Cover page Agenda and Min Ordinary infocouncil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

 

Ordinary Meeting

 

 Thursday, 5 February 2015

 

held at Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby

commencing at 9.00am

 

 

 

 

Public Access relating to items on this Agenda can be made between 9.00am and 10.30am on the day of the Meeting.  Requests for public access should be made to the General Manager or Mayor no later than 12.00 midday on the day prior to the Meeting.

 

 

 

Ken Gainger

General Manager

 


CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§  The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§  The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a)   the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b)   the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§  If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§  Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§  Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§  A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§  The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a)   at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b)   at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to  the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§  It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§  Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§  Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§  Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1)   In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a)   including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b)   not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2)   The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3)   For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4)   Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5)   This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Meeting

 

 

BUSINESS OF Ordinary Meeting

 

1.    Public Access

2.    Apologies

3.    Requests for Leave of Absence

4.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

5.    Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns (s450A Local Government Act 1993)

6.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

6.1       Ordinary Meeting held on 11 December 2014

7.    Reservation of Items for Debate and Order of Business

8.    Mayoral Minute

8.1       Sealing of Minyon Falls Road........................................................................................... 1

8.2       Establishment of a Resident Roundtable.......................................................................... 3

9.    Notices of Motion

9.1       Public Questions................................................................................................................ 4

9.2       Refugee Welcome Zone................................................................................................... 7

9.3       Healthy Marine Environment - Educational Sign at Main Beach, Byron Bay................ 10

10.  Petitions

10.1     Proposed Extension of Paid Parking in Byron Bay........................................................ 30

11.  Submissions and Grants

12.  Delegates' Reports  

13.  Staff Reports

Corporate and Community Services

13.1     Section 355 Committee / Boards of Management - Changes to Membership.............. 32

13.2     Byron Bay War Memorial Swimming Pool - Lease/Management Agreement .............. 37

13.3     Owner's Consent to Lodge DA - Telecommunications Facility on Council Land at Ocean Shores......................................................................................................................................... 56

13.4     Potential Future Bulk Water Charges - Rous Water....................................................... 64

13.5     Investments - December 2014........................................................................................ 68

Sustainable Environment and Economy

13.6     PLANNING - Draft Planning Proposal for an amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 to rezone land and permit Community Title at Lot 1 DP 1031848, The Coast Road, Broken Head (The Linnaeus Estate)......................................................................................................................................... 74

13.7     Report of the Planning Review Committee Meeting held on 9 December 2014........... 96

13.8     South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Framework....................... 98

Infrastructure Services

13.9     South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant Decommissioning........................................... 105

13.10   Lot 5 Shara Boulevard - Public Reserve Proposal....................................................... 109

13.11   Tallow Creek Flood Mapping Update............................................................................ 112

13.12   Two-lanes inbound, Shirley Street and direct access Lawson Street north car park, Byron Bay ....................................................................................................................................... 116

13.13   Unresolved Local Traffic Committee items from 11 December 2014......................... 139   

14.  Reports of Committees

Infrastructure Services

14.1     Report of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 4 December 2014....................................................................................................................................... 143  

15Questions With Notice

Nil   

 

 

 

 

Councillors are encouraged to ask questions regarding any item on the business paper to the appropriate Executive Manager prior to the meeting. Any suggested amendments to the recommendations should be provided to the Administration section prior to the meeting to allow the changes to be typed and presented on the overhead projector at the meeting.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Mayoral Minute                                                                                                                         8.1

 

 

Mayoral Minute

 

Mayoral Minute No. 8.1       Sealing of Minyon Falls Road

File No:                                  I2015/22

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.       That Council liaise with Lismore City Council and NPWS in order to seek support from State and Federal governments to fund the sealing of Minyon Falls road and to possibly develop a joint funding proposal.

 

2.       That relevant local members, the Hon. Don Page and the Hon. Thomas George be requested to represent the needs and benefits of sealing this road for locals and visitors with the State government and to support any applications relating to sealing the road.

 

3.       That, as the road is primarily used by large amounts of visitors to reach Minyon Falls within Nightcap National Park, the Federal and State Ministers of the Environment be requested to support and assist in the sealing of Minyon Falls road. 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Destination NSW Newsletter Article - Major Improvements to Minyon Falls Walk - January 2013, E2015/4483 , page 2  

 

 

Background Notes:

 

Minyon Falls Road is an example of road infrastructure being predominantly used by visitors but maintained by the local community via local Councils. It would seem appropriate that the organisations that promote the attraction at the end of the road help pay for the upkeep of that road. It also seems appropriate that when governments are looking to fund local tourism infrastructure, they start with already existing infrastructure that require upgrading.

 

As Destination NSW estimate that the walks in the vicinity alone cater for over 100,000 visitors per year, it would be highly beneficial to the local community and visitors for the 1.7 kilometres of unsealed road along Minyon Falls road to be fully sealed.

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

·    CM 3 Community Outcome : Effective partnerships with all levels of government

·    CM 3.1.1: Identify current and future partnership opportunities.

·    CM 3.1.3: Seek Regional, State and Federal support for services that benefit Byron Shire.

Definition of the project/task:

 

Seeking funding for the sealing of Minyon Falls road..

 

Signed:   Cr Simon Richardson


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Mayoral Minute                                                                                                    8.1 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Mayoral Minute                                                                                                                         8.2

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. 8.2       Establishment of a Resident Roundtable

File No:                                  I2015/23

 

  

 

I move that Council:

 

1.       Establish a regular Resident Roundtable meeting.

 

2.       That invitations be made to progress associations, resident groups and community groups to attend these meetings and agenda items sought prior to each meeting.

 

 

Background Notes:

 

Council has successfully facilitated increased consultative meetings to better engage with our community. Both the sports stakeholders roundtable and business roundtable meetings have allowed for two-way communication to minimise speculation and isolation and to increase collaboration and information.

 

These benefits should be extended to the wider community. Issues that could be discussed include:

 

·    infrastructure works and priorities,

·    illegal camping and signage concerns

·    public space activation

·    town and future settlement planning

·    community events and gatherings

·    open space and landscape issues

·    waste, rubbish and recycling

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

Community Outcome: INFORMED AND ENGAGED COMMUNITY - Long Term Success Measures:

 

a.   Increased customer satisfaction with Council services measured by regular community and business surveys.

b.   Maintain or increase community participation in Council committees and other formal engagement forums.

c.   Increased information available through online avenues.

d.   Increase community subscription to online communication forums.

 

·    CM 2.1.1- Key Activities: Facilitate and support active community engagement

·    CM 2.2.1- Council Actions: Run community engagement events such as workshops and or information sessions.

Definition of the project/task:

The establishment of regular resident roundtable meetings.

 

Signed:   Cr Simon Richardson  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.1

 

 

Notices of Motion

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.1     Public Questions

File No:                                  I2015/16

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.       That Council

 

a)      Reinstate Public Questions within the Code of Meeting Practice; and

b)      Amend the Code of Meeting Practice to allow Public Questions to be asked within Council meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor’s Background Notes:

 

Since the revision of the Code of Meeting Practice in November 2013 it has not been possible for members of the public to ask questions of councillors within a meeting of council.

 

By abandoning Public Questions it has promoted a view that Council is operating in a less democratic and accountable manner.

 

I have formed the view that this has been a regrettable step that has decreased the good standing of council in the eyes of the community.

 

This situation should be rectified.

 

By reinstating Public Questions within Public Access it will ensure:

 

i)        Council is functioning in a more democratic manner;

ii)       Greater awareness of emerging issues of importance within the community is bought to the attention of councillors; and

iii)      A greater level of accountability is maintained.

 

Simply put by adopting this motion it will ensure that anyone wishing to make a submission to Council on an item outside of the Agenda or to ask a question of a general nature will be able to do so at the completion of Public Access period time permitting and at the discretion of the Mayor.

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

CM1.1       Improve the transparency, effectiveness and accountability of Council.

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

1.      Reinstate Public Questions within the Code of Meeting Practice; and

 

2.      Amend the Code of Meeting Practice to allow Public Questions to be asked within Council meetings.

 

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

Not applicable

 

Signed:   Cr Paul Spooner

 

 

Management Comments by Mark Arnold, Director Corporate and Community Services

(Management Comments must not include formatted recommendations – resolution 11-979)

 

Clarification of project/task:

 

The reinstatement of Public Questions to Councillors, as part of the Public Access Agenda Item, will require an amendment to the Code of Meeting Practice. Should the Notice of Motion be supported by Council, staff will draft the amendments required to the Code of Meeting Practice, to allow for Public Questions.

 

When Council last adopted its Code of Meeting Practice it removed public question time and limited the Public Access Session to one hour duration (9am to 10am). Since then the public access sessions at council meetings have at times had to be curtailed because the demand for public access presentations has exceeded the available time. Should the Council support this proposal to again include public questions it may also wish to review the time allocation and consider extending this to 2 hours and perhaps correspondingly commencing Council meetings at 8am. This would enable public access sessions to be further expanded as true public forums.

 

The amended draft Code of Meeting Practice would be the subject of a further report to Council, to enable Council to adopt the draft for public exhibition.

 

Director responsible for task implementation:

 

Director Corporate and Community Services

 

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

 

There would minimal impact on other projects and tasks.

 

Financial and Resource Implications:

 

There would be minimal finance implications and the action would be undertaken within existing budget and resource allocation.

 

Legal and Policy Implications:

 

The Notice of Motion if supported, would require an amended the Code of Meeting Practice to be drafted. The statutory process for the adoption and or amendment of the Code of Meeting Practice is set out in Sections 361 – 363 of the Local Government Act1993

 

361   Preparation, public notice and exhibition of draft code

(1)  Before adopting a code of meeting practice, a council must prepare a draft code.

 

(2)  The council must give public notice of the draft code after it is prepared.

 

(3)  The period of public exhibition must not be less than 28 days.

 

(4)  The public notice must also specify a period of not less than 42 days after the date on which the draft code is placed on public exhibition during which submissions may be made to the council.

 

(5)  The council must publicly exhibit the draft code in accordance with its notice.

362   Adoption of draft code

(1)  After considering all submissions received by it concerning the draft code, the council may decide:

(a)   to amend those provisions of its draft code that supplement the regulations made for the purposes of section 360, or

(b)   to adopt the draft code as its code of meeting practice.

 

(2)  If the council decides to amend its draft code, it may publicly exhibit the amended draft in accordance with this Division or, if the council is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, it may adopt the amended draft code without public exhibition as its code of meeting practice.

363   Amendment of the code

A council may amend a code adopted under this Part by means only of a code so adopted.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.2

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.2     Refugee Welcome Zone

File No:                                  I2015/17

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.       That Council

 

a)      Declares Byron Shire to be a Refugee Welcome Zone

b)      Signs the Refugee Welcome Zone Declaration endorsed by the Refugee Council of Australia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor’s Background Notes:

 

The Refugee Welcome Zone is an initiative of the Refugee Council of Australia and currently involves 87 Councils around the country.

 

What is a Refugee Welcome Zone?

 

A Refugee Welcome Zone is a Local Government Area that has made a commitment to welcoming refugees into the community, upholding their human rights, demonstrating compassion and enhancing cultural and religious diversity in the community.

 

By making this Declaration, Local Government Areas are encouraged in their continuing efforts to support the men, women and children who make the difficult journey to Australia to seek our protection.

 

This public commitment is also an acknowledgment of the tremendous contribution refugees have made to Australian society in so many fields, including medicine, science, engineering, sport, education, the arts, business and commerce.

 

Why become a Refugee Welcome Zone?

 

Since federation, Australia has become home to over 800,000 refugees.

 

Becoming a Refugee Welcome Zone is a way to continue Australia’s strong tradition in supporting the settlement of refugees as well as promoting harmony, social cohesion and respect for human rights and dignity in your local community.

 

What are the obligations and responsibilities of Refugee Welcome Zones?

 

The Refugee Welcome Zone Declaration does not confer any formal obligations and Refugee Welcome Zones are not required to uphold any statutory responsibilities, to make financial commitments or enter into reporting accountabilities. The signing of the Declaration is simply a way of demonstrating broad support for the principles it contains.

 

The actions or activities undertaken by Refugee Welcome Zones are not specific requirements of the Declaration. However, any initiatives that help to create a welcoming atmosphere and assist the settlement of refugees and their communities are to be welcomed and encouraged.

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

SC3.3        Encourage and support residents from cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds to participate in all aspects of the community.

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

1.      Declare Byron Shire to be a Refugee Welcome Zone

2.      Sign the Refugee Welcome Zone Declaration endorsed by the Refugee Council of Australia.

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

Not applicable

 

Signed:   Cr Paul Spooner

 

 

Management Comments by Greg Ironfield, Manager Community Services

(Management Comments must not include formatted recommendations – resolution 11-979)

 

Clarification of project/task:

 

If Council were to endorse the Notice of Motion to become a Refugee Welcome Zone staff would need to contact the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) to register.  The following details are from the RCOA website:

 

1)   The process for becoming a Refugee Welcome Zone is very straightforward. It simply involves the Council signing the Refugee Welcome Zone Declaration, which is “a commitment in Spirit to welcoming refugees into our community, upholding the human rights of refugees, demonstrating compassion for refugees and enhancing cultural and religious diversity in our community”.

 

2)   ) To mark the occasion of becoming a Refugee Welcome Zone, many Councils and Shires choose to hold public signing ceremonies. These provide an opportunity to highlight the initiative and acknowledge the work of local groups and individuals that support refugees and asylum seekers. If possible, a representative from the Refugee Council of Australia will attend the ceremony to present a Certificate of Appreciation.

 

Director responsible for task implementation:

 

Director Corporate and Community Services.

 

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

 

The decision to support the Notice of Motion is a decision of Council as community representatives.  As stated in the NoM the action is consistent with the Community Strategic Plan Community Outcome SC3 – Respect and understanding of Aboriginal heritage and wider cultural diversity, and the Community Strategy SC3.3 Encourage and support residents from cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds to participate in all aspects of the community.

 

Should Council resolve to support the NoM the action can be included in the 2015/16 Operational Plan.

 

Financial and Resource Implications:

 

There are minimal resource implications to register but further staff resources would be required to organise and run a public ceremony. Funding for a public ceremony would need to be considered.

 

There is currently no budget allocation for the public ceremony, and a suggested budget of $500 could be considered for inclusion in the 2015/16 Council Budget, should Council resolve to hold a ceremony for venue hire, catering and organisation.

 

Legal and Policy Implications:

 

Nil

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.3

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.3     Healthy Marine Environment - Educational Sign at Main Beach, Byron Bay

File No:                                  I2015/18

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.       That Council install a Healthy Marine Environment education sign at Main Beach, Byron Bay through an educational awareness partnership with Positive Change for Marine Life.

 

          The aim of this partnership is to promote actions that will ensure a healthy marine environment in Byron Bay. This will ensure a reduction in the level of waste collected at Main Beach to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits.

 

2.       The partnership to investigate and facilitate the following elements:

 

a.       Statistical collection and analysis of marine debris;

b.      Monitoring and evaluation of littering at Main Beach;

c.       Identification of the positive benefits and/or challenges in maintaining a healthy marine environment;

e.       Installation of signage and other park infrastructure (e.g. seating, recycle and wastage bins) to support a public education campaign promoting a Healthy Marine Environment;

 

3.       Any proposals resulting from this partnership resulting in additional costs to council outside allocated budgets to be reported back to council for approval.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Seat signage examples, E2015/3960 , page 13  

 

 

Councillor’s Background Notes:

 

Cape Byron Marine Park established in 2002 is of national significance and includes a wide variety of marine life within its 22,000 hectares.

 

The increase in visitors in Byron Bay has brought with it various environmental issues that are currently threatening the pristine ecosystems that make up the marine park. One of the biggest threats to aquatic life is anthropogenic waste, otherwise known as marine debris. 

 

There is no greater threat to marine life and Byron Bay’s tourism industry than the ever increasing amounts of debris that make their way into the marine park every day.

 

Positive Change for Marine Life (PCFML) has been creating awareness around marine debris in order to minimize the effect that local residents and visitors to the area have on the organisms of the marine park since 2011. PCFML has been conducting regular beach cleanups, conducted scientific research and undertaken advocacy programs.

 

The park and beach are often used as late night party locations. The prevalence of litter, especially, cigarette butts is extremely disheartening.

 

There is currently no information regarding marine debris and the impacts of littering in any of the parks throughout Byron Shire.

 

The Healthy Marine Environment partnership would aim to create an overall vision for Main Beach Park. This vision could include a professionally designed sign, custom made benches and new garbage bin branding. All of which raise awareness to the issues pertaining to trash in Byron Bay and the effect that it's having on Cape Byron Marine Park and its ecosystems as well as showcasing the towns commitment to sustainability, environmental protection and a new direction in dealing with litter and 'trashing the bay' so to speak.

 

This partnership will benefit the town in a number of ways, including:

 

1.   Raising awareness about litter, thereby reducing it's prevalence in the park, on the beach and subsequently in the ocean;

 

2.   Challenging people to think about marine debris and the impact that litter is having on the natural environment, therefore promoting a long-term shift in consciousness when it comes to littering and single-use items;

 

3.   Attracting more families and young couples to Main Beach due to the appeal of upgrading the park and its facilities (this idea ties in perfectly with the new toilets at Main Beach and can hopefully pave the way for other areas of town to follow suite);

 

4.   Encouraging people to recycle, due to the art mural designs and branding that would be incorporated on all recycle bins and general waste bins in the park.

 

Attachment:  Examples of possible designs for signage, seating and bins.

 

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

EN1.1      Protect, restore and maintain the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire.

 

EN3.2      Promote water and waste minimisation – avoid, reduce and reuse waste.

 

EN3.3     Encourage low consumption lifestyles and environmentally aware practices.

EC2.1      Build a tourism industry that delivers local and regional benefits in harmony with the community’s values.

EC2.2      Develop Byron Shire as a leader in responsible and sustainable tourism and encourage sustainable business practices within the tourism industry.

 

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

1.       Install a Healthy Marine Environment education sign at Main Beach, Byron Bay through an educational awareness partnership with Positive Change for Marine Life.

 

2.       The partnership to investigate and facilitate the following elements:

i.        Statistical collection and analysis of marine debris;

ii.       Monitoring and evaluation of littering at Main Beach;

iii.      Identification of the positive benefits and/or challenges in maintaining a healthy marine environment;

iv.      Installation of signage and other park infrastructure (e.g. seating, recycle and wastage bins) to support a public education campaign promoting a Healthy Marine Environment

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

Main Beach Crown Reserve

 

Signed:   Cr Paul Spooner

 

 

Management Comments by Phil Holloway, Director, Infrastructure Services

(Management Comments must not include formatted recommendations – resolution 11-979)

 

Clarification of project/task:

 

The proposal is to be lauded for intent and artistic quality of the totems and seat that appear in the attachment.  While these installations could be accommodated in the current park landscape it should be noted that the area is subject to current review as part of the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan.  Consequently, positioning of proposed infrastructure may need to be moved as that plan is realised. The proposal suggests that “an overall vision for Main Beach Park” be created by “The Healthy Marine Environment partnership”, it is felt that the scope of this aim is beyond the installation of some signs and benches and could conflict with the designs of the architects currently engaged by council to prepare the Master Plan. The proposal requires more detail on size of the signs and anticipated positions to ensure views and general usability of the park are not detracted from.

 

 It is noted that the signs and bench require power to allow illumination, the installation of power and ongoing costs (including cleaning and maintenance) require consideration before making a long term commitment to this project.

 

Director responsible for task implementation:

 

Director Infrastructure Services

 

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

Byron Bay Town centre Master Plan

 

Financial and Resource Implications:

 

The current source for projects pertaining to upgrades within Apex Park are derived from Crown Reserve paid parking. The proposal does not contain costs for the signage or benches. Power would need to be routed to each installation.  The infrastructure would also need to be regularly cleaned to ensure messages contained are legible and appealing.

 

Legal and Policy Implications:

 

None apparent


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                          9.3 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Petitions                                                                                                                                      10.1

 

 

Petitions

 

Petition No. 10.1         Proposed Extension of Paid Parking in Byron Bay

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No:                        I2014/163

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Infrastructure Services – Supervision and Administration

 

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 11 December 2014 the Mayor Cr Simon Richardson tabled a petition containing 525 signatures and a covering letter from the Palace Cinemas which states:

 

Please find attached Petition opposing the introduction/extension of paid parking in Byron Bay, with over 500 signatories. Palace Byron Bay Cinema is firmly opposed to this proposal, as we have no doubt it doubt it will impact negatively on the cinema’s business.

As most films run for at least two hours, and sometimes significantly longer, patrons not live within walking distance of the cinema- the vast majority of our customers- either park in the Plaza car park or in the nearby streets that don’t currently have timed parking. If Jonson Street becomes subject to paid parking, many of the people who currently park there will instead park in the free Plaza car park, reducing the availability of parking for patrons of the cinema and other Plaza businesses including Woolworths.

Likewise, if nearby streets that are currently untimed become subject to time limits and/or payment, people who currently park there will also attempt to park in the Plaza car park, making it extremely difficult or impossible to park there.

Even though the recently approved plans for the renovation of the cinema site call for an increase in parking spaces, with the first two hours free the situation will not change in face with the additional business planned for the site, all available parking will be at a premium anyway.

We urge you to find an alternative means of raising revenue and solving the town’s parking issues. ”

The petition reads:

 

“We, the undersigned, object to the proposed introduction of paid parking into Byron Bay streets, without exemption for Byron Shire residents and ratepayers, and the further proposals to reduce the number of 4 hour parking areas and possibly restrict adjourning streets without paid parking o residents of those streets. These measures will undoubtedly see the Woolworths Plaza car park, which currently has 3 hour time limit (subject to change at any time as it privately owned) become totally congested. We believe these proposals will make it extremely difficult to park within walking distance of the cinema, and present a particular hardship for older and/or disabled residents.”

 

Comments from Director Infrastructure Services:

 

Based on the recommendation tabled, the matters raised in the petition will be included in the discussion (i.e. briefing) paper Council has resolved upon in parts (d) and (e) of the following:

 

14-646 Resolved that Council, support the introduction of a pay parking scheme in Byron Bay in

principle subject to the following provisos:

 

a) the inclusion of a ‘locals’ exemption.

 

b) as a guide for further analysis an hourly fee of $3 be assumed at locations within Table 1 of

this report, except Main Beach and Clarkes Beach car parks and the length of Bay Street,

whereby $5 per hour applies;

 

c) staff develop an Expression of Interest (EoI) for the purposes of seeking costs and

information on technological capabilities of pay parking machines from suppliers;

 

d) holding of a Councillor/staff workshop in early February 2015 to consider further analysis of

any residual issues raised by the Council at this meeting;

 

e) prior to the workshop, staff develop and circulate a briefing paper which details further the

issues highlighted in this report including options for:

          i) the existing parking coupon system;

ii) eligibility criteria for a local exemption, be it residents, ratepayers or workers;

iii) potential allocation limits, for example number of vehicle exemptions or discounts per

dwelling or workplace, and the cost for extra allocations above the prescribed

allocation;

iv) changes to parking time limits; and

v) the application of a resident permit parking scheme.

 

f) a further report is provided to Council during February 2015 for a final decision on the

introduction of pay parking for Byron Bay and other recommendations contained in the TTM

Byron Parking Study report.

 

 

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That the petition regarding the proposed extension of paid parking in Byron Bay be noted.

 

2.       That the petition be referred to the Director Infrastructure Services and be included in the discussion paper for the next workshop for Councillors on Paid Parking.

 

 

 

 

    


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.1

 

 

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

 

Report No. 13.1           Section 355 Committee / Boards of Management - Changes to Membership

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No:                        I2014/91

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Administrative Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council has received a resignation and requests for new membership appointments to its Section 355 Committees managing Council’s facilities as follows:

 

1.       A resignation from a member of the Heritage House (and Tennis Court) Section 355 Management Committee.

 

2.       Requests for new membership to the:

 

a)      Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management

b)      Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management

c)      South Golden Beach Community Hall Section 355 Management Committee.

 

The Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management have requested that Council consider having 1 appointed Councillor and 2 Councillor alternate delegates due their ongoing councillor commitments and inability to attend meetings, rather than to increase membership numbers.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council accept the resignation from Annette Welstead and officially thank her for her contribution on the Heritage House Bangalow Section 355 Management Committee.

 

2.       That the following appointments be made in line with Councillors term of office ending September 2016.

 

         a)       That Samuel Fell be officially appointed to the Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management.

          b)      That Damon Lewis be officially appointed to the Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management.

          c)      That Elissa Pelling and Robyn Quinn be officially appointed to the South Golden Beach Community Hall Section 355 Management Committee.

