Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.1

Notices of Motion

Notice of Motion No. 9.1 North Byron Beach Resort Signage - Owner's Consent to Lodge Development Application

File No: I2015/841

I move that Ganra Pty Ltd., North Byron Beach Resort, be granted owner’s consent to lodge a development application to relocate and maintain a signage structure on Council owned land promoting their resort facilities at the corner of Bayshore Drive and Ewingsdale Road.

Attachments:

1 Plans and Concept Drawing of Signage, E2015/51717

2 Plan 2212-1 (2) Proposed Roundabout Intersection Ewingsdale Road and Bayshore Drive, E2015/53161

Councillor’s Background Notes:

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

This request complements EC1., the economic aim in the Delivery Plan contributing to a sustainable and diverse economy which provides innovative employment and investment opportunities in harmony with our ecological and social aims.

Providing the opportunity to reapply for signage at this position supports our aim for a sustainable tourism industry that promotes and respects our natural environment and community values, encouraging the development of a diverse range of arts and creative industries.

This signage is an important part of the applicant’s business and contributes significantly to the ease with which many patrons find access to the venue which hosts events like the writers festival when 10,000 patrons, many national and international visitors, attend the site over a 4 day period.

For these reasons it has a high priority relative to other delivery plan tasks, complementing delivery plan action number 25 broadening the economic base.

Definition of the project/task:

Granting the applicant the opportunity to lodge a development application to relocate a business signage structure on Council owned Land,

Source of Funds (if applicable):

No funding required from Council

Elements of Byron facility during writer’s festival 2015.

Signed: Cr Alan Hunter

Comments by Claire Campbell, Acting Leasing and Licensing Coordinator

Ganra Pty Ltd currently hold a lease with Byron Shire Council over a small portion of Council-owned Operational land (Lot 104 DP 119488). This area of land is leased for the purposes of placement of a large sign, visible to passing traffic on Ewingsdale Road, Byron Bay.

Ganra Pty Ltd currently pay $2,359.87 per annum, plus GST for this lease. The lease term commenced on 1 July 2011 and expires on 30 June 2016. The lease does not feature an option for renewal, but does contain holding over provisions.

In March 2015, Jeremy Holmes, Development Director, Ganra Pty Ltd requested:

· modification to the footprint area and orientation of the current sign under their lease agreement

· “Owners Consent” under the current lease to lodge a Development Application to replace the current sign with a new, larger sign

Ganra Pty Ltd were initially advised that a change to the current lease footprint would require:

· Council, as land owners, consent to lodge any consent applications

· A Market Rental Valuation to establish rental for proposed new lease area

· A Deed of Variation to amend the existing lease agreement

· relevant Council consents and approvals

Management Comments by Phillip Holloway, Director, Infrastructure Services

Consent to the proposed change in signage location and size was declined by Council and advised to Ganra Pty Ltd in June 2015.

Staff have met with representatives from Ganra Pty Ltd on two occasions in relation to the matter.

Council is the owner of land at the intersection of Ewingsdale Road (parcel number 240289, Lot 104, DP 119488) which was subject to the application for approval for a sign.

The applicant requested landowner’s consent from Council (Infrastructure Services) for the Development Application and it was not provided.

Councillors and staff attended a Bayshore Drive Stakeholder meeting on 13 May 2015 where the future planning for the Ewingsdale Road and Bayshore Drive intersection was discussed. Discussions included consideration of a roundabout, landscape treatments, signage and other works to improve the entrance aesthetics and amenity.

The basis of not providing land owner’s consent was based on the need to reduce encumbrances on this lot, as part of the lot is likely required for the upgrade of the existing intersection to a roundabout and to ensure that future site distance requirements for the intersection are not impeded.

Council is currently in the process of designing the intersection and a decision has been made not to enter into any new leases until such time the design is complete. (Attachment 2)

Part of the design is to also review the entrance treatment / landscaping signage to the estate, as discussed at the Bayshore Drive Stakeholders meeting. It is expected that the design and consultation of the intersection will be occurring over the next few months.

If the location of the sign was to be relocated a new or modified lease would be required for this purpose.

Council has also been receiving requests from other business operators within the Industrial Estate for the erection of signage to be placed in proximity of the Ewingsdale Road/Bayshore Drive intersection. These requests are also not being granted landowner’s consent to enable DAs to be considered, as the intention is to (a) reduce the proliferation of signage along this roadway as the main entrance to Byron Bay; (b) not to create precedents that will lead to further signage clutter; (c) not be placed in a position where Council prioritises some businesses signage over others; and (d) not hamper Council’s intentions to provide an attractive entrance to Byron Bay and the Industrial Estate and construct a major roundabout that is seen as a high priority by business operators within the Estate.

Accordingly, staff recommends that Council does not grant Owners Consent to Ganra Pty. Ltd. for the erection of promotional signage.

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

Clarification of project/task:

To provide landowner’s consent for the lodgement of a Development Application for a new sign at the intersection of Ewingsdale Road and Bayshore Drive.

Director responsible for task implementation:

Director Infrastructure Services

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

The erection of the sign may impede the site distance and landscape options for the proposed new roundabout at the intersection of Ewingsdale Road and Bayshore Drive.

Financial and Resource Implications:

Not Applicable

Legal and Policy Implications:

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Waiver of Road Closure Application Fees - Biggest Little Dinner

File No: I2015/843

I move that Council waive the application fees for street closure and Traffic Control Plan associated with the Biggest Little Dinner event organised by the Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce for 29 August 2015 and that the waiver is advertised as a s356 donation.

Councillor’s Background Notes:

Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce (MCC) is holding a Biggest Little Dinner event on Saturday 29 August incorporating a street party style dinner and entertainment. The purpose of the event is to support community by building relationships between business, community and various community groups.

MCC has been reestablished in recent years and has gained significant support within the business and general community under the banner of "building business and community".. Significantly, MCC has taken a broad approach to inclusion and membership includes a range of general community groups including the following.

• Creative Mullumbimby

• Spaghetti Circus

• SEED (Mullumbimby Community Gardens)

• Brunswick Valley Historical Society

• Keep it Local

Working with these groups and others including Council, MCC has supported and led a number of community events and projects such as the following.

• Big Picture Show in conjunction with Creative Mullumbimby to involve community in developing a Master Plan.

• Mullumbimby Sculpture Walk

• History Trail

• Carols by candlelight

• Living Earth Festival and street parade

• Supporting Mullumbimby Circus Festival

• Wi Fi access project

MCC also participate in the Business Roundtable and will provide volunteers for a joint beautify Mullumbimby project as well as work with Council's economic development staff on tourism management issues.

Council and community benefit greatly from MCC activities and waving the application fees for road closures associated with the Biggest Little Dinner event can be supported with confidence.

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

High

Definition of the project/task:

Waive application fees for road closure and traffic control plan for Biggest Little Dinner event on 29 August 2015. Advertise as s356 donation.

Signed: Cr Basil Cameron

Management Comments by <<enter Firstname Lastname>>, <<enter title>>:

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

Clarification of project/task:

To provide a refund of Road Closure Application and Traffic Control Plan costs for the Biggest Little Dinner in Mullumbimby to be held on 29 August 2015

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 16 July resolved as follows with regard to the Road Closure Application:

Report No. 8.1 - LTC Late Item - Road Closure Burringbar Street, Mullumbimby 29 August 2015

File No: I2015/714

15-342 Resolved:

1. That the Local Traffic Committee acceptance of the following be noted.

2. That the road closure of Burringbar Street, Mullumbimby between Station Street and Dalley Street, be endorsed and implemented from 3pm onwards on Saturday 29 August 2015 and up to 2am Sunday 30 August 2015 for the purpose of the Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce event ‘Biggest Little Banquet’ as to be held 29 August 6pm-11pm.

3. That the organisers be responsible for implementing an approved Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation and be advised Council’s road event application fee will apply.

4. That the public liability and insurance cover held by the proponent “notes the interests of Byron Shire Council” and be in place for the sum of at least $20 million with a copy be provided to Council prior to the event.

5. That the concurrence of the NSW Police be sought by the organisers, independent of the Local Traffic Committee endorsement.

6. That Council arrange advertising in accordance with the Roads Act charged at cost to the organisers.

7. That the event be notified on Council's website.

As advised in Council’s report at this meeting regarding “Assistance for Festivals and Community Events”, Council is no longer providing the implementation of the road closure.

A refund of $350 for Council’s Road Closure Application Fee which includes advertising can be granted from Council’s Budget 2341.16 under Council’s Policy Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions and advertised as a Section 356 Donation.

The Traffic Control Plan is lodged with the Road Closure Application. Costs for preparation of the Traffic Control Plan and implementation of same are the responsibility of the organisers and are not considered under this Policy.

Director responsible for task implementation:

Director Corporate and Community Services

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

Council is considering a report at this Ordinary meeting with regard to Policy Section 356 Donations - Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions which provides assistance with road closure costs.

Financial and Resource Implications:

If the recommendation in the report Assistance for Festivals and Community Function is adopted by Council there will be $4,800 available to assist community groups with Council’s road closure application fees in Budget 2341.16 for 2015/2016.

Legal and Policy Implications:

Council Policy Assistance with Festival and Community Functions http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/policies

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Petitions 10.2

Petition No. 10.2 Petition to reject expansion of paid parking and public paid parking form request

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Planner

Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No: I2015/782

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 16 July 2015 the Mayor Cr Simon Richardson tabled an online petition and comments containing 1013 signatures and a “Notice to Request” which states:

On-line petition: “We hereby request Byron Shire Council to reject expansion of paid parking in Byron Bay for any legal resident or ratepayer of Byron Shire.”

Notice to Request: “We the undersigned do hereby request a free public forum to be held in Byron Bay on Council's plans for expansion of paid parking.

We do so on behalf of ourselves, other interested parties and the more than 1,000 signatories of the Change.org petition "Reject Expansion of Paid Parking in Byron Bay for any Legal Residents or Ratepayers of Byron Shire".

Herewith are included a list of the signatories of said petition and a full copy of the comments entered by them.

It is requested that said forum allow sufficient time for inclusion of presentations from community groups as well as questions to Council from the gallery.

In this regard, Council is requested to provide at said forum the following information:

· Full disclosure of Council's plans for paid parking in Byron Bay.

· Options for improving parking amenity in Byron Bay with additional free parking spaces.

· How Council can raise additional revenue without invoking an expansion of paid parking in Byron Bay.

· How any parking plan can function to increase compliancy rather than parking infringements.

We respectfully request you respond to this Notice of Request in writing to the

address below within 14 days.”

Signed: Jason Lasky, Helen Burns, Gary Chigwidden and Paul Jones

Comments from Director Infrastructure Services:

Since receiving the petition Council have held two extraordinary meetings on 30 July 2015 and 13 August 2015 at which pay parking has been confirmed and will now proceed as detailed in those and prior reports.

The reports are available on Council’s website including those published in the Agenda and Minutes as associated with meetings held:-

- 22 May 2014;

- 11 December 2014;
- 21 May 2015;

- 30 July 2015; and

- 13 August 2015.

Further reports and consultation with the community will proceed on the basis of the 13 August 2015 resolution (15-378) reproduced as follows and the map (as used for newspaper advertising week of 17-21 August) as copied overleaf:

15-378 Resolved:

1. That Council confirm its intention to introduce a system of paid parking to the Byron Town Centre during the 2015/16 financial year as outlined in resolution 15-235 and that this system is based upon a pay by number plate approach.

2. That Council set a yearly Shire Resident or Ratepayer exemption fee of $50 per annum for fee paying coupon recipients, a non Shire resident worker/volunteer exemption fee of $100 per annum and receive a report on establishing the costs, benefits and other criteria of pay parking exemptions including that:

a) for an annual fee an exemption is provided for two categories of end user, one being a shire resident/ratepayer and the second being for a business operator, or an employee of one, located within the pay parking area and appropriate form of proof of residence/employment status requirements.

b) the exemption benefit is for 12-months from date of purchase, can be transferred to another vehicle if needed and not based on date or jurisdiction of registration;

c) investigate implications of payment options for both residents and non Shire workers/volunteers, including an annual fee as a single fixed amount, or providing an option of periodic payments;

d) no refunds be provided for or towards cost of exemptions except that those wishing to upgrade their fully paid exemption be provided credit of their unused amount, calculated at a daily pro-rate rate, toward such upgrade;

e) considering businesses with multiple vehicles.

3. That Butler Street Reserve:

a) Be made available as an all day car park, operating 6am to 6pm daily with an hourly rate of $3.00 per hour, up to a maximum of $20 all day, with the Shire Resident or Ratepayer and non Shire resident worker/volunteer exemption applying

b) Be considered for continued use as a markets site.

4. That, to provide incentive to park outside the town centre, Clarkes Beach carpark, Jonson Street (south of Kingsley Street) and on-street, east of Middleton, operate as all day carparks with an hourly rate of $3.00 per hour, up to a maximum of $20 all day, with the Shire Resident or Ratepayer and non Shire worker/volunteer exemption applying, and operating hours of 9am to 6pm.

5. That 4P areas have an hourly rate of $3.00 per hour with a maximum of $10 and 1P and 2P areas have an hourly rate at $3.00.

6. That after 6 months an evaluation report be brought to Council including impacts on residents and businesses including Butler Street Markets.

Figure 1: Pay Parking Area – as per map used in newspaper advertising 17-21 August 2015

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the petition regarding paid parking and forum request be noted.

2. That the petition be referred to the Director Infrastructure Services.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Delegates' Reports 12.1

Delegates' Reports

Delegate's Report No. 12.1 Bonn Report

File No: I2015/809

I would like to thank Byron Shire Council for its’ support in assisting me to accept the invitation to attend and present at the technical expert meeting on energy efficiency in urban environments 5 – 6 June 2015 in Bonn, Germany, as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change preparation for the Paris Climate Change negotiations.

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Screen Shot 2015-07-21 at 5.24.12 pm.png

The purpose of this meeting was to examine the opportunities for accelerating energy efficiency action in urban environments. I had the opportunity to present and participate as a panel member on two forums, both of which were to promote the emission reduction initiatives within Byron Shire, including Council’s resolution to support the goal to become Australia’s first zero net emission community by 2015.

Following are some observations from my experience; these are my observations gleaned from conversations with attendees (ranging from the head of the Australian delegation team, to activists), my own knowledge and understanding and that gained from information shared on panels, forums, events and workshops.

Language

There were two terms that were ‘terms du jour’- Leapfrogging and Co-benefit

Leapfrogging was generally used to mean jumping over the current or new technology or measures and onto one further ahead. It showed just how quickly the technology and opportunities are flowing. The speed of change was palpable and the desire to keep apace was illustrated everywhere. With everyone seeking accelerated progress, leapfrogging say from just promoting double-glazing to requiring whole building sustainability was where conversation and action sat. Another example is the regular use of term of leapfrogging a business or nation’s current emission target due for 2020, to one far more ambitious due to current results above projections.

Co-benefit simply means as it suggests: value adding, or extra benefits. It was used all the time when discussing benefits of a carbon emission reduction measure and yet, clearly seemed a relatively new focus as many commented on needing to talk in terms of co-benefits, suggesting previously the negotiation narrative was mainly only about emission reduction for environmental reasons alone. For example, not just advocating the emission benefits of public transport, it was constantly couched with health benefits, decreases in car accident deaths, economic benefits etc. A government representative from Ethiopia gave a great presentation. He outlined that for his country the narrative was reversed. For Ethiopia, it was about economic, health and social improvements that had a co-benefit of carbon emission reduction. They are looking to double the size of their economy in 20 years, with the goal of no increase in carbon emission- staggering! One point of contention though is that they are heavily reliant on hydro schemes that could have huge implications for nations downstream. Begun in 2011, they are tracking well.

Technology

Carbon Sequestration. Long considered by the Australian government as the great elixer for Australia’s problems, carbon sequestration seems to have very little currency here. It is considered an idea with little application. Apparently Canada is moving in this direction, however, carbon sequestration requires very specific preconditions. It requires extremely stable underground conditions, highly advanced knowledge of the geological process and realities beneath the ground and is only economically viable on a large scale. With so many options and actions that can create real change and carbon reduction, to say it is on the periphery of global technological options or prioritisation is to give it too much weight.

Solar Thermal and other options

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:11390090_10153445699323793_692078836606658983_n.jpg

This is where the global attention lays. Examples from across the world were shared consistently. However, smaller scale, self-contained energy creation was also highly valued. Turning a building into a power station, with solar and batteries fuelling the house and car was seen as the logical progression.

Actors- State (National Governments)

The mood was quite optimistic, mainly because of the US/China declaration a few months ago has completely changed the game and added to that, a recent decision by the Canadian government to pay its share into a global environmental fund- left Australia alone in refusing to do so- though we have now agreed or are about to agree to pay into this fund now also. These two acts have seriously isolated Australia to the point that we will most likely go along with the momentum rather than resist. During the conference, national delegations spent all their time fine-tuning a document that can be tabled at Paris for global approval. It was a long and arduous process, with only 5% of the draft document having been worked through after 5 days. During this process, each nation had 30 minutes to outline their efforts at emission reduction and their overall view of the working draft and any specific ideas to improve it. The floor was then open to all other nations to ask the subject nation questions. Australia received the most questions; mainly accusatory in nature.

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:1908094_10153445699153793_547838948022283039_n.jpg

The Copenhagen conference was viewed to have failed for two main reasons- there was not a document ready for approval and thus too much work was required at Copenhagen in too short a time to produce something that could be agreed upon, and secondly, the main actors- China, the US (and Australia and Canada) deliberately attended Copenhagen to destroy chances of agreement. Thus, work was being done in Bonn and elsewhere between now and the Paris Conference to have a document ready. This combined with a new readiness by the US and China to sign a deal makes it far more likely and the mood very optimistic amongst negotiators.

Actors- Non-state (local governments, businesses, NGO’s etc)

Bottom up actions have created great optimism and Copenhagen seems a long way in the past.

City/Regions

Regions and cities are greatly driving the renewable energy and emission reduction sectors. For example, electric vehicles are exploding in their take up by cities and regions- the Spanish region of Catalonia alone now has over 1000 recharge stations. The global group, ‘the Council of Mayors’ has a target of 20% emissions reductions, though many have more and 30% is now the norm. In fact, though the European Union has a target of a 20% reduction, it is currently tracking at 25% due to business and cities and regions exceeding previous estimates. Regardless of what their national governments are doing or not doing, cities, states and regions are moving at breakneck speed and the force is irresistible and irreversible.

