Agenda of Council - 26 March 2014

Council 26 March 2014 Item 8.1

8.1. DA No. 2013.405: Proposed Woolworths supermarket - Montague Street, Young Street and Unnamed Laneway, Bermagui

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Applicant	Fabcot Pty Ltd c/- The Planning Group
Owner	Fabcot Pty Ltd
Site	Lots 11-15 Section 8 DP 758095, 1-9 Young Street, Montague Street and Unnamed Laneway, Bermagui
Zone	B2 Local Centre
Site area	6,060m²
Proposed development	Construction of a supermarket and two speciality retail tenancies (including liquor store), carparking, landscaping and associated advertising signage.

Precis

Council is in receipt of a development application seeking consent for the construction of a Woolworths supermarket with two speciality retail shops (including liquor store) and associated infrastructure.

The proposal is referred to Council due to significant public interest regarding the strategic direction for Bermagui, the impacts on local infrastructure and the economic impact on the commercial centre.

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

Background

Council considered and approved a development application (DA 2012.98) in April 2013 for the construction of a Woolworths supermarket with two speciality retail shops (including liquor store) and associated infrastructure at the subject site.

In August 2013 Council received a summons regarding the commencement of proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court by No W in Bermagui Inc against Fabcot Pty Ltd (First Respondent) and Bega Valley Shire Council (Second Respondent). The claim of the proceedings by No W in Bermagui Inc was to challenge the validity of development consent 2012.98.

On 2 December 2013 the proceedings were adjourned by the Court Registrar for a period of 3 months to enable the First Respondent (Fabcot Ltd Ltd) to “lodge and seek approval for a Development Application for the construction of a supermarket, liquor store, speciality retail shop, car park, advertising signage and lighting on land comprised in Lots 11-15 Section 8 DP 758095”.

The matter remains adjourned pending Council’s decision in relation to this development application 2013.405.

Description of the proposal

Development consent is sought for the construction of a supermarket and associated infrastructure, comprising;

· Supermarket with a gross leasable floor area (GLFA) of 1,852.3m² comprising;

o 1,542m² of retail space plus 95m² loading dock

o Liquor store with a gross leasable floor area of 152m²

o Speciality retail shop with a gross leasable floor area of 63.3m² (tenancy unknown at this time)

· Carparking area with a total of 87 car spaces plus 2 motorcycle spaces

· Advertising signage, lighting and landscaping

Customer vehicular access to the proposed development would be via Montague Street. Pedestrian access is proposed via Montague Street and Young Street. Heavy vehicles would service the site via the Unnamed Laneway (sometimes called Lamont Lane).

An extract from the development plans is provided as Attachments 1 & 2. A full set of the drawings will be available for viewing at the Council meeting.

Description of the site

The subject site comprises five allotments with frontage to Young Street, Montague Street and the Unnamed Laneway in Bermagui. The land is predominantly cleared, with some remaining exotic vegetation, including several established Canary Island Palms which formed part of the formal garden setting of the original (now demolished) dwelling house.

The site is located within the main commercial precinct, with business premises adjoining the site (separated by the Unnamed Laneway) to the north, including hotel/pub, motel, retail premises and offices.

Immediately adjoining the site to the west is a single dwelling house. The northern side of Young Street (between the subject site and Wallaga Street) is characterised by low density residential development. On the southern side of Young Street (opposite the site between Montague Street and Wallaga Street) is also characterised by low density residential development.

To the east of the site, is a combination of residential development and recreational reserve (park), with Zane Grey Caravan Park further to the east.

A locality plan is provided as Attachment 3.

Planning assessment

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

A copy of the assessing officer’s Section 79C assessment is provided as Attachment 4.

Zoning

The subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the provisions of the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 (BVLEP 2013).

The proposed supermarket and packaged liquor outlet would be defined as Shops (under the Retail Premises group definition), which means;

Premises that sell merchandise such as groceries, personal care products, clothing, music, homewares, stationery, electrical goods or the like or that hire any such merchandise, and includes a neighbourhood shop, but does not include food and drink premises or restricted premises.

Shops are permissible in the zone with development consent. Tenancy 2, as indicated on the development plans, has also been considered as a Shop however the first occupancy of this tenancy will require separate approval once a tenant is secured. A suitable condition of consent is recommended to reflect this requirement.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 31]

The objectives of the B2 zone are as follows;

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

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

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

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

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

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

For the purpose of Clause 2.3(2) of BVLEP 2013, all the zone objectives have been considered in the assessment of the proposal and the construction of a supermarket and retail shops on the subject site is considered to be consistent with those objectives, for the following reasons;

· The proposed supermarket would contribute to the range of businesses in Bermagui and service the needs of the local area consistent with the concept of Bermagui being a Local Centre.

· Is located within the main business precinct with suitable access for vehicles and pedestrians, is able to be serviced by public transport (with a local bus operator confirming that Montague Street could form part of the bus route to access the site), and suitable facilities for bicycle parking also provided onsite.

· The proposal would not detract from the viability of commercial uses within the zone, as discussed in detail later in this report under Economic Impacts.

· Suitable design measures have been proposed to minimise adverse impacts on adjoining residential and other land uses, specifically suitable building design, location and articulation and the treatment of noise generating activities and equipment.

Issues

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

Strategic direction for Bermagui

Council’s strategic direction for the township of Bermagui has been documented through the Bermagui and Wallaga Lake Structure Report 2007 (as amended 2008), the Bega Valley Commercial Strategy 2006, the South Coast Regional Strategy 2006, the Bega Valley Land Use Planning Strategy 2008 and the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013.

The subject land has been zoned for commercial purposes since 1987.

Council has sought to maintain this area for commercial purposes to ensure that Bermagui is able to maintain a compact commercial precinct, with services being located within a reasonable walking distance to each other.

Bermagui is classified as a Local Centre under the Bega Valley Commercial Strategy 2006, with Bega identified as the Regional Centre, providing higher order goods and services. The Strategy identifies the role of the Bermagui Local Centre is to “service the weekly commercial needs of people within the Bermagui area”.

The subject site is specifically mentioned in the Commercial Strategy as being identified as the “Illawarra Retirement Trust site”. The Strategy recommends that the site’s zoning be reviewed in order to “facilitate a mixed commercial and seniors housing development which maximises the use of the site as a two storey development incorporating some ground floor commercial, hostel care and independent senior living”.

This review was at the request of the previous owners of the land, the Illawarra Retirement Trust, as the provisions of an amendment to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 prevented seniors housing in commercial zones unless the housing component was provided wholly above ground floor level. The then owners felt that this could adversely impact on their plans to one day develop the land for the purpose of seniors housing.

In response to the submission, an additional permitted use has been identified for the site and listed as Item 17 in Schedule 1 of the BVLEP 2013 to allow Seniors Housing to be considered on the subject site.

The land was then sold to the current owners (Fabcot) in December 2011, who propose the development currently before Council which does not include a Seniors Housing component on the land.

Notwithstanding the additional use clause, the proposed use of the site for commercial purposes is consistent with the objectives of the Structure Report, the desired outcomes of the South Coast Regional Strategy 2006 (particularly in relation to economic development and employment growth) and the objectives of BVLEP 2013.

Traffic generation and parking impacts

The development design proposes its primary vehicular access from Montague Street with secondary access being proposed via the Unnamed Laneway for the purpose of service deliveries.

The applicant’s Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications Report, prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates, assesses the impact of the proposed development on the local road network.

Service vehicle route

The proposed service vehicle route was the subject of detailed assessment as part of the previous development application (DA 2012.98) with input provided from Council’s Traffic Development Advisory Committee. The application currently before Council does not alter the proposed traffic route as previously approved and the impacts highlighted in this assessment are the same as considered in the previous assessment.

The heavy vehicle service route proposed would entail a left or right from Bunga Street into the Unnamed Laneway, continuing straight across Wallaga Street and into the proposed supermarket loading dock. In exiting the site, the truck would turn left into Montague Street and left into Lamont Street for the exit out of town.

Council’s Development Engineers advise that the Traffic Development Advisory Committee comments from 7 December 2012 remain valid when considering the proposal which is the subject of this application. The Committee previously concluded:

Whilst the Committee were concerned that truck drivers may not prefer to use the nominated service route and reiterated that the use of Young Street, with its wider road reserve and formation would be preferable from a traffic point of view, TDAC have considered the proposal put before them and conclude that the proposal would be an acceptable servicing solution provided assessing officers are satisfied that the swept paths are suitable and that pedestrian access has been considered. It was noted that suitable conditions could be placed on any consent regarding upgrading of the laneway and requiring use of the nominated service route.

From a planning perspective, it is considered desirable to avoid the use of Young Street by heavy vehicles, as Young Street forms the interface between the existing commercial zone and the residential zone.

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the information provided by the applicant in relation to swept paths for the service route, and have concluded that with minor adjustments to existing kerb and gutter and adjustments to the intersections of the Laneway/Wallaga Street and Laneway/Montague Street, service vehicles could suitably manoeuvre along the nominated route.

However, to ensure the Laneway is to a standard suitable to cater for the increase in heavy vehicle traffic, substantial upgrading works are recommended, including construction of kerb and gutter along the full length of the Laneway, construction of stormwater drainage, pavement design to accommodate heavy vehicles and associated bitumen sealing and reconstruction or protection of water and sewer mains.

Suitable conditions are included in the draft consent which is provided as Attachment 9 to this report.

Parking

Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013) requires onsite parking at the rate of 1 space per 25m² of gross floor area (GFA). The proposed development has a GFA of 1,852.3m² which requires the provision of a minimum of 74 parking spaces.

The development proposes the provision of 87 spaces, which is therefore in excess of the DCP 2013 minimum standard.

The carparking layout and design is considered to be satisfactory for the proposed development in terms of functionality, manoeuvrability and landscaping.

DCP 2013 also requires bicycle parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 200m² of GFA. The development therefore requires parking facilities for 10 bicycles. The development plans show an area for 7 bicycles and therefore a condition of consent is recommended to ensure compliance with the DCP provision.

[Refer to draft Condition No.35]

Pedestrian access

The issue of pedestrian access to and within the site has been raised in multiple submissions and forms the basis of the submission from the Bermagui Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Inc. The Traffic Development Advisory Committee also recommended in December 2012 that Council consider the potential for pedestrian conflict within the Laneway.

At present there is no formalised pedestrian footpath along the Laneway. It is not proposed to require formalised pedestrian footpath along the Laneway as it is not desirable to encourage the movement of pedestrians along this route due to the current width of the laneway not being able to accommodate a vehicle travel path and a footpath.

Recent work undertaken on Council’s behalf by Spiire Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, in landscape master planning the central business districts of Bermagui, Bega, Merimbula and Eden, has acknowledged this is an issue for Bermagui. In the Design Vision and Options Report (which was on public exhibition at the time of assessment of this development application) an analysis of the Bermagui townscape is provided and various scenarios for improvements in relation to pedestrian access and linkages to the main street are recommended.

As part of this development application, the design provides a 3 metre setback from the rear lane boundary. This was in response to concerns raised during Council’s consideration of the previous development application (DA 2012.98), whereby it was discussed that Council pursuing a widening of the laneway, to accommodate a pedestrian path, may be desirable at a future date.

As part of the assessment of this development application, staff discussed alternative options regarding access within the Laneway with the applicant. The applicant responded by requesting that the plans before Council be assessed without revision.

Council may include additional conditions in relation to pedestrian access to the laneway, however staff recommend that without an adequate footpath connection between Wallaga Street and Montague Street being available at this time, the formalisation of a pedestrian discharge point directly into the Laneway would not be in the interests of pedestrian safety.

Economic impacts

Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider “the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality”.

The extent to which a consent authority can consider the economic impact of a development on existing businesses in the locality is well established in planning case law.

In November 2012 Council commissioned Hill PDA to undertake a peer review of the previous application (DA 2012.98), to assist assessing staff in considering the economic report provided by the applicant and to gain an understanding whether the likely economic impact on Bermagui would be acceptable and whether the proposed additional supermarket floor space would result in an oversupply of retail space for the resident population.

Hill PDA was also requested, in reviewing the previous Location IQ economic impact report, to advise Council on whether the report was based on sound economic principles, assumptions and forecasts.

The Hill PDA review provided the following summary of the relevant planning law context in terms of assessing economic impact;

Previous court judgements have provided some guidance on relevant issues in relation to the economic impact of retail developments.

In Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council (97) LGERA, Justice Lloyd noted “economic competition between individual trade competitors is not an environmental or planning consideration to which the economic effect described in s90(1)(d) is directed. The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) are the appropriate vehicles for regulating competition. Neither the Council nor this Court is concerned with the mere threat of economic competition between competing business…. It seems to me that the only relevance of the economic impact of a development is its effect ‘in the locality…”

In Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675 at 687 Justice Stephen noted that “if the shopping facilities presently enjoyed by a community or planned for it in the future are put in jeopardy by some proposed development, whether that jeopardy be due to physical or financial causes, and if the resultant community detriment will not be made good by the proposed development itself, that appears to me to be a consideration proper to be taken into account as a matter of town planning…. However, the mere threat of competition to existing businesses if not accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with, will not be a relevant town planning consideration”.