 

3.       That Cr Basil Cameron be the appointed Councillor delegate and Crs Ibrahim and Cubis be alternate delegates on the Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - EoI from Damon Russell Lewis for membership to Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management, S2014/12972  

2        Confidential - EoI from Elissa Pelling for Membership to the South Golden Beach Hall Committee, S2014/13677  

3        Confidential - EoI from Robyn Quinn for Membership to the South Golden Beach Hall Committee, S2014/13676  

 

 


 

Report

 

Heritage House Bangalow (and Tennis Court) Section 355 Management Committee

 

Council has received a resignation from Annette Welstead from the Heritage House Bangalow (and Tennis Court) Section 355 Management Committee.

 

Current Membership now on the Committee is as follows:-

 

Councillor Representative(s):

 

§ Cr Basil Cameron

§ Cr Sol Ibrahim (Alternate delegate)

 

Community Representatives:

 

§ Rita Cowled, President

§ Stephanie King, Vice President

§ Patricia Bleakley, Secretary

§ Wendy Grissell, Bookings Officer

§ Phil McLean, Treasurer

§ Margaret J Brown

§ Don Osborne

§ John Sourry

§ Elaine Moyle

 

The Committee has not requested further members.  It has been recommended that Council accept the resignation from Annette Welstead and officially thank her for her contribution on this Committee.

 

Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management Committee

 

The Venue Co-ordinator has formally resigned from this position on the 17 December 2014.  He has formally advised the Board of Management of his resignation and interest in the Civic Hall and would like to now contribute as a Board Member.  The Board of Management recommends to Council that he be appointed as a Board Member.

 

Current Membership now on the Committee is as follows:-

 

Councillor Representative(s): 

 

§ Cr Simon Richardson 

§ Cr Duncan Dey (Alternate Delegate)

 

Community Representatives: 

 

§ Andrea Danvers Treasurer

§ Neil Johnson Chairperson

§ Judy MacDonald

§ Alison Pearl

§ Philip Preston Secretary

§ Glenn Wright

It has been recommended that Samuel Fell be officially appointed to the Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management.

 

Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management Committee

 

Council has received a request from the Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management for further members on the Board to assist them with the management of the Bangalow A&I Hall. Advertising for Expressions of Interest was placed in Council’s block advertising and The Bangalow Heart Beat.

 

An Expression of Interest was received from Damon Lewis shown at Confidential Attachment 1.

 

Current membership on the Board of Management is as follows:

 

Councillor Representative(s):

 

§ Cr Basil Cameron

§ Cr Sol Ibrahim

§ Cr Chris Cubis (Alternate delegate)

 

Community Representatives:

 

§ Don Osborne Secretary

§ John Hudson

§ Roland Dickson Vice Chair

§ Peta Heeson Treasurer

§ Tony Heeson Chairperson

§ Richard Staples 

 

It has been recommended to appoint Damon Lewis to the Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management.

 

In accordance with the Board of Management Guidelines membership should not consist of more than 8 members.  The Board recognises the commitments of Councillors appointed to this Board and that they are unable to attend all of the Board meetings. According the Board has requested Council to consider having only 1 appointed Councillor and 2 Councillors as Alternate delegates rather than to increase Board membership.

 

It has been recommended to have Cr Basil Cameron as the appointed delegate and Crs Ibrahim and Cubis as alternate delegates on this Board of Management.

 

South Golden Beach Community Hall Section 355 Management Committee

 

Council has received a request from the South Golden Beach Community Hall Section 355 Management Committee for appointment of new members interested in the facility.

 

Expressions of Interest were received from:

 

·    Elissa Pelling shown at Confidential Attachment 2

·    Robyn Quinn shown at Confidential Attachment 3

 

The Section 355 Committee have requested the appointment of both Expressions of Interest.

 

Current membership of the Section 355 Management Committee is as follows:

 

Councillor Representative(s):

 

§ Cr Basil Cameron

§ Mayor Cr Simon Richardson (alternate delegate)

 

Community Representatives:

 

§ Angela  Dunlop, President - representing South Golden Beach Community Association

§ Liz Caddick, Secretary

§ Michele Clark, Treasurer

§ Kathy Norley representing South Golden Beach Community Association

§ Sergio Scudery

§ Jacqui Walsh 

 

It has been recommended to appoint Elissa Pelling and Robyn Quinn to the South Golden Beach Community Hall Section 355 Committee.

 

Financial Implications

 

Community members of Section 355 Management committees are volunteer positions.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Section 355 Committees operate under Committee Guidelines in which Committee membership it states

 

3.2 Committee Membership

The Committee membership will number not less than four (4) and not more than twelve (12) members as appointed by Council including office bearers unless otherwise decided by Council. Council reserves the right to appoint a Councillor to each Committee.

 

Boards of Management operate under Board of Management Guidelines in which Board Membership it states

 

3.2 Board Membership

The Board membership will number not less than three (3) and not more than eight (8) members as appointed by Council including office bearers unless otherwise decided by Council. Council reserves the right to appoint up to two (2) of its members to each Board of Management.

 

Further information on the operations and meeting minutes for these Committees can be found on Council’s web site at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/section-355-committees

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.2

 

 

Report No. 13.2           Byron Bay War Memorial Swimming Pool - Lease/Management Agreement

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

File No:                        I2014/160

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Property Management

 

 

Summary:

 

The current agreement between Crown Lands, Council and Fishheads@Byron Pty Ltd for the lease and management of the Byron Bay War Memorial Pool Complex (which includes the Café) expires on 30 June 2015.  There is no holding over provision in the current agreement, no provisions for a further term, and the agreement requires Fishheads to vacate the premises on expiry of the agreement.

 

The tenure of the land on which the Complex is located, is complex and involves four land parcels being part Crown Reserve R82000 (part Lot 10 DP 1049827), part Road Reserve and part Council owned Operational Land (part Lot 4 DP 827049 and part Lot 5 DP 827049).  Rationalising these land tenure arrangements has been the subject of many reports to Council. Negotiations between Council and Crown Lands are continuing in accordance with resolution [12-689], however, the rationalisation of the land tenure remains unresolved.  

 

Due to the long and complex legislative process to establish any new lease/management agreement over several different land tenure arrangements, it is necessary for Council, in relation to part Road Reserve and part Council owned Operational Land (part Lot 4 DP 827049 and part Lot 5 DP 827049, to again determine the future arrangements for lease/management of the Complex from 1 July 2015.

 

There are two (2) Lessors in this arrangement.  The first, is Council in its own right as owner of the Operational land and Road reserve (noting that on closure the Road reserve land may vest in the Crown).  The second, is the Trustee of the Crown Reserve (noting Council is the Manager of the Crown Reserve and not the Trustee).

 

This report and recommendations relate to Council as the Lessor in the first instance.  In the second instance a report in relation to part Crown Reserve R82000, providing the required supportive recommendations, is included in the Reserve Trust Committee Meeting Agenda for 5 February 2015.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council not call for tenders for the proposed lease/management agreement of the Byron Bay Byron Bay War Memorial Swimming Pool Complex (“the Complex”) for the following reasons:

 

          (a)     that Crown Lands (as a Lessor) has not provided its consent to the calling of tenders to establish a new lease/management agreement; and

 

          (b)     that advice from the Office of Local Government and Council’s independent legal advice supports the rationalisation of land titles prior to the calling of tenders to establish a new lease/management agreement; and

 

          (c)     the specialised nature of pool management means that there are limited persons with sufficient experience and skill; and

 

          (d)     a tenure of twelve (12) months with a further twelve (12) month option would be unlikely to result in commercially acceptable tenders.

 

2.       That Council delegate the General Manager to negotiate a new lease/management agreement for the Complex with the current lessees/managers (Fishheads@Byron Pty Ltd) on a “without admission”, “without prejudice” and “without obligation” basis and subject always to all necessary approvals from external agencies and resolutions of the Reserve Trust Committee and Council being obtained.

 

3.       That Council endorse the proposed lease/management agreement for the Complex be on the same basis of the existing deed of agreement with the following changes:

 

a)      a 12 month period commencing 1 July 2015 and terminating on 30 June 2016,

b)      a further 12 month option commencing 1 July 2016 and terminating on 30 June 2017,

c)      the Rent will be determined via market valuation and indexed where necessary,

d)      the Management Fee will be indexed where necessary.

 

          subject to meeting all statutory requirements relating to any new lease including public notice and public consultation processes, obtaining approval of the Minister of Lands, as well as the Minister for Local Government if necessary.

 

4.       That the lease/management agreement be subject to the following:

 

a)      the lessees releasing Council, as Reserve Trust Manager, from all (real or perceived) claims, damages, liability, actions or the like, arising from anything to do with the lease/management agreement of the Complex, leases or generally their occupation of the Byron Bay War Memorial Swimming Pool Complex at any time, such release to be in writing to the satisfaction of the General Manager and Council’s solicitors; and

 

b)      the lessees personally guaranteeing that they will vacate the premises by the end date of the proposed new lease, namely 30 June 2016, and indemnifying Council as the Reserve Trust Manager, from all claims, damages, actions, liability or the like in the event that they do not so vacate the premises.

 

5.       That Council delegate the General Manager to do all such things as may be necessary at the appropriate times to seek all necessary approvals, from the Crown Lands Division and Office of Local Government, for any new Lease/management agreement and to meet all statutory requirements relating to any new lease, including public notice and public consultation processes.

 

6.       That in the event negotiations with the current lessees/managers are unsuccessful and/or are not concluded within this time, the General Manager is authorised to serve notice on the current lessees/managers to vacate the premises on or before 30 June 2015.

 

7.       That in the event an acceptable leasing arrangement cannot be reached and notice is served on the current lessees/managers to vacate the premises, the management of the Complex revert to Council from 1 July 2015.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Letter from Dept of Local Government 30/4/2007, DM673765 , page 48  

2        Letter from Dept of Lands 15/5/2007, DM677659 , page 51  

3        Letter from Dept of Lands 27/1/2011, DM1051473 , page 53  

4        Letter to Crown Lands 20/11/2014, E2014/76042 , page 54  

 

 


 

Report

 

Byron Bay War Memorial Swimming Pool Complex (pool and café) (“the Complex”) is located upon four parcels of land being part Crown Reserve R82000 (part Lot 10 DP 1049827), part Road Reserve and part Council owned Operational Land (part Lot 4 DP 827049 and part Lot 5 DP 827049).

 

Lease/management agreements for the Complex were last tendered in 2000, when Council resolved [00-905] to accept the tender from Fishheads.  The initial lease/management agreement was for a period of five years from 8 January 2001 to 7 January 2006. 

 

After seeking advice from the Minister of Lands, the Division of Local Government, ICAC and Ombudsman, and receiving advice not to call tenders from Department of Local Government (refer Attachment 1) and Department of Lands (refer Attachment 2) Council again extended the tenure by granting a new lease/management contract with Fishheads to 30 June 2009.

 

At its Extraordinary Meeting held 25 June 2009 Council resolved to grant a new 2 year lease/management agreement to Fishheads [09-525].  This extended Fishheads tenure to 30 June 2011, refer http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2009-06-25-quarterly.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting held 10 March 2011, refer http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2011-03-10-ordinary Council resolved to note the report [11-206], which provided an update on the land tenure issues at the Complex.  This report included advice from Crown Lands that it was not prepared to provide agreement to Council calling new tenders for the lease/management of the Complex, refer Attachment 3.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting held 9 June 2011, Council resolved to grant Fishheads a new lease for one (1) year, with a one (1) year option at the discretion of the Minister of Lands [11-470], refer http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2011-06-09-ordinary.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting held 22 March 2012, Council resolved to grant Fishheads the 12 month option to extend the lease/management agreement to expire 30 June 2013 [12-188], refer http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2012-03-22-ordinary.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 30 August 2012 Council considered a report titled “13.19. Byron Bay Memorial Pool – Crown Lands – Land Tenure Proposal”, which provided advice from Crown Lands that they would consider any reasonable proposal to achieve rationalisation of the land tenure provided it ensured a strong retail business continued to operate on the Crown Reserve and there was no further unauthorised occupation of Crown Land by Council’s infrastructure.  The report included an “alternate proposal” to rationalise the land tenure at the Complex for Council’s consideration, refer (http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2012-08-30-ordinary).  Council resolved:

 

[12-689]

 

“1. That Council note this report.

 

2. That Council authorise the General Manager to prepare and submit to the Crown Lands Division, a proposal for the rationalisation of the land tenure on this site, based on the Alternate Proposal detailed in this report.

 

3. That Council request the Crown Lands Division to consider and provide comment on the proposal within 28 days of receiving the proposal.

 

4. That upon receipt of a response from the Crown Lands Division that a further Report be brought to Council.”

 

[12-691]

 

“Resolved that Council commence action with the proposal as contained in Annexure 29(h).”

 

At its Extraordinary Meeting held 21 March 2013, Council resolved [13-145] to grant Fishheads a new 24 month lease commencing 1 July 2013, refer http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2013-03-21-extra.

 

In accordance with resolution [12-689], Council has corresponded and met with Crown Lands on numerous occasion to facilitate the progression of rationalising the land tenure at the Complex.

 

Current

At the most recent meeting held on 19 September 2014 Crown Lands presented Council with a concept land tenure rationalisation proposal for the land at the Complex.  It was agreed that each party would develop a set of guiding principles towards developing and progressing a Memorandum of Agreement.  Council has provided its draft guiding principles, but is yet to receive a response from Crown Lands, providing its draft guiding principles or a comment on the draft submitted by Council. 

 

At that meeting it was also agreed that Council should submit a request to the Crown to offer the current tenants a new lease/management agreement for a term of 12 months with an option for a further 12 months due to the unresolved land tenure issues and that a tender is not supported by the Office of Local Government or the Crown until such time as the land rationalisation proposals are sufficiently advanced to facilitate a guaranteed long-term tenure at competitive commercial market rates.

 

The current agreement between Crown Lands, Council and Fishheads@Byron Pty Ltd (Fishheads) for the lease and management of the Complex expires on 30 June 2015.  There is no provision for a further term, and the agreement requires Fishheads to vacate the premises at that time.

 

In a letter to Crown Lands dated 20 November 2014 (refer Attachment 4) Council sought a response to inform the lease/management agreement process regarding the upcoming expiry on 30 June 2015 as well as the Crown’s guiding principles for the land tenure rationalisation.  This letter provided a timeline of the lengthy process to establish any new lease/management agreement prior to expiry.  This letter also provided Crown Lands with a copy of the submission received by Council from the current lessee/manager proposing a longer term lease. There has been no response from Crown Lands.

 

Fishheads have held lease/management agreements over the Complex continuously since 2001, with several new lease/management agreements being granted past the original tendered contract term of 5 years.

 

Crown Lands have not been prepared to agree to Council calling tenders to establish a new lease/management agreement until such time as the land tenure issues have been resolved. 

 

The Office of Local Government has provided similar advice that Council should review the land status prior to taking any further actions to tender for the lease of the Complex.

 

Council sought legal advice in February 2011 for guidance about the structure of the lease/management agreements and request for tender documentation required to offer the site competitively given its current land title status.   The legal advice concluded:

 

 ‘ . . . there is an argument to suggest that upon the closure of the Road Reserve, any lease granted in accordance with section 153 of the Roads Act becomes inoperative as the Roads Act will no longer apply to that land.  It is therefore a possibility that Council will have to enter into a entirely new lease with the prospective lessee for the use of that land upon the closure of the Road Reserve as a public road.

 

It is, therefore, our view that Council should finalise the titling structure by consolidating the Operational land and Road Reserve prior to undertaking a tender process in order to avoid any difficulties in the leasing arrangements arising from the titling structure.’

 

As the Road Reserve ownership forms part of the ongoing negotiations with the Crown as part of the land tenure rationalisation, it has not been possible to progress the road closure in order to consolidate land titles with the Operational land holding.

 

Council again needs to determine a course of action for ongoing management of the Complex from 1 July 2015.

 

The unresolved land issues severely constrain the options available to Council.  Options available are set out below:

 

a)   Temporary closure of the Complex

 

Temporary closure of the Complex would involve a number of considerations such as asset maintenance, security, safety, costs, and financial implications.

 

Closure of the Complex will mean no income generation for leasing or user charges commencing 1 July 2015.   

 

Expenditure would be reduced, however, determining ongoing expenditure requirements will depend on the method of closure.  The two closure methods are set out below:

 

i)  Complete shut down

 

Complete shut down means the pool shells would be emptied and safety fencing erected around each of the pool shells.   All unsafe chemicals and equipment would need to be uninstalled from the Complex and extra security patrols would be required to protect the assets and ensure safety.  The one off costs of this are difficult to estimate, but the shut down could be organised quite quickly.  Annual costs of security fencing and patrols are estimated between $26,500 to $37,000 per annum but final actual costs would be determined through a competitive procurement process.

 

ii)  Closed to the public

 

Under this method at the 30 June 2015, the Complex would be closed to the public and placed in “winter hibernation”.   If Council do not wish to completely shut down the Complex, the site will require the attendance of a pool technician with the requisite skills to maintain the pool and caretake the Complex from a maintenance and safety perspective.   Council staff do not have the resources, experience or skill set to undertake the necessary tasks required to maintain “hibernation” of the pool and its associated infrastructure.

 

The day-to-day tasks and costs associated with this process would need to be established, documented and a procurement process undertaken to attract interested parties with the required knowledge, skills and experience.  Annual costs are estimated at $60,000 but final actual costs would be determined through a competitive procurement process.  This procurement process could take up to two months to complete with no guaranteed outcome.  The costs associated with reopening the Complex to the public from “hibernation” are unknown but would be less than reopening it from complete shut down.  

 

b)   A new lease/management agreement with Fishheads @ Byron Pty Ltd)

 

A new lease/management agreement with Fishheads for twelve (12) months with a further twelve (12) month option will keep the facility open to the public whilst the issues with land tenure continue to be resolved. 

 

In the correspondence to Crown Lands Division on 20 November 2014, Council has sought the Minister’s consent, as required by the Crown Lands Act, to negotiate another lease/management agreement to the incumbents and if so, under what terms and conditions (refer Attachment 4). 

 

There has been no response from Crown Lands, so the new lease/management agreement option should be considered by Council, subject to a supportive response from Crown Lands.

 

In order to meet the necessary deadline of 30 June 2015, should Council proceed with the recommendation, it was be necessary to obtain the current lessees/managers in principle agreement to the additional tenure by 28 February 2015.  Consequently, correspondence will be sent to Fishheads on a “without admission”, “without prejudice” and “without obligation” basis seeking an indication of their intentions regarding a further lease/management term upon Council’s resolution.

 

The terms and conditions of the proposed lease/management agreement are exactly the same as the previous agreement, with the following exceptions:

 

·    a 12 month period commencing 1 July 2015 and terminating on 30 June 2016,

 

·    a further 12 month option commencing 1 July 2016 and terminating on 30 June 2017,

 

·    the Rent at the commencement of the lease will be determined by market valuation and indexed after twelve months (subject to approval and agreement of Crown Lands)

 

·    the Management Fee will be indexed where necessary.

 

Establishing a lease/management agreement over the Complex falls under three different Acts and requires different processes to be run successfully prior to the granting and execution of a new agreement.  

 

These processes are complex and require certain steps to be undertaken within certain timeframes to meet the legislative requirements by 30 June 2015.  As below:

 

·    Crown Lands ‘in principle’ support and agreement to terms

·    and conditions                                                                                              1/12/2014

·    Council and Reserve Trust resolutions                                                       05/02/2015

·    Crown Lands ‘approval in principle’                                                             28/02/2015

·    Statutory advertising cut-off                                                                        24/02/2015

·    Statutory advertising period                                                                         3/3/2015 to 31/3/2015

·    Council consideration of public submissions                                               30/4/2015

·    Executed documentation by all parties                                                       31/5/2015

·    Crown Ministerial consent                                                                           30/06/2015

 

In the event that negotiations with the current lessees are unsuccessful and/or not concluded within time, or Crown Lands do not provide final consent to the new lease/management agreement with the current lessees/managers, this report recommends a Notice be issued to the current lessees/managers to vacate the premises on or before 30 June 2015. 

 

Should this occur, this report recommends that management of the Complex revert to Council from 1 July 2015.  In this event, staff will likely have insufficient time and resources to secure the required skills, experience and knowledge to maintain the pool in “hibernation”.  It is, therefore, recommended in this report to undertake the necessary steps to achieve a complete shut down of the Complex in these circumstances.

 

This report provides the recommendations required to commence the processes required for option b) outlined in this report, including the need to determine, as Council did in 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 not to call tenders for a new lease/management agreement at the Complex.

 

Financial Implications

 

Current lease rental and management fees are set out below:

 

Management Fee:          $189,914.96 ex GST

Rent:                               $212,167.91 ex GST

 

The index to be applied after twelve month would be CPI (all groups Sydney June 2015)

 

The proposed agreement will include the rental determined by market valuation and a management fee value as indexed. The impact to the draft 2015/2016 budget for these items will be determined by the valuation and indexation process.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

ICAC guidelines

 

ICAC guidelines define direct negotiations as exclusive negotiations between an agency and a proponent without first undergoing a genuine competitive process. 

 

Varying or extending existing contracts and agreements by negotiation with the incumbent is also considered direct negotiations. 

 

Where there is a close relationship between an agency and an incumbent there is a risk that the agency and/or its staff and/or officials will develop either an overly close relationship or dependency.  This form of ‘capture’ can deter the agency from testing or retesting the market, which in turn may lead to poor value for money.  ‘Capture’ tends to involve subtle influence and is often established over time or as a result of small favours of acts of friendship.  A public official who over identifies with an incumbent may not even be aware of the fact and as such would unlikely contemplate or recognise any type of bias.

 

‘Captured agencies can be susceptible to offers or suggestions made with the intention of avoiding competition or persuading the agency to depart from its usual procedures.  Where the agency allows itself to be persuaded by such special offers, it can lose effective control of the process and sacrifice value for money.

 

ICAC guidelines recommend that as a general rule direction negotiations should be avoided.  In the case of proposed variations or extensions to existing contracts or agreements, it is recommended that any proposed changes or variations greater than 10% be supported by applying the principals of probity and accountability, value for money, and be supported by  a business case.

 

Ultimately, an open competitive selection process such as a tender or expression of interest process enables Council to demonstrate accountability and transparency and makes it difficult for private interests to influence, or be seen as influencing the outcome or variation of contracts and agreements.

 

Obtaining best value for public money is a fundamental principle of public sector work.  When it is  known that there are other proponents who could feasibly compete for a contract, agreeing to direct negotiations with a single proponent increases the risk that the agency may not obtain best value for money.  When a proponent does not have to compete for contracts there is a higher risk that the proponent may unjustifiably increase profit margins, exaggerate expenses or otherwise boost returns on the contract.

 

Roads Act 1993

Division 2 Short-term leases of unused public roads

 

153   Short-term leases of unused public roads

(1)     A roads authority may lease land comprising a public road (other than a Crown road) to the owner or lessee of land adjoining the public road if, in its opinion, the road is not being used by the public.

 

(2)     However, a lease may not be granted under this Division with respect to land that has been acquired by RMS under Division 3 of Part 12 (being land that forms part of a classified road) except by RMS.

 

(3)     A lease granted under this Division may be terminated by the roads authority at any time and for any reason.

 

154   Public notice to be given of proposed lease

(1)     Before granting a lease under this Division, the roads authority must cause notice of the proposed lease:

(a)  to be published in a local newspaper, and

(b)  to be served on the owner of each parcel of land adjoining the length of public road concerned.

 

(2)     The notice:

(a)  must identify the public road concerned, and

(b)  must state that any person is entitled to make submissions to the roads authority with respect to the proposed lease, and

(c)  must indicate the manner in which, and the period (being at least 28 days) within which, any such submission should be made.

 

155   Public submissions

Any person may make submissions to the roads authority with respect to the proposed lease.

 

156   Decision on proposed lease

(1)     After considering any submissions that have been duly made with respect to the proposed lease, the roads authority may grant the lease, either with or without alteration, or may refuse to grant the lease.

 

(2)     If the roads authority grants a lease, the roads authority must cause notice of that fact to be published in a local newspaper.

 

157   Special provisions with respect to short-term leases

(1)     The term of a lease, together with any option to renew, must not exceed:

(a)  except as provided by paragraph (b), 5 years, or

(b)  in the case of a lease of land that has been acquired by the roads authority under Division 3 of Part 12, 10 years.

 

(2)     A person must not erect any structure on land the subject of a lease under this Division otherwise than in accordance with the consent of the roads authority.  Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

 

(3)     Such a consent may not be given unless the roads authority is satisfied that the proposed structure comprises a fence or a temporary structure of a kind that can easily be demolished or removed.

 

Local Government Act 1993

8   The council’s charter

(1)  A council has the following charter:

•  to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions

•  to bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively plan for, account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible

•  to engage in long-term strategic planning on behalf of the local community

 

55   What are the requirements for tendering?

(1)     A council must invite tenders before entering into any of the following contracts:

(g)  a contract for the disposal of property of the council,

(h)  a contract requiring the payment of instalments by or to the council over a period of 2 or more years,

(i)  any other contract, or any contract of a class, prescribed by the regulations.