Business

A great forum was facilitated by the CDP-We Mean Business- Coalition (270 multi-national companies, each at least a billion dollar company: http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org). The new narrative that is gaining force is that climate action is a historic opportunity for business within the boundaries of natural systems, rather than a sacrifice. The forum proposed the need to acknowledge and value the notion of ‘ambition’; a need to move action within a framework of ambition. Action alone will not get us there; ambition is crucial to direct and focus the actions. Across all events and forums it was consistently advocated by business groups that business needs certainty to facilitate innovation and technology and needed to know governments are in it for the long term, with periodic progress towards achieving ambition. Business sees carbon pricing as the crucial key for this; there is no better way to create certainty than installing carbon pricing. And this will spur the real economy into action, bearing in mind that though the current governmental emission mitigation funding runs into billions, the real economy works in trillions not billions. Thus, we need to create the certainty to make these trillions flow into low carbon economic development. It is worth noting that whilst I was in Bonn, BHP called for the Australian government to put a price on carbon.

It was outlined that one of the main drivers for business climate change action is a fear of climate change risk-especially in food and agriculture sectors etc. Another is fear of brand risk; this is also huge, as companies don’t want to lose customers due to their poor action or negative inaction.

Policies

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:11401065_10153445699303793_8621626806498304769_n.jpg

Policies are now well known-it is all about implementation. The concept of zero emission is now mainstream and it was great to sit within the zero emission cohort. Again, during the conference and after slamming Australia for its reticence, Kofi Annan espoused the need for a zero net emission target. Also, Zero Carbon Britain, a framework to achieve the goal was shared and will be launched in a few months. Zero Emissions is now a globally accepted goal and necessity in order to achieve acceptable global warming levels.

The Australians

Speaking to one of the Australian negotiators, he is excited about getting a decent outcome at Paris, as Australia will not have the other big carbon heavyweights of Canada and the US to hide behind and thus resist negotiation outcomes. This in turn, could lead to a massive economic emphasis back here for emission mitigation support.

It can’t come soon enough. Australia was somewhere between a derided state actor and an outright pariah here- thank goodness it wasn’t a sporting event with everyone wearing their nations tracksuits, here, out of uniform at least Australians were anonymous! Though Australian chain draggers say we are only a tiny nation etc, in Bonn, Australia was considered a significant and important nation. At many discussions, in charts and during events Australian inaction was derided and noted and all had knowledge of our government’s stance. This was one reason I believe that Byron’s actions were so roundly supported- it seemed clear that ‘good news stories’ or positive case studies coming from Australia were extremely rare- to be generous. The world looks at us in puzzlement; they struggle to understand why we would be turning our backs on an economical re-boot the likes of which would never happen again. They see our wealth. They see our land, geographical and favourable renewable energy conditions. They see our expertise (as many Australians are leaders across the world in renewable technology) and they cannot understand why we are not driving the train, but instead, are standing on the platform deciding whether to buy a ticket to ride in the cheap seats.

The Australian negotiators were a committed bunch who I gleaned were itching to be able to negotiate in good faith and with clear direction to join the sign up on the process and not hijack or try and destroy it. One delegate in particular was extremely keen to support our initiatives an she wrote a letter to Environment Minister Greg Hunts department informing them of our work.

Final Observation: We’re all in this together

It was striking to observe the many types of organisations present in Bonn, the many areas of focus for emission reduction shared and the many different outcomes sought. However, though there was great diversity throughout the rooms and corridors of the conference centre, there was a central focus- establishing a framework for the future sustainability of the planet. The notion that we are all in this together was palpable throughout the conference; which was a main reason for the similarly palpable frustration about Japan’s, Canada’s and Australia’s recalcitrance at joining the vast majority of countries in committing to a significant emission reduction target.

It reminded me of Byron Shire. Beneath my email signature there is a notion-Byron Shire: many communities, one future. The microcosm within the Bonn conference took on many of the current components we see here in Byron Shire. Like in Byron Shire, the Bonn conference showed:

1. Political leaders and major stakeholders were working towards setting a long-term strategic document to set a course to achieve a sustainable future for the global community.

2. Experts, focused organisations were tackling the details, the components and the examples that are needed to achieve the overall sustainable goals. Whilst the political leaders hammered out long term strategy, the expert practitioners showed how it could be done, how it was being done and successes already achieved.

3. Activists moved in, around and between the political and expert practioners to: tell the emperor they wore no clothes, provide support for smaller initiatives, advocate for change, tug heart strings of decision makers, provide moral and to community support for bold initiatives that can achieve outcomes that will support measures to achieve sustainability. They shone the light of truth on decision makers and ensured that the future of the planet, and its future inhabitants, both human and non-human were what it is all about.

Where to from here?

The overall direction, headed up by the nation state negotiators and political leaders, will most likely be focused around achieving a global warming level of 2% or lower. There are some players who are intent on minimizing the scope of the document, and Australia is one such player. However, with the US and China recently committing to large emission reduction targets and with the developing world embracing massive reductions, Australia will most likely sign on the dotted line with everyone else if a declaration is created. The Australian negotiators I spoke with all believe we will sign up ‘to something, if something is tabled’, with the emerging lack of friends to hide behind the articulated reason. Of course, the caveat to that prediction is our PM, who, seen in recent deplorable anti- renewable comments, seems as globally responsible as Kim Jong-un of North Korea and as economically astute as Ronald Wayne, cofounder of Apple who sold his share for $800.

From Bonn to Byron

Aside from the positive promotion of Byron to organisations and people from around the world, other benefits may flow from the trip. Already, Byron and its’ aspiration have featured in newsletters, (http://track0.org/2015/07/read-track-0s-may-june-newsletter-here/ …), radio coverage and Australian industry attention. However, the benefits may be realised later. By becoming known to the Commonwealth government, Byron is beautifully positioned to gain from the commitment Australia signs up to at the Paris conference. With the ALP signaling an intent to vastly increase our renewable energy output, the Libs will no doubt increase its commitment. Any increase in emission reduction target will ensure more funding and investment in renewables occurs. With the Department of Environment aware of our willingness and ability to be a case study for large scale, community wide renewable projects, we can be at the front of the line when projects are funded and supported.

Speech

With a last minute change to shrink speeches from 5 minutes to three, below is my speech given at the accelerating implementation of scalable, replicable and transformative actions in urban environments session, focusing on Energy Efficient Buildings  :

Good Morning Everyone

Everyone here who has committed themselves for many years to providing a technical way forward- providing the science, the data the road maps to get us into a honourable and sustainable future knows all to well that the head alone simply isn’t enough

-the head of scientific fact

-needs a heart of community and business engagement

-and it needs the collective will from community, business and government leadership.

In Australia, Byron Shire has undertaken to try and unite the head of need with the heart of want with the will of action

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Bonn:Screen Shot 2015-06-01 at 5.20.22 pm.png The science is clear. All our scientific understanding points to need for zero net emissions urgently,

Byron Shire has acknowledged this and has committed itself to pursuing the goal to become Australia’s first zero net community-within 10 years.

Using the roadmaps developed by Zero Carbon Australia, Byron shall undertake, alongside partner Beyond Zero Emissions to develop a local roadmap to transform its footprints in the areas of Energy, Waste, Transport, Land Use and Buildings.

A key element within the project will be increased energy efficiency in the urban environment, particularly in buildings. The project will draw from the strategies of BZE’s Energy Freedom initiative, that incorporates 9 actions to move buildings from energy users to energy producers

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Screen Shot 2015-07-23 at 3.15.26 pm.png

The process involves identifying and assessing building stock, assessing emission reduction opportunities in each building type and forming partnerships

This will be in conjunction with the work already occurring within the shire and region

Using the BZE template, we will build on and collaborate with expert and nationally significant actions of local organisations that include:

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Screen Shot 2015-07-23 at 3.15.53 pm.png Sustain Northern Rivers (SNR)– formed in 2008, SNR is a collaboration of 26 peak regional organisations working together for sustainability. It has four working groups across the themes of Food, Transport, Biodiversity and Energy.

COREM (Community Owned Renewable Energy Mullumbimby) which seeks to establish large scale solar systems working under a cooperative funding model for the town of Mullumbimby to become a 100% renewable town

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Bonn:Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 10.10.06 am.png ENOVA, launching In July, after previously obtaining Governmental support for a business plan, will be Australia’s first community-owned renewable energy retailer.

It seeks to break the current energy monopoly in Australia- as today only three large energy companies dominate the retail spaces-who are all involved with the unpopular and unsustainable CSG industry.

Backed by their large fossil fuel generation, they account for a third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and have overseen a doubling of prices over the past 5 years.

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Bonn:Australian_Renewable_Energy_Agency_logo.jpg And finally, Byron Shire Council has initiated and gained support for an Australian first- developing a Virtual Net Metering trial.

It has already received State government funding and a Federal agency will be publicising that they are on board with financial support in the next few weeks- including supporting an expanded trial with other councils across Australia.

Within the energy and building sectors, Byron is very aware that the current market structure was not designed for local energy. Byron is aiming to work in collaboration with other councils, network businesses, and electricity retailers to trial alternative market structures to allow reduced charges for partial use of network and incentivise local generation and use. Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Bonn:Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 9.30.38 am.png For Council, it will begin by using the excess energy produced on our sports centre roof to offset the energy required by our nearby Sewerage Treatment Plant.

This can all occur, because as I said earlier, in Byron we have a community heart that doesn’t just accept the science of climate change, but insists in being part of the solution to it.

Macintosh HD:Users:simonrichardson:Desktop:Bonn:Unknown.jpeg It is a mindset and collective pulse that propels us. And the aspiration to become Australia’s first zero net community is one we relish.

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.1

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 13.1 Budget Review - 1 April 2015 to 30 June 2015

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2015/823

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report is prepared in accordance with the format required by Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to inform Council and the Community of Council’s estimated financial position for the 2014/2015 financial year, reviewed as at 30 June 2015.

The Quarterly Budget Review for the June 2015 Quarter has been prepared by staff even though it is not statutory requirement to assist Council with its Policy and decision making on matters that could have short, medium and long term implications on Councils financial sustainability.

This report contains an overview of the proposed budget variations for the General Fund, Water Fund and Sewerage Fund. The specific details of these proposed variations are included in attachments 1 and 2 for Council’s consideration and authorisation.

Attachment 3 contains the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) as outlined by the Division of Local Government in Circular 10-32.

The report also provides an indication of the financial position of the Council at 30 June 2015. It should be noted that the figures provided are subject to completion and audit of the Council’s Financial Statements for 2014/2015. Any major variances to the estimated financial position for the 2014/2015 financial year will be included as part of the report adopting the financial statements during October 2015.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That That Council authorises the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2015/52657) which includes the following results in the 30 June 2015 Quarterly Review of the 2014/2015 Budget:

a) General Fund - $0 increase in accumulated surplus/working funds

b) General Fund - $11,502,900 increase in reserves

c) Water Fund - $2,601,000 increase in reserves.

d) Sewerage Fund - $2,807,700 increase in reserves

2. That That Council adopt the revised estimated General Fund Accumulated Surplus/ (Working Funds) surplus of $1,957,550 for the 2014/2015 financial year as at 30 June 2015.

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for the General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2015/52656

2 Itemised Listing of Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2015/52657

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) required Quarterly Review Statement, E2015/52658

Report

Council adopted the 2014/2015 budget on 12 June 2014 via Resolution 14-285. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2013/2014 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2014/2015 budget, at its Ordinary Meeting held 28 August 2014 via Resolution 14-389. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2013/2014 Financial Statement results and progress through the first three quarters of the 2014/2015 financial year. This report considers the June 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

The details of the budget review for the Consolidated, General, Water and Sewer Funds are included in Attachment 1, with an itemised listing in Attachment 2. This aims to show the consolidated budget position of Council, as well as a breakdown by Fund and Principal Activity. The document in Attachment 1 is also effectively a publication outlining a review of the budget and is intended to provide Councillors with more detailed information to assist with decision making regarding Council’s finances.

Contained in the document at attachment 1 is the following reporting hierarchy:

Consolidated Budget Cash Result

General Fund Cash Result Water Fund Cash Result Sewer Cash Result

Principal Activity Principal Activity Principal Activity

Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital income Capital Expenditure

The pages within Attachment 1 are presented (from left to right) by showing the original budget as adopted by Council on 12 June 2014 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2013/2014 followed by the resolutions between July and September, the September review, resolutions between October and December, the December review, resolutions between January and March, the March review, resolutions between April and June and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2015.

On the far right of the Principal, there is a column titled “Note”. If this is populated by a number, it means that there has been an adjustment in the quarterly review. This number then corresponds to the notes at the end of Attachment 1 which provides an explanation of the variation.

There is also information detailing restricted assets (reserves) to show Councils estimated balances as at 30 June 2015 for all Council’s reserves.

A summary of Capital Works is also included by Fund and Principal Activity.

Division of Local Government Budget Review Guidelines:-

The Division of Local Government on 10 December 2010 issued the new Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines via Circular 10-32, with the reporting requirements to apply from 1 July 2011. This report includes a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (refer Attachment 3) prepared by Council in accordance with the guidelines.

The Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines set a minimum standard of disclosure, with these standards being included in the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting as mandatory requirements for Council’s to address.

Since the introduction of the new planning and reporting framework for NSW Local Government, it is now a requirement for Councils to provide the following components when submitting a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS):-

· A signed statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer on Councils financial position at the end of the year based on the information in the QBRS

· Budget review income and expenses statement in one of the following formats:

o Consolidated

o By fund (e.g General, Water, Sewer)

o By function, activity, program etc to align with the management plan/operational plan

· Budget Review Capital Budget

· Budget Review Cash and Investments Position

· Budget Review Key performance indicators

· Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses

The above components are included in Annexure 5(c):-

Income and Expenditure Budget Review Statement by Type – This shows Councils income and Expenditure by type. This has been split by Fund. Adjustments are shown, looking from left to right.

Capital Budget Review Statement – This statement identifies in summary Council’s capital works program on a consolidated basis and then split by Fund. It also identifies how the capital works program is funded.

Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement – This statement reconciles Council’s restricted funds (reserves) against available cash and investments. Council has attempted to indicate an actual position as at 30 June 2015 of each reserve to show a total cash position of reserves with any difference between that position and total cash and investments held as available cash and investments. It should be recognised that the figure is at a point in time and may vary in future quarterly reviews pending on cash flow movements.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – Council is currently developing a series of KPI’s to be built into the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP currently under review). At this stage, the KPI’s within in this report are:-

o Debt Service Ratio - This assesses the impact of loan principal and interest repayments on the discretionary revenue of Council.

o Rates and Annual Charges Outstanding Ratio – This assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on Councils liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts.

o Asset Renewals Ratio – This assesses the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating.

These may be expanded in future to accommodate any additional KPIs that Council may adopt to use in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP.)

Contracts and Other Expenses - This report highlights any contracts Council entered into during the April to June quarter that are greater then $50,000.

CONSOLIDATED RESULT

The following table provides a summary of the overall Council budget on a consolidated basis inclusive of all Funds budget movements for the 2014/2015 financial year projected to 30 June 2015.

2014/2015 Budget Review Statement as at 30 June 2015	Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2014	Adjustments to June 2015 including Resolutions*	Proposed June 2015 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2015
Operating Revenue	76,364,300	5,087,200	185,400	81,636,900
Operating Expenditure	84,894,350	4,501,500	(5,539,100)	83,856,750
Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(8,530,050)	585,700	5,724,500	(2,219,850)
Add: Capital Revenue	3,972,700	1,157,900	1,458,200	6,588,800
Change in Net Assets	(4,557,350)	1,743,600	7,182,700	4,368,950
Add: Non Cash Expenses	15,890,000	0	0	15,890,000
Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	1,800,000	(1,330,000)	0	470,000
Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(21,188,100)	(3,026,400)	9,728,900	(14,485,600)
Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(8,055,450)	(2,612,800)	16,911,600	6,243,350
Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(8,072,300)	(2,613,800)	16,911,600	6,225,500
Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Working Funds	16,850	1,000	0	17,850

As the table above highlights, the forecast result for the year has not changed during the review period including Council resolutions. Results by General, Water and Sewerage Fund are provided below:

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) the following table provides a reconciliation to the estimated position as at 30 June 2015:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2014	$1,939,700
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	16,850
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	0
September Review Adjustments – increase/(decrease)	0
Council Resolutions October – December Quarter	0
December Review Adjustments – increase/(decrease)	0
Council Resolutions January – March Quarter	0
Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)	1,000
Council Resolutions April – June Quarter	0
Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)	0
Forecast Working Funds Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2015	17,850
Estimated Working Funds Closing Balance – 30 June 2015	1,957,550

Council Resolutions

There were no Council resolutions during the April 2015 to June 2015 quarter that impacted the 2014/2015 budget result.

Budget Adjustments

A summary of the budget adjustments identified in Attachment 1 and 2 for the General Fund has been summarised by Budget Directorate in the following table:

Budget Directorate	Revenue Increase/ (Decrease) $	Expenditure Increase/ (Decrease) $	Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) Increase/ (Decrease) $
General Managers Office	(95,800)	(109,500)	13,700
Organisationl Development	(10,700)	(81,800)	71,100
Corporate & Community Services	(846,500)	(344,900)	(501,600)
Infrastructure Services	(1,671,400)	(1,938,900)	267,500
Sustainable Environment & Economy	774,200	624,900	149,300
Total Budget Movements	(1,850,200)	(1,850,200)	0

Budget Adjustment Comments

Within each of the Directorates of the General Fund, are a series of proposed budget adjustments identified in detail at attachments 1 and 2. More detailed notes on these are provided in Attachment 1, but in summary the major items included are summarised below by Directorate and are included in the overall budget result presented in the budget adjustments table above with the majority of budget revotes proposed to reflect actual results achieved:

The major consideration with this budget review is the reduction in expenditure associated with projects not completed and savings. Council will also be considering a report to this same Ordinary Council Meeting regarding carryover items from the 2014/2015 financial year not completed to be added to the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates. This report also considers the implications of that report.

As a consequence of these revisions, there is a significant proposed increase to Council’s restricted funds given the cash position overall for the financial year ended 30 June 2015 increased significantly compared to the anticipated reduction in cash expected. Council was expecting to see a reduction of $10.667million in its cash position for the 2014/2015 financial year, however current indications are is that the June 2015 Quarter Budget Review is requiring a $16.911 million transfer back to reserve funds for the following reasons:

1. Uncompleted works and services of $14.151million subject of a separate report titled ‘Carryovers for inclusion in the 2015/16 Budget’.

