Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 17 September 2015

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.2

Report No. 13.2 Tyagarah Aerodrome - Proposed Short-Term Lease Australia Skydive Pty Ltd

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Claire Campbell, Leasing/Licensing Officer

Michael Matthews, Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery

Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

File No: I2015/811

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Facilities Management

Summary:

This report provides an update on the Council resolution 14-654, and provides information about recent changes to the ownership and structure of the corporate entity “Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd”, how these changes relate to tenancy arrangements for Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678, and recommends that Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and grant a short-term lease agreement with the new corporate entity that now owns the lease site building and infrastructure assets.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council not call for competitive lease proposals for a new short-term lease agreement for Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678 for the following reasons:

a) All site infrastructure (including buildings) is owned by Australia Skydive Pty Ltd;

b) Australia Skydive Pty Ltd currently occupy the premises and conduct commercial operations from the site and formal tenure and access agreements with Council are required to ratify the current circumstances;

c) A competitive process is not considered to achieve best value for money outcomes for a short-term lease arrangement because of the necessity to attract capital investment (for required building infrastructure); and

d) Best value for money is considered achievable with a short-term, market value rental, with the incumbent business operating from the site.

e) A competitive long-term lease proposal is already planned as part of implementing the Tyagarah Aerodrome Future Options Project.

2. That Council call for competitive long-term lease proposals for Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678 on expiry of the new short-term lease agreement with Australia Skydive Pty Ltd, completion of the necessary compliance and safety works, and finalisation of the subdivision required to support long-term lease arrangements at the Aerodrome.

3. That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and grant a short-term lease with Australia Skydive Pty Ltd subject to the following:

a) A lease term that aligns with time frame required to complete compliance, safety and subdivision works at the Aerodrome, but not more than 24 months;

b) Rent to be determined via market rental valuation in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges;

c) Inclusion of lease clauses that:

i. provide for requirements for removal or otherwise of any onsite infrastructure fixtures and fittings (including buildings) to achieve vacant possession of the site at the end of the lease term.

ii. provide for use of the airfield, taxiways, runway, and other Aerodrome infrastructure in accordance Commercial Access Licence conditions that provide Council with the legal ability to collect fees and charges levied in accordance with Council’s adopted Fees and Charges.

iii. provide the proposed lessee, Australia Skydive Pty Ltd, with a lease termination clause for sufficient notice to vacate the premises, but not more than 6 months.

4. That the Council seal be affixed to the short-term lease agreement between Council and Australia Skydive Pty Ltd for Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678 in accordance with Regulation 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

5. That this resolution closes and replaces the previous resolution of Council 14-654.

Attachments:

1 Information Memorandum to Byron Shire Council from Skydive the Beach, E2015/51868

2 Copy of SMH online article dated 28 March 2015 about skydive-the-beach-share float to raise capital to acquire Australia Skydive, E2015/20083

3 Skydive_The_Beach_Prospectus - acquisition of Australia Skydive, E2015/56418

Report

Land Information

Tyagarah Aerodrome

Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678.

Owner – Byron Shire Council

Classification – Operational Land

Lease Site Background

From 30 January 1996 to 29 January 2003, Raymond J Palmer and William G Jamieson leased Lot 4 from Council as the owners of the Byron Skydiving Centre. Whilst there was an option to renew for a further 7 years in that lease, and the option was exercised in accordance with the lease provisions, the documentation was not finalised by 29 January 2003. As a result, as the lessees continued to occupy the premises as monthly tenants holding over.

During the holding over period, the Byron Bay Skydiving Centre was dissolved as a business.

Skydive Byron Bay was formed as a company.

A new lease was executed on 14 May 2004 between Council and Raymond John Palmer (a director of Skydive Byron Bay) to end on 29 January 2010.

At its Ordinary Meeting on 17 December 2009, Council considered Report 11.11 Tyagarah Airfield - Lease L9 Lot 4 DP 805678) and resolved:

09-1059

“1. That Council authorise the General Manager and Mayor of Council to sign all necessary documents with Raymond Palmer under which:

a) the term of the current lease over Lot 4 DP 805678 is extended to 31 December 2010; and

b) an extended period of 3 months is provided for the termination and vacation of the Land to the current lease over Lot 4 DP 805678.

2. That Council authorise the General Manager and Mayor of Council to affix the seal to the variation of lease with Raymond Palmer over Lot 4 DP 805678.”

A Deed of Variation was subsequently executed on 20 August 2010 with the lease to end on 31 December 2010. The lessee continued to occupy the premises upon expiry. The lessee is considered a tenant holding over, with the tenancy determinable by 3 months notice in writing by either party.

Use of the Airstrip

Raymond J Palmer’s lease not only allows occupancy of the premises for skydiving and associated activities carried out by Byron Bay Skydiving Centre, but includes provisions for access and use of the airstrip at Clause 33 “Use of Airstrip”, as stated below:

“33.1 The Lessee shall have the right to utilise the airstrip and airstrip aprons for the purpose of taxiing, take-off and landing of aircraft utilised by the Lessee for hire, flight training and flight testing from time to time provided that the Lessee shall comply with all requirements of any local body or authority and comply with the local regulations and procedures for operation of aircraft using Tyagarah Airstrip as set out from time to time by Byron Shire Council.”

The issue with this lease clause is that it provides unfettered access to, and use of, the aerodrome (outside the premises lease boundary) without the legal agreement in place to enforce the collection of Council levied landing and registration fees and charges.

At the Ordinary Meeting held 21 October 2010, Council considered a report titled “14.3 CONFIDENTIAL Tyagarah Airfield”, refer http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2010-10-21-ordinary. The following section was included under the Financial Sustainability:

In addition to lease income, Council generates revenue, based on the adopted fees and charges, by charging lessees and casual users landing fees, registration fees, and aircraft parking fees. Whilst there are provisions in Council’s adopted fees and charges to levy these fees, Council has struggled to maximise revenue in these area for two reasons:

1. lack of Council representation at the Airfield to record landing and registration data in support of the fees levied; and to collect casual user fees.

2. lack of legal documentation to support the collection of data and payment of commercial landing fees and third party registration fees (for aircraft hangered on Council premises)

Historically, these issues have prevented the appropriate levying of fees and charges, the ability to collect fees and charges that are levied, and resulted in a sustain loss of income and the writing off of bad debts in relation to the Aerodrome’s operation, as previously considered by Council at the Ordinary Meeting held 30 June 2011, refer “15.2 CONFIDENTIAL – Resident and Landing Fees Debt Write-off’ at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2011-06-30-ordinary.

At the Ordinary Meeting held 11 December 2014, Council considered report titled “13.7 Tyagarah Airfield Future Options”, refer

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2014/12/OC_11122014_AGN_375_AT.PDF,which contained the following information.

Automated Aircraft Monitoring System

The TAG options report noted that under the current tenant agreements there is no current legal agreement or mechanism for BSC to enforce landing fees and charges. The report stated:

“Non-collection of landing fees is a major loss of revenue for BSC and measures should be taken to ensure these are enforceable.

We recommend BSC undertake the following steps:

1. Replace or Repair existing sign for fees and charges at the airfield;

2. Include a clause for landing and related fees as a required payment in any future lease agreements; and

3. Implement an accurate reliable airfield activity monitoring system”

Appendix 18 of the options report provided a fee proposal for the installation of an on-site automated monitoring and billing system to track the movements of aircraft landings and takeoffs. Staff requested this initial proposal be further refined with a view to accurately reflect the on-site requirements of the system and gain a firm quotation for the entire installation and commissioning of the entire works. The final quotation allowing for 4 strategically placed cameras and infrastructure to service the cameras and associated equipment was $50,560.00 ex GST.

Council has progressed recommendation number 3 from the TAG Group’s Future Directions Report for the Aerodrome to install an automated monitoring system. This system will provide the factual records required to evidence the fees and charges levied to all resident and leaseholder operators. The estimated cost for implementing the new monitoring system has been adopted in the 2015/16 budget, and the on-going operational benefits and costs are being established via the required competitive tender process, which is in the final stages of preparation by staff.

