Conclusion

The negotiation, design and documentation of the runway extension will permit the negotiation of an airside design, consistent with CASA’s approval, subsequent design and tender documentation development for the tender to construct the runway extension and supervision of the construction to completion.

Attachments

1. RFT 117/16 Confidential Memorandum to Councillors (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2. RFT 117/16 Confidential Tender Evaulation Matrix (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That Council accept the recommendation as outlined in the Confidential Memorandum attachment.

2. That Council accept the tender from <Insert> in relation to contract for the works described in Tender 117/16, in the amount of <Insert> (excluding GST), subject to variations and provisional sums.

3. That authority is delegated to the General Manager, or in the General Manager’s absence the Director of Transport and Utilities, to execute all necessary documentation.

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

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.6

12.6. Tender 02/17 for the Merimbula Airport Terminal Extension Consultancy

This report details the outcomes of evaluation of Tender 02/17 for the Merimbula Airport Landside Design and Documentation and recommends award to the preferred tenderer.

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

In May 2016 the Prime Minister announced funding to support the upgrade and extension of the Merimbula Airport terminal.

The scope of the project comprises the lead design (architect) consultancy services to design the installation of passenger and baggage security screening, renovation of the terminal to accommodate passengers, freight and tourism services.

The project is premised on Council’s approved masterplan as previously developed by Rehbein Airport Consulting, together with the terminal renovation/upgrade identified in funding deed applications lodged to support the Prime Minister’s announcement.

Expression of Interest

In November 2016, Expression of Interest 108/16 called for suitably qualified and experienced consultants to design and document the site planning, design and upgrade of the Merimbula Airport runway, terminal apron, terminal building and associated car parking. The works were divided into two sections – those pertaining to the airside and those pertaining to the landside. Consultants were invited to express interest in either or both of the two sections. Consultants were also able to express interest in either the full negotiation, design and construction supervision process or part.

The call for Expressions of Interest was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 November 2016, the Bega District News on 18 November 2016, the Merimbula News Weekly on 16 November 2016 and the Eden Magnet on 17 November 2016 and via Tenderlink (e-tendering). The call for Expressions of Interest closed on 7 December 2016.

Thirteen Expressions of Interest in the landside works were received. They were evaluated by a tender panel and four were accepted for progression to the Request for Tender.

Tender

Request for Tender 02/17 issued in January 2016 addressed the consultancy for the works pertaining to the landside: Merimbula Airport Upgrade - Landside Design and Documentation.

The tender period opened on 18 January 2017 and closed on 15 February 2017. Four tenders were received from:

· GHD Pty Ltd

· Lambert & Rehbein (SEQ) Pty Ltd/DesignInc

· Sanders Turner Ellick Architects Pty Ltd

· Wood & Grieve Engineers Limited

The tendered amounts were provided in separable portions across the preliminary design, final design, tender documentation, tender analysis and construction phases, as required. Due to the higher level of importance of the pre tender documentation services and inclusions (particularly the security related plant and equipment), the probability of the works being less technical than the airside component, and the limited amount of funds available, the delivery model for the construction phase will be confirmed once the design progresses. Consequently, the tender evaluation is limited to the design phases up to, but excluding, the tender documentation.

The tenders were assessed by a tender evaluation panel against the following evaluation criteria:

Non-Price Criteria	Weighting
Proposed methodology	10%
Ability and capacity to undertake the work	10%
Details of similar projects	20%
Skills and experience of key personnel	15%
Local Content	5%
Total	60%
Price Criteria	40%
Total	100%

Issues

Legal /Policy

The tender process complied with the Local Government Act 1993.

Strategic

Merimbula Airport is identified as a key element in support of the region’s economic sustainability and development.

Operational / Asset Management Plan

Merimbula Airport is owned and operated by Council and the works are included in the Asset Management Plan. The project works will commence in March 2017 and will take up to five months.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

Stakeholder consultation (including consultation with the airport operator) informed the scoping of the works for both the Expression of Interest and request for Tender processes. User engagement with current and potential users such as Regional Express, Free Spirit, freight tourism bodies will form part of the process. Broad community consultant has not taken place in relation to this portion of the works at Merimbula Airport.