2. Additional revenues received especially from Development and Certification activities of $345,600 compared to budget.

3. Additional investment interest due to more cash being invested even in an extremely low interest rate environment being $96,700 greater then the estimated budget.

4. Additional developer contributions received compared to the budget estimates

5. Expenditure savings in legal expenses of $124,700 compared to budgeted expenditure.

6. Continued improved financial performance of the Cavanbah Sports Centre where revenue has exceeded budget by $42,300.

7. Savings in employee costs associated with staff vacancies and organisation restructure implementation in Organisation Development $81,800 and Infrastructure Services Administration and Supervision $329,600.

8. Additional revenue generated by Council’s two holiday parks that have exceeded budget by $445,500. Total revenue generated by both First Sun Holiday Park and Suffolk Beachfront Holiday Park for the financial year ended 30 June 2015 is $3.939million.

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2013/2014 Financial Statements the Accumulated Surplus (Working Fund) balance for the Water Fund, as at 30 June 2014, is $1,958,400 with capital works reserves of $2,500,200. It also held $9,988,200 in section 64 developer contributions at that time.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2015 are derived as follows:

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2014	$2,500,200
Plus original budget reserve movement	(246,300)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2013/2014	(305,800)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(121,200)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	50,500
Resolutions January to March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(283,500)
Resolutions April to June Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(820,000)
June Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,773,100
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2014/2015 – Increase / (Decrease)	$46,800
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2015	$2,547,000

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2014	$9,988,200
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,230,700)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2013/2014	(280,400)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,512,400
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions April – June Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
June Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	827,900
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2014/2015 – Increase / (Decrease)	$829,200
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2015	$10,817,400

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1, with a proposed estimated increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $2,601,000 from this review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2013/2014 Financial Statements the Accumulated Surplus (Working Fund) balance for the Sewer Fund, as at 30 June 2014, was $1,791,900 with capital works reserves of $3,569,600 and plant reserve of $792,000. It also held $4,939,400 in section 64 developer contributions.

The estimated Sewerage Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2015 are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2014	$3,569,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,438,100
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2013/2014	(282,600)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(146,200)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(19,100)
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	51,500
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(4,900)
Resolutions April - June Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(222,200)
June Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	423,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2014/2015 – Increase / (Decrease)	$1,237,600
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2015	$4,807,200

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2014	$792,000
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2012/2013	0
Reserve movements from September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
Reserve movements from December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
Reserve movements from March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
Reserve movements from June Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(7,000)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2014/2015 – Increase / (Decrease)	($7,000)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2015	$785,000

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2014	$4,939,400
Plus original budget reserve movement	(993,100)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2013/2014	(594,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(125,000)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	604,600
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions April – June Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
June Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	2,396,700
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2014/2015 – Increase / (Decrease)	$1,288,700
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2015	$6,228,100

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1, with a proposed estimated increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $2,812,700 from this review.

Legal Expenses

One of the major financial concerns for Council over previous years was legal expenses. Not only does this item represent a drain on rate income, but it is also susceptible to large fluctuations and needs to be continually monitored.

The table that follows indicates the allocated budget and actual legal expenditure within Council on a fund basis.

Total Estimated Legal Income & Expenditure as at 30 June 2015

Program	2014/2015 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	23,400	23,880	102%
Total Income	23,400	23,880	102%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	274,100	149,289	54%
Total Expenditure General Fund	274,100	149,289	54%

The current status of the Legal Services Reserve is shown below:

Legal Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2014	$779,100
Less Resolution 12-622	$(46,800)
Estimated Reserve Balance at as at 30 June 2015	$732,300

Financial Implications

The 30 June 2015 Quarter Budget Review of the 2014/2015 Budget Estimates has maintained the expected estimated budget surplus attributable to the General Fund of $17,850 assuming all revotes of income and expenditure for Council’s consideration are approved. Overall, the short term financial position of Council still needs to be carefully monitored on an ongoing basis. However having said that, it is estimated that the General Fund Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) result of $1,957,550 is now in excess of the adopted General Fund Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) target of $1,000,000 for the General Fund. Maintaining this result through the financial year is a further achievement for Council.

It is expected also given the level of reserve funds compared to total cash and investments at 30 June 2015, Council is likely to have an unrestricted cash balance currently estimated at $1,054,000. This is another further achievement for Council maintaining this result throughout the financial year.

Notwithstanding that Council has maintained during the year both of its short term funding liquidity goals, these goals are more about liquidity. Council certainly still has bigger issues in the longer term regarding its financial sustainability such as the provision of adequate funding for the maintenance and renewal of infrastructure assets. These issues are certainly the focus of the ‘Fit for the Future’ program that the NSW Government has issued to Councils in NSW.

The outcomes associated with this Budget Review need to be considered in context that they are indicative financial outcomes for the 2014/2015 financial year. Council is yet to finalise its financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 which will be subject to external independent audit.

It is expected that Council will receive a report to adopt its financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 at its Ordinary Meeting to be held on 29 October 2015 where the final financial results for the year will be presented.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 the Responsible Accounting Officer of a Council must:-

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

(a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

(b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

This report indicates that the short term financial position of the Council is satisfactory for the 2014/2015 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 30 June 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) position and the expected improvement of that position by the current indicative budget surplus of $17,850 for 2014/2015.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.3

Report No. 13.3 Requests for Section 356 Donations

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No: I2015/717

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

Council has received requests for the following Section 356 Donations.

1. The Salvation Army: Refund of unoccupied pro-rata rent payment for 18 Fletcher Street Byron Bay.

2. Bangalow Historical Society: Refund of Development Application Fees for remediation works at the Bangalow Weir.

The requests for refund are further detailed in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act, make the following donations:

a) $2,200 to The Salvation Army for unoccupied pro rata lease payments at 18 Fletcher Street Byron Bay, to be paid from Water Fund job number 6141.039 with Council also allocating $2,200 from the Water Fund Reserve to fund this donation.

b) $942.00 to the Bangalow Historical Society for Development Application fees paid totalling for DA 10.2013.592.1 for repair of the Bangalow Weir from Section 356 Donations Budget 2341.009.

2. That Council advertise the Section 356 Donations made.

Report

The Salvation Army request for partial refund of rent payments

Council has received a request from The Salvation Army to apply for a partial refund of rent payments for early vacating the property at 18 Fletcher Street, Byron Bay.

History: The Salvation Army provided written notice to Council on 23 March, 2015 that they wished to vacate the premises at 18 Fletcher Street, Byron Bay. Staff advised the Salvation Army the final rent payment for April in accordance with the Lease Agreement would be $3,300.

After this notice the Salvation Army contacted Council and advised they would instead vacate the premises on 10 April and pay less rent. The Salvation Army were advised that the rent payable of $3,300 was set in accordance with the lease agreement eg. “holding over tenants” (which they are), are charged in one twelfth increments eg $3,300 monthly, and there is no provision outlined for weekly or pro rata charges.

Council staff do not have delegated authority to alter the lease agreement or waive rent fees. The Salvation Army have now written to Council requesting Council to consider a refund of $2,200 (GST inclusive), being the pro rata rent payment after the premises were vacated, as a Section 356 Donation.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 25 June 2015 resolved as follows with regards to general Section 356 Donations:

Res 15-294

6. That as no moneys have been set aside for general community Section 356 Donations in the 2015/16 Budget, any requests received for donations or sponsorships that fall under Council Policy 3.13 Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons be advised that there are no moneys available this financial year.

It should be noted that the rent for the premises is received by the water fund. As there are currently no general Section 356 donation moneys available the refund in rental payments of $2,200 could be refunded from the Water Fund and shown as a Section 356 Donation.

It has been recommended as follows:

“That Council refund The Salvation Army $2,200 for pro rata lease payments at 18 Fletcher Street Byron Bay, under Section 356 of the LG Act from the Water Fund job number 6141.039. Council will also need to allocate $2,200 from the Water Fund Reserve to fund this refund should it be approved.”

Bangalow Historical Society refund of Development Application Fees

The Bangalow Historical Society lodged a Development Application on behalf of the Bangalow Parklands Group, who are an unincorporated body, for repair of the Bangalow weir. The Bangalow Historical Society and are now requesting a refund of Development Application fees paid for (DA 10.2013.592.1) totalling $942.00.

The DA was approved under delegated authority in August 2014 for Remediation Works at the Bangalow weir.

This request can be considered under Council’s Policy Section 356 Donations – Refund of Application Fees to Community Groups.

It has been recommended as follows:

That Council refund the Bangalow Historical Society for Development Application fees paid totalling $942.00 for DA 10.2013.592.1 for repair of the Bangalow Weir under Section 356 of the LG Act from Council Budget 2341.9.

Financial Implications

Water Fund Job No 6141.039

Council could refund The Salvation Army $2,200 for pro rata lease payments at 18 Fletcher Street Byron Bay, under Section 356 of the LG Act from the Water Fund job number 6141.039. Council will though need to allocate $2,200 from the Water Fund Reserve to fund this refund should it be approved. Council should be mindful that this lease was entered into on a commercial basis. Vacating the building before the lease expired does not entitle the Salvation Army to a pro rata refund for the period remaining on the lease. Should Council agree to reimburse the Salvation Army for rental paid between their departure and lease end it will effectively mean Council foregoing rent which is due and payable by contractual agreement. Council has had to hold the building vacant for the period remaining on the SA lease and has no means of recouping lost rent.

Section 356 Donations Refund of Application Fees Job No. 2341.009 Available $2,000

No moneys have been expended from this budget to date. $942.00 to be refunded to the Bangalow Historical Society for DA fees paid. There will $1,068 available in this Budget to assist other community groups with Application fees this financial year.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Policy Section 356 Donations – Refund of Application Fees to Community Groups see Council’s web site at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/policies

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.4

Report No. 13.4 Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No: I2015/718

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Section 252 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) requires Council within 5 months after the end of each financial year to adopt a Policy concerning the payment of expenses incurred or to be incurred by, and the provision of facilities to, the mayor, the deputy mayor and the other councillors in relation to discharging the functions of civic office.

A council must comply with this section when proposing to adopt a policy each year in accordance with Section 252(1) even if the council proposes to adopt a policy that is the same as its existing.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That in accordance with Section 253(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council give public notice of its intention to adopt amended Policy Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities as shown at Attachment A (E2015/45197) and allow at least 28 days for the making of public submissions.

2. That after close of the exhibition period:

a) Any submissions received, along with the Policy, be reported back to Council.

OR

b) In the event that no submissions are received, the Policy will be adopted and a copy forwarded to the Director General in accordance with section 254(4)

Attachments:

1 Draft amended Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy to Ordinary Meeting 28/8/2015, E2015/45197

Report

In accordance with Section 252 of the LG Act, Council is required within 5 months after the end of each financial year to adopt a policy concerning the payment of expenses incurred or to be incurred by, and the provision of facilities to, the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and other Councillors in relation to discharging the functions of civic office.

In accordance with Section 253(5) of the LG Act the policy will be advertised allowing for at least 28 days for submissions. If any submissions are received on the Policy it will be reported back to Council.

Staff in reviewing the Policy have recommended that for operational efficiency that the Mayor be allocated, and have use of a corporate credit card to assist carrying out his civic duties when representing Council. Section 7 of the Policy “Facilities for Mayor and Councillors” 7.1 “Mayor” has been amended to include a new clause as follows:

7.1.6 Provision of a Mastercard with Council’s preferred banking institution to the value of $5,000 (see Claims Procedure at Clause 12). Note: All expenditure on the credit card must be in accordance with the provisions of the Policy and is not to be used for any private expenditure.

Clause 12 “Claims Procedure” has also been amended to support this new clause as follows:

12.5 The Mayor’s Mastercard expense claims must be accompanied by Appendix A “Allowance Claim Form”. All expenditure must be accompanied by Tax invoice receipts and remitted monthly reconciled to the provided credit card statement.

The issue of a corporate credit card to the Mayor does not alter the amounts able to be claimed. All expenditure must be in accordance with provisions of the Policy and is not for any private purposes.

Councillors may wish to make further amendments to the Policy which will be advertised accordingly.

Financial Implications

There are minimal fees for the allocation of a credit card to the Mayor and will be absorbed by the budget set aside by Council for bank fees generally.

In 2014/2015 the total amount of funds allocated for Mayoral and Councillor expenses did not exceed budget. For 2015/2016 there is an allocation of $313,100 compared to $304,800 in 2014/2015 so if there is a requirement for an increase for any expense there is provision for this within the overall limits of the budget allocation adopted by Council.

Please note there is no provision for purchase of equipment in the 2015/2016 financial year consistent with the adoptedPolicy.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1993 are as follows:-

252 Payment of expenses and provision of facilities

(1) Within 5 months after the end of each year, a council must adopt a policy concerning the payment of expenses incurred or to be incurred by, and the provision of facilities to, the mayor, the deputy mayor (if there is one) and the other councillors in relation to discharging the functions of civic office.

(2) The policy may provide for fees payable under this Division to be reduced by an amount representing the private benefit to the mayor or a councillor of a facility provided by the council to the mayor or councillor.

(3) A council must not pay any expenses incurred or to be incurred by, or provide any facilities to, the mayor, the deputy mayor (if there is one) or a councillor otherwise than in accordance with a policy under this section.

(4) A council may from time to time amend a policy under this section.

(5) A policy under this section must comply with the provisions of this Act, the regulations and any relevant guidelines issued under section 23A.

253 Requirements before policy concerning expenses and facilities can be adopted or amended

(1) A council must give public notice of its intention to adopt or amend a policy for the payment of expenses or provision of facilities allowing at least 28 days for the making of public submissions.

(2) Before adopting or amending the policy, the council must consider any submissions made within the time allowed for submissions and make any appropriate changes to the draft policy or amendment.

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a council need not give public notice of a proposed amendment to its policy for the payment of expenses or provision of facilities if the council is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is not substantial.

(4) Within 28 days after adopting a policy or making an amendment to a policy for which public notice is required to be given under this section, a council is to forward to the Director-General:

(a) a copy of the policy or amendment together with details of all submissions received in accordance with subsection (1), and

(b) a statement setting out, for each submission, the council’s response to the submission and the reasons for the council’s response, and

(5) A council must comply with this section when proposing to adopt a policy each year in accordance with section 252 (1) even if the council proposes to adopt a policy that is the same as its existing policy.

254 Decision to be made in open meeting

The council or a council committee all the members of which are councillors must not close to the public that part of its meeting at which a policy for the payment of expenses or provision of facilities is adopted or amended, or at which any proposal concerning those matters is discussed or considered.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.5

Report No. 13.5 Draft Amended Code of Meeting Practice Policy

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No: I2015/719

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Council on the

· 5 February 2015 considered a Notice of Motion seeking the reinstatement of Public Questions within the Code of Meeting Practice.

· 30 April 2015 considered a report on this matter and resolved (15-179, 15/180) that Schedule “A” be further amended and placed on exhibition.

A submission was received on the proposed amendments to the Code of Meeting Practice which are detailed in the body of the report.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Code of Meeting Practice Schedules “A” and “B” shown at Attachment “1” (E2015/29824) be adopted and included in the Code of Meeting Practice.

2. That the community be advised of the amendment to Schedule “A” through Council’s meeting advertisement.

Attachments:

1 Amendments to Schedule A Order of Business and B Special Purpose Committees as advertised , E2015/29824

Report

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 5 February 2015 resolved as follows:

15-015 Resolved that Council

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

b) Amend the Code of Meeting Practice to:

i. allow Public Questions to be asked within Council meetings; and

ii. allow Councillors to ask questions of the speaker

iii. responses to questions taken on notice will be tabled in the next agenda papers

Council at is Ordinary Meeting held on 30 April 2015 considered a report on the above amendments and resolved as follows:

15-179

Resolved:

1. That the report be noted.

2. That the draft amended Schedule A as shown at Attachment “A” (E2015/20747) to the Code of Meeting Practice be adjusted to incorporate the following changes:

4. Questions from members of the public relating to Council business. Time allowed 1 minute per question.

5. Councillors may ask questions of people speaking to items on the Agenda, making a submission or asking a question.

6. Responses to questions not provided at the meeting but taken on notice will be tabled in the next agenda papers.

3. That the draft amended Schedule A, as shown at Attachment “A” (E2015/20747) to the Code of Meeting Practice Policy be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days allowing a period of 42 days for public submissions with the following changes:

a) That in the event that any submissions are received on the draft Schedule A to the Policy, it be reported back to Council prior to adoption.

b) That in the event that no submissions are received on the draft Schedule A to the Policy it be adopted and incorporated in Council’s Policy Register.

15-180

Resolved that the following further amendments be exhibited with the exhibition resolved on in the previous motion:

Amendments to Schedule B: Special Purpose Committees starting at page 13 of the current Code be drafted for sections 6 - 8 under "Planning Review Committee" as follows:

section 6:

Councillors are to advise the General Manager or nominated delegate of any development application they wish to discuss at the next Planning Review Committee meeting by 12 noon 3 days prior to the meeting. Notwithstanding the above, Councillors are encouraged to advise as early as possible.

section 7:

The agenda is to be prepared and distributed to Councillors no later than 2 working days before the meeting and is to include the dates of exhibition of the DA. Late items may only be included under exceptional circumstances (deemed so by the General Manager).

section 8:

A development application can only be called to the Planning Review Committee once, except under exceptional circumstances or if the DA's exhibition period closed less than 3 days before the day the Committee considers it. A matter should stay on the agenda for no longer than until the next Committee meeting or until 3 working days after the exhibition period closed.

Schedule “A” Order of Business and Schedule “B” Special Purpose Committees to the Policy were redrafted as shown at Attachment 1 and placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days allowing 42 days for submissions.