 

(3)     This section does not apply to the following contracts:

 (e)  a contract for the leasing or licensing of land by the council, other than the leasing or licensing of community land for a term exceeding 5 years to a body that is not a non-profit organisation (see section 46A)

 

377   General power of the council to delegate

(1)  A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:

(h)  the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment),

(t)  this power of delegation,

(u)  any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.

 

(2)  A council may, by resolution, sub-delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any function delegated to the council by the Director-General except as provided by the instrument of delegation to the council.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                               13.2 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                      13.2 - Attachment 2

P_Land_R_PMS

 

 

Graham Harding General Manager Crown Lands Division

Level 4, 437 Hunter Street Newcastle

Mail P O Box 2185 DANGAR   NSW   2309

ph 02 4920 5001 fax 02 4926 4329

email graham.harding@lands.nsw.gov.au

General Manager

Byron Shire Council

PO Box 219

MULLUMBIMBY NSW 2482

 

Dear Ms Westing

 

          Re: Fishheads – Byron Bay

 

I refer to our meeting together with the Director General of the Department of Local Government, Mr Garry Payne, at the department’s Tweed Heads Office on 10th May.

 

Reference is also made to our meeting which included Mayor Jan Barham at Garry Payne’s office in Sydney on 2nd May.

 

These meetings were as a consequence of matters raised with the Minister for Lands and subsequently referred also to the Minister for Local Government, by the current lessees of Fishheads.

 

In respect to the matters raised by Fishheads the department does not intend at this stage to proceed any further.  This decision is made principally not on the merits or otherwise of the matters raised, but on other significant items tabled by council at the meeting of 2nd May.

 

The issues tabled by council cumulatively represent major decisions that will need to be made by State and Local Government in consultation with the community.

 

These matters are:-

 

·    The intention to undertake a Coastline Management Plan consistent with the Coastal Protection Act.  This as understood may have significant bearing on the groyne on which the car park, café and swimming pool are constructed.

·    The need to undertake a Plan of Management (PoM) under the Crown Lands Act to plan for the future development of Main Beach including the car par, café and swimming pool.  This PoM would have a strong relationship with Coastline Management Plan.

·    Council’s resolve to undertake a full assessment of the swimming pool in terms of its’ current condition and as to its maintenance requirements or longer term replacement.

 

In addition to the above, if there is to be a long term lease in the future it would be highly desirable to rationalise the current land boundaries, close roads and prepare new titles.  This would simplify future land management options.

 

It has been noted in the advice of 30th April 2007 to the Minister for Lands that council has resolved to grant a twelve (12) month lease to the current lessees expiring on 30th June 2008.

 

The department is of the view that a twelve (12) month lease is insufficient time to reasonably expect all proper studies, consultations and decisions to be made on what is a quite complex site.

 

It is strongly recommended that council now consider a two (2) year lease to the current lessees, expiring on 30th June 2009

 

This extension will ensure that council and the community are well informed and if appropriate can go forward with a long term lease by public tender.

 

I understand the Department of Local Government will write to you separately supporting the views expressed in this advice and also inform you of the outcome of the issues raised by Fishheads.

 

This advice is provided for council to consider at its’ meeting of 17th May 2007.  It should also be presented to council that the department would recommend that in the granting of a two (2) year lease a current market rental should be determined that reflects the current use of the Fishheads Café / Kiosk.

 

Yours sincerely

 

G Harding15 May 2007

Graham Harding

General Manager

Crown Lands Division

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                               13.2 - Attachment 3

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                         13.2 - Attachment 4

 

BSC File No:  F1612#E2014/76042

Your ref:  Kevin Cameron

Contact:  Mark Arnold

 

20 November 2014

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Kevin Cameron, Manager Far North Coast

NSW Trade & Investment

Crown Lands Division (Grafton)

PO Box 2185

DANGAR  NSW  2309

 

 

By Email: Kevin.cameron@crownland.nsw.gov.au

 

 

Dear Kevin

 

Byron Bay War Memorial Swimming Pool Lease and Management Contract expiring 30 June 2015

 

We refer to the meeting held between Council and Crown Lands in Ballina on 19 September 2014 at which Crown Lands presented Council with a concept land tenure rationalisation proposal for the land at Byron Bay Swimming Pool/Fishheads Café building.

 

It was agreed in the meeting on 19 September that to assist with the development and progression a Memorandum of Agreement based on the concept proposal that both Council and Crown Lands develop a set of guiding principles.  Council has provided draft guiding principles and is yet to receive a draft from Crown Lands.

 

A further meeting is yet to be scheduled to discuss the preparation of a draft Memorandum of Agreement to be considered by both the elected Council and the Minister for Lands.  This would detail the process to achieve the rationalisation of the land tenures as proposed.

 

The Byron Bay Swimming Pool complex is occupied under a management/lease agreement with Fishheads@Byron Pty Ltd (Fishheads) that expires on 30 June 2015.  The agreement requires Fishheads to vacate as at that date and there are no provisions for holding over.

 

It was agreed in the meeting on 19 September that Council would submit a further request to the Crown to offer the current tenants a new lease/management agreement for a term of 12 months with an option for a further 12 months because the land tenure complications are such that a tender is not supported by the Office of Local Government or Crown Lands until such time as any land rationalisation proposals are advanced sufficiently to facilitate a guaranteed long-term tenure at competitive commercial market rates.  Not seeking to call for tenders until such time as the land tenure issues are resolved has been the consistent position since 2007, and was re-confirmed again in 2011.

 

Council staff recently met with the current lessees/managers of the complex and advised them that Council and the Crown were considering an offer for a new 12 month term lease with one 12 month option.   Subsequently, the lessees/managers made a submission to Council during the Public Access session of Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 30 October 2014. 

 

Although a copy of their written submission was previously provided to you by email, I enclose a copy with this letter for ease of reference.

 

We seek Crown Lands advice regarding their submission and any subsequent offer of a new lease/management agreement to the current lessees/managers of the pool complex, particularly with regard to their proposed term and annual rental considerations. 

 

As the process required to establish a new lease is lengthy and involves requirements for public exhibition, we would be pleased to receive a response at your earliest convenience but no later than 1 December 2014 to ensure that any proposed agreement is established by 1 July 2014.  Please refer to the key steps and timetable below:

 

Crown Lands ‘in principle’ support and agreement to terms

and conditions                                                                                            1/12/2014

Council and Reserve Trust resolutions                                                     05/02/2015

Crown Lands ‘approval in principle’                                                           28/02/2015

Statutory advertising cut-off                                                                      24/02/2015

Statutory advertising period                                                                       3/3/2015 to 31/3/2015

Council consideration of public submissions                                             30/4/2015

Executed documentation by all parties                                                     31/5/2015

Crown Ministerial consent                                                                         30/06/2015

 

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Mark Arnold

Director Corporate and Community Services

 

Encl

#E2014/72523 Submission from current lessees/managers

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.3

 

 

Report No. 13.3           Owner's Consent to Lodge DA - Telecommunications Facility on Council Land at Ocean Shores

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

File No:                        I2014/176

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Infrastructure Services – Supervision and Administration

 

 

Summary:

 

Telstra are proposing to erect a telecommunications facility on Council Land in Ocean Shores. Aurecon (on behalf of Telstra) is seeking owners consent from Council to lodge a development application.

 

In accordance with Council Policy 11/001 Telecommunications Facilities on Council Owned Land, owner’s consent to lodge development applications are to be considered by Council.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 11 December 2014, Council considered the request and resolved 14-627 to defer the matter to allow for a site inspection by Councillors and for the parties identified in the Resolution be notified of the site inspection.  The site inspection occurred on 29 January 2015.

 

This Report has been prepared in accordance with Resoltion14-627 to resubmit this matter for consideration by Council.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council provide owner's consent for Telstra to lodge a development application for a telecommunications facility on Council Land described as part Lot 103 DP 856767 substantially in the form of their proposal provided at Attachment 1, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)   That the Telstra enter into a lease agreement over council operational land, part Lot 103 DP856767, and an access agreement over council community land, part Lot 130 DP1071573, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the General Manager prior to the commencement of works.

 

2.       That Council authorise the General Manager to affix the Council Seal to the lease  agreement over council operational land, part Lot 103 DP 856767, in accordance with Regulation 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Proposal from Telstra, E2014/72160 (provided under separate cover)  

2        Preliminary design drawings, E2014/70228 , page 61  

 

 


 

Report

 

Land Information

 

Proposed site of telecommunications facility:-

Part Lot 103 DP 856767 located at Flinders Way, Ocean Shores

Owner – Byron Shire Council

Category – Operational Land

Byron LEP 2014 Zoning – Deferred Matter

 

Access to proposed site through:-

Part Lot 130 DP 1071573 located at Flinders Way, Ocean Shores

Owner – Byron Shire Council

Category – Community Land – designated as Public Reserve

Byron LEP 2014 Zoning – Deferred Matter

Plan of Management – no current Plan of Management for this land

 

Telstra are proposing to erect a telecommunications facility on Council Land in Ocean Shores.  Telstra has advised that the current base station at Billinudgel that services Ocean Shores and surrounding suburbs is no longer able to meet customer demand.

 

After investigating options and identifying 6 candidate sites, privately owned vacant land was identified as the prime candidate.  Following consultation with residents, 6 alternative sites were identified however none were deemed suitable.  It was realised that relocating the facility approximately 15m to the north west (from private property to Council land) would provide partial screening to the nearest residential property.  An on site inspection (accompanied by Council staff) confirmed the adjacent lot (also Council land) would be more suitable.

 

Telstra (accompanied by their representatives Aurecon) made a presentation to Council at its Strategic Planning Workshop on 16 October 2014.  Since the workshop, Aurecon (on behalf of Telstra), has confirmed Telstra’s proposal to use Council Land and is seeking owners consent from Council to lodge a development application, as required by Council’s Policy 11/001 Telecommunications Facilities on Council Owned Land. 

 

The request from Aurecon at Attachment 1 confirms the proposed telecommunications facility is to be located on Council Operational Land (part Lot 103 DP 856767) with access across private land (Lot 146 DP 1124615) and Council Community Land (part Lot 130 DP 1071573) as marked in yellow on Diagram 1 below.

Diagram 1

Proposed Telstra monopole location Flinders Way Ocean Shores - diagram for report

 

The proposed facility comprises a 30 metre monopole and other infrastructure including panel antennas and an equipment shelter.  A copy of the preliminary design drawings are provided at Attachment 2.

 

The request from Aurecon includes all the information that Council needs in order to consider the proposal (as outlined in Council Policy 11/001 Telecommunications Facilities on Council Owned Land) prior to granting owners consent to lodge a development application.  The information includes site plan, elevations, photomontages, details of public consultation, alternative sites considered, public health concerns and vegetation removal.

 

Council should note that investigations show that the proposed site (part Lot 103 DP 856767) came to Council as a result of a direction by the Court to acquire it in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.  Council acquired the land in December 2001.  Prior to acquiring the land, Council had considered report No. 2 “Acquisition of Lot 103 DP 856767 North Ocean Shores” at its Environmental Planning and Local Approvals Meeting on 6 November 2001 and resolved:-

 

01-1242

 

That the 2(a) (Residential Zone) portion of Lot 103 DP 856767 Ocean Shores (excluding mines and deposits of minerals within the land and excluding easement No. 6239364 for bushfire hazard reduction 10 metres wide affecting part of the land) be classified as ‘Operational’ land in accordance with Chapter 6, Part 2, Division 1, Section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.”

 

Diagram 1 shows the location of the proposed site and confirms that the proposed site is within the area of the 2ah hatched residential zoning (as per previous Byron LEP 1988) and is therefore within the operational land part of the parcel of land.  Easement No. 6239364 mentioned in the above resolution runs along the western boundary of the lot and is not within the proposed site.

 

As previously mentioned, access to the proposed site is through Council Community Land (Lot 130 DP 1071573).  Investigations show that this Community Land came to Council as part of a subdivision and is designated Public Reserve.  There is no current Plan of Management for Lot 130 DP 1071573.

 

As the land upon which the proposed telecommunications facility is to be located on Council Operational holdings, the request from Aurecon was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Services Division seeking their ‘in principle’ support of the proposal.  The response from the Director Infrastructure Services provides ‘in principle’ support of the proposed telecommunications facility subject to the matter being considered by Council. 

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 11 December 2014, Council considered report “13.5 Owner's Consent to Lodge DA - Telecommunications Facility on Council Land at Ocean Shores” (http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings) and resolved:

 

14-627

 

“1. That the matter be deferred.

 

2. That a site inspection be arranged for Councillors prior to our next Ordinary meeting and that neighbours, including school principal and owners of the pre-school, be notified of the inspection and the matter resubmitted for Council's consideration.”

 

Adjoining neighbours within a 500m radius (including the Ocean Shores Public School and Ocean Shores Pre-school, both on Shara Boulevard) of the proposed site were notified in writing of Council’s resolution on 23 December 2014. 

 

At the time of writing this report, the Councillor site inspection was arranged for 29 January 2015, with notifications being provided to the applicant and all neighbours within a 500m radius of the proposed location of the site inspection. 

 

In the event Council provides owners consent to lodge a Development Application and a development consent is granted, the Applicant will be required to enter into a lease for use of the land (part Lot 103 DP 856767), and access agreement for access to the land (part Lot 130 DP 1071573), on terms and conditions satisfactory to the General Manager prior to the commencement of works.

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no costs to Council.  It is expected that any subsequent Lease and access arrangements would be based on appropriate commercial rental, providing an additional revenue stream to Council.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Council Policy 11/001 Telecommunications Facilities on Council Owned Land provides that owners consent can only be granted by way of Council resolution.

 

Licensed telecommunications carriers are authorised by the Telecommunications Act to install a limited range of facilities (known as ‘low-impact facilities’) without seeking state, territory or local government planning approval. 

 

In this instance, the proposed facility will require local planning approval.

 

Local Government (General) Regulations 2005

 

400 Council seal

 

(1) The seal of a council must be kept by the mayor or the general manager, as the council determines.

 

(2) The seal of a council may be affixed to a document only in the presence of:

(a) the mayor and the general manager, or

(b) at least one councillor (other than the mayor) and the general manager, or

(c) the mayor and at least one other councillor, or

(d) at least 2 councillors other than the mayor.

 

(3) The affixing of a council seal to a document has no effect unless the persons who were present when the seal was affixed (being persons referred to in subclause (2)) attest by their signatures that the seal was affixed in their presence.

 

(4) The seal of a council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to the business of the council and the council has resolved (by resolution specifically referring to the document) that the seal be so affixed.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                                         13.3 - Attachment 2

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                                         13.3 - Attachment 2

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.4

 

 

Report No. 13.4           Potential Future Bulk Water Charges - Rous Water

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                        I2015/1

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Water Supplies – Operations

 

 

Summary:

 

On 18 November 2014, the Finance Managers from the constituent Councils of Rous Water were invited to a meeting hosted by Rous Water.  This meeting outlined the revised Rous Water Financial Plan proposal, incorporating the future operations and capital works projected over the next thirty years. 

 

The financial implications of the proposed future operations and capital works have been modelled and a future price path developed for the constituent Councils of Rous Water, commencing in the 2015/2016 financial year.

 

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council on the proposed Rous Water long term financial plan, and the associated potential future financial implications of the Rous Water plan on Byron Shire Council.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.   Note the contents of this report.

2.   Request staff to undertake financial modelling of the likely impact on Byron Shire consumers from Water rates increases necessitated by the Rous Water imposts and then utilise this information in formulating a detailed submission in response to Rous Water’s proposed bulk water supply charge regime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

On 18 November 2014, the Finance Managers from the constituent Councils of Rous Water were invited to a meeting hosted by Rous Water.  This meeting outlined the revised Rous Water Financial Plan proposal, incorporating the future operations and capital works projected over the next thirty years. 

 

The financial implications of the proposed future operations and capital works have been modelled and a future price path developed for the constituent Councils of Rous Water, commencing in the 2015/2016 financial year.

 

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council on the proposed Rous Water long term financial plan, and the associated potential future financial implications of the Rous Water plan on Byron Shire Council.

 

Rous Water adopted its future water strategy in May 2014 which includes the following short listed water supply options:

 

1.   Encourage efficient consumer behaviour

2.   Develop water efficient homes and businesses

3.   Stormwater harvesting for potable/non-potable supply augmentation

4.   Indirect potable and/or non-potable wastewater reuse

5.   Groundwater supply augmentation

6.   Desalination supply augmentation

7.   The proposed Dunoon Dam

8.   Access regulated water associated with Toonumbar Dam

9.   Regional water supply options identified through the NOROC study

10. Reduced water losses

11. Application of revised water restrictions

12. Raise existing Rocky Creek Dam (resolution of Rous Water – February 2013)

 

Following the adoption of the future water strategy, Rous Water has developed a long term financial plan to incorporate the following as a worst case scenario:

 

1.   A 30 year capital works program of $169million including $27.5million in the Byron Shire Council area over the next four years.

2.   Development of the Extended Groundwater scenario that includes $2million in investigations for groundwater over the next 5 years, expenditure on Woodburn bores $9.329 million in 2021-2024 and coastal sands $13.278million Ballina 2027-2029, Byron $16.100million 2032-2036.

3.   Maintaining a minimum cash position of $2million, incorporation of current revenue sources and the borrowing of $28million during 2015-2016 to 2019-2020.

4.   Forecast demand for bulk water to increase from 11,340ML (2015) to 15,790ML (2060).

 

The pricing path increases for bulk water charges applied to  Byron Shire Council by Rous Water, was 15% per annum for the period from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, with the increases from 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 limited to rate pegging increases.

 

These increases have resulted in Byron Shire Council being levied a total of $3,716,100 for bulk water charges for the 2014-2015 financial year.  Council is also subject to a variance in the annual levy, over and above, or below the nominated percentage increases pending overall water consumption of Rous Water as a whole and the proportion related to Byron Shire Council relative to other constituent Councils.

 

Financial Implications

 

Based on the proposed plan of Rous Water, the constituent Councils of Rous may be subject to the following price path growth:

 

1.   2015/2016 financial year – rate pegging

2.   2016/2017 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

3.   2017/2018 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

4.   2018/2019 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

5.   2019/2020 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

6.   2020/2021 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

7.   2021/2022 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

8.   2022/2023 financial year – rate pegging plus 5%

 

The potential financial implications to Council should the proposed future bulk water charges from Rous Water eventuate is indicated in the table below on the following assumptions:

 

1.   Rate pegging for 2015/2016 is 2.3%

2.   Rate pegging for subsequent seven years assumed at 3% + 5% = 8% per annum

3.   Byron Shire Council water consumption relevant to other constituent Councils remains constant and does not increase or decrease

 

Financial Year

Proposed Increase %

Increase Applicable $

Overall Estimated Charge $

2015/2016

2.3%

85,470

3,801,570

2016/2017

8.0%

304,126

4,105,696

2017/2018

8.0%

328,456

4,434,152

2018/2019

8.0%

354,732

4,788,884

2019/2020

8.0%

383,111

5,171,995

2020/2021

8.0%

413,760

5,585,754

2021/2022

8.0%

446,860

6,032,614

2022/2023

8.0%

482,609

6,515,223

Total Increase

 

2,799,124

 

 

Based on the above table, Council will be paying Rous Water in the year 2022/2023 approximately $2.8million annually more then it currently does in 2014/2015.  Council approximately has 11,768 water services.  If there is an assumed growth of 1% in services each year, it would be estimated that 12,740 water services may be connected in 2022/2023.

 

On an average basis, the cost of the Rous Water bulk water charges in 2014/2015 is $315.78 per service.  In 2022/2023, the average cost is estimated at $511.40. As another comparison, the current original adopted Water Fund expenditure budget of Byron Shire Council in 2014/2015 is $7.9million inclusive of all Council and Rous Water costs.  If the bulk water charges increase to the levels identified in the table above by 2022/2023, Council would need to fund around $6.5million in Rous Water costs, which equates to 82% of the current Water Fund total expenditure budget whereas it is currently at 47%.

 

Whilst the scenario indicated in this report is the worst case according to Rous Water, Rous Water have indicated that it is seeking  to fine tune the expenditure program to cap the future revenue increases at 5% inclusive of rate pegging.  Whether this occurs or not remains to be seen.

 

Notwithstanding the need for Rous Water to cater for future growth, the potential impact on Byron Shire Council will be significant and may limit Councils ability to consider its own options of raising additional revenue for the General Fund, given the need for Council to consider each year, the affordability for ratepayers of their total bill, inclusive of general rates, waste, stormwater, sewerage and also water charges where a service is provided.  Similar scenarios would apply for the other constituent Councils of Rous Water.

 

Given the significance of the proposed bulk water charge increases Council should seek some financial modelling of the likely impact on Byron Shire consumers from Water rates increases necessitated by the Rous Water imposts and then utilise this information in formulating a detailed submission in response to Rous Water’s proposed bulk water supply charge regime.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Council will need to establish a budget annually as part of its Operational Plan and Statement of Revenue Policy to fund the bulk water charges payable to Rous Water as required by Regulation 211 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.5

 

 

Report No. 13.5           Investments - December 2014

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                        I2015/4

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Financial Services

 

 

Summary:

 

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position as at 31 December 2014 for Council’s information.

 

The report is prepared to comply with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report listing Council’s investments and overall cash position as at 31 December 2014 be noted.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

In relation to the investment portfolio for December 2014, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments The average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of December was 2.75%.  Council’s performance for the month of December is a weighted average of 3.36%. This performance is again higher than the assumed benchmark.  This is largely due to the active ongoing management of the investment portfolio, maximising investment returns through secure term deposits.  Council’s investment portfolio should continue to out-perform the benchmark as the capital protected investments earning 0% interest begin to mature or are able to be switched favourably.  

 

There is now only one capital protected investment held by Council which is fully allocated to an underlying zero coupon bond.  The one remaining investment being the Emu Note which will mature in October 2015.

 

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 31 December 2014:

 

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 December 2014

 

Purch Date

Principal ($)

Description

CP*

Rating

Maturity Date

Type

Interest Rate Per Annum

Current Value

26/09/05

1,500,000

EMU NOTES

CP

AAA-

25/10/15

MFD

0.00%*

1,461,150.00

20/06/12

500,000

HERITAGE BANK LTD BONDS

N

BBB+

20/06/17

B

7.25%

530,000.00

3/11/14

2,000,000

SUNCORP

P

A+

02/02/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

13/10/14

1,000,000

MACQUARIE BANK

P

A

11/01/15

TD

3.30%

1,000,000.00

08/12/14

2,000,000

NEWCASTLE PERMANENT

N

NR

09/03/15

TD

3.35%

2,000,000.00

26/08/14

2,000,000

ING BANK (AUSTRALIA)

N

A1

23/02/15

TD

3.56%

2,000,000.00

10/09/14

2,000,000

RABO BANK

N

AA

08/01/15

TD

3.45%

2,000,000.00

09/12/14

2,200,000

POLICE CREDIT UNION

P

NR

08/04/15

TD

3.43%

2,200,000.00

09/09/14

2,000,000

ME BANK

N

BBB

12/01/15

TD

3.35%

2,000,000.00

07/10/14

2,000,000

BANK OF QUEENSLAND

N

A2

11/02/15

TD

3.35%

2,000,000.00

03/09/14

2,000,000

RABOBANK

N

AA

05/01/15

TD

3.45%

2,000,000.00

28/10/14

1,700,000

POLICE CREDIT UNION

N

NR

28/01/15

TD

3.59%

1,700,000.00

09/12/14

1,000,000

ING BANK (AUSTRALIA)

N

A1

09/06/15

TD

3.55%

1,000,000.00

08/10/14

1,000,000

ME BANK

N

BBB

07/01/15

TD

3.40%

1,000,000.00

05/11/14

1,000,000

AMP BANK

N

A

03/02/15

TD

3.25%

1,000,000.00

08/10/14

2,000,000

BANK OF QUEENSLAND

N

A2

05/02/15

TD

3.60%

2,000,000.00

01/10/14

1,000,000

WIDE BAY AUSTRALIA LTD

N

A2

05/01/15

TD

3.30%

1,000,000.00

08/12/14

1,000,000

WIDE BAY AUSTRALIA

N

NR

09/03/15

TD

3.45%

1,000,000.00

10/12/14

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

10/03/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

10/11/14

2,000,000

COMMINVEST

N

AA-

10/05/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

08/12/14

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

09/03/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

01/12/14

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

03/03/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

02/09/14

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

02/03/15

TD

3.55%

2,000,000.00

15/12/14

2,000,000

ME BANK

N

BBB

15/03/15

TD

3.35%

2,000,000.00

29/09/14

2,000,000

PEOPLE CHOICE CREDIT UNION

N

BBB+

27/01/15

TD

3.55%

2,000,000.00

09/12/14

2,000,000

BANKWEST

N

A1+

09/03/15

TD

3.45%

2,000,000.00

10/10/14

1,000,000

BANKWEST

N

A1+

08/01/15

TD

3.40%

1,000,000.00

12/11/14

1,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

12/02/15

TD

3.40%

1,000,000.00

14/11/14

1,000,000

ING  BANK (AUSTRALIA)

N

A2

14/11/14

TD

3.52%

1,000,000.00

14/11/14

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

12/02/15

TD

3.42%

2,000,000.00

14/11/14

1,000,000

PEOPLES CHOICE CREDIT UNION

N

BBB+

12/02/15

TD

3.43%

1,000,000.00

14/11/14

1,000,000

NEWCASTLE PERMANENT

N

NR

12/02/15

TD

3.40%

1,000,000.00

14/11/14

1,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

12/02/15

TD

3.40%

1,000,000.00

14/11/14

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

23/02/15

TD

3.42%

2,000,000.00

01/12/14

2,000,000

PEOPLES CHOICE CREDIT UNION

N

BBB+

03/03/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

01/12/14

2,000,000

ING  BANK (AUSTRALIA)

N

A2

03/06/15

TD

3.56%

2,000,000.00

02/12/14

2,000,000

CREDIT UNION AUSTRALIA

N

BBB+

31/08/15

TD

3.55%

2,000,000.00

08/12/14

2,000,000

BANKWEST

N

A1+

06/02/15

TD

3.40%

2,000,000.00

09/12/14

2,000,000

SUNCORP

P

A+

08/04/15

TD

3.45%

2,000,000.00

N/A

2,493,600

CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER

N

A

N/A

CALL

2.75%

2,493,600.16

Total

66,393,600

 

 

 

 

AVG

3.36%

66,384,750.16

 

Note 1.

