Agenda of Council - 14 December 2016

Council 14 December 2016

Item 9.1

9.1. DA No. 2016.237: 12 Lot Subdivision Lot 71 DP 1074392 and Lot 341 DP 1222135 - 243 Mount Darragh Road and 12 Redfern Close, South Pambula

Director Planning and Environment

Applicant	Caddey Searl and Jarman
Owner	SK and JA Baird and NJ Bobbins (Bobbins Transport Pty Ltd)
Site	Lots 71 DP 1074392 and Lot 341 DP 1222135 – 243 Mount Darragh Road and 12 Redfern Close, South Pambula
Zone	IN1 General Industrial Zone
Site area	14.65ha
Proposed development	2 into 12 Lot Subdivision

Precis

Council is in receipt of a Development Application (DA) for a 12 lot industrial subdivision.

This subdivision is referred to Council for determination in accordance with Policy 3.01.4 Councillor/Staff – Determination of Development Applications as Cr. Russell Fitzpatrick is an employee of Bobbins Transport Pty Ltd.

Further, one objection was received during the notification period and the issues raised have formed part of this assessment.

This 12 lot industrial subdivision has been considered in accordance with the relevant matters for consideration under the BVLEP 2013 and BVDCP 2013 and is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the Draft Consent.

Description of the proposal

This proposal involves the subdivision of 2 existing lots into 12 industrial lots on Mount Darragh Road and Redfern Close, South Pambula.

The proposal as originally submitted was for 14 allotments, however was reduced to 12 lots to address the environmental constraints of the land.

The design involves a central access road running through the site with smaller parcels to the west (proposed Lots 1-8) and larger allotments to the east (proposed Lots 9-12). The proposal also includes the consolidation of land fronting Redfern Close (Lot 71 DP 1074392) and a new service road for the existing dwelling to the south (Lot 1 DP 262002). The layout is similar to the existing subdivision immediately to the east on Redfern Close.

See Attachment 2 – Proposed Subdivision

Description of the site

The property consists of two allotments: Lot 71 DP 1074392 - Redfern Close (1.6ha) and Lot 341 DP 1222135 - Mount Darragh Road (13.05ha).

Lot 71 DP 1074392 is occupied by an existing transport depot (Bobbins Transport). Lot 341 DP 1222135 was recently created as part of a 2 lot subdivision (DA 2015.197). This land contains disused industrial buildings from an old industry (landscaping material supplies).

The land is a mixture of cleared and forested land with a gentle slope towards the south.

A prominent creek line runs down the eastern side of Lot 341. This includes a dense forested gully near the southern boundary and more wetland characteristics on the land adjacent to Mount Darragh Road.

See Attachment 1 – Locality Plan

Planning assessment

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Council officers 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 located within the IN1 – General Industrial Zone. There is no minimum lot size and subdivision is permissible with consent under Clause 2.6 of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The objectives of the IN1 General Industrial Zone are as follows:

· To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses

· To encourage employment opportunities

· To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses

· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses

· To allow a range of support services that do not have an adverse impact on the viability of business and commercial zones.

The proposed subdivision provides for the future development of this industrial land with a range of potential industrial land uses. The site forms part of an industrial area that includes some existing dwelling houses and rural land that is limited in terms of development potential. The impact on residential uses has been considered within the context of the IN1 zoning and should not preclude the further subdivision of this land.

The development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Issues

The assessment of the DA has identified the following key issues:

Access

The subdivision involves access onto Mount Darragh Road, which is a regional classified road.

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has delegated the responsibility to Council to determine the appropriateness of the access arrangements. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and concludes there is currently insufficient sight distance at the intersection and as such intersection upgrading works will be required to a standard that reflects the scale of the subdivision and the prevailing 80km/h speed environment.

Condition 17 has been placed on the Draft Consent to provide for these requirements (see Attachment 3).

Biodiversity

The property has environmental constraints with a prominent riparian corridor running along the eastern boundary and a gully to the south. This land forms part of a larger catchment with valuable vegetation and habitat. The DA was lodged with a flora and fauna assessment prepared by Local Environmental Solutions, December 2015.

The impact of the subdivision on the biodiversity of the site has been assessed and amendments made to the original subdivision design to better reflect the inherent constraints of the site. Two battle axe allotments that were originally located over the existing gully have been removed and a right of access across the riparian land deleted from the original subdivision proposal.

The scale of the subdivision has therefore been reduced from 14 to 12 allotments in response to the site constraints.

Lot design

The latest design has consolidated the more restricted land into two parcels and includes an unusual horseshoe shaped allotment (Proposed Lot 11) and a larger lot to the north that is being consolidated with land fronting Redfern Close (Proposed Lot 12). These allotments have been designed to contain all of the constrained land, including the riparian areas and existing gully, all of which will remain in the ownership of ‘Bobbins Transport’.

A restriction has been placed over this land to reinforce these requirements to provide for its future protection (see Condition 10 of the Draft Consent).

Policy – Procedure 3.01.4 Councillor/ Staff – Determination of Development Applications

The Procedure applies to any DA lodged where a Councillor or senior level employee is connected to the application, as an applicant, owner, employee or relative. The Procedure in those circumstances requires referral of the DA to Council for consideration and determination.

This DA has therefore been referred to Council as Cr Russell Fitzpatrick is an employee of Bobbins Transport Pty Ltd.

Submissions

The DA was placed on exhibition for a period of 14 days from 12 July 2016 until 26 July 2016. One submission was received.

The key issues raised in this submission are discussed below, followed by Council officer comment.

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

Noise and amenity

Building the lots will be noisy enough, but the potential to have greater noise level from potentially 14 different industries will destroy any peace and quiet that I may have left, as well as continue the trend of devaluation that Bobbins has already started. We have endured noise 24 hours a day from the trucks at Bobbins yard and spotlights shine directly into our bedroom window all night.

Comment:

The zoning permits a range of industrial land uses that would be subject to future assessment taking into account such matters as light spill and noise generation.

Subdivision of the land in itself would not necessarily increase the cumulative impact on the area in terms of amenity. This impact is more likely to depend on the type of industrial activity, intensity of use and management of these future land uses.

A meeting was held with the objectors to discuss their concerns that relate primarily to the existing business, hours of operation, noise generation and light spill. Specific issues were raised with the braking of trucks along Mount Darragh Road, the sound from reversing alarms and light spill. These are issues that have been conveyed to the applicant and will be addressed through the education of staff in terms of driver behaviour and management of the site.

Lifestyle and environment

Impact on the river and ambience of surrounding areas, that is still a large draw to bringing residents to the south coast, with industrial waste, sewerage, and building paraphernalia.

The value of my property in regard to rural lifestyle living has already decreased in value because of this industry. As you can imagine, 14 more lots would destroy our rural lifestyle in South Pambula. It would make rural living non-sustainable in this area. This large subdivision is too close to rural and residential areas.

Comment:

This site forms part of a larger industrial area located on the southern side of Mount Darragh Road at South Pambula, bordered by forestry land to the south-west, environmentally zoned land immediately to the south and rural land to the north.

There is a dwelling (house) to the south and another on industrial land immediately to the west. The only rural residential land is located on the northern side of the Pambula River and any future development of this land is limited by a 120ha lot size. A flora and fauna assessment was lodged with the DA and provision has been made for the preservation of the existing riparian corridor and gully within the site.

The overall lot yield has also been reduced from 14 to 12 lots.

Conclusion

The original design has been amended to reflect the natural constraints of the site. The matters raised in the submission have been reviewed within the context of the surrounding landscape and industrial zoning of the land.

This subdivision for the creation of 12 industrial allotments is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the Draft Consent attached to this document.

Attachments

1 . Locality Plan

2 . Proposed Subdivision

3 . Draft Consent

Recommendation

1. That Development Application 2016.237 for a 12 Lot Industrial Subdivision of Lot 71 DP 1074392 and Lot 341 DP 1222135 at 243 Mount Darragh Road and 12 Redfern Close, South Pambula be approved subject to the conditions contained within the Draft Consent attached to this report.

2. That the author of the submission be notified of Council’s determination.

Council 14 December 2016

Item 9.3

9.3. Finalisation of Amendment to Local Environmental Plan 2013 - Bournda Downs, Sapphire Coast Drive, Wallagoot

This report details the results of the public exhibition of the Bournda Downs Planning Proposal and recommends adoption of the exhibited zonings.

Director Planning and Environment

Background

The purpose of this report is to detail the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal for the Bournda Downs property on Sapphire Coast Drive, and recommends adoption of the exhibited zonings and lot sizes as amendments to the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan (BVLEP) 2013. The land is currently a ‘Deferred Matter’ under BVLEP 2013. The objective of the Planning Proposal is to rezone Lots 34 DP 875572, Lot 42 DP 815711 and Lot 85 DP 750194 Sapphire Coast Drive, Wallagoot to a combination of Environmental and Rural Landscape zones.

At the meeting of 8 June 2016 Council considered a report to un-defer and then re-zone the subject land as E4, E3 and RU2 and resolved;

“1. That Council resolves to zone Lots 34 DP 875572, Lot 42 DP 815711 and Lot 85 DP 750194 Sapphire Coast Drive, Wallagoot in accordance with the Planning Proposal included as Attachment 1 to this report.

2. The Planning Proposal be lodged with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination.”

Figure 1: Subject Land – Bournda Downs

Council received a Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal on 13 July 2016 from NSW Planning and Environment and delegation of the functions of the Minister for Planning and Environment to make the plan.

In accordance with the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition for 14 days from 29 July to 26 August 2016. The exhibition of the planning proposal included notification on Council’s website, in local newspapers, and in writing to affected and adjoining landowners. Four (4) government agencies were also consulted during the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and their comments are summarised further below.

SUBMISSIONS

Nine (9) public submissions were made in relation to the re-zoning proposal. The submissions are summarised in the table below.

Concern	Staff Response
1. Will create major flooding and access issues to Lots 311 & 312 DP 116411003	This is an existing condition in the vicinity of Wallagoot Lake which will not change as the up-catchment area is to be partly zoned E4 and partly zoned E3, both with limited development potential.
2. Yellow-bellied Glider (YBG) habitat will disappear if hill forests are removed	Most of this forest is regrowth on the edge of farming land and is unlikely to contain hollow bearing or YBG habitat tree such as Bloodwoods. A full flora and fauna assessment would be required in any future subdivision proposal.
3. Monks Creek health threatened by sewer waste	Clause 6.6 of the BVLEP 2013 has provisions which are designed to protect the health of waterways which would be considered as part of any future development application for subdivision.
4. Loss of forest cover and impact upon trees and fauna	The proposed E4 zoned land has been located to minimise vegetation loss in all instances. Each of the three proposed E4 precincts has a small proportion (approx. 20%) of land that is forested. It is acknowledged that some of this forested land may be impacted by future Asset Protection Zones if required by the Rural Fire Service at the time of subdivision.
5. Detrimental impact upon adjoining Bournda NP which hosts endangered breeding birds	The amount of potential vegetation loss is not considered to be of an order to threaten the breeding habit of endangered birds within the Bournda National Park.
6. Inappropriate zones (E3 and E4 ) over forested land	Each of the three E4 precincts has a small proportion (approx. 20%) of land that is forested. It is acknowledged that some of this forested land may be impacted by future Asset Protection Zones. 14 Hectares of forested/regrowth land is proposed under E4 Environmental Living. The proposed E4 zoned land has been located to minimise vegetation loss in all instances.
7. Dangerous access off Sapphire Coast Drive	The final location of any intersection would be assessed at the time of lodgement of a Development Application for subdivision. However initial considerations confirm that there is adequate sight distance available.
8. Koala habitat not addressed in PP	The land in question is not considered core koala habitat, therefore a response to the SEPP 44 ‘Koala Habitat Protection’ question in the Planning Proposal does not apply. Only 14 Hectares of forested land is under the more intensive development zone of E4. Core koala habitat means an area of land with a resident population of koalas, evidenced by attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings of and historical records of a population. Any future development application for subdivision of the land will require a detailed flora and fauna investigation. It is noted the Office of Environment and Heritage have not objected to the rezoning. The original 1 (c) zoning of the land would have permitted over 120 lots to be developed on the land. This proposed rezoning significantly reduces the environmental impact whilst allowing some development potential.
9. The impact of Asset Protection Zones over 37 lots is too great	It is acknowledged that some proportion of the 14 Hectares of forested lands in the E4 zones may require some vegetation loss for the establishment of Asset Protection Zones.
10. No Aboriginal heritage areas have been mapped	Any future development application will require an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment.
11. Acid Sulphate soils exist on the property	The Acid Sulphate Soils exist only on a very minor part of the Monks Creek bed close to Sapphire Coast Drive. This land is proposed to be Rural Landscape (RU2) and would be excluded from any building envelopes. Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 specifies strict protocols for any development over Acid Sulphate Soils.