One submission was received on the proposed amendments. The submission and staff comments are detailed below:

Submission	Staff Comments
Welcomes the return of question time as part of the Public Access session at Council’s Ordinary Meetings.	Noted
The time of 2 minutes allowed for submissions is a little short and suggest 3 minutes as fair, with a limit of 2 submissions per meeting if time allows, subject always to time being available after all registered addresses to items on the agenda have been heard.	This timing was workshopped with Councillors on 26 March 2015. Councillors may wish to reconsider the timing.
The time of 1 minute allowed for questions is a little short and suggest 2 minutes as fair, with a limit of 2 questions per meeting (a limit on the number of questions per person is currently not included in the amendments).	This timing was workshopped with Councillors on 26 March 2015. Councillors may wish to reconsider the timing and the number of questions that may be asked.
It is important to specify in the Code that questions may also be asked of the General Manager (who may elect to delegate an answer to staff), but not of staff directly;	Councillors can direct the public questions to the General Manager if required. Public questions directed to the General Manager or staff can be asked during normal business hours.
There is currently no restriction on the time Councillors are allowed for their questions of members of the public. A restriction of 2 minutes should apply.	This matter was workshopped with Councillors on 26 March 2015. Councillors may wish to reconsider the timing.
It should be permissible to allow requests for access to be made not only via the internet but also by mail or phone. I find it rather unfair to exclude members of the public who may be unable to use currently preferred technology, ie do not have access to a computer or do not wish to have one.	Requests for public access can now be made by telephone to Councillor Support where a person is unable to access the internet. The registration is made through the registration portal by Councillor Support staff. The change to have persons register on-line was made, to ensure that when a person registers that they have provide a response to each part of the registration process, receive an automated acknowledgement that their request has been received and are advised of the conditions for the making of public access address, submission or question, including time limitations and sharing. No change to Schedule A to the Code of Meeting Practice is recommended.

The Code of Meeting Practice amended Schedule A and B have been recommended to be adopted with the minor addition to include “requests for public access can also be made by mail or telephone.”

Financial Implications

Minimal costs associated with updating InfoCouncil software to include “Public questions” may be incurred.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

With regard to representations from the public regarding closure of part of a meeting the Local Government (General) Regulations stated:

252 Representations by members of the public--closure of part of meeting

(1) A representation at a council meeting by a member of the public as to whether a part of the meeting should be closed to the public can only be made for a fixed period immediately after the motion to close the part of the meeting is moved and seconded.

(2) That period is as fixed by the council's code of meeting practice or (if the council does not have a code of meeting practice or its code of meeting practice does not fix that period) as fixed by resolution of the council. Different periods can be fixed according to the different types of matters to be discussed or received and discussed at closed parts of meetings.

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

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Section 355 Committee / Board of Management - Membership changes

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No: I2015/720

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Council has received requests for membership changes as follows:

1. Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management: Request for 2 Councillor representatives.

2. Bangalow Heritage House Section 355 Management Committee: Request for appointment of a new member and resignations.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a) That Vivienne Gorec be officially appointed to Heritage House Bangalow Section 355 Management Committee.

b) That Cr Duncan Dey be appointed as the second Councillor representative to the Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management.

2. That Council note the resignations received from Elaine Moyle and John Sourry from the Heritage House (and Tennis Court) Section 355 Management Committee and be officially thanked for their contribution on this Committee.

2. That the Board of Management Guidelines be amended at Section 3.2 as follows:

3.2 Board Membership

The Board membership will number not less than three (3) and not more than nine (9) 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.

Report

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

Council has received resignations from Elain Moyle and John Sourry and an Expression of Interest from Vivienne Gorec for membership to the Heritage House Bangalow (and Tennis Court) Section 355 Management Committee. The Committee have endorsed this request.

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

Staff Comment: It has been recommended that the resignations from Elaine Moyle and John Sourry be received and officially thanked for their contribution on this Committee. That Vivienne Gorec be officially appointed to Heritage House Bangalow Section 355 Management Committee.

Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management Committee

Council has received a request from the Board for 2 Councillor representatives to form part of this Board. Cr Duncan Dey, alternate delegate has agree to be officially appointed on this Board of Management

Current Membership now on the Committee is as follows:-

Councillor Representative(s):

§ Cr Simon Richardson

§ Cr Duncan Dey (Alternate Delegate) Acting Chairperson

Community Representatives:

§ Andrea Danvers Treasurer

§ Neil Johnson

§ Judy MacDonald

§ Alison Pearl

§ Philip Preston Secretary

§ Glenn Wright

§ Samuel Fell

Staff Comment: Council has recently contracted the services of a new Venue Coordinator at the Hall. The Board is actively working with the coordinator in an endeavour to develop a marketing plan and improve the occupancy rates at the Hall.

It has been recommended that Council appoint 1 further Councillor representative being Cr Duncan Dey to the Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management.

This will bring the membership number to 9 which will require a change to the Board of Management Guidelines.

Financial Implications

Community members of Section 355 Management committees are volunteer positions.

Councillors appointed to Committees can claim expenses in line with Council’s Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy.

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 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions - Section 356 Donations for Road Closures

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

File No: I2015/795

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Council’s Policy Section 356 Donations – Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions provides for a level of financial assistance to community organisations.

For the 2015/2016 financial year there is a budget of $7,000 for distribution under this Policy.

In accordance with the Policy, Council advertised for Expressions of Interests for donations to assist community events with Council’s road closure costs for 2015/2016. Seven requests for assistance were received.

This report has been prepared for Council to consider the applications received and the distribution of these funds, noting the advice received from the Infrastructure Services Directorate that Council is no longer providing assistance with the implementation of the road closures.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the report be noted.

2. That under Council’s Policy Section 356 Donations – Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions, the following donations be granted for the 2015/2016 financial year, to assist with Council’s road closure application fees and provision of litter bins:

i) Byron Lighthouse Run, 18 October 2015 $350

ii) Byron Spirit Festival, 15-17 April 2016 $350

iii) Festival of the Fish and Chips (Twilight Market), 16 December 2015 $350

iv) Bangalow Billycart Derby, May 2016 $350

v) Bangalow Christmas Eve Carnival, December 2015 $350

vi) Mullum to Bruns Paddle, May 2016 $350

vii) Brunswick Nature Sculpture Walk, 3-5 October 2015 $100

Total $2,200

2. That Council request a review of Policy Section 356 Donations – Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions and report back to Council on the review.

Attachments:

1 Summary Applications for Road Closure to report I2015/795, E2015/52795

Report

Council has allocated an amount of $7,000 (2341.16) for assistance with Council costs associated with holding a Community event for the 2015/2016 financial year. These moneys are distributed under Council’s Policy Section 356 Donations – Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions.

A public notice was placed in Council’s block advertising in June and known event coordinators contacted requesting applications for assistance with Council’s costs for road closures for events to be held in 2015/2016.

Recent advice from Infrastructure Services with regard to the implementation of the road closures for these community events is

“That Council no longer do traffic control or set up for festivals as our work on these events is classified as private works. Therefore all festival organisers will now need to make other arrangements.

The only exception is Writer’s Festival for 2015 as arrangements had been made prior to this decision. In future years the Writer’s Festivals will also need to make other arrangements.

They will still need approval of Road Events pursuant to Section 144 of the Roads Act. The cost for 2015/16 will be $350 and this will also cover advertising and staff time to process their application.

As you receive enquires, please make them aware of this.”

As such community events that require road closures will have to initially apply to Council for approval through a “Road Closure Application” and then organise the road closure through private companies in accordance with the approved Traffic Control Plan.

In accordance with the Policy, Council’s costs associated with the Road Closure application as detailed in the Fees and Charges is $350. Council in past years have also given consideration to costs associated with garbage removal.

The Policy also states that “Council’s preference is that donations will not continue beyond three (3) consecutive years for the festival / function in order to favour start-up festivals / functions and to encourage them to achieve financial viability.”

In accordance with the Objectives of the Policy “to provide an equitable basis for the recovery of Council’s costs for road closures associated with community events” the following has been recommended:

Name of Event	Amount recommended to be Granted	Purpose	Comments
1. Byron Lighthouse Run, Byron Bay	$350 for each event	Council costs for road closure application fee and advertising	In accordance with the Policy Council’s preference is that donations will not continue beyond three (3) consecutive years for the festival / function in order to favour start-up festivals / functions and to encourage them to achieve financial viability. These events have received financial assistance from council for over 3 years and are considered to have achieved financial viability. Event organisers are to be advised that Council will be no longer be providing the implementation of the road closure.
2. Byron Spirit Festival, Mullumbimby
3. Festival of the Fish and Chips (Twilight Market), Brunswick Heads
4. Bangalow Billycart Derby
5. Bangalow Christmas Eve Carnival
6. Mullum to Brunswick Paddle

Name of Event	Amount recommended to be Granted	Purpose	Comments
7. Brunswick Nature Sculpture Walk	$100	Additional litter bins	Council is assisting this emerging event with $2,000 for film night, promotional material and engineering consultant from the Events Sponsorship Fund. A further donation for additional litter bins has been recommended.

Total amount to be donated as detailed in the above tables is $2,200

Noting Infrastructure Services are no longer providing services for the implementation of road closures it has also been recommended that the Policy be reviewed. Consideration will be given to deleting the Policy with a view to this funding being transferred to Council’s Sponsorship funds where events including new and emerging can apply for assistance.

Financial Implications

$7,000 is available in the 2015/2016 Budget for assistance with Council’s costs to hold events.

The Road Closure Application fee is $350 as stated in the adopted 2015/2016 Fees and Charges.

If the $2,200 as detailed above is granted to the above events, there will be $4,800 available in this budget.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council’s Policy Section 356 Donations – Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/policies

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.9

Report No. 13.9 Carryovers for Inclusion in the 2015/16 Budget

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2015/810

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary: This report is prepared for Council to consider and to adopt the carryover budget allocations for works and services, either commenced and not completed, or not commenced in the 2014/2015 Financial Year for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates.

Each year Council allocates funding for works and services across all programs. For various reasons, some of these works and services are incomplete at the end of the financial year. The funding for these works is restricted at the end of the financial year, and is carried over as a budget allocation revote to the following year, to fund the completion of the work or service.

This report identifies all the works and services recommended to be carried over from the 2014/2015 Financial Year to the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates. The report also identifies the funding for each recommended budget allocation carryover.

In compiling this report, the Financial Sustainability Project Plan (FSPP) 2014/2015, namely Part 7 regarding ‘Policy and Decision Making’ has also been considered.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.That the works and services, and the respective funding shown in attachment 1 (#E2015/50268), attachment 2 (#E2015/50270) and attachment 3 (#E2014/50271) be carried over from the 2014/2015 Financial Year and that the carryover budget allocations be adopted as budget allocation revotes for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates.

2. That Council reallocate the adopted 2015/2016 Special Rate Community Building Maintenance outlined in Table 3 of this report to the program outlined in Table 4 of this report.

Attachments:

1 Carryovers and funding for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Budget - General Fund, E2015/50268

2 Carryovers and funding for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Budget - Water Fund, E2015/50270

3 Carryovers and funding for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Budget - Sewer Fund, E2015/50271

Report

Each year Council allocates funding for works and services across all programs. For various reasons, some of these works and services are incomplete at the end of the financial year. The funding for these works and services is restricted at the end of the financial year to be carried over to the following year for completion.

This report identifies all the works and services to be carried over to the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates and the respective funding of each, relating to works and services not completed during the course of the 2014/2015 financial year. The specific details of all carryover works and services subject of this report are outlined for General Fund at attachment 1, Water Fund at attachment 2 and Sewer Fund at Attachment 3.

Financial Implications

The works and services included in attachments 1, 2 and 3 are fully funded and have no impact on the General Fund Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) position of Council or the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates result. As in previous years there is again a significant amount of carryovers to be brought forward to the current financial year. Table 1 below provides a history of the value of carryovers in recent years with the proposed carryovers for 2015/2016 $174,800 less then the carryovers related to the 2014/2015 financial year.

Table 1 - Value of budget carryovers 2011/12 – 2015/16

Fund	2011/12 ($)	2012/13 ($)	2013/14 ($)	2014/15 ($)	2015/16 ($)
General	5,723,500	8,596,400	6,181,100	12,863,500	10,550,300
Water	843,200	579,800	1,150,300	586,200	1,671,900
Sewer	3,180,600	1,852,500	1,703,700	877,100	1,929,000
Total	9,747,300	11,028,700	9,035,100	14,326,800	14,151,200

General Fund

The value of works carried over to 2015/2016 for the General Fund are $2,313,200 less than that carried over for the 2014/2015 year. Of the $10,550,300 of carryovers, approximately 33% ($3,492,200) is attributable to the natural disaster events that Byron Shire has experienced since January and February 2013. These identified works have been authorised and will be funded by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

The Byron Bay Library represents approximately 5% ($573,100) of the General Fund carryovers. Although this project has been completed, there remains the need to have funding available to fund the cost of the upgrade to the air conditioning system.

Special Rate funded community building maintenance and public toilet upgrades within the Facilities Management Program represent approximately 8% ($908,200) of the General Fund carryovers. It is anticipated these works will be delivered by June 2016.

Local Roads and Drainage projects not completed in 2014/2015 to be carried forward to 2015/2016 also account for $2,222,200 of the General Fund Carryovers or 21%.

Waste management grant funded works represent approximately 5% ($581,900) of the General Fund carryovers.

Water and Sewer Funds

Carryovers for the Water and Sewer Funds have increased by $1,085,700 and $1,051,900 respectively compared to the carryover applicable for the 2014/2015 financial year.

In terms of the overall carryovers included at attachments 1, 2 and 3, where the bulk of the carryovers related to projects in the Infrastructure Services Directorate, the following table outlines for Councillors information as to the extent of carryovers where works are in progress or contracts awarded at the time this report has been prepared:

Table 2 – Schedule of Carryover works current status

Project	Carryover $	Project Status
Fletcher St Byron Lighting Upgrade	50,000	Works to be completed August 2015
Revision of PAMP	25,100	Works in progress at 30 June 2015
24 South Beach Lane Overland Flow Path	6,600	Works completed in July 2015
Wilson Creek PS Bus Bay	104,600	Works in progress at 30 June 2015
Bangalow Road Talofa - Stage 2	17,200	Works in progress at 30 June 2015
Poinciana Car Park Mullumbimby	86,900	Works now complete
Main Arm Road Blindmouth Ck Causeway	49,900	Works in progress at 30 June 2015
Left Bank Road & Azalea St Mullumbimby	327,100	Works in progress at 30 June 2015
Orana Road Ocean Shores	62,800	Works in Progress at 30 June 2015
Bus Zone Rajah Road	5,500	Works now complete.
Wilsons Creek – Slip Jan 2012	164,500	Contract works in defects liability period
Wilsons Creek Road - Lavertys Gap Jan 2013	42,500	Contract works in defects liability period
Possum Shoot Road - Lower Slip Jan 2013	35,300	Contract works in defects liability period
Possum Shoot Road - Upper Slip Jan 2013	68,300	Contract works in defects liability period
Federal Road Slip 307	7,300	Contract works in defects liability period
Upper Wilsons Creek Slip Jan 2013	1,301,800	Contract works in progress
Wanganui Slip Jan 2013	801,200	Contract works in progress
Natural Disaster Works – January 2015	880,600	Contract works in progress
Upper Coopers Ck Rd Final Repair Jan 2013	180,000	Contract works in defects liability period
Brunswick Heads Boat Ramp – Floating Pontoon	102,600	Order placed and deposit paid. Install before Christmas
Restoration of Lot 12 Bayshore Drive	143,500	Works in progress
Brunswick Heads Oval Picket Fence	39,600	Delivery of materials expected early August 2015
Byron Bay CCTV Apex Park Johnson St	187,400	Contract awarded
Amenities block Tom Kendall Oval	152,900	Works in progress
Kitchen Caddies and Liners	48,700	Completed July 2015
Assembly and Distribution of MGB	90,000	Completed July 2015
Organics Collection Service Communication & Education	79,100	Majority completed July 2015
Organics Mobile Garbage Bins	100,000	Project completed
BRSCC Solar Update	81,500	Works commenced/contract awarded
Mullumbimby Trunk Main Replacement	466,200	Contract awarded
South Byron STP Demolition/Removal	973,300	In progress – contract awarded
Brunswick Heads STP detailed Site Contamination study	71,000	In progress
Coopers Shoot Reservoir Upgrade	160,100	Contract awarded.
Total	$6,913,100

In addition to the carryover items subject to this report, there is also a need to amend the original 2015/2016 Budget Estimates for the special rates funded community buildings maintenance program adopted by Council on 25 June 2015 via Resolution 15-293. Due to an administrative error, the correct staff budget submission was not included in the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates for Council to consider. As a result, Council adopted the following program in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Adopted Special Rates Funded Community Buildings Maintenance Program:

Item	Budget $
2320.051 Urgent Unplanned Maintenance	34,500
2320.141 Asbestos Compliance Register	92,500
2320.142 RCD Electrical Compliance	62,500
2320.146 Suffolk Park Hall	69,000
2320.147 Bangalow A & I Hall	30,000
2320.148 Pre-School Fire Protection	46,000
Total	334,500

The required actual budget program for 2015/2016 is outlined in Table 4 below:

Table 4 – Required Special Rates Funded Community Buildings Maintenance Program

Item	Budget $
2320.014 Brunswick Valley Community Centre	81,000
2320.051 Urgent Unplanned Maintenance	2,500
2320.125 Ocean Shores Community Centre	150,000
2320.136 South Golden Beach Hall	24,000
2320.139 Mullumbimby Drill Hall	17,000
2320.151 Asbestos Removal Program	60,000
Total	334,500

Whilst Council in accordance with Clause 211 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 conducted its annual meeting to approve expenditure and voting of money on 25 June 2015 via Resolution 15-293, the expenditure items subject of this report were not included in the 2015/2016 Budget Estimates but now need to be. The intent of this report is to seek Council approval to revote the carryovers from the 2014/2015 financial year and to adopt the budget allocation carryovers for inclusion in the 2015/2016 adopted Budget Estimates.

The Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting held on 28 March 2013 considered Report 4.3 on the Council’s financial position for the 2012/2013 financial year. The recommendations from this meeting were adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 18 April 2013 through resolution 13-164. Committee recommendation SPC 4.3 in part 5 included the following process to be applied to the consideration of any amount identified as a carryover to the 2013/14 and future Budgets and funded from general revenues:

That Council determines that any general revenue funded allocated expenditure, not

expended in a current financial year NOT be automatically carried over to the next

financial year before it is reviewed and priorities established.

Resolution 13-164 has also been incorporated into Part 7 – ‘Policy and Decision Making’ of the Financial Sustainability Project Plan (FSPP) 2014/2015 considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 7 August 2014.

This report was also considered by the Finance Advisory Committee at its Meeting held on 20 August 2015.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Clause 211 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 outlines the requirements of Council relating to authorisation of expenditure. Specifically the Clause 211 states:

(1) A council, or a person purporting to act on behalf of a council, must not incur a liability for the expenditure of money unless the council at the annual meeting held in accordance with subclause (2) or at a later ordinary meeting:

(a) has approved the expenditure, and

(b) has voted the money necessary to meet the expenditure.