CP = Capital protection on maturity

 

N = No Capital Protection

 

Y = Fully covered by Government Guarantee

 

P = Partial Government Guarantee of $250,000 (Financial Claims Scheme)

 

Note 2.

Type

Description

 

 

 

 

 

 

MFD

Managed Fund

Principal varies based on fund unit.

Price valuation, interest payable varies depending upon fund performance.

 

 

TD

Term Deposit

Principal does not vary during investment term. Interest payable is fixed at the rate invested for the investment term.

 

CALL

Call Account

Principal varies due to cash flow demands from deposits/withdrawals, interest is payable on the daily balance at the cash rate +0.50%

 

Note 3.       Floating rate notes and Term Deposits can be traded on a day-to-day basis, and therefore Council is not obliged to hold the investments to the maturity dates.  Managed funds operate in a similar manner to a normal bank account with amounts deposited or withdrawn on a daily basis. There is no maturity date for this type of investment.

 

*Note 4.     The coupon on these investments is zero due to the Capital Protection mechanism working.  This occurs when the investment falls below a certain level.  This coupon may be paid again in the future as the market recovers.

 

For the month of December 2014, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type. It illustrates the current value of investments is still slightly lower than the original principal amount, demonstrating a cumulative unrealised loss of $8,850.  This is a decrease of $6,700 from the November 2014 valuations.

 

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 December 2014

 

Principal Value ($)

Investment Linked to:-

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

61,900,000.00

Term Deposits

61,900,000.00

0.00

2,493,600.16

Business On-Line Saver (At Call)

2,493,600.16

0.00

1,500,000.00

Managed Funds

1,461,150.00

(38,850.00)

500,000.00

Bonds

530,000.00

30,000.00

66,393,600.16

 

66,384,750.16

(8,850.00)

 

The current value of an investment compared to the principal value (face value or original purchase price) provides an indication of the performance of the investment without reference to the coupon (interest) rate. The current value represents the value received if an investment was sold or traded in the current market, in addition to the interest received.

 

The table below provides a reconciliation of investment purchases and maturities for the period 30 November 2014 to 31 December 2014 on a current market value basis. 

 

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 30 November 2014 to 31 December 2014

 

Item

Current Market  Value (at end of month)

Opening Balance at 30 November 2014

62,363,831.92

Add: New Investments Purchased

26,200,000.00

Add: Call Account Additions

0.00

Add: Interest from Call Account

14,218.24

Less: Investments Matured

22,200,000.00

Less: Call Account Redemption

0

Add: Fair Value Movement for period

6,700.00

Closing Balance at 31 December 2014

66,384,750.16

 

 


Investments Maturities and Returns – 30 November 2014 to 31 December 2014

 

Principal Value ($)

Description

Type

Maturity Date

Number of Days Invested

Interest Rate Per Annum

Interest Paid on Maturity

2,000,000.00

Gateway Credit Union

TD

01/12/2014

90

3.38%

16,668.49

2,000,000.00

National Australia Bank

TD

01/12/2014

90

3.45%

17,013.70

2,000,000.00

Newcastle Permanent

TD

08/12/2014

91

3.35%

16,704.11

2,000,000.00

Bannacoast Credit Union

TD

08/12/2014

122

3.35%

22,394.52

1,000,000.00

Wide Bay Australia

TD

08/12/2014

90

3.30%

8,136.99

2,000,000.00

National Australia Bank

TD

08/12/2014

123

3.45%

23,252.05

1,000,000.00

ING Bank (Australia)

TD

09/12/2014

180

3.56%

17,556.16

2,200,000.00

Police Credit Union

TD

09/12/2014

120

3.55%

25,676.71

2,000,000.00

Bankwest

TD

09/12/2014

60

3.45%

11,342.47

2,000,000.00

National Australia Bank

TD

10/12/2014

90

3.51%

17,309.59

2,000,000.00

ME Bank

TD

15/12/2014

91

3.35%

16,704.11

1,000,000.00

ME Bank

TD

22/12/2014

91

3.50%

8,726.03

1,000,000.00

National Australia Bank

TD

24/12/2014

120

3.56%

11,704.11

22,200,000.00

 

 

 

 

 

213,189.04

 

The overall ‘cash position’ of Council is not only measured by what funds Council has invested but also by what funds Council has retained in its consolidated fund or bank account as well for operational purposes. In this regard, for the month of December 2014 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

 

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 December 2014

 

Item

Principal Value ($)

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

Investments Portfolio

 

 

 

Term Deposits

61,900,000.00

61,900,000.00

0.00

Business On-Line Saver (At Call)

2,493,600.16

2,493,600.16

0.00

Managed Funds

1,500,000.00

1,461,150.00

(38,850.00)

Bonds

500,000.00

530,000.00

30,000.00

Total Investment Portfolio

66,393,600.16

66,384,750.16

(8,850.00)

 

 

 

 

Cash at Bank

 

 

 

Consolidated Fund

1,375,992.46

1,375,992.46

0.00

Total Cash at Bank

1,375,992.46

1,375,992.46

0.00

 

 

 

 

Total Cash Position

67,769,592.62

67,760,742.62

(8,850.00)

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Council uses a diversified mix of investments to achieve short, medium and long-term results. Council’s historical strategy is to use credit/equity markets for exposure to long term growth. It should be noted that Council’s exposure to credit/equity products is capital protected when held to maturity, which ensures no matter what the market value of the product is at maturity, Council is insured against any capital loss.  The investment strategy associated with long term growth is now prohibited under the current Ministerial Investment Order utilising credit/equity markets to seek investment products.  However, the ‘grandfathering’ provisions of the Ministerial Investment Order provides Council can retain investments now prohibited until they mature. It should be noted that Council currently holds only one of these investments, the EMU notes.  This investment will trend towards it’s full principal value as it approaches maturity.

 

Council’s investment strategy is currently to invest for the short term (generally 90 days on new investments) to take advantage of investment opportunities often offered in the market over and above the 90day bank bill rate whilst ensuring sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow requirements. This provides the ability to take advantage of interest rate movements in the market as short term rates are currently not dissimilar to longer term rates (2 to 5 years).

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

In accordance with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Responsible Accounting Officer of Council must provide Council with a monthly report detailing all monies Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The Report must be presented at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council after the end of the month being reported.  In this regard, the current Council Meeting cycle does not always allow this to occur, especially when investment valuations required for the preparation of the report, are often received after the deadline for the submission of reports for the meeting.  Endeavours will be made to ensure the required report will be provided to Council and this will for some months require reporting for one or more months.

 

Council’s investments are carried out in accordance with section 625(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Council’s Investment Policy. The Local Government Act 1993 allows Council to invest money as per the Ministers Order – Forms of Investment, last published in the Government Gazette on 11 February 2011.

 

Council’s Investment Policy includes the objective of maximising earnings from authorised investments and ensuring the security of Council Funds.

 

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                   13.6

 

 

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

 

Report No. 13.6           PLANNING - Draft Planning Proposal for an amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 to rezone land and permit Community Title at Lot 1 DP 1031848, The Coast Road, Broken Head (The Linnaeus Estate)

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Ray Darney, Executive Manager Environment and Planning

Alex Caras, Senior Planner

File No:                        I2014/100

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Land and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council about a Planning Proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014.  The proposal is to rezone all of the subject land (Lot 1 DP 1031848) to E2 Environmental Conservation and include it in Schedule 1 to permit the Community Title subdivision of the land to create 33 small lots for accommodation units, with the balance in a single community lot.  The proposal also foreshadows the use of the small lots for dwellings.  This report canvasses options for this site that differ from the applicants preferred position.  It recommends that Council not proceed with the planning proposal as submitted and therefore not forward it to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.  Instead it recommends that Council consider the possibility of Community Title Lots in the Byron Urban and Rural Housing Strategy (in preparation) and that an anomaly identified in the current zoning of this land be corrected at the next general amendment to LEP 2014.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

In accordance with the provisions of S375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a Division is to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put to the meeting, for the purpose of recording voting on planning matters.  Pursuant to clause 2(a) under the heading Matters to be Included in Minutes of Council Meetings of Council's adopted Code of Meeting Practice (as amended) a Division will be deemed to have been called by the mover and seconder of all motions relating to this report.

 

   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council decline to proceed with the attached planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014.

2.       That Council investigate the suitability of the site for Community Title subdivision during preparation of the Byron Urban and Rural Housing Strategy. 

3.       That Council defer any new zonings on the site until after release of the final E zone review report.

4.       That, that at the next general update of Byron LEP 2014, Council agree to amend the SP1 zone on Lot 1 DP 1031848 to refer to a private education facility and amend Schedule 1 to define private education facility and specifically permit it as a use on the subject land.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Planning Proposal Linneaus Estate, S2014/12390 (provided under separate cover)  

2        Coastal erosion precincts map, E2015/2758 , page 92  

3        Bushfire hazard map, E2015/2760 , page 93  

4        Form of Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, E2012/2815 , page 94  

 

 

Report

 

The Planning Proposal

The subject land is described as Lot 1 DP 1031848, The Coast Road, Broken Head (The Linnaeus Estate). It is an area of 111 hectares with a 1500 metre beach frontage and a 530 metres frontage to The Coast Road.  It is located on the boundary with Ballina Shire immediately south of Broken Head. 

 

site air photo close up

Subject site (in part) showing existing structures

 

The applicant has submitted a planning proposal (Attachment 1) seeking to

·    rezone all of the subject land to zone E2 Environmental Conservation under Byron LEP 2014; and

·    include all of the subject land in Schedule 1 of  Byron LEP 2014 to permit Community Title subdivision to create 33 small lots for the purposes of dwellings and a single community lot for the remainder of the land.

 

The applicant has provided indicative concept plans for the proposed Community Title subdivision and also suggested possible overlays that Council may wish to adopt for the site such as a 9 metre building height limit.  

 

 

 

 

The applicant considers the planning proposal is needed because:

·    the current zone under LEP 2014 prohibits the approved private education facility and this appears to be a mistake that should be corrected;

·    the proposed Schedule 1 amendment will permit the subdivision of the accommodation units allowing clear title to each of them. A Community Title scheme will replace the complex trust/lease/deed arrangement currently in place; and

·    some applicants may seek approval in the future to use the accommodation units as dwellings, which would be a permitted use in the applicant’s preferred E2 zone.

 

The applicant also indicates that the approved private education use of the site will be retained.  Given it is not a defined land use it would be prohibited in the E2 zone. This means it will need to be listed as an additional permitted use in the Schedule 1 amendment.

 

Current Zones and Controls

The subject land is zoned partly SP1 Educational Establishment and partly RU2 Rural Landscape Byron LEP 2014.  However, part of the site also remains subject to Byron LEP 1988 because of a decision by the State government to defer some areas from LEP 2014 and not include any E2, E3 or E4 zones in the new LEP.  These deferred areas (DM) within the subject land are currently zoned partly 1A General Rural, partly 1A General Rural (Cross Hatched), partly 1D Investigation, partly 5A Special Uses, partly 7A Wetlands, partly 7D Scenic Escarpment, partly 7F1 Coastal Lands, and partly 7J Scientific under Byron LEP 1988. 

Dwellings are not currently a permitted use in the 7F1 Coastal Lands zone or the SP1 Educational Establishment zone (ie where existing accommodation units are located). The Minimum Lot Size for both the 7F1 and SP1 zones is 40 hectares.

 

LEP 2014 zones

Current LEP 2014 Zoning

Applicants Proposed Zone

The applicant suggests that all of the subject land should be included in zone E2 Environmental Conservation.  Because there is no E2 zone or corresponding land use table in Byron LEP 2014. The applicant suggests that Council use the E2 land use table exhibited with draft LEP 2012 as follows:

 

Zone E2 Environmental Conservation

 

1     Objectives of zone

(a) To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

(b) To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

(c) To identify and protect environmentally sensitive coastal land.

 

2     Permitted without consent

Home occupations; Environmental protection works.

 

3     Permitted with consent

Boat sheds; Dwelling-houses; Dual occupancies (attached); Environmental facilities; Home businesses; Home-based child care; Recreation areas; Roads.

 

4     Prohibited

Business premises; Hotel or motel accommodation; Industries; Multi dwelling housing; Recreation facilities (major); Residential flat buildings; Restricted premises; Retail premises; Seniors housing; Service stations; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3.

 

For comparison, the draft land use table recently applied to E2 land in West Byron (which is more restrictive) via the Major Developments SEPP is as follows:

 

Zone E2 Environmental Conservation (West Byron)

 

(1)   The objectives of Zone E2 Environmental Conservation are as follows:

(a) to protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values,

(b) to prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

 

(2)   Development for any of the following purposes is permitted without development consent on land within Zone E2 Environmental Conservation:

 

Environmental protection works

 

(3)   Development for any of the following purposes is permitted only with development consent on land within Zone E2 Environmental Conservation:

 

Boat sheds; environmental facilities; recreation areas; roads

 

(4)   Except as otherwise provided by this Part, development for any of the following purposes is prohibited on land within Zone E2 Environmental Conservation:

 

Business premises; hotel or motel accommodation; industries; multi dwelling housing; recreation facilities (major); residential flat buildings; restricted premises; retail premises; seniors housing; service stations; warehouse or distribution centres; any other development not specified in subclause (2) or (3).

 

Suggested LEP zone

Applicant’s proposed LEP 2014 Zoning over the subject land

 

Applicants Proposed Amendment to Schedule 1

In order to facilitate the subdivision of individual accommodation units approved as part of previous consents the applicant suggests the subject land also be included into Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses of LEP 2014. The proposed E2 zone would otherwise be subject to a 40 hectare Minimum Lot Size.  The following draft insertion into Schedule 1 is based on the applicant’s advice that they want the subject land to be treated similar to those in Schedule 13 of Byron LEP 1988:

 

6.       Use of certain land at the Coast Road, Broken Head

(1)     This clause applies to land at the Coast Road, Broken Head, being Lot 1 DP 1031848.

(2)     Development for the purposes of a Private Education Facility and a Community Title neighbourhood scheme creating 33 neighbourhood lots ranging in size from 0.1 to 0.5 hectare, with no more than one dwelling to be erected on each lot, and one lot of neighbourhood property which does not have a dwelling entitlement.

(3)     A Private Educational Facility is defined as a facility that provides for professional and personal development through a variety of academic, cultural, and vocational programmes and includes communal buildings and facilities and accommodation units.

 

Past Development Approvals

 

Linnaeus Estate has two substantive approvals being DA 98/0146 which was issued by the Land and Environment Court in 1998 (and amended by consent orders in 2001, 2002, and 2004) and DA 10.2013.600.1.

 

DA 98/0146 issued in 1998 permitted a private education facility which included 30 buildings of which 21 were accommodation units with self-contained facilities for sleeping and cooking meals. No laundries were permitted in the accommodation units. There was also a camping ground, community buildings and staff residences.

 

A subsequent amendment in 2001 increased accommodation unit floor areas from 110 sq metres to 123 sq metres (Type A units) and from 106 sq metres to 118 sq metres (Type B units). External decking was also added to accommodation units.

 

In 2002 an amendment was sought to the main communal building together with a request that each accommodation unit be allowed to have a laundry. This was initially refused by the Court and then in 2003 it was approved on appeal subject to the laundry’s being excluded from the amendment.

 

In 2003 two further modifications were lodged to increase daily sewage disposal from 6000 litres per day to 16,800 litres per day; increase maximum number of persons on site from 72 to 112; permit laundry facilities in the accommodation units; and provide additional areas for treated wastewater to be dispersed. These were agreed to by the Court in 2004.

 

DA 10.2013.600.1 was approved in 2014 by Council and permitted the reconfiguration of the private education accommodation by deletion of the camping sites and replacement with six additional accommodation units. The use of these buildings must cease if the erosion escarpment comes within 50 metres of the buildings the subject of this consent.

 

There are a total of 33 accommodation units (which includes 2 managers residences) approved by Council for the site.  The applicant advises that 1 manager’s residence and 19 accommodation units have been built to date and that this Planning Proposal does not seek any additional building development beyond what has already been approved.

 

Key Issues to Consider

 

·    Current SP1 (Educational Establishment)  zone, permitted uses and objectives

·    Proposed E2 Environmental Conservation zone

·    Far North Coast Regional Strategy

·    Byron Rural Settlement Strategy, 1998

·    Byron Community Strategic Plan 2013/14 – 2022/23

·    Implications of any decision

·    Further development of the site

·    Coastal hazards

·    State policy and planning controls

 

1.    Current SP1 (Educational Establishment) zone

That part of the site that was previously zoned 5A Special Uses (Private Education) under LEP 1988 is now zoned SP1 Educational Establishment under LEP 2014.  The land use table that applies to the SP1 zone is as follows:

 

Zone SP1   Special Activities

 

1   Objectives of zone

 

•  To provide for special land uses that are not provided for in other zones.

•  To provide for sites with special natural characteristics that are not provided for in other zones.

•  To facilitate development that is in keeping with the special characteristics of the site or its existing or intended special use, and that minimises any adverse impacts on surrounding land.

 

2   Permitted without consent

Building identification signs; Environmental protection works

3   Permitted with consent

The purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map, including any development that is ordinarily incidental or ancillary to development for that purpose

 

4   Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

 

In this case the purpose shown on the map is “Educational Establishment” which is defined in the LEP as:

 

educational establishment means a building or place used for education (including teaching), being:

(a)   a school, or

(b)   a tertiary institution, including a university or a TAFE establishment, that provides formal education and is constituted by or under an Act.

 

The Linnaeus Estate is approved as a private education facility with ancillary accommodation units and ancillary infrastructure.  It is not a school or a tertiary institution constituted under an Act (as defined above). As a result the current SP1 zone does not permit a private education facility and it relies on “existing use rights”.  The applicant suggests that this is not appropriate and needs to be changed.

 

This problem with the SP1 zone label (Educational Establishment) is not intentional and Council could (and should) address the problem by amending LEP 2014 in one of a two of ways.

 

Option 1: The SP1 zone could be retained using a new ‘undefined’ label on the zone map - Private Education Facility.  This could be linked to a Schedule 1 amendment defining the private education facility that is permitted on the land; or

Option 2: The SP1 zone could be changed to a RU2 Rural Landscape zone with a Schedule 1 amendment defining the private education facility that is permitted on the land.

 

In relation to option ‘1’ the Schedule 1 amendment could read as follows:

 

X.      Use of certain land at the Coast Road, Broken Head

 

Lot 1 DP 1031848, The Coast Road, Broken Head (The Linnaeus Estate).  A Private Educational Facility with ancillary facilities is permitted on this land.  A Private Educational Facility is defined as: a facility that provides for professional and personal development through a variety of academic, cultural, and vocational programmes and includes communal buildings and facilities and accommodation units.

 

In relation to option ‘2’ the current RU2 land use table is as follows:

 

Zone RU2 Rural Landscape

 

1   Objectives of zone

•   To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

•   To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

•   To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

•   To enable the provision of tourist accommodation, facilities and other small-scale rural tourism uses associated with primary production and environmental conservation consistent with the rural character of the locality.

•   To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality.

 

2   Permitted without consent

Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home-based child care; Home occupations

 

3   Permitted with consent

Agricultural produce industries; Agriculture; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Business identification signs; Camping grounds; Cemeteries; Child care centres; Community facilities; Crematoria; Depots; Dual occupancies (attached); Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Environmental facilities; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Flood mitigation works; Forestry; Funeral homes; Garden centres; Health consulting rooms; Helipads; Home businesses; Home industries; Hostels; Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Information and education facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Livestock processing industries; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural supplies; Rural workers’ dwellings; Stock and sale yards; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Veterinary hospitals; Warehouse or distribution centres

 

4   Prohibited

Aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3

 

Both the SP1 and RU2 options would permit the primary use of the site (private education facility) to continue as a permissible use. Neither option would permit the proposed Community Title small lot subdivision of the subject land. The SP1 zone would continue to prohibit dwellings. The RU2 zone would permit dwellings with consent.  The Schedule 1 amendment could be used to permit subdivision and dwellings if Council considers it is appropriate.

 

The request to subdivide the subject land to allow private title to each accommodation unit opens the way for the small lots to be used as dwellings in a low density rural situation.  This would be similar to a rural residential estate or a rural land sharing community (MO) with shared ownership of infrastructure such as roads, wastewater treatment and communal buildings, etc.

 

The applicant has not suggested any connection between the unintentional prohibition of the private education facility (under the current SP1 zone) and the request to permit subdivision of the land (and permit dwellings) other than they both require an amendment to the LEP 2014.

 

Preliminary discussion with the Department of Planning and Environment suggests that it prefers that Special Purpose zones be labelled with terms defined in the Standard LEP Dictionary . This was the main reason for applying the label Education Establishment in this case when finalising LEP 2014. However, it has recently moved away from a rigid position on this issue and Bathurst Local Environmental Plan 2014 contains SP2 zones that are labelled “education”, “technology park”, “fire station”, etc. None of these terms are defined in the LEP Dictionary.  This suggests that SP1 zone could be retained using a non-defined label on the zone map – namely “Private Education Facility”. 

 

2.    Proposed E2 Environmental Conservation zone

The suggestion that the whole site be zoned E2 is an interesting proposition. It would simplify the overly complex suite of zones that currently apply. However, the E2 zone was removed from Byron LEP 2014 following exhibition and Council has yet to be advised if/when it can put it back in. There is no land use table for the E2 zone and the exhibited land use table that permitted dwellings may not be the one that Council does eventually put back in the LEP. The Department may insist that Council use the E2 Zone table applied to the West Byron Bay development site (see above). In any case the Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report on the use of E zones in the Far North Coast was very specific as to how the E2 zone should be used in this region. The open grazing land that dominates the central parts of the subject land would not be suitable for inclusion in the E2 zone if the PB criteria are used.

 

Preliminary verbal contact with Department of Planning and Environment staff in the regional office suggest it does not support the reinstatement of the E2 zone into LEP 2014 for use on this site without regard to its use in other locations across the Shire.  It has no firm timetable for the reinstatement of E zones in North Coast LEP’s.

 

3.    Far North Coast Regional Strategy

If what is being proposed is a form of rural land sharing based on a Community Title system then the settlement and housing parts of the current Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS) are applicable.  Page 28 and 30 of the FNCRS states that “no further rezoning for rural residential development (other than land in an approved land release strategy) will be permitted in the Coastal Area”.  The Coastal Area is defined as that land east of the Pacific Highway and includes the subject land.  The use of Schedule 1 to achieve small lot subdivision does not of itself alter the zone of the land but it achieves the same outcome.  The subject land is not identified in the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998 for rural residential purposes.

 

The applicant suggests that as an “innovative development proposal” it should be considered against the sustainability criteria in Appendix 1.  However, Appendix 1 of the FNCRS states that the sustainability criteria are not to be applied in the Coastal Area. 

 

On this basis the planning proposal is not consistent with the current FNCRS. 

 

4.    Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998

Although this strategy is outdated it remains the current rural residential strategy approved by the State government. It assessed in detail land throughout Byron Shire including the Broken Head area. The subject land was not identified for rural land sharing or community title development. However it was identified on Map 9 of the strategy as having potential for rural tourist cabins. 

The request to permit small lot subdivision of the accommodation units on the site is essentially a request for rural residential development, albeit associated with a “theme” for the estate which relates to private education. 

 

The proposal to schedule the subject land to permit small lot subdivision is not consistent with Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998. However, as Council is aware, a draft Urban and Rural Housing Strategy is currently in preparation and this site can be considered as part of its development.