In relation to the TAG Groups recommendation number 2, Council had previously sought legal advice and draft template lease and commercial access license agreements to ensure the appropriate legal agreements are in place to enforce the payment of Council levied fees and charges that are above those levied for premises rental, as considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 30 June 2011, refer “15.2 CONFIDENTIAL – Resident and Landing Fees Debt Write-off’ at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2011-06-30-ordinary.

These new template agreements will be used for the proposed new lease with Australia Skydive Pty Ltd and for all future Aerodrome agreements as part of the Tyagarah Airfield Future Directions Project implementation.

Together the new agreements and monitoring system, will ensure that all aircraft movements are captured (evidenced), invoiced, and payments enforced via appropriate legal agreements for all tenants and resident aircraft operators.

Current

Staff met with Skydive Byron Bay, at their request, on 10 June 2014, and discussed their concerns regarding their tenure arrangements and provided them with an update regarding the future options process that Council is progressing for the Airfield.

Subsequent to the meeting, on 12 June 2014, Council received an email proposal from Skydive

Byron Bay requesting the following:

1. Assign the existing lease from RJ Palmer to their preferred corporate entity;

2. Deed of Variation to alter their lease termination period from the current 3 months to 12 Months;

3. An offer to pay more rent;

4. An offer to contribute to upgrades and maintenance to the runway.

Staff provided a written response on 22 July 2014 consistent with the discussions of the earlier meeting, including the following:

1. Requested confirmation of preferred corporate entity. Advised that any assignment will be subject to existing lease terms and conditions continuing, including current holding over provisions established by the Deed of Variation executed 20 August 2010; and requested undertaking that the assignee meet all the fees and charges.

2. That the request to extend their termination period from 3 months to 12 months would be considered as part of Council’s future options considerations for the Aerodrome so that those options are not fettered for Council by the 12 month termination proposal.

3. That the offer of more rent and capital investment should be considered as part of any future competitive process once the final strategic direction of Aerodrome has been determined by Council.

A reply was received from Skydive Byron Bay on 3 November 2014 that confirmed:

1. Assign the current lease from RJ Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd (ACN 602 608 864) including an undertaking that all expenses, fees and charges will be paid on receipt of Council’s tax invoice.

2. Another request to alter their lease termination period from the current 3 months to 12 months.

Council considered Report No. 13.6 Lease Assignment – RJ Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd at it’s Ordinary Meeting of 11 December 2014, which recommended that:

1. Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and grant a Deed of Assignment of the Lease between Council and Raymond John Palmer to a corporate entity named Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd, subject to existing lease terms and conditions continuing as amended by the Deed of Variation executed on 20 August 2010.

2. That Council authorise the General Manager to affix the Council Seal to the Deed of Assignment of Lease from Raymond John Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd in accordance with Regulation 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

3. That Council decline to vary the terms and conditions of the current lease with Raymond John Palmer to extend the termination term from 3 months to 12 months and instead authorise the General Manager to explore the option of a new short-term lease agreement with Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd subject to:

a) Market Valuation; and

b) A lease term clearly aligned with the timeframe required by council to complete the compliance and safety works at the Airfield necessary to enable the offering of future and longer-term tenancy agreements via a competitive process; and

c) A lease termination clause that does not fetter Council’s ability to fully consider, determine and implement the future strategic direction of the Airfield.

4. That Council decline the offer of capital investment in the Airfield as it raises significant probity and value for money issues, and instead authorise the General Manager to consider capital investments from proponents as part of the future competitive process to offer future and longer-term tenancy agreements once Council has determined the future strategic direction of the Airfield and completed the necessary compliance and safety works required to enable that competitive process.

Council resolved:

14-654

1. That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and grant a Deed of Assignment of the Lease between Council and Raymond John Palmer to a corporate entity named Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd, subject to existing lease terms and conditions continuing as amended by the Deed of Variation executed on 20 August 2010.

2. That Council authorise the General Manager to affix the Council Seal to the Deed of

Assignment of Lease from Raymond John Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd in

accordance with Regulation 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

3. That Council decline to vary the terms and conditions of the current lease with Raymond

John Palmer to extend the termination term from 3 months to 12 months and instead

authorise the General Manager to execute a short term lease to the existing Skydive

Australia Group Pty Ltd lease with the following amendments;

a) Lease term to be extended for a period of 12 months, plus an additional 12 month option to be exercised by Skydive Australia Group.

b) The termination notice period to be increased from 3 months to 6 months.

c) Rent to be increased to $30,000 per annum for the first year.

d) Rent for the second year option will be determined on a market valuation completed by Council prior to the conclusion of the first year term.

5. That it is intended that the extension to the existing lease term is aligned with the time frame required by Council to complete the compliance and safety works at the Airfield which are necessary to enable the offering of future and longer-term tenancy agreements via an open competitive selection process such as tender or expression of interest.

Staff progressed resolution 14-654 and provided a new draft lease agreement to the corporate entity Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd, and continued to negotiate with Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd around their requests that the new lease agreement provide them with the unfettered ability to assign the new lease without Council’s prior consent.

The negotiations were not finalised to the satisfaction of either party, when Council became aware, via a series of press releases, that Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd’s parent company, Australia Skydive Pty Ltd, was proposed for acquisition by Skydive The Beach Group Limited (ACN 167 320 470), in December 2014, as part of Skydive The Beach Group Limited’s public listing on the Australian Stock Exchange, refer a sample press statement at Attachment 2 and clauses 6.12 and 6.13 of the Australian Stock Exchange prospectus at Attachment 3.

After finalisation of the acquisition by Skydive The Beach Group Limited, Council staff where contacted directly by their Chief Financial Officer about formalising their tenure at the lease site and their commercial operations at the Aerodrome.

Council staff met with representatives from Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd, Australia Skydive Pty Ltd and Skydive the Beach Group Limited on 23 June 2015. At this meeting and in subsequent correspondence, Council were advised as follows:

· Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd (the entity named in Council’s resolution 14-654) is a shell company – all assets have been transferred to Australia Skydive Pty Ltd and it, therefore, no longer owns any assets. Its Office Holders and Shareholders remain Messrs Cheers, Kennedy and Palmer.

· Australia Skydive Pty Ltd is the parent company of Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd and now owns all the assets relating to the premises at Tyagarah (all improvements including the building, hanger and refuelling infrastructure). Its Office Holders are Messrs. Ritter, Radford and Boucaut and Skydive the Beach and Beyond Sydney Wollongong Pty Ltd (ACN 169 433 363) is the shareholder (and is 100% fully owned by subsidiary of Skydive the Beach Group Limited).

· Skydive the Beach Group Limited (ACN 167 320 470), thus fully owns Australia Skydive Pty Ltd. Its Office Holders are Messrs. Ritter, Radford and Boucaut and it is a publically listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange.

Given the office holder/shareholder structure of Australia Skydive Pty Ltd and Skydive the Beach Limited, both companies should be considered as third parties when interpreting and effecting the terms of resolution 14-654.

Hence the 23 June 2015 meeting proceeded on the basis that:

· Council’s Resolution 14-654 only endorsed a lease between Council and Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd. A lease with another corporate entity, especially one not involving Messrs. Cheers, Kennedy, and Palmer, would have to be considered by the elected Council.

· The elected Council would need to receive a report from Council staff before it could endorse a change in the lessee (currently Raymond John Palmer), to another corporate entity.

· This report would depend on staff receiving information as to why a new lease is now sought in the name of Australia Skydive Pty Ltd.

Council requested full details of Australia Skydive Pty Ltd including:

· its structure (office bearers and shareholders),

· the scope and nature of its operations,

· its relevant industry experience, and

· its financial capacity.

On the 31 July 2015 Australia Skydive Pty Ltd and Skydive the Beach Group Limited provided Council with an information memorandum document providing details of structure, industry experience and financial capacity of both Australia Skydive Pty Ltd and Skydive the Beach Group Limited. This document is contained at Attachment 1.