The Hill PDA review confirmed that the population growth assumptions and methodologies used by Location IQ were reasonable and based on commonly used methods for economic impact assessment.

Location IQ has confirmed in an updated report, dated February 2014 (which references the 2011 census data) that the population of the Main Trade Area is projected to increase by around 20-30 persons per annum (ie 0.5% to 0.7%) over the forecast period to 2026.

The Location IQ Economic Impact Assessment was also updated in this current development application to reflect the slight change in gross floor area from the previous application.

A copy of the Location IQ February 2014 report is provided as Attachment 5.

The report concluded that the limited difference in the overall floor area (an increase of 37.6m²) would have minimal change on the range of goods and services sold at the centre and therefore would have a negligible effect on operation and sales level as reported in the March 2012 Location IQ report.

On this basis, key findings of the HillPDA peer review remain valid in the assessment of this application. A summary of the key findings from the HillPDA report is provided below:

· The site is desirable for commercial development given its proximity to the existing Bermagui centre (as ‘In-Centre’ development).

· The Spar Foodstore (now Foodworks) provides for only convenience or top-up shopping needs given its size ……. and acts more like a local convenience store.

· Local centres are intended to provide for weekly shopping needs. Given the limited scale of existing grocery stores in Bermagui, the centre does not appear to fulfil this role.

· The proposed development would reduce shopping trips to centres outside the Main Trade Area, which would have positive flow-on effects for other businesses in Bermagui.

· There is a significant amount of escape expenditure from the Bermagui Main Trade Area (55-65%).

· Hill PDA confirms that there would be some impact on the existing centre but that any detrimental economic effects would be outweighed by the greater competition, price, range and convenience provided by the proposed Woolworths supermarket development.

· Hill PDA are of the opinion that Bermagui would continue to maintain a vibrant and viable town centre with the introduction of the proposed supermarket.

· The proposed development is likely to capture a significant amount of tourist trade. Bermagui is a long-stay tourist destination in that visitors tend to come and stay for at least a few days. Day-trippers are in the minority and the majority of accommodation is focused on camping, caravan parks and the rental of holiday homes. This type of tourist visitation is conducive to supermarket and grocery shopping. The proposed supermarket could help reduce the high cost of groceries in the Bermagui area, which has been noted as a concern and issue for tourists in the Sapphire Coast Visitor Profile and Satisfaction Report (June 2011) completed by Tourism Australia Research.

Location IQ also provided specific comment on a submission made by Wakefield Planning on behalf of some Bermagui residents and landowners.

A copy of the Location IQ response to the Wakefield submission is provided as Attachment 6 to this report.

The extent and adequacy of facilities being provided to the community of Bermagui, to ensure the Local Centre status of the township is achieved, would not be detrimentally affected by the proposed Woolworths supermarket, and therefore refusal of the application on economic impact grounds is not warranted.

View impacts

Potential view impacts on adjoining and adjacent residential developments have been assessed in accordance with the view sharing principles outlined by the Land and Environment Court, in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah 2004. The key principles are as detailed below;

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

The view impact assessment was undertaken through inspections of the site, analysing digital photos and was assisted by the erection of height poles to provide a visual reference for the proposed development.

Height poles were erected to demonstrate the maximum height of the proposed development (being the loading dock area) and the main roof points along the proposed Young Street building façade. This gave an accurate indication of both the setback (positioning) and the maximum height of the proposed building. With the height poles in place, the assessing officer visited a variety of vantage points in the public domain and also from balconies and living/dining rooms of private residences.

Reference was also made to photographs taken by the assessing officer in the assessment of the previous development application (2012.98).

The views experienced in the vicinity of the development were to the Bermagui River estuary, to the headland, to Horseshoe Bay, general ocean/water views, views to the distant beach and then to Gulaga (Mt Dromedary) in the distance. The view to Gulaga is considered to be iconic to the far south coast and indeed an important landmark for the Wilderness Coast.

The results were that some nearby residences would be affected by the proposed development in terms of view impact (for example, 12 and 14 Young Street), whilst 11 Young Street was considered to be the most affected. (Note: 11-19 Young Street currently comprise residential dwellings but are within the commercial zone).

Having established the likely view impact, the reasonableness test was applied. The proposed supermarket building would be excavated into the site, reducing its bulk and scale and maximum height. The proposed building height complies with the 10 metre maximum set by BVLEP 2013.

Views to the most iconic landmark (Gulaga) are predominately maintained for most properties with the exception of 11 Young Street which would lose part of this view.

It should be noted that the most severe view impact (i.e. from 11 Young Street) is generally over a side boundary.

Adjacent properties on the southern side of Young Street enjoy their outlook predominantly over the currently vacant land (the subject site).

Whilst the proposed development would have an impact on views enjoyed from adjoining and adjacent residential buildings, the design and placement of the building on the site is considered to be reasonable in terms of minimising impact and is consistent with the established principles of view sharing.

An analysis of the likely visual impact of the building form from key public open space areas was also undertaken by assessing staff whilst the height poles were in place, including from Dickinson Park Reserve, the headland (Bermagui Point), War Memorial and surf club.

It is considered that the development would sit comfortably within the existing built form of the Bermagui town centre, would not detract from the heritage buildings in Lamont Street and would not be a visually obtrusive element, when viewing the town from these public open space areas.

Heritage impacts

There are two heritage listed buildings in proximity to the development site, those being Sorrento Lodge (2-6 Lamont St) and the Horseshoe Bay Hotel (10 Lamont St).

For the purpose of considering Clause 5.10 of BVLEP 2013, an assessment of the impact of the development on heritage items in the vicinity of the site has been undertaken.

Council’s Heritage Advisor, in assessing this application, provides the following comments;

The proposal is to erect a Woolworths supermarket on the corner of Young and Montague Streets in Bermagui. Previous advice on an earlier proposal was provided on 22 May 2012. A number of points raised in the earlier advice have been addressed in the revised proposal as noted below:

· Setback from the boundary adjacent to the weatherboard cottage has been increased to 3000mm,

· The boundary fence adjacent to the cottage is a timber fence which is more consistent with the cottage’s character,

· Landscaping on the supermarket side of the fence should help to reduce visual impact,

· The supermarket wall has been visually articulated and its mass visually broken up by using two colours and a series of groove features inlaid into the PCP (painted precast concrete panel),

· Large sections of timber cladding have been fixed to the wall,

· The roof will be coloured Windspray with Woodland grey trim.

Elsewhere the walls have been clad in Timber Cladding or a shiplap metal wall cladding, which will go a long way to ensuring building wall surface has a degree of compatibility with many of Bermagui’s historic structures.

The above modifications have greatly improved scale, character and streetscape impact of the proposal. However there is further opportunity to improve the ‘fit’ of this structure into the desired future Bermagui character as can be seen on both Cox’s Wharf development and the entry into Council’s offices in the town…

At present the awning above the proposed pedestrian entry into the supermarket is about 6 metres above pedestrian floor level and uses painted compressed fibre cement cladding spandrels in combination with natural timber posts. As this is the front entry it is important that proportions and dimensions are ‘human’ in scale. It is therefore suggested the spandrel height be reduced to approximately 3.6 – 4 metres above FL and that the predominant material and character is timber rather than CFC. Where relevant it may be appropriate to use sails in combination with timber posts to further break up scale and reflect coastal architectural language.

It is considered reasonable to include as a condition of consent a requirement to ensure that the height of the front entrance awning achieves an appropriate proportion and dimension, and that the predominant material of the awning is timber, as referred to in the Heritage Advisor’s recommendations.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 12]

Visual amenity, design and streetscape character

The Bega Valley Land Use Planning Strategy 2008 includes the following statement in relation to Bermagui - “the setting of Bermagui within the world class ‘Gulaga’ landscape warrants careful design attention to re-developments in the town to ensure the integrity of this landscape is preserved”.

The streetscape in the vicinity of the development site is characterised by a mix of land uses and building styles. The site is located within the commercial zone, at the rear of the existing Lamont Street shops. The site also adjoins the existing residential zone of Young Street and within the commercial zone, on the northern side of Young Street, are a number of low density residential dwellings.

The development is considered to be consistent with the relevant plans and policies applying to the land, including the NSW Coastal Design Guidelines 2003 and Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013. The design and location of the building would sit sympathetically with the streetscape and the broader landscape of Bermagui as detailed further below.

Building materials and articulation

In terms of visual amenity and ensuring an appropriate building design, which is considerate of the streetscape, the development proposal currently before Council provides a design that includes a mix of cladding and timber, which is in direct response to comments made in the previous application DA 2012.98 and in response to comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor and that of the Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that further articulation of the building would be achieved by ensuring that the whole of the Montague Street façade of the retail space was timber clad (in line with recommendations made through the Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust by Professor Philip Cox).

Further, it is noted that the plans as submitted indicate that the areas proposed to be shiplap metal wall cladding are to be a beige colour. Staff agree that the colour of this cladding would best be ‘dark grey’, as specified previously by Professor Cox. As such, suitable conditions of consent are recommended to affect this appropriate design change.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 12]

Building height

The BVLEP 2013 specifies a maximum building height of 10 metres is permitted for the subject site. The proposed development complies with the height limitation, with the maximum height of the building being 9.9 metres above natural ground level (at the rear loading dock area to the top of the condenser deck screen).

The building is excavated into the site so that the Young Street elevation presents as a single storey building of a suitable scale to complement the adjoining residential zone.

The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of the Height of Buildings clause 4.3 of BVLEP 2013 in encouraging a low-set building form and protecting the residential amenity, views, privacy and solar access.

Setbacks

Bega Valley DCP 2013 allows zero setbacks for commercial development in the B2 zone (with the exception of some precincts in Merimbula, Bega and Eden).

Notwithstanding that a zero setback is permissible at this site, the development is proposed to be setback 3 metres from Young Street and the adjoining private property to the south-west to enable a buffer to adjoining and adjacent developments and to enable some landscape screening of the development.

The proposed 3 metre setback to the Laneway, as discussed previously, is to enable any future road widening to be undertaken free of major building obstruction.

The proposed building is substantially setback from Montague Street with the open carpark being located between the street frontage and the building.

The development is considered to be responsive to its setting, in terms of setbacks, building placement and design.

Floor Space Ratio

The development site is not subject to a Floor Space Ratio control, for the purpose of BVLEP 2013.

Advertising signage

The proposed advertising signage is considered to be appropriate in scale and location and would suitably identify the building whilst not being excessive, particularly when viewing the building from adjoining residential and public reserve areas.

The development application considered by Council last year (DA 2012.98) included a 5 metre high pylon sign, which Council resolved to delete from the Approved Development Plan through a condition of consent. The application currently before Council seeks approval for a smaller sign in a similar location to the previously proposed pylon sign.

The new sign (denoted as Sign 10 on Plan Sheet A05 Rev A) would have a maximum height of 1.3 metres and include the Woolworths and BWS logo and a reference to the carpark.

This business identification and directional sign is considered to be a reasonable addition to the development proposal and, as it would not be internally illuminated, would not detrimentally add to the overall lighting of the site.

Acoustic impacts

Operation of plant and equipment and delivery truck impacts

The development application was accompanied by an acoustic assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics, dated December 2013. The assessment report considers noise impacts, identifies receivers adjoining and adjacent to the site, and makes recommendations for the treatment of noise generating plant and equipment and site operations.

The study has been conducted generally in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy and the intrusiveness criteria for day time, evening and night time periods have been correctly used. The background levels utilised, whilst not measured but predicted, are conservative and appropriate for Bermagui. Modelling for carpark usage, loading dock use, sleep disturbance and road noise have all been included in the study.

In terms of assessing meteorological impacts, the study concludes that the nearest noise sensitive receivers are located in areas of close proximity to the proposal and those sites will not be influenced in terms of noise levels experienced by prevailing winds. This is consistent with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

The study concludes that mechanical plant and equipment will all be roof mounted (on the loading dock). The consultant itemises this equipment based on typical Woolworths supermarket specifications, though it is noted that specific equipment selection has not been finalised.

In assessing the development, staff note that despite an improvement to the design of the shielding proposal (the height of the plant and equipment screen has been increased by 300mm from the original design) the intrusiveness at the identified receivers is modelled to increase, compared to the previous proposal. There would be a night time exceedance of a maximum 3dB at 10 Lamont Street and 14 Lamont Street and 2dB at 11 Young Street.

The report proposes that careful selection of the plant items, consistent with the octave band sound power levels (as detailed in Table 7 of the 2013 noise report) should reduce the noise to compliant levels. If not, additional shielding would be required.