 

5.    Byron Community Strategic Plan 2013/14 – 2022/23

In 2012 Council adopted a 10 year + Community Strategic Plan 2022.  The plan is based on five key themes being Corporate Management, Economy, Environment, Community Infrastructure, Society and Culture.  The planning proposal is generally consistent with the following Community Strategies:

 

EC1.3 Support new avenues of research and vocational and tertiary learning.

The private education facility on the subject land should be a permitted use as intended. This will allow it to better achieve this goal.

EC3.1 Support cultural and arts-based industries

The private education facility on the subject land has a history of supporting local culture and arts based industries.

EN1.1 Protect, restore and maintain the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire

The private education facility on the subject land has a history of environmental restoration and aspires to continue with this.

 

EN3.6  Support initiatives that enhance socio-economic prosperity and resilience at the local level

Permitting additional rural housing options at the high end of the market is a form of investment for the LGA. Permitting individual title may make the small lots more attractive to purchasers which will increase the viability of the private education facility through maintenance of the asset value.

 

That part of the planning proposal that deals with permitting the intended use of the site as a private education facility is generally consistent with Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

 

6.    Implications of any Decision

In 1998 the Land and Environment Court (and later Council with amendments, etc) gave consent to this site to be used for a private education facility. The applicant stipulates that they want that use to continue. The accommodation units that have been built have now include kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities and the site has a consent that allows up to 112 persons to be there at any one time.  Some of the accommodation units have been leased to persons other than the original land owners and developers.

 

In approving the private education facility in 2004 Commissioner Knott stated (point 38 of his judgment is summarised as follows):

 

“A question was raised as to whether there should be any conditions limiting the use of the accommodation units so as to be ancillary to the primary use of the land. In my opinion there is no need for additional conditions…It is a principle that the accommodation units must be ancillary to the primary purpose… being a private education facility. It would not be appropriate, and indeed it would be prohibited, for accommodation to be provided for example on the basis that persons could stay the weekend at the subject site if they simply watched a film for half an hour relating to the environment. The primary use of the land in such a case would be for residential accommodation. There is no suggestion, as I indicated earlier, that this is likely to occur.”

 

The applicant is now asking Council to change the zone of the land to one where residential dwellings would be a permitted use.  They are also asking Council to permit small lot subdivision of that land with a view that some owners may wish to lodge an application for a dwelling house.  This is inconsistent with the court approval given in 1998 where the assessor was confident that residential accommodation was neither permitted nor contemplated.

 

However, the applicant is now requesting a different proposition to that approved in 1998.  Council’s often have to deal with a situation where an approval was given according to what was proposed at the time and a different land use is proposed some years later.  The original approval was given 16 years ago and presumably things have changed.

 

What Council needs to consider is the merit of permitting dwellings and small lot subdivision on this land and the implication that some or all of the accommodation units will be subdivided, sold separately and then used as dwellings (or possibly holiday accommodation) with or without Council approval. 

 

Council also needs to be mindful of the precedent of approving the likely conversion of this site into a community title residential use.  There are other potential rural M.O’s and C.T sites which Council will be considering when preparing its Urban and Rural Housing Strategy, while Council also will be  aware that at its 11 December 2014 meeting a Community Title application for 41 lots at the Broken Head Quarry was refused consent.

 

 

 

7.    Further Development of the Site

In changing the zone under LEP 2014 from SP1 to RU2 or E2 or any other zone, Council will be permitting uses on the land that may not be currently permitted. In the case of E2 we have no idea because the zone does not exist yet except in West Byron Bay. The West Byron Bay version is not likely to be acceptable to the applicant because it does not permit dwellings. The RU2 zone permits a very wide range of uses that don’t necessarily reflect the values of this site or its current or likely uses eg  Agricultural produce industries; Agriculture; Airstrips; Animal boarding or training establishments; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Business identification signs; Camping grounds; Cemeteries; Child care centres; Community facilities; Crematoria; Depots; Dual occupancies (attached); Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Environmental facilities; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Flood mitigation works; Forestry; Funeral homes; Garden centres; Health consulting rooms; Helipads; Home businesses; Home industries; Hostels; Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Information and education facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Livestock processing industries; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural supplies; Rural workers’ dwellings; Stock and sale yards; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Veterinary hospitals; Warehouse or distribution centres.

 

So changing to either of these zones (assuming you can change to E2 which is unlikely at this time) creates an expectation that this site can be used for a wide range of uses which don’t fit the site.

 

8.    Coastal Hazards

The eastern edge of the site is currently zoned part 7(f1) under LEP 1988. It is also still subject to DCP 2010 Part J (Coastal hazards).  Council’s coastal hazard mapping indicates that an area at the eastern edge of the subject land (larger than the 7(f1) land) is affected by coastal hazards over the long term (See map at Attachment 2).  It appears that none of the proposed small lots are in Coastal Erosion Precinct 1 (Immediate Impact Line) but 17 small lots are within Coastal Erosion Precinct 3 (100 Year Impact Line).  Of these, six sites identified in this planning proposal do not yet have structures on them while the closest small lot sites to the existing erosion escarpment are set back about 50 to 70 metres from it (based on air photos). 

 

The applicants planning proposal suggests that because of the existing structures already in Precinct 3, the coastal hazard should not influence the outcome of this planning proposal.  However allowing for residential subdivision of these sites is inconsistent with good coastal hazard management principles, while Council would normally expect any structures built in areas affected by coastal erosion to be demountable or able to be abandoned when the erosion escarpment came to within 20 metres.

 

If Council is inclined to support the applicant’s proposal then it would be appropriate to ensure any new small lots are not created in the known coastal erosion areas.  Consideration should also be given as to how existing structures within Precinct 3 could be made subject to a requirement that they be removed or abandoned if the erosion escarpment comes to within 20 metres.

 

 

9.    State Policy and Planning Controls

The planning proposal is generally consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies.

 

The planning proposal is not consistent with S. 117 Direction 1.5 Rural Lands, 2.2 Coastal Protection or 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies.  It is generally compliant with the other S.117 Directions.  Details of the non-compliance are as follows:

 

S117 Direction

Application

Relevance to this planning proposal

Consistency with direction

1.5
Rural Lands

Applies when:

(a)   a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary), or

(b)   a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that changes the existing minimum lot size on land within a rural or environment protection zone.

A planning proposal to which clauses (a) and (b) apply must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

A planning proposal to which clause (b) applies must be consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

This planning proposal will affect land zoned partly RU2 and proposed to be zoned E2.  It proposes to alter the minimum lot size for the subject land from 40 hectares to approximately 0.1 hectares.  It is consistent / inconsistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 as follows:

(a)   the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas – the proposed amendment is not intended to undermine or create conflict with agriculture or other rural land uses.  Applications will be required to address this as part of future DA’s.

(b)   recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State – the planning proposal is unlikely to directly affect agricultural production areas.

(c)   recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development – the planning proposal is unlikely to directly affect nearby rural land uses.

(d)   in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community – the likely future use of this site for rural residential purposes is unlikely to have significant social, economic and environmental impacts.

(e)   the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land – the LEP amendment suggested is for an E2 zone which has clear objectives for environment protection. If it could be applied.

(f)    the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities – Subdivision and dwelling permissibility will increase the number of rural residential dwellings in Byron Shire at the upper end of the market.

(g)   the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing – on-site sewage management, water supply, sealed access road, parking, bushfire controls and shared infrastructure such as a pool and community buildings are all in place on the existing site. Further infrastructure to support future residents will be minimal.

(h)   ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General – the Far North Coast Regional Strategy applies to Byron Shire and this planning proposal is not consistent with it.  It is also inconsistent with the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998.

It is consistent / inconsistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 as follows:

(a)   the minimisation of rural land fragmentation – The existing 111 hectare lot is likely to be subdivided into 33 small lots and a communal lot. This is inconsistent with this principle.

(b)   the minimisation of rural land use conflicts, particularly between residential land uses and other rural land uses – With no close neighbours to the proposed small lots there is minimal chance of rural land use conflicts if this land is used for rural residential development based on the pattern of the existing accommodation units.

(c)   the consideration of the nature of existing agricultural holdings and the existing and planned future supply of rural residential land when considering lot sizes for rural lands – the use of this site for rural residential purposes is not consistent with the current rural settlement strategy, but could be examined in the new Urban and Rural Strategy (in preparation).

(d)   the consideration of the natural and physical constraints and opportunities of land – the existing accommodation units have been located in response to the constraints and opportunities of the land.

(e)   ensuring that planning for dwelling opportunities takes account of those constraints – future subdivision will need to be based on the existing layout of buildings if it proceeds.

 

Not Consistent

2.2
Coastal Protection

Direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that applies to land in the coastal zone.

A planning proposal must include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with:

(a)   the NSW Coastal Policy: A Sustainable Future for the New South Wales Coast 1997,

(b)   the Coastal Design Guidelines 2003,

(c)   the manual relating to the management of the coastline for the purposes of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the NSW Coastline Management Manual 1990).

(a)   The NSW Coastal Policy contains an extensive list of Strategic Actions that relate to this site in the coastal zone. Most don’t apply at the planning proposal stage as it is assumed that a Coastal Zone Management Plan will be in place that deals with these matters.  In this case the critical Strategic Actions are:

(i)    1.1.9 That Council ensure appropriate zones be applied to areas of conservation value, and

ii)    2.2.2 Appropriate planning mechanisms will be considered by Local Councils for incorporating sea level change scenarios.

 

In this case the proposed E2 zone can satisfy the first action while the alternative RU2 zone would not.

The second action really requires Council to have an adopted Coastal Zone Management Plan to make this clear. On balance the proposal is consistent with the Coastal Policy in the absence of an adopted Coastal Zone Management Plan.

(b)   Accommodation units and other structures exist on the subject land already. They are of high quality design and the site is master planned and landscaped to a high standard. It is likely that any subsequent development will be of a similar standard and it is consistent with the Coastal Design Guidelines.

(c)   The key coastal issue is that the information that Council has on coastal erosion suggests that some of the sites proposed for community title subdivision (and subsequently dwellings) are affected by an erosion precinct  (see map at Attachment 2). It appears that approximately 17 proposed sites are in Coastal Erosion Precinct 3 (100 Year Impact Line). The applicants planning proposal suggests that because the structures are already there then this should not influence the outcome of this planning proposal.

Not Consistent

4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection

Direction applies to a planning proposal on land mapped as bushfire prone land.

Council must consult with the NSW Rural Fire Service.

Council must have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Must introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate development in hazardous areas.

A substantial part of the approved development of this site is already constructed in the form of communal buildings and accommodation units. However, the remaining3structures are yet to be constructed and it is foreshadowed that any or all of the 33 structures (in total) could be subject to applications for use as residential dwellings.

The planning proposal does not include a bushfire assessment of the likely future development of the site should it be successful. A number of proposed small lots are immediately adjacent to remnant vegetation that is identified by Council as Bushfire Prone Land (see map at Attachment 3).The open areas on the site appear to be included in bushfire buffers. The site has a ring road around the main structures but only has one gated access into it.

For purposes of this planning proposal bushfire management issues do not pose an absolute constraint and can be resolved in any future development application(s).

Not Consistent

5.1
Implementation of Regional Strategies

Planning proposals must be consistent with a regional strategy released by the Minister for Planning.

The planning proposal is inconsistent with a key aspect of the Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS). 

Page 28 and 30 of the FNCRS states that “no further rezoning for rural residential development (other than land in an approved land release strategy) will be permitted in the Coastal Area. The Coastal Area is defined as that land east of the Pacific Highway and includes the subject land.   The use of Schedule 1 to achieve small lot subdivision does not of itself alter the zone of the land but it achieves a similar outcome. The subject land is not identified in the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998. The applicant suggests that as an “innovative development proposal” it should be considered against the sustainability criteria in Appendix 1.  However, Appendix 1 of the FNCRS states that the sustainability criteria are not to be applied in the Coastal Area.

Not Consistent

 

 

Options for the Way Forward

 

There are a number of options open to Council on this matter:

 

1.       Proceed with the planning proposal as submitted by the applicant (Rezone E2 Environmental Conservation and amend Schedule 1 to permit a private education facility and small lot subdivision).

 

2.       Don’t proceed with the planning proposal at this stage, but consider the appropriate zoning/s for the subject site following release of the final E zone review report and further investigate the possibility of listing the site on the M.O/C.T map during the development of the Byron Urban and Rural Housing Strategy.  [Recommended]

 

3.       Proceed with an RU2 Rural Landscape zone and amendment to Schedule 1 to permit a private education facility.

 

4.       Correct the anomaly with the SP1 zone at the next general update of LEP 2014 (ie. via SP1 zone/Schedule 1 amendment that defines and permits a private education facility). [Recommended]

 

Conclusion

Having considered the planning proposal from Planners North it is concluded that it is inconsistent with State and local Council strategies and polices and lacks sufficient strategic justification to proceed under the gateway plan-making process.  Accordingly Council should decline to support the attached planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 and instead investigate the possibility of listing the site on the M.O/C.T map during the development of the Byron Urban and Rural Housing Strategy.

 

However, Council should take steps to correct the anomaly of the current SP1 zone (and label) that affects the site as part of the next general update of Byron LEP 2014.  This could occur by amending: (i) the SP1 zone to refer to a Private Education Facility, and (ii) Schedule 1 to define private education facility and permit it as a use on the subject land. 

 

 

Financial Implications

For the purposes of levying Council Rates the site is currently categorised as “Residential” and based on the current Unimproved Capital Value of the land, $11.5 Million, the current annual rate charge is $32,545.  This rate may increase if the site is converted to Community Title lots. If Council chooses to proceed with the planning proposal it is able to recover the initial processing costs for an applicant initiated LEP amendment.  Council has received $2500 from the applicant to cover initial costs associated with preparing this Council report. If the proposal is to proceed through the Gateway process then full cost recovery of the remaining stages will be required by Council. 

 

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                         13.6 - Attachment 2

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                         13.6 - Attachment 3

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                              13.6 - Attachment 4

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005


Schedule 3A     Form of special disclosure of pecuniary interest

(Clause 195A)

Local Government Act 1993

Form of Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

1 The particulars of this form are to be written in block letters or typed.

2 If any space is insufficient in this form for all the particulars required to complete it, an appendix is to be attached for that purpose which is properly identified and signed by you.

Important information

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993. You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular. Complaints made about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in respect of which the special disclosure is being made. The completed form must be tabled at the meeting. Everyone is entitled to inspect it. The special disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Special disclosure of pecuniary interests

by ____________________________________________________________________________________

          [full name of councillor]


in the matter of __________________________________________________________________________

                   [insert name of environmental planning instrument]


which is to be considered at a meeting of the

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

[name of council or council committee (as the case requires)]


to be held on the  _________________ day of __________________________ 201 

 

 

Pecuniary interest

Address of land in which councillor or an  associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified land)[i]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

Councillor has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of a mortgage, lease, trust, option or contract, or otherwise).

Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

Associated company or body of councillor has interest in the land.

Matter giving rise to pecuniary interest[ii]

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land)[iii]

[Tick or cross one box]

The identified land.

Land that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.

Current zone/planning control

[Insert name of current planning instrument and identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

 

Proposed change of zone/planning control

[Insert name of proposed LEP and identify proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

 

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Insert one of the following:

“Appreciable financial gain” or

“Appreciable financial loss”]

 

[If more than one pecuniary interest is to be declared, reprint the above box and fill in for each additional interest.]

_____________________________

Councillor’s signature

_____________________________

Date

 

 

[This form is to be retained by the Council’s general manager and included in full in the minutes of the meeting]


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                   13.7

 

 

Report No. 13.7           Report of the Planning Review Committee Meeting held on 9 December 2014

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Wayne Bertram, Manager Certification and Assessment

File No:                        I2014/99

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Summary:

 

This report provides the outcome of the Planning Review Committee Meeting held on
9 December 2014.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report be noted.

 

 

 


 

Report

 

The following s96 applications were reviewed with the outcome shown in the final column.

 

Council determined the following original development applications. The Section 96 application to modify these development consents are referred to the Planning Review Committee to decide if the modification applications can be determined under delegated authority.

 

DA No.

Applicant

Property Address

Proposal

Reason/s

Outcome

10.2013.549.3

Tallowood Land Developments P/L

Tuckeroo Avenue

Mullumbimby

S96 to modify the staging

 

Delegation

10.2012.407.2

Planners North

45-47 Lawson St

Byron Bay

S96 to modify approved development (demolition of existing motel and construction and strata subdivision of 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 9 apartments and associated tree removal, carparking and landscaping)

 

Delegation

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                   13.8

 

 

Report No. 13.8           South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Framework

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Catherine Knight, Coastal Officer

File No:                        I2015/8

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Land and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

Eurobodalla Shire Council have recently adopted the South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework (Framework). As a result of the contents and findings in the Framework, Eurobodalla Shire Council is seeking three key actions from the state government with respect to sea level rise guidance and coastal hazard assessments. Eurobodalla Shire Council has approached other councils, requesting they make similar requests of state government. From a review of the Framework, it is recommended that Council write to the Premier, requesting two key actions from the State Government.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That in response to the correspondence from Eurobodalla Shire Council (Attachment 1) and the brief review conducted of the South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework, Council write to the NSW Premier, the Hon Mike Baird MP, requesting two key actions from the State Government:

 

a)      Adopt a State wide guideline for sea level rise planning, including sea-level rise planning benchmarks, that is informed by the South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework.

 

b)      Monitor future Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to inform updates to planning advice issued to local councils.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        E-mail from Eurobodalla Shire Council, E2015/1240 , page 101  

 

 


 

Report

 

Correspondence has been received from Eurobodalla Shire Council concerning their recently adopted South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework (Framework).  The email is at Attachment 1.

 

The objectives of the Framework work were as follows:

 

·    To develop regionally relevant sea-level rise projections under conditions of climate change; and

·    The development of a risk-assessment and Policy Response Framework addressing future sea-level rise.

 

In adopting the Framework at Council meeting 25 November 2014, Eurobodalla Shire Council resolved to approach the Premier of NSW, the Hon Mike Baird MP, requesting three key actions from the State Government:

 

1. Adopt a State wide guideline for sea level rise that is consistent with the South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework.

 

2.  Monitor future Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to inform updates to planning advice issued to local councils.

 

3. Take over responsibility for preparing all Coastal Hazard Studies in NSW to ensure consistency of methods applied to examine coastal hazards.

 

In their correspondence, Eurobodalla Shire Council is asking coastal councils across NSW to make similar approaches to the Premier of NSW with respect to the three key actions (above).

 

The Framework was jointly commissioned by Eurobodalla Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Council, with assistance provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage. It was prepared by two reputable and highly qualified engineers, being David Wainwright, Senior Consulting Engineer at Whitehead and Associates and Research Fellow for the University of Queensland; and Doug Lord, Director and Principal Engineer for Coastal Environment. Doug Lord was also a co-author of the ‘Byron Bay to Hastings Point Erosion Study’ (PWD, 1978).

 

From a review of the Framework, the following response is submitted:

 

·    It is a well-researched response to the conclusions of the NSW Chief Scientists Report (2012), particularly those conclusions drawn upon by the State Government to provide the rationale for the withdrawal of the state-wide sea level rise planning guidance and benchmarks (DECCW, 2009).

·    It provides a thorough analysis of the sea level rise projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5 (IPCC AR5) and how the projections and different scenarios presented in the IPCC AR5 may be interpreted for policy and planning purposes.

·    The analysis of IPCC AR5 is very welcome given the lack of guidance from the state government on sea-level rise planning following both the withdrawal of DECCW, 2009 and following the release of the IPCC AR5 in 2013 and 2014. Noting that the release of the IPCC AR5 represents the best published science available on climate change. 

·    It provides a well-researched and thorough analysis of the scale and significance of regional sea-level rise variations from the IPCC projections, with respect to Sydney and the south coast of NSW.

·    It provides a risk-based framework for the analysis of sea level rise impacts for planning purposes and this framework makes a significant contribution to the available literature on this approach in NSW, noting that the current Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013) embody a risk-based approach to coastal zone management, but do not provide a sound framework on which this can be carried out with great confidence at present.

·    By assessing the findings of the NSW Chief Scientists Report (2012), it provides a strong rationale for the state government to take the lead on sea-level rise planning through the provision of appropriate guidance including sea- level rise planning benchmarks.

 

In response to the correspondence from Eurobodalla Shire Council and the brief review conducted of the South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework, it is recommended that Council write to the NSW Premier, the Hon Mike Baird MP, requesting two key actions from the State Government:

 

1.  Adopt a State wide guideline for sea level rise planning, including sea-level rise planning benchmarks that is informed by the South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Response Framework.

 

(Note: Whilst the framework provides a sound analysis of the IPCC projections and appropriate planning benchmarks with respect to the south coast, it is unclear if this analysis is more generally applicable to other parts of the NSW Coast, therefore the wording for action 1 has been slightly modified from Eurobodalla’s. )

 

2.  Monitor future Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to inform updates to planning advice issued to local councils.

 

(Note: It is not considered that the findings or the content of the Framework provide sufficient justification / rationale for the third action sought by Eurobodalla Shire Council, i.e. that the state government take over responsibility for preparing all coastal hazard studies in NSW.)

 

Financial Implications

 

The financial implications are insignificant.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The statutory ‘Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP) ’ (OEH, 2013) requires Councils to assess climate change, specifically projected sea level rise, in coastal hazard assessments for consideration in Coastal Zone Management Plans. Adopting a statewide guideline with adopted sea level rise benchmarks will provide Council with Greater direction in the preparation of the CZMP.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                         13.8 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                 13.9

 

 

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

 

Report No. 13.9           South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant Decommissioning

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Nikki Bourke, Capital Projects Officer

File No:                        I2014/88

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Sewerage Services – Management

 

 

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to determine a pathway to proceeding with the South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Decommissioning project.  This includes recommending that the demolition and remediation be restricted to the fenced ‘STP infrastructure’ area for the next phase, with the remediation of the remainder of the site being deferred until a future use for the site is decided.  The report also recommends proceeding with engaging a tourism development specialist to prepare additional tourism end-use options to supplement the existing South Byron STP Master Plan.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council proceed with the demolition and remediation of the South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant ‘works infrastructure’ only; and

 

2.       That Council engage a tourism development consultant to develop additional mixed tourism and residential end use scenarios and undertake a financial analysis and viability assessment to supplement the existing South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant Master Plan (GHD 2010, E2014/78546).

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        South Byron STP - Feasibility Assessment Report - Financial - HTW Nov 2014, E2014/78546 (provided under separate cover)  

 

 


 

Report

 

Background

Council conducted a workshop on 27 March 2014 regarding the Detailed Site Contamination Assessment, Remediation Action Plan (RAP), Site Audit Report (SAR) and Future Use Options for the site of the South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant (STP).

 

Councillors requested further detailed financial analysis on two of the four options assessed in the 2010 Master Plan being:

 

-     Option 1: High End Residential, and

-     Option 4: Affordable Low-Key Tourism and Education

 

Consultants Herron Todd White (HTW) performed the first financial analysis in 2010 and were engaged again in November 2014 to review and update that analysis.  The resultant Feasibility Assessment Report – South Byron STP Site Masterplan (HTW 2014, see Attachment 1) was presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop (SPW) on 27 November 2014.

 

Discussions at the SPW focussed on three main topics:

 

1.   End Use Scenarios: There was a lack of consensus around the shortlisted options above. Specifically that the HTW report led to only one financially viable option (Option 1: High End Residential) and that would mean utilizing a valuable parcel of Council land in the south of the Shire for a comparatively small profit, once remediation tasks were complete. Councillors agreed that further investigation into alternative end uses was required prior to committing to an end use.

 

2.   Demolition and Remediation Costs: Councillors preferred that at this stage the project proceed only by undertaking works to remove the risks posed by the existing infrastructure. This is estimated to cost $1M.

 

3.   Decommissioning Cost Responsibility: There was some discussion that the Sewer Fund should be responsible for the demolition and remediation costs of the South Byron STP site without the need for end use cost recovery as it technically forms a part of the Byron Bay Sewerage Augmentation Scheme.

 

 

Discussion

 

The three topics above have been investigated in further detail since the SPW.  The first two are discussed below and the final topic is discussed under ‘Financial Implications’.

 

 

1.   End Use Scenarios

The shortlisted end use scenarios developed in the South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant Master Plan (GHD 2010, E2014/78546) appear to be too restrictive and have led to a lack of consensus over the selection of a preferred scenario.  Various other end use scenarios not developed to date were discussed at the SPW as potential viable options.  These include:

 

 

 

a)   low-key tourism, including rental cabins – a mixture of tent sites, camper sites, basic cabins and up market cabins

b)   mixed tourism and residential (strata style) – a higher level of development between high end residential and tourism scenarios leading to flexibility for future investors, maximising the developable land area and resulting in potentially higher returns

c)   do nothing – if all end use scenarios yield a poor business case for continuing with the project it may be in Councils best interest to do nothing and retain the parcel of land as an asset for the future.  Note that a ‘do nothing’ scenario may still require considerable cost in securing the site for public safety, and ongoing costs in maintaining that security.