Due to the changes in both the name and structure of the corporate entity requesting a new lease, it would be prudent for Council to take the opportunity as part of any new lease negotiations to consider the ownership of any infrastructure, assets, fixtures and fittings located on the Tyagarah lease site. It would also be prudent to ensure any new lease term aligns with the period required for Council to undertake compliance and safety works at the site. Such works, once completed will ultimately prepare the site to be offered via a competitive selection process, and present it in a manner that will obtain the best value for money outcome for this important community asset.

Consequently, this report recommends that Council:

1. Not call for competitive lease proposals for the proposed new short term lease agreement for this site because:

a) all site infrastructure (including buildings) is owned by Australia Skydive Pty Ltd;

b) Australia Skydive Pty Ltd currently occupy the premises and conduct commercial operations from the site without any formal tenure or access agreements with Council, and this “illegal” occupation and use of Council land needs to be rectified;

c) it will be difficult to attract the necessary capital investment (building infrastructure) to the lease site and/or Aerodrome for a short-term occupancy only; and

d) best value for money will be achieved with a short term, market value rental, with the incumbent business operating from the site.

e) Council is planning a long-term competitive lease offering as part of implementing the Aerodrome Future options project.

2. Will call for a competitive lease proposal for this lease site on expiry of the proposed new lease agreement, completion of the necessary compliance, safety and subdivision works planned at the Aerodrome.

3. Authorise the General Manager to negotiate and grant a short-term lease with Australia Skydive Pty Ltd subject to the following:

a) for a term no longer than 24 months, to align with time frame required to complete compliance and safety works at the Aerodrome, in preparation for offering the site via an open, competitive process.

b) Rent to be set via market rental valuation in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

c) lease to clauses that clearly outline requirements for removal or otherwise of any onsite infrastructure fixtures and fittings (including buildings), at the end of the lease term.

Lease clauses that clearly outline use of the airfield, taxiways, runway, and other Aerodrome infrastructure in accordance with legally enforceable Commercial Access Licence conditions and ability for Council to collect fees and charges levied in accordance with Council’s adopted Fees and Charges.

d) lease termination clauses that provide sufficient notice to the proposed lessee to vacate the premises, for not more than 6 months.

4. Affix the Council seal to the lease agreement between Council and Australia Skydive Pty Ltd for Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678.

5. This resolution closes and replaces the previous resolution of Council 14-654.

Financial Implications

The new Lessee will be invoiced for all expenses, valuations, fees and charges associated with a new Lease, in accordance with Council’s published Fees and Charges.

The current lease agreement with Raymond John Palmer has not been market tested since 2003, and it is anticipated a significant rental increase will result from a Market Rental Valuation.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

ICAC Guidelines for managing risks in direct negotiations May 2006 states:

“Doing business with government is a key driver of economic activity and many private firms and not-for-profit organisations rely on access to government contracts in order to stay in business. Direct negotiations can unfairly exclude capable firms and employ staff, pay taxes and contribute to the economy.”

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

Furthermore, when an agency restricts the number of parties with which it does business, it also limits the number of potentially useful ideas, solutions and options that it has access to.”

“Direct negotiations (or the possibility of direct negotiations) can create an environment where private interests could influence or be seen to influence the outcome of the contract. In contrast, an open, competitive selection process, with a predetermined business plan and selection criteria and an accompanying audit trail, make it difficult for private interests to influence, or be seen to influence, the outcome of a contract.”

Local Government Tendering Guidelines

Section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that the Director-General may prepare, adopt or vary guidelines relating to the exercise by a council of any of its functions. A council must take any relevant guidelines issued under section 23A into consideration before exercising any of its functions.

“Councils must use the tendering method set out in the Regulation before entering into any of the types of contracts specified in section 55(1) of the Act. In addition to the types of contracts outlined in this section, councils are encouraged to use the tendering process in the following circumstances:

· Where the sale or purchase of land may be considered controversial, contentious or political. Acknowledging that the sale or purchase of land is specifically exempt under 55(3) of the Act, council should still consider using the tender process in such circumstances.

· Where there is a risk that ‘would be’ tenders could claim that council has ‘preferential’ arrangements with a single supplier

By using the tendering process in circumstances other than those prescribed by section 55 of the Act, councils will be able to provide assurance of openness and accountability, build anti-corruption capacity and achieve the best value for money.”

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993

Section 8 The council’s charter

(1) A council has the following charter:

• to provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively

• to exercise community leadership

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

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

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

• to facilitate the involvement of councillors, members of the public, users of facilities and services and council staff in the development, improvement and co-ordination of local government

Local Government (General) Regulations 2005

400 Council seal

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

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

(a) the mayor and the general manager, or

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

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

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

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Byron Visitor Centre - Request for Financial Assistance

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Mark Arnold, Director Corporate and Community Services

File No: I2015/872

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

Council has received correspondence from the Byron Visitors Centre requesting financial assistance with the payment of 2015/16 rates and charges for the Byron Visitors Centre.

This report is presented to Council for determination.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council not provide financial assistance to the Byron Visitor Centre in relation to rates and charges for the 2015/2016 financial year.

2. That negotiations with the Byron Visitor Centre Incorporated Association be held with a view to developing a payment plan for the outstanding rates and charges.

Report

Land Information

Lot 1 DP 827049 known as “Old Station Master’s Cottage, Jonson Street, Byron Bay

Council owned Community Land - Plan of Management

The Byron Visitors Centre has written to Council seeking consideration and support to waive the rates and charges applicable for the 2015/2016 financial year.

Comments from the Leasing and Licensing Coordinator

The Old Station Master’s Cottage premises is leased to the Byron Visitor’s Centre Inc. under the following historical lease agreements:

1. 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2014

Rent under this lease commenced at $67,000 plus GST per annum (offset by a S356 Donation).

Section 11 of this document states:

“The Lessee is to pay for all maintenance and running expenses associated with the leased premises including but not necessarily limited to Council general rates, water, sewerage, garbage removal, telephone, electricity charges, cleaning, grounds maintenance, telephone, and security.”

2. 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015

Rent under this lease commenced at $70,323 plus GST per annum (offset by a S356 Donation).

Section 11 of this document states:

“The Lessee is to pay for all maintenance and running expenses and services associated with the leased premises including, but not necessarily limited to Council general rates, water rates and usage, sewerage, garbage removal, telephone, electricity charges, cleaning, grounds maintenance, security and cost of work.”

The Byron Visitors Centre are currently tenants holding over on a monthly basis under the holding over provisions of this lease agreement.

3. Proposed new lease

A new one year lease has been offered to the Byron Visitor’s Centre Inc. on the same terms and conditions, and Council is awaiting a response from the Byron Visitor’s Centre in relation to the execution of this lease document.

The request for financial assistance is the third request in four years from this organisation seeking financial relief from rates and charges. The current request is put forward to Council on the following basis:

‘We would formally request the elected Council to consider our application for a section 356 donation for the rates levied for the 2015/2016 rate year. We make this request on the basis that the BVC:

1. Is a not for profit incorporated association run by 3 full time equivalent paid staff, 15 volunteers and 7 volunteer board members for the benefit of local tourism organisations (215 of whom are members)

2. Is a community touch point for the community, local tourism organisations and tourists of all kinds

3. Provides community services that can best be described as public goods such as visitor information free of charge.

4. Is collaborating with Council to provide volunteers for greeters programs and opening up platforms to allow Council to further develop its trails programs to engage with tourists

5. Council has seen fit to provide a section 356 donation for the rates levied in the past.

6. Absorbing the rates would result in a 50% reduction in surplus (currently $30-$40K in FY 2015) which is needed to reduce legacy debts the current Board inherited from their predecessors.

The existing Board is very grateful for the ongoing support Council provides.

We thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Yours faithfully

Adrian Kennedy

Treasurer BVC’

Comments from the Finance Manager

The background of Council’s two previous resolutions on the matter are:

For the 2010/2011 financial year, Council considered a request at its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 February 2011. Council resolved as per resolution 11-171 the following:

That Council makes a s356 donation to the Byron Visitor Centre of $4,294 from the Economic Development Budget and that this financial assistance be advertised as a donation in accordance with s356 of the Local Government Act.

For the 2011/2012 financial year, Council considered a request at its Ordinary Meeting held on 26 April 2012. Council resolved as per resolution 12-330 the following:

That Council not provide financial assistance to the Byron Visitors Centre in relation to the remaining outstanding rates and charges instalments for the 2011/2012 financial year.

The request received in the 2011/2012 financial year was in consideration of the last two rates and charges instalments outstanding at that time amounting to $2,800.

The rates and annual charges payable by the Byron Visitors Centre for the 2015/2016 financial year are as follows:

Description	Amount $
General Rate – Business Byron CBD	4,431.65
Water Fixed Charge	175.00
Sewerage Fixed Charge	802.00
Stormwater Management Charge	75.00
Commercial Waste Charge	1,421.00
Total Rates and Annual Charges	6,904.00

The above amounts do not include additional charges from water and sewerage consumption that are levied quarterly in arrears separately. There has not been any request to consider waiving these charges.

As at 31 August 2015, total arrears excluding the 2015/2016 rates and charges levied in the table above equate to $16,316.18 plus an additional $958.73 in water and sewerage usage charges or $17.274.91. The last payments Council received from the Byron Visitors Centre for rates and charges was on 19 December 2012 and for water/sewerage usage charges on 2 April 2013.

The rates and annual charges for the Byron Visitors Centre has increased aside from Council adopted increases to rates and charges, through an increased use of Council services. The Byron Visitors Centre in January 2015 requested an additional two commercial waste services from Council which has had the impact of adding for 2015/2016 an additional $916.00 to the overall rate and charges levy.

In terms of this request overall, Council is unable to waive the rates and annual charges given the restrictions imposed by Regulation 131 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. An option for Council, if it determined to do so, would be to address this request by the same method employed for the 2010/2011 financial year, where Council provided a donation to cover the rates and annual charges, under the provision of Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Council’s existing policy for Section 356 donations for rates, water and sewerage charges (Policy 3.40) outlines the criteria for Section 356 donations for public halls and community centres. The criteria under clause 3 states:

“In order to be eligible for inclusion in this policy, the facility must:

(a) be operated by a not for profit organisation

(b) must relate to a community centre or public hall that is available for use by the general community.”

Council Policy 3.40 does not provide the ability for the Byron Visitors Centre to access Section 356 donations for rates, water and sewerage charges, however Council is able to grant a donation to cover the remaining rates and annual charges, as a separate resolution outside of Policy 3.40, if it so determined. If this course of action is Council’s view then the financial implications are outlined in the financial implications of this report.

Comments from Economic Development & Tourism (“ED&T”) Unit

Byron Shire Council is one of the few Local Government Authorities in NSW that do not directly fund Visitor Information Centres to provide visitor information services within their Shire boundaries. While Council provides support through subsidised rental (S356 Contribution) at the Old Stationmaster’s Cottage, the Byron Visitors Centre operates independently of Council, funded through membership fees and other external funding, and via the direction of an industry-led board. Staff are appointed directly by the visitors centre, and many are volunteers. The visitors centre has an important role in informing visitors about local activities and opportunities, and communicating community values.

Council has actively worked with the two visitor centres in the Shire, including Byron Visitor Centre, to develop the Byron Shire Visitor Services Strategy and implementation of the same, which is an outcome of the Byron Shire Tourism Management Plan.

Regular meetings have been held with the Byron Visitor Centre board, the General Manager and staff of the ED&T unit to work towards a future for the Centre that serves the town, particularly in the context of the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan.

The ED&T unit of Council have been working closely with both visitor centres to improve their financial sustainability. As stated by the Treasurer in his request (above), the inherited financial situation of the Byron Visitor Centre by the current board was dire and the new board have worked hard to turn around the financial sustainability of the Centre.

The Byron Visitor Centre are now close to becoming financial sustainable through the hard work and dedication of the volunteer board, and to insist on a lump sum payment for the outstanding charges may jeopardise the future of the Centre.

The tourism budget allocation for implementation of the Tourism Management Plan is small, intended for Shire-wide projects and already allocated to projects in the Operational Plan for 2015/16. If the funds carried forward in the tourism reserve are used to pay these outstanding debts, the tourism projects outlined in the Operational Plan will not go ahead as planned.

Financial Implications

If Council allocates funds to the Byron Visitor Centre (“BVC”) via a donation under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, this would have to be allocated from the Tourism Reserve but would also need to consider priorities in the Tourism Budget Program.

As at 30 June 2015, there was $31,000 available in the Tourism Reserve which has been carried forward in its entirety and added to the Tourism budget fro 2015/2016 financial year as part of the ‘Carryovers for Inclusion in the 2015/2016 Budget’ Report adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 27 August 2015 (Resolution 15-386).

Whilst the current request subject of this report is related solely to the total rates and charges levy for 2015/2016 of $6,904.00, there is still the issue of total debt outstanding. As indicated earlier in the report there are current arrears of $17,274.91 at 31 August 2015.

BVC have been issued with final reminders for all outstanding arrears by Council. A final letter of demand was sent on 22 June 2015 which may have been the catalyst for the request, being the subject of this report. Debt recovery activities have currently been put on hold pending Council’s consideration of this report and subsequent determination.

If Council were to support the request by BVC through a Section 356 donation it would need to reallocate $6,900 from the Tourism Budget and if it were also to consider the current arrears (although not requested), it would need to allocate a total amount of $24,628.91 for the debt outstanding as at 31 August 2015.

If Council does not support this request then the lease conditions where BVC are responsible for outgoings such as rates and annual charges will be adhered to and in that respect debt recovery process for arrears would be recommenced. It is recommended that this process in the first instance include negotiations with the Byron Visitor Centre Incorporated Association, with a view to developing a payment plan for the outstanding rates and charges.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Regulation 131 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 outlines the procedure for writing off rates and charges as follows:

(1) The council must, from time to time, by resolution, fix the amount of rates and charges above which any individual rate or charge may be written off only by resolution of the council.

(2) An amount of rates or charges of or below that amount can be written off either by resolution of the council or by order in writing of the council’s general manager. In the absence of a resolution under subclause (1), rates and charges can be written off only by resolution of the council.

(3) A resolution or order writing off an amount of rates or charges must:

(a) specify the name of the person whose debt is being written off, and

(b) identify the account concerned, and

(c) specify the amount written off,

or must refer to a record kept by the council in which those particulars are recorded.

(4) An amount of rates or charges can be written off under this clause only:

(a) if there is an error in the assessment, or

(b) if the amount is not lawfully recoverable, or

(c) as a result of a decision of a court, or

(d) if the council or the general manager believes on reasonable grounds that an attempt to recover the amount would not be cost effective.

(5) The fact that an amount of rates or charges is written off under this clause does not prevent the council concerned from taking legal proceedings to recover the amount.

(6) The general manager must advise the council of rates and charges written off by written order of the general manager.

Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 outlines below provides guidance on how Councils can financially assist others:

(1) A council may, in accordance with a resolution of the council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions.

(2) A proposed recipient who acts for private gain is not ineligible to be granted financial assistance but must not receive any benefit under this section until at least 28 days’ public notice of the council’s proposal to pass the necessary resolution has been given.