In this regard a specific condition of consent is recommended to address this matter.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 36]

The report also identifies night time (ie after 10pm) intrusiveness exceedances as a result of carpark noise. To address this concern, it is considered reasonable to limit the trading hours of the supermarket from 7.00am to 10.00pm, which is generally consistent with the trading hours for similar supermarkets in the Bega Valley.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 4]

In relation to noise from delivery trucks, the acoustic report highlights exceedances to the Industrial Noise Policy requirements. As such it is recommended that delivery hours should not exceed 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, to provide for a reasonable amenity for identified receivers.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 3]

In addition, a consent condition is recommended requiring broadband (beeper type) reversing alarms to be installed on delivery vehicles in lieu of the typical tonal alarms.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 38]

Subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of consent, the proposed development is considered to be reasonable in terms of likely noise impacts in the immediate locality.

Trading hours

The proposed trading hours for the supermarket are nominated in the application as being 6.00am to midnight, seven days per week. No specific trading hours are nominated in relation to the proposed liquor store, nor the speciality retail store.

It is unlikely, in staff’s opinion, that such extended trading hours would be warranted in the Bermagui township. Concern has been raised in submissions regarding the proposed trading hours and the associated noise impacts and activity in the general vicinity.

It is considered reasonable to limit the trading hours of the supermarket from 7.00am to 10.00pm, which is generally consistent with the trading hours for similar supermarkets in the Bega Valley.

In relation to the proposed liquor store, more restrictive trading hours are considered appropriate. In this regard, the following trading hours are proposed to be nominated in any consent, being 9.00am to 9.00pm Monday to Saturday and 10.00am to 8.00pm Sunday. This is the same as the approved (and now operating) Dan Murphy’s liquor store in Bega.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 5]

Construction hours

To ensure construction activities are undertaken at appropriate hours to minimise disturbance to adjoining properties, a suitable condition of consent is recommended limiting construction activities to the hours of 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday (with no work on Sundays or Public Holidays).

[Refer to draft Condition No. 6]

Environmental impacts

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

The development application documentation refers to Woolworth’s commitment to sustainability. The document “Woolworths ‘Do the right thing’ Sustainability Strategy 2007-2015” articulates the commitment. The company has rated climate change and water use as its top two sustainability priorities. Additionally, Woolworths nominates the importance of leadership on sustainability issues as a key corporate objective.

To deliver on Woolworth’s sustainability commitments, it is expected that the development must meet best practice in regards to greenhouse reduction and water savings. While the proposal has some environmentally sustainable design approaches, some aspects lack a best practice approach.

Rainwater harvesting

It is noted that two 4000 litre rainwater tanks are proposed for the site which would be linked to an irrigation system for landscaping. This is an increase in rainwater storage capacity from the previous application (which was a total of 5000 litres). This measure is supported, however it is noted that the location of the rainwater tank is in a corner which will make it extremely difficult for the water to be effectively used for the purposes of landscaping throughout the site. No pumping or irrigation details/plans have been submitted to indicate the workability of such a design.

A suitable condition of consent is recommended in this regard, to ensure that further details in relation to the operation and design of the rainwater tank system and its linkage to the landscape areas is submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of any Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority.

[Refer to draft Condition No 18]

Passive design

Due to site constraints, it is recognised that the supermarket is limited in its orientation options. Despite this, the natural light provided by the current north easterly orientation is considered reasonable. Roof colour choice is consistent with good passive design by providing higher levels of heat reflection; however appropriate roof ventilation is not detailed and should be required.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 33]

Energy

The applicant’s commitment to install high efficiency lighting in the development is supported. This should be required throughout the building (shopping floor, store rooms, offices, ancillary retail outlets, loading area, security light, emergency light) and the external lighting areas (car park and external concourse areas).

The applicant should also be encouraged to install a range of greenhouse reduction options, increasing the insulation levels above the minimum Building Code of Australia standard, and the use of solar photo voltaic (PV) systems. It is noted that these systems are economically viable and well matched to the consumption patterns of commercial buildings. Additionally, the Bega Valley Shire region has one of the highest penetrations of solar PV in the state (10% of households) and as such community expectation of a commitment in this area is significant.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 32 and 33]

Stormwater treatment

The subject site is located at the end of the catchment, and within close proximity to Horseshoe Bay/ocean. Current industry practice for On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) at the lower end of the catchment is to have a minimal detention in order to allow stormwater flows to dissipate quickly into the catchment and therefore not exacerbate the time of concentration of upper catchment storm events.

This assists in reducing the risk of any localised flooding, as peak flows within the piped drainage system arrive at the lower end of the catchment. For this development, assessing officers have deemed that an OSD capacity of 1:2 year average recurrence interval is adequate for the site (which is less than the standard 1 in 5 year detention).

However, it is essential for pre-treatment of stormwater to occur prior to discharge into the downstream catchment. The applicant proposes a water treatment unit be installed at the north east of the site, before the onsite detention structure. The unit would filter most rubbish, sediment, total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus and hydrocarbon from the carpark and other sources of soiled site water.

Suitable conditions of consent are recommended in relation to appropriate stormwater management.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 47]

Vegetation retention

During the assessment of the previous proposal, Council’s Tree Preservation Officer inspected the subject site to investigate the potential to salvage any of the vegetation currently at the development site.

Inspection revealed that there are some larger specimens of the Canary Island Palm (Phoenix canariensis) present on the site that would be suitable for relocation. The concept landscape plan submitted with the development application indicates that these trees would be relocated offsite to a third party.

It is considered, however, that these particular specimens should be investigated for relocation within the proposed landscape areas of the development, in particular along the Montague Street frontage, to complement the streetscape of this location. Alternatively, the specimens could be relocated to a nearby public space, such as Dickinson Park Reserve.

The work being undertaken by Spiire, in terms of landscape masterplanning the Bermagui CBD, identifies the importance of augmenting the existing palm tree plantings in the Reserve.

The Tree Preservation Officer advises that these species are good candidates for transplanting as the root system is compact and resistant to damage that usually occurs with open rooted trees.

Should the application be approved, a suitable condition of consent is recommended requiring analysis by an arborist and inclusion into the final landscape plan or consideration of relocation within a nearby Reserve.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 19, 20 and 21]

Light spill impacts

Concern has been raised in submissions in relation to the potential for neighbourhood impacts as a result of light spill, from the building and carpark lighting. The proposed lighting systems would need to comply with the Australian Standard for interior lighting and road lighting (pedestrian areas) in terms of achieving an appropriate level of crime minimisation whilst ensuring appropriate shielding and direction of lighting so as not to cause annoyance to the owners or occupiers of adjoining premises or glare to motorists on adjoining or nearby roads.

Where lighting is not essential for crime prevention, those lights should be switched off at the close of business, hence reducing unnecessary lighting of the site.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 16]

Servicing impacts

Water pressure

Council’s water supply within this area is adequate for fire fighting requirements to the existing commercial development however, due to the particular fire fighting requirements of the proposed development, the applicant would be required to provide on-site storage and/or augmentation to the water supply system to service the proposal.

All works associated with meeting the proposed development’s fire fighting requirements shall be at the developer’s expense and shall be in addition to any Section 64 (Development Servicing Plan for Water Supply) contributions.

It is noted that the required contribution has been calculated as $24,150 for water and $33,810 for sewer, based on Council’s 2013/14 Fees and Charges.

Social impacts

Accessibility

In considering the accessibility of the proposed development, assessing officers identified that the access ramp adjoining the loading dock does not conform to the accessibility requirements and as such a condition of consent is recommended requiring the ramp to be at a maximum gradient of 1:14, as per the Building Code of Australia.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 50]

It is noted that the plans provide an accessible toilet with baby change facilities which is conveniently located so as to service each tenancy within the development.

Safety and security

The development application was referred to the NSW Police Service for assessment in accordance with the principles of ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’ (CPTED) in terms of surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and activity and space management.

Lighting

NSW Police provided the following comments in relation to lighting of the development.

Effective lighting contributes to safety by improving visibility and deterring suspicious activity. Lighting to the carpark area during business hours should meet Australian Standard AS/NZS 1158 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces. This should also be installed along the frontages of Young and Montague Streets where the public can access the complex by foot.

Security lighting should be installed to the building to all street frontage. This should operate during night hours to act as a deterrent to criminal activity such as malicious damage and break/enter offences.

Street lighting should also be considered for Lamont Lane. There will be additional traffic along this roadway with deliveries. In additional this may become a short cut route for pedestrian movement from other parts of Bermagui township.

Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended should the application be approved in relation to street lighting and onsite lighting. Lighting of the site would need to be appropriately designed, directed and shielded to ensure lighting is appropriate for the development whilst minimising disturbance to adjoining owners and occupiers, as detailed previously in this report.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 14, 15 and 16]

Pedestrian access

Concern was raised in relation to the potential for people to access the proposed liquor store from the Laneway by taking shortcuts through private property (from the hotel and motel). NSW Police indicate that this is not a desirable route, particularly at night as it is a visually secluded area, and suggested the erection of a fence along the northern boundary of the site.

Due to the loading dock area needing to be accessible the construction of a security fence would not be feasible in this location.

It is recommended however that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and appropriate security lighting be installed in this rear loading dock area to maximise surveillance and visibility. Reduced trading hours, as proposed earlier in this report, would assist in this regard.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 9]

Liquor licence

Concern has been raised in submissions in relation to an additional liquor outlet in Bermagui. Comments from the NSW Police in this regard were as follows;

We note the development proposal will include a liquor outlet within the facility. Police will address licencing issues through our licensing coordinator when the liquor application is made.

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

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

Consultation

To assist in the assessment of the current application, assessing staff undertook consultation with the Bermagui Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism and the Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust. Detailed submissions have been received from both organisations and have helped inform the assessment of this application.

Bermagui Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism

The Bermagui Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Inc provided the following comments for Council’s consideration;

Bermagui Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism’s previous comments to BVSC regarding the D/A approved in late 2013 were based on the context of ensuring pedestrian safety and providing physical and visual accessibility to other businesses in Bermagui.

Our stance on this matter remains firm as we consider this critical to the success of integrating the proposed new shopping area with the existing business environ should the D/A be approved. Anything less than this potentially allows the proposed new development to take an unacceptable amount of trade away from the existing retail precinct.

The BACC&T believes the new proposed D/A has some specifications that need to be redesigned to ensure ease of movement for pedestrians.

· This D/A does not provide pedestrian access from the Woolworth’s centre to Lamont Lane which is the natural access point to the existing businesses. The BACC&T believes the potential negative impact of this new centre may be lessened if access is possible from Lamont Lane.

· This footpath is not at kerb level and has a fence of unknown height. The pathway should be at street level with access stairs to the carpark. No fence would be required then.

· Another pedestrian access point should be constructed near the corner of Lamont Lane and Wallaga Street. This would improve accessibility to the centre creating a quick entry point and assist in connecting the business premises nearby.

· At the vehicle exit/entry on Montague St, we would like a pathway leading into the carpark on both upper and lower sides. Presently there is only one pathway on the southern side. This is a safer option considering more pedestrians will be approaching from the northern side.

· BACC&T previously suggested low growing shrubs and a safety fence of minimal height to define this area between the Lamont Lane side of the carpark and pedestrian pathway should be all that is required. This would open the new centre visually allowing for incorporation with the rest of Bermagui’s business area.

It should be noted that the BACC&T is aware of a number of businesses that back onto Lamont Lane who are currently considering how they may redevelop their properties to allow rear and through access from Lamont Lane to Lamont Street. This would create links to the two centres.

The BACC&T hopes the BVSC ensures that the proposed new commercial development allows for total integration into the existing commercial precinct and actively looks at providing future use of the laneway.

As discussed previously in this report, staff concur that maximising safe pedestrian accessibility in and around the site is important. However with the limitations on the current width of the Laneway and concerns regarding vehicle and pedestrian conflict, it is considered that the designated pedestrian link from the supermarket entrance/exit to Montague Street is satisfactory at this point in time.

Council should continue to pursue improvements to the pedestrian circulation within the Bermagui CBD precinct in a holistic manner, which has been commenced through the Spiire CDB landscape masterplanning exercise currently underway.

The Chamber’s suggestion for another pedestrian link on the northern side of the Montague Street vehicular entrance is considered to be reasonable and achievable. Amendments in red would be made to the Approved Development Plans to this effect, should the application be approved by Council.

The height and design of the fencing around the perimeter of the development site is important, as is the landscaping treatment. It is recommended that a condition of consent be included, should the application be approved, requiring detailed landscape plans and fencing to be submitted to Council for approval prior to issue of a Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 25, 11 and 18]

Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust

The Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust provided a comprehensive submission, aspects of which have already been discussed in this report. A number of aspects of the Trust’s submission have been incorporated either into the design or through recommended draft conditions of consent, including additional timber cladding on the Montague Street façade, the use of ‘dark grey’ shiplap metal cladding as opposed to ‘beige’ and appropriate spacing of the timber pole colonnade.