Financial and resource considerations

The Project Manager for the airport works (water and fire main upgrade and airside works) will manage the Merimbula Airport landside project.

Funding source		Amount
Commonwealth (Community Development Grant) – signed deed not yet received	$	1,201,987
BVSC – to be funded by borrowings supported by the Airport income	$	1,200,000

Conclusion

The design of the terminal upgrade and extension will permit the development of the delivery model to tender and construct the terminal upgrade and renovation.

Attachments

1. RFT 02/17 Confidential Memorandum to Councillors (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2. RFT 02/17 Confidential Tender Evaluation Matrix (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

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

2. That Council accept the tender from <insert> in relation to contract for the works described in Tender 02/17, in the amount of <insert> (excluding GST), subject to variations, provisional sums and separable portions.

3. That authority is delegated to the General Manager, or the Director of Transport and Utilities in the General Manager’s absence, to execute all necessary documentation.

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

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.7

12.7. Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee

This report recommends Council adopt the advice of the Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee from their meeting held on 1 March 2017.

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

The Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee is not a committee of Council. Local Traffic Committees operate under delegation from NSW Roads and Maritime Services who are responsible for traffic control on all New South Wales roads.

The Bega Valley Local Traffic Committee held a meeting on 1 March 2017, the minutes of which have been distributed separately. It is a requirement for Council to formally adopt the recommendations from this Committee prior to action being taken. The recommendations were supported unanimously by the Committee.

Attachments

Nil

Recommendation

Merimbula Jazz Festival Street Parade

1. That, subject to conditions, sections of Merimbula Drive and Market Street, Merimbula be temporarily closed between 10.00am and 12.00noon on Saturday, 10 June 2017 for the Merimbula Jazz Festival street parade.

2. That, subject to conditions, Beach Street, Merimbula between the intersections of Market Street and Alice Street be temporarily closed between 6am and 12noon on Saturday, 10 June 2017 for the Merimbula Jazz Festival street parade and performance.

3. That the proposed traffic arrangements involving the temporary closure of Merimbula Drive, Market Street and Beach Street, Merimbula for the Merimbula Jazz Festival street parade and performance on Saturday, 10 June 2017, be deemed a Class 2 special event and it be conducted under an approved Traffic Control Plan, in accordance with the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Traffic Control Manual.

4. That persons involved in the preparation and implementation of the Traffic Control Plan must hold the appropriate NSW RMS accreditation.

5. That organisers fully implement an approved Special Event Transport Management Plan.

6. That organisers have approved public liability insurance of at least $20 million indemnifying Bega Valley Shire Council, NSW Police Force and NSW Roads and Maritime Services by name for the event.

7. That organisers have written NSW Police approval prior to conducting the event.

Quaama Public School P&C Annual Walkathon

1. That the Quaama Public School P&C Annual Walkathon along Warrigal Range Road, Brogo on Friday, 5 May 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 2 Special Event.

ANZAC Day Services – Bega, Bemboka, Tathra and Wolumla

1. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Bega RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March and Service in Bemboka be approved and deemed a Class 1 Special Event.

2. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Bega RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day Dawn Service, March and Service in Bega, Anzac Day Dawn Service, March and Service in Tathra and Anzac Day March and Service in Wolumla be approved and deemed a Class 2 Special Event.

3. That sections of Council roads at Gipps Street and Carp Street in Bega, Loftus Street in Bemboka, Bega Street and the Bega Street service road in Tathra and Bega Street in Wolumla be temporarily closed on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 for the Bega RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day proceedings, as per the Traffic Control Plans.

4. That the temporary closure of the Snowy Mountains Highway, Bemboka is solely for NSW Roads and Maritime Services Road Occupancy Licence determination.