(3) However, public notice is not required if:

(a) the financial assistance is part of a specific program, and

(b) the program’s details have been included in the council’s draft operational plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c) the program’s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the council’s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d) the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area or to a significant group of persons

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Council Investments August 2015

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2015/895

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position as at 31 August 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 August 2015 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for August 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 August had not been received. Based on previous months and commentary received throughout August, the 90 day average BBSW is estimated to be around 2.10%. Council’s performance for the month of August is a weighted average of 2.87%. 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 August 2015:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 August 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%*	1,490,850.00
20/06/12	500,000	HERITAGE BANK LTD BONDS	N	BBB+	20/06/17	B	7.25%	536,250.00
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
14/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/11/15	TD	2.91%	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
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
12/08/15	2,000,000	AMP BANK	P	A	12/11/15	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
03/07/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/10/15	TD	2.98%	2,000,000.00
04/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/11/15	TD	2.92%	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
06/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/11/15	TD	2.92%	2,000,000.00
06/05/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/09/15	TD	2.95%	1,000,000.00
11/08/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	09/12/15	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
11/08/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/11/15	TD	2.91%	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
05/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/11/15	TD	2.92%	2,000,000.00
14/08/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	14/12/15	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
20/08/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	20/11/15	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
28/08/15	3,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	26/11/15	TD	2.87%	3,000,000.00
31/08/15	2,000,000	AMP BANK	N	A	29/02/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
N/A	2,728,214	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	1.80%	2,728,213.91
Total	74,928,214					AVG	2.87%	74,955,313.91

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 August 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 by $3,000.00 since July, demonstrating a cumulative unrealised gain of $27,100.00.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 August 2015

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
70,200,000.00	Term Deposits	70,200,000.00	0.00
2,728,213.91	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,728,213.91	0.00
1,500,000.00	Managed Funds	1,490,850.00	(9,150.00)
500,000.00	Bonds	536,250.00	36,250.00
74,928,213.91		74,955,313.91	27,100.00

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

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 31 July 2015 to 31 August 2015

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Closing Balance at 31 July 2015	69,947,918.49
Add: New Investments Purchased	22,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	4,395.42
Less: Investments Matured	17,000,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	0.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	3,000.00
Closing Balance at 31 August 2015	74,955,313.91

Investments Maturities and Returns – 31 July 2015 to 31 August 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	03/08/15	90	2.85%	14,054.80
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	04/08/15	154	3.15%	26,580.83
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	06/08/15	92	2.94%	14,820.83
2,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	11/08/15	91	2.80%	13,961.64
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	11/08/15	90	2.94%	7,249.32
2,000,000.00	AMP Bank	TD	12/08/15	182	3.30%	32,909.59
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	14/08/15	92	2.94%	14,820.82
2,000,000.00	ING Australia	TD	24/08/15	182	3.11%	31,014.79
2,000,000.00	Credit Union Australia	TD	31/08/15	272	3.55%	52,909.59
17,000,000.00						208,322.21

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

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 August 2015

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	70,200,000.00	70,200,000.00	0.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,728,213.91	2,728,213.91	0.00
Managed Funds	1,500,000.00	1,490,850.00	(9,150.00)
Bonds	500,000.00	536,250.00	36,250.00
Total Investment Portfolio	74,928,213.91	74,955,313.91	27,100.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	3,176,661.12	3,176,661.12	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	3,176,661.12	3,176,661.12	0.00

Total Cash Position	78,104,875.03	78,131,975.03	27,100.00

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 - Corporate and Community Services 13.8

Report No. 13.8 Byron Bay Paid Parking Scheme - Proposed Fees and Charges

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Planner

File No: I2015/897

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

At an Extraordinary Meeting on 13 August 2015, Council adopted proposed changes to the Byron Bay Paid Parking Scheme in terms of fees and charges to progress implementation of the Scheme through resolution 15-378.

The report also recommends a process for Council to manage the transition of existing coupon holders the new exemption scheme.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council advertise the fees and charges applicable to the Byron Bay Paid Parking Scheme as resolved by Council in Resolution 15-378 for a period of twenty eight days allowing for public submissions.

2. That should there be no public submissions received by the close of the public exhibition period then Council adopt the proposed fees and charges for the Byron Bay Paid Parking Scheme as indicated in resolution 15-378 and implement those fees and charges upon commencement of the Byron Bay Parking Scheme, except for the implementation of the Shire Resident or Ratepayer exemption fee and non Shire resident worker/volunteer exemption fee.

3. That in regard to the introduction of, implementation and transition to the new pay parking scheme exemptions Council endorse that:

a) the sale of the existing off-street parking coupons (as currently charged at $15 for 6 months, $25 for 12 months) cease after Friday 30 October 2015;

b) the new $50 per annum and $100 per annum exemptions as endorsed by Resolution 15-378 be offered as soon as possible, and no later than Monday 2 November 2015, in preparation for the new paid parking scheme;

c) any purchase of the new annual exemption prior to pay parking commencing on-street be effective immediately upon purchase and apply where Council paid parking exists and that its expiry be 12-months after on-street pay parking commences;

d) all residents with active and valid coupons at the time of writing be advised of the above plus details of Council’s new Byron Bay pay parking scheme and that:

i) the coupon benefit as held, and which exempts them from paying the meter at Council’s off-street car parks only, will be honoured, no more to pay, through to the date of expiry as stated upon their coupon;

ii) the upgrade charges as detailed at Table 1 in this report (#I2015/897) apply prior to the coupon expiring and upon payment provide access to the full pay parking exemption to which they are entitled;

iii) if so desired, the full exemption cost can also be paid at time of and in addition to the upgrade purchase price;

iv) upon activation of the new ‘pay by plate’ meters in Council off-street car parks coupon holders will be required to enter their licence details at the meter to access the coupon entitlement;

v) to assist in this new requirement, and unless Council is notified to the contrary by the coupon holder prior to their activation, all new ‘pay by plate’ meters to be installed in Council off-street car parks will upon activation contain and recognise the licence plate details only as stated on a valid coupon;

vi) despite part (iv) above, the physical coupon if valid and displayed correctly will be honoured through to its expiry subject to the conditions it contains.

Report

At its Extraordinary Meeting on 13 August 2015 Council resolved as follows in relation to paid parking.

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.

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed fees and charges following resolution 15-378 to comply with the requirements of Section 610F of the Local Government Act 1993. Section 610F of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to publicly advertise for a period of twenty eight days any amended or proposed fees or charges and invite submissions from the public.

Before Council adopts any amended or proposed fees or charges it should consider any submissions received from the public. If Council receives submissions from the public then a further report will be provided to Council following the close of the public exhibition period to allow Council to consider any public submissions received.

The next section of the report has been prepared to recommend a process to Council, to manage the transition of existing coupon holders, to the new exemption scheme.

Transition of coupon holders to the new Pay Parking Exemption system

Council currently operate a coupon parking scheme in Council off-street car parks. Those who are eligible and have paid either $15pa or $25pa receive (respectively) 6 or 12 months exemption from paying the meter but must adhere to the posted time limits. The new pay parking scheme will supersede this system and offer the same across all on and off-street metered areas at either $50pa for shire residents/ratepayers or $100pa for those with a business located, or those employed or volunteer, within the pay parking area which will cover both on and off street locations.

The coupon system contains about 6,500 individual records, while around 5,000 are currently valid and active. Each record contains the detail of a Byron shire resident in regard to name, address, licence plate, with each already proving their eligibility for the new pay parking exemptions that Council will offer.

Therefore to increase convenience for them, and reduce the administrative burden of manual data entry or the need for this ‘cohort’ to register for the new exemptions, it is recommended that their licence plate details only, as held by Council, be automatically pre-loaded into the new pay parking management system prior to pay parking commencing.

Then via mail out, to also be undertaken prior to pay parking commencing, two choices will be offered to the existing coupon holders, either:

1) “do nothing, pay no more”, and therefore retain the coupon benefit only, i.e. their coupon exemption will be honoured however limited to the meters within Council’s off-street parking at the sites as per their current coupon and expire as per their coupon; or

2) “upgrade”, via either an online or front counter activation process, whereby they pay the ‘balance owing’ (i.e. the cost of upgrade as per Table 1) upon which they access the full exemption and it will be valid through to the end of the month their current coupon expires.