The Trust also submits that improved pedestrian access in the Laneway should be pursued. The Trust submits that the setback to Young Street could be reduced further to allow a pedestrian path to be constructed along the Laneway property frontage.

It is considered that retaining a 3 metre setback to Young Street is advantageous in ensuring a suitable area for landscaping and to provide a visual buffer to the adjoining and adjacent residences.

The Trust provided comment on the fencing and landscaping treatment proposed for the development. Conditions of consent are recommended in this regard which require further details to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority.

[Refer to draft Condition No. 11 & 18]

Further comment is provided in relation to traffic movements from the Laneway and from the carpark, specifically suggesting a ‘Left Turn Only’ manoeuvre from both the Laneway and the private carpark.

Any change to on-street directional signage can only be made through the recommendations of the Local Traffic Committee.

In relation to a ‘Left Turn Only’ from the private carpark, such signage would be directional signage only and not regulatory and therefore not enforceable by Council.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, assessing staff are satisfied that the existing road network can suitably cater for the proposed development.

A copy of the Trust submission is provided as Attachment 7 to this report.

Submissions

The development application was placed on exhibition for a period of 40 days from 13 December 2013 until 22 January 2014. At the time of writing this report, a total of 160 submissions were received in relation to the development (133 in objection and 27 in support).

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

The key themes extracted from the submissions were in relation to;

Traffic	Traffic generation and safety Pedestrian/cyclist safety Parking
Social Impact	Safety and security Community spirit Proximity to sensitive areas
Nuisance	Trading hours Light spill Noise impact
Economic impact	Employment Existing businesses Property owners
Environmental impact	Location of the development Runoff Pollution Heritage Design
Aesthetics	Visual impact Signage
Strategic objectives	Tourism and image of Bermagui Public transport Zoning Population Legislation and policies

The majority of these issues have been specifically addressed in the body of this report. Further comment is summarised in Attachment 8 to this report.

Where appropriate, suitable conditions of consent have been recommended to address and mitigate any adverse impacts.

On balance, it is considered that the proposed development would be in the public interest and approval of the application is recommended.

conclusion

The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone, is a permissible land use, is considered to achieve the orderly and economic use and development of land (consistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) and is consistent with the strategic direction for Bermagui, being a Local Centre.

The potential impacts of the proposed development have been outlined in this report and, wherever possible, suitable mitigating measures have been identified, either through the provision of additional information from the applicant, or through recommended appropriate consent conditions.

In considering all relevant matters under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development would be suitable for the subject site and is in the public interest.

Approval of the development is recommended subject to conditions provided in the draft consent as Attachment 9 to this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Development Plans (Elevations)

2 View. Development Plans (Site Plan and Floor Plan)

3 View. Locality Plan

4 View. Section 79C Matters for Consideration Assessment

5 View. Location IQ Economic Impact Assessment February 2014

6 View. Location IQ response to Wakefield Planning submission

7 View. Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust submission

8 View. Summary of Submissions

9 View. Draft Consent

Recommendation

1. That Development Application 2013.405 for the construction of a supermarket and two specialty retail tenancies (including liquor store), carparking, landscaping and associated advertising signage at Lots 11-15 Section 8 DP 758095, Montague Street, Young Street and Unnamed Laneway, Bermagui be approved subject to conditions as outlined in the draft consent.

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

Council 26 March 2014 Item 8.2

8.2. 2012.217 Construction of an educational establishment - primary school

Group Manager Planning & Environment

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

Precis

Council at its meeting held on 12 February 2014 gave consideration to a staff report on the proposed development and following addresses on the matter, resolved to defer the matter in keeping with Council’s Code of Meeting practice.

This report provides comment on the issues raised during the addresses.

The matter is reported for Council determination.

Background

A staff assessment report for the proposed development was submitted to the Council meeting held on 18 December 2013 with the following recommendations:

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

· the proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the Rural 1(a) zone as

required by Clause 8(3) of Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council at its meeting held on 18 December 2013 resolved the following:

“1. That following a deputation by the owner/applicant the matter be deferred in keeping with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and a site inspection be arranged for Councillors.

2. That the General Manager be asked to provide a report to the next available meeting advising the Council of matters under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, if any, that would enable the granting of consent by Council to DA 2012.217.

3. That the report include suitable draft conditions of consent in the event that Council determines to grant consent to the development application.”

Councillors inspected the site on 15 January 2014 and a further report was submitted to the Council meeting held on 12 February 2014, including draft conditions.

Council resolved the following:

“That Council note that following an address to Council, this item be deferred in keeping with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.”

Description of the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETAILS OF DEPUTATIONS TO COUNCIL

At the Council meeting held on 12 February 2104 Council received seven deputations on the matter, six from residents of the area objecting to the proposal and one from the applicant/owner.

The issues raised by the objectors relating to privacy and lifestyle impacts, traffic safety, noise and suitability of the site for a school have been addressed in the previous reports to Council.

A number of the objectors raised concerns regarding:

· Impact on flora and fauna

· Impact on cultural heritage

· Pollution of sandy creek and Bournda National Park from increased run-off

· Consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage

· Sewage management and on-site disposal

In answer to the issues raised the following is advised:

· A detailed Flora and Fauna assessment report, prepared by a suitably qualified person, was submitted with the application. Council’s Environmental Management team assessed the reports and are satisfied with the content and conclusions.

· Details were included in the supporting information to the application confirming that a detailed search of the Department of Environment and Heritage data base had be carried out with no records of any aboriginal heritage sites in the area.

· A detailed water assessment and drainage report, carried out by a suitably qualified person, was submitted with the application. Council staff assessed this report and are satisfied with the content, conclusions and recommendations. Appropriate conditions have been recommended included in the draft consent to address run-off issues should the application be approved.

· The Office of Environment and Heritage were notified of the application as part of the referral and assessment process. No objection or requirements were received in reply.

· A detailed on-site sewage assessment report, prepared by a suitably qualified person, was submitted with the application. Council staff assessed the report and found the content of the report and conclusions to be appropriate. Appropriate conditions have been recommended included in the draft consent to address on-site sewage management issues should the application be approved.

The deputation by Mr and Mrs Lyons addressed issues raised by the objectors and outlined a summary of the history of the application, including pre-lodgement consultation with Council staff.

conclusion

The issues raised in the deputations to Council on 12 February 2014, not addressed in previous Council reports, have been assessed in this report.

The application was reported to the Council meeting on 18 December 2013 with a staff recommendation of refusal. The application was deferred at this meeting and a further report submitted to the Council meeting on 12 February 2014 including draft conditions of consent should Council wish to resolve to approve the application.

It should be noted that draft condition no.22 requires the proposed access off Kulbardi Close onto the subject land to be a maximum of 124m from the intersection with Sapphire Coast Drive. This location was chosen following discussions at the site inspection. It is closer to Sapphire Coast Drive than that proposed by the applicant with the aim of reducing the number of Kulbardi Close residences impacted by passing traffic. However, it should also be noted that if the application is approved with this condition in place it would trigger the requirement for a 40kmh school zone to be implemented on Sapphire Coast Drive in accordance with the requirements of Roads and Maritime Authority.

The application is submitted for Council determination.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Draft Consent

Recommendation

1. That Development Application No. 2012.217 being for the construction of an educational establishment at Lot 112 DP 844918 and Lots 113 & 115 DP 1118389 Kulbardi Close, Bournda be determined.

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

Council 26 March 2014 Item 8.4

8.4. Exhibition of Draft Section 94 Contributions Plans

The preparation of Council’s draft development contribution plans and planning agreement policy is complete. This report provides an overview of the draft contribution plans and planning agreement policy for Council’s consideration prior to public exhibition.

Group Manager Planning & Environment

Background

Council engaged consultants to review and update Council’s development contributions in late 2009. A review of current contributions and charges and comparison with equivalent councils was completed in May 2010. This review identified a number of opportunities as well as the need to update existing contribution plans.

On 12 October 2010 Council resolved the following:

“1. That Council prepare a Draft S94 (Direct) Contributions Plan that applies to all residential subdivisions of land that increase the demand for community infrastructure.

“2. That Council prepare a Draft S94A (Indirect) Contributions Plan that (subject to Ministerial Directions) applies to other developments over $100,000.

“3. That Council consider on merit Planning Agreements to address community infrastructure demands resulting from large developments. The use of a Planning Agreement may be in addition to or instead of the imposition of direct or indirect contribution requirements on development consents.

“4. That a further report be presented to Council, once the draft plans have been prepared, for consideration by Council prior to public exhibition.”

Councillors held a workshop in February 2013 to discuss the contents of the draft plans. Changes to the draft contribution plans subsequent to the workshop include a small increase in the Section 94 contribution rates due to new population projections and re-costing of some of the car parking contribution rates.

The proposed car parking contribution rates were reviewed because Council was advised that the incoming Planning Act requires infrastructure in planning agreements to be included in the schedule of works in a contributions plan. Prior to that advice, Council was investigating levying car parking contributions based on industry standard rates via planning agreements. Consequently staff reviewed car parking projects that have been completed or planned and included those projects in the schedule of works based on completed or estimated construction costs per project.

The preparation of the draft contributions plans and planning agreement policy in accordance with the above resolution is complete. This report provides an overview of the draft contribution plans and planning agreement policy for Council’s consideration prior to public exhibition.

Draft contribution plans

The aim of the draft contribution plans is to promote the economic development of land in the Shire and provide adequate public infrastructure for the users of new developments. To achieve this, new developments will be required to make a reasonable contribution to meet the demands of those developments for the provision, extension or augmentation of local infrastructure or toward the recoupment of the cost of existing local infrastructure.

The Draft S94 (Direct) Contributions Plan and Draft S94A (Indirect) Contributions Plan are included in one document (see Attachment 1). The draft plans will replace all of Council’s current Section 94 Plans. The draft plans are more equitable than the existing plans as they impose a Shire-wide flat rate per dwelling or lot for residential development or a percentage of the development cost for all other types of development.

Council currently levies Section 94 contributions on residential and rural subdivision, other types of development in rural areas, and parking in commercial areas. Funds collected are used to upgrade urban and rural roads, provide car parking and local open space embellishment and land acquisitions.

The schedule of works to be funded by the draft plans was compiled from Council’s Building, Recreation & Transport Asset Management Plans, 2011-16 Delivery Plan and Long Term Financial Plan. Any collected funds that are not expended when the new plans are implemented will be allocated to similar items from the new schedule of works. One advantage of the new format proposed in the draft plans is that it enables the schedule of works to be regularly updated following adoption of new Operational, Delivery and Long Term Financial plans and priorities in the accompanying asset management plans.

The draft Section 94 plan includes provision for land dedications required for road widening in three laneways in Bermagui based on the requirements in existing plans. The draft plan also includes an additional financial contribution to future residential development on Woodland Lane in Bald Hills for road and bridge upgrading. The estimation for the cost per dwelling of the road and bridge at Woodlands Lane is based on a total of 31 dwellings. Under the draft plan, the total cost of works is attributed equally to the 9 existing dwellings, 12 approved dwellings with conditions to construct the road and bridge, and 10 potential lots from the future development of Lot 492 DP 1103062 following its proposed rezoning.

Under the draft plans, car parking contribution rates for commercial development are reduced for most commercial areas and there is no specific car parking contribution applicable to residential development.

The following development types are exempt from contributions under the draft plans: development provided by or on behalf of the State Government or Council for community infrastructure; infrastructure provided by water, sewer or energy providers; non-profit community facilities; adaptive re-use of a heritage item; and development that does not increase the demand for identified local infrastructure.

Under the draft Section 94 Plan most new residential lots and dwelling houses will be charged $9,194 per dwelling or lot; residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing will be charged $6,394 per dwelling; and secondary dwellings, bed-sitters or one bedrooms dwellings will be charged $5,675 per dwelling. Current Section 94 contributions for most new dwelling houses/lots range from approximately $6,065 in urban areas to $7,535 in rural areas, but contributions vary and may be as high as $25,705 in some instances.

Development that is estimated to cost over $100,000 and that is not subject to a Section 94 contribution under the draft plan is subject to a Section 94A levy. The contribution rate is 0.5% of the proposed cost of development between $100,000 and $200,000, and 1% where the proposed cost is over $200,000. Council does not currently apply developer contributions to non-residential development with the exception of rural roads contributions in some instances.

Planning agreement policy

A planning agreement is a voluntary arrangement between a developer of land and one or more councils and/or other planning authorities, whereby the developer agrees to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution, provide any other material public benefit, or any combination of these, to be used for or applied towards the provision of a public purpose. Planning agreements may be in addition to, or instead of, Section 94 or 94A requirements. Council does not currently have a planning agreement policy.

A draft Planning Agreement Policy to address local infrastructure demands resulting from large developments has been prepared (see Attachment 2).