 

It is recommended that a tourism development consultant be engaged to develop the above options further to supplement the original Master Plan.  The engagement would also include a financial assessment, including gross realisation from sales and feasibility / profitability analyses to complement and enable comparison with the latest HTW report.

 

2.   Demolition and Remediation

The NSW Department of Public Works (DPW), who are currently progressing the South Byron STP decommissioning project, has been asked to provide advice on the ramifications of proceeding with:

 

i)          above ground demolition only of the whole land parcel

ii)         demolition and remediation of the whole land parcel; or

iii)         demolition and remediation of the ‘STP infrastructure’ only.  That is, infrastructure within the fenced STP works area, associated with the STP ponds and the discharge pipe to Tallow Creek.

 

 

In summary, despite the up front expense required, DPW recommends proceeding with both demolition and remediation tasks at the same time to avoid significant project risks associated with undertaking above-ground demolition only.  Those risks include:

 

a)   remediating the site separately and at a later date to the demolition task may mean previous investigations (and their cost to date) will become null and void due to activities that occurred without Auditor supervision during demolition phase.  Various assessments and plans may be required to be completed again due to possible cross-contamination of site during the demolition process, which had no validation process.

 

b)   future rezoning of the site for any use (residential, tourism, sporting fields, parklands etc) may not be permitted if State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land 1998 (SEPP 55) Guidelines are not followed.  It is likely that SEPP 55 Guidelines are only considered to be complied with by commencing the investigation process again for the remediation phase once demolition activities are complete.

c)   underground infrastructure and contamination will remain at the site

d)   Council will require additional site assessments to ensure contractors completing the work are not at risk and that the demolition methodology ensures there are no remaining environmental or WHS issues.

 

The DPW agrees that option (iii) above is a viable way to limit costs to Council and minimise site risks, until such time that an end-use for the land is determined.  Putting the remediation of the night spoil area and large asbestos contaminated stockpile on hold will substantially reduce costs in the short term.  Whilst proceeding with both the demolition and remediation of the STP infrastructure area will still satisfy SEPP 55 Guidelines for that selected area.

 

Conclusion

The cost to remediate this site is substantial and restricting the demolition and remediation area to the STP infrastructure only will fulfil the goals of removing immediate public safety risks and reducing the costs of remediation in the short term, until an end-use for the site is determined.

 

In the longer term, it appeared understood by all attending the SPW that the remediation of the greater site (including the night spoil area and asbestos contaminated stockpile) is very costly to the sewer fund and that residential land will not only repay these costs quickly, the potential profit could be used to pay down the existing large sewer fund loans.  Paying down loans lowers Council’s debt servicing ratio and facilitates the opportunity for lower service pricing. 

 

Councillors at the SPW were keen to better understand the implications of what to do with this property in the context of Fit for the Future (FFF) and it is possible that, as the FFF process advances, concurrently it will help guide the councillors to a decision about the future use of this site.

 

Financial Implications

 

Consultant estimates are a cost of $1M for demolition of the redundant infrastructure. This cost demolition and subsequent remediation of the site should be borne by the sewer fund.

 

When the site is fully remediated the financial value of the site would be much greater than the “as is” value of $440,000 estimated by HTW.  If the future use of the site is considered to be best conducted under the general fund rather than the sewer fund where the land is currently held, then the increased value is a significant consideration.

 

It is proposed that, should further feasibility/viability studies be undertaken as part of engaging a tourism development consultant, an estimation of the value of the decontaminated land be undertaken to enable a funding model decision.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The remediation of the South Byron STP site will be in compliance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land 1998 instrument and guidelines, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

This project will meet the goals of the following strategies of Byron Shire Council’s Community

Strategic Plan:

 

·    EN1.1 Protect, restore and maintain the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire.

·    EN2.1 Implement innovative and sustainable urban design to:

 a) Enhance the distinctive qualities of towns and villages.

 b) Reduce urban development impacts on the environment.

 c) Encourage developments with reduced reliance on cars.

 d) Provide for sustainability outcomes in the development of private lands.

·    CI - Infrastructure and land use planning are integrated.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                               13.10

 

 

Report No. 13.10         Lot 5 Shara Boulevard - Public Reserve Proposal

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Nikki Bourke, Capital Projects Officer

File No:                        I2014/175

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Open Space and Recreation

 

 

Summary:

 

To designate community land Lot 5 DP880917 Shara Boulevard as a Public Reserve for the purposes of sports field and recreational facilities development.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Lot 5  DP880917 Shara Boulevard, North Ocean Shores be designated a Public Reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

Background

 

Council purchased Lot 5 DP880917 Shara Boulevard, North Ocean Shores in early 2014 for the purposes of developing sports field and recreational facilities for the northern Byron Shire communities.  The land information for the parcel is as follows:

 

Property Owner:           Byron Shire Council

Property Description:    Lot 5 DP880917

Site Area:                      7.05 hectares

Land Classification:       Community

LEP Zoning:                  BLEP 2014 – Deferred

BLEP 1988 – 1(a) General Rural, 5(a) Special Uses, 7(b) Coastal Habitat, 7(k) Habitat

Purpose:                        Public recreation

 

 

In order to expedite the project a single A-grade field with associated amenities, clubhouse, parking and services facility has been developed to a concept design level at the least constrained north-western portion of the site.

 

Council ratified the concept design and moved that the land retain its ‘community’ land classification during the 11 December 2014 Council meeting as follows:

 

14-632

Resolved:

1.       That Council supports the preferred concept design outlined in the North Ocean Shores Sports Field Concept Report (#E2014/78521 as amended by Cr Cameron) for further development, and

 

2.       That Council endorses the North Ocean Shores Sports Field Planning Proposal (#E2014/78554 as amended by Cr Cameron) for submission to the Department of Planning and Environment as amended without the proposal to reclassify the land from 'community' to 'operational'.                             

 

 

Discussion

 

Since then, the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) meeting was held on 16 December 2014.  Attendees at the meeting communicated that proceeding with a development application (DA) in light of the above resolution would not be the quickest way to progress the project.  This is due to the fact that processing the DA would have to wait until the ‘hold point’ of achieving rezoning from the Minister for Planning - an estimated six months from planning proposal submission.

 

It was suggested that designating the land as ‘public reserve’ and proceeding under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP) was the faster option with potentially lower risk.  Rezoning the land is not required for this path, however it is a desirable action to remove any uncertainty associated with the Minister for Planning’s review of Environmental Protection zones, as the site is currently being 'deferred' under the current LEP.  

Rezoning can be conducted concurrently with the ‘public reserve’ pathway, which lowers risk as it is no longer a ‘hold point’ and saves time.

 

The resolution of Council regarding retention of the community land classification means a Plan of Management (PoM) will be required.  This will be an additional cost to Council and involve a community consultation process.  It is envisaged this requirement will be conducted as much as possible concurrently with other project activities to minimise delay.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Proceeding with a ‘public reserve’ designation for Lot 5 DP880917 allows the North Ocean Shores Sports Field project to be developed under the Infrastructure SEPP, which would provide savings to Council though:

 

a.   accelerated project delivery

b.   no need for the DA process and utilisation of staff resources

c.   avoiding the mandatory exhibition process and costs associated with it

 

Despite the approval relaxations associated with the Infrastructure SEPP, as the project reaches certain milestones the project team will consult with relevant Council staff and community members to ensure the best possible outcome for the delivery of the North Ocean Shores Sports Field.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Sections 49(1) and (2) Local Government Act 1993  enable a 'Public Reserve' to vest automatically in Council upon registration of a deposited plan of subdivision, provided the plan bears the required dedication statement on the administration sheet and that the words "PUBLIC RESERVE" are added to the relevant Lot on the face of the plan.  Designating Lot 5 DP880917, North Ocean Shores as a ‘public reserve’ allows the project to be developed under the Infrastructure SEPP (2007).

 

The Infrastructure SEPP, at Clause 65(3), provides that specified uses (including outdoor recreation facilities and amenity facilities) can be “carried out by or on behalf of a council without consent on a public reserve under the control of or vested in council”.

 

Development that is 'carried out without consent' is addressed by the Provisions of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).  Within that Part, Section 111(1) states, “For the purpose of attaining the objects of this Act relating to the protection and enhancement of the environment, a determining authority in its consideration of an activity shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act or the provisions of any other Act or of any instrument made under this or any other Act,  examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity.”

 

An REF process will then be undertaken by the project team as the accepted mechanism to document the assessment process.  This is required by Section 111(1) of the EP&A Act and will determine whether the activity is 'likely to significantly affect the environment'.  If that is found to be the case, an Environmental Impact Statement process is then invoked.

 

This project will meet the goals of the following strategies of Byron Shire Council’s Community

Strategic Plan:

 

·    SC1.2 Provide accessible facilities that support leisure, learning and recreation for people of all ages.

·    SC2.1 Provide a range of recreational, cultural and community opportunities.

·    EN1.1 Protect, restore and maintain the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire.

·    CI1.3 Plan for the provision of community facilities.

·    CI1.7 Infrastructure and land use planning are integrated.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                               13.11

 

 

Report No. 13.11         Tallow Creek Flood Mapping Update

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           James Flockton, Drainage Flood Engineer

File No:                        I2015/6

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Emergency Services and Floods

 

 

Summary:

 

Following Council adoption of Council’s updated Climate Change Policy and Byron LEP 2014, staff have updated the flood mapping for Tallow Creek in accordance with the new Climate Change parameters.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council notes the information contained within Attachment 1 and adopts the new Tallow Creek flood mapping, as detailed in Attachment 1, for use in all future planning assessments and infrastructure projects.

 

2. That Council add Attachment 1 as an addendum to the Council adopted Tallow Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan 2009.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Tallow Creek Flood Modelling for LEP 2014 Letter Report of resutls from Jacobs, E2015/2090 (provided under separate cover)  

2        Tallow Creek 2009 - 100 Year Flood Water Surface Level map for comparison, E2015/2254 , page 115  

 

 


 

Report

 

On 21 July 2014 Council adopted, by resolution 14-315, an updated version of Council’s Climate Change Strategic Planning Policy No.14/006.

 

Resolved 14-315 (part)

 

8.       That Council, for the purposes of implementing the Byron Shire Climate Change Strategic Planning Policy, Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014 in the development assessment process for planning proposals and in the issuing of Section 149 planning certificates, endorse the use of revised flood mapping prepared in accordance with the parameters in Table 1 of the Climate Change Strategic Planning Policy (at Annexure 1(b)) for the Belongil Creek catchment (as part of the Belongil Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan in preparation) and the Tallow Creek catchment (through a revision to the Tallow Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (2009)).

 

 

The Byron LEP 2014 also commenced on 21 July 2015. Byron LEP 2014 relies upon Council’s flood mapping to guide planning decisions.  The Tallow Creek flood mapping needs to be up to date to ensure it is in accordance with the new policy and is available for use with Byron LEP 2014.

 

The updated Climate Change Policy includes new sea level rise projections and rainfall intensities that are in accordance with current practice across the State, but different to those used in Tallow Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan 2009.

 

Following the adoption of the new projections, staff requested Jacobs Consulting (formerly SKM Consulting) to update the flood mapping for Tallow Creek to ensure the mapping reflects the new projections appropriately.

 

Jacobs prepared the Tallow Creek Flood Risk Management Study and Plan, adopted in 2009.  They have a copy of Council’s calibrated flood model and a thorough knowledge of the catchment.  Therefore they were the best placed consultant to complete this work for Council.

 

The new mapping as detailed in Attachment 1 represents minor changes to flood heights across the catchment, all of which would be expected due to the changes in the sea level projections.  Attachment 2 is provided as comparison with the previous 2009 mapping.  The new mapping is considered appropriate for use with Byron LEP 2014, all future planning assessments and infrastructure projects.

 

It is noted that Belongil Creek and the Brunswick River catchments will be updated through the current flood projects which are running for these catchments.  Council does not have a flood model for Bangalow, therefore, this catchment does not require any updating..

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Council has a statutory responsibility to ensure its flood mapping is as up to date as possible given current funding allocations and staff availability.  This mapping update fulfils this responsibility.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                            13.11 - Attachment 2

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                               13.12

 

 

Report No. 13.12         Two-lanes inbound, Shirley Street and direct access Lawson Street north car park, Byron Bay

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Engineer

File No:                        I2015/10

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

This report specifically responds to Resolution 14-625. It reviews the issues in two distinct sections, one being the proposal for two lanes inbound on Shirley Street, Byron Bay and the other being Lawson Street for the length between the two roundabouts at Butler Street and Jonson Street including direct access to the northern side car park.

 

The direct impacts and downstream effects of this proposal are considerable and the benefits remain questionable, especially without undertaking at very least minor traffic modelling and intersection analysis, which is recommended (and likely to be a requirement of the RMS) so as to better understand impacts or improvements (if any) from what is proposed. Thus there may be a number of unintended consequences of proceeding with the project.

 

For the two-lanes inbound, modelling would test at very least Level of Service (LoS) at intersections (i.e. delays, queue lengths, capacity) while impacts (as identified and discussed in this report) include road safety concerns, loss of separated turn bays, pedestrian refuge, bus stops and car parking, plus the expected difficulty, delays and increased risks of property and side street access.

 

As for Lawson Street, modelling would need to specifically consider the queue length space needed to access Lawson Street north car park and changes (if any) to the Jonson Street roundabout.  Assessment would need to also consider the high pedestrian numbers and how they are safely managed if the project proceeds.  However in absence of such assessment, commentary is made on such matters, including issues to be resolved in regards to impacts on the First Sun Caravan Park and car park operations and critical revenue derived from these operations.

 

To this end, clarification of Council’s preference for access, either directly from Lawson Street (which impacts pedestrians and introduces a new crossover) or via First Sun (as per the design plan discussed) is also sought.


 

 

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That in noting the report (I2015/10) regarding two inbound lanes on Shirley Street, Byron Bay and the provision of direct access to the Lawson Street north car park Council: 

 

1.       confirm that the preliminary design (Council plan 2283) and alternative design options as per this report be incorporated into a fully designed and costed engineering plan, including consideration of the bypass design underway and specifically;

 

          a) Lawson Street north car park, which is:

 

          i)     not dedicated as a road and remain Council owned

          ii)    made accessible from Lawson Street via the existing First Sun Caravan Park        driveway (entry only, no exit) and controlled at entry and exit points by a        ticket/boom gate operation

                                                                                                                                                      

          b) Butler Street roundabout, which:

 

          i)     is reduced in size, removes kerb blisters on approach and is achieved within the existing road reserve or more preferably within existing carriageway (kerb to kerb)

          ii)    is intended to accommodate two lanes inbound and as such requires the        removal of both right-hand turn bays at the service station and the one at First        Sun

 

          c) Jonson Street roundabout, which is not yet costed and will:

 

          i)     need to be removed and replaced with a reduced in size and mountable        roundabout (no landscaping) to accommodate two lanes inbound and provide        sufficient turning space for larger vehicles such as local bus services

          ii)    introduce two movements in the left lane, being a left-turn (as currently exists)        plus a through lane and reconfigure the right-lane as a right-turn only

          iii)   by such changes, likely to impact pedestrian safety and opportunity for        crossover and  introduce a new conflict point on the eastside with merging        vehicles, pedestrians and potential little compliance with the right-turn lane

 

          d) Shirley Street, which by having two lanes inbound and retaining parking on the south side will:

 

          i)     require approximately 570m length of ‘No Stopping’ and result in 58 car spaces        lost on the north side

          ii)    forego (and supersede) a previous intention of Council for a permanent and        dedicated bus lane on the northern side

          iii)   remove right-turn bays, and by doing so put such movements at greater risk of        crash, at Dryden Street, Milton Street and at the hospital at Wordsworth Street iv)   require the removal of pedestrian refuge and bus stop at the hospital; and

          v)    provide no dedicated on-road cycle space                                                             

 

2.       commence the approval process such as required with the LTC / RMS and state rail or their representative

 

3.       directly notify tenants and land owners adjacent of the proposed changes and provide opportunity for feedback

 

4.       make provision for a community consultation process including key stakeholder groups to be undertaken before a commitment is made for construction

 

5.       provide $50,000 from a source to be identified – to enable the above, plus the completion of necessary traffic assessment and analysis of impacts

 

6.       accept the timelines as detailed in this report are indicative only and that they, along with the intention of project delivery in 2015, remain subject to budget, consultation, approvals and further reporting to Council; and

 

7.       receive a further report on all the above items upon their completion and prior to any physical works commencing.  

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Rail Stop Plans, E2015/4285 , page 137  

 

 


 

Report

 

At the 11 December 2014 meeting of Council, the following Notice of Motion (NOM) was received and resolved upon, notable for it seeking a “permanent” traffic management change as opposed to a “trial” as per previous resolutions as recorded in the NOM (I2014/85).

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 Permanent Second Lane Shirley/Lawson Streets Byron Bay -

"Two Lanes In"

 

File No:

 

14-625 Resolved that Council:

 

1. Supports the creation of a permanent second lane along Shirley/Lawson Street into the

Jonson/Lawson street roundabout linking with Bay Street via the Jonson Street north car

park.

 

2. That we receive a detailed report at the first meeting in 2015 from staff including design

options, necessary approvals from state agencies, funding sources, traffic impacts.

 

3. That $15,000 be sourced from the Bypass reserve funds or other funding sources be

identified for consultants to be engaged to assist staff with the completion of the report.

 

4. That a workshop be convened as soon as possible at the site of the north Lawson Street car park inviting stakeholders, business owners and other interested parties to meet with staff consultants and traffic engineers to discuss this very important issue of traffic congestion that has plagued our town for decades.

 

This report responds to the above resolution, which unless otherwise advised by Council is assumed to supersede the several previous resolutions on the same matter as within the NOM (I2014/85), with the exception of those matters referred to the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan process, namely two-way on Bay Street and a pedestrian precinct on Jonson Street.

 

Resolution 14-625 - Part 4 – onsite workshop

 

As advised to Councillors in memorandum (E2015/3004) issued 21 January 2015, the deadline for this report (as established in Part 2) did not allow sufficient time to hold a workshop prior, and instead it is being arranged for 29 January 2015.  It is believed this will provide a better opportunity for attendance, given it is after school resumes and the busy summer holiday period and that many stakeholders will likely be otherwise engaged (if not away) during most of January.

Resolution 14-625 - Part 3 – engagement of consultants 

As advised to Councillors in memorandum (E2015/3004) issued 21January 2015, the same consultancy engaged for the Byron Bay bypass (GHD) will be engaged for this project.

 

The synergy between the two projects is apparent and it is believed logical that the changes being considered for Shirley Street and the Lawson Street rail crossing and entrance to the car park be considered in the context of the bypass. 

 

Feedback from the workshop, along with this report, will help inform the direction given to the consultant.



Resolution 14-625 - Part 2 – design options, costs and approvals

To commence the design process Council staff have developed one option to help understand the potential impacts.  This option (design plan 2283) is discussed in detail of this report.  While preliminary, it is costed at $250,000 for the approvals / assessment / engineering works required. More on costs is detailed in the Financial Implications section of this report. 

 

First however is discussion of the project; and given there are two distinct sections and impacts of the proposal, being Shirley Street and Lawson Street, the following is separated for each in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.

 

Shirley Street

 

Shirley Street, Byron Bay runs east-west and is the only access point to Byron Bay from the north.  The street has the following features (figures approximate, based on desktop review only):

 

1.       800m length, from Kendall Street (western end) through to Lawson Street with four        intersections

2.       current road formation is two-lanes, two-way, with unrestricted kerbside parking both sides

3.       average of 16,000 vehicles per day

4.       37 crashes in 5 years to 30 June 2013, 21 being injury (27 injured), rear-end dominant (x          20)

5.       62 properties are along frontage, providing 128 titles (namely strata)

6.       due to strata, driveway crossover is consolidated -  21 north side, 10 south side

7.       based on length minus crossovers, 169 car spaces available (80 north side, 89 south side)

8.       property is mainly residential (most holiday let), with at least 5 retail outlets

9.       east of Milton Street, health services prominent, including Hospital and          consultation /       practices

10.     car parking at retail and health services (all south side) is mostly on-street

 

 

Figure 1: subject site – Shirley Street, Byron Bay

 

 

 

The design plan indicates two-lanes inbound on Shirley Street is achievable within existing road (kerb to kerb) and requires no encroachment to verge or land acquisition.  This is achieved by shifting the centre line south, removing kerb blisters, medians, pedestrian refuge, bus stop and cutting the roundabout at the Police Station (Butler Street) in half, reducing its deflection and therefore ability to reduce speed.  All of these measures have likely road safety impacts or at least increasing risk to road users, especially the likely scenario of introducing a new crash type as vehicles attempt to merge or exit and enter either of the two inbound lanes.

 

Moreover, changing the roundabout as shown (Figure 3) may also impact (ie reduce) the capacity of the intersection in terms of traffic circulation.  This is contrary to the intentions of such changes and is in conflict with the preliminary bypass design being developed, hence the need for some intersection modelling to assist design.

 

Such impacts are itemised in Table 1 below, which also outlines loss of car parking, restricting bus stop locations, providing no space for cyclists, reducing pedestrian crossover opportunities and removing separated right–turn bays for side streets, which is concerning for at least two reasons.

First, as insufficient space is available to allow westbound through traffic to pass right-turning vehicles (which have to turn across two inbound lanes), they are likely to block and delay outbound traffic, thereby introducing a delay for outbound which does not typically occur at present.

 

Second, and more concerning however, is if the removal of right-turn bays prove unsafe, meaning an additional (not costed, future) work to block such access is likely to be required, for example a solid constructed median.  If this was to occur, then roundabouts at Kendall Street (not costed / included, approximately $2m) and at Lawson Street (as exists near Police station) would be required to facilitate the left-turn only access to and from side streets.  While comparatively low in vehicle number per day, this diversion of local traffic would be an added burden onto both intersections and result in further delays at each.  It would also be a significant change and impact to the adjacent and nearby properties, approximately 101 in total covering 136 titles.

 

 

Table 1: Shirley Street design, costs and approvals

 

NB: discussion on each table item is below

 

Item

Outcomes

1.   Car parking

58 spaces lost (based on bays of 6m in length)

2.   Restrictions

‘No Stopping’ north side Dryden Street to Lawson Street / Butler Street roundabout

3.   RH turn / road safety

Safety / turn bays lost at Dryden Street, Milton Street and hospital (Wordsworth Street)

4.   Property access

Right turn opportunities restricted, safety a concern

5.   Bus stops

Removed opposite hospital, restricted opportunity elsewhere   

6.   Lane widths

3.5m traffic lanes; 2.5m parking lanes

7.   Cyclists

No dedicated space available

8.   Pedestrians

Crossing opportunities reduced, refuge at hospital removed 

9.   Approvals / consultation

RMS concurrence required due to regional road, consultation required

Including business stakeholders

10. Timelines

Design / assessment, consultation, approvals, budget / resources dictate

11. Resolutions

Council has made several competing resolutions which need addressing

 

 

Item 1 - Table 1 – Shirley Street car parking

 

Currently car parks are untimed and unmarked.  Based on available lengths and accounting for driveway and other crossovers, there are approximately 169 car spaces available (80 north side, 89 south side).  Most properties have off-street parking, while those that appear to rely on on-street parking for access to their business, example south side health services and north side retail (surf and bike shop) will not be affected as the proposal impacts north side parking east of Dryden Street.

 

This however results in 58 spaces lost from the north side, which equates to a 72% loss on the north side and 35% loss in total.  Proposal for parking restrictions for both sides east of Milton Street is being tabled to the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) at their meeting scheduled for 4 February 2014 with 2P time limits proposed.  This is supported by Council management and Rangers following the success of the temporary 2P time limit introduced as part of the Special Event Parking Area (SEPA) recently used 29 December – 4 January.

 

Item 2 - Table 1 – Shirley Street restrictions

 

570m length of No Stopping would need Local Traffic Committee (LTC) approval prior to being implemented on the north side from east of Dryden Street.  Other restrictions would include loss of bus stopping (pick up / set down) opportunities.  Such matters are also included on the 4 February LTC agenda.

 

Item 3 - Table 1 – Shirley Street right-turn movements and road safety

 

Loss of protected right-hand (RH) turn bays is a major area of concern from a road safety perspective.  Put simply, right-turn movement across two-lanes is more complex, delayed and greater risk than turning across one lane.  The delays cannot be understood unless some modelling of the intersection is undertaken.  However the longer delay the more risk motorists eventually take and the potential road safety hazard can be highlighted by review of current crash data.

 

The RMS crash data (five years to 30 June 2013) indicates 37 crashes in total, 21 of them being recorded as an injury crash resulting in 27 people injured.  Rear-end is the dominant cash type (20 incidents).  This is often associated with vehicles following too closely (little gap separation) which is not uncommon on congested, high volume roads such as Shirley Street.