Table 1: coupon to exemption upgrade costs - based on month coupon and upgrade is purchased

na = no upgrade available by that time and full purchase of new exemption required

Coupon		Cost of Upgrade to $50 pa exemption - if upgrade purchased in month shown
Month Purchased	Amt Paid	Nov 2015	Dec 2015	Jan 2016	Feb 2016	Mar 2016	Apr 2016	May 2016	Jun 2016	Jul 2016	Aug 2016	Sept 2016	Oct 2016
Dec 2014	$25	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
Jan 2015	$25	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
Feb 2015	$25	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
Mar 2015	$25	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
April 2015	$25	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na	na	na
April 2015	$15	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
May 2015	$25	$14.60	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na	na
May 2015	$15	$25.00	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
June 2015	$25	$16.70	$14.60	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na	na
June 2015	$15	$27.50	$25.00	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
July 2015	$25	$18.80	$16.70	$14.60	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na	na
July 2015	$15	$30.00	$27.50	$25.00	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
August 2015	$25	$20.80	$18.80	$16.70	$14.60	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na	na
August 2015	$15	$32.50	$30.00	$27.50	$25.00	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
Sept. 2015	$25	$22.90	$20.80	$18.80	$16.70	$14.60	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10	na
Sept. 2015	$15	$32.50	$30.00	$27.50	$25.00	$22.50	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
October 2015	$25	$25.00	$22.90	$20.80	$18.80	$16.70	$14.60	$12.50	$10.40	$8.30	$6.30	$4.20	$2.10
October 2015	$15	$35.00	$32.50	$30.00	$27.50	$25.00	$22.50	na	na	na	na	na	na

As the above table shows the amount to ‘upgrade’ will be dependent upon the month the coupon had been purchased and the amount paid at that time, either $15 or $25. The above table is also based on the following, as also recommended:

That the new $50 and $100 exemptions be offered as soon as possible in preparation for the new scheme and that the current $15/$25pa coupon not be sold after Friday 30 October 2015, after which the new pay parking exemptions and rates only are available, apply and take effect.

By adopting the above ‘upgrade table’ it is also recommended the purchase can be the upgrade cost plus the full exemption cost should the coupon holder so desire. This is conceivable for those wishing to make a single payment, as opposed to paying a small upgrade amount (such as for those coupons purchased Dec 2014 – Feb 2015 for example) and then the full exemption amount only some one or three months later. Providing such flexibility is possible by making the new exemption rate available as soon as practicable, and it will offer several benefits.

First it will provide opportunity to phase people into the new system, such as the existing coupon holders, and secondly provide those wishing to be prepared for its commencement the opportunity to “pre-purchase”, either by paying the full amount or for existing coupon holders the ‘upgrade’ price as per Table 1.

Thirdly, for those that do pre-purchase their exemption, they will gain more than 12-months of benefits as it is recommended the pre-purchased exemptions only expire 12-months after pay parking commences. For example, if the new $50 per annum exemption is pre-purchased on 1 November 2015 but the new parking scheme does not commence until 1 December the purchaser has in effect paid for 12-months but will receive 13-months as the pre-purchased exemption will apply to off-street metered parking immediately (i.e. the first month) and then extend to all off-street and on-street once it commences (i.e. the 12-month exemption commences day one the new meters are activated).

A fourth advantage of this pre-purchase is that it will align many exemption holders (other than existing coupon holders who chose to upgrade) with the same annual date and renewal, i.e. the anniversary day the new pay parking scheme commenced.

In adopting the above described approach, it is believed it will assist the streamlining and automating the transition from paper coupons to the new electronic (license based) exemptions and most importantly ensure Council uphold the existing arrangement and agreement of the purchased $15/$25 coupons through to their expiry (for off-street) and extended expiry (if upgraded selected), meaning no need to consider or provide refunds to coupon holders.

Also simplifying the coupon transition even further, and ensuring Council do honour any existing coupon through to their expiry, is the also recommended approach that the first choice as described above is established as the default position if the coupon holder does indeed opt to “do nothing, pay no more”; i.e. all existing coupons that are active and valid at the time the new meter scheme commences will automatically retain their existing off-street benefits and coupon holders (unless if and when they pay for the upgrade) continue as normal (i.e. park in off-street car parks) until their coupon expires, which based on a 30 October 2015 cut-off will mean the coupon system will be completely replaced by 30 October 2016 at the latest.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with this report as the report is following the legislative steps required to adopt proposed fees and charges allowing for a public exhibition period of twenty eight days. It is expected the advertising cost of the proposed fees and charges will be met from existing budgets.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Section 610F of the Local Government Act 1993 stipulates the requirements of Council in regard to the adoption of new or amended fees and charges as follows:

610F Public notice of fees

(1) A council must not determine the amount of a fee until it has given public notice of the fee in accordance with this section and has considered any submissions duly made to it during the period of public notice.

(2) Public notice of the amount of a proposed fee must be given (in accordance with section 405) in the draft operational plan for the year in which the fee is to be made.

(3) However, if, after the date on which the operational plan commences:

(a) a new service is provided, or the nature or extent of an existing service is changed, or

(b) the regulations in accordance with which the fee is determined are amended,

the council must give public notice (in accordance with section 705) for at least 28 days of the fee proposed for the new or changed service or the fee determined in accordance with the amended regulations.

(4) This section does not apply to a fee determined by a council for an application made in a filming proposal, if that fee is consistent with a scale or structure of fees set out in an applicable filming protocol.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.11

Report No. 13.11 PLANNING - 10.2015.196.1 - Alterations to dwelling and a new residential flat building eight serviced apartments and a managers residence at 40 Mullumbimbi Street Brunswick Heads

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Ian McIntosh, Assessment Officer

File No: I2015/812

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Development Application 10.2015.196.1 seeks consent to undertake alteration and additions to the existing heritage building, known as “Barnes House” which is currently divided into three residential flats, and change of use for tourist accommodation in the form of serviced apartments. Additionally a separate three storey building at the rear of the site is proposed building which will contain an additional four serviced apartments, a swimming pool, open deck areas and car parking for eleven cars.

Applicant:	Frank Stewart Architect
Owner:	Ms M J Rosee
Zoning:	Zone No. B2 Local Centre
Date received:	10 April 2015
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 22/4/15 to 5/5/15 - Submissions: For = 1 Against = 9
Other approvals (S68/138):	(60) Water & Sewer (51) Roads Act
Planning Review Committee:	Yes
Delegation to determination:
Issues:	· Heritage · Public Interest

Summary:

The proposal seeks consent to undertake alteration and additions to the existing heritage building, known as “Barnes House” which is currently divided into three residential flats and change of use to tourist accommodation in the form of serviced apartments. The proposed works are mostly to the internal floor layout and to raise the building, by approximately 0.9m to allow the proposed downstairs living areas to comply with Building Code of Australia specifications.

The external works proposed are similar to those approved via DA 10.2008.719.1, however this application proposes to change the internal layout of the three existing flats so that the building will contain four serviced apartments and a Manager’s Unit. The Manager’s Unit will be at ground level along with Unit 4 which will provide adaptable housing.

Also proposed is a separate three storey building at the rear of the site, this differs from 10.2008.719.1 which granted consent to a detached double storey Manager’s Residence in the same location. The proposed building will contain an additional four serviced apartments, a swimming pool and open deck area and underfloor & external car parking for eleven cars.

The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning controls and generally with the guidelines for Brunswick Heads, whilst providing a means for the embellishment and protection of the existing heritage building, “Barnes House” on the site. The proposal will generally maintain the visual appearance of the existing building whilst its use as a place to provide low key tourist accommodation is consistent with the village character of Brunswick Heads as a seaside destination for tourists and residents.

The additional freestanding building is at the rear of ‘Barnes House’ and will not detract from its visual appearance.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant state planning instruments and with BLEP2014. The proposal is generally consistent with BDCP2014 except for a variation to a portion of the side boundary fence that is 2.4 metres high to act as a privacy screen between the swimming pool and deck area and the adjoining neighbour. The variation is supported by this report. The proposed variation to the front fence height and the change from a picket type fence to masonry and timber front fence with gatehouse is considered to detract from the heritage character and is not supported; subsequently the plans are to be marked in red to delete this part of the proposal.