12. Increase in population threatens the health of Wallagoot Lake and the Catchment surrounding it, especially increased sedimentation.

This Planning Proposal significantly reduces development potential from a previous proposal of more than 120 lots to the current proposal of 37 lots.

The impact of likely earthworks is considered very minimal. Increased sedimentation arising from future road construction for housing development could be adequately controlled by an erosion control management plan (as per standard conditions on any DA for subdivision).

Agency Consultation as required by the Gateway Determination:

Agency	Response of Agency (21 days to comment)
Rural Fire Service	No objection. Noted that western and northern portions (proposed zone E3) of the site may have constrained access.
Office of Environment and Heritage	No objection. Any future subdivisions must include a masterplan delineating building envelopes, any associated infrastructure and asset protection zones. Need to adopt the principles of avoiding, mitigating and offsetting any impacts to biodiversity. Any future development application will require a comprehensive Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment.
Roads and Maritime Services	No objection. It was noted that the subdivision exits onto a Council managed road.
Department of Industry – Resources and Energy	No objection. Noted that the existing quarry in the proposed E3 zone no longer has existing use rights.

Exhibited Zones (2010) Proposed Zones (2016)

Exhibited Lot Size (2010) Proposed Lot Size (2016)

Figure 2: Proposed zonings and lot sizes – Bournda Downs

Conclusion

Public and agency consultation of the Planning Proposal has been completed. Following a review of the issues in the submissions relating to the proposed zonings of E4, E3 and RU2, it is considered no changes are necessary to the Planning Proposal as exhibited.

It is recommended Council proceed to finalise the Plan in accordance with the delegations issued by the Minister for Planning and Environment under Section 59 of the Environmental and Planning Act 1979.

Attachments

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council resolves to zone Lots 34 DP 875572, Lot 42 DP 815711 and Lot 85 DP 750194 Sapphire Coast Drive, Wallagoot to a combination of Environmental Living (E4), Environmental Management (E3) and Rural Landscape (RU2), with minimum lot sizes of 2ha and 40ha being applied in accordance with Figure 2 of this report.

2. That Council proceed to finalise the amendment to Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Amendment No. 22) in accordance with the delegations issued by the Minister for Planning and Environment under Section 59 of the Environmental and Planning Act 1979.

Council 14 December 2016

Item 9.5

9.5. Entrance Management Policies for BVSC Lakes and Lagoons

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage requires councils to develop ‘Entrance Opening Policies’ for any Intermittently Closing and Opening Lakes or Lagoons (ICOLLs) that require mechanical intervention. Policies have been developed through community and stakeholder consultation, surveys, assessments and a comprehensive Review of Environmental Factors, for each of the lakes and rivers that Council seeks to open. This report recommends the approval of policies to guide the entrance management of: Wallaga Lake; Cuttagee Lake; Bega River; Wallagoot Lake; Back Lake; and Curalo Lagoon. Although a draft Policy has also been prepared for Wonboyn Lake, further consultation of stakeholder groups is required. A separate report for Wonbyon Lake will be submitted when the consultation process has been completed.

Director Planning and Environment

Background

The State Government, through the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) requires councils to prepare ‘Entrance Management Policies’ for all estuaries, coastal lakes and lagoons that are artificially opened and/or manipulated. Although there is no specific legislation which covers the occasional opening of these coastal water bodies, OEH has developed the NSW Entrance Management Policy model.

The advantage of the NSW Entrance Management Policy model is that it provides certainty for all affected stakeholders and the wider community of when, where, how and under what conditions estuaries, coastal lakes and lagoons will be artificially opened. The proposed BVSC policies follow this model and have been reviewed and approved by the relevant government agencies. This eliminates the current need to seek approvals from the various authorities each and every time Council needs to open an estuary. This will increase Council’s responsiveness, improve consistency and afford Council certainty regarding entrance management operations.

The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and draft policies define principles for the timing and location of the openings, required lake heights, access arrangements and other special considerations including the protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and threatened species habitat conservation.

The draft policies reflect the following longer term entrance opening principles:

Rounded Rectangle: (Current) Open entrance when trigger levels are reached

Rounded Rectangle: (Progressive) Undertake works to existing development and locate any new development so as to enable an increase in trigger levels (to restore a more natural opening regime)

Rounded Rectangle: (Progressive) Revise trigger levels based on additional works completed (timeframe: 5 – 20 years)

Rounded Rectangle: (Progressive) Incorporate provisions for increasing triggers at a rate commensurate with sea level rise when undertaking works and infrastructure

Rounded Rectangle: (Future) Establish long term targets for entrance management trigger levels (incorporating sea level rise to 2100)

Figure 1: ICOLL Entrance Management Philosophy

The entrance opening policies proposed were the subject of Councillor briefings in July 2016 and early December 2016.

Current opening procedures

The proposed policies formalise the current informal opening processes Council has followed for many years with respect to carrying out the artificial opening of the lakes. Council currently uses a set Australian Height Datum (AHD) lake level as a trigger to open the ICOLLs, that is based on the heights of significant public or Council approved private assets around the lake foreshores. The opening heights proposed in the draft policies are based on the existing entrance opening heights and are listed below:

ICOLL	Opening Height (AHD)
Wallaga Lake	1.25m
Cuttagee Lake	1.8m
Bega River	1.36m
Wallagoot Lake	1.4m
Back lake	1.4m
Curalo Lagoon	1.2m

The closure of a river or lake entrance mouth is a natural occurrence. While there are obviously many ‘built’ physical impacts in the catchment (e.g. bridges, causeways, land clearing and sedimentation etc) the closure of an estuary entrance remains a natural process that occurs in the majority of estuaries on the far south coast.

The State Government’s Policy for estuary entrance management aims to ‘where possible, minimise entrance manipulation to mimic a more natural opening regime’. The intent of this policy is to allow the lake to experience a variety of water levels, including periods of elevated water levels, to ensure that fringing wetlands, saltmarsh and swamp communities receive periodic inundation which is a vital part of their life cycles (e.g. for fish).

An example of an opening decision flow chart is provided below for Back Lake (Merimbula):

Key factors for a successful lake opening:

There are a number of key factors that result in successful lake or river entrance openings.

1. Amount of water in the lake and flowing in from the catchment following the opening.
The more water in the lake prior to the opening, the more effective the opening will be and longer is the entrance likely to remain open. Even a few extra centimetres of water across the lake is a significant amount of water in volume. This volume creates greater 'head pressure’ or force, which the water has to ‘blow out’ the sand in the entrance. If large amounts of water continue to flow into the lake following the opening this will also assist in achieving a successful opening.

2. The tide
The aim is to undertake the final opening for the top of the high tide. This is to ensure that as the tide drops the tidal drag helps ‘suck’ the water out of the lake and scour the entrance of sand. If a large flood is occurring the tide becomes less important as there is generally enough force from the floodwaters to ensure a successful opening. However, it is important to note the timing on the day of any potential opening will likely be governed by the tide and available daylight.

3. The ocean swell – height and direction
If there is a large swell running on the ocean and it is hitting the beach where the opening is occurring this can hamper the excavation of the sand and make it quite dangerous for the Council officers or contractors involved. Large seas can move huge amounts of sand and can very quickly start to shoal the entrance after it has been opened. Lake openings often coincide with large storms or East Coast Lows that often result in large seas and increased storm surge. At times, the entrance may be open, but due to the elevated level of the ocean and the large swell, there is still a hydraulic closure of the entrance as the water cannot escape from the entrance (as seen at Back Lake during the June 2016 East Coast Low storm event). This can have serious implications for the flooding of low lying assets around the lakes. When this occurs there is little Council can do until the opening conditions improves.

As such when these circumstances exist, Council will avoid opening the river or lake if there are dangerously large swells occurring. Despite this, if there is a flooding emergency Council will review the safety implications to officers and contractors and open if deemed feasible and safe.

Issues

Legal

To date Council’s entrance opening processes have been ‘ad hoc’ and without formalised policies in place. In many instances openings have been organised in flood circumstances whilst multiple agency approvals are still being sought. Council’s actions have been legal, but the process has proven difficult for Council and the government agencies. This is particularly the case when openings are required on an emergency basis and where delays can have serious impacts on public safety (road closures) and in the flooding of assets.

The proposed policy documents provide the legal framework for Council to undertake the mechanical works through the provision of the comprehensive Review of Environmental Factors (REF). The draft Policy documents and REF are detailed and comprehensive and are available on Council’s web pages. Hard copies will also been tabled at the Council meeting.

While Council is the proponent for these works, it is also the determining authority. The REF has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been approved by Council’s Planning Services Manager. In addition to the approval of the REF, additional required Agency approvals have been or are currently being sought.

Formal approvals / permits required have been included for:

· Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) to allow machinery to traverse areas of potential cultural heritage significance.

· Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) letter of support

A final government Licence to occupy Crown Land to perform works such as access and excavation has been delayed. This Licence to occupy Crown Lands (under the Crown Lands Act 1989) will be incorporated into the REF documentation when it is Gazetted and issued.

Economic

The management of lake and river openings across the Shire is a key Council function that relates to public safety and the protection of a range of public and private assets including dwellings, roads, and sewer and water infrastructure. The disruption to critical services such as water and sewer, transport and access and privately owned assets is acknowledged as having a significant economic impact.

Policy

If adopted, it is proposed these policies will be in place until they are reviewed in five (5) years from the date of adoption. The approval, organisation and operational functions of lake openings sits with Council’s Environmental Services Team and these policies will be the key guiding documents to facilitate ICOLL openings into the future.

The proposed policies follow the long established trigger heights that have been developed over many years. The draft policies and REF document these accepted trigger levels and formalise all the studies and approvals required to meet the government model for artificial openings of lakes, lagoons and rivers. The policies provide greater consistency and allow for a simplified approval process.

Operational Plan

The adoption of the Entrance Management Policies will result in a formal and documented approach to the management of entrance openings. The defined process will lead to savings in Council officer consultation and in gaining approvals from government agencies each and every time that a lake or river opening is required.

The development of the Entrance Management Policies meets strategic action S1.2.1 (Administer the Coastal Zone Management Program) of the 2015-16 Operational Plan, that outlines undertaking a review of entrance management policies and protocols. The policies will be the key strategic document for managing estuary entrances over the next 5 years.

Environmental / Sustainability

The Entrance Management Policies aim to achieve a reasonable balance between minimising the flooding of low lying assets and allowing water levels to reach a level conducive to an effective opening and which is beneficial for the environment. The policies also suggest a longer term approach of progressively raising or relocating key low lying assets into the future to allow higher water levels and a more natural opening regime. This is a key factor to consider as Council progressively works towards adapting to the impacts of weather extremes and sea level rise in and around our coast and estuaries.