 

While two lanes inbound may address this crash trend (i.e. increase gap separation), there is a very real potential the future crash types may include any of those in the array of intersection and two-lane type crashes as shown at Figure 2.  It should be noted such crashes have the potential to increase the risk (and severity) of injury due to being hit side on (intersection crashes), or faster speeds when traffic is flowing (two-lanes).  While not shown, the two-lanes inbound also have potential to increase risk and severity of injury to pedestrians and cyclists as their opportunities to merge and have dedicated space, or opportunity to cross, are less.

 

 

Figure 2: current and potential crash types


NB: RMS codes shown; RUM=Road User Movement


Above:
RUM 30 current dominant crash type; and RUM 10,11,13 and 21 intersection crash types


Above:
two-lane same direction crash types

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 4- Table 1 – Shirley Street property access

 

Overall 31 driveway crossovers appear apparent from review of aerial photo, 21 being on the north side.  The same safety concern discussed above however is held for right-turn movements to / from property driveways, especially those travelling eastbound and wishing to access any of the ten (10) south side driveways.  They will be required to stop in the right-hand inbound lane, which is typically an unexpected movement.  Given the current crash trend, property access has the potential to therefore result in further rear-end crash types (RUM 30), or introduce new crash types such as RUM code 35 (i.e. a lane change left, which in this example would be done to make an inside pass of the stopped vehicle).

 

To stop right turn property access Council would need to do more than currently shown on the plan, which at this time is simply double-centre line and makes overtaking illegal, not the movement to / from an adjacent approved crossover.  Therefore a median would be required, either line marked (as in Lawson Street, but is often crossed) or preferably constructed.  However, available width to comply with required standards is unlikely for either option, which if true would result in loss of car parking on the south side, which to date has been retained in the design plan.

 

There is also concern with the constructed form of some of the driveway crossovers, which may need correcting and not costed to date.  Currently some driveways on the north side are connected with a ramp, resulting in some encroachment beyond the gutter into the traffic lane.  This results in a potential hazard for those driving, in what would become the left hand inbound lane.

 

Item 5 - Table 1 – Shirley Street bus stops

 

Local bus services typically operate a hail and ride service, meaning they will stop and pick up and set down passengers where the driver believes it is safe to do so.  This opportunity will be lost for the length (approximately 570m) east of Dryden Street, where ‘No Stopping’ will apply.  Therefore the design plan shows a dedicated bus stop at Dryden Street be installed.  The cost estimate does not include provision of a shelter.  The ‘No Stopping’ would also mean the bus stop opposite the hospital would be removed, as would the pedestrian refuge

 

Item 6 - Table 1 – Shirley Street lane widths

 

The following are approximate, based on scaling from aerial photos and Council GIS viewing software (eView).

 

Current traffic lanes are approximately 3m wide, while north side parking lane provides between near 4m at west end and 2.5m toward the east end.  This provides between 7m and 5.5m width between northern kerb line and centre line.  To achieve two traffic lanes of 3.5m each (the desirable width and preferably would be consistent throughout the length as per design plan) the centre line will need to shift slightly to the south.  Even so, the existing right-turn bays would need to be removed, as would the painted centre medians.

 

On the south side, the shifting of the centre line southward will also allow for 3.5m lane width for the outbound traffic lane and still provide up to 2.5m width for parking lane, which provides sufficient space for a vehicle parked parallel against kerb (1.8m) and space to open a car door without impeding the traffic lane.

 

Item 7- Table 1 – Shirley Street cyclists

 

While Shirley Street offers an off-road option to the south, experience and local knowledge confirms certain and numerous riders choose to stay on road.  These include those with destinations along the subject site, while a notable cohort is the experienced and often group (or at least pairs) of organised, frequent riders who can travel at reasonable speed and manoeuvre with and between traffic.  Nevertheless, even this experienced group are likely to object and have increased risk due to two lanes inbound.

 

This is mainly due to lack of available width to provide dedicated on-road space for cyclists, plus provide two inbound lanes, one outbound and parking on the south side.  The removal of south side parking could, however, provide some manoeuvring (if not dedicated) space for cyclists.

 

Such an option can be explored further in the upcoming consultancy design work, however will require Council to confirm such intention, given the subject site is absent from the adopted bike plan.  Similarly, Council may also wish that cyclists be represented at the workshop, noting Byron Bay Cycle Club are active, organised and welcome such opportunities for input.

 

 

Item 8 - Table 1 – Shirley Street pedestrians

 

The crash data referred to above indicates crash types related to pedestrians are three (3) in total, all resulting in injury, with two of them occurring at night.

 

Pedestrian ability to cross Shirley Street especially at busy times will be reduced under the proposal and increase with risk as they counter one parking lane, one outbound lane and two inbound lanes, which if effective will presumably have vehicles moving at speed. Furthermore, the existing point of crossover, the refuge at the hospital, will be removed.

 

It is presumed the removal of parking on the north side from east of Dryden Street however will reduce the number of people moving from their vehicle to the south side, plus result in parking on the south side where the main destination generators being the hospital and associated health services. It is noted that the pedestrian numbers appear greater – and remain – on the north side where significant more residential and holiday let properties are located. This same group continue into town and need to be considered if changes are made at Lawson Street car park.

 

Item 9 - Table 1 – approvals / consultation

 

Shirley Street is part of the RMS classified regional road network, Main Road 545 (MR545). RMS concurrence is therefore required, noting this could be sought (and it is considered appropriate) to be done via the LTC, at least in the first instance.

 

LTC meet every two months, typically the first Wednesday of each month of February, April, June, August, October and mid-November. Given Council resolved to support two-lanes inbound, as per Part 1 of resolution 14-625, this proposal including matter of No Stopping, shifting of centre line and removal of right-turn bays has been included on the LTC Agenda for their 4 February meeting, meaning their report will be tabled to Council on 26 February 2014 and potentially help inform the workshop.

 

Prior to the proposal proceeding, general exhibition and submission period will be required.  As for specific consultation, the following will be advised of the workshop once a date is confirmed:

 

 

Authorities

Shirley Street

Groups

RMS

Residents

Byron United

Police

Business/commercial

Byron Bay Cycle Club

State Rail

Hospital

Bus and taxi operators

 

 

 

Item 10 - Table 1 – Timelines

 

While the Shirley Street project is achievable within existing road (kerb to kerb), its effectiveness (if any) remains dependent upon the more complex undertakings on Lawson Street as per Table 2. The following timeline therefore considers both.

 

February/March            Design / assessment, initial LTC / RMS advice, notification to stakeholders

April                               LTC advice / feedback, Council confirmation, budget / resources                   determined

May / June                    consultation / approvals

July / Aug                      Council report, boom gate installation (if tender issued April / May)

 

Sept - Nov                    project delivery

 

 

It should be noted the above timelines however are indicative only and subject to Council budget, availability of resources and ability to meet requirements / agreement of authorities, namely RMS for Shirley Street and state rail in relation to changes at the Lawson Street rail crossing

 

 

Item 11 - Table 1 – Shirley Street resolutions

 

This report responds to the above cited resolution 14-625, which unless otherwise advised by Council is assumed to supersede the several previous resolutions on the same matter (as per 11 December 2014 NOM, file I2014/15), with the exception of reinstating Bay Street as two-way and considering a pedestrian precinct on Jonson Street, both of which are matters referred to the Master Plan process.

 

However there is at least one other resolution (intention) of Council in conflict, which has been tabled with the RMS but not since pursued in light of the two-lane proposal:

 

 

14-187 Resolved that Council, in support of a permanent inbound bus lane on the northern (kerb) side of Shirley Street, Byron Bay between Kendall Street and the Lawson Street and Butler Street roundabout, seek RMS:

 

a) advice in regard to the requirements for approval, including potential for a trial period and/or flexibility (if any) in gaining approval;

 

b) assistance in developing the project from concept to realisation; and

 

c) funding to help deliver the project, or failing that, their advice on appropriate funding source(s)

It should be noted the bus lane as a permanent feature is supported by the main local public transport provider (Blanchs / BVC bus company) following the success of its use in the ten (10) day park and ride project over 2013/14 and more recently over seven (7) days of 29 December – 4 January.  Subject to the timetable needs of operators there is potential the bus lane could exist in day time hours, while at night time allow on-street car parking.  A wide bus lane could even incorporate on-road space for cyclists.  Such opportunity however will be lost if two-lanes inbound ensues.

 

Lawson Street – Butler Street to Jonson Street

 

The Lawson Street subject site is depicted in Figure 3, which is a copy of Council design plan 2283 and as shown has the following features (figures approximate, based on desktop review only):

 

 

1.       150m length with no intersections, from Butler Street (western end) through to Jonson Street

2.       current road formation is two-lanes, two-way, with RH turn bay to First Sun caravan park

3.       average of 20,000 vehicles per day, with 22,000 or more at peak times

4.       of the 5 crashes in 5 years to 30 June 2013, 4 were injury with 3 of them pedestrian related

5.       three properties have access - service station, First Sun and southern side car park

6.       no on-street car parking

7.       pedestrian flow adjacent (east-west) and across (north-south) is significant

 

 

Also as Figure 3 shows and as itemised in Table 2 below, significant changes are required.  Not least to either First Sun entrance, which is the preferred traffic management option over the other option of direct access from Lawson Street, which would require a new crossover (ie s138 approval), impact pedestrians (which are significant in number on the north side) and likely to require a greater loss of car parking spaces.

 

However either option would need some form of control to stop ‘rat running’ (e.g. boom gate entry / exit), unless Council wishes to either change the classification of the land (from community to operational), or even less preferred dedicate (ie lose ownership of the land) via its dedication as a road (Roads Act approval)  This is discussed further below (see Item 19).

 

It should also be noted the required changes at the Butler Street roundabout, especially the removal of the kerb blisters on the north side, and more vehicle access to the north side car park, removes safety measures previously implemented.

 

It also worth noting, as per the following table, the costs (comparatively inexpensive to today’s), construction years (i.e. project life thus far) and that both the roundabout and the car park were funded from s94 funds.  This means the potential Council needs to offset (pay) for the loss incurred, especially in regard to any loss of car parking (see Financial Implications).

 

 

Year

Car park

Roundabout

Totals

2005/06

$286,385

$    2,835

$289,220

2006/07

$  23,219

$105,229

$128,448

Total

$309,604

$108,064

$417,668

 


 

 

Figure 3: Lawson Street subject site

 

 

 

Table 2: Lawson  Street design, costs and approvals

 

NB: discussion on each table item is below

 

Item

Outcomes

12. Car parking

Five visitor spaces lost in First Sun, up to 15 lost in north side car park

13. First Sun

Mixed traffic, potential conflicts / safety, loss of visitor car parking

14. RH turn / road safety

RH turn bay lost at First Sun, increased risk at roundabouts

15. Property access

All three restricted to left in and left out only

16. Lane widths

Minimal at 3.2m north side lane, 3.1m right lane; 3.5m outbound ok

17. Merge / conflicts

Moving between inbound lanes and positioning for intersections 

18. Cyclists / pedestrians

No dedicated cycle space, access at First Sun minimises pedestrian conflict

19. Property / title / use

Council car park is community land, which does not permit use as road 

20. Approvals / consultation

As per Table 1, Item 9 discussion 

21. Timelines

As per Table 1, Item 10 discussion 

22. Resolutions

Council intentions with pay parking and master plan

 

 

Item 12 - Table 2 – Lawson St changes – car parking

 

Lawson Street car park has 140 car spaces when including west of Jonson Street / adjacent to the pool.  The diversion into the car park is approximated to require loss of 15 spaces, or 9% of all spaces with the use of boom gates under the current design plan.  However an alternative layout option is discussed below (Item 13).

 

The loss of car parking, if direct access or road dedication is pursued, is likely to be much greater, potentially one-third of the car park.  This is to allow safe passage and standard manoeuvring space for parked vehicles and traffic lane.  Such a loss could potentially be minimised by a full redesign and layout of the car park, which would be an added and not included cost to the project . Either way, a loss of revenue can be expected (see Financial Implications).

 

Item 13 - Table 2 – Lawson St changes – First Sun

 

The design work for First Sun is preliminary to date and has traffic bound for both the First Sun and the car park all giving way, with about five (5) visitor car spaces lost in First Sun.  The current design however appears to provide insufficient space for both streams of traffic, for example a waiting vehicle with a trailer / caravan under tow could require up to 15m alone.  Therefore an alternative design will be considered, as sketched and shown at Figure 4.

 

This alternative option is approximate in its measurements and subject to confirmation by survey and design.  However if achievable, it would minimise loss of car spaces in the Lawson Street car park (from the estimated 15) down to three (3) at minimum and up to eight (8) at maximum, subject to confirmation of widths, turning paths and manoeuvring space.  More advantageous however is the separation of traffic, with those car park bound provided approximate storage space of five (5) car lengths, being three (3) next to new median and two (2) at the boom gate. 

 

Figure 4: alternative option for layout First Sun

 

Item 14 - Table 2 – Lawson St changes – RH turn / road safety

 

RH turn bay at First Sun will be removed.  This will require those from the south to u-turn at the Butler Street roundabout, which will be modified extensively and will remove items previously installed on safety grounds, such as the kerb blister to the north.  The effectiveness of this is highlighted by the following brief crash data review.

 

In the nine years (1998-2007) prior to the roundabout and associated works, thirteen (13) crashes occurred at or near the Butler Street roundabout.  Eight of these were on the north side.  In the six years after (2008-2013), six crashes occurred, with only one occurring north side.

 

The works that are attributed to this improved safety record (ie the blisters) will be removed.

 

Another safety concern is the ability for two lanes to both enter and exit left from the roundabout. The space available for such lanes is limited and potential for conflict such as discussed above and shown (Figure 2) exists.

 

Item 15 - Table 2 – Lawson St changes – property access

 

The right-turn bays into and out the service station and First Sun will be lost.  Those that stop and attempt such a movement (especially in peak times) will likely result in delays and queues behind them.  If this does result then safety becomes a concern and future works to physically stop such movements may be required.  Such future works are not costed or considered in this report.

 

Item 16 – Table 2 – Lawson St changes – lane widths

 

The proposal would introduce 3.2m, 3.1m and 3.5m lane widths for the left and right inbound lanes and outbound lane respectively.  While this is a reduction on current lane widths, they are considered acceptable for the traffic movement that will prevail, namely straight ahead and left-turn in.

 

Item 17 – Table 2 – Lawson St changes – merge/conflicts

 

In the absence of modelling / analysis as discussed previously, the benefits of two-lane inbound on Shirley Street and continuing on Lawson Street to the Jonson Street roundabout, remain questionable (at best) and outright non-existent if Council cannot resolve how the two-lanes do eventually merge (as they must) into one.

 

The proposal in design plan 2283 shows this to occur at a greatly modified Lawson / Jonson Street roundabout.  Another option is including this as part of the town centre bypass project, ie right lane is straight through to the bypass, left-lane into town.

 

Either way, simply putting traffic through the Lawson Street car park or into First Sun will not help, as most eastbound traffic after crossing the rail line will still enter the Lawson / Jonson Street roundabout.  This is shown by intersection count data depicted at Figure 5 taken from the 2008/09 completed MR545 Study.  Also presented is the count data for the Butler Street roundabout which led to the conclusion also depicted; ie a left-turn lane of 50m length will be sufficient.

 

Therefore until the merge point is resolved, the two lanes inbound will act like a trapped lane at peak times, which is to say difficult to merge out / into and just be extra storage (queue) space.  Therefore, it might appear to lessen the queue down Ewingsdale Road, but only due to them being stored in two lanes (not one) and will unlikely improve travel time, the presumed main aim of any changes.  To address this concern however the design plan includes potential (and as yet uncosted) changes at the Jonson Street roundabout by making left lane as left-turn and straight and the right lane as right turn only.  This however has ‘downstream’ impacts with pedestrian movement east of the site.

 

 

 

Figure 5: MR545 Study - turn count data and recommendation for Butler St roundabout

 

 

Left: Butler St roundabout turn count data

Below: Butler St 50m left-lane

 

 

Left: Jonson St roundabout turn count data

 

 

Item 18 - Table 2 – Lawson Street changes – cyclists/pedestrian

 

Pedestrian impacts are mainly on the north side, with an expected increase in vehicle crossovers at the driveway to access the car park.  The use of boom gate controls will stop any ‘rat running’ and minimise such impacts however.  As for cyclists, they will not be afforded any dedicated operating space due to widths required to achieve three travel lanes.

 

Item 19 - Table 2 – Lawson Street changes – property / title / permissible use

 

It is not recommended Council use Lawson Street north car park or First Sun caravan park as a thoroughfare to the foreshore.  If the purpose is to divert traffic off the Lawson Street / Jonson Street roundabout, then such changes should be considered and assessed again after the bypass opens - expected late 2016.  If the purpose is to allow more direct access to car parking, then a boom gate operated car park is recommended and would avoid some of the issues involved with the land and permissible use as per the following comments.

 

Comment from Council Manager – Governance Services 

 

The Lawson street north car park (Lot 4 DP 827049) is classified as Community land with the Plan of Management (#DM653083) providing it with a Primary Land Category of “General Community Use” with no secondary categorisation.

 

The core objectives of “General Community Use” Community Land are set out in Section 36I of the Local Government Act:

 

“The core objectives for management of community land categorised as general community use are to promote, encourage and provide for the use of the land, and to provide facilities on the land, to meet the current and future needs of the local community and of the wider public:

 

(a)  in relation to public recreation and the physical, cultural, social and intellectual welfare or development of individual members of the public”

 

It is not a common practice to classify car park facilities as Community land within the Local Government Act land classification system.  It is more common to classify car park facilities as Operational land.  However, within the Community land Categorisation options; this is the most appropriate Categorisation for public parking facilities.  The provisions of the Local Government Act, relating to Community land categorisation make it difficult, if not impossible, to justify using the land for a thoroughfare without reclassifying it as Operational Land.   The south side Lawson Street Car park has been previously reclassified from Community land to Operational land to provide for vehicular access and thoroughfare for businesses in Jonson Street as part of a planning proposal and development consent process.

 

If it is determined that the land is to remain Community land then it is recommended that it be clearly identifiable as a public car park, rather than road (thoroughfare) with parking.  In this circumstance the inclusion of access/exit controls such as ticket-boom-gate would achieve this outcome.

 

If it is determined that the proposed thoroughfare be created via a dedicated Road, then the Roads Act would dictate the process for undertaking this process.  If it were to become a dedicated Road, then it would no longer be Council Owned land under the Local Government Act, it would become a dedicated local Road managed by Council under the Roads Act. 

 

More strategically and longer term, such changes to land use may fetter Council’s future development or current strategic potential for this site without the full Byron Bay Master Plan process supporting the use or part use of this land as a Road. 

 

Hence, from a land use perspective, it is recommended access/exit is controlled for example via a ticket-boom-gate option at both ends which clearly distinguishes it as a car park or alternatively to reclassify it to Operational Land to provide for the changed use of the land to accommodate the proposed thoroughfare. 

 

Thus based on the above advice it is recommended Council control access / egress to / from the car park by ticketed boom-gate, which has several benefits including most notably self-enforcement and management and thereby reduce staff time in the car park freeing them up for greater on-street surveillance.

 

Council need not await the outcome of the pay parking / Byron Bay parking study should they wish to pursue such an option, which as recommended will commence with and EoI and / or tender process for reporting back to Council in line with the timelines discussed at Item 10. 

 

Item 20 - Table 2 – Lawson Street changes – approvals / consultation

 

As per Item 9 – Table 1 discussion above and more specifically for Lawson Street as follows.

 

Figure 7 indicates changes required at the level rail crossing.  Such changes will require approval from the rail authority, or their managing agent John Holland Rail (JHR).  The approval process can take between 8-12 weeks after the application is lodged.  The application fee is $1,100 plus the same again each year of operation; ie an infrastructure licence fee of $1,110 pa will apply.  This ongoing fee can be negotiated however.

 

Once the changes are made Council, as the roads authority, will be responsible for all maintenance and infrastructure that is non-rail related.  Council is able to access rail land and undertake such work under the agreed Master Deed, which requires notification prior to any works but avoids ongoing fees and lengthy application process.

 

The initial application Council wishes to make for such changes, however, needs to be aware of other proposals on the table.  For example, the proponents of the North Byron development (Bayshore Drive) who are seeking a heritage operator licence to run a rail shuttle service through to the rail station.  If approved this will ‘reactivate’ the crossing and mean infrastructure required by an ‘active’ rail line will need to be replaced.  Therefore to avoid such costs it would be prudent for Council to work with the proponent and consider a single joint submission to avoid duplication and potentially Council paying for removing then reinstating required rail infrastructure (bell / whistle / lights / gates, etc).

 

Advice received on 21 January 2015 from North Byron Beach resort is that they are considering a new platform on the northern side of Lawson Street.  If this was to proceed consideration of pedestrian movements of passengers would need to be carefully considered (refer Attachment 1)

 

Figure 6: changes required at level crossing

 

 

 

 

Another rail land issue - albeit residual and not due to this project – is as shown in Figure 7.  JHR believe there is no formal agreement to crossover rail land (yellow parcels) either on the north or south side.  While this matter may not be as significant as some others in this report, it is likely it will need formalising by either agreement or land purchase.

 

As access via First Sun is recommended, it is likely an agreement can be formalised, given it is an existing and operational crossover.  If Council wishes to opt for direct access from Lawson Street into the car park, then a new crossover is needed, which requires s138 Roads Act approval (i.e. RMS concurrence as on regional road) and approval of the land owner.  As the land is separated and effectively ‘land locked’, an agreement (as opposed to acquisition) may however be possible for vehicular traffic to traverse the land for access to the car park.  Such an agreement would likely be needed for the south side car park now the matter is known.


 

 

Figure 7: rail land parcels (in yellow)


NB: approx. 370sqm north side and 300sqm south side

 

 

 

 

Item 21 - Table 2 – Lawson St changes – timelines

 

As per Item 10 – Table 1 discussion.

 

Item 22 - Table 2 – Lawson St changes – resolutions

 

This project has not been considered in context of Council intentions with pay parking and more specifically the master plan process currently underway and the bypass (construction due 2016).

 

To date the master plan indicates a preference for less cars, not more, into the town centre.  Two-lanes inbound is intrinsically linked to more cars into town.  Such an objective is also in contrast to the bypass, which is provided on the basis to allow more cars to go around town, not into it.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

The potential $250,000 cost for the capital works has no budget and the bypass funds are committed.  Council will therefore need to determine where the funds can be derived.

 

As for the boom gate controls at the car park, Council will need to consider how to fund, noting that the Council Paid Parking reserve (which Lawson Street North income and expenditure flows through) has approximately $6,500 available.  This amount is not enough for a boom gate system, which is estimated at $150,000 and includes pay parking machines, boom gates and costs for constructed medians, conduits and associated works.

 

In addition to these upfront costs, the report also outlines the potential (and continuing) loss of revenue due to losing 15 of the 140 car spaces in Lawson Street north car park, which is equivalent to approximately a 9% loss of total spaces.  This could potentially result in a $15,000 loss in annual revenue.  This lost revenue will increase in time as prices increase.  The alternative design shown at Figure 4 attempts to reduce this loss; however it remains subject to confirmation via detailed design.

 

This loss of car parking in Lawson Street North car park will be even greater however if Council wish to dedicate part of the car park as a road, as substantially more land will be required. The substantial additional loss of parking spaces along Shirley Street will further exacerbate the strong demand for available car parking spaces in Byron, particularly during peak demand periods.

 

The report also goes to length to avoid impacting First Sun operations and suggests five (5) car spaces in the visitor car parking will be lost.  While an inconvenience to patrons and operations, Council do not derive an income from these visitor spaces.

 

Impacts upon Developer Contributions. [Comments by Section 94 Officer]

There are three issues arising from this project with respect to the allocation of developer contributions to these works and the future impacts on rates of contributions.  These issues relate to the acceptability of funding of the project, the impact upon future parking contributions and the impacts on the town centre master plan.  . 

 

Funding the Project: To determine if it is a public facility that can be funded by developer contributions there needs to be a clear nexus between population growth and the facility. 

 

If the project is to construct a new road through from Lawson Street through to Bay Street via the existing Lawson Street North Car Park to ease traffic congestion then there is a clear link between the works required and the traffic generated by new population.  There is an existing item in the plan for $206,000 of traffic management works in Byron Bay.  These funds could be allocated to this project.  As these works are 100% attributable to new development there would be no need for additional funds to be allocated from the general fund. 

 

If however these works are only to provide access to the existing car park as has been discussed elsewhere in this report with reference to the discussion about boom gates on the car park then it is difficult to demonstrate a nexus.  The current car park was paid for from the section 94 fund and has an acceptable access.  The cost of provision of an additional access to the car park can not legitimately be said to be demanded by new population.  If the new population does not generate a demand for the facility then section 94 funds should not be used to construct these works. 