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:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2015.196.1 for alterations to a dwelling and a new residential flat building to be eight serviced apartments and manager’s residence, be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2015/49495.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans 10.2015.196.1 - 40 Mullumbimbi Street Brunswick Heads, E2015/50662

2 Draft conditions 10.2015.196.1 - 40 Mullumbimbi Street Brunswick Heads, E2015/49495

3 Letter from Frank Stewart, Architect - 10.2015.196.1 - Additional Information, S2015/9642

4 Statement of Heritage Impact 10.2015.196.1 40 Mullumbimbi Street Brunswick Heads, E2015/50756

5 Confidential - submissions 10.2015.196.1 40 Mullumbimbi Street Brunswick Heads, E2015/50875

Report

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History/Background

BA 63/69 to convert the existing dwelling into three flats

10.2000.180.1 Tree Removal Approved 18/04/2000

10.2008.719.1 Change of use - residential flats to a tourist facility and construction of a new 2 storey caretakers residence - Approved 05/05/2009

10.2012.96.1 Tree Removal – 3 trees - Approved 17/04/2012

1.2 Description of the site

The subject property is zoned B2 – Local Centre pursuant to Byron LEP 2014 and has an area of 1179 m². The property is within close walking distance to shops, restaurants, bars, amenities and the beach.

The property contains a two storey weatherboard building which has been divided into residential flats. It is believed the building known as the Barnes House was constructed prior to the start of the 20^th Century with timber sourced from various landholdings held by pastoralist Henry Barnes in the Casino region. “Verbal records” indicate that the area under the building may have been used as an interim school room on the closure of the school in 1896 and the reopening of a new school in 1898 in Brunswick Heads. The property is identified under the BLEP 2014 as a Heritage Item (Schedule 5).

Consent was granted in 1969 under BA 63/69 to convert the dwelling into three flats.

The front setback contains vegetation including a stately Poinciana tree that is considered to be a component of the heritage streetscape character.

The land is generally level with the yard landscaped with lawn and garden trees and shrubs. An old garage has been constructed at the rear of the property which is accessible from Lane No. 3. The land is elevated with a level in excess of 4.25 m AHD.

1.3 Description of the proposed development

The proposal seeks consent to undertake alteration and additions to the existing heritage building (‘Pearl’), mostly to the internal floor layout and to raise the building, by approximately 0.9m to allow the downstairs living areas to comply with Building Code of Australia specifications.

The external works proposed are almost identical to those approved via DA 10.2008.719.1, however this application proposes to change the internal layout of the three existing flats so that the building will contain four serviced apartments (Units 1, 2, 3 & 4), and a Manager’s unit. The Manager’s unit will be at ground level along with Unit 4 which will provide adaptable housing. One car parking space is provided for the Manager and this can also be used as a disabled access space should it be required.

Proposed external works to ‘Barnes House’ almost identical to previous approval.

Existing approval for raising and alterations to ‘Barnes House’

Also proposed is a separate three storey building (‘Oyster’), at the rear of the site which, under consent 10.2008.719.1, contained a separate double storey Manager’s Residence.

The proposed building will contain an additional four serviced apartments, a swimming pool and open deck area and underfloor & external car parking for eleven cars. The existing garage/ shed located on the rear boundary with Mullumbimbi Lane is to be demolished as previously consented to in 10.2008.719.1.

The proposed new building comprises:

Ground floor

· car parking for 9 guests and 2 visitors (including 1 x disabled access and 1 x multi use).

· 1.8 metre high rear fence of timber panels between masonry piers with 1.15 metre high rear gates between car parking area and Mullumbimbi Lane

· Deck with disabled access and swimming pool with landscape gardens and masonry and planted privacy screens to neighbours private open spaces.

First Floor

· Units 5, 6 & 7 each containing one bedroom with ensuite bathroom, and a kitchen area within a living area with north facing balcony,

First floor

· Unit 8 two bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms, a sitting room separated from the living room by a kitchen and western and northern balconies.

The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning controls for the zone and guidelines for Brunswick Heads, whilst providing a means for the embellishment and protection of the existing heritage building known as “Barnes House” on the site. The proposal will generally maintain the visual appearance of the existing building whilst its use as a place to provide tourist accommodation is consistent with the village character of Brunswick Heads as a seaside destination for tourists.

Proposed seven serviced apartment development

2. SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT/EXTERNAL REFERRALS

	Summary of Issues
Development Engineer	Supported conditionally (see detailed comments below)
Environmental Health Officer	Not required
Water & Waste Services	Supported conditionally
Systems Engineer	ETs apply supported conditionally

Car Parking Satisfactory (07/7/15) Unsatisfactory(20/5/15)

20/5/2015.

The Application is for 9 Serviced Apartments, (2 x 2B/R, 7 x 1 B/R) plus 1 Manager’s Residence. (a total of 12 bedrooms).

Council’s DCP 2014, Chapter B4, states that ‘Serviced Apartments’ is to refer to ‘Medium Density Housing’ for on site car parking rates. Such a development requires 10 car spaces plus 3 visitor spaces. The DCP also states that, for this type of development, stacked parking is not appropriate.

The application proposes only 10 car spaces in total, 2 of which are stacked. There are no visitor spaces being provided, claiming that it is a tourist development and does not comprise permanent dwellings and thus requests a relaxation of the provision of visitor car parking.

The parking rate required is 1 space per 1 or 2B/R units plus 1 space per 4 units for visitors. The current proposal requires 13 car spaces and only 10 are proposed. No stacked car parking is allowed, but this proposal requires 2 stacked spaces.

The car parking distribution and layout, as presented, does NOT comply with the current DCP 2014.

NOTE:

An alternative layout of the development could provide the site with the car parking required per the DCP. A development comprising 1 Manager’s Unit, 4 x 2 B/R units, and, 3 x 1 B/R units would require 8 car spaces plus 2 visitor spaces. This equates to 10 car spaces, no requirement for stacked car parking and retains the capacity of 12 bedrooms.

07/7/2015.

Subsequent to meeting with the Applicant on 15/6/15, the following parking arrangements are agreed to.

The number of units was reduced by one.

The car spaces in the front yard could either be used by the Manager or for Disabled.

As the Manager is on site at all times, especially to book people in, the disabled space was decided to be placed in the rear adjacent to the disabled unit. The space is larger than a standard one and also has shared use bay adjacent which could also be used as one of the 3 visitor spaces. It was also presented, that the visitor spaces get limited use in tourist developments and villages. It was considered that in this case that the shared use could be functional, particularly as there is a resident manager on the site to organise/assist in the parking arrangements for the disabled and visitors and the overall efficient functioning of the parking arrangements on the site. The proposal now provides 8 car spaces plus 2 visitor spaces. This equates to 10 car spaces plus one for the manager.

The consent can be conditioned to address these issues.

Traffic/Roadworks

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not applicable

The existing development, comprising of 1 x 3B/R unit, 1 x 2b/r unit, and, 1 x 1 B/R unit would generate 17 vehicles/day along the rear Lane.

The proposed development, comprising of 3 x 2B/R units, and, 5 x 1B/R units would generate 40 vehicles/day along the rear Lane. The Manager’s unit would generate 5 vehicles/day accessing onto the front street.

The proposed development doubles the traffic generation from the site onto the rear Lane. The additional 23 vehicle trips per day can be catered for along the Lane. The alignment is straight with good sight distance. The formation is flat with bitumen seal and grassed verges, being satisfactory to facilitate 2 vehicles to pass each other. The Lane exhibits a relatively low speed, shared use environment.

Notwithstanding this, there is concern expressed (submissions on the DA) regarding the perceived speed and volume of vehicles using the Lane, in particular using the Lane as a through ‘short cut’ route. (This occurs irrespective of this development occurring).

This has been discussed (now and previously) with Council’s Traffic Engineer. This matter and proposed development will be an Agenda Item for the next Local Traffic Committee meeting (24 June 2015, which in part, one way traffic flows will be considered.