ANZAC Day March & Service – Cobargo

1. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Cobargo RSL Sub Branch ANZAC Day March on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 1 special event.

2. That sections of Cobargo Bermagui Road and Tarlinton Street, Cobargo be temporarily closed on Tuesday 25 April 2017 for the Cobargo RSL Sub Branch ANZAC Day March, in accordance with Traffic Control Plan.

3. That the temporary closure of the Princes Highway, Cobargo is solely for NSW Roads and Maritime Services Road Occupancy Licence determination.

ANZAC Day March & Service – Candelo

1. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Candelo RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March and Service on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 2 special event.

2. That the section of William Street, Candelo between the intersections of Eden Street and Queen Street be temporarily closed on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 for the Candelo RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March and Service, in accordance with Traffic Control Plan.

ANZAC Day March & Service – Merimbula & Pambula

1. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Merimbula RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day Dawn Service, March and Service in Merimbula on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 2 special event.

2. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Merimbula RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March and Service in Pambula on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 1 special event.

3. That sections of Main Street, Market Street and Beach Street, Merimbula and Quondolo Street (Princes Highway), Pambula be temporarily closed on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 for the Merimbula RSL Sub-Branch Anzac Day Dawn Service, March and Service in Merimbula and March and Service in Pambula, in accordance with the Traffic Control Plans.

4. That the temporary closure of the Princes Highway, Pambula is a matter solely for NSW Roads and Maritime Services Road Occupancy Licence determination.

ANZAC Day March & Service – Eden

1. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Eden RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 2 Special Event.

2. That sections of Chandos Street, Imlay Street, Bass Street and Calle Calle Street, Eden be temporarily closed on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 for the Eden Sub Branch Anzac Day March, in accordance with the Traffic Control Plans.

ANZAC Day March & Service – Bermagui

1. That the proposed traffic arrangements for the Bermagui RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March and Service on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 be approved and deemed a Class 2 special event.

2. That the section of Lamont Street, Bermagui, between the intersections of Wallaga Street and Pacific Drive be temporarily closed on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 for the Bermagui RSL Sub Branch Anzac Day March and Service, in accordance with the Traffic Control Plan.

Bega Pony Club Street Parade

1. That the Bega Pony Club Street Parade be deemed a Class 4 Special Event under the direct control and management of NSW Police.

2. That the event achieves all conditions of Council’s issued Use of Public Land approval.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 12.8

12.8. Purchase of replacement equipment for the Works Sealed Road Maintenance Program, Plant number 341101

This report details the outcome of the evaluation of RFQ115/16 for the supply and delivery of one road patching truck and recommends award to the preferred supplier.

Director Transport and Utilities

Background

Council’s ten year Fleet Replacement Program indicated the existing sealed road patching truck (Jetpatcher) is due for replacement this financial year. This equipment plays a vital role in both the reactive and planned maintenance of Council’s sealed road network and assists delivery of service level commitments, in accordance with the Sealed Road Asset Management Plan.

The service greatly assists Council to meet legislative requirements under the NSW Roads Act, Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and Civil Liability Act regulations and codes of practice in relation to reasonableness, duty of care and risk management.

The equipment is utilised to repair pot holes and edge breaks using an in cab operated front patching boom. It can also carry out minor spray seal repairs with its variable width rear dispatching system.

Fleet Facilities held discussions with Sealed Road Maintenance team members to determine the most appropriate replacement equipment to meet their operational maintenance requirements.

The specification was based on Council’s existing unit, which has proven to be the most efficient and safe method of maintaining sealed road defects and is a capable of carrying out very rapid response repair to any sealed road surface with very little labour. The number of responses required, over the geographic area serviced, greatly determines the type of process used.

Market research indicated the Isuzu 1500 Long Auto Truck was the most appropriate platform for the patching unit to be built on, which was reflected in the tender specification.

Competitive tender submissions

There are only two leading companies in Australia with the capacity to supply the equipment to meet Council’s operational specification.