One advantage of planning agreements is that they can enable flexible arrangements for the provision of local infrastructure in connection with new developments. With flexibility comes a responsibility to act fairly and consistently. Council thus has a duty to act with probity and transparency in planning agreement negotiations and in the interests of the wider community. The Planning Agreement Policy is designed to help achieve this objective by setting out the policies and procedures that will guide the negotiation of planning agreements which the Council will be a party to.

Conclusion

The draft development contribution plans have been developed following a comprehensive review of Council’s existing plans and current legislative requirements. The draft plans set development contribution charges at levels that are aimed at not impeding the growth of the Shire’s economy, at the same time ensuring that the local infrastructure impacts of future development are properly and efficiently addressed.

Together, the draft Section 94, Section 94A and Planning Agreements Policy establish a legible and equitable contribution system for the provision of local infrastructure associated with new development in the Bega Valley Shire that responds to the opportunities and constraints of the State Government’s development contributions reforms and legislative changes.

The draft plans and policy have been prepared for public consultation. Following exhibition, feedback on the draft plans will be collated and presented to Councillors at a workshop before a further report on the matter is presented to Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1 View. Draft Section 94 and 94A Contribution Plans

2 View. Draft Planning Agreement Policy

Recommendation

1. That the draft Section 94 and 94A contributions plans be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 in conjunction with the draft planning agreement policy for a period of six weeks.

2. That a further report be presented to Council following completion of the public exhibition of the draft plans and policy.

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 1*	*Revitalising Local Government: Final report of the Independent Local Government Review Panel - Comments by Bega Valley Shire Council*

REVITALISING LOCAL GOVERNMENT – final report of the Independent Local Government Review Panel Comment by Bega Valley Shire Council
Recommendations for FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
No	RECOMMENDATION	BVSC COMMENT
1	Establish an integrated Fiscal Responsibility Program, coordinated by DLG and also involving TCorp, IPART and LGNSW to address the key findings and recommendations of TCorp’s financial sustainability review and DLG’s infrastructure audit (5.1 and 5.3)	BVSC has been committed to IPR and particularly its fiscal responsibilities for a decade and the results are showing. This has taken commitment, resolve and community support. It is critical that the way forward is integrated and involves all key players.
2	As part of the program: • Adopt an agreed set of sustainability benchmarks (5.1) • Introduce more rigorous guidelines for Delivery Programs as proposed in Box 9 (5.2) • Commission TCorp to undertake regular follow-up sustainability assessments (5.3) • Provide additional training programs for councillors and staff (5.3) • Require all councils to employ an appropriately qualified Chief Financial Officer (5.3)	Agree with adoption of benchmarks but old and redundant benchmarks need to be removed. Definition of Appropriate Qualification of CFO required. Also some question that need answering are what happens when a Council cannot attract or afford a suitably qualified CFO? Whilst it is important to follow up on the initial assessments, it would be ideal if the information provided in the annual financial statements were able to be the source of the reviews. If council is providing these statements and they aren’t giving the detail required to assess the performance and sustainability (combined with the adopted Long Term Financial and Asset Management Plans) then it must be assumed that the information being required in the annual financial statements is not sufficient, or is at too high a level to be meaningful.
3	Place local government audits under the aegis of the Auditor General (5.4)	Support however need more about the detail and deadlines and audit legislation will also need to be adapted to accommodate it
Recommendations for STRENGTHENING REVENUES
4	Ensure that the provisions of the State-Local Government Agreement are used effectively to address cost-shifting (5.5)	Strongly support
5	Require councils to prepare and publish more rigorous Revenue Policies (6.1)	Support as long as legislation and guidelines are updated to suit the required changes.
6	Commission IPART to undertake a further review of the rating system focused on: • Options to reduce or remove excessive exemptions and concessions that are contrary to sound fiscal policy and jeopardise councils’ long term sustainability (6.2) • More equitable rating of apartments and other multi-unit dwellings, including giving councils the option of rating residential properties on Capital Improved Values, with a view to raising additional revenues where affordable (6.3)	Strongly Support. Provision should be made to allow rating to focus on the primary use rather than type of property. An example would be classifying Holiday Houses as business instead of residential allowing council to generate additional revenue. Equitable rating for apartments, investigating use of improved land value, utilising a weighting for funding linked to relative level of rates has merit and Council should support a review of pensioner rebates which have not been reviewed for many years and NSW is the only state where Council’s make contribution.
7	Either replace rate-pegging with a new system of ‘rate benchmarking’ or streamline current arrangements to remove unwarranted complexity, costs, and constraints to sound financial management (6.5)	Strongly support and would encourage that this be “tied to infrastructure’
8	Subject to any legal constraints, seek to redistribute federal Financial Assistance Grants and some State grants in order to channel additional support to councils and communities with the greatest needs (6.6)	Support. Remove the need to provide minimum FAG when distributing FAG Funds. The term ‘greatest needs’ has to be defined clearly as there is a chance that it will end up becoming a welfare system, rewarding poorly performing councils and not rewarding councils that have put sound financial management in place by making some tough Special Variation increases in the past. Also need to take into consideration the move by State and Federal governments to now increasing require $ for $ funding commitment.
9	Establish a State- borrowing facility to encourage local government to make increased use of debt where appropriate by: • Reducing the level of interest rates paid by councils • Providing low-cost financial and treasury management advisory services (6.7)	Strongly Support
10	Encourage councils to make increased use of fees and charges and remove restrictions on fees for statutory approvals and inspections, subject to monitoring and benchmarking by IPART (6.8)	Strongly support
Recommendations for MEETING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
11	Factor the need to address infrastructure backlogs into any future rate-pegging or local government cost index (7.1)	Agree in principle - definition of backlog needs to be defined. Backlog is based on level of service Support, however a consistent approach to calculation of infrastructure backlog is needed because as it stands, infrastructure backlog is a very subjective number. This recommendation favours Councils that have not addressed their backlog issue compared to Councils that have made hard calls in the past by going through Special Variation application processes to address their backlog issues in the past.
12	Maintain the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS) for at least 5 years, with a focus on councils facing the most severe infrastructure problems (7.2)	Agree - they should keep LIRS in place Support, but if recommendation #9 is implemented, it should remove the need for
13	Pool a proportion of funds from the roads component of federal Financial Assistance Grants and, if possible, the Roads to Recovery program in order to establish a Strategic Projects Fund for roads and bridges that would: • Provide supplementary support for councils facing severe infrastructure backlogs that cannot reasonably be funded from other available sources • Fund regional projects of particular economic, social or environmental value (7.2)	Disagree - as they won’t raise the FAG grant total, but will pool the money and redistribute to poorly run Councils, essentially rewarding those who have not looked after their assets Don’t Support. There is a risk that the pooled funds may not end up in the region. As an alternative, there are opportunities to have local partnerships that make strategic decisions for the region and collectively work towards it by pooling available resources. LIRS
14	Require councils applying for supplementary support from the Strategic Projects Fund to undergo independent assessments of their asset and financial management performance (7.2)	Don’t Support. Councils that require supplementary support may not have sound asset and financial management systems in place and therefore not eligible for the support. As with 13 above, small regional councils would be disadvantaged.
15	Carefully examine any changes to development (infrastructure) contributions to ensure there are no unwarranted impacts on council finances and ratepayers (7.3)	Support
16	Adopt a similar model to Queensland’s Regional Roads and Transport Groups in order to improve strategic network planning and foster ongoing improvement of asset management expertise in councils (7.4)	This approach would need much larger Councils as the QLD government moved to. Pool money between large regional councils - this has already been happening through the RMS regional road network.
17	Establish Regional Water Alliances as part of new regional Joint Organisations proposed in section 11 (7.5).	This is not supported. Alliances not possible due to parochialism. At a strategic project management and expertise level it is possible, however at an operational level it is not. Economies of scale should not be underestimated - smaller Council's will struggle without the water component. Opportunities exist at a strategic level to form alliances, but it is difficult at an operational level due to geographical constraints.
Recommendations for IMPROVEMENT, PRODUCTIVITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
18	Adopt a uniform core set of performance indicators for councils, linked to IPR requirements, and ensure ongoing performance monitoring is adequately resourced (8.1)		Agree in principle – this cannot be effective unless there is serious and significant collaboration between the State and LG to develop these performance indicators BVSC supports the development of a new framework for measuring performance in Local Government. Comments have previously been provided to the DLG in relation to the development of a core set of indicators. The principle of ‘Be enabled through legislation and supported through guidance and resources’ is of high importance and more detail on the level, and style of support should be circulated for further comment when available. Enabling Council feedback in the development of support guidelines and/or resource kits is an effective way of creating buy-in to the framework, and ensuring that Councils have the support to implement. The framework structure of financial performance, asset management, governance and service delivery covers the range of Council areas requiring performance measurement, however greater development of the service delivery key area is required. It is also important to consider the framework structure in context of what is important to the community. Community health and social indicators are of significance to the community and should not be lost within the framework. Comprehensive development of performance measures is crucial to the validity of the proposed framework. Within the discussion paper there is a lack of detail of the types of measures proposed and how the proposed framework will connect with the existing IP&R Framework. The opportunity to enable comparisons between Councils through statewide performance measures has merit and would provide Councils, the community and the Division with a greater understanding of Council performance. While in support of this element of the proposed framework, a preference would be to have a core set measures / indicators across NSW Councils, and an additional allocation of research and development time on the development of effective measures / indicators that Councils can chose from that may be specific to their communities / needs expectations.
19	Commission IPART to undertake a whole-of-government review of the regulatory, compliance and reporting burden on councils (8.2)		A review of the reporting burden is welcomed – there must be an effort to streamline and keep consistent over time the reporting framework to ensure there is transparency, consistency and simplicity in all reporting. The community needs to be able to understand and have meaningful input the workings of their local government body
20	Establish a new sector-wide program to promote, capture and disseminate innovation and best practice (8.3)		This combined with regular reviews of services will assist to engender a move to making the sector more dynamic
21	Amend IPR Guidelines to require councils to incorporate regular service reviews in their Delivery Programs (8.4)		Service reviews are critical. BVSC undertook a number of reviews in the period 2005-2009. This assisted refocus the direction of the organisation. BVSC plans to incorporate a service review in its review of the resourcing strategy planned for 2014/15. There must also be work done to ensure that community wellbeing indicators are linked to the service reviews across all functions of council (as per 18 above). Improved and consistent data collection is important to support this recommendation.
22	Strengthen requirements for internal and performance auditing as proposed in Box 17 (8.5)		Adequate resourcing is required, many smaller councils will struggle with this, even if a group of councils approach was adopted – the development of auditing structures needs to happen. The resources required for rigorous internal reporting as proposed is considered beyond the scope for many smaller Councils. It is agreed that a re-focus of internal auditing towards adding value and continuous improvement would be of benefit to both the Council and the community. It would require ongoing monitoring to ensure that the resources required to meet this level of internal reporting do not outweigh the benefits to the organisation and the community.
23	Introduce legislative provisions for councils to hold Annual General Meetings (8.6)		The introduction of open Annual General Meetings would provide an opportunity for Council and the community to share the achievements of the previous year. If mandated, requirements should be flexible to allow Councils to run the meeting in a style that their community would respond to. This could create an opportunity for an event and if Councils are allowed the freedom of creativity for how the meeting is run could be considered an extremely important point of community engagement and relationship building.
24	Develop a NSW Local Government Workforce Strategy (8.7)		Agree. Strategy developed should reflect industrial reality, the Local Government State Award has limited scope for innovation in relation to pay and conditions of employment for the sector. Any Workforce Strategy needs to be realistic and achievable….. not just “motherhood” statements. The Strategy would need to reflect the that the needs and realities of working in a metropolitan council are very different to working in a rural/regional councils
25	Explore opportunities for the Local Government Award to continue to evolve to address future challenges facing the sector and changing operational needs.		Any Workforce Strategy won’t work unless there is an appropriate employment framework/s behind it. At the present time – the Local Government State Award is draconian at best and does not foster terms and conditions of employment innovation. The use of Enterprise/Collective Agreement making within the Local Government sector is still in its infancy. The culture of Award based “Council” agreements” – needs to be eradicated (through removing the Clause from the Award) – and empowering Councils (development of a common framework for Enterprise/Collective Agreement for use across the sector) would be a big first step. Also, the difference in terms and condition of employment vary from Council to Council this is an impediment to whole of career/talent management, or fostering transfers/secondments and employment opportunities. We also need to move to a “one size fits all” salary employment framework not the broad award bands as is currently the case and each Council “determine” their own salary structure to fit within the broad award bands.
Recommendations for POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
26	Amend the Local Government Act to strengthen political leadership: • Require councils to undertake regular ‘representation reviews’ covering matters such as the number of councillors, method of election and use of wards (9.1) • Before their nomination is accepted, require all potential candidates for election to local government to attend an information session covering the roles and responsibilities of councillors and mayors (9.1) • Amend the legislated role of councillors and mayors as proposed in Boxes 19 and 21, and introduce mandatory professional development programs (9.2 and 9.3) • Provide for full-time mayors, and in some cases deputy mayors, in larger councils and major regional centres (9.3) • Amend the provisions for election of mayors as proposed in Box 22 (9.3)		This should be included with the service level review outlined above. It is difficult to require candidates to attend information sessions but they should be encouraged. The development of mandatory training for elected officials has merit. The term of a minimum of two years for a Mayor elected by Councillors is supported. The items covered are supported
27	Increase remuneration for councillors and mayors who successfully complete recognised professional development programs (9.2-9.4)		Agree
28	Amend the legislated role and standard contract provisions of General Managers as proposed in Boxes 23 and 24 (9.5)		Agree
29	Amend the provisions for organisation reviews as proposed in section 9.6		Agree
30	Develop a Good Governance Guide as a basis for ‘performance improvement orders’ and to provide additional guidance on building effective working relationships between the governing body, councillors, mayors and General Managers (9.7)		Agree
Recommendations to ADVANCE STRUCTURAL REFORM
31	Introduce additional options for local government structures, including regional Joint Organisations, ‘Rural Councils’ and Community Boards, to facilitate a better response to the needs and circumstances of different regions (10.1)		Agree
32	Legislate a revised process for considering potential amalgamations and boundary changes through a re-constituted and more independent Boundaries Commission (10.3)
33	Encourage voluntary mergers of councils through measures to lower barriers and provide professional and financial support (10.4)		Support, however where the governing body identifies the need to, it should be mandated.
34	Provide and promote a range of options to maintain local identity and representation in local government areas with large populations and/or diverse localities (10.5)
Recommendations for JOINT REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS
35	Establish new Joint Organisations for each of the regions shown on Maps 2 by means of individual proclamations negotiated under new provisions of the Local Government Act that replace those for County Councils(11.5) • Defer establishment of JOs in the Sydney metropolitan region, except for sub-regional strategic planning, pending further consideration of options for council mergers (11.5) • Enter into discussions with 2-3 regions to establish ‘pilot’ JOs (11.5) • Re-constitute existing County Councils as subsidiaries of new regional Joint Organisations, as indicated in Table 5 (11.2) • Establish Regional Water Alliances in each JO along the lines proposed in the 2009 Armstrong-Gellatly report (11.3) • Set the core functions of Joint Organisations by means of Ministerial Guidelines (11.6) • Seek federal government agreement to make JOs eligible for general-purpose FAGs (11.6)		For JO's to be successful, they need to have power - give the regional grouping statutory and legal autonomy. Need to clearly define what JO's do and make it regional. BVSC's strategic needs may be very different to that of Bombala. Should be vertically aligned rather than geographically. The noted RO for BVSC seems the most appropriate with the northern part of the current SCG moving to the Illawarra and BVSC aligned to Eurobodalla, Cooma, Snowy Mountains, Bombala, Queanbeyan and Palerang. Currently various councils (both in ROCS and outside of ROCS) collaborate in dealing with 3rd parties to secure the best financial arrangement for their Councils. e.g. the current Microsoft contract has Bega as the principle and Cooma, Bombala and Snowy River all operating under Bega’s contract, as they were not of a size to get the “advantages” that Bega were able to procure. There are numerous other examples of opportunity for the future.
36	Identify one or more regional centres within each Joint Organisation and: • Create a network of those centres to drive development across regional NSW (11.7) • Consider potential mergers of councils to consolidate regional centres, as indicated in Table 6 (11.7)		Regional centres for a diverse JO such as the one outlined for BVSC will need to incorporate a number of key centres
37	Develop close working partnerships between Joint Organisations and State agencies for strategic planning, infrastructure development and regional service delivery (11.8), and • Add representatives of Joint Organisations to State agency Regional Leadership Groups (11.8) • Give particular attention to cross-border issues and relationships in the operations of Joint Organisations and in future regional strategies (11.9)		This is currently done with ROCs and should continue with more commitment from State agencies.
Recommendations for RURAL COUNCILS AND COMMUNITY BOARDS – NA to BVSC
38	Establish a working party as part of the Ministerial Advisory Group proposed in section 18 to further develop the concept of ‘Rural Councils’ for inclusion in the re-written Local Government Act (12.1)
39	Include provisions for optional Community Boards in the re-written Act, based on the New Zealand model, but also enabling the setting of a supplementary ‘community rate’ with the approval of the ‘parent’ council (12.2)
Recommendations for METROPOLITAN SYDNEY NA TO BVSC
40	Strengthen arrangements within State government for coordinated metropolitan planning and governance, and to ensure more effective collaboration with local government (13.1)
41	Seek evidence-based responses from metropolitan councils to the Panel’s proposals for mergers and major boundary changes, and refer both the proposals and responses to the proposed Ministerial Advisory Group (section 18.1) for review, with the possibility of subsequent referrals to the Boundaries Commission (13.3)
42	Prioritise assessments of potential changes to the boundaries of the Cities of Sydney and Parramatta, and • Retain a separate City of Sydney Act to recognise its Capital City role • Establish State-local City Partnership Committees for Sydney and Parramatta along the lines of Adelaide’s Capital City Committee (13.4)
43	Pending any future action on mergers, establish Joint organisations of councils for the purposes of strategic sub-regional planning (13.5)
44	Maximise utilisation of the available local government revenue base in order to free-up State resources for support to councils in less advantaged areas (13.6)
45	Continue to monitor the sustainability and appropriateness in their current form of the Hawkesbury, Blue Mountains and Wollondilly local government areas (13.7)
46	Promote the establishment of a Metropolitan Council of Mayors (13.8)
Recommendations for HUNTER, CENTRAL COAST AND ILLAWARRA – NA BVSC
47	Seek evidence-based responses from Hunter and Central Coast councils to the Panel’s proposals for mergers and boundary changes, and refer both the proposals and responses to the proposed Ministerial Advisory Group (section 18.1) for review, with the possibility of subsequent referrals to the Boundaries Commission (14.1 and 14.2)
48	Defer negotiations for the establishment of a Central Coast Joint Organisation pending investigation of a possible merger of Gosford and Wyong councils (14.2)
49	Pursue the establishment of Joint Organisations for the Hunter and Illawarra in accordance with Recommendation 35 (14.1 and 14.3)
Recommendations for NON-METROPOLITAN REGIONS - NA BVSC
50	Explore options for non-metropolitan councils in Group A as part of establishing the Western Region Authority proposed in section 16 (15.1)
51	Refer councils in Groups B-F to the Boundaries Commission in accordance with Table 11 and the proposed timeline (15.1)
52	Complete updated sustainability assessments and revised long term asset and financial plans for the 38 councils identified in Table 11 by no later than mid-2015 (15.2)
Recommendations for the FAR WEST – NA BVSC
53	Agree in principle to the establishment of a Far West Regional Authority with the functions proposed in Box 39 and membership as proposed in Figure 9 (16.3)
54	Adopt the preferred new arrangements for local government set out in Box 40 as a basis for further consultation (16.4)
55	Establish a project team and reference group of key stakeholders within the DPC Regional Coordination Program to finalise proposals (16.5)
Recommendations for STATE-LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
56	Use the State-Local Agreement as the basis and framework for a range of actions to build a lasting partnership, and negotiate supplementary agreements as appropriate (17.2)		AGREE
57	Introduce new arrangements for collaborative, whole-of-government strategic planning at a regional level (17.3)		Agree
58	Amend the State Constitution to strengthen recognition of elected local government (17.4)		Agree
59	Seek advice from LGNSW on the measures it proposes to take to meet its obligations under the State-Local Agreement (17.5)
60	Strengthen the focus of DLG on sector development and seek to reduce its workload in regulation and compliance (17.6)
Recommendations for DRIVING AND MONITORING REFORM
61	Establish a Ministerial Advisory Group and Project Management Office (18.1 and 18.2)
62	Refer outstanding elements of the Destination 2036 Action Plan to the Ministerial Advisory Group (18.1)
63	Adopt in principle the proposed priority initial implementation package set out in Box 42, as a basis for discussions with LGNSW under the State-Local Government Agreement (18.3)
64	Further develop the proposals for legislative changes detailed in Boxes 43 and 44, and seek to introduce the amendments listed in Box 43 in early 2014 (18.5)
65	Adopt in principle the proposed implementation timeline (18.6)