For example, the current predicted natural opening height for most of our ICOLLs is somewhere between 2m and 3m AHD. Most of the Shire’s ICOLLs are opened at approximately the 1.4m AHD level, which for some estuaries is roughly half of the natural opening height. The consistent opening of ICOLLs at these set levels means that the ecologically important transitional vegetation such as mangroves, saltmarsh and other coastal Endangered Ecological Communities are not inundated at their natural levels. This has caused some changes to these key ecological environments and the communities they support, and is one of the main reasons to consider the raising of low-lying built assets into the future so as to allow ICOLLs to behave more naturally.

Asset

The key objective for developing Entrance Opening Policies is to determine an opening height that allows the maximum amount of water to fill the estuary without flooding or inundating major public or approved private assets whilst also protecting public safety. Due to some historical planning and development decisions, Council does have legacy issues in some of the low lying areas around lake fringes. During the development of the draft policies, all low lying assets around each of the lake foreshores were surveyed and heights documented. This is a key data set for future asset management.

The key assets impacted by ICOLL inundation are: roads; golf courses; sports grounds; causeways; bridges; board walk;, caravan park sites; car parks; and private properties. With the heights of all these assets now known, over the long term Council can work towards progressively raising these assets, where feasible, to allow the ICOLLs to assume a more natural opening regime while also adapting to rising sea levels.

If Council undertakes the raising of public assets over time as part of its routine asset replacement program as suggested in the policies, impacts on Council’s Budget can be minimised. Major projects to raise significant assets such as sports grounds or roads will require long term planning and resourcing.

Social / Cultural

Some areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance have been discovered on the access tracks used by the machinery to open the ICOLLs. As a result, a full Archaeological Assessment was conducted for each access path used. Although little high cultural significance was found, some entrance tracks required an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).These Permits have been issued and included in the opening process documents. This ensures Council has performed its due diligence should anything of cultural significance be uncovered during machinery access to the opening area.

Consultation

Community and stakeholder consultation has been a key element in developing these policies. Importantly, Council actively sought broader community input into the policies. A series of drop-in sessions was held at locations central to each ICOLL. A total of 5 community sessions were held with sessions run in the afternoon and evening to allow opportunity for after work drop-ins. The sessions were widely advertised on Council’s social media streams, the local newspapers, radio and Council’s website. Despite this broad effort there was surprisingly low attendance to most sessions. A potential reason for this low attendance is that past opening heights were only being formalised, and not changed.

Stakeholder engagement was also directly undertaken by Council with OEH, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Primary Industries (Lands) and Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries). Each agency provided detailed comments on the draft policies and REF. All government agency stakeholders engaged in the process have been supportive of the policies.

Financial and Resources

The finalisation of the draft policies, Review of Environmental Factors and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage report were completed by officers or through consultants with appropriate expertise. This ensured a high quality outcome that has met Council and agency requirements.

This work including all community stakeholder sessions and approvals were funded by Council through the Environment Levy (Special Variation) as detailed below.

Funding source		Amount
Environment Levy (2015/16) – finalisation of draft Policies, REF and Aboriginal Cultural Assessment	$	50 000

The annual entrance opening practices are very weather dependent and as such the annual operational budget is highly variable. Entrance opening and management expenses for 2016-2017 are estimated at $15,000.

Conclusion

Council has had a longstanding involvement in opening ICOLLs. Although there have not been formal policies in place, Council has followed a rigorous approval and operational process for each individual opening. With the experience and knowledge gained from previous ICOLL management, the documented draft policies now represent the best contemporary approach to ICOLL entrance management for the unique estuaries in the Bega Valley Shire. They also provide certainty for Council operations and help communicate clearly the process and approach to entrance opening with the community.

Attachments

Nil

Recommendation

That Council approve the Entrance Management Policies for: Wallaga Lake; Cuttagee Lake; Bega River; Wallagoot Lake; Back Lake; and Curalo Lagoon as tabled and the Policies be placed on Council’s website.

Council 14 December 2016

Item 9.6

9.6. DA No. 2014.430: Modification to Development Consent - Cattle Bay Marina Development

Director Planning and Environment

Applicant	Heinrich Ruiz de Roxas
Owner	Eden Resort Hotel Pty Ltd (c/- Directors Heinrich Ruiz de Roxas and Lu Lin Yong)
Site	Lot 1 DP 1138056, Lots 2 and 4 DP 1138056 and waterway area, Cattle Bay Road, Eden
Zone	SP3 Tourist Zone (land component) and Unzoned (waterway area)
Site area	1.668 hectares plus waterway area
Proposed development	Modification to Development Consent 2014.430

Precis

An application has been lodged with Council seeking to modify a number of specific conditions detailed in Development Consent 2014.430. The Consent endorses the construction of a marina development, having both a land and water based component.

The full scope of the proposed modification will be addressed in this report together with comment and recommendations for Council’s consideration and determination.

Background

The Southern Joint Regional Planning Panel (SJRPP), on 1 December 2015 approved, subject to terms and conditions, the staged construction of a 154 berth marina, associated wave attenuator in the waters of Cattle Bay Eden and ancillary land based carparking, administration offices and amenities. A Deferred Development Consent was issued on 22 December 2015.

Description of the proposal

Council is now in receipt of an application to modify the Consent, pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application is accompanied by a detailed statement of environmental effects which provides information on the subject land, the existing development consent and the proposed modifications sought by the proponent.

In summary, the proposed modifications include:

· Modification to development contributions levied under Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and S64 of the Water Management Act 2000, taking into account marina usage, site credits and the material public benefit already provided by the proponent in dedicating the foreshore as a public reserve.

· Modification to delete conditions requiring the upgrading of Cattle Bay Road based on engineering advice to the effect that the existing road network has a suitable capacity and standard of construction to cater for the likely traffic generating potential of the marina development.

· Modification to conditions relating to the phasing of subsequent construction certificates for the land based components of the development to facilitate an orderly and efficient development process.

· Modification to conditions relating to the provision of on-site carparking to account for the staging of the marina development and to clarify the temporary nature of the carpark.

· Modifications to conditions on servicing and easements to delete the requirement for telecommunication servicing of the water based component of the development and to delete the requirement for permanent easements over the temporary location of services to the land based component.

Subsequent to the lodgement of the application to modify the Consent, the proponents engaged with Council’s Development Advisory Panel on 22 September 2016 to discuss the specific matters detailed in the application. Stemming from that meeting, the proponent submitted a revised proposal in regard to the widening of Cattle Bay Road, the allocation of credits relating to sewer headwork charges, the treatment of sewage and the allocation of S94A contributions.

A copy of the proponent’s Application to Modify is attached to this report as Attachments 1-5.

Assessment of the proposal

The proposed modifications have been subject to detailed assessment as follows:

Condition 11 – Section 94A Contribution

Condition 11 requires the payment of a S94A Contribution to the value of $55,000 as levied at the time of the original approval, pursuant to the provisions of the Bega Valley Section 94 and 94A Contributions Plan 2014. The proposed modification seeks the deletion of the condition pursuant to Section 2.12 of the Contributions Plan.

In support of the current modification, the proponent has advised the following:

· The Bega Valley Section 94 and 94A Contributions Plan 2014 allows for a variation of contributions, where justified, and in particular where a site may have S94 credits from a previous use or a material public benefit is provided in lieu of S94 monetary contributions. The proposed marina has justification for a variation of S94 contributions on both these grounds, with the site having S94 credits and a material public benefit being provided by the proponent.

· The site has S94 credits associated with the previous industrial use which exceeds the marina contributions. The principle of the site and its previous industrial use having credits for contributions is already established by Council in relation to sewer and water contribution credits, and the same principle applies to S94A contributions. The previous industrial use of the land had approximately 200 full time workers onsite, and the marina will have in the order of 5 full time equivalent jobs onsite, being a substantial reduction in demand for public infrastructure.

· The developer has already provided a substantial material public benefit in the form of dedicating 0.6ha of foreshore to Council as a public reserve which reasonably satisfies the S94A Contribution. The value of the foreshore land at the time of dedication is estimated at over $1 million and substantially exceeds the $55,000 S94A contribution.

· Should Council take the position of maintaining Condition 11, then we request the $55,000 in contributions be used towards roads in Eden including Council’s proposal to widen and upgrade Cattle Bay Road on the grounds the marina does not generate a demand for other community infrastructure in the S94 plan on which the contributions would be spent.

Staff Comment

The need to levy a contribution under the Contributions Plan was addressed at the time of the original reporting to the SJRPP and was considered appropriate by the Panel given the circumstances of the case. As reported by Council officers at the time and as considered by the Panel, the proponent sought a waiver of the contribution on the basis that:

· The proponent had provided a material public benefit in the form of dedicating over 6,500m² of prime water front land to Council as public reserve, which has a value far in excess of the contribution payable.

· The proposal, if approved, would secure lawful public access to the existing wharf component of the marina which has a material public benefit which could be credited against the contribution payable.

· The marina does not generate any significant demand for infrastructure and facilities nominated in the Plan.

At the time, it was considered the grounds on which the proponent sought the waiver would not sustain or justify a variation to the Contributions Plan on the basis that:

· No land valuation report had been submitted in support of the nature and extent of the waiver.

· The dedication of the foreshore reserve (Lot 4 DP 113056) was required under the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) for a mixed tourist and residential development and that the marina development was a separate and distinct proposal.

From that originally submitted and considered by Council and the SJRPP, the proponent’s position has remained unchanged with the exception being, the application of a credit based on the past industrial usage of the site.

The Contributions Plan, in this instance, makes no provision for the application of credits based on past land use. Also, the marina development would attract additional investment and expenditure in tourism and marine related industries and would contribute to recreational and lifestyle opportunities in the local community and Shire generally. Accordingly, it would progressively generate a demand for the provision of associated public infrastructure as identified by the Contributions Plan.

The proponent’s position seeking the allocation of any subsequent contribution specifically to the widen and upgrade Cattle Bay Road is not accommodated within the works schedules of the Contribution Plans and therefore is not supported.

Staff Recommendation

That Condition 11 be retained without amendment.

Condition 80 – Section 64 Water and Sewer Headwork Contributions

Condition 80 requires the issue of a Certificate of Compliance under the Water Management Act 2000 and the payment of monetary contributions for additional loads generated by the marina on reticulated water supply and sewer networks.

The condition notes the marina development has been assessed by Council as imposing additional loads of 59.4 ETs for both water and sewer, which equates to a water headworks contribution of $477,576.00 and sewer headworks contribution of $668,606.40 (as calculated at the time of issue of the Consent).

Whilst the proponent agrees with Council’s assessment in relation to additional loading (59.4 ETs) on Council’s reticulated water supply, the proponent does not agree with Council’s assessment in relation to the additional loading (59.4 ETs) on the sewerage network. In support of the proponent’s position, a detailed report prepared by Royal Haskoning DHV dated 5 April 2016, accompanies the current Section 96 application. The report indicates the maximum potential sewer load that can be generated by the marina development (with 2 mobile pump-out units) is approximately 14 ETs.

In addition, the proponent has drawn reference to the fact Council has previously acknowledged that the site, given its past industrial use, enjoys a credit of 62.5 ETs in calculating sewerage network loads, which would equally apply in the calculation of water supply loads.

The proponent maintains that applying the above position would result in a credit balance of 3.1 ET (62.5 ETs – 59.4 ETs) for water and 48.5 ET (62.5 ETs – 14 ETs) for sewer which would off-set any applied calculations in assessing water and sewer headwork contributions for the land based mixed tourist and residential development, endorsed by the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032).

Given the above, the proponent seeks a modification to Condition 80 which, if approved, would read:

“A Certificate of Compliance under Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act 2000 must be obtained prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Note: The development has been assessed as imposing an additional load of 59.4 ET to the water supply system and 14 ET to the sewerage network. The site with its previous industrial use has been assessed as having sewer and water load credits of 62.5 ET. The marina development will not be subject to monetary contributions for water and sewer as the site credits exceed the additional loads generated by the marina.”