(2) A council must each year hold a meeting for the purpose of approving expenditure and voting money.

Council resolution 13-164

Part 7 – ‘Policy and Decision Making’ of the Financial Sustainability Project Plan (FSPP) 2014/2015.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.10

Report No. 13.10 Council Investments July 2015

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2015/820

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position as at 31 July 2015 for Council’s information.

This 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 July 2015 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for July 2015, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. At the time of writing this report, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of July was 2.15%. Council’s performance for the month of July is a weighted average of 2.91%. This performance is again higher than the 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 investment earning 0% interest nears maturity.

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

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 31 July 2015:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 July 2015

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%*	1,487,850.00
20/06/12	500,000	HERITAGE BANK LTD BONDS	N	BBB+	20/06/17	B	7.25%	536,250.00
23/02/15	2,000,000	ING BANK (AUSTRALIA)	P	A1	24/08/15	TD	3.11%	2,000,000.00
08/07/15	2,200,000	POLICE CREDIT UNION	P	NR	30/11/15	TD	2.95%	2,200,000.00
13/07/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	P	BBB	12/10/15	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
07/07/15	1,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD (Previously Wide Bay)	P	BBB	05/10/15	TD	2.97%	1,000,000.00
11/06/15	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	09/09/15	TD	2.94%	2,000,000.00
05/06/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/09/15	TD	2.93%	2,000,000.00
03/03/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/09/15	TD	3.15%	2,000,000.00
09/06/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	P	A1+	08/10/15	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
07/07/15	1,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	04/11/15	TD	2.90%	1,000,000.00
14/05/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	14/08/15	TD	2.94%	2,000,000.00
25/05/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	23/11/15	TD	2.97%	2,000,000.00
03/06/15	2,000,000	PEOPLES CHOICE CREDIT UNION	P	BBB+	03/09/15	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
02/12/14	2,000,000	CREDIT UNION AUSTRALIA	P	BBB+	31/08/15	TD	3.55%	2,000,000.00
08/04/15	2,000,000	SUNCORP	P	A+	08/09/15	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
04/06/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	02/10/15	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
07/07/15	2,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD (Previously Wide Bay)	N	BBB	05/10/15	TD	2.97%	2,000,000.00
29/05/15	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	P	A2	29/09/15	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
11/02/15	2,000,000	AMP BANK	P	A	12/08/15	TD	3.30%	2,000,000.00
03/07/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/10/15	TD	2.98%	2,000,000.00
03/03/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/08/15	TD	3.15%	2,000,000.00
16/07/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	16/10/15	TD	2.95%	1,000,000.00
28/04/15	2,000,000	PEOPLES CHOICE CREDIT UNION	N	BBB+	28/09/15	TD	2.94%	2,000,000.00
05/05/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/08/15	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
06/05/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/08/15	TD	2.94%	2,000,000.00
06/05/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/09/15	TD	2.95%	1,000,000.00
12/05/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	11/08/15	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
13/05/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	11/08/15	TD	2.94%	1,000,000.00
13/05/15	1,000,000	MACQUARIE BANK	P	A1	08/02/16	TD	3.00%	1,000,000.00
14/05/15	3,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	14/09/15	TD	3.00%	3,000,000.00
27/05/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	24/09/15	TD	2.94%	2,000,000.00
02/06/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	02/09/15	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
03/06/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	03/09/15	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
09/06/15	1,000,000	BENDIGO & ADELAIDE BANK	P	A2	07/09/15	TD	2.90%	1,000,000.00
09/06/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/11/15	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
03/07/15	3,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	04/11/15	TD	2.95%	3,000,000.00
N/A	2,723,818	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	1.80%	2,723,818.49
Total	69,923,818					AVG	2.91%	69,947,918.49

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.

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 July 2015, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type. It illustrates the current value of investments has increased since June, demonstrating a cumulative unrealised gain of $24,100.00.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 July 2015

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
65,200,000.00	Term Deposits	65,200,000.00	0.00
2,723,818.49	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,723,818.49	0.00
1,500,000.00	Managed Funds	1,487,850.00	(12,150.00)
500,000.00	Bonds	536,250.00	36,250.00
69,923,818.49		69,947,918.49	24,100.00

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 June 2015 to 31 July 2015 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 30 June 2015 to 31 July 2015

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Closing Balance at 30 June 2015	70,930,830.14
Add: New Investments Purchased	14,200,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	4,388.35
Less: Investments Matured	15,200,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	0.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	12,700.00
Closing Balance at 31 July 2015	69,947,918.49

Investments Maturities and Returns – 30 June 2015 to 31 July 2015

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	03/07/15	122	3.13%	20,923.84
1,000,000.00	Auswide Bank Ltd	TD	07/07/15	91	2.95%	7,354.79
1,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	07/07/15	90	2.90%	7,150.68
2,000,000.00	Auswide Bank Ltd	TD	07/07/15	90	2.95%	14,547.95
2,200,000.00	Police Credit Union	TD	08/07/15	91	3.06%	16,783.89
2,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	09/07/15	90	2.90%	14,301.37
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	13/07/15	91	2.90%	14,460.27
2,000,000.00	Peoples Choice Credit Union	TD	16/07/15	121	3.00%	19,890.41
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	16/07/15	92	2.94%	7,410.42
15,200,000.00						122,823.62

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 July 2015 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 July 2015

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	65,200,000.00	65,200,000.00	0.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,723,818.49	2,723,818.49	0.00
Managed Funds	1,500,000.00	1,487,850.00	(12,150.00)
Bonds	500,000.00	536,250.00	36,250.00
Total Investment Portfolio	69,923,818.49	69,947,918.49	24,100.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	3,062,061.50	3,062,061.50	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	3,062,061.50	3,062,061.50	0.00

Total Cash Position	72,985,879.99	73,009,979.99	24,100.00

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 13.13

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report No. 13.13 PLANNING - 26.2014.14.1 - Planning Proposal for an amendment to Byron LEP 2014 to rezone land from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential at Granuaille Crescent, Bangalow

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Julie Francombe, Strategic Planner

File No: I2015/334

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents a landowner initiated and paid for request to amend Byron LEP 2014.

This request was lodged prior to Council’s most recent resolution to not support an early implementation program and instead consider properties in strategic plans currently in preparation. It is not a new request but an existing request in Council’s system for some time. It has been with Council for greater than 90 days, the time period after which the applicant can request a pre gateway review from the Department of Planning in the absence of a Council decision.

The proposal seeks to: rezone part of the subject land (Lot 232 DP 1194657) from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential; apply a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1; and apply a Minimum Lot Size (MLS) of 600 square metres.

A residential subdivision of the subject land was approved in December 2014 for four residential lots zoned R2 ranging in size from 656 to 958m² and one lot of 3,709m² that contains both R2 and the residual RU1 rural zoned land. The rural land is a legacy of a previous rezoning in which this portion was deemed too steep to be rezoned for residential development. The remnant rural land is surrounded on three sides by residential land and is of insufficient size to be productive agricultural land. The approved subdivision designated dwelling envelopes and required a Section 88B instrument to restrict dwellings to these dwelling envelopes.

The Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the DA stated the applicant intends to lodge subdivision applications in the future, to create the ‘Ultimate Subdivision of the land’, to include steep sections of RU1 land in the residential lots. The applicant was advised that a clearer way to achieve the development sought would be to amend the Byron LEP 2014 to rezone the steep portion of the lot from RU1 to R2, subject to a Section 88 instrument that excludes buildings on the land, and then submit a further subdivision application.

In addition, staff consider that two small adjacent areas should be included in the R2 Low Density Residential zone at this location. The additional land is a small rectangular piece immediately south of Lot 232 and a narrow strip located between Lot 232 and the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land at Ferguson Court to the east.

The specific circumstances of the request, and given that it will address an existing zoning anomaly, warrant its consideration. The area proposed to be zoned R2 is very small, is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture due to its limited size, and has no significant environmental values. It is a logical “rounding off” of an existing urban area rather than a genuine greenfield site. The request to amend Byron LEP 2014 is supported.

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:

a. proceed with the planning proposal to rezone part of Lot 232 DP 1194657, Bangalow (as identified in Map 1 of this report), to R2; and apply FSR of 0.5:1 and MLS of 600 sq metres;

b. amend the planning proposal to include the rezoning of part of Lot 231 and part of Lot 233 of DP 1194657, Bangalow, (as identified in Map 1 of this report), to R2; and apply FSR of 0.5:1 and MLS of 600 sq metres;

c. ensure that the planning proposal is consistent with Gateway determination and /or Council requirements prior to public exhibition.

Attachments:

1 Planning proposal - rezoning Granuaille Crescent Bangalow, E2015/51254

2 Approved Subdivision Plan Granuaille Crescent - 10.2014.14.1, E2015/26412

3 Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest form, E2012/2815

Report

The subject land as submitted by the applicant is described as part of Lot 232 DP1194657, Granuaille Crescent, Bangalow. Council staff consider that this area should be expanded to also include part of Lot 231 DP 1194657 and a very small strip of Lot 233 DP 1194657, Granuaille Crescent, Bangalow. The additional land is a small rectangular piece immediately south of Lot 232 and a narrow strip located between Lot 232 and the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land at Ferguson Court to the east. The land is located at the northern entrance of the village of Bangalow in the vicinity of the Bangalow Reservoir site. Most of the land is quite steep. All of the subject land is shown in Map 1 below.

Map 1 - Subject land outlined in red

The approximate area of each lot identified as being the ‘subject land’ is:

Part of Lot 232: 2,445 square metres

Part of Lot 231: 510 square metres

Part of Lot 233: 215 square metres

Total Area: 3,170 square metres (approximately)

The Proposal

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

· rezone part of Lot 232 DP 1194657 from RU1 General Rural to R2 Low Density Residential under Byron LEP 2014;

· apply a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1 (consistent with surrounding R2 zoned land); and

· apply a Minimum Lot Size (MLS) of 600 square metres (consistent with surrounding R2 zoned land).

The applicant considers the planning proposal is needed because:

· the current RU1 zone under LEP 2014 is an anomaly that should be corrected;

· the R2 zone will allow the orderly use of land that is surrounded on three sides by existing R2 zoned land; and

· the R2 zone will permit a suite of uses more consistent with the surrounding residential land use.

Additional changes

In addition to the matters submitted in the planning proposal, Council staff consider that two small adjacent areas should also be included in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The additional land is a small rectangular piece immediately south of Lot 232 and a narrow strip located between Lot 232 and the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land at Ferguson Court to the east, Map 1.

Subdivision background

Lot 232 DP 1194657 was created by a three allotment boundary adjustment DA (10.2012.447.1) approved in December 2012. More recently, on 16 December 2014, a 5-lot residential subdivision of Lot 232 DP 1194657 (DA10.2014.619.1, plan shown at Attachment 2) was approved, with lots ranging in size from 656 square metres to 3,709 square metres. The subdivision included dwelling envelopes for four additional dwellings and the existing dwelling. A condition of consent requires that the final plan of subdivision and accompanying Section 88B Instrument are to provide for restrictions to limit the erection of dwellings to the nominated dwelling envelopes. The applicant has provided Council with a copy of the draft s.88B Instrument. No dwellings are to be located on the land proposed to be rezoned R2. The applicants’ intention is to ultimately incorporate the steep sections of this land into approved Lots 241–243 through a further subdivision application. Before lodging the subdivision application the applicant has been advised that an amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 is required to rezone the portion of the site zoned RU1 to R2 (subject to a s88 instrument that excludes buildings on the land). Rezoning the land to R2 will enable a more appropriate subdivision configuration to proceed.

Current Zones and Controls

The subject land is zoned RU1 Primary Production under Byron LEP 2014. The Minimum Lot Size for the RU1 zone is 40 hectares. No FSR applies currently to the RU1 land.

Map 2 - Current LEP 2014 Zoning

Past Planning Proposal

At its Ordinary meeting of 24 June 2010, Council considered the subject land as part of a planning proposal that affected multiple sites around Bangalow. Its connection with the land around the Bangalow reservoir site (Lot 101 DP1127017) led to the residential rezoning of the land being deferred as follows:

Council Resolution (10-490)

a) That Site 1 (Lot 101 DP 1127017 Granuaille Crescent) be deferred for future consideration as further land releases in Bangalow are unnecessary due to current planning proposals for residential land now being considered by Council.

b) That before Site 1 is considered for inclusion in a future planning proposal to rezone the land to residential negotiations are held with Council to determine the most feasible outcome in respect of part of the site being used for a public lookout.

c) That a detailed geotechnical and landslip assessment be undertaken to assess the Site’s potential for rezoning, particularly in relation to on-site water storage.

d) That a site specific DCP be developed in tandem with the planning proposal to ensure development impacts related to aesthetics, drainage, and slope are minimised and issues such as public open space and connectivity are addressed.

Lot 101 DP 1127017 included the land around the reservoir as well as the land subject to this planning proposal. As referred to earlier in this report, there have been subdivision approvals issued by Council for this land since the above resolution was made. As a result aspects of the above resolution are no longer relevant to the subject land as they relate more directly to the land around the reservoir. For instance, the recently approved 5-lot residential subdivision of Lot 232 DP 1194657 includes a condition of consent to ensure no dwellings will be erected on the steep land subject of this planning proposal. Also, the approved subdivision plan (Attachment 2) shows a 3 metre wide drainage easement over the narrow strip of Lot 233 proposed to be rezoned R2.

Key Issues

The key issues to be considered are:

· Current RU1 Primary Production zone, permitted uses and objectives;

· Proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone;

· Far North Coast Regional Strategy;

· Bangalow Settlement Strategy, 1998;

· Steep land;

· State and regional farmland;

· State policy and planning controls; and

· View (opinion) of the owners of Lots 231 and 233.

Current RU1 Primary Production zone

The subject land is currently zoned RU1 Primary Production under LEP 2014. The RU1 zone is meant to identify rural land that is capable of sustainable primary industries. The zone permits a wide range of uses that would not be appropriate within close proximity to existing residential neighbourhoods including intensive livestock and plant agriculture and rural industries.

Proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone

The subject land is surrounded on three sides by land zoned R2 Low Density Residential, which also includes the balance of Lots 232 and 231. The balance of lot 233 (see Map 2) is zoned RU1. The objectives and permitted uses of the R2 zone are appropriate for serviced land in a residential neighbourhood on the edge of Bangalow.

Far North Coast Regional Strategy

The Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS) identifies the Town and Village Growth Boundary for Bangalow. The subject land falls just outside this boundary (see Map 3). Zoning this land for residential purposes is therefore inconsistent with the FNCRS. However, the site is classified as “non –coastal” under the FNCRS because it is located west of the Pacific Highway. Council can support a residential zone outside of the Town and Village Growth Boundary subject to meeting the Sustainability Criteria. The applicant has undertaken that assessment and it is provided in the planning proposal at Attachment 1.

In this case the area of the proposed R2 zone is very small and is a logical “rounding off” of an existing urban area rather than a genuine greenfield site. As already discussed, a condition of consent for a recent subdivision of Lot 232 requires that no dwellings are to be located on the subject land. In addition, the land has little capability for additional dwelling opportunities given its physical characteristics and location. However, it is not an “innovative development proposal” as suggested by the applicant. The assessment against the sustainability criteria in Appendix 1 of the FNCRS is adequate given the size and nature of the rezoning.

town and village growth boundary FNCRS

Map 3 - FNCRS Town and Village Growth Boundary for Bangalow (heavy red line)

Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003

Although this strategy is outdated it remains the current residential strategy approved by Council for Bangalow. It does not identify the subject land as a future urban area because it has little or no housing yield. The subject land (outlined in red on Map 4) is immediately adjacent to Area 1 in this strategy. The zoning of this land for residential purposes is a minor zone boundary adjustment and is justifiably inconsistent with the Bangalow Settlement Strategy.

Map 4 - Investigation Area 1 for Bangalow (from the Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003)

Steep Land

Parts of the subject land are steep (refer to Plan 3.4 of Planning Proposal for site contours) being greater than 30% slopes. However, much of the surrounding developed residential land is also quite steep. The subject land is not that different to adjacent R2 zoned land at the top of Ferguson Court. It would be expensive to build on this steep land and, as previously discussed, the recently approved subdivision of Lot 232 DP1194657 includes a condition of consent to ensure no dwellings will be erected on the land. Each of the proposed or existing lots affected by this planning proposal has an R2 zoned dwelling site already with access to Granuaille Crescent. The land steepness itself should not be a reason to maintain its rural zone given its urban location.

State and Regional Farmland

The site is mapped as regionally significant farmland in the Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project. It is not identified as Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) in the mapping undertaken recently by the State government.

The subject land is a very small area and it is not being used for any commercial agriculture. It is open mown grass land that is surrounded by residential development. The Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project (2005) outlines criteria to be addressed in relation to using regionally significant farmland for residential purposes. A response to the criteria is provided in the assessment against S117 Directions below.

State Policy and Planning Controls

The planning proposal is generally consistent or justifiably inconsistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies. The key SEPP’s that require particular consideration are SEPP 55 Remediation of Land and SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008.

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 requires that a Council cannot approve a rezoning application (especially from rural to residential) unless it has duly considered whether such land is contaminated.

Consultants undertook a preliminary site investigation pursuant to SEPP 55 in December 2010 in relation to an earlier subdivision and rezoning proposal. This work covered all of the subject land and is still applicable as no additional potentially contaminating use has been carried out on the subject land since the work was undertaken. The investigation concluded:

“Based on the site history, site inspections and the laboratory results from soil sampling; there is a low level of risk that the subject site is contaminated with residual chemicals from activities associated with current or past land use. Following a review of the results of laboratory analysis of soil samples taken from the subject site it is our considered view that there would appear to be little environmental or health hazard associated with development approval being granted for the future rezoning (from 1(b1) agricultural to 2(a) residential under Byron LEP 1988.”

On this basis the planning proposal is consistent with SEPP 55 Remediation of land.

SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008

This SEPP focuses mainly on the issue of unnecessary fragmentation of rural land and in particular state and regional farm land. The principles in the SEPP are required to be considered as part of the S.117 directions when rezoning land. In this case the land has already been significantly fragmented by past approvals for subdivision and the proposed rezoning is in recognition that this is no longer farmland of regional significance.

On this basis the planning proposal is consistent with SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008.