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 12.1 - Attachment 2*	*Local Government Acts Taskforce: A new Local Government Act for NSW - Comments by Bega Valley Shire Council*

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS TASKFORCE – A new Local Government Act for NSW Comment Bega Valley Shire Council
Item	TOPIC	RECOMMENDATION	COMMENT
3.0.0	Approach and Principles for the Development of the New Act	The Taskforce recommends (1) integrated planning and reporting form the central framework for the new Act providing local government with a robust strategic planning mechanism that is based on community engagement, expectations and aspirations, and financial responsibilities (2) a flexible, principles-based legislative framework, avoiding excessive prescription and unnecessary red tape, written in plain language and presented in a logical format. The new Act should be confined to setting out the principles of how councils are established and operate. When further detail or explanation is required as to how these principles are to be achieved, regulations, codes and guidelines should be used (3) a more consistent approach be adopted to the definition, naming and use of regulatory and other instruments, noting that currently there is inconsistent use of mandatory and discretionary codes, guidelines, practice notes, discretionary guidelines and the like.	The embedding of the IPR framework provides great future certainty for communities. The 11 key principles effectively capture the previous feedback provided by Councils. The principle of ‘Be enabled through legislation and supported through guidance and resources’ is of high importance and more detail on the level, and style of support should be circulated for further comment when available. Enabling Council feedback in the development of support guidelines and/or resource kits is an effective way of creating buy-in to the framework, and ensuring that Councils have the support to implement. An example of where this has been effective is the development of the recent IP&R guidelines published in March 2013 The latest guidelines and manual are now a well utilised resource for majority of Councils as they were developed based on feedback from the IP&R network.
3.1.0	Structure of the New Local Government Act	The Taskforce recommends that the new Act is structured with the following elements: Part I - Structural Framework of Local Government in NSW – 3.1.1.Purpose of Local Government Act ; 3.1.2 Role of Local Government Guiding Principles; 3.1.3 Legal status of councils (includes establishment); 3.1.4 Roles and Responsibilities of Council Officials Part II - Strategic Framework for Local Government in NSW - 3.2.1 Integrated Planning and Reporting 3.2.2 Community Engagement ; 3.2.3 Performance of Local Government Part III - Council Operations – 3.3.1 – 3.3.8 Governance Framework ; 3.3.9-3.3.11 Financial practices ; 3.3.12 Public Private Partnerships; 3.3.13 – 3.3.14 Public Land; 3.3.15-3.3.16 Regulatory Functions & Other functions Part IV - Tribunals and Commissions - 3.3.17	There needs to be specific mention of Community Wellbeing as a core function of local government as it is enshrined in much of what Councils do, this should be one of the key indicators of LG performance. The framework structure of financial performance, asset management, governance and service delivery covers the range of Council areas requiring performance measurement, however greater development of the service delivery key area is required. It is also important to consider the framework structure in context of what is important to the community. Community health and social indicators are of significance to the community and should not be lost within the framework.
3.1.1	Purposes of the Local Government Act	The Taskforce recommends that the Purposes of the Local Government Act be drafted as follows: The purpose of this Act is to provide (1) a legal framework for the NSW system of local government in accordance with section 51 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) (2) the nature and extent of the responsibilities and powers of local government (3) a system of local government that is democratically elected, interactive with and accountable to the community, and is sustainable, flexible, effective and maximises value.	Agreed the broader framework incorporating interactive with and accountable to the community is at the core of the IPR approach
3.1.2	Role and Guiding Principles of Local Government	The Taskforce recommends the inclusion of a new role of local government and a set of guiding principles for local government as follows: Role of Local Government The Role of local government is to provide local democracy, strategic civic leadership, stewardship and sound governance to achieve sustainable social, economic, environmental, health and wellbeing and civic engagement through: (1) utilising integrated planning and reporting (2) working in cooperative arrangements with the community, other councils, State and Commonwealth Governments to achieve and report outcomes based on community priority as established through integrated planning and reporting (3) providing or procuring effective, efficient and financially affordable economic assets, services and regulation (4) exercising democratic local leadership and inclusive decision-making (5) having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions (6) valuing local difference and system diversity (7) committing to the application of the Guiding Principles of local government Guiding Principles of Local Government Guiding Principles to be observed by local government are to: (1) provide elected community-based representative and participatory local democracy, and open and accountable government (2) foster and balance the needs, interests, social and economic wellbeing of individuals, diverse groups and community (3) adhere to the social justice principles of equity, rights, access and participation (4) encourage stewardship and facilitate sustainable, responsible management of resources, infrastructure and development (5) consider future generations by protecting, restoring and enhancing the quality of the environment to maintain ecologically sustainable development, reduce risks to human health and prevent environmental degradation (6) ensure sustainable management and that all decisions incorporate considerations of risk management and long-term sustainability (7) recognise the responsibility of other levels of government in the provision of local services while accepting that local choices should be made at the local level wherever possible under the principle of subsidiarity (8) achieve and maintain accepted best practice public governance and administration, and act fairly, responsibly, ethically, transparently and in the public interest (9) optimise technology, and foster innovation and continuous improvement.	Agee in principle - There needs to be clear linkages between the social and economic wellbeing and indicators of not only performance but the day to day activities of the Council, how do we measure that level of wellbeing and report that back to the community will need to be framed in guidelines. The process of IP&R identifies community aspirations but many of the operational services are not outlined and therefore not reported in the IP&R framework at the higher level. Since these operational areas form the bulk of council’s operation, due consideration needs to be given to make sure that operational and other regulatory areas that fall under council’s role are appropriately reported.
3.1.3	Constitution of Councils	The Taskforce recommends that the legal status of councils remains as a “body politic”.	We assume this relates to the ATO definition of “body politic” and the commentary comments on the suggestion that councils should be returned to be “body corporate” we do not support this but agree with the Panel’s recommendation. The term ‘body politic’ is considered to cover any artificial legal entity having a separate legal personality. These entities have perpetual succession. They have the power to act, hold property, enter into legal contracts, sue and be sued in their own name, just as a natural person can. The types of entities falling into these categories are broad and include: · trading and non-trading · profit and non-profit-making organisations · government-controlled entities · other entities with less or no government control or involvement. The term ‘body politic’ includes the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, a state or territory. However, government departments are not bodies politic in their own right - instead, they are part of the larger body politic of the Commonwealth, State or Territory. Bodies such as municipal councils are bodies corporate rather than bodies politic.
3.1.4	Roles and Responsibilities of Council Officials	The Taskforce recommends following consideration of the final report of the Independent Panel, the roles and responsibilities of mayors, councillors and general managers are reviewed to ensure they align with the requirements of the strengthened IPR framework (see section 3.2.1 below) and any recommendations of the Independent Panel that may be adopted by the State Government.	Noted and support the stronger link to IPR framework. More will be done on this following consideration of the Independent Panel report.
3.2.1	Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR)	The Taskforce recommends (1) elevating IPR to form the central framework of the new Act and the primary strategic tool that enables councils to fulfil their civic leadership role and deliver infrastructure, services and regulation based on community priorities identified by working in partnership with the community, other councils and the State Government (2) strengthening and embedding the principles of IPR in the Act more broadly, setting minimum standards in the Act and defining process through regulation, codes and/or guidelines (3) removing duplication from other parts of the Act, where the principle or practice is already captured in the IPR legislation or guidelines (4) ensuring the legislation facilitates a strategic leadership role for councils in their local communities (5) moving sections of the Act to other legislation, in order to create an Act that better reflects the strategic role of councils and the framework that ensures and enables that role. The Taskforce proposes the outline displayed in Table 6 as the chapter structure of the new Act (6) simplifying the provisions of IPR to increase flexibility for councils to deliver IPR in a locally appropriate manner.	Agreed, it is important that the flexibility mentioned is reflected in the capacity of Councils to make decisions in the context of their LGA in a way that makes sense for that community.
3.2.2	Community Engagement	The Taskforce recommends (1) councils prepare the most locally appropriate and flexible community engagement strategy guidelines. This will provide communities the opportunity to engage, through the following and other locally appropriate principles, and allow a flexible framework for continuing community engagement. The principles for such strategy will: a. include commitment to the community being at the centre of local government using ongoing engagement which ensures fairness in the distribution of resources; rights are recognised and promoted; people have fairer access to the economic resources and services essential to meet their basic needs and to improve their quality of life; and people have better opportunities to become informed and involved especially through use of technology b. consider and understand that persons who may be affected by, or have an interest in, a decision or matter should be provided with access to relevant information concerning the purpose of the engagement and the scope of the decision(s) to be taken c. consider and understand that interested persons should have adequate time and reasonable opportunity to present their views to the council in an appropriate manner and format d. ensure that the views presented to the council will be given due consideration e. consider and understand that councils, in exercising their discretion as to how engagement will proceed in any particular circumstance, will have regard to the reasonable expectations of the community, the nature and significance of the decision or matter, the costs and benefits of the consultation process, and to intergenerational equity f. arrange flexible special engagement procedures in particular instances g. consider all groups, even though it may be difficult to reach every diverse community group, and some groups will choose not to engage.	Consideration must be given to the regulations and guidelines that govern Councils to ensure that these community engagement principles, which are sound, can be enacted in a way that is practical and achievable and responsive to a local community. An idea of reasonableness must also be considered on behalf of the community and scope to deal with unrealistic expectations of the level of engagement must be present.
3.2.3	Performance of Local Government	The Taskforce recommends that a performance system is developed that is linked to IPR and includes the following elements: (1) a standard series of measures that can compare the performance of councils across the State (2) an analysis of the performance measures results so that councils can identify the actions required to elevate performance (3) a self-assessment of the performance of the governing body on an annual basis (4) in lieu of an end of term report, councils provide a mid-term report as to progress with the Community Strategic Plan.	The level of reporting must be more streamlined, while recognising the importance of a reporting structure there must be a level of consistency over a number of years, constant change to the way Council’s report to the community and the State is frustrating and unproductive for both Councils and their communities. In particular the stand alone State of the Environment reporting does not meet the intent of the IPR framework for local government.
3.2.4	Technology	The Taskforce recommends (1) as a general principle the Act should enable optimal, flexible and innovative use of technology by councils to promote efficiency and enhance accessibility and engagement for the benefit of constituents (2) the Act should allow each council to determine the most appropriate use of technology taking into account the Guiding Principles of local government and community engagement through the IPR framework.	Agreed
3.3.1	Elections	The Taskforce recommends (1) councils to have the option of using universal postal voting or alternative means of voting such as technology assisted voting where feasible as a means of increasing efficiency and voter participation and reducing council costs (2) the Act be drafted so as to enable the adoption of new technologies such as technology assisted voting when feasible to do so (3) include mechanisms for removing the need for by-elections, when a vacancy occurs either in the first year following an ordinary council election or up to 18 months prior to an ordinary election as a means of avoiding the holding of costly by-elections (4) a counting system should be adopted as an appropriate mechanism for filling vacancies that occur within the first year following an ordinary election whereby the unelected candidate who had the next highest number of votes be appointed to fill the vacant position (5) councils to be required to fill vacancies occurring after the first year following an ordinary election and up to 18 months prior to the next ordinary election by the postal voting method (6) where universal postal voting is used for any election, a candidate information booklet is to be included in ballot packs as a way of increasing voter knowledge of the candidates (7) the transfer of local government elections law to a single new Elections Act to consolidate all State and local government election provisions along with the regulation of campaign finance and expenditure (8) the term of mayors elected by the councillors to be extended from 1 year to 2 years.	Postal voting is supported as is technology assisted voting. The council should be able to use the method/s most appropriate to its local community. Absentee voters such as holiday home owners are a key part of local communities. Support (3) the by-election removal proposal and (4) the mechanism for filling a vacancy (5) and (6) and (7) Councillor elected Mayoral terms of 2 years is also supported as it provides choice by Councillors but also allows for incumbents to settle into a role and to work strategically
3.3.2	Meetings	The Taskforce recommends (1) consolidated into a generic mandatory Code of Meeting Practice that may if necessary be supplemented to meet local requirements, provided the amendments are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and standard Code of Meeting Practice (2) modernised and unnecessary prescription and red tape removed (3) designed to facilitate councils utilising current and emerging technologies in the conduct of meetings and facilitating public access (4) flexible to enable remote attendance through technology at council meetings in emergencies such as natural disasters.	Agree this would remove any issues on interpretation but also allow for local processes. The inclusion of options for “new technologies” are currently under review locally.
3.3.3	Appointment and Management of Staff	The Taskforce recommends (1) the strategic responsibilities of the council be clearly separated from operational responsibilities and be aligned with IPR by • the council being responsible: - for determining those services and priorities required by the community, and for providing the necessary resources to achieve the council’s Delivery Program; and on the advice of the general manager, the council determine the organisation structure to the level that directly reports to the general manage • the general manager being responsible: for determining the balance of the organisation structure; and for recruiting all staff with appropriate qualifications to fulfill each role within the structure. The general manager will consult with council regarding the appointment and dismissal of senior staff (2) positions meeting the criteria as senior staff be appointed under the prescribed standard contract for senior staff, identified as senior staff positions within the organisation structure, and remuneration be reported in the council’s annual report (3) each council to determine arrangements for regulatory responsibilities other than under the Act (4) the current prescription in the Act relating to the advertising of staff positions and staff appointments be transferred to regulation or to the relevant industrial award (5) that the maximum term allowable for temporary staff appointments be extended from 1 year to 2 years	Agree with direction – however in relation to who are “senior staff” - a clear definition of who exactly are “senior staff” also needs to be determined – Award based “senior” staff can earn the same as SES Band 1-2 Contract Staff. Rural/Regional areas have a difficulty competing for competent/qualified staff. Agree with raising temporary staff appointments to 2 years as this allows councils to engage skilled staff for specific purposes with no undertaking for ongoing employment.