In addition, the proponent has also acknowledged Council may resolve to retain Condition 80. In that event, the proponent is seeking an amendment to the condition to reflect the allocation of water and sewer headworks credits and the introduction of a monitoring program to establish actual sewer discharge loads over the first 12 months of operation of Stage 1 of the marina, for the purpose of determining the sewer headworks credits remaining on the land or contributions payable.

Accordingly, the proponent is seeking a modification to Condition 80 which, if approved, would read:

“A Certificate of Compliance under Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act 2000 must be obtained prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Note: The calculation of sewer and water headworks contributions is to take into account the following:

The development has been assessed by Council as imposing an additional load of 59.4 ET to the water supply system and 59.4 ET to the sewerage network. The land base has a sewer load credit of 62.5 ET and a water load credit of 62.5 ET which can be used by the marina development and taken into account in the calculation of sewer and water headworks contributions for the marina. If sewer and water load credits are to be used by the marina, the proponent will need to advise Council in writing at the time a Certificate of Compliance under Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act 2000 is obtained. The land base will then retain a balance of ET credits for sewer and water load that are not used by the marina and can be used in future development on the land base.

The actual sewer load generated by Stage 1 of the marina is to be monitored over a period of 12 months and then taken into account to adjust the balance of the sewer load credits on the land accordingly.

The payment of any sewer and water headwork contributions due will be calculated at the rate specified in Council’s adopted fees and Charges at the time of payment.”

Staff Comment

The need to levy contributions under the Water Management Act 2000 was addressed at the time of the original reporting to the SJRPP and was considered appropriate by the Panel, given the circumstances of the case.

Council’s acknowledgement of site credits is contained in correspondence to the proponent dated 23 September 2013. The correspondence acknowledges a credit in calculating sewerage network loads and applies to the land based mixed tourist and residential development endorsed by the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032).

As part of the original application, the proponent supplied a report from Royal Haskoning DHV entitled “Cattle Bay Marina Water and Wastewater Servicing Strategy” dated April 2015. This report calculated a water demand of 59.4 ET, or 0.37 ET/berth.

The Royal Haskoning report also included a table listing Marina ETs used by other councils and water corporations. The table included the rate used by SEQ Water, Gold Coast City Council Area for a Marina (Transient Moorage), of 0.4 ET/berth for both Water and Sewer.

The Equivalent Tenement calculation of 0.37 ET/berth for Water demand, as detailed in Royal Haskoning’s report, was similar to the SEQ Water figure of 0.4 ET/berth for Transient Moorage. Council accepted the lesser figure of 0.37 ET/berth calculated by Royal Haskoning.

It is to be noted this figure is significantly less than that recommended by the Water Directorate, being 0.6 ET Water per berth, and 0.9 ET Sewer per berth, which has been adopted by other NSW coastal authorities.

The proponent's current position in assessing sewer discharge loading is based on the operational ability and effectiveness of two muck trucks (2 being the minimum number endorsed by the Consent) of a specific capacity (90 litres) to collect sewage across the water based component of the marina development.

The more appropriate approach would be to provide an adequate facility which catered for the collection of all waste water at all times of the day as opposed to a facility which solely relied on the effectiveness and capacity of the two muck trucks.

In terms of justifying the worth of the contribution for water and sewer headworks, nothing has changed from the original submission which was assessed by Council staff and approved by the SJRPP. These calculations were verified by the figures provided by the proponent at the time. Accordingly, the contribution for water and sewer headworks, as applied in this instance, is considered reasonable and justified.

The proposed 12 month monitoring period as sought by the proponent is not supported on the basis the flow data (average and peak day) would not be representative of marina operations in the medium to long term. It follows that the use of this data as a means of calculating S64 contributions is flawed and likely to result in an underestimation of required contributions.

Based on past industrial usage, the proponent has requested a credit of 62.5 ETs be applied in addressing water and sewer headworks charges, and the credits should be transferred to the Marina development. No objection is raised to transfer of credits in principle. Transfer of headworks credits to the Marina development will be addressed at the time of obtaining a Certificate of Compliance under Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act 2000.

Staff Recommendation

Based on the detail in the original application, and review of the documents submitted as part of the current Section 96 application, the position of Councils Engineering Team has not changed from that originally reported and considered appropriate by the SJRPP. Accordingly, it is recommended that Condition 80 be retained without amendment.

Condition 66 Upgrade of Cattle Bay Road

Condition 66 requires the upgrade of Cattle Bay Road, across the property frontage to Flinders Street, to a 6.4m wide sealed pavement and 1.2 metre wide shoulder on its eastern side with associated stormwater drainage, guideposts, protection fencing, pavement marking and sign posting for a distance of approximately 0.5km.

As part of the current application, the proponent has advised the adequacy of Cattle Bay Road to accommodate the likely traffic generating potential of the marina was subject to detailed investigations and reporting as part of the original Development Application and that additional investigation and reporting has been carried out by Tasman Engineering of more recent times.

Based on those investigations and reporting, the proponent maintains Cattle Bay Road is of a suitable standard of construction to accommodate the reported low level of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed marina development. Accordingly, the proponent maintains the upgrade of Cattle Bay Road as detailed in the Consent is unnecessary and as such, Condition 66 should be deleted from the Consent.

However, the proponent has acknowledged Council may resolve to retain Condition 66. In that event, the proponent is seeking an amendment to the condition to allow the upgrading and widening of the road to be undertaken as part of Stage 2 of the marina development and further that the proponent only be responsible for the laying of the pavement and not any structural work required to stabilise the road, shoulder, verge, embankment and retaining structures within the road reserve.

The proponent’s position is based on:

· the road is of a suitable standard at the present time to accommodate the traffic generated by the marina development; and

· the cost implications associated with the widening could then be deferred until after Stage 1 has been constructed and is operating with a revenue stream which would help offset the cost of the works.

Accordingly, the proponent is seeking a modification to the condition which, if approved, would read:

“Design and construction of the following in Cattle Bay Road from its intersection with Flinders Street to the southern extent of the proposed access to Lot 2 DP 1138056 prior to occupation of Stage 2 of the marina :

i. 6.4 metre wide bitumen sealed road pavement with a 1.2 metre wide sealed road shoulder on the eastern side of Cattle Bay Road,

ii. all associated stormwater and subsoil drainage works,

iii. pavement design ESA 3 x 10⁵,

iv. installation of guideposts, protection fencing, pavement markings and signposting to standards specified in the Road design Guide published by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Note: The developer is responsible for earthworks needed to establish an appropriate gradient and level on the widened part of the road and shoulder for pavement sealing in accordance with relevant standards. The developer is not responsible for any works needed to ensure the structural stability of the road, its shoulder, verge or embankment and retaining walls to the road side whether or not the work is needed to support the pavement widening. Council is responsible for all works needed to ensure the structural stability of the road, its shoulder, verge and the embankment and retaining walls to the road side if needed to support the pavement widening.”

Staff Comment

The need to upgrade Cattle Bay Road was addressed at the time of the original reporting to the SJRPP and was considered appropriate by the Panel given the circumstances of the case.

As reported by Council’s Engineering Team at the time, a road in this location, servicing a development of this nature, would normally require a construction standard comprising an 8.0 metre wide bitumen sealed carriageway, with kerb and gutter, and a 1.2 metre wide concrete footpath formed on one side.

It was also reported Council’s current minimum standard for a 2 lane bitumen sealed road (which did not have kerb and gutter) would comprise a 6.4 metre wide bitumen sealed road pavement, with a 1.2 metre wide sealed road shoulder on each side of the carriageway. Initially, Council staff was of the opinion the existing road formation should be upgraded to this standard from the south east boundary of the development site to the intersection of Cattle Bay Road and Flinders Street, a distance of approximately 450 metres. This advice was conveyed to the proponent.

In response, the proponent sought a dispensation from the need to upgrade the road, based on:

· the traffic generating potential of the marina being 40 vehicle movements (in/out) per day (am/pm peak periods)

· the distribution of traffic being 70% to/from the Princes Highway and 30% to/from Cocora Street.

· the Cattle Bay Road – Cocora Street route to/from the marina development is in good condition.

· the operation of the former cannery employed a workforce of 500 persons at its peak and generated traffic in the form of heavy trucks and light vehicles far in excess of the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed marina development.

· the proposed marina development would generate very infrequent movements of large vehicles as compared to the past cannery operations.

· the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) for the mixed tourist and residential development would have a greater traffic generating potential to that of the proposed marina. The Approval did not require road upgrades to Cattle Bay Road beyond the frontage to the site.

At the time, it was considered the grounds on which the proponent sought the dispensation would not sustain or justify a complete departure from Council’s standards. However, on review, Council adopted a lesser standard of construction comprising a 6.4 metre wide bitumen sealed pavement, with a 1.2 metre wide shoulder on only one side of the carriageway. The standard was considered appropriate as it could be accommodated on the existing road bench.

As part of the current Section 96 application, Council’s Engineering Team reviewed all previously submitted reports and the more recent report prepared by Tasman Engineering Consultants, for the purpose of re-assessing the suitability of the existing road formation. It is to be noted the review process included the undertaking of a traffic survey to establish existing traffic volumes and route characteristics.

The review identified the following:

· Traffic is only generated from 4 existing dwellings along the 400m length of Cattle Bay Road extending from the southern boundary of the proposed development to Egan Court.

· A consistent average of 204 vehicles per day was recorded. This average includes the traffic flow in both directions.

· Morning peak traffic is consistently around 20 vehicles per hour and the afternoon peak has a consistent average of 29 vehicles per hour.

· The report prepared by Tasman Engineering Consultants concludes the proposed Marina will generate morning and afternoon traffic peaks of 20 vehicles per hour. This represents a 100% increase in morning peak traffic flow, and a 145% increase in afternoon peak traffic flow.

· Council’s position, as originally reported on and reflected in the Consent conditions, accepted a much lesser standard of road construction to that normally required.

· The existing road benching would accommodate the required upgrade as endorsed by the Consent conditions.

· Council has not requested the proponent to upgrade the section of Cattle Bay Road from the Southern boundary of the development to Cocora Road.

Based on the above, Council’s Engineering Team is of the opinion the existing standard of road construction along the section of Cattle Bay Road between the south east boundary of the development site to Flinders Street is not suitable to cater for the likely traffic generating potential of the marina development and as such, that section of the road must be upgraded to ensure its capacity, function and effective use with a minimum of maintenance. In addition, Council’s Engineering Team is of the opinion the development proposal has already received significant allowances regarding what is considered to be an acceptable road standard and as such, the deletion or modification of Condition 66 is not supported.

Staff Recommendation

That Condition 66 be retained without modification.

Modifications to Conditions Relating to the Issue of Construction Certificates

The proponent intends to apply for separate Construction Certificates for both the land and water based components of the marina development in order to facilitate an orderly, efficient and cost effective staged development process.

A number of conditions require the submission of additional documentation on the land (Lot 2 DP 1138056) based component of the development prior to the issue of any subsequent Construction Certificate. Accordingly, the proponent seeks to modify specific conditions to give certainty to when the additional information is to be submitted to Council. That being prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate for the land based component as opposed to the water based component of the development.

The following Conditions are those proposed for modification.

NOTE: Proposed amendments shown in Bold Type

Condition 30 – Preliminary Contamination Report

Condition 30 requires the submission of a preliminary site contamination report to Council for concurrence prior to the issue of any construction certificate. The condition is non-specific as to whether it applies to the land or water based components of the development. Accordingly, the proponent seeks to modify the Condition to read:

“Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for work on Lot 2 DP 1138056, a preliminary site contamination report shall be submitted to Council for concurrence.”