Section 117 Directions

The planning proposal is justifiably inconsistent with S. 117 Direction 1.2 Rural Zones, 1.5 Rural Lands, 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies and 5.3 Farmland of State and Regional significance on the NSW Far North Coast. It is generally compliant with the other S.117 Directions. Details of the non-compliance and how this can be justified are as follows:

S117 Direction	Application	Relevance to this planning proposal	Consistency with direction
1.2 Rural Zones	Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed rural zone (including the alteration of any existing rural zone boundary). A planning proposal must: (a) not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone. (b) not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone (other than land within an existing town or village).	This planning proposal affects land zoned entirely RU1 that is proposed to be zoned R2. It will also lower the minimum lot size from 40 hectares to 600 square metres. The inconsistency is justified in this case because the subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture due to its limited size, and has no significant environmental values. The land is serviced. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 5(d) of the Direction.	Justifiably inconsistent
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 RU1 that is proposed to be zoned R2. It proposes to alter the minimum lot size for the subject land from 40 hectares to 600 square metres. It is inconsistent with the Rural Planning Principles and Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 because it is mapped as regionally significant farm land and yet it is proposed for a residential zone. The inconsistency is justified in this case because the subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture due to its limited size, and has no significant environmental values. The land is serviced. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 6(b) of the Direction.	Justifiably inconsistent
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). The subject land is located outside of the Town and Village Growth Boundary for Bangalow identified in the FNCRS. However the site is classified as “non–coastal” under the FNCRS because it is located west of the Pacific Highway. Council can support a residential zone outside of the Town and Village Growth Boundary subject to meeting the Sustainability Criteria. The purpose of the Sustainability Criteria is to enable Council to consider planning proposals that are logical town extensions in the absence of a strategy. In this case the inconsistency is justified because the subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture, is fully serviced and has no significant environmental values. It is very small (approx. 0.3 hectares) and is an irregular shape. It is a logical correction of a zone that dates back to the LEP 1988. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 5 of the Direction that achieves the overall intent of the regional strategy and does not undermine the achievement of its vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes or actions. It will not expand Bangalow beyond its logical residential boundary and eliminates a rural zone that no longer fits with the dominant surrounding land use.	Justifiably inconsistent
5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast	Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal for land mapped as: (a) State significant farmland, or (b) regionally significant farmland, or (c) significant non-contiguous farmland, on the set of four maps held in the Department of Planning and marked “Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project, Final Map 2005 (Section 117(2) Direction)”.	The subject land is mapped as regionally significant farmland on the Departments maps. The inconsistency is justifiable as follows: The inconsistency with the FNCRS has already been justified. It can also be justified against Section 4 of the report titled Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project – Final Recommendations, February 2005 as follows: The final recommendations state that urban development could be considered on regionally significant farmland if all seven of the following criteria apply. 1. The proposal is not a new urban area or a disjointed suburb. There is no viable alternative because it is correcting an outdated zone boundary. It is a “rounding off” of an existing urban area. 2. The subject land is located next to existing residential zones on three sides 3. It will not be a wedge into regionally significant farmland because the nearest land use on three sides is residential and the fourth side is the Council reservoir and its curtilage. The nearest agricultural land is across Granuaille Road about 100 metres from the subject land. The 0.3 ha of land is already isolated. Allowing an urban zone on this site will not disrupt the use of other farmland. 4. The subject 0.3 ha is currently not used for horticulture or grazing which dominates local agriculture. This land is not critical to the viability of either industry. No agricultural infrastructure or transport routes will be affected by this site being zoned residential. The key road transport links of Granuaille Road and the Pacific Motorway will remain as fully functional road transport links. 5. No impacts arising from the residential zone will compromise the Macadamia production, or grazing being carried out on other significant farmland in the general area. 6. The land surrounding the subject land is not subject to existing land use conflicts relating to agriculture. If dwellings are built on the subject land this will not exacerbate any known agricultural conflicts. 7. No filling is required for the subject land. It is not flood prone. Therefore all seven of the criteria can be met by the planning proposal.	Justifiably inconsistent

View of the Land Owners

The owner of Lot 232 initiated the planning proposal and has engaged Planners North to submit it.

The adjoining owner of Lot 231 has expressed concerns regarding the rating implications of being rezoned to R2 Low Density Residential; and the possibility of the building line restriction applying to Lot 232 also being applied to Lot 231. Any change in rates will depend on what the land is valued by the Valuer General. Revaluation occurs when the rezoning of land is gazetted. This Planning Proposal does not seek to apply a building line restriction to Lot 231.

The adjoining owner of Lot 233 has not been approached for their view at this stage as the area of land proposed to be rezoned comprises a narrow strip of land. In the event that this planning proposal proceeds to public exhibition the landowners will be notified and have an opportunity to submit their views for Council’s consideration.

Conclusion

Statutory analysis undertaken in this report demonstrates that the proposed rezoning is consistent, or justifiably inconsistent, with State and Council strategies and policies and therefore has sufficient merit to be supported.

Council should proceed with a planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 to apply the R2 Low Density Residential zone, an FSR of 0.5:1 and MLS of 600 sq metres over part of Lot 232 DP 1194657, part of Lot 231 DP 1194657 and part of Lot 233 DP 1194657 as shown in Map 1 of this report.

Financial Implications

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. If the applicant chooses not to pay then the planning proposal will not proceed. If Council chooses not to proceed then the matter does not incur any additional costs.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above in relation to amending an LEP.

Pre Gateway Review

If a proponent has requested that a council prepare a planning proposal for a proposed instrument, it may ask for a pre-Gateway review if:

a. the council has notified the proponent that the request to prepare a planning proposal is not supported; or

b. the council has failed to indicate its support 90 days after the proponent submitted a request, accompanied by the required information

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.14

Report No. 13.14 Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Angus Underwood, Team Leader Natural Environment

File No: I2015/355

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

Following public exhibition in early 2014 the draft Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPOM) was reported to Council in October 2014, where Council resolved that to progress towards finalisation of the CKPOM that legal advice be received on a number of questions about the CKPOM and State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44). This legal advice was subsequently received and distributed to Councillors.

This report provides an overview of the changes now made to the draft CKPOM in response to the legal advice.

This report recommends that the amended CKPOM be adopted and forwarded to the DoPE for their consideration and approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Adopt the Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management at Attachment 3, incorporating any changes made in accordance with recommendation 3.

2. Submit the Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management to the Director of the Department of Planning and Environment for approval.

3. Delegate to the General Manager the authority to make any non-policy amendments or minor changes required to the Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management prior to submitting the Plan to the Department of Planning and Environment, including those that may be required by the Department following submission of the Plan.

4. Receive a report detailing any changes required by the Department of Planning and Environment in response to recommendation 3.

Attachments:

1 Confidential - Legal advice dated 27/11/14 - Draft Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management, S2014/14066

2 Letter to Department of Planning and Environment requesting advise on the Byron coast Koala Plan of Management, E2015/20646

3 DRAFT Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management - reported to Council August 2015, E2015/51616

4 Changes to CKPOM in response to legal advice , E2015/37745

5 Confidential - Legal advice dated 31/03/14 - Draft Byron Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management, E2014/21945

6 Department of Planning Circular B35 SEPP 44 Koala Plans of Management 22 March 1995, DM1076014

7 Director General NPWS advise re Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management, E2014/58405

Background:

Council resolved (11-137) to prepare a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPOM). Council also resolved (11-299, 11-300, 11-473 and 12-771) to establish a project reference group to assist in the preparation and additional activities required to prepare a KPOM in accordance with the statutory requirements of SEPP 44.

The Byron Coast Koala Habitat Study was completed in March 2012 and Council resolved to use this study as the scientific basis to inform the preparation of the development of a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (12-218).

Following the public exhibition of the draft CKPOM a revised draft was reported to Council in October 2014 where Council resolved to receive legal advice (14-494).

Following receipt of the legal advice (Attachment 1) Council staff requested a response from the DoPE to confirm their position on CKPOM’s, as the legal advice received was not consistent with the position taken in all CKPOM’s previously approved by the DoPE, as well as advice received from DoPE through the Byron KPOM Project Reference Group. The approved CKPOM’s include Coffs Harbour (2000), Port Stephens (2002), Kempsey (2011) and Lismore (2013), as well as draft CKPOM’s for Tweed, Ballina, Richmond Valley and Bellingen LGA’s. As DoPE is the approving authority for CKPOM’s under SEPP44 it was considered necessary to clarify their position prior to staff finalising the Byron CKPOM for Council consideration.

On the 13 March 2015, Council staff attended a meeting with staff from the DoPE to discuss a broad range of planning issues. At this meeting staff requested an update on the CKPOM advice. DoPE advised they had received their legal advice but did not elaborate any further on this at that meeting.

On 31 March 2015, a further letter was sent to the DoPE requesting confirmation of their position in regard to the draft Byron CKPoM (Attachment 2), given that DoPE had now received their legal advice.

In response, DoPE convened a meeting on 7May 2015, which was attended by a number of north coast councils with approved or draft CKPOM’s. At the meeting DoPE committed to sending a letter to all councils providing a written response to the issues raised at the meeting and to formally clarify their position on KPOMs. At the time of writing this report this advice from DoPE had not been received.

Report

Legal/ drafting changes to the draft CKPOM

Notwithstanding the above, changes have been made to the draft CKPOM in response to the legal advice received by Council and discussions with DoPE as the approving authority. The amended CKPOM is included as Attachment 3.

Further, Council’s Legal Services Branch has reviewed the amended CKPOM against the external legal advice received by Council and the original CKPOM. Legal Services view is that the amended CKPOM addresses the issues raised by the legal advice. It regards the amended CKPOM as legally valid for the purposes of submitting it for approval by the DoPE Director. The amended CKPOM has also recently been reviewed by DoPE’s Regional Office, at Council’s request, and staff comments received (by email) indicate they are satisfied that the amended CKPOM complies with SEPP 44.

Structural Changes

The Plan has now been restructured and is presented in two parts:

Part 1:The Strategy which includes:

- Section A – Introduction

- Section B - General Provisions and Koala Management Framework

- Section C - Management Activities – non regulatory management actions for Council and the community

Part 2:Development Assessment and Control - which includes the development assessment and control provisions to satisfy the statutory requirements of SEPP44.

This change has been made to make clear the separation between non regulatory and regulatory components of the CKPOM. The development assessment framework required by SEPP44 is now completely positioned in Part 2 making it easy to determine the sections of the CKPOM that must be addressed during the development application process.

Attachment 4 details the other changes that have been made to the CKPOM in response to the legal advice. Included in Attachment 4 is reference to other attachments including additional legal advice received during public exhibition (Confidential Attachment 5), DoPE Circular No. B35 (Attachment 6) and advice received in response to Clause 12 (Attachment 7).

Koala Habitat mapping

As part of the separate vegetation mapping review currently underway, the koala habitat mapping is also being updated. The revised koala habitat maps were exhibited for a period of 6 weeks over March and April 2015. The exhibition included a mail out to 1943 residents in the study area living on rural land and selected urban areas with larger blocks or containing high conservation value vegetation. A total of 54 submissions were received and reviewed. Additional field work was undertaken in response and additional amendments were made to the koala habitat maps to improve their accuracy. Details of the koala habitat mapping methodology is included in Section 5.2 and Appendix 4 of the CKPOM.

Financial Implications

The CKPOM details a number of management actions which require funding either through staff time or budget allocation.

Currently $14,000 remains from the Office of Environment and Heritage grant funding received to develop the CKPOM. This can be used to fund short term priority actions. Additional staff time and financial assistance can also be provided from the Koala Connections project currently funded until June 2016 by the Federal Governments Biodiversity Fund.

Ongoing progression of the CKPOM implementation will otherwise occur in line with the annual budget process.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Pursuant to the State Environment Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection, a plan of management may be prepared for the whole or part of a local government area listed in Schedule 1 of the SEPP (includes Byron Shire). Once adopted by Council the KPOM must be approved by the DoPE.

Byron Shire Council’s Delivery Program 2013-2017, item EN 1 Protect and enhance the natural environment includes action EN1.1.11 Implementation of the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management.

Preparation of a CKPOM is consistent with priority actions of the Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2004 including the categories of Community Involvement and Education, Ecological Restoration, Environmental Weeds and Introduced Pests and Threatened Species.

In contrast to operating under SEPP 44 alone, the Byron CKPOM will:

· Provide certainly for landholders and planners by a providing consistent, transparent development assessment process

· Reduce the assessment requirements and associated cost for landholders in most circumstances, particularly minor development.

· Eliminate the requirement and cost associated with developing a site specific KPOM.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.17

Report No. 13.17 Update Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Catherine Knight, Coastal Officer

File No: I2015/704

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

Indicative timeframes for preparing the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP BBE) have been reviewed and updated. The indicative submission date for the draft CZMP BBE is March 2016, and at this stage is unchanged by recent delays to the review and finalisation of the Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment (management study).

With reference to the milestones and timeframes for preparing the draft CZMP BBE, a recommended pathway for the involvement of a potential Project Reference Group (PRG) has been developed. This pathway is designed to ensure that the PRG adds value to the CZMP BBE process but does not impact on timeframes. A draft PRG constitution and methodology for setting up the PRG is provided for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the draft constitution at Attachment 1 (#E2015/45369) be amended at various sections to include the following information:

a) Section 4.1 - X number of Councillor Members, and these Councillors are …

b) Section 4.1 - X number of Community Members, and these Community Members are…

c) Document History – Relevant dates and resolution numbers pertaining to Council’s consideration of this Report (#I2015/704).

2. That Council adopt the amended draft constitution at Attachment 1 (#E2015/45369).

3. That the process at Table 2 of this Report (#I2015/704) be implemented for establishing the Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment Project Reference Group.

Attachments:

1 Draft Constitution Project Reference Group Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment, E2015/45369

Report

A summary of indicative Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP BBE) timeframes is at Table 1. These timeframes reflect recent delays to finalising the Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment (management study). These delays have been beyond the control of staff, as follows:

· The consultant required more time than originally anticipated to undertake the additional cost benefit analysis as per Resolution 15-139. This delay was largely due to the complexity of the work involved in the analysis, and the availability of the economics sub-consultant. In turn, the draft report was not received until 17 July 2015.

· The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) have indicated that, in accordance with the funding agreement (grant), they will be required to review the draft report before it is finalised. The OEH have undertaken to review the report over a 4 week period with a consolidated set of comments to be provided for consideration by 18 August 2015.

From Table 1, the indicative submission date for the draft CZMP BBE is March 2016, and at this stage is unchanged by recent delays to the review and finalisation of the Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment (management study).

On 9 April 2015, Council resolved as follows with respect to the CZMP BBE:

15-139 Resolved that Council (relevant part only)

6. That Council establishes a community advisory/reference panel to provide ongoing feedback during the preparation of the CZMP containing key stakeholders and Councillors (as per CZMP guideline 2.2.2

To this end, Table 1 also provides a recommended pathway for the involvement of a potential Project Reference Group (PRG) in the preparation of the draft CZMP BBE. This pathway is designed to ensure that the PRG adds value to the process but does not impact on timeframes.

Table 1 Summarised, indicative CZMP BBE timeframes and potential Project Reference Group (PRG) involvement / tasks

Task name and description

Indicative time frames

Potential PRG involvement / tasks

1) Review Risks from Coastal Hazards

Finalised and endorsed Res 13-542

Jun 2012 to Sep 2013

n/a

2) Management Options Evaluation

· Draft report

· Councillor workshop

· Council Report - update

· Council Report - Final report tabled for consideration

Oct 2013 to

Sep 2015

· Review 20 Jul to 18 Aug 2015

· 13 Aug 2015

· 27 Aug 2015

· Estimated 17 Sep 2015 Council meeting

n/a

3) Prepare ‘Community Uses of the Coastal Zone’ assessment

Jan 2014 to

Sep 2015

n/a

4) Prepare Implementation Schedule

Jan 2014 to

Sep 2015

n/a

5) Review Emergency Action Sub Plan

May 2014 to

Sep 2015

n/a

6) Prepare first draft CZMP

May 2014 to

Sep 2015

n/a

7) Review Draft CZMP

Oct

2015

i. PRG review draft CZMP BBE and provide feedback to staff prior to the tabling of the draft CZMP BBE at a Council meeting, and prior to the draft CZMP BBE being ‘adopted for public exhibition’.

Subject to strict timeframes

For example:

®draft CZMP BBE distributed in PRG agenda papers 23/09/15

® overview of draft CZMP provided at meeting 1/10/15

® members submit written feedback within 2 weeks 15/10/15

®staff consider feedback and may amend draft CZMP BBE

®PRG feedback and staff response documented in report by 3/11/15

®staff report to Council Meeting 19/11/15

8) Consider and adopt Draft CZMP

· Councillor workshop

· Council meeting

Nov 2015

12 Nov 2015

19 Nov 2015

n/a

9) Draft CZMP exhibition

· Exhibition - 21 days minimum statutory requirement

· Submissions report

Dec 2015

Dec 2015 to Jan 2016

Jan 2016

ii. PRG provide feedback, input and support to draft CZMP BBE exhibition consultation and communication activities.

For example:

Provide feedback on draft CZMP BBE consultation strategy; attend information sessions; market stalls.

iii. PRG overview submissions provided on the adopted draft CZMP BBE, review and provide feedback to staff on draft CZMP BBE ‘exhibition submissions report’ prior to tabling at Council meeting, and prior to amended draft CZMP BBE being adopted for ‘submission to the Minister’.

10) Prepare final draft CZMP for adoption and submission

· Councillor workshop

· Council meeting

· Final draft CZMP submitted to Minister

Feb to Mar 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

n/a

From Table 1, there are three main tasks which the PRG may be involved in:

i. Review draft CZMP BBE and provide feedback to staff prior to the tabling of the draft CZMP BBE at a Council meeting, and prior to the draft CZMP BBE being ‘adopted for public exhibition’.

ii. Provide feedback, input and support to draft CZMP BBE exhibition consultation and communication activities.

iii. Overview submissions provided on the adopted draft CZMP BBE, review and provide feedback to staff on draft CZMP BBE ‘exhibition submissions report’ prior to tabling at Council meeting, and prior to amended draft CZMP BBE being adopted for ‘submission to the Minister’.

It is necessary that the constitution and membership of the PRG is settled prior to the commencement of the review of the draft CZMP BBE, Task (i) above, which is anticipated to occur in October 2015. A process for assembling the PRG, revised in reference to 30 April 2015 Report No.17.1, is provided at Table 2. A revised draft constitution for the PRG, complementary to Table 1 and 2, has also been prepared for Council’s consideration, at Attachment 1.