3.3.4	Regional Strategic Organisations of Councils and Formation and Involvement in Corporations and Other Entities	The Taskforce recommends (1) the Act include a mechanism enabling councils to form statutory entities to undertake regional strategic collaboration activities. The Taskforce is of the view that, in place of Regional Organisations of Councils, a model similar to that developed by the Hunter Councils – Council of Mayors provides a suitable mechanism for achieving regional strategic collaboration, with the exception of Western NSW. ROCs could transition to a Council of Mayors to broaden joint collaboration between councils (2) the provisions of the Act relating to the formation of corporations and other entities should continue.	Joint organisations of Council’s, bodies such as Southern Phones etc – with the appropriate work and local input and direction this model provides flexibility and opportunity. The key outcome is the strategic regional role of councils in key areas rather than duplication and lack of integration. In particular this approach is supported in regional and sub-regional planning, economic development linking to state and federal approaches, and resource sharing and shared services
3.3.5	Protection from Liability	The Taskforce does not propose changes to the liability provisions of the Act.	Disagree. Should be changed to be less prescriptive and to include definitions of “good faith”.
3.3.6	Code of Conduct	The Taskforce does not propose changes to the conduct provisions of the Act.	Agreed however that new model code has cost implications As well as a cost to business
3.3.7	Pecuniary Interest	The Taskforce recommends (1) the pecuniary interest provisions be reviewed to ensure they are written in plain language, easily understood and with unnecessary red tape removed (2) consideration be given to utilising technology to assist with the submission and maintenance of pecuniary interest disclosures and to facilitate appropriate access to this information, while ensuring that privacy rights are protected.	Agree with both parts
3.3.8	Delegations	The Taskforce recommends (1) that the provisions of the Act relating to delegations be reviewed to ensure that they are streamlined, written in plain language and are reflective of the roles and responsibilities of the council and the general manager to facilitate the efficient, effective and accountable operation of local government. (2) that the exceptions to delegations of an operational nature not be carried forward to the new Act, ensuring the council focuses on strategic decisions, consistent with IPR. These would include for example: • acceptance of tenders • provision of minor financial assistance to community groups • delegation of regulatory functions to another council or shared services body.	Agreed
3.3.9	Financial Governance	The Taskforce recommends (1) there be greater focus on principles and definition of financial systems and minimum standards in the new legislative framework and for assimilation of financial governance with the IPR requirements (2) there be a realignment of the regulatory focus under the legislative framework towards systems and risk management rather than process prescription (3) complementing the Guiding Principles of local government, the new Act should articulate a set of financial (or corporate) governance principles that align more effectively with the principles and objectives of IPR, especially in relation to stewardship of resources and accountability. For example: a. safeguarding integrity in financial reporting b. making timely and balanced disclosures c. recognising and managing risk (4) minimum expectations be prescribed by legislation or sub-regulatory instrument. A potential framework is: a. financial management governance and oversight b. financial management structure, systems, policies and procedures c. financial management reporting (5) financial statement requirements be included under IPR annual reporting requirements (6) a further review of rating and finance matters be undertaken as required after the Independent Panel recommendations are determined by the State Government.	The recommendations for Financial Governance can only further enhance the accountability and sustainability of local government provided that the additional minimum requirements and standards provide clarity on what is required To align the financial governance principles with those principles and objectives of the IP & R is a logical progression to what is meant to be an ‘Integrated’ reporting system. All finance regulation should be listed in a central document rather than scattered across various documents. Reporting should be targeted at the audience and if general public is the target audience, the format of Financial Statement needs to be simplified so that they understand the underlying information and are able to make an informed decision.
3.3.10	Procurement	The Taskforce recommends (1) the adoption of central principles of procurement combined with a medium level of regulation to ensure support of the following principles: a. accountability b. value for money c. probity, equity, fairness and risk management d. efficient and effective competition e. market assessment (2) main considerations for each principle be contained in the Act or regulations, with further considerations contained in guidelines or a mandatory code (3) a council’s procurement framework be consistent with its IPR framework (4) rather than the legislation setting a monetary threshold, a more flexible principles-based approach be established to enable councils to determine their threshold based on risk assessment of the proposed procurement and the procurement principles (5) regulation of procurement support councils entering into collaborative procurement arrangements and utilising technologies to assist with efficient, effective and economic procurement processes that are accessible to all relevant stakeholders and are fair, open and transparent (6) a regulation or code to express councils’ default procurement framework (7) councils be qualified to adopt a more strategic approach through “earned autonomy” whereby: a. the Division of Local Government may exempt a council from compliance with a requirement under the regulation or code where it is satisfied that a council’s procurement framework is consistent with the procurement principles; and b. qualification for a council’s earned autonomy may be through an accreditation process or by council’s development and diligent maintenance of policies and practices that are consistent with requirements issued by the Division of Local Government or other oversight entity. Qualification by accreditation is preferred as this should increase the accountability of councils to the community. (8) councils continue to be able to take advantage of purchasing from Commonwealth and State Government procurement panels and the State Government policies which afford exemption from tendering obligations such as when purchasing from registered Australian Disability Enterprises.	There should be inclusion of Social Procurement clauses and considerations which provide inflows into the local community such as discount factors for local providers
3.3.11	Capital Expenditure Framework	The Taskforce recommends a capital expenditure and monitoring guideline be developed that integrates with the IPR framework and enables the appropriate management of risk by councils. This guideline should be tailored to risk levels, including significance of the project, materiality and whole of life costs, and not based on arbitrary monetary thresholds or procurement vehicles.	Agreed
3.3.12	Public Private Partnerships (PPP)	The Taskforce recommends (1) that PPP projects continue to be subject to regulation due to the significance of the risks involved (2) aspects that could be streamlined or simplified be identified and mechanisms for ensuring PPPs be considered for inclusion in the IPR framework.	Agreed
3.3.13	Acquisition of Land	The Taskforce recommends council plans for the compulsory acquisition of land be linked with the IPR processes, and in particular the expressed opinion of the community in the Community Strategic Plan on the need for additional public land or the sale of public land be included in Delivery Program provisions.	Support but there should be provision to allow flexibility for councils to capitalise on windfall opportunities.
3.3.14	Public Land	The Taskforce recommends (1) councils be required to strategically manage council-owned public land as assets through the IPR framework (2) balancing reasonable protections for public land use and disposal by retaining the classification regime of public land as either community or operational land and require a council resolution at the time of acquiring or purchasing land to specify the classification, category and proposed use or uses (3) a proposed change in the use or disposal of community land be addressed through the council's Asset Management Planning and Delivery Program (4) a public hearing be held by an independent person where it is proposed to change the existing dominant use or to dispose of community land, with the results of the public hearing to be reported to and considered by the council before a decision is made (5) any use of a public hearing or other consultation process under the Act be specified in the council’s Community Engagement Strategy (6) recognising the LEP zoning processes and restrictions applying to council owned public land (7) simplifying and reducing the categories and sub-categories of use to which community land may be applied through the Asset Management Planning process so as to identify and accommodate other ancillary or compatible uses appropriate to the current and future needs of the community (8) ceasing the need for separate plans of management for community land to be prepared and maintained, and in lieu, utilise the Asset Management Planning and Delivery Program of the IPR process (9) ceasing the need for a separate report to be obtained from the Department of Planning and the need for ministerial approval where council proposes to grant a lease, licence or other estate over community land in excess of the current 5 years, where an objection has been received by the council (10) proposed leases and licences be addressed as part of the council’s Asset Management Plan and adopted Community Engagement Strategy with the 30 year maximum term to remain unchanged.	The format of Council's Asset Management Plans would need to change in order to also accommodate the additional info currently contained in PoM's. (2) Agreed, however public advertising requirements to classify land upon acquisition under the Act can be prohibitive – especially if Council purchases land and/or buildings via Public Auction where proposal to acquire and bid at Auction must be dealt with in closed session due to commercial in confidence considerations. 3 month timeframe should be extended. (3) If it is proposed that separate Plans of Management would be replaced by AMP’s, this would make sense. (4) Not sure on the merit of public hearings needing to be facilitated by an independent person rather than by Council or Council staff, as the results of a public hearing either way would need to be reported to Council for final resolution? (5) Agreed (7) Agreed. As the system currently stands, it is difficult to add additional uses to community land as the needs of the community change.(8) Will this also remove the need for Council’s to have a generic PoM to cover all community land not covered by an individual Plan of Management? (9) Agreed. The red tape as it stands is onerous and many proposals ‘fall over’ due to the lengthy delays experienced in seeking approval from DoP and the Minister. If an objection is received, the contents of that submission should be re-reported to Council for debate/discussion in the first instance before the need to seek Ministerial approval. (10) Agreed, with a degree of flexibility to negotiate lease term with proposed lessee/licensee if required. 30 Year maximum is more than adequate.
3.3.15	Approvals, Orders and Enforcement	The Taskforce recommends (1) regulatory provisions be reviewed to ensure that the Act provides guidance on regulatory principles but contains flexibility and less prescription in regulation implementation, provision of statutory minimum standards or thresholds, and councils having discretionary “on-the-ground” functions (2) consideration be given to the notion of a risk based approval process where persons or corporations are given general approval to conduct certain work rather than dealing with applications on a piecemeal basis (3) within this framework, the prescriptive processes of approvals and orders be streamlined and, subject to risk assessment, be placed where possible into regulations (4) removal of as many approvals and orders as possible and placing in specialist legislation if they cannot be repealed (5) the principles for dealing with approvals and orders be incorporated into a council’s IPR framework through the Delivery and Operational Plans, including adoption of an Enforcement Policy and any LAPs and LOPs (6) penalties for offences in the Act and regulations be increased to ensure they are proportionate to the nature of the offence, and that the ability to serve a penalty notice should be made an option for additional offences (7) councils be required to adopt an Enforcement Policy stating what factors will be considered in determining whether or not to take action, including the level of risk. The factors should be consistent across all councils (8) improving councils’ ability to recover costs for conducting work on private land (9) aligning council powers of entry with contemporary legislative standards (10) increasing the time limit for commencing summary proceedings from 6 to 12 months.	Generally the comments and recommendations regarding Orders and enforcement are supported. BVSC has had an Enforcement Policy for many years. It is based on the NSW Ombudsmen’s Model. The key factors in the Council Enforcement Policy are based on an assessment of the relevant legislative for non-compliance, the standard of evidence available, and whether enforcement action is warranted. These factors are straightforward. The legislation itself and the standard of evidence would almost always be of more use than individual LGA’s adopting Local Orders Policies. Bega VSC does not have a Local Orders Policy. A model for administration fees in regard the issue of Orders / Notices is contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. This approach is proven and successful and introducing this into the LG Act is supported. The increasing of the statute of limitations from 6 months to 12 moths is very sensible and is also supported.
3.3.16	Water Management	The Taskforce supports changes proposed to water recycling provisions which will consolidate and simplify the legislative framework. Otherwise the Taskforce makes no recommendations regarding the structures for the delivery of water and sewerage in non-urban areas, noting that the Taskforce gave the issue consideration but is aware this area is being dealt with by other reviews.	Noted
3.3.17	Tribunals and Commissions	The Taskforce notes (1) it is expected the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal will be consolidated into the newly constituted NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (2) the Independent Panel is examining the issue of structures and boundaries, how boundary changes might be facilitated, and possible change of method of operation of the Local Government Boundaries Commission and accordingly makes no comment pending the outcome of this review (3) consideration be given whether to merge the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal with the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal.	Any removal of bodies for single purpose/sector when there are other bodies that provide the same oversight for other sectors would be sensible
3.3.18	Other Matters	The Taskforce recommends (1) consistent with Taskforce recommendation 1.3, that in place of sections 23A and 10B(5) that the Act empowers the Director General to issue mandatory codes on operational and governance matters relevant to local government (2) a formal Oath of Office for councillors is introduced as a mechanism for inducting councillors into their role and reinforcing the serious nature of the role and the chief responsibilities and duties the role entails (3) the provisions of the Act governing councils’ expenses and facilities policy are reviewed to ensure they are streamlined and unnecessary red tape eliminated (4) a review be undertaken of circumstances that do not invalidate council decisions and including consideration of the appropriateness of adding the following to those circumstances that do not invalidate council decisions – “a failure to comply with the consultation and engagement principles” (5) conferring authority on councils to allocate, maintain and enforce property numbering (6) councils be provided with an effective means to regulate camping in vehicles on road and road related areas (7) the following matters be reviewed depending on the outcomes of other reviews currently incomplete: a. how councils are financed, particularly rating. The Taskforce consistently received feedback detailing issues with the provisions of the Act relating to how councils are financed b. community engagement to ensure consistency with the planning community participation proposals under the new Planning Act if adopted c. Tribunals and Commissions, particularly the role and functions of the Boundaries Commission to ensure that the Act supports recommendations of the Independent Panel adopted by the State Government d. roles and responsibilities of council officials. It is essential that the Act clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the mayor, councillors and the general manager. The Taskforce recommends that these definitions are reviewed to ensure they reflect recommendations of the Independent Panel adopted by the State Government.	Generally supportive of both recommendations. In regard (5) there are existing powers in S124 order 8 of the LGA 1993. The recommendations in the report relating to orders provisions of the Act need to be carefully considered as some are quite relevant and useful. In regard the numbering of properties the strengthening of these existing provisions would be useful and the recommendation is supported. The rec (6) regarding camping is agreed but should be extended to include staying overnight in vehicles (in roads and reserves) as well as camping as there is a legal distinction between the two activities. This recommendation is supported. (5) Need support from State Government Agencies to ensure consistent rural addressing standards and mapping throughout the state.