Staff Recommendation

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the condition only relates to the land based component of the development. Accordingly, it is recommended that Condition 30 be modified as requested.

Condition 32 – Car parking

Condition 32 specifies the required number of on-site car parking spaces and their use. The condition was considered relevant to ensure compliance with Council’s requirements for the provision of on-site car parking and to ensure its on-going use by marina patrons, staff and general public as documented in the original development application.

The proponent seeks to modify the condition to reflect the approved staging of the marina and to clarify the temporary nature of the carpark (as approved) until such time the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) for the mixed tourist and residential development comes to fruition.

As proposed, Condition 32 would read:

“A minimum of 97 off street carparking spaces comprising 50 carparking spaces in Stage 1 of the development and 47 carparking spaces in Stage 2 of the development shall be provided in accordance with Council’s adopted Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 and the Roads and Traffic Authority publication “Guide to Traffic Generating Development 2002. Carparking is to be provided generally in accordance with the approved plans or in an alternative arrangement to the satisfaction of Council.

Engineering design plans for the carpark including parking layout, surface paving and drainage, shall be prepared and certified by a chartered professional engineer and submitted to Council for endorsement prior to the issue of any construction certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority for work on Lot 2 DP 1138056.

All works required in the construction of the carpark shall be undertaken and completed in accordance with the certified engineering plans prior to the issue of any subsequent occupation certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority.”

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Condition.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 32 be modified as requested.

Condition 33 – Landscaping

Condition 33 requires the integration of landscaping into the design of the on-site carparking and driveway areas for the purpose of reducing the visual impact of the hard stand areas.

The proponent has requested that Condition 33 be modified to read;

“The design and construction of the carpark and driveway areas shall incorporate the provision of suitable landscaping. A detailed landscape plan for the carpark area shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of any construction certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority for work on Lot 2 DP 1138056. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect.

All landscape works shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan prior to the issue of any occupation certificate for Lot 2 DP 1138056 and maintained at all times thereafter to Council’s satisfaction or until such time as the mixed tourist and residential development endorsed by the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) comes to fruition.”

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Condition.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 33 be modified as requested.

Condition 37 – Aboriginal Heritage

Condition 37 requires the preparation of an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan prior to the commencement of any works associated with the renovation of the existing concrete slabs, the provision of service infrastructure and site landscaping. The condition also requires the Plan be prepared in consultation with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and be endorsed by Council.

The proponent has requested that Condition 37 be modified to read:

“Prior to the commencement of any works associated with the renovation of the existing concrete slabs, the provision of service infrastructure and site landscaping on Lot 2 DP 1138056, an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (AHMP) shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage and submitted to Council for endorsement.”

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Condition.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 37 be modified as requested.

Condition 43 – Design of Proposed Temporary Buildings

Condition 43 requires the submission of detailed design plans for the temporary buildings to Council for endorsement prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority. The Condition requires consideration be given to the visual quality of the locality in the design of the buildings.

The proponent has requested that Condition 43 be modified to read:

“Detailed design and construction plans of the proposed temporary building shall be submitted to Council for endorsement prior to the issue of any construction certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority for work on Lot 2 DP 1138056. The design of the building shall have regard to the visual quality of the locality and shall include:

(a) a design solution which positively mitigates potential visual impacts;

(b) external building finishes (including glazing);

(c) a colour palette (including colour samples)

The buildings shall be constructed and finished in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.”

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Condition.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 43 be modified as requested.

Condition 44 – Submission of Landscape Plan

Condition 44 requires the submission of a detailed landscape plan to Council for endorsement prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority. The Condition requires the establishment of landscaping within nominated areas within the site and the completion of the landscaping to Council’s satisfaction prior to the issue of the occupation certificate. The Condition also requires the ongoing maintenance of the landscaping until the Major Concept Approval (05_0032) comes to fruition.

The proponent has requested that Condition 44 be modified to read:

“A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of any construction certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority for work on Lot 2 DP 1138056. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect. The plan shall have regard to the visual quality of the locality and shall provide for:

(a) the provision of landscaping having a minimum width of 6 metres across the Cattle Bay Road frontage of the site;

(b) the provision of landscaping within the carpark area including the curtilage of the temporary building;

(c) the provision of landscaping having a minimum width of 3 metres across common boundary with Council’s public reserve (Lot 4 DP 1138056).

All landscape works shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan prior to the issue of any occupation certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority and maintained at all times thereafter to Council’s satisfaction or until such time as the mixed tourist and residential development endorsed by the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) comes to fruition.”

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Condition.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 44 be modified as requested.

Condition 79 - Requirement for Gross Pollutant Trap

Condition requires the design and installation of a gross pollutant trap. Detailed engineering design plans are to be submitted to Council for endorsement prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority.

The proponent has requested that Condition 79 be modified to read:

“Prior to the issue of any subsequent Construction Certificate for work on Lot 2 DP 1138056 full engineering detail of the Gross Pollutant Trap and proposed method of installation shall be submitted to and approved by Council.

Stormwater runoff from the proposed car park shall be directed through a Gross Pollutant Trap, prior to discharge to a Council controlled stormwater system, or an existing waterway.

The Gross Pollutant Trap shall be designed and Installed in such a way that there is no reduction in capacity of the existing stormwater pipelines and backflow through the Gross Pollutant Trap is prevented during surcharged conditions.“

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modification as proposed is considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Condition.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 79 be modified as requested.

Conditions 75 and 76 – Carparking

As approved, Conditions 75 and 76 require all on-site driveways and carparking to be made available for public use at all times and that the availability of the parking be secured by a positive covenant over the title to the land.

The proponent seeks an amendment to Condition 75 and the deletion of Condition 76.

In support of the modifications, the proponent has advised the driveways and carpark areas are temporary until the land is developed in accordance with Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) for the mixed tourist and residential development. The proponent maintains that the permanency of the wording and covenant would create unnecessary legal complications and costs in the future development of the land.

The proponent maintains that rewording Condition 75 to reflect the temporary nature of the driveways and carparking areas would be legally sufficient and appropriate to ensure public access at all times and/or until an alternative carparking arrangement is endorsed as part of the mixed tourist and residential development.

The proponent has requested that Condition 75 be modified to read:

“The on-site driveways and carparking areas associated with the proposed marina development shall be made available at all times to the general public for the purpose of access and parking until such time as alternative carparking has been provided to Council’s satisfaction.”

As approved, Condition 76 reads:

“Prior to the issue of any subsequent occupation certificate, a suitable positive covenant shall be created over Lot 2 DP 1138056 to Council’s satisfaction to give effect to this requirement. Council shall be nominated as having the benefit of the covenant and the sole authority to release, vary or modify the covenant.

A copy of the registered covenant shall be forwarded to Council within 3 months of its registration by the Office of Land and Property Information.

Note: The covenant may be extinguished at such time as an alternative public carparking area has been approved and constructed to Council’s satisfaction in association with the mixed tourist and residential development endorsed by the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032).”

The proponent has requested that Condition 76 be deleted.

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modifications as proposed are considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the provision and availability of public carparking.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Condition 75 be modified and Condition 76 be deleted, as requested.

Conditions 72 and 73 - Easements for Services

As approved, Conditions 72 and 73 require the creation of easements over existing stormwater drainage and sewer infrastructure located in Lot 2 DP 1138056 for the purpose of securing authority for Council to operate and maintain the individual services.

The proponent has advised the existing stormwater drainage and sewer infrastructure would be temporary until such time as the mixed tourist and residential development comes to fruition. It is considered the creation of the required easements would create unnecessary legal complication and cost in activating the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032). Accordingly, the proponent seeks a modification to each Condition which would effectively remove the need for the creation of each specific easement.

As approved, Condition 72 reads:

“Establishment of easements to drain water not less than 3.0 metres wide in favour of Bega Valley Shire Council within Lot 2 DP 1138056 to contain stormwater drainage works that form part of the Council-controlled drainage system. A copy of the plan registered by the NSW Land Titles Office creating this easement shall be provided to the Council to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.”

As approved, Condition 73 reads:

“Establishment of easements to drain sewage not less than 3.0 metres wide in favour of Bega Valley Shire Council within Lot 2 DP 1138056 to contain sewerage reticulation works that form part of the Council controlled sewerage system. A copy of the plan registered by the NSW Land Titles Office creating this easement shall be provided to the Council to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.”

The proponent has requested that Condition 72 be modified to read:

“Access shall be available at all times for Bega Valley Shire Council within Lot 2 DP 1138056 to operate and maintain stormwater drainage works that form part of the Council-controlled drainage system.”

The proponent has requested that Condition 73 be modified to read:

“Access shall be available at all times for Bega Valley Shire Council within Lot 2 DP 1138056 to operate and maintain sewerage reticulation works that form part of the Council controlled sewerage system.”

Staff Comment

The proponent’s position is based on the expectation the mixed tourist and residential development will come to fruition at some point in time. However, there is no obligation on the proponent to proceed with that development and there is no guarantee to that effect.

Council's Engineering Team has advised there are 2 x 1,200mm diameter stormwater pipelines, and a 150 diameter sewer pipeline in existence on the site. These assets have a significant catchment, and are critical to the ongoing operation of the stormwater and sewer networks. Council requires unrestricted lawful access to enable ongoing operation and maintenance of these assets.

Council’s Engineering Team is of the opinion the proposed changes would remove any absolute surety over the ability of Council to continue to operate and maintain the existing assets. Accordingly, it is considered essential to protect the existing assets within suitable easements.

The suggestion that the conditions would create unnecessary legal complications and costs in the future development of the mixed use and tourist development, has no relevance given the purpose of the Conditions and Council’s longstanding position regarding the need for creation of easements over Council assets.

Staff Recommendation

That Conditions 72 and 73 be retained without modification.

Conditions 74 and 86(b) – Telecommunication Service

As approved, Conditions 74 and 86(b) require the provision of telecommunications to both the land and water based components of the marina development.

The proponent maintains the provision of telecommunications to the water based component of the marina development is not feasible or required as marine communications would be via other means such as mobile phone and/or marine radio. Accordingly, the proponent is seeking modifications to the Conditions deleting reference to the need for provision of telecommunications services to the marina component.

The proponent has requested that Condition 74 be modified to read:

“Establishment of easements for services as necessary to provide for the connection of water supply, sewerage and electricity services over Lot 4 DP 1138056 to service the proposed marina berths. A copy of the plan registered by the NSW Land Titles Office creating this easement shall be provided to the Council to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.”

The proponent has requested that Condition 86(b) be modified to read:

“Conditions to be satisfied prior to occupation subject to engineer’s certification.

The following matters shall be completed prior to the commencement of use of any part of this development. The satisfactory completion of these works must be evidenced to Council by certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Chartered Professional Engineer confirming that the works identified in this condition satisfy the specified performance and acceptance criteria, and recognised good engineering practice.

a. construction of electricity reticulation works and associated facilities to service both the land and water based components of the marina, in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate supply authority.

Reason: to provide appropriate electricity servicing for the development.

b. construction of telecommunications cabling and associated facilities to service the land based component of the marina, in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate supply authority.

Reason: to provide appropriate telecommunications servicing for the development.”

Staff Comment

Given the circumstances of the case, the modifications as proposed are considered reasonable and justified as the changes would have no material effect on the purpose of the Conditions as they apply to the provision of appropriate infrastructure services to the development.

Staff Recommendation

It is recommended that Conditions 74 and 86(b) be modified as requested.

Proposed New Development Condition

Resulting from the Development Advisory Panel meeting of 22 September 2016, the proponent has lodged a proposal for an alternative method of sewage disposal involving the discharge of sewage from the approved mobile pump-out carts and amenities into screened holding tanks on the land for collection and disposal by a licenced waste disposal contractor. The proponent considers the proposal reasonable on the basis the method of sewer disposal in any case would be of a temporary nature until the Major Project Concept Approval (05_0032) for a mixed tourist and residential development is developed.