 

The decision by Council on the type of works to be carried out will determine if the works can be funded from section 94 contributions.  Until the scope and purpose of the works is resolved it is difficult to provide a definitive advice on the use of section 94 funds.  But based on the plans prepared for this report section 94 funds should not be used for this purpose. 

 

Future Parking Contributions                                     

The land and the construction of the car park was paid for by a loan and out of section 94 funds.  With the section 94 plan repaying the loan as car parking contributions were received.  The car parking contributions operate differently to the normal contributions imposed on all types of development in that car parking contributions are only levied on commercial development that could not provide parking on their own land. 

 

It is open to Council to determine that this public facility is no longer required, go through the process to reclassify the land to discharge the trust and no longer provide the facility.  It is to be noted that in the reclassification process there may be significant objection from those businesses that paid Council to provide those car spaces if those spaces are to be permanently removed and not replaced in an alternate location.  If the spaces are replaced in an alternate location then there is no issue.  If the spaces are not to be replaced then as Council has created a shortfall in the parking provided Council would be responsible for a proportion of the cost of construction of new spaces.  Currently spaces are 100% the cost of the developer.  The new proportional rate is not known at this point in time as the number of spaces to be removed is not known and the number of new spaces to be created will not be known until the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan is complete.  Thus the loss of these spaces may have an impact upon future parking contributions.  The extent of that impact is unknown at this point in time. 

 

 

 

Impacts on the implementation of the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan

The traffic management funds were being held pending the outcome of the BBTCMP to enable the traffic management initiatives anticipated to be identified by that plan to be implemented.  It is however open to Council to use these funds for traffic management purposes associated with the two lanes in initiative. Council needs to be cognisant that these funds can only be spent once and if spent on this project will become unavailable for the BBTCMP.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Various, including Roads Act approvals, State Rail and RMS concurrence and potentially land use (category / title) changes.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                                            13.12 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                               13.13

 

 

Report No. 13.13         Unresolved Local Traffic Committee items from 11 December 2014

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Engineer

File No:                        I2015/14

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

On 11 December 2014 Council received the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) report of their meeting held 18 November 2014.  Two items as recommend by the LTC however were not resolved upon by Council due to them not being included in the cover report (report 14.3 #I2014/65).

 

This report corrects that oversight and presents the recommendations as made by the LTC.  To assist, this report also reproduces the LTC report and comments.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       Library truck request to use bus zone, Rajah Road, Ocean Shores 

 

a.       That to accommodate the request from the Richmond-Tweed Regional Library for a space to park the mobile library truck in Ocean Shores, Council:

 

          i)       notes the support of both the Local Traffic Committee and the local bus operator                    (Blanchs/BVC);

 

          ii)      notes it will require an extension of the existing bus bay on the east side of Rajah                    Road, Ocean Shores as located directly at the frontage of the shopping centre;

 

          iii)     subject to the extension being approved and completed, sign the southern end, for a length of no less than 18m, as ‘No Parking’ and ‘Byron Shire Council Authorised Vehicles Excepted’ and sign the remaining length as a Bus Zone; and 

 

          iv)     notify library management that the mobile library truck is authorised to use the                    space as signed

 

b.      That Council note RMS advice that a speed zone review for Possum Shoot Road, Coorabell will not be undertaken at this time. 

 

 

2.       Request for speed zone review, Possum Shoot Road, Coorabell

 

     That Council notes RMS advice that a speed zone review for Possum Shoot Road,          Coorabell will not be undertaken at this time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

There are two items outstanding from the Local Traffic Committee report of their meeting held 18 November 2014 which require resolutions of Council.  Both are as follows.

 

 

1.       Library truck request to use bus zone, Rajah Road, Ocean Shores 

 

Committee were advised of the following and provided comments as noted.

 

The management of the mobile library truck has requested a more prominent position to park every Tuesday 10.15am-12.15pm as they are unseen in their current location behind the Community Centre.

 

The suggested new site is depicted, ie opposite the Community Centre and adjacent to the Ocean Shores Shopping Centre by utilising the existing indented bus bay.

 

However current length would not be able to provide for the library truck and the local bus operator which, as the diagram also depicts, would require a physical extension of approximately 14m long and 20sqm in total: 

 

·    Green box shows  bus – not able to leave the roadway

 

·    Red box is the 18m long, 2.46m wide library truck – takes most of the bay, leaving about 10m of bus bay from rear of truck  

 

·    Yellow box - the possible extension of the bay to make both the truck and bus fit

 

 

 

While the extension of the bus bay is a matter for Council, not the Committee, changing the signage to reduce the bus bay requires Committee endorsement.

 

 

Committee Comments

Subject to feedback from the bus operator/s, the Committee supported the proposal depicted, ie extend the bus bay to provide space for the library truck on the proviso signage retains the bus bay for such use and the library truck be accommodated under appropriate signage.

 

 

Management Comments

·    the operator has concurred with the works, subject to the bus bay being adequate in length and signed and dedicated for such use and that the area reserved for other uses be signed as such

·    the extension to the bus bay equates to approximately 20sqm of area to prepare and concrete, including kerb and gutter

·    such works are estimated to cost $11,000, which will be funded from current road / traffic works and facilities budgets, unless a funding source as related to library services can be identified 

·    alternatively Council may wish to support the request, yet seek RTRL to provide the funding required

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That to accommodate the request from the Richmond-Tweed Regional Library for a space to park the mobile library truck in Ocean Shores, Council:

 

          a)      notes the support of both the Local Traffic Committee and the local bus operator           (Blanchs/BVC);

 

          b)      notes it will require an extension of the existing bus bay on the east side of   Rajah Road, Ocean Shores as located directly at the frontage of the shopping    centre;

 

          c)      subject to the extension being approved and completed, sign the southern end,     for a length of no less than 18m, as “No Parking” and “Byron Shire Council        Authorised Vehicles Excepted” and sign the remaining length as a Bus Zone;     and 

 

          d)      notify library management that the mobile library truck is authorised to use the               space as signed.

 

 

3.   Request for speed zone review, Possum Shoot Road, Coorabell

 

After the Committee meeting, the RMS representative inspected Possum Shoot Road, as a resident request has been received that the speed limit be reduced to 50km/hr.  The speed limit is currently the state default (100km/hr) ‘Drive to Conditions’ typical for rural roads.  The resident advised reasons for a reduction are as follows: 

 

-     the current works being undertaken will improve the road in two straighter sections, but this is likely to result in drivers entering blind corners faster

 

-     there are no guard rails along the outer edge of the road and the drop off to the north is very steep

 

-     the road is narrow, such that when two large vehicles are passing, they need to slow down to pass safely

 

-     there are many corners, most of which are blind and sharp

 

-     the road is heavily used in mornings and evenings as a short cut for those living in the hinterland driving kids to school, or driving to work, or returning

 

-     in the afternoons, driving uphill frequently means driving into the setting sun, which restricts vision

 

-     there are children living along the road who walk along it to get the school bus and occasionally need to retrieve balls, etc

 

-     there are many obscured driveways, where cars need to slow down to enter or exit residences

 

-     Australia Post will not deliver to residences along the road as it is too dangerous

 

-     garbage trucks need to stop and empty bins on the road itself as there is no verge

 

-     it seems that higher use of the road is causing more slippage and subsidence, (three areas in three years).  Cracks and signs of subsidence is evident currently on other parts of the road.  Frequently Council does not have the resources to mow the edges, clear weeds repair potholes and empty drains.  When it rains this leaves gravel and debris on the road.  Many rural roads in our area have speed limits in the 50 to 60km/hr range.

 

-     Possum Shoot Road was not built for heavy usage

 

 

RMS is the sole authority to establish speed limits in NSW.  A change to speed limits requires a speed zone review to be conducted in accordance with RMS guidelines.  Following the onsite inspection, the RMS has since advised that such a review, or consideration of change in speed limit, will not be undertaken at this time.

 

Committee Comments

As this item was drafted and reported on post-meeting, the Committee have been provided copy of the report for comment and concurrence for the recommendation made. 

 

Management Comments

No comments have been received by the Committee in relation to this matter.

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes RMS advice that a speed zone review for Possum Shoot Road, Coorabell will not be undertaken at this time. 

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Council budget for traffic facilities and items related to LTC each year.  These existing budgets will be used for these items and work undertaken as resources and priority permit.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Nil

     


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services                                             14.1

 

 

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services

 

Report No. 14.1           Report of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 4 December 2014

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Phil Warner, Manager Assets and Major Projects

File No:                        I2015/9

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the recommendations from the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee meeting on 4 December 2014. 

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council note the minutes of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 4 December 2014. 

 

 

 

2.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 5.1   Draft Asset Management Policy

File No: I2014/174

 

Committee Recommendation 5.1.1

1.       That the draft Asset Management Policy, as amended, be placed on public exhibition. 

 

2.       That if no submissions are received on the ‘draft Asset Management Policy,’ at the end of the public exhibition period it be adopted. 

 

3.       That if submissions are received on the ‘draft Asset Management Policy’ they be reported back to Council.

 

 

3.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 5.2   Landslips - Update Report

File No: I2014/170

 

Committee Recommendation 5.2.1

1.       That Council notes the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee has noted the information provided in this report.

 

2.       That staff be thanked for having completed the land slip repair adjacent to the       Wilsons Creek Primary School.

 

 

4.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 5.3   Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures Part 1 – Roads Footpaths and Drainage

File No: I2014/171

 

Committee Recommendation 5.3.1

That Council endorse the Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures Part 1 Roads, Footpath and Drainage, including:

 

1.       The ability for Council to meet future service level obligations as identified within the Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure will be constrained by future budgets, which may result in the need for a further report to Council to address:

 

a)      reducing the level of service of programmed maintenance in order to undertake high and urgent risk priorities or;

 

b)      adjusting the risk rating formula so less defects are included in the high and urgent priority, and response times are increased or;

 

c)      increasing the future Local Roads and Drainage budget to permit Council to continue with the current Service Level program and address defects in the recommended time frame

 

2.       That the Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure is being undertaken in a staged approach, with each implementation stage to be reported to the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee for endorsement.

 

3.       That Council is supportive of a trial taking place for six months, with a report coming back to the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee providing the result of the trial.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Minutes CIAC Meeting 04/12/14, E2014/80877 , page 144  

2        Agenda CIAC Meeting 04/12/14, E2014/78730 (provided under separate cover)  

3        Draft Asset Management Policy, E2015/1375 , page 144  

 

 


 

Report

The attachment to this report provides the minutes of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting of 4 December 2014 for determination by Council.

 

Financial Implications

 

As per the Reports listed within the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting of 4 December 2014.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

As per the Reports listed within the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting of 4 December 2014.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services                                     14.1 - Attachment 1

Minutes of the Byron Shire Council Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday 4 December 2014

                                                                                                                                           E2014/80877

 

PRESENT:   Cr B Cameron, Cr D Dey, Cr A Hunter

 

Staff:            Phillip Holloway (Director Infrastructure Services)

                     Tony Nash (Manager Works)

                     Phil Warner (Manager Assets & Major Projects)

                     Kristian Penrose (Project Engineer)

                     Helen Waldron (Minute Taker)

 

Community: Andy Maclean

                     Chris Sanderson

 

 

Cr Cameron (Chair) opened the meeting at 11.05 am and acknowledged that the meeting was being held on Bundjalung Country.

 

 

APOLOGIES:  

 

There was an apology received from Leah Kapral.

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

 

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION

 

That the minutes of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on Friday, 6 June 2014 be confirmed.                                                                                                                               

 

Moved A Hunter

Seconded A Maclean

 

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

 

 

 

BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES

 

Item 5.1

Draft Asset Management Policy

 

Committee Recommendation CIAC 5.1

 

1.       That the draft Asset Management Policy, as amended, be placed on public exhibition. 

 

2.       That if no submissions are received on the ‘draft Asset Management Policy,’ at the         end of the public exhibition period it be adopted. 

 

3.       That if submissions are received on the ‘draft Asset Management Policy’ they be   reported back to Council.

 

 

Moved D Dey

Seconded A Hunter

 

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

 

 

 

Infrastructure SERVICES REPORTS

 

Report No. 5.2.

Landslips – Update Report

Report Author:           Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No:                        #E2014/76732

 

Committee Recommendation CIAC 4.1

 

1.       That Council notes the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee has noted the     information provided in this report.

 

2.       That staff be thanked for having completed the land slip repair adjacent to the Wilsons Creek Primary School.

 

Moved A Maclean

Seconded D Dey

 

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

 

 

Report No. 5.3.

Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures Part 1 – Roads Footpaths and Drainage

Report Author:           Kristian Penrose, Works Engineer

File No:                        #E2014/74153

 

 

Committee Recommendation CIAC 4.2

 

That Council endorse the Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures Part 1 Roads, Footpath and Drainage, including:

 

1.       The ability for Council to meet future service level obligations as identified within the    Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure will be constrained by
          future budgets, which may result in the need for a further report to Council to                           address:

 

          a)      reducing the level of service of programmed maintenance in order to                                           undertake high and urgent risk priorities or;

 

          b)      adjusting the risk rating formula so less defects are included in the high and                              urgent priority, and response times are increased or;

 

          c)      increasing the future Local Roads and Drainage budget to permit Council to                              continue with the current Service Level program and address defects in the                                        recommended time frame

 

2.       That the Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure is being undertaken

          in a staged approach, with each implementation stage to be reported to the Community           Infrastructure Advisory Committee for endorsement.

 

3.       That Council is supportive of a trial taking place for six months, with a report coming back to the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee providing the result of the trial.

 

 

Moved D Dey

Seconded B Cameron

 

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

 

 

 

There being no further business the meeting concluded at 12.35 pm.

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services                         14.1 - Attachment 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bsc_logo_150dpi_rgb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

 

POLICY XXXX (was 07/104)

 

 

 

ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services                                  14.1 - Attachment 3

INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
(INTERNAL USE ONLY)

 

Date Commenced

December 2007

Policy Responsibility

Asset Management Services

Date Adopted

13/12/07

Resolution No.

07-730

Review Timeframe

Every 3 Years

 

 

Last Review Date:

 

Next Scheduled Review Date

 

 

Document History

Doc No.

Date Amended

Details Comments eg Resolution No.

#720612

 

Adopted at Ordinary meeting 13/12/07

#2014/33229

(anticipated) August 2014

 

 

Further Document Information and Relationships

Related Legislation

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) – IP& R requirements

Related Policies

 

Related Procedures/ Protocols, Statements, documents

 

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.    POLICY STATEMENT................................................................................................................. 1

2.    PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................... 1

3.    OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................... 2

4.    POLICY IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................................................... 2

4.2      Asset Management Strategy................................................................................................. 3

4.3      Asset Management Plans..................................................................................................... 3

5.    ROLES AND RESPONSIBLITIES.............................................................................................. 4

4.1      Council and Advisory Committees........................................................................................ 4

4.3      The Asset Management Working Group (AMWG)............................................................... 5

6.    AUDIT AND REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 5

7.    TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS PLANNING FLOWCHART................................ 5

8.    DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................... 6

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services                                  14.1 - Attachment 3

Policy 07/104

 

POLICY TITLE

ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY

 

 

FILE REFERENCE

F1514

 

 

1.   POLICY STATEMENT

 

Infrastructure assets support the provision of services to the community.  Assets must be managed if desired levels of service are to be achieved and maintained.  Asset management has been identified at both a state and national level as crucial for local government being able to address the impact of aging infrastructure on service delivery and financial sustainability.

 

In 2009, the NSW Government amended the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) to introduce the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework in a bid to foster a strong and sustainable Local Government system.  The IP&R framework is composed of a suite of integrated processes and documents to streamline Local Government planning and reporting.  This suite includes:

 

·      A 10 year community strategic plan

·      A resourcing strategy (which includes an asset management strategy)

·      A 4 year delivery program

·      A 1 year operational plan

·      An annual report

 

 

Asset management is integral to the IP& R framework and Council must account for and plan for all of the existing assets under its ownership, and any new asset solutions proposed in its Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan.  The Council must prepare an Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plan/s to support the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Long Term Financial Plan.

 

Asset management is also integral to the NSW ‘Fit for the Future’ program, which requires “Community Assets to be well planned and maintained” as measured against infrastructure and service management benchmarks.

 

Asset management is a systematic process to guide the planning, operation, maintenance, acquisition, renewal, enhancement and disposal of assets.  Asset management aims to maximise asset service delivery potential and manage related risks and costs over the entire life of assets.

 

Council recognises that asset management investment in accordance with an adopted policy will optimize the use of resources on infrastructure assets that are important to the local community and are fundamental to Council’s overall service delivery.  Council will develop and maintain assets in the most cost effective manner, driven by defined service levels and performance standards.

 

2.   PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to set a framework and guide for the strategic management of Council’s infrastructure assets in a structured and coordinated way.

 


 

3.   OBJECTIVES

This policy guides Council’s commitment to create and maintain an asset management framework so that the following objectives are achieved:

 

a)     assets are managed strategically to maximise performance

 

b)     community engagement in the definition of levels of service and infrastructure priorities

c)     asset performance is measured against levels of service and reported to the community

 

d)     asset management improvement actions are identified, documented, monitored and reported to the community

 

e)     future funding needs are identified and allocated so that assets can meet their defined levels of service

 

 

4.   POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

 

Council also aims to meet the following asset management obligations:

 

a)     that IP&R requirements are addressed in accordance with the DLG Planning and Reporting Manual (2013)

b)     that Council’s asset management is independently assessed as compliant with that Manual

c)     that Council’s assets are accounted for in accordance with the requirements of appropriate asset accounting standards and reporting requirements, including re-valuations; and

d)     that other relevant legislation is adhered to, eg POEO Act (1997)

 

A lifecycle approach will be taken in the development of operational, maintenance, acquisition, renewal, enhancement and disposal investment strategies.  Risk will be considered in the development of asset strategies and the impact of natural disasters on infrastructure and services will be addressed.  Assets will be managed in accordance with recognised best practice, as detailed in the International Infrastructure Management Manual (2011) and ISO 55001 for asset management systems.  Core asset management capability will be achieved with progression to advanced asset management through a continuous cycle of review and improvement.

 

The Policy objectives will be achieved through the implementation of the actions associated with the following elements:

 

a) Asset Management System

 

b) Asset Management Strategy

 

c) Asset Management Plans for specific asset classes

 

d) Asset Management Information System

 

 

4.1  Asset Management System

 

Asset management outcomes are the result of the asset management system. Failure to develop the system and improve the system will result in deteriorating performance.

 

The key components in council’s asset management system include:

 

          a) Asset management software

          b) Asset registers

          c) Asset condition assessments

          d) Asset valuations

          e) Predictive modelling

          f) Deterioration modelling

          g Risk analysis

          h) Asset insurance

          i) Lifecycle costing

          i) Financial modelling

          k) Community evaluation

          l) Service level assessments

          m) Asset management strategy and plans

          n) Development servicing plans

          o)  Asset acquisition, renewal, enhancement and disposal programs

          p) Asset operation and maintenance programs

          q) Asset system audits

          r) Organisation and regulatory reporting

          s) Strategic planning capability

 

 

4.2  Asset Management Strategy

The IP &R legislation specifies that the Asset Management Strategy must include a council endorsed Asset Management Policy.  The Asset Management Strategy must identify assets that are critical to the council’s operations and outline risk management strategies for these assets.  The Asset Management Strategy must include specific actions required to improve council’s asset management capability and projected resource requirements and timeframes.

 

Council’s Asset Management Strategy will:

a) Link and integrate Council’s plan and resources, indicating which services are to be delivered through which assets;

b) Forecast future service delivery needs and the capacity of assets to meet those, on short, medium and long-term bases;

c) Provide a full overview of expenditure on new assets and the existing asset base;

d) Specify asset management procedures, systems, resources and training; and

e) Establish systems for asset performance measurement and to ensure theoretical system implementation is realised in practice.

 

Council has prepared an Asset Management Strategy (#1252114) included in the current CSP documentation. This Strategy should be updated as a priority action for the 2014/ 15 review of the CSP documentation.

 

4.3  Asset Management Plans

The IP &R legislation specifies that the Asset Management Plans must encompass all the assets under council’s control. The plans must identify service standards and contain long term projections of asset maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement costs.

Council’s individual Asset Management Plans will:

 

a)         Define levels of service within financial/resource/risk constraints;

b)         Present forecasts for acquisition, operation, maintenance and capital expenditure, and for revenue, where relevant;

c)         Specify the capital expenditure for renewing, upgrading or extending assets;

d)         Justify the contribution of each asset in terms of value for money for the Council; and

e)         Establish the targets and measures that will be used for monitoring progress with its    implementation.

 

Asset management plans will be reviewed and revised following the formal revaluation process for an asset class due to enhanced condition assessment data and financial data. There is a rolling cycle of 3 – 5 years for revaluations as prescribed by the Division of Local Government. In 2014/ 15 the revaluation for council’s roads is required. The updated asset management plans will in turn inform the review and update of the asset management strategy.

 

 

4.4  Asset Management Information System

 

Council has deployed the asset management module of the Authority enterprise system.

 

A plan for the improvement of asset management information system will be included in the asset management strategy.

 

The asset management (AM) module will be progressively integrated with other system modules in accordance with the following indicative timetable.

 

Specialist asset management software for functions such as field based asset condition assessment will be evaluated and deployed in accordance with the improvement plan.

 

 

System Module Integration

Deployment Target

Geographic Information System

Completed

Financial Management System

1 July 2014

Work Order Budgeting

2014/ 15 Financial Year

Authority 6.9 version

December 2014

Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

June 2015

Total Record Information Management (TRIM)

June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

5.   ROLES AND RESPONSIBLITIES

 

4.1  Council and Advisory Committees

This policy is enacted through Council, as the custodians of community assets, to demonstrate the organisation’s commitment to Council’s vision and strategic objectives through an integrated and resourced asset management framework which includes appropriate advisory committees.

 

4.2  Asset Management Resources

 

Council will resource the capability and capacity to lead asset management and maintain the core functions of an asset management system as detailed in this policy.

 

4.3  The Asset Management Working Group (AMWG)

"All council's, irrespective of size or location, need to ensure that the sustainable management of assets is a 'whole of council' responsibility, and that this is recognized at all levels within the council" (DLG Planning & Reporting Manual 2013).

 

The purpose of the Asset Management Working Group (AMWG) is to facilitate and coordinate asset management across the organisation.

 

The AMWG will implement, monitor and report on the delivery of actions articulated in the asset management strategy and asset management plans that are associated with this policy.

 

 

6.   AUDIT AND REVIEW

 

The implementation of this policy and the associated asset management framework will be subject to audit and review by council’s internal and external auditors.

 

This policy shall be reviewed every four years to ensure that it meets the requirements of legislation and the needs of Council.

 

 

7.   TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS PLANNING FLOWCHART

 

To be sourced from the International Infrastructure Management Manual 2011, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) which is currently being sourced.

 

 

Figure 1. The Corporate Asset Management Framework.

 

 

Reference:  International Infrastructure Management Manual 2011, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA).

 

 

8.   DEFINITIONS

 

Asset Management

Asset Management is the systematic and coordinated activities and practices through which an organisation optimally manages its physical assets, and their associated performance, risks and expenditures over their lifecycle for the purpose of achieving its organisational strategic plan.

Asset Management System

The Asset Management System encompasses all interrelated elements involved in the management of infrastructure assets.

 

Asset Management Strategy

The Asset Management Strategy demonstrates how support the Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program outcomes will be achieved through infrastructure assets and what improvement actions are required. 

 

Asset Management Plan

A plan developed for the management of one or more infrastructure assets that combines multi disciplinary management techniques (including technical and financial) over the lifecycle of the assets in the most cost effective manner to provide a specified level of service. A significant component of the plan is long-term cash flow projection for the activities (IPWEA, 2006).

 

Asset Management Information System

An Asset Management Information System is the foundation of all Asset Management Practices. It is a combination of processes, data and software applied to provide the essential outputs for effective asset management such as reduced risk and optimum infrastructure investment. The AM Information System links to other information systems within Council such as the Property System, Geographic Information System, Finance System and Document Management System integrating AM with the rest of Council’s operations.  

 

 

Asset

“A resource controlled by a council as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the council.” (DLG Manual 2013)

 

Infrastructure Asset

Infrastructure assets are typically large, interconnected networks or portfolios of composite assets, comprising components and sub-components that are usually renewed or replaced individually to continue to provide the required level of service from the network.  Some examples are: roads, footpaths and cycleways, water reticulation infrastructure, bridges and municipal buildings.

 

Asset Life Cycle

This is the period of ownership of an asset from the planning and design phase through to decommissioning or disposal.

 

Level of Service

Defining and meeting community expectations in relation to the quality and quantity of services delivered by Council.  In the context of asset management, this applies to assets such as roads, stormwater, water, sewer, buildings, parks, signs and other structures.

 

           



[i] Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relative4 or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

[ii] Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448 of that Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge).

[iii] A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest—see section 448 (g) (ii) of the Local Government Act 1993.

4 Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.