Table 2 Process for establishing membership of CZMP BBE Project Reference Group

Step	Time required	Indicative Timeframe / end date
1. Prepare and table constitution of PRG for Council’s consideration and resolution.	This Council meeting	27 August 2015
2. Councillors determine / make resolution on the community membership of the PRG (i.e. number of members and the individuals or groups to be represented in the PRG).	This Council meeting.	27 August 2015
3. Invite and confirm all members – staff, community and agency representatives, seek nomination of a Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) member.	Three weeks	27 August to 18 September 2015
4. First approximate meeting date	One week to distribute agenda to members or by 23 September 2015	1 October 2015

Financial Implications

The administrative functions associated with the PRG will be undertaken using existing staff resources in the Environment and Economic Planning section. Potential costs associated with the PRG may include advertising costs and expenses related to catering and meeting room hire. These costs are not anticipated to be large and will be met through existing budgets.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

An extract of the relevant section of the statutory Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013), the Guidelines, is provided below. The establishment and the suggested membership of the proposed CZMP PRG, as detailed in the draft constitution at Attachment 1, accords with the Guidelines, noting that the membership includes: representatives of the Aboriginal community, key stakeholders including public authorities.

In addition, the objectives of the draft constitution reflect clear terms of reference, being the three main tasks outlined in this report.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.18

Report No. 13.18 PLANNING - S96 DA 10.2014.404.2 S96 to alter conditions relating to tree retention, footpath construction, kerb and gutter construction (subdivision to create six (6) urban lots with associated Infrastructure and tree removal), at 70-90 Station Street, Mullumbimby

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Oli McIntosh, Planner

Wayne Bertram, Manager Sustainable Development

File No: I2015/721

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal: A S96 application has been received to modify the conditions of Determination No. 10.2014.404.1 to enable removal of the fig tree which results in a reconfigured lot layout; remove the requirement for a 1.2m wide footpath for the full property frontage; remove the requirement for kerb and gutter for the full property frontage (and thus retain existing dish gutter) and delete conditions regarding site remediation. The report provides the assessment of the S96 application.

Applicant:	Byron Shire Council
Owner:	Byron Shire Council
Zoning:	Zone No. B2 Local Centre / Part B4 Mixed Use / Part SP2 Infrastructure
S96 date received:	20 May 2015
Original DA determination date:	30 October 2014
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 11/6/15 to 24/6/15 - Submissions: One (1) objection
PRC:	6 August 2015
Delegation:	Council
Issues:	· Reduced environmental and public benefit outcomes. · Adequacy of existing footpath network for future mixed use developments.

Summary:

An application has been received to modify the conditions of Determination No. 10.2014.404.1 to:

· enable removal of the fig tree which results in a reconfigured lot layout

· remove the requirement for a 1.2m wide footpath for the full property frontage

· remove the requirement for kerb and gutter for the full property frontage (and thus retain existing dish gutter)

· delete conditions regarding site remediation

It is recommended that the removal of the fig tree and some of the proposed amendments to drainage requirements be approved; however requirements to construct a kerb and gutter should remain.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, that application no. 10.2014.404.2 for S96 to alter conditions relating to tree retention, footpath construction and kerb and gutter construction (Subdivision to create six (6) urban lots with associated Infrastructure and tree removal), be approved by modifying development consent 10.2014.404.1 as listed in Attachment 2 #E2015/49664.

Attachments:

1 Draft S96 conditions of consent 10.2014.404.2 70-90 Station Street Mullumbimby, E2015/49664

2 Confidential - submission S96 10.2014.404.2 70-90 Station Street Mullumbimby, E2015/50898

Report

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Details of approved development and any subsequent modifications

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 30^th of October 2014, resolved (Resolution No. 14-559):

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2014.404.1 for subdivision to create six (6) urban lots with associated infrastructure and tree removal, be granted consent subject to the recommended conditions listed in Annexure 9(b) #E2014/67012 and subject to the large tree being retained.

1.2 Section 96 modifications sought

Approval is sought to modify the conditions of Determination No. 10.2014.404.1 to:

· enable removal of the fig tree which results in a reconfigured lot layout

· remove the requirement for a 1.2m wide footpath for the full property frontage

· remove the requirement for kerb and gutter for the full property frontage (and thus retain existing dish gutter), and

· delete conditions relating to site remediation requirements

1.3 Is the modification substantially the same as the development granted

Council must first determine whether the modified development will be 'substantially the same' as the development that was originally approved (before any modifications had been made to it).

Councils must compare the likely impacts of the proposed modified development, including the environmental, social and economic impacts, with the impacts of the original development.

lf the council decides the development will be substantially the same; the council must then consider:

· the matters listed in section 79C of the EP&A Act that are relevant to the modified development, and

· any public submissions that have been made to make a decision on the modification application".

In determining a Section 96 application Council can only consider the issues which the application is seeking to amend.

In determining whether the proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that originally granted, a qualitative and quantitative analysis is required. To that end it is noted that the modifications sought by this application do not result in any change in use – fundamentally the approved development was for a six (6) lot urban subdivision and associated works, and this will not change as a result of the proposed modifications.

The proposed modifications as assessed generally result in substantially the same environmental impacts, however, the proposed deletion of certain drainage and footpath upgrades are considered to result in a poorer overall environmental and public benefit outcome.

As such it is recommended that the removal of the fig tree and some of the proposed amendments to drainage requirements be approved; however requirements to construct a kerb and gutter should remain.

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

The proposed modifications were referred to a Consultant Development Engineer, Council’s Ecological Planner, and a Consultant Environmental Health Officer who provided comments and recommendations as outlined below;

Consultant Development Engineer Comments:

· Footpath – condition 6

Council requires roads to be in accordance with the Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual. Station Street has been designed as a 13m wide carriageway and the Design manual requires a minimum of a footpath on at least one side of the road. There is an existing footpath on the western (opposite) side of the road and given the desire lines and the pedestrian catchment of the footpath this single footpath is considered adequate for this development the deletion of the condition requiring a footpath is supported.

· Kerb & Gutter - condition 6.

Following a review of the existing dish drain and the adjoining pavement, the retention of the existing dish drain is supported. However, given the traffic on Station Street and the design standards of the Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual a kerb shall be attached to the dish drain to provide upright kerb and channel. Upright Kerb & Gutter shall be constructed from the end of the existing dish drain to the pre school driveway.

· Dish Drain in invert of overland flow path – condition 7.

The lining of the invert of the overland flow path with a 600 wide dish gutter is supported as this will delineate and provide a minimum grade for the overland flow path.

· Land Fill & Floor Levels – Condition 47.

Given that cut and fill earthworks are no longer proposed, the deletion of this condition is supported.

Ecological Planner Comments:

· The large fig tree at the front of the lots facing Station Street is a Ficus benjamina which is native to India and also occurs in parts of North Eastern Queensland and the Northern Territory. Figs generally have some conservation significance as fruiting trees eaten by rainforest pigeons; however, local native species are of much greater ecological significance. Thus, from an ecological and legislative perspective, there are no serious ecological issues with the loss of the identified fig, subject to appropriate compensation ratios. The matter is more one of amenity and public perception.

Environmental Health Officer Comments:

Subsequent to the issue of DA 10.2014.404.1 Greg Alderson and Associates were engaged by Byron Shire Council to conduct a Detailed Contaminated Land Assessment (19 November 2014) with respect to residual lead around the Mullumbimby Preschool.

This detailed investigation included the collection of eight point samples in locations around the preschool building. These samples assisted in determining the vertical and lateral extents of lead contamination in these areas. Results of the samples showed lead was present in concentrations greater than the HIL of 300mg/kg, however there was no elevated levels of lead detected within the preschool playground area, but only under the building and off the southern wall of the building.

For surface soil samples collected outside the preschool playground area the 95% Upper Confidence Limit is calculated as being 532.5mg/kg and the mean was 258.4mg/kg. Mean lead concentration found in samples taken within the playground area was 22.6mg/kg, which is considered to be equal to naturally occurring background concentrations. Furthermore, the

standard deviation (calculated as 133.239) is less than 50% of the HIL, and no single value exceeds the lead HIL by 250%.

Greg Alderson and Associates concluded that based on the information provided in Schedule B1 of NEPM (1999), it is considered the health risk created by the lead levels and locations at the site do not warrant remediation works to be undertaken, but rather the site is to be managed using the following recommendations:

1. Staff of the childcare centre are made aware of the elevated levels of lead around the southern side of the building, and under the building, and be vigilant in keeping children away from these areas;

2. Enclose the cavity between the preschool building and the ground surface on the western wall of the building facing the car park to prohibit child access to under the building from the car park area.

In addition Greg Alderson and Associates stated that:

if there is a proposed change in sensitivity to the site, remediation may be required. Further assessment will be required to determine if any change in use or sensitivity warrants the remediation of the site. Such changes include the expansion or relocation of the playground area on the site, the removal of the preschool building or a change to residential use of the subject site.

Given that Council now has the benefit of a Detailed Contaminated Land Site Assessment (Greg Alderson and Associates (19 November 2014) and by adopting the precautionary principle, given the sensitivity of the use (as a preschool) and the identification of hotspots on the southern side and under beneath the building it is recommended that modification of development of site remediation conditions be as follows:

Condition No 13 be amended as follows:

Remediation of contaminated land

The application for a construction certificate must be accompanied by a Remedial Action Plan prepared by a suitably qualified contaminated land specialist with experience in the remediation of contaminated land. The Remedial Action Plan must conform to NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 1997 and all other applicable standards.

The Remedial Action Plan must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate for Subdivision works.

Condition No 19 be retained

Remediation of contaminated land

Prior to the commencement of any works associated with this development consent, the following is required:

a) A suitably qualified contaminated land specialist with experience in the remediation of contaminated land must be engaged by the proponent to oversee and be responsible for all works associated with the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan and subsequent site and soil validation.

b) A notice of commencement of the remediation work and a copy of the Remedial Action Plan must be provided to Council’s Health and Environment Section at least 30 days prior to commencement of the -work.

c) The notice of commencement must include contact details of the responsible person, including an emergency 24-hour phone number.

Condition No 21 be retained

Remediation of contaminated land

Remedial works must be undertaken in conformance with the approved Remedial Action Plan and NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 1997 and all other applicable standards.

Condition No 22 be retained

Removal of lead and other wastes

All wastes, including lead-contaminated wastes, associated with these works are to be handled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Work Cover Authority. The applicant/owner is to produce documentary evidence that this condition has been met. Wastes must be disposed of at a Licensed Waste Facility. All wastes removed from the site must be managed and disposed of in accordance with NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines (2008) www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/08202classifyingwaste.pdf ‎

Condition No 48 is to be retained

Remediation of contaminated land

A notice of completion must be provided to Council’s Health and Environment Section within 30 days of completion of the remediation work. The notice of completion must be accompanied by a Validation Report prepared by a suitably qualified person with experience in the remediation of contaminated land.

The Validation Report must specify the standard of remediation achieved and certify that the site is suitable for the proposed use. The report must conform to the NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 1997 and all other statutory requirements.

Documentary evidence must be provided confirming the method of disposal and destination of all contaminated soil removed from the site.

3. ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

The application proposes the following specific amendments to the approved development. Each of the following proposed amendments is followed by a comment by Council’s Assessment Planner:

· Amend the description of the approved development to remove the reference to the Fig tree so as to read "Subdivision to create six (6) lots with associated infrastructure and tree removal (9 trees)"

Staff Comment:

The subject tree is not a locally endemic species nor of significance to local biodiversity. Council’s Ecological Planner has raised no objection to the removal of the tree. The marginal benefits bestowed by the tree are not considered to justify the extra cost and inconvenience to the development that will result as a consequence of requiring its retention. It is also noted that this particular specimen is not fully mature and will continue to grow and spread its roots over a large area which may cause problems for adjacent drainage and Council infrastructure in the future.

It is recommended that the description of the approved development be amended, as proposed.

· Amend Condition No. 1 so that it refers to the amended plans of subdivision

Staff Comment:

The amended plan of subdivision differs slightly from the approved plan. In particular the areas of the proposed lots have been very slightly adjusted (between 3.2m² and 24.1m² per lot) and the proposed easement for an overland flow path between Station Street and the rear adjoining railway land has been reduced from 4m to 3m in width (discussed below).

It is recommended that Condition No. 1 be amended, as proposed.

· Amend Condition No. 5(g) to delete the requirement for the retention and protection of the Fig tree

Staff Comment:

The proposed modifications to allow for the removal of the fig tree growing at the front of proposed Lot 4 and 5 makes this condition superfluous.

It is recommended that Condition No. 5(g) be amended, as proposed.

· Amend Condition No. 6 to delete the requirement for a 1.2m wide concrete footpath for the full frontage of the development site and to delete the requirement for the replacement of the existing dish gutter with kerb and gutter

Staff Comment:

Council has had this matter considered by an independent Consultant Development Engineer who has assessed the development in accordance with the Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual. Station Street has been designed as a 13m wide carriageway and the Design manual requires a minimum of a footpath on at least one side of the road. There is an existing footpath on the western (opposite) side of the road and given the desire lines and the pedestrian catchment of the footpath this single footpath is considered adequate for this development the deletion of the condition requiring a footpath is supported.

The independent Consultant Development Engineer has also reviewed the existing dish drain and the adjoining pavement, the retention of the existing dish drain is supported. However, given the traffic on Station Street and the design standards of the Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual a kerb shall be attached to the dish drain to provide upright kerb and channel. Upright Kerb & Gutter shall be constructed from the end of the existing dish drain to the pre school driveway.

The proposed changes would be consistent with the Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual. As Council is also the Road Authority responsible for the maintenance of the road infrastructure and footpaths in this area Council would also be required to undertake any repairs, maintenance and upgrading of the existing footpaths where necessary, at a future date.

After considering this additional information it is recommended that Condition No. 6 be amended, to delete the requirement for a 1.2m wide concrete footpath for the full frontage of the development site and to replace the requirement for “Kerb and gutter and associated drainage construction, footpath formation including any necessary relocation of services across the frontage of the subdivision. Replace the existing dish gutter with kerb & gutter and remove the existing indented parking bays in front of lots 2 & 3” to “Kerb and gutter and associated drainage construction, any necessary relocation of services across the frontage of the subdivision. A kerb shall be attached to the dish drain to provide upright kerb and channel. Upright Kerb & Gutter shall be constructed from the end of the existing dish drain to the pre school driveway.”

· Delete Condition No. 8 as it is effectively a duplicate of Condition No.11

Staff Comment:

Agreed. The two conditions both require the developer to obtain Section 68 approval for water and sewerage work prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the subdivision works. Notwithstanding, the wording of Condition 8 is considered to be more specific to the proposed development and preferable to Condition 11.

It is recommended that Condition 11 be deleted.

· Amend Condition No. 7 -Construct overland flow path to reflect the fact that the overland flow path grass swale exists between Station Street and lands at the rear of the proposed subdivision.

Staff Comment:

Council’s consultant development engineer has reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended that the condition be modified, as proposed. In particular, the wording of Condition 7 should be modified to facilitate minor re-shaping and re-alignment of the grassed swale to accord with proposed lot boundaries and the invert of the overland flow path to be lined with a 600mm wide dish gutter. This will delineate the flow path and provide the minimum required grade for effective stormwater drainage.

It is recommended that Condition 7 be amended, as proposed.

· Relocate Condition No. 12 so that it is removed from the section "The following conditions will need to be complied with prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for subdivision works" and is placed in the section "The following conditions must be complied with prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate"

Staff Comment:

Condition 12 relates to the requirement to obtain a Certificate of Compliance under the Water Management Act 2000. This condition concerns the payment of water and sewer levies and, as with the payment of S.94 Contributions, is generally required prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate. The ordering of this condition appears to have been made in error.

It is recommended that Condition 12 be moved, as proposed.

· Delete Condition No’s 13, 19, 21,22 & 48 as they all relate to site contamination and remediation - which are articulated in Section 2.1.1 (of the applicant’s SEE) as being not appropriate or necessary for the development of lots 2,3, 4 and 5.

Staff Comment:

These proposed modifications were referred to a Consultant Environmental Health Officer, who has recommended that, in light of the particular circumstances of this case, a requirement to undertake remediation works should continue to apply. It is recommended that Condition 13 be modified as follows:

Remediation of contaminated land

The Remedial Action Plan must be approved as part of the Construction Certificate for Subdivision works.

It has also been recommended that conditions 19, 21, 22, & 48 remain unchanged.

· Delete Condition No. 47 due to the fact that there is no site filling proposed/required and no buildings proposed as part of this application

Staff Comment:

Given that earthworks are no longer proposed it is recommended that Condition 47 be deleted, as proposed.

Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The application was publicly notified in accordance with Section A14 Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications of the Byron DCP2014. Council received one (1) submission, which objects to the removal or severe pruning of the fig tree. No specific reasons for the objection are given.

Public Interest

The modifications recommended at the end of this report are considered to be acceptable and within the public interest.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

No changes.

5. CONCLUSION

With regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the relevant matters for consideration under S.79C of the EP&A Act 1979, the proposed deletion of all civil infrastructure upgrade and remediation requirements is considered to lack sufficient merit and the proposed modifications are not supported or have been modified accordingly. Other modifications, such as the removal of the fig tree have sufficient planning merit to warrant approval.

It is recommended that the application be modified in the manner outlined in the attached conditions of consent as listed in Attachment 1.

7. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application	No
Have staff received a ‘gift’ from anyone involved in this application that needs to be disclosed. Where the answer is yes, the application is to be determined by the Director or Manager of the Planning, Development and Environment Division.	No

8 Recommendation

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.19

Report No. 13.19 Vegetation mapping - Stages 1 and 2 update

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Angus Underwood, Team Leader Natural Environment

File No: I2015/801

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

Draft vegetation mapping for Stage 1 (the coastal lowlands) was reported to Council in February 2015. Council resolved to place this mapping on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks, which was carried out between 18 March and 29 April 2015. A total of 54 submissions were received in response to the public exhibition. Submissions were reviewed and additional field work has been carried out during May and July in order to inform amendments to the draft maps. Review of the submissions for Stage 1 is complete and the required amendments to the maps have now been finalised.

Stage 2 includes the remainder of the Shire and commenced at the end of April 2015. Draft mapping for stage 2 will be ready for public exhibition in early September. The public exhibition period will provide landholders a chance to review the draft maps and provide feedback to Council if they believe the maps do not reflect the vegetation that occurs on their property. Extensive field work will be undertaken during and following the public exhibition period to inform refinements to the mapping.