Accordingly, the proponent is seeking modification to the Consent by inserting a new condition which reads:

“83A The method of sewage disposal from the marina as described in the statement and plan headed ‘Cattle Bay Marina - Alternative method of Sewage Disposal’ prepared by Royal Haskoning DHV dated 24 October 2016 involving discharge of sewage from mobile pump-out carts and amenities into screened and locked holding tanks with a minimum capacity of 11,000 litre on the land base for collection and disposal by a licenced waste disposal contractor is also approved as an alternative method of sewer disposal. The marina operator is to keep a record of the number and volume of sewage discharges from mobile pump-out carts into the holding tanks on the land base, and a record of the number and volume of sewage waste collections by the licenced waste contractor.

All other conditions of this consent relating to direct connection to Council’s sewer system, including Conditions 56 and 80, will not apply if this alternative method of collection and disposal of sewage by licenced waste contractor is implemented.”

In support of the alternate proposal, the proponent has provided the following advice:

· The proposal involves the installation of a septic tank (4000 litres) and collection well (7000 litres) as part of Stage 1 of the marina development. The facility would be located adjacent the proposed management and amenities building in a location readily accessible by the mobile sewage pump-out units and road tankers.

· The septic tank would allow solids to settle to form a sludge, while the lighter material would float to the surface to form a scum layer. The liquid component (effluent) would flow to the separate collection well. The septic tank would be typically cleaned out every two to three years but checked more regularly. The effluent in the collection well would be pumped out every week or so depending on the rate of waste generated which would be seasonal.

· Toilet facilities in the management/amenities building would be directly connected to the septic tank. The mobile pump out unit would be coupled to the septic tank during discharge operations. The unit is fitted with a range of safety features which include an automatic parking brake, runaway cart protection and automatic pump cut off.

· Both tanks would be pumped out as required by a licensed commercial contractor for disposal at Council’s sewage treatment facility.

Staff Comment

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Building, Health and Compliance Services Team and Engineering Services Team. In response, Council officers are not supportive of the proposal on the basis that:

· The proposed marina development is located within a development servicing area nominated in Council’s adopted Development Servicing Plan – Sewerage Services dated 12 June 2013.

· A sewer connection is available to the land.

· The proposed alternative system would have associated human health, amenity and environmental risks and would not be consistent with the ultimate scope of the development.

Staff Recommendation

That Council not support the insertion of the proposed condition in the Consent.

Consultation

Agency Submissions

Trade and Investment – Crown Lands

Given the scope of the Agency’s authority, no objection has been raised to the modifications sought.

NSW Environment Protection Authority

Given the scope of the Agency’s authority, no objection has been raised to the modifications sought.

Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries NSW

Given the scope of the Agency’s authority, no objection has been raised to the modifications sought.

Submissions

As part of the current assessment process, Council undertook a public consultation process between 26 May 2016 and 28 June 2016, involving notices in local newspapers and the individual notification of all land owners notified as part of the original Development Application and assessment process.

In response, 11 submissions have been received, all of which oppose in part or in full the proposed modifications sought under the current application. The following represents a summary of the submissions:

· No dispensation must be given to the need to upgrade Cattle Bay Road to the standards applied in the development consent. The road is in a poor state of repair and any increase in usage resulting from the marina development would only exacerbate the problem to the detriment of public safety.

· The payment of contributions must not be waived based on available credits stemming from the site’s past industrial usage.

· The proposed staging in the provision of on-site carparking or any reduction in the number of on-site carparking spaces, as approved, must not be granted based on the claims that the carparking is of a temporary nature and would be catered for in the future as part of the proponent’s mixed tourist and residential development.

· Suitable easements are necessary to contain all existing and/or proposed service infrastructure and must be provided to protect Council’s interests in cost effective operation and maintenance of civil assets. The claim that the assets would be of a temporary nature and that the creation of appropriate easements would impose unnecessary legal complications and costs in the future is not accepted.

· The proponent must not be allowed to shift the costs of development onto the Council and ultimately the rate payer as evident of more recent times in relation to the demolition of the old disused cannery building and in the future with the remediation of Council’s foreshore reserve.

Staff Comment

The matters raised in the submissions have been adequately addressed in the body of this report. No further assessment and comment is considered warranted.

The matters revolving around the costs associated with the demolition of the old cannery building and foreshore remediation have been subject to ongoing negotiations between Council (as land owner) and the proponent and, as such, no further planning consideration is warranted.

Conclusion

Council is in receipt of an application to modify the Consent pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application is accompanied by a detailed statement of environmental effects which provides information on the subject land, the existing Development Consent and the proposed modifications sought by the proponent.

The application has been subject to detailed investigation by relevant Council officers to establish the appropriateness of the modifications sought in the context of Council’s adopted policy and technical engineering standards and the merits of the case.

Whilst Council staff are supportive of some of the proposed modifications, they are not supportive of those proposed modifications which are contrary to adopted policy or which cannot be justified given the specific merits of the case.

The current application was subject to a public consultation and notification process. The comments from relevant State Agencies and the public have been documented and summarised in this report. The concerns raised in the public submissions are generally reflective of the position of Council officers.

The issue of a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section 122 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 is recommended in accordance with the recommendations contained within this report, as detailed in Attachment 6.

Attachments

1. Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent 2014.430 for Cattle Bay Marina dated 29 April 2016

2. Road Condition Assessment Report dated 31 March 2016

3. Cattle Bay Marina - Addition Load to Sewer Network Report dated 5 April 2016

4 . Supplementary Report - Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent 2014.430 for Cattle Bay Marina dated 25 October 2016

5 . Supplementary Report - Cattle Bay Marina - Alternative Method of Sewage Disposal dated 24 October 2016

6 . Draft Modification Notice of Determination

Recommendation

1. That the application lodged pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and seeking to modify Deferred Development Consent 2014.430 be determined as detailed in Attachment 6.

2. That Council issue a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section 122 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

3. That Council notify relevant State Agencies and those persons who made a submission, during the public exhibition of the modification application, of Council’s decision.

Council 14 December 2016

Item 9.9

9.9. NSW Coastal Management Reforms - Draft State Environmental Planning Policy

This report provides an update on the NSW Coastal Reforms and recommends amendments to the Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) currently on Public Exhibition.

Director Planning and Environment

Background

The NSW Coastal Reforms represent the most significant change to coastal management in NSW since the introduction of the Coastal Protection Act in 1979. The Coastal Reforms package is an integrated legislative and regulatory framework to provide a modern and consolidated approach to managing the NSW coastline.

The reforms aim to better equip coastal communities to respond to the challenges and opportunities that confront them. The legislative changes and tools implemented and developed as part of the reforms will assist coastal communities protect the natural values of the coast, support coastal communities to increase their resilience to existing and emerging hazards and ensure ongoing public access, use and enjoyment of our beaches, foreshores and coastal environments.

The NSW Government has announced $83 million dollars in funding for coastal management activities over the next 5 years.

The Coastal Reforms have three key elements:

Coastal Management

Act

Coastal Management

Manual

Coastal Management

State Environmental Planning Policy

Coastal Management Act 2016

The new Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act) came into force in June this year. The CM Act repeals the Coastal Protection Act (1979) and the Coastal Protection Regulation (2011). The Act aims to provide a consolidated legislative framework for the management of the NSW coast and provide for integrated land use planning of the coastal zone.

The CM Act introduces a number of key components to underpin coastal management in NSW including:

· Replaces the existing coastal zone definition, with a new coastal zone comprised of four “coastal management areas”

a. The coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area,

b. The coastal vulnerability area,

c. The coastal environment area,

d. The coastal use area.

· The CM Act introduces management objectives for each of these coastal use areas. These coastal use areas are given effect by the draft Coastal Management SEPP through mapping and development controls that are incorporated in the SEPP. The CM Act introduces the requirement for councils to prepare Coastal Management Programs to set the long-term strategy for the coordinated management of land within the coastal zone. The Coastal Management Programs will essentially replace councils’ existing Coastal Zone Management Plans and can apply to individual locations such as an estuary or the whole of the coastline, depending on the issue a council wishes to focus on.

· The CM Act details matters that are to be considered by a Coastal Management Program, the consultation requirement, certification and adoption, and mechanisms for review and replacement of a Program.

· The CM Act requires the Minister to publish a coastal management manual to guide councils in the development of their Coastal Management Programs. This manual replaces the existing NSW Coastal Management Manual.

· The CM Act establishes the NSW Coastal Council as an expert advisory panel to the Minister on coastal management and planning matters, and to ensure compliance of a council’s preparation and review of their Coastal Management Programs. The NSW Coastal Council will replace the statutory NSW Coastal Panel and the Coastal Expert Panel that were previously established to provide advice on the current reforms.

· Numerous amendments to other pieces of legislation are outlined in the CM Act, including the Local Government Act (1993) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979). The majority of the amendments relate to changes in definitions, terminology and procedural matters.

· The CM Act also introduces the requirement for a council to integrate its Coastal Management Programs with its Integrated Planning and Reporting framework.

Coastal Management Manual

A new Coastal Management Manual has been developed to guide councils in the development of their Coastal Management Programs. The Manual is supported by numerous technical resources as part of a Technical Toolkit developed and maintained by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

The Manual sets out a process for the development of Coastal Management Programs as depicted in the following diagram:

Diagram of stages in developing a coastal management program

Staff are currently preparing to develop Coastal Management Programs for: Bermagui River (new program); Wallaga Lake; Merimbula Lake; Lake Curalo (review of existing Estuary Plans); and another program focusing on coastal hazards on the open coast.

Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)

The draft Coastal Management SEPP proposes to introduce a new strategic land use planning framework for coastal management. It will support implementation of the management objectives set out in the CM Act. The SEPP will be the single land use planning policy for coastal development and will bring together and modernise provisions from existing SEPPs.

The SEPP will streamline coastal management and policy requirements by replacing SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) and SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection). The SEPP will also incorporate current coastal related requirements of the Infrastructure SEPP.

The SEPP aims to better equip councils and coastal communities to plan for and effectively respond to coastal challenges such as major storms, coastal erosion and climate change impacts, through more strategic planning for coastal development and emergency management.

The key function of the SEPP is to give effect to the new Coastal Zone definition and the Coastal Use Areas as established under the CM Act. As with the former coastal zone the new coastal zone extends 1km landwards from the mean high water mark from the open coast and tidal limit of estuaries and coastal lakes.

The SEPP provides high level development controls for each of the four Coastal Use Areas.

a. The coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

This area essentially replaces the former SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands) and SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests). The mapping used to inform this area was the result of an in-depth review of the previous SEPP 14 mapping, which had issues regarding scale and accuracy. The development controls proposed by the SEPP have been largely carried across from the previous SEPP 14.

b. The coastal vulnerability area

This area maps land that is subject to a range of coastal hazards including coastal erosion, coastal inundation and coastal recession. The coastal vulnerability area seeks to ensure development that occurs in this area does not compromise public safety, increase risks to human life or increase current or future risks to public and private assets or infrastructure. The majority of development controls proposed for this coastal use area currently apply under the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan (BVLEP 2013).

It is important the mapping of this area is consistent with the mapping currently contained in BVLEP 2013 and the Bega Valley Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study (2015), to ensure consistency between different planning instruments and provide certainty for Council and for property owners in planning for and dealing with their land.

c. The coastal environment area

The coastal environment area encompasses environmental features such as State waters, estuaries, coastal lakes, headlands and rock platforms. This area has been mapped consistently along the NSW Coast.

The objective of this area is to protect the natural features and values through reducing threats that may be posed by inappropriate development, water quality issues or physical impacts to the natural feature.