Specifications were created and tenders were called through Local Government Procurement (LGP) with a closing date of 6 February 2017.

LGP Vendor panel was utilised for this process as it provided a competitive panel for the procurement.

Two responses were received for this tender with both submissions deemed compliant.

Specific Requirements

The tender specifications included:

· Patching unit to be supplied and delivered fitted to an Isuzu FXY 1500 Long Auto Transmission;

· Truck and unit must comply with New South Wales Roads and Maritime legislations regarding dimensions and axle weights;

· Aggregate Hopper capacity of 6m³. Aggregate delivery system to be specified with quotation. (Example: centre conveyer belt or tippable hopper);

· Emulsion Vessel capacity of 2,000 litres and fitted with a 240V overnight heating system;

· The unit to have a front mounted velocity type road pot hole patching system (air, stone, water and emulsion) utilising in cab operator controls;

· The unit to be fitted with a side shiftable full road width aggregate spreader and integrated emulsion spray bar system with heated nozzles to the rear of the truck and have the ability to shut spreader segments and nozzles for narrow strip sealing;

· A full width rear mounted hydraulic operated paving screed for repairing road edge breaks;

· A plant risk assessment and operators manual is to be supplied with the truck at time of delivery. Truck and unit must comply with all Australian and WorkCover NSW standards;

· 2 days minimum training to be supplied to Council operators;

· 0.5 day training to be supplied to Council workshop staff. WH&S compliance to Australian Standards;

· Risk Assessment, workshop and operator training – 1.5 days in total;

· Full documentation & manuals.

Issues

Legal

Quotations were called via LGP’s electronic system, Vendor Panel, in accordance with the Local Government Tendering Regulations.

Road authorities have legislative requirements under the NSW Roads Act, Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and Civil Liability Act regulations and codes of practice in relation to reasonableness, duty of care and risk management. This equipment is considered an essential front-line tool in this regard.

Asset

The road patching truck plays a vital part in the maintenance of Council’s sealed road network in removal or reduction of defects.

Financial and Resources

Funding is available within the Transport and Utilities Directorate's Plant Reserve Budget in accordance to Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Conclusion

Quotations were called via LGP for the supply and delivery of one road patching truck (plant number 341101) with an inclusion of Council’s Specification for the purpose of Council replacing the existing Jetpatcher truck which services Council's Sealed Maintenance Section. Fleet Services carried out a detailed evaluation as per attached Confidential Memorandum.

Attachments

1. Confidential Memorandum to Councillors (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That Council adopt the recommendations from the Confidential Memorandum.

2. That Council accept the quotation from (insert) for the purchase of one road patching truck as described in RFQ 115/16, in the amount of $(insert) (including GST).

3. That authority is delegated to the General Manager, or in the General Manager’s absence, the Director of Transport and Utilities, to execute all necessary documentation.

4. That the unsuccessful suppliers be advised of Council’s decision.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 13.1

13.1. Community Service Medallions - Appointment of Committee Members

This report outlines the nominations for Council’s Bega Valley Community Service Medallion Committee in line with adopted Guidelines and seeks Council's approval to appoint Committee members.

Executive Manager Organisational Development and Governance

Background

Bega Valley Shire Council has presented community service awards annually since 2000, with a volunteer committee considering nominations and determining award recipients. These awards are known as the Bega Valley Community Service Medallions (the Medallion).

The Bega Valley Community Service Medallion Committee was originally appointed by Council’s Administrator in 2000. At its meeting of 14 January 2015 Council resolved to undertake a review and as a result identified:

‘that Council note a review of the Bega Valley Committee Guidelines will be undertaken to align the Committee with Council’s Section 355 Committee Structure’.

A report was presented to Council at its meeting of 20 July 2016 (copy attached) where it was resolved:

1. That Council adopt the draft Bega Valley Shire Community Service Medallion Committee Guidelines, noting that once nominations have been received for the Committee, Council will receive a further report to appoint the new Committee Members

2. That Council write letters to the previous Bega Valley Shire Community Service Medallion Committee formally thanking them for their service, informing them of Council’s resolution and inviting them to nominate as a Committee member under the new Committee Guidelines’.

