|
|
|
|
Record of Public Forum Agenda
26 June 2024
Present:Cr Russell Fitzpatrick , Mayor Cr Cathy Griff, Deputy Mayor Cr Tony Allen Cr Mitchell Nadin – Virtual attendance Cr Helen O’Neil Cr David Porter Cr Joy Robin Cr Liz Seckold Cr Karen Wright |
Copy:Chief Executive Officer, Mr Anthony McMahon - Apology Director, Assets and Operations, Mr Ian Macfarlane Director, Community, Environment and Planning, Mrs Emily Harrison Director, Business and Governance, Mrs Iliada Bolton Manager Communications and Engagement, Ms Kellie Dodge Executive Officer (Minute Secretary), Mrs Jackie Grant |
Deputations for the Public Forum of 26 June 2024 were received and circulated to Councillors.
The Mayor made an announcement about live streaming requirements noting that:
Public Forums are recorded and live streamed to the Internet for public viewing.
The recording will be archived and made available on Council’s website www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au.
The Mayor commenced by acknowledging, on behalf of Bega Valley Shire Council, the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Shire, the people of Yuin nation, to show respect to elders past and present.
That the apology of Chief Executive Officer, Anthony McMahon be noted.
. Public Forum submissions received
|
FOR |
||||
|
|
Name |
Rep |
Method |
Comment |
|
1 |
Mr Benjamin Cruse & Mr Tim Stubbs – Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposal - recommendation 20 - Bundian Way project |
On behalf of Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council – Authority received |
Face to Face |
Outline the importance of the project to the Eden Aboriginal community, outline the assets associated with the walking track and maintenance requirements as well as economic benefits for the community and possible income opportunity from the track for Council |
|
2 |
Ms Barbara Haseloff – Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposal – recommendation 10 - storage and fencing at Lions Park |
On behalf of Bega Valley Kennel and Training Club Inc – Authority received |
Face to Face |
The importance of our proposal to our Club. |
|
5 |
Mr Ted Dexter - Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposal – recommendation 19 - Quarantine Bay Master Plan |
On behalf of Twofold Bay Yacht Club – Authority received |
Face to Face |
Preparation of a Master Plan to guide the future
Development of Public Aquatic Precinct for Quaratine Bay. |
|
6 |
Ms Cherie Mercado - Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposal – recommendation 3 - Solar lighting at the Eden Imlay Memorial Park |
On behalf of The Eden Fitness Trail Group |
Zoom |
Our current Community Project Proposal seeks approval from
BVSC for 2 solar lights within Imlay Memorial Park within the proximity of
the main exercise hub. |
|
7 |
Mr Adrian Nash - Item 9.1 -Community Project Proposal – recommendation 7 - Construction of a Men's Shed at Eden |
On behalf of The Eden Men's Shed Inc |
Face to Face |
Will be talking to a PowerPoint presentation |
|
AGAINST |
||||
|
|
Name |
Rep |
Method |
Comment |
|
3 |
Mr John Walters – Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposal – recommendation 11 - retaining walls at Cobargo public amenities |
On behalf of Cobargo Community Development Corporation Limited (CCDC) – Authority received |
Face to Face |
I will be speaking against the recommendation of Council staff that “that the project for retaining walls at Cobargo public amenities not be supported by Council, due to it adding additional major retaining structures on BVSC land. The retaining walls are not a requirement of the development approval and will create an additional asset in Council’s depreciation schedule.” This has come as yet another impediment and potential cost impact to our Rebuild Cobargo projects - to delete the retaining walls at this late stage will have the following impacts: - There will be an additional cost to the CCDC for additional retaining structures and waterproofing around the stairway and to the external wall of the building - There will be additional design fees for amending the design including approval of the private certifier and through the Design Practitioners planning portal. - There will be substantial additional engineering and consultants’ fees for the design work - There may be a change to the bushfire management strategy / APZ surrounding the village square building, with further delays getting sign-off on the change - There could be potential delays whilst the above amendments are approved which could impact the project's builder's (Monarch Building Services) contract costings At this stage the CCDC’s Project management consultants have advised the estimated additional cost exposure to the CCDC would be in the order of $ 150,000 - an unbudgeted and unaffordable additional cost impost on the project. The design of the proposed retaining walls was discussed with BVSC planning staff in pre-DA meetings and whilst permission was not explicitly given, there was no objection from Council to the concept when lodged as part of the DA. The design of the proposed retaining walls was incorporated into the DA final design as approved by BVSC in September 2023. The retaining walls bring substantial benefits to the overall design and community connectivity of the project, and substantial benefits to BVSC in terms of asset zone management and landscape care and maintenance on the Council’s amenities land. The CCDC would be happy to enter an agreement with BVSC to maintain the terraced concrete seat steps, which will have minimal ongoing maintenance as they will be built out of concrete. There is no cost to BVSC as CCDC are paying for the construction of the terraced steps. If a retaining wall is built on the Village Square boundary in lieu of the terraced steps, this will be a poor outcome for the community and will not promote a convenient and easy way to maintain the area behind the public amenities building. |
|
4 |
Mr Ashley Dunn – Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposal – recommendation 11 - retaining walls at Cobargo public amenities |
On behalf of Cobargo Community Development Corporation Limited (CCDC) – Authority received |
Zoom |