These considerations are currently undertaken by Council through its assessment of Development Applications for various forms of development.

d. The coastal use area

This area represents the remainder of the coastal zone outside of the first three coastal areas. The SEPP recognises the economic and social importance of this area and development controls focus on issues related to development form and scale, provision of adequate public space and access, and ensuring the economic, social and environmental values of the coastal zone are not compromised. The SEPP specifically notes the need to accommodate both urban and natural stretches of the coast in this area.

Submission to the Draft Coastal Management SEPP

The draft Coastal Management SEPP is on public exhibition until 23 December 2016. Council officers attended a briefing session on 25 November 2016 in Moruya to assist in the preparation of advice to Council regarding issues requiring inclusion in a submission to the draft SEPP.

Due to the restricted timeframe provided to make a submission to the draft SEPP and Council meeting schedule, officers seek Council endorsement of key issues to be included in Council’s submission.

Officers suggest the following points form the basis of our submission:

· That Council supports the rationalisation of existing SEPPs into the Coastal Management SEPP as a key step forward in streamlining coastal management and planning and modernising coastal management in NSW.

· That the mapping of the Coastal Vulnerability Area in the draft SEPP reflect Council’s existing standards within the BVLEP, Bega Valley Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study 2015 and draft Merimbula and Back Lakes Flood Study (2016). This is to ensure consistency with Council’s current planning policies and studies, certainty for our community and for individual property owners.

· That the Coastal Zone be mapped along the closest existing and/or practical cadastral boundary to the exhibited 1km extent. This is to provide a consistent approach across existing settlements and individual properties and provide clarity during the development assessment process.

· That Council seeks the inclusion of the Bega and Towamba Rivers into “Schedule 2 Coastal Lakes” of the SEPP, to ensure consistency in the application of the SEPP across our coastal zone.

· That Council requests the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to examine alternative legislative pathways to allow the future amendments of the SEPP mapping, rather than the suggested Planning Proposal pathway, which has proved cumbersome and inefficient.

· That Council requests the funding allocated by the NSW Government be available for the development and implementation of existing Coastal Management Programs and any required changes to the BVLEP and Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013.

Attachments

Nil

Recommendation

1. That Council notes the current status of the NSW Coastal Reforms.

2. That officers prepare a submission to the draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy based on the issues highlighted in this report and forward it to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment within the Public Exhibition period.

Council 14 December 2016

Item 10.3

10.3. Community Project Proposals

This report provides a summary of community project proposals received between 1 July 2016 and 18 November 2016 for Council's information and consideration.

Director Community, Relations and Leisure

Background

The community has an important role in helping Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) identify and deliver new and/or improvements to community facilities. More often than not Council will become responsible for all works on Council managed land including compliance, maintenance, upkeep and safety. With this in mind, regardless of the project size, all works proposed for Council managed land need to be considered in the context of all project elements including: funding; personnel; procurement; risk management; workplace health and safety; environmental considerations; approvals; compliance; and ongoing maintenance. It is also important to consider how the proposed works can link and add value to other planned Council projects, particularly in terms of the maintenance and replacement of existing assets.

Council’s Community Project Proposal Procedure applies to the full spectrum of projects from small scale through to larger more complex projects. One of the aims of the procedure is to make sure all relevant project issues are considered and addressed.

The procedure involves reporting proposals to Council, particularly where projects are complex and/or will require resourcing from Council. Those proposals that are straight forward and are not requesting funding from Council are reviewed and approved by officers enabling groups to get on with their proposed works.

The level of resourcing and contribution sought from Council is an important aspect for consideration. Council resources are limited and favouring one project over another or promotion of a project is likely to affect or defer the delivery of other planned and programed works. That is not to say that contribution is not possible, particularly where projects link to strategic plans or programed works clearly identify inputs from project partners, and clearly justify the Council contribution by demonstrating good value for requested funds.

It is important to be able to give proposals the consideration they need and deserve, and to work out where they fit with other planned and programed works. The level of information included in the proposal needs to be sufficient to enable the merits and issues of proposals to be understood by officers and Councillors. Thorough proposals will clearly show the merit of the project, outline what is being requested and how potential issues have been addressed. The initial assessment by Council officers seeks to minimise wasted effort (or expense) on proposals that may not obtain approval due to funding, planning or other reasons.

The Community Project Proposal Procedure and the Proposal Form is available on Council's website.

This report contains Proposals received between 1 July 2016 and 18 November 2016 that include sufficient information for consideration by Councillors. Future proposals will continue to be presented on a quarterly basis to Council for consideration and resolution.

Attached is a summary of the Project Proposals received including comments and recommendations. Hard copies of each of the full Proposals received have been distributed to Councillors for their reference and review.

In-principle support does not commit Council to funding the project, only support, which enables applicants to progress with project development. There were also Proposals received from Bermagui Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism; Bemboka Sports Social and Recreation Club Inc.; and Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council; however Council officers continue to work with these groups so the Proposals encompass sufficient detail for considered review and future reporting to Council where required.

Issues

Legal

There can be legislative requirements that come into effect if the implications of works are not understood and accounted for in the project development stage. These include: environment and heritage; access and building code compliance; planning and development approvals; and in some instances land ownership.

Strategic

Council has a number of strategic and operational plans that outline the current and future priorities of infrastructure, civil assets and facilities capital works. For example Asset Management Plans (AMP) identifies current assets, their condition and when they are programed to be replaced. The Long Term Financial Strategy (LTFP) outlines how Council will pay for the replacement or upgrade of those assets.

Strategic Plans identify upgrades or new works based on current and expected future needs.

Policy

Council’s Procedure 4.01.3 Community Project Proposals has been developed to manage project proposals by committees and community groups for the development and delivery of community infrastructure, civil assets and facilities.

Operational Plan

Relevant key directions identified in the Council’s Operational Plan are:

S4 Proactive support and planning: There is proactive planning with the community for the protection of our built and natural environment.

A2 Facilities and services: Our infrastructure, facilities and services are strategically planned, located, designed and maintained to meet our local and visiting community needs.

Asset

Council has an adopted Capital Works Program included within the asset management structure. Asset management capital works programs are based on asset renewal (e.g. replacing existing assets to meet a similar service or provision level) as determined in Council’s AMP. The large majority of projects proposed by the community relate to new works or significant upgrades of existing assets and as such are not included in capital works programs. Where projects are linked to works identified in AMP’s this is clearly noted.

Social / Cultural

The community has an important role in helping Council identify and deliver new and/or improvement projects. Council recognises and values the important role and contribution of committees, community groups and volunteers in the management, operation and maintenance of Council infrastructure, civil assets and facilities.

Consultation

In developing the Community Project Proposal Procedure, consultation was undertaken with Council's Access Committee, the S355 Sportsground Committee and also through a workshop involving representatives of service organisations from across the Shire.

The Project Proposal form includes a section on stakeholder engagement in which the applicant can identify the consultation they have undertaken and feedback they have received in the development of their proposal.

Financial and Resources

Committees, community groups and volunteers often seek funding and grant opportunities to support their project proposal. It is important that people talk with officers prior to applying for funding to do work on Council assets. This ensures the project scope is clear and complete, the resources identified are sufficient to complete the works and there is a level of coordination to prevent already approved projects competing with new projects for the same external Grants.

The table below shows a summary of Community Project Proposal applications received between 1 July 2016 and 18 November 2016 that include sufficient information for consideration by Councillors.

Some applications that relate directly to required asset renewals or are not requesting funding from Council, have been able to be approved by officers to enable works to proceed.

	Number	Total Estimated Commercial Cost	Applicant Contribution	Requested Council Contribution
Total Project Proposals Received	11	$132,891	$73,326	$59,565
Project Proposals Approved	8	$80,614	$73,326	$7,288
Project Proposals Seeking Council Resourcing	3	$52,277	$0	$52,277

Conclusion

The Community Project Proposal process seeks to provide a consistent framework for Council to receive and consider the wide range of suggestions for projects put forward by the community. Often these projects relate to new works or major upgrades and as such have not been identified in the development of capital works programs included in AMPs.

The challenge is to give proposals the consideration they need and deserve and to work out where they fit with other planned and programed works. The level of resourcing and contribution sought from Council is an important consideration.

Attachments

1. Community Project Proposals Summary - December 2016

Recommendation

1. That Council note the report.

2. That Council note the Community Project Proposals reviewed and approved by officers:

a. The Bermagui Cricket Club - Stage 1 of the Dickinson Oval Cricket Nets Upgrade (Berm1);

b. Pambula Cricket Club for the Replacement Cricket Pitch – Pambula Sporting Complex (Mer1);

c. Merimbula & Pambula Rotary for the Access Path to Fishpen Toilets (Mer2);

d. Merimbula Sailboard Club for Enhancing Food Preparation Area (Mer3);

e. Merimbula Sailboard Club for Protecting BBQ From the Elements (Mer4);

f. Merimbula & Pambula Rotary for Footpaths Connecting Ocean Drive to Calendo Court and Burton Avenue (Mer5); and

g. Eden Swimming Club for Tree Wind Break – Eden Pool (Eden2).

2. That Council adopt the following recommendations for the Community Project Proposals:

a. That Council provide support to the Bermagui Cricket Club for Stages 2 and 3 of the Dickinson Oval Cricket Nets Upgrade (Berm1) and write to the applicant formalising support to enable the applicant to investigate other funding opportunities.

b. That Council acknowledge the merit of the On Track proposal for External Electricity Outlets (Bega1); however note there is no current funding allocation.

c. That Council support the BRAWL proposal for the Spenco Lagoon Community Path (Bega2) and subject to required project information being provided, officers work with the group to further develop and explore the proposal and enable the applicant to investigate other funding opportunities.

d. That Council note the merit of the Tathra Headland and Wharf Access Group's proposal for the Tathra Headland Pathway Design (Bega4) and consider funding as a potential 2017-18 Budget item.

e. That Council note the actions taken and feedback provided to Wonboyn Ratepayers Association Wonboyn Road Beautification (Eden1) and that no funding be provided as the works are on private land and works are not linked to BVSC planned or programed works.

Council 14 December 2016

Item 13.2

13.2. Results of 2016 Community Survey

IRIS Research has completed the fourth Community Survey on behalf of Bega Valley Shire Council and the results are presented to Council.

Director Strategy and Business Services

Background

The 2016 Community Survey was commissioned by Council to measure the community's assessment of Council’s performance in the delivery of key services and facilities as well as Council’s overall performance. The aim of the survey is to provide Council with an understanding of the perceptions and needs of the local community with respect to both Council’s services and facilities and to customer service.

The survey objectives were to:

· Measure the importance of and satisfaction with, services and facilities provided by Council;

· Compare levels of satisfaction for Council services and facilities where applicable, with the benchmark results of 2006 and 2009, as well as IRIS' Council benchmark database;

· Assist Council in identifying service use priorities for the community;

· Identify key drivers of resident dissatisfaction;

· Gain an understanding of the perception held by residents towards how safe they feel in their area;

· Identify priority action areas for Bega Valley Shire over the next 5 to 10 years.

2016 Community Survey - phone

IRIS Research delivered the 2016 Community Survey to a randomly selected, statistically significant sample of 755 local residents by phone between 31 October and 3 November 2016. The data was weighted to provide a representative sample of the region in terms of demographic profile and the region’s population figures. The survey compliance rate was 62% which, according to IRIS Research, is a very good result that indicates we have a very engaged community.

Key findings

The full report of the survey results by IRIS Research will be made public following the Council meeting.