Following the review, Council called for nominations for interested persons to form a new Committee under the adopted Guidelines for Council’s Community Service Medallion Committee. Nominations closed on Monday 6 March 2017.

Council received several nominations and details of the nominees have been provided to Councillors via Confidential Memorandum.

Nominations are currently open for the 2017 Bega Valley Community Service Medallion, the nomination period closed on Monday 6 March 2017. These nominations will be considered by the newly formed Committee, who will provide their recommendations for Council approval for the 2017 Medallion awardee/s, at the next Council meeting on 5 April 2017.

Strategic

Council’s Community Strategic Plan is currently under review. As part of this process an extensive community survey was undertaken and the “Understanding Our Place” document compiled. In regard to volunteering, results from the survey shows the community have indicated:

“It would be nice if Council acknowledged the work in the Shire volunteers carry out, both in savings and in making the community richer and caring.”

Council endeavours to support community volunteer activities in a variety of ways and the Bega Valley Community Service Awards is an important part of this recognition and support, with these awards being the most significant in this area.

Community Engagement and/or Communications

Nominations for the Bega Valley Community Service Medallion Committee were advertised via local media, Council’s website and Facebook page. Council’s Place Based Officers and Community Relations and Leisure staff provided information directly to a wide range of community groups and organisations.

Financial and Resource considerations

The cost associated with establishing the Committee, through media advertisements, have been met within the Organisational Development and Governance budget. Council officer time will be required to provide secretariat support to the Committee as has occurred in the past and is a part of the annual activities of the section.

Conclusion

The Medallion Awards have been an important and appropriate way to recognise outstanding volunteering service by members of our Community since 2000.

The appointment of the Committee Members of the Bega Valley Shire Community Service Medallion Committee as per the approved Guidelines will enable the Committee to consider nominations for Council approval for the annual Medallion Awards, therefore continuing this important tradition.

Attachments

1. Bega Valley Community Service Medallion Committee Nominations (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

2. Confidential memo Bega Valley Community Service Medallion committee nominations (Councillor Only) (Confidential)

Recommendation

1. That Council adopt the recommendations outlined in the Confidential Memorandum

2. That the following persons be accepted as Committee Members of the Bega Valley Community Service Medallion Committee (insert names)

3. That the Committee consider nominations for 2017 Bega Valley Community Service Medallions and provide recommendations for consideration and approval by Council at its next Ordinary meeting, namely April 2017.

Council 15 March 2017

Item 14.1

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

This report details Council’s investments during the month of February 2017

Acting Director 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 Group 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 /Policy

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 officers.

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 and resource considerations

The attached report indicates a current investment portfolio of $50,900,000. These funds can be broken into the following Funds:

Table 1: Investments by Fund $’000
Fund	Dec 2016	Jan 2017	Feb 2017
General Fund	$19,294	$17,294	$17,294
Water Fund	$13,486	$13,486	$13,486
Sewer Fund	$20,120	$20,120	$20,120

In addition, there is $ 6,704,580 in uninvested funds in Council’s operating account. There is an additional $5,000,000 at call investment held in Council’s Transactional Account.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

· 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 $’000
Fund	External Restrictions	Internal Restrictions	Unrestricted	Total
General Fund	$9,512	$12,050	$7,437	$28,999
Water Fund	$3,333	$10,153		$13,486
Sewer Fund	$3,879	$16,241		$20,120

The restrictions reported in Table 2 relate to 30 June 2016.

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.

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.