The development was not rejected by the committee, although that not being the charter of the committee.

Irrespective of the above, it is prudent and consistent to provide a two way bitumen seal pavement in the Lane for the ‘frontage’ of the site and east through to join up with the existing two way pavement at the Park Street end of the Lane. The profile and formation of the Lane should be comparable to the existing two way section of the Lane.

The consent can be conditioned accordingly.

The Application also seeks concurrent approval for roadworks (a new driveway in Mullumbimbi Street. A new concrete driveway and layback is required from the existing kerb line through to the property boundary. The driveway from the gutter line to the edge of road pavement seal is to be bitumen sealed. Approval for this driveway can be granted with this consent and the consent can be conditioned accordingly.

Heritage Officer

This application was not referred to a Heritage Advisor as the works proposed to ‘Barnes House’ are almost identical to those approved by 10.2008.719.1. That development Application was forwarded to Council’s consultant Heritage Advisor for comment who advised that the proposed development would have minimal impact on the heritage and urban values of the building and the proposed changes respect the heritage values of the building and would provide a viable use into the future. Recommendations were made which were added as conditions of consent in relation to the following:

- Details of demolition works including demolition plans

- Photographic recording prior to the commencement of works

- Photographic recording of the works in progress

- Lodgement with the Brunswick Valley Historical Society of copies of the demolition plans and photographic recordings

- Regular inspections by the Heritage Adviser during the works and prior to handover

Those recommendations, in addition to the two points below, will be included as consent conditions should consent be granted to this application.

- Reuse and labeling of important features such as the under floor timber stumps, particularly one with the words ‘Gins Only’ written on it.

- Details of two ‘Open Days’ per year where Barnes House and the historic item display will be open to the public.

The construction of the 4 unit building in the rear of the yard will not detract from the heritage character of the streetscape of Mullumbimbi Street.

3. SECTION 79C – MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Having regard for the matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the following is a summary of the evaluation of the issues.

State/Regional Planning Policies and instruments - Issues

3.1. STATE/REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS

Requirement	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
SEPP 55 – Contaminated Lands	Council must: (a) considered whether the land is contaminated, and (b) if the land is contaminated, if the land is suitable in its contaminated state or after remediation, and (c) be satisfied the land will be remediated before the land is used.	The property has been used for residential purposes for more than 100 years. It is considered the property is suitable for residential use. Conditions of consent recommended in relation to demolition concerning asbestos and lead paint	Yes
SEPP No. 71 - Coastal Protection	Matters for consideration for development within the coastal zone: - retention of existing public access to the coastal foreshore - impact of effluent disposal on water quality - development must not discharge untreated stormwater into a coastal water body	- No public access to the coastal foreshore will be impeded or diminished as part of the proposal - The proposed manager’s residence is to be connected to an on-site disposal system which has been assessed as satisfactory in term of impact upon the environment. - Stormwater is to be disposed to Council’s Stormwater System - No overshadowing of the foreshore reserve or the beach is proposed - The development is landward of the defined erosion zones - The development is within the existing urban area of Brunswick Heads and is unlikely to adversely impact upon the scenic or visual amenity of the coastline.	Yes
SEPP BASIX	Certificate required for manager’s residence/unit	Certificate No 622567S, dated 8 April 2015	Yes
NSW Coastal Policy 1997	Protection of coastal access, environment and amenity	The proposal raises no issues in terms of the Coastal Policy.	Yes
Building Code of Australia	Buildings to comply with the BCA	All building work to comply with the BCA. Appropriate condition of consent recommended	Yes
Demolition	Demolition to be carried out in accordance AS2601	All demolition work to comply with the AS2601. Appropriate condition of consent recommended	Yes
Disability Access (DDA)	Access for persons with disabilities and integration into surrounding streetscapes without creating barriers. (Council Res.10-1118)	Disability access proposed.	Yes

* Non-complying issues discussed below

3.2. BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2014

Zone: Zone No. B2 Local Centre

Definition: Serviced apartments

LEP Requirement	Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Meets zone objectives B2 – Local Centre	• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area. • To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations. • To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. • To encourage vibrant centres by allowing residential and tourist and visitor accommodation above commercial premises.	Serviced apartments will allow tourist accommodation within walking/cycling distance of town centre, beaches and boat harbour foreshore. Tourist accommodation will provide additional income within the town through visitor spending and tourist industry services.	Yes
Permissible use	*Note.* Serviced apartments are a type of tourist and visitor accommodation Serviced apartment means: a building (or part of a building) providing self-contained accommodation to tourists or visitors on a commercial basis and that is regularly serviced or cleaned by the owner or manager of the building or part of the building or the owner’s or manager’s agents.	Serviced apartments with owner/ manager to live on site	Yes
3.1 Exempt & Complying development	3) To be exempt development, the development: (d) must not be carried out on land that comprises, or on which there is, an item that is listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977 or that is subject to an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977.	The application includes signage for which detail has not been provided. Subsequently the signage is not approved should the application be approved. As signage can not be exempt a consent condition is to be included stating that any signage requires consent.	Yes
4.3 Height of Buildings	The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map = 9.0m	Maximum height = 9.0m	Yes
4.4 Floor space ratio	The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map = 0.75:1	Proposed floor space ratio is 0.749:1 Total Gross Floor area = 884m² Site Area = 1179m²	Yes
5.6: Architectural roof features	Check: Does the roof comply with the height limits of Clause 4.3	Maximum roof height 9.0m	Yes
5.9: Preservation of trees or vegetation	Must not remove or otherwise injure any vegetation prescribed by Chapter 2 of BDCP2014, without development consent.	Consent sought for removal of 8 trees of which 5 are prescribed natives, 3 x tuckeroos & 1 x eucalypt, the eucalypt being an unsuitable species for the location and a grevillea. A compensatory planting is proposed and will be conditioned via a Landscape Plan to be submitted prior to CC..	Yes
5.10: Heritage conservation	Check: Is it a: · Heritage item = Yes · Aboriginal object = No · Building in a heritage conservation area. = No	The existing dwelling is a heritage item ‘Barnes House’	Yes
	2(a) - Consent is required to: (i) Alter the exterior of a heritage item (b) making structural changes to the interior of a heritage item. (e) Erecting a building on land on which a heritage item is located.	Consent sought	Yes
	5 Heritage Assessment Before granting consent to land on which a heritage item is located a Council may request a heritage assessment.	‘Statement of Heritage Significance and Conservation Policy’ & ‘Statement of Heritage Impact’ provided.	Yes
	6 Heritage conservation management plans After considering the heritage significance Council may require the submission of a heritage management plan.	‘Statement of Heritage Significance and Conservation Policy’ & ‘Statement of Heritage Impact’ provided are considered to adequately address heritage issues.	Yes
	10 Conservation Incentives The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the conservation of the heritage item is facilitated by the granting of consent, and (b) the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority, and (c) the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried out, and (d) the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, and (e) the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.	a) change of use from residential flats to tourist accommodation will enable a wider population to be informed of the history of ‘Barnes House’ from staying within the heritage item and viewing a proposed display of historical items. b).The ‘Statement of Heritage Significance and Conservation Policy’ & ‘Statement of Heritage Impact’ are to be stamped as part of the consent. c).The ‘Statement of Heritage Significance and Conservation Policy’ & ‘Statement of Heritage Impact’ are to be stamped as part of the consent. d).It is considered that the proposed alterations will not adversely affect the heritage significance but will ensure management and protection of the heritage item. e). It is unlikely that the alterations to ‘Barnes House’ will result in any significant adverse effects on the amenity of the surrounding area, neither adjoining dwelling is a heritage item.	Yes
6.1: Acid sulphate soils	Class 4 PASS Works > 2.0m below ground level may impact ASS	No excavation > 1.5m below ground level proposed.	Yes
6.2: Earthworks	Check: Matters under Clause 6.2(3) Maximum earthworks = 2.0m	No earthworks >1.5m proposed (swimming pool).	Yes