I will be speaking against the recommendation of Council staff that “that the project for retaining walls at Cobargo public amenities not be supported by Council, due to it adding additional major retaining structures on BVSC land. The retaining walls are not a requirement of the development approval and will create an additional asset in Council’s depreciation schedule.” The design for the Village Square on the Western side of the highway is proposing five concrete terraced concrete seat steps within the Cobargo Public Amenities site boundary (Lot 6 DP 1134) and also provides stairs adjacent within the Cobargo Village Square site boundary (Lot 4 and Lot 5 DP 1134). The proposed terraced concrete seat steps intend to; - Regrade the existing slope and provide a safe and easily accessible mowable grade for maintenance of the site; - Mitigate future bush fire threats from the east and north across the creek; - Allow community users to sit along the terraced concrete seat steps to experience and enjoy Wilgo Creek; - Allow vehicle access to the rear of Lot 6 DP 1134 for ongoing maintenance and creek/vegetation management as required by the bushfire protection management measures (this is currently not possible) Bushfire Risk The proposed Village Square development is located on land classified as bushfire prone land. Bushfire prone vegetation has been identified to the north-west and west of 66–68 Princes Highway, Cobargo. The proposed terraced concrete steps form an important part of the bushfire protection measures (BPM) which have been developed in direct response to the NSW Rural Fire Service’s Planning for Bush Fire Protection – A guide for councils, planners, fire authorities and developers by achieving the six specific objectives, in particular: Specific Objective 5 - provide for ongoing management and maintenance of BPM; - All development sites will be managed as an Inner Protection Area (IPA) as per the specifications outlined in Appendix A and an agreement or Plan of Management (PoM) will ensure maintenance of the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) within Council’s property at # 64 Princes Hwy. Page 12, Bushfire Protection Assessment: Proposed Lot Consolidation and Infill Commercial/Dual Occupancy 66-68 and 57A-59 Princes Highway, Cobargo prepared by Eco Logical dated 2 June 2024 The Bushfire Report identifies asset protection zones (APZ) to be provided to address the above specific objective. These APZs are to be provided within Cobargo Village Square site boundary (Lot 4 and Lot 5 DP 1134), surrounding managed commercial/residential properties and roads and public open space managed by BVSC. Agreement is to be provided for portion of APZ within the Cobargo Public Amenities site boundary (Lot 6 DP 1134). Proposed Solution – Landscape Wilgo Creek is considered the point of contact for the 2019/20 bushfire and the cause for why the bushfire reached where it did in Cobargo. It appears that the previous building on the western side of Princes Highway had limited to no proper access to the Wilgo Creek. If users are unable to access natural areas that have become degraded, they are often forgotten and not managed properly. The natural areas then continue to degrade and the problem of fire and/or flooding and/or weed management, etc. continues and causes potential hazards (such as fuel for bush fire). The proposed solution is to promote and provide safe access down to the creek in a beautiful and welcoming way so a proper APZ is established and so that overtime the creek can be restored and maybe considered as an important place and not only the place where the 2019/20 bushfire came from. The proposed terraced concrete seat steps sit within the existing natural ground levels. Flat grassed areas between the terraced concrete seat steps are connected by a mowable grade to the north. Immediately between the terraced concrete seat steps and Cobargo Village Square building are stairs to provide direct access from Princes Highway to Wilgo Creek. There is no reason why the CCDC cannot enter an agreement with BVSC to maintain the terraced concrete seat steps, which will have minimal ongoing maintenance as they will built out of concrete. There is no cost to BVSC as CCDC are paying for the construction of the terraced steps. This proposal was discussed with council before the DA was lodged and whilst permission was not explicitly given, there was no objection from Council to the concept when lodged as part of the DA. If a retaining wall is built on the Village Square boundary in lieu of the terraced steps, this will be a poor outcome for the community and will not promote a convenient and easy way to maintain the area behind the public amenities building to protect against future hazards such as bushfire. I strongly suggest that the CCDC lobby the elected Councillors in order to support the construction of the terraced steps as designed. The design of the proposed retaining walls was discussed with BVSC planning staff in pre-DA meetings and whilst permission was not explicitly given, there was no objection from Council to the concept when lodged as part of the DA. The concept design of the proposed retaining walls was incorporated into the DA final design as approved by BVSC in September 2023. The retaining walls bring substantial bene fits to the overall design and community connectivity of the project, and substantial bene fits to BVSC in terms of asset zone management and landscape care and maintenance on the Council amenities land. |
Mr Benjamin Cruse and Mr Tim Stubbs were granted a 2 minute extension
Cr Fitzpatrick advised Cr Allen has a significant non pecuniary conflict of interest regarding Item 9.1 | Community Project Proposals (Major) - Cobargo Public Amenities, he will remain in the chamber for the presentation and will leave the chamber when the project is presented to the Council meeting.
Mr Ashley Dunn was granted a 2 minute extension
Mr Adrian Nash was granted a 2 minute extension
The Public Forum session closed at 1:03pm
The recording of the Public Forum is available on Council’s website:
http://webcast.begavalley.nsw.gov.au/archive.php
Excerpt from the Procedure 6.02.2 Code of Meeting Practice regarding the number of speakers:
4. Public Forums
4.8 No more than three (3) speakers are to speak “for” and “against” each item of business on the agenda for the Council meeting.
4.9 If more than the permitted number of speakers apply to speak “for” or “against” any item of business the CEO or their delegate may request the speakers to nominate from amongst themselves the persons who are to address the Council on the item of business. If the speakers are not able to agree on whom to nominate to address the Council, the CEO or their delegate is to determine who will address the Council at the public forum.
4.10 If more than the permitted number of speakers apply to speak “for” or “against” any item of business, the CEO or their delegate may, in consultation with the Mayor or the Mayor’s nominated Chairperson, increase the number of speakers permitted to speak on an item of business, where they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so to allow the Council to hear a full range of view on the relevant item of business.
Attachments
Nil