Attachments

1. Certificate of Investment - February 2017

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	15 March 2017
*Item 6.1 - Attachment 1*	Resolution Item 12.1 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly call for motions

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 6.1 - Attachment 2*	Item 11.1 Release of Balloons into the Enviroment Council 18 May 2016

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 9.1 - Attachment 1*	Proposed development plans

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 9.1 - Attachment 2*	Locality plan

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 9.1 - Attachment 3*	Council revised shadow diagram

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 9.2 - Attachment 1*	Development Plans

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 9.3 - Attachment 1*	Draft Letter to the Minister Frydenberg re Funding for NCCARF

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 10.1 - Attachment 1*	Council Report of 10 October 2006

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 10.1 - Attachment 2*	Council Report of 2 September 2015

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 10.1 - Attachment 3*	Letter from Bemboka Community Cottage Group

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.1 - Attachment 1*	Council report from 24 July 2012 Licence to Bega Valley Bridge Club

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.2 - Attachment 1*	Letter from BVHS 14 September 2015

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.2 - Attachment 3*	Letter to BVHS 17 December 2015

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.2 - Attachment 4*	Letter from Peter Tierney & Associates 31 March 2016

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.2 - Attachment 5*	Letter to Peter Tierney & Associates 14 April 2016

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.2 - Attachment 6*	Letter from Peter Tierney & Associates 20 May 2016

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 11.2 - Attachment 7*	Council Minutes 13 September 1977

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 2*	Extract of NSW EPA Licence 1741 for Merimbula Sewage Treatment Plant, U1 Effluent Management Strategy for Merimbula STP

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 3*	Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Report June 2014

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 12.2 - Attachment 2*	Merimbula and Back Lake Flood Study Final Report

Ordinary

Meeting Notice and Agenda

To:

Copy:

Live Streaming of Council Meetings

Publishing Of Agendas And Minutes

Ethical Decision Making and Conflicts of Interest

A guiding checklist for Councillors, officers and community committees

Ethical decision making

Conflict of interest

The test for conflict of interest

Identifying problems

Agency advice

Disclosure of pecuniary interests / non-pecuniary conflict of interests

Agenda

Statement of Commencement of Live Streaming

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners of Bega Valley Shire

1 Apologies and requests for leave of absence

2 Confirmation Of Minutes

3 Declarations

4 Deputations (by prior arrangement)

5 Petitions

6 Mayoral Minutes

7 Urgent Business

8 Adjournment to Standing Committees

Recommendation

9 Staff Reports – Planning and Environment (Sustainability)

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

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

12 Staff Reports – Infrastructure Waste and Water (Accessibility)

13 Staff Reports – Governance and Strategy (Leading Organisation)

14 Staff Reports – Finance (Leading Organisation)

15 Adoption of Reports from Standing Committees

Recommendation

16 Delegates Reports

17 Rescission/alteration Motions

18 Notices of Motion

19 Questions On Notice

20 Questions for the Next Meeting

21 Confidential Business

Statement of Cessation of Live Streaming for the period of the Closed Session.

Statement of Re-Commencement of Live Streaming

22 Adoption of reports from Closed Session

23 Resolutions to declassify reports considered in closed session

4.1. Salvestro Development Pty Ltd regarding Item 8.1 Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision - Lot 172 DP 1189258 - 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula Subdivision DA 2016.293

Request to Address Council

Attachments

6.1. Council support for 'No balloon release'

Background and Issues

Attachments

Recommendation

Council

15 March 2017

Staff Reports –Planning And Environment (Sustainability)

15 March 2017

Precis

Background

Description of the proposal

Description of the site

Planning assessment

Zoning

Issues

Compliance with plans and policies

Overshadowing

Privacy

Restrictive covenant

Community engagement and/or consultation

Conclusion

Attachments

Recommendation

Precis

Background

Description of the proposal

Description of the site

Planning assessment

Zoning

Issues

Desired Future Character of Pambula

Heritage Conservation Area

Figure 2 Map of current Heritage Conservation Area in relation to the subject site

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 12.2 - Attachment 3*	Summary of Public Submissions

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 12.4 - Attachment 1*	Tathra Wharf Condition Assessment 2017 - Drawing of required repairs

Council	15 March 2017
*Item 14.1 - Attachment 1*	Certificate of Investment - February 2017