Key results of the 2016 Community Survey include:

· Overall satisfaction with Council as an organisation has increased incrementally over the period since the first survey in 2006;

· Older and younger residents were more satisfied with Council’s overall performance than other age groups and satisfaction did not vary by geographic area;

· With the exceptions of control of cats and dogs in towns and villages, managing healthy and clean waterways and tourism promotion, Bega Valley Shire Council is performing below comparable councils in terms of overall satisfaction;

· Council performs better on delivering services and facilities compared with decision making;

· Services related to the Leisure and Recreation section are all rated as important with the provision of sportsgrounds and venues, swimming pools, summer life guards services that exceed resident expectations;

· The importance of the development and operation of Merimbula Airport and protection of European heritage values and buildings and satisfaction with promoting economic development and business growth have statistically increased from previous surveys;

· Most Environmental Services meet resident’s expectations;

· A number of services that fail to meet resident’s expectations relate to the Transport and Utilities Group;

· The service category with the most significant impact on people’s perception of Council as an organisation is Transport and Utility Group services.

Table 1 contains a summary of performance of Council services and Council as an organisation in terms of meeting resident’s expectations extracted from the IRIS Research survey results.

Table 1. Summary of performance of Council services and Council as an organisation

Services that meet expectations		Services that do not meet expectations
more important	less important	more important	less important
Sports grounds and venues	Children	Weed control	Young people
Parks and playgrounds	Cemeteries	Planning towns and villages	Disabled
Swimming pools (quality)	Library services	Way land being developed	Elderly
Foreshore areas	Regional Gallery	Balancing development and environment	Families
Summer lifeguards	Swimming pools (provision)	Planning for future of Shire	Cultural activity and connection
Environmental health regulation	wharves and jetties	Economic development & business growth	Community halls
Healthy and clean waterways	Boat ramps, pontoons etc.	Sealed and unsealed roads	Council reserves
Bushfire risk on Council land	Septic services (regulation)	Public toilets	Car parking (regulation)
Protection of natural bushland	Protection of European heritage	Car parking (provision)	Protection of trees (public & private)
Environ monitoring and protection	Protection of Aboriginal heritage	Footpaths	Building inspections & development control
Cats and dogs (control)	Regional Learning Centre	Urban stormwater infrastructure	Kerb and guttering
Reducing environmental footprint		Merimbula Airport	Cycleways
Tourism promotion		Strong leadership & good decisions	Rural drainage infrastructure
Bridges		Informing the community
Town centres (appearance)		Responsiveness to community requests
Rubbish, recycling and green waste		Involving community in decisions
Emergency events and natural disasters
Sewer services
Water services

IRIS Research recommendations from the survey results include:

· Services that are viewed favourably by the community, notably Leisure and Recreation and Environmental Services, should be promoted within the community;

· Services related to transport and civil assets have been identified as most in need of immediate attention;

· There is a need to improve communication with residents about Council decision making processes during strategic developments;

· Residents care about the future of the Shire and are ready to collaborate with Council.

2016 Community Survey - online

An online survey was also conducted through Council’s website to enable interested community members who were not selected through the random sampling process to participate.

The online survey was live on Council’s website from 15 November to 5 December 2016. The results of the online survey will be made public following the adoption of this report.

Issues

Strategic

The results of the Community Survey provide Council with valuable insight in identifying priority action areas for the delivery of Council services and facilities in Bega Valley Shire over the next 5 to 10 years. The survey is an important input into the development of Council’s next four year Delivery Plan.

Operational Plan

The delivery of the Community Survey has been identified in the 2016-17 Annual Operational Plan: LO3.2.2.1 ‘Undertake Community Satisfaction Survey to develop understanding of community satisfaction and expectations, supporting the development of the Community Strategic Plan review’

Consultation

The Community Survey was delivered by phone, with IRIS Research utilising samples proportionate to the composition of the local community with respect to age, gender, ethnicity in accordance with the most recent ABS Census. It also provided appropriate samples of each of the five districts within the Shire, and appropriate samples of urban, village and rural areas.

IRIS Research also provided Council with the facility for residents to undertake the Community Survey online to permit other interested eligible local residents to participate.

IRIS Research will be presenting the findings of the survey to Council on the morning of December 14, 2016. The survey results will then be tabled in association with this report. Once this report has been adopted, Council will make all reports available to the public, with printed copies available for anyone attending the IRIS public information session from 6pm on December 14, 2016 at the Bega Valley Commemorative Civic Centre in Bega.

Financial and Resources

The Community Survey is an identified and budgeted item within the 2017 Annual Operation Plan and Budget.

Conclusion

The results of the 2016 Community Survey provide Council with a balanced view of the community’s expectations and satisfaction with regards to service delivery by Council.

The survey results will enable Council to identify priority action areas for the delivery of Council services and facilities in the Bega Valley Shire over the next 5 to 10 years by providing Council with statistically representative information which is used to inform:

· discussions on current service areas and levels of service;

· decision making on the direction and commitment for the 2017-2021 Delivery Plan;

· the targeted engagement stage of Council's Community Strategic Plan review;

· various other aspects the Council’s future planning.

Attachments

Nil

Recommendation

That Council note the results of the 2016 Bega Valley Community Survey by IRIS Research and publish the report to Council’s website along with the results from the online survey.

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

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

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.1 - Attachment 1*	Locality Plan

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.1 - Attachment 2*	Proposed Subdivision

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.1 - Attachment 3*	Draft Consent

Concern	Staff Response
1. Old Bega Hospital Reserve Trust - surrounding the Old Bega Hospital with industrial buildings will be detrimental to the future amenity of the site and its public use.	It is agreed inappropriate industrial building design could adversely impact the current semi-rural landscape setting of the Old Bega Hospital. Any future Development Applications for industrial buildings will have to be assessed against clause 5.10 of the CLEP 2013 ‘Heritage Conservation’ which includes development which impacts upon a Heritage Item. Appropriate setbacks and materials and finishes of industrial buildings will be two important criteria to assess.
2. Old Bega Hospital Reserve Trust - re-zoning to industrial land is adverse to the extensive surrounding residential lands and Bega residential growth corridor.	It is not agreed an expansion of industrial land as opposed to Large Lot residential will significantly compromise the further urban expansion of Bega in a southwards direction. There are currently extensive areas of existing R2 (Low Density Residential) urban land zoned to the north and north east of this site which have not yet been developed.
3. L.K.Blacker & Sons Pty Ltd - The proposed rezoning of the subject land to light industrial and not general industrial is very limiting in the nature of permitted development. As an example it would exclude a new car sales dealership.	‘Vehicle sales’ are not prohibited in the Light Industrial Zone (IN2). ‘Vehicle sales’ are a type of ‘retail premises’ which is a use permitted with consent. In addition, it is considered that IN2 is: · a more appropriate zoning for areas immediately surrounding the Old Bega Hospital, and · a more appropriate zoning for the prominent and elevated gateway land next to the old highway.

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.6 - Attachment 1*	Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent 2014.430 for Cattle Bay Marina dated 29 April 2016

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.6 - Attachment 2*	Road Condition Assessment Report dated 31 March 2016

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.6 - Attachment 3*	Cattle Bay Marina - Addition Load to Sewer Network Report dated 5 April 2016

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.6 - Attachment 4*	Supplementary Report - Section 96 Application to Modify Development Consent 2014.430 for Cattle Bay Marina dated 25 October 2016

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.6 - Attachment 5*	Supplementary Report - Cattle Bay Marina - Alternative Method of Sewage Disposal dated 24 October 2016

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 9.6 - Attachment 6*	Draft Modification Notice of Determination

Funding source		Amount
BVSC NYW Small Grants Program	$	5,000

Funding source		Amount
Community Development Seniors Grants program	$	10,000

Signed
Print Name

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 10.3 - Attachment 1*	Community Project Proposals Summary - December 2016

Description	Value ($)
Registrations & Sponsorships	$34,433
In Kind Support (REX Airlines)	$4,000
Total Revenues Received	$38,433
Cost of Running Event	$63,459
Net Cost to Council	$25,026
Amount Budgeted by Council	$25,000

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 1*	Bega Valley Economic Summit Program

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 11.3 - Attachment 2*	Bega Valley Economic Summit Post Event Survey

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 11.4 - Attachment 1*	MVS Valuation Report

Item	Responsible Section	Date
BVSC prepare EOI documents	Economic Development & Procurement	Monday, 7 November 2016
Issue EOI documentation via e-tendering portal	Procurement	Tuesday, 8 November 2016
EOI Period Opens	Proponents	Tuesday, 8 November 2016
EOI Briefing	Economic Development & Procurement	Tuesday 15 November 2016
Site Inspection	Economic Development & WHS	Monday 21 November 2016
EOI Periods Closes	EOI Evaluation Panel	Wednesday, 30 November 2016
Council Meeting	Council	Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 1*	Bermagui Historical Society approval of proposed road names in Bermagui

Tenders
Name	Package 1	Package 2
Hydramet	Offer submitted	Offer submitted
Hydramet (Non-Conforming)	Offer submitted	Offer submitted
IXOM	Offer submitted	Offer submitted
Superior Water	Offer submitted
Westwater	Offer submitted	Offer submitted
Westwater (Non-Conforming)		Offer submitted

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 1*	RW Surveying Valuation Report Lot 60 DP 1193819 Nutley's Creek Road, Bermagui

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 2*	Plan of easement for water supply within Lot 60 DP 1193819

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

6.1. Section 64 contributions

Background

Attachments

Recommendation

Council

14 December 2016

Staff Reports –Planning And Environment (Sustainability)

14 December 2016

Precis

Description of the proposal

Description of the site

Planning assessment

Zoning

Issues

Access

Biodiversity

Lot design

Policy – Procedure 3.01.4 Councillor/ Staff – Determination of Development Applications

Submissions

Conclusion

Attachments

Recommendation

9.4. Finalisation of Amendments to Local Environment Plan 2013 - Undefer Various Sites

Background

Consultation

Conclusion

Attachments

Recommendation

9.7. The 25th Annual NSW Coastal Conference

Background

Strategic

Financial and Resources

Conclusion

Attachments

Recommendation

Staff Reports – Community, Culture and Leisure (Liveability)

Tenders
Cappello Commercial Hydraulics & Civil Pty Ltd	Offer submitted
RD Miller Pty Ltd	Offer submitted

Funding source		Amount
NSW Restart program from the funding allocation of $971,678	$	883 000
Council’s Airport Reserves (as at 30 June 2016)	$	254 000

Wednesday, 1 February 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 22 February 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 15 March 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 5 April 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 26 April 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 17 May 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 7 June 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 28 June 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 9 August 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday,30 August 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 20 September 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 11 October 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 1 November 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 22 November 2017	Ordinary
Wednesday, 13 December 2017	Ordinary

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 13.3 - Attachment 1*	Exhibition of Draft Community Ambitions written submission

No.:	Comment/Observation
1	One way of building greater community awareness of community issues is to provide opportunities for the community to become more aware of such issues.
2	The community would benefit from being better informed on the background of important issues, as well as understanding the constraints Council Officers are confronted by in addressing community issues.
3	Improve community involvement and engagement by allowing residents to attend non-confidential sessions of Council workshops.
4	Council could publicise the headline of each item to be addressed during workshops. Such information being available on Council’s website and distributed as an E-News item.

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 13.4 - Attachment 1*	Submission in respect of Draft Code of Meeting Practice version 9

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 13.4 - Attachment 2*	procedure 5.02.2 Code of meeting practice version 9 publicly exhibited 13 October 2016

Table 1: Investments by Fund $’000
Fund	Sep 2016	Oct 2016	Nov 2016
General Fund	$12,294	$17,294	$17,294
Water Fund	$13,486	$13,486	$13,486
Sewer Fund	$20,120	$20,120	$20,120

Table 2: Restricted Cash and Investment by Fund $’000
Fund	External Restrictions	Internal Restrictions	Unrestricted	Total
General Fund	$9,512	$12,050	$3,994	$25,556
Water Fund	$3,333	$10,153		$13,486
Sewer Fund	$3,879	$16,241		$20,120

Council	14 December 2016
*Item 14.1 - Attachment 1*	Investment Report - November 2016