It is expected that Stage 2 will be finalised by December 2015 at which time a full report on the review for both stages 1 and 2 will be provided to Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the contents of this report in terms of the outcomes of the public exhibition of Stage 1 of the vegetation mapping review.

2. That Council endorse the public exhibition of the Stage 2 draft vegetation mapping for a period of 28 days.

Attachments:

1 Report 26/02/2015 Council Vegetation mapping review, I2015/28

Report

Vegetation mapping across the Shire is currently being reviewed and updated. The current review is significant in scope and nature and will improve the accuracy of the mapping and reflect changes in vegetation extent and composition over time. Vegetation mapping was initially carried out in 1999 as part of the Byron Flora and Fauna Study and a review of parts of the mapping was undertaken in 2007.

The mapping review has been divided into two stages (Figure 1). Stage 1 includes around 20,000 hectares on the coast of the Shire and was placed on public exhibition between 18 March and 29 April. Stage 2 includes the remainder of the Shire covering an area of around 36,600 hectares. Draft mapping for Stage 2 is currently being finalised for public exhibition.

The methodology of the mapping was outlined in a report to Council at its meeting on 26 February 2015 (Attachment 1).

Stage 1 – Coastal lands

Draft mapping for Stage 1 was placed on public exhibition between 18 March and 29 April 2015.

Exhibited draft maps included both vegetation and koala habitat. As part of the public exhibition the following notification was carried out:

- Direct mail out to 1943 properties within the study area

- Distribution of an Information sheet

- Media release

- Council notice in the Byron Echo

- Paid advert in the Byron Echo

- Information on Council’s website both on the Home page and in a dedicated vegetation mapping page

- Information sheets and poster size map in Council foyer

High resolution mapping was available for download on Council’s website which enabled landholders to review mapping at a property scale. Supporting information was also provided to assist landholders to interpret the maps and to provide details about the methodology used. Landholders were also provided the opportunity to view the mapping at Council’s Administration Building if they had difficulty accessing the online content. Landholders also had the opportunity make an appointment with staff to discuss the draft mapping for their property.

Over the 6 weeks of the public exhibition staff received 10-20 enquires per week, more focused at the commencement and towards the end of the exhibition period. Many of the enquiries were in regards to interpretation of the vegetation categories used in the maps and issues viewing the maps online. Enquires were received via phone or in person at Council’s Administration Building. When landholders enquired at Council’s Administration Building the mapping was presented for viewing on Council’s GIS system. In the majority of cases landholders were satisfied with the mapping when the process and outcomes were explained to them. Where issues were identified these were noted for further review and amendments.

A total of 54 submissions were received in response to the public exhibition period. Common themes raised in the submissions related to:

- The alignment of mapped areas against actual vegetation boundaries

- The extent of camphor laurel in areas of native vegetation and assignment of the appropriate vegetation category

- The use of areas of native vegetation for farming or other land uses

- The presence or absence of koala food trees, or the classification of koala habitat

- The identification of planted vegetation

- The appropriate vegetation category assigned based on dominant plants occurrence.

- Interaction between mapping and LEP zoning

Following a review of submissions additional amendments were made to the draft mapping which were informed either by information provided in the submission, or site inspections with the landholder.

- 21 submissions (39%) provided information that enabled changes to be made without a site inspection. For example this included photographs of area or consultants reports.

- 24 submissions (44.4%) required a site inspection to be completed to inform amendments.

- As a result of site inspections changes to the mapping was required on 15 properties (27.7%). Examples of changes included amendments to plant community type classification between similar community types, refinements to koala habitat categories, minor amendments to line work to reflect vegetation extent or identification of planted vegetation.

Additional field work, beyond that in response to submissions, was undertaken to inform other amendments to the draft mapping.

Stage 2 - Hinterland

Draft vegetation mapping over Stage 2 is currently being finalised for public exhibition. The methodology used to undertake the mapping is the same as Stage 1 as outlined in the report to the Council meeting on 26 February 2015 (Attachment 1), however the amount of field inspections undertaken prior to exhibition is lower in comparison to Stage 1. The approach adopted in stage 2 involves a focus on mapping through Aerial Photography Interpretation (API) prior to exhibition, with a view that extensive field inspection will be undertaken during and post public exhibition. This approach was taken due to the constraints of accessing land in study area 2, compared with study area 1 where there is more public land, and was considered to be a better use of resources. It relies on using the public exhibition as the ‘trigger’ for landholders to review the maps and request a site inspection to amend and refine the mapping. This additional field work will inform required amendments or validate the mapping undertaken through API.

Draft exhibition mapping is being informed by a combination of API, reviewing existing information (e.g. vegetation survey data from various Council and state government projects), and field work along road corridors and other public vantage points.

The most recent high resolution aerial photography being used is provided by Nearmaps which includes high resolution imagery from 2014. Imagery supplied to Council from NSW Land and Property Information from September 2009 is also being used. Council has recently been advised that NSW Land and Property Information are finalising high resolution imagery taken in 2015. Availability of this imagery is imminent and will be the primary imagery used. Areas of vegetation mapped prior to receipt of this latest imagery will also be reviewed to ensure they are based on the most up to date images including Stage 1 mapping.

Public exhibition

Draft mapping for Stage 2 will be ready for public exhibition by 7 September. The exhibition process will follow the approach taken in Stage 1.

Public exhibition will provide an opportunity for landholders to view the draft mapping and notify Council if they believe that the mapping does not reflect what occurs on their land. It provides a further opportunity to expand the level of ground truthing undertaken and improve the overall confidence in the mapping.

As part of the public exhibition the community will have the following resources available:

1. A series of high resolution maps to download from Council’s website to view draft mapping at a property scale. An example of the mapping format can be seen at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/byron-shire-environmental-mapping which contains information of Council’s current mapping products.

2. Supporting information and FAQ sheets to assist landholders to understand the mapping process and product.

3. Landholders can make an appointment with Council staff to view and discuss the mapping for their property.

Landholders can lodge a submission to Council if they believe the mapping does not reflect what occurs on their land.

Finalisation of mapping and ongoing review

Following the public exhibition of draft mapping for Stage 2 all submissions will be reviewed and additional field work will be undertaken. Amendments will be made to the draft mapping in response to submissions and field work undertaken prior to the maps being finalised. A Final report will be prepared by the consultant and submitted to Council at the end of November which will then be reported to Council.

It is expected ongoing refinements and updates will be made by Council staff to the maps as an iterative process as new information becomes available. This will enable the maps to remain up to date and reflect any changes in vegetation composition and extent and assign the fine scale plant community type descriptions wherever possible.

Figure 1 Study areas 1 and 2 of the vegetation mapping review

Financial Implications

The allocated budget for the completion of Stages 1 and 2 is $147,960 to cover consulting costs; in addition their is staff time in administering public exhibition, reviewing submissions and undertaking property inspections.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

None identified.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.20

Report No. 13.20 Brunswick River dredging

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Catherine Knight, Coastal Officer

File No: I2015/807

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

In accordance with Resolution 15-364, staff wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries as well as Crown Lands personnel concerning the Brunswick River dredging works. Subsequently, correspondence has been received from Crown Lands indicating they have a strong preference for commencing the dredging works in accordance with their original timeframes. To this end, Crown Lands have identified alternative beach access and boat launch arrangements that do not involve Council assets, and therefore it would appear they do not require permission from Council for the works to proceed.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the information provided by Crown Lands in response to resolution 15-364, and that, from the information provided, it would appear that Crown Lands are legally entitled to proceed with the dredging works using alternative arrangements that do not require permission from or the support of Council.

Attachments:

1 Crown Lands letter dated 24 July 2015 - Brunswick dredging, E2015/49733

2 Crown Lands response to questions - Res 15-364, E2015/49734

Report

At Ordinary Meeting 16 July 2015, Council resolved as follows:

15-364 Resolved that Council writes to the Minister of Lands and Water, the Hon Niall Blair, seeking a deferment of any dredging works in the Brunswick river until the following questions have been considered and answers provided and that permission to use Council’s boat ramp to launch the dredge vessel will not be granted until support has been gained through Council resolution.

1. Purpose of Works:

i. As works haven’t occurred for over 20 years, is work proposed ‘maintenance’ or new?

ii. If considered maintenance, what ongoing maintenance is proposed?

iii. What are estimated ongoing costs to maintain the assumed benefits?

iv. Has the stated purpose to “enable safe boat passage” and “address public safety and environmental risks associated with shallow depths causing vessels to run aground” been assessed and supported by evidence? What are the specific measurable triggers that are being applied? Are there documented reports of any accidents and/or injury as a result of shallow waters? Has there been any effort to implement signage in the river indicating the deep channel areas and speed limits?

v. Is the area concerned currently un-navigable? Is there evidence of this?

2. Impacts of Works:

i. Did the REF consider cumulative impacts of ongoing or recurrent dredging?

ii. What modelling has been used to consider the rate of natural sand replacement, and at what regularity is proposed for the ongoing maintenance.

iii. What documentation exists to support the selection of the three proposed dredging sites?

iv. Have immediate and ongoing impacts on sea grasses been considered?

v. Are there any potential nearby geomorphic disturbances identified, such as heightened erosion or accretion?

vi. What are the specific measurable triggers that are being applied to effects of works, natural sand replacement processes and environmental disruptions?

vii. Has a cost-benefit analysis been completed that incorporates environmental and social considerations?

3. Impacts of Works on Fishers and other Users:

i. What commercial fishing benefits have been identified and what evidence has been produced for justification?

ii. What evidence exists to illustrate any current navigation impediments to commercial fishers due to the current state of the river?

iii. Have impacts of dredging for recreational fisherman been assessed?

iv. What assessment has been conducted, and evidence provided, to verify the claimed benefits for local economies and tourism industries?

v. Does this assessment include possible negative impacts due to ecological and marine disturbance?

4. Wider support for Works:

i. Does OEH support the work and agree with the necessity?

ii. Does Marine Parks support the work and agree with the necessity? Does Marine Parks have concerns and have these concerns been investigated? What are the strategies being put in place to overcome articulated areas of concerns?

iii. Has the local Tourism organisation been consulted? Do they agree with the stated need for the dredging?

iv. Has the REF been exhibited for public comment?

v. Has community sentiment been assessed and considered supportive of the proposed works and the needs as stated of them?

vi. Is the Minister satisfied with the level of community consultation and community support?

In accordance with Resolution 15-364, staff wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries as well as Crown Lands personnel. In the letter to Crown Lands the following information was also communicated:

Please be advised that Council will not be in a position to formally respond to your request for consent to use North Head Road until the tasks detailed at resolution 15-364 are satisfactorily undertaken.

Subsequently, correspondence has been received from Crown Lands; noting that a response from the Minister is also expected, but has not yet been received.

The Crown Lands correspondence includes a letter, Attachment 1 (#E2015/49733), and a response to the questions at Resolution 15-364, Attachment 2 (#E2015/49734). The following main points are noted:

i. Crown Lands have entered into a contract with a dredging contractor with works scheduled to commence on 27 July 2015 and delays may incur a financial penalty to Crown Lands.

ii. The dredging works have been scheduled to avoid potential disturbance to migratory bird species that visit the Brunswick area (September to May) and to nesting marine turtles (October – May) each year.

iii. Separate parcels of Crown Land offering alternative location(s) to launch the dredge vessel and to access New Brighton Beach have been identified.

iv. The alternative location to launch the dredge vessel is to utilise a mobile crane to hoist the vessel directly from their trailer into the water, the crane would use the hardstand car park to the southwest of the Brunswick Harbour. The car park is primarily used by patrons of Fisherman’s Co-op and there will be impacts on car parking.

v. The alternative beach access route is to the north of New Brighton, via Park Street, or alternatively Gaggin Street, New Brighton. The activity would require widening the beach access track which may result in small and/or indirect impacts on species or communities at this location including Littoral Rainforest (Endangered Ecological Community), White Laceflower (threatened flora) and Common Blossom Bat (threatened fauna).

vi. The alternate beach access location will not change the disposal site for the clean dredge material; approximately 10,000 m³, marine sand on south New Brighton beach.

In addition to the above materials, Crown Lands provided an Addendum to the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the dredging works. The Addendum details the alternative locations for launching the dredge vessel and for access to New Brighton Beach as well as a modification to the slurry pipeline route and the addition of a booster pump.

In summary, Crown Lands have indicated a strong preference for the dredging works to commence in accordance with the original timeframe of 27 July 2015. Noting that subsequent to receiving the Crown Lands letter, staff have been advised that dredging works will commence on site on 6 August 2015. To this end, Crown Lands have identified alternative beach access and boat launch arrangements that do not involve Council assets, and therefore they do not require permission from Council for the works to proceed.

It is recommended that Council note the information provided by Crown Lands in response to Resolution 15-364 and that, from the information provided, it would appear that Crown Lands are legally entitled to proceed with the dredging works using alternative arrangements that do not require permission from or the support of Council.

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications related to this Crown Lands project.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council has an adopted Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Brunswick Estuary (CZMP for the Brunswick Estuary) which was last submitted to the Minister for certification under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 in August 2012. The CZMP for the Brunswick Estuary notes that ‘reduced navigability’ and ‘sedimentation’ are issues for the estuary, however dredging as a management strategy is not included in the CZMP action tables.

The following information on dredging activities has been extracted from the CZMP for the Brunswick Estuary (page 23):

Dredging and Waterway Structures

Dredging campaigns in the Brunswick Estuary have historically been undertaken to improve the navigability of the estuary entrance for the commercial fishing fleet. Generally, the benefits have been short-lived with the dredging channels quickly filling in due to sediment deposits from the high littoral transport system along the coastline.

Dredging activities have, however, changed the tidal prism of the Brunswick Estuary and have therefore altered the salinity regime, increased turbidity, and reduced areas of important habitat, such as shallow water, seagrass and intertidal mud banks.

As the CZMP for the Brunswick Estuary has not been certified by the Minister, the status of the plan is unclear.

Crown Lands are carrying out the dredging works under State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007 (ISEPP), Part 2, Division 13, Clause 68.4. Under the ISEPP, maintenance dredging activities undertaken by a public authority are ‘permissible without consent’.

The environmental assessment for the works has been carried out in accordance with Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The assessment entailed a Review of Environmental Factors (REF).

A Marine Parks Permit has been issued for the carrying out of the works in the Cape Byron Marine Park. A Fisheries Permit has been issued for the ‘harm up to 50 m² of marine vegetation (seagrass) within the proposed dredged navigation channel’.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.21

Report No. 13.21 Report of the Planning Review Committee Meeting held on 6 August, 2015

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Wayne Bertram, Manager Sustainable Development

File No: I2015/827

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Summary:

This report provides the outcome of the Planning Review Committee Meeting held on
6 August 2015.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report be noted.

Report

Meeting commenced at 11.15am and concluded at 12.00pm

Present: Crs Richardson, Hunter, Wanchap, Woods

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

DA No.	Applicant	Property Address	Proposal	Exhibition Submissions	Reason/s Outcome
10.2015.214.1	Planners North	Bayshore Drive Byron Bay	Railway Infrastructure including a rail shed , two railway platforms and tree removal	Level 2 6/5/15 to 19/5/15 75 against 41 support	The number of public submissions The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2015.218.1	Frank Stewart Architect	15 Lilli Pilli Dve Byron Bay	Alterations and additions to create a secondary dwelling	Level 1 24/4/15 to 7/5/15 1 against	Delegated Authority
10.2015.208.1	Chris Lonergan	60B Kingsvale Rd Myocum	Alterations and additions to transitional group home and remove one (1 ) tree	Level 2 29/4/15 to 12/5/15 3 against	The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2015.330.1	Chris Lonergan	60B Kingsvale Rd Myocum	Temporary use of meeting room within group home for workshops	Level 2 25/6/15 to 8/7/15 1 against	The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2015.385.1	Chris Lonergan	12 Tindara Avenue Ocean Shores	Strata subdivision and construction of a second dwelling to create a dual occupancy (detached)	Level 1 9/7/15 to 22/7/15 1 Submissions	Delegated Authority

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

DA No.	Applicant	Property Address	Proposal	Exhibition Submissions	Reason/s Outcome
10.2014.404.2	BSC	70-90 Station St Mullumbimby	S96 to alter conditions relating to tree retention, footpath construction, kerb & gutter construction	Level 2 11/6/15-24/6/15 1 against	The lack of policy to direct determination The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2009.314.10	Bayview Land Developments	Coral Ave & Tuckeroo Ave Mullumbimby	S96 to amend master plan	Level 2 23/7/15 – 5/8/15 No submissions	Delegated Authority
10.2011.413.4	Geolink	59 Lismore Rd Bangalow	S96 to amend lot sizes and layout	Level 2 23/7/15 – 5/8/15	Delegated Authority
10.2014.649.3	Mr S Agnew	19-23 Lawson St Byron Bay	S96 alteration to height of awnings over footpath area (from 3.2m to 2.7m and modification of basement car parking layout to provide additional on-site parking and no longer require a Voluntary Planning Agreement	No exhibition required	Delegated Authority

DA No.	10.2015.201.1
Development	Subdivision – Boundary Adjustment (SEPP 1 Objection)
Property:	860 Wilsons Creek Road, Wilsons Creek
Lot and DP:	LOT: 5 DP: 818726 and Lot 1 DP 1164186
Zoning:	Zone No. 7(c) Water Catchment Zone (BLEP 1988)
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 11 – Minimum lot size
Justification	· Compliance with the minimum 40ha lot size is considered unreasonable and unnecessary as the lots are already in existence. · Rectifying an error that was made 23 years ago. · There are no significant impacts as a result of this proposal. · Approval of this application is required to enable the owner of the dwelling on Lot 5 to comply with the required building setbacks (900mm) as currently the true boundary runs through the middle of the approved existing dwelling, which is unacceptable.
Extent of variation	>10%
Concurrence	Department of Planning
Determined Date	19 June 2015

DA No.	Applicant	Property Address	Proposal	Exhibition Submissions	Outcome
10.2011.40.3	Planners North Pty Ltd	61 Bayshore Drive Byron Bay	S96 to alter conditions relating to acoustic management	28/5/15 -10/6/15 32 submissions 7 against 25 for	Delegated Authority
10.2012.45.2	Planners North Pty Ltd	18 Whipbird Place Ewingsdale	S96 to alter building envelope on Lot 9 DP 1197885	21/5/15 – 3/6/15 No submissions received	Delegated Authority
10.2014.649.2	Mr SL Agnew	19-23 Lawson Street Byron Bay	S96 to amend condition No 34 in relation to treatment of water discharge	Level 0 – no notification required	Delegated Authority