Contact	Phone	Email	Website
Bega Valley Shire Council	(02) 6499 2222	council@begavalley.nsw.gov.au	www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au
ICAC	8281 5999 Toll Free 1800 463 909	icac@icac.nsw.gov.au	www.icac.nsw.gov.au
Division of Local Government (DPC)	(02) 4428 4100	dlg@dlg.nsw.gov.au	www.dlg.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman	(02) 8286 1000 Toll Free 1800 451 524	nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au	www.ombo.nsw.gov.au

	Item no & subject
	Interest (tick one)	Pecuniary interest Non-pecuniary conflict of interest
	* Nature of interest
	If Non-pecuniary (tick one)	Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber

	Item no & subject
	Interest (tick one)	Pecuniary interest Non-pecuniary conflict of interest
	* Nature of interest
	If Non-pecuniary (tick one)	Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber

Estimated Design & Construction costs & additional funding required
	Estimated Cost	Additional funding required
Option 1: Do nothing	$0	-$300,000 Available
Option 2: Multi-purpose courts	$510,000	$120,000
Option 3: 2 fixed wall courts	$430,000	$ 50,000
Option 4: 15x28m indoor stadium & amenities	$688,000	$298,000

Funding source	December 2013	January 2014	February 2014
General Fund	$31,590,826	$27,590,826	$25,090,726
Water Fund	$13,022,303	$13,022,303	$13,022,303
Sewer Fund	$10,886,971	$10,886,971	$10,886,971

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 1*	*Development Plans (Elevations)*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 2*	*Development Plans (Site Plan and Floor Plan)*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 3*	*Locality Plan*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 4*	*Section 79C Matters for Consideration Assessment*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 5*	*Location IQ Economic Impact Assessment February 2014*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 6*	*Location IQ response to Wakefield Planning submission*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 7*	*Far South Coast Branch of the National Trust submission*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 8*	*Summary of Submissions*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.1 - Attachment 9*	*Draft Consent*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.2 - Attachment 1*	*Draft Consent*

Signed
Print Name	Councillor

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.3 - Attachment 1*	*Heritage Advisor's Report Hotel Australasia*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.3 - Attachment 2*	*Nomination of the Hotel Australia building for inclusion in Schedule 5 of the Local Environment Plan*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.4 - Attachment 1*	*Draft Section 94 and 94A Contribution Plans*

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 8.4 - Attachment 2*	*Draft Planning Agreement Policy*

Funding source	External Restrictions ‘000	Internal Restrictions ‘000	Unrestricted ‘000	Total ‘000
General Fund	$9,800	$18,196	-$2,154	$25,842
Water Fund	$4,228	$8,794	$1,617	$14,639
Sewer Fund	$1,945	$8,942	$3,908	$14,795

Council	26 March 2014
*Item 12.5 - Attachment 1*	*February 2014 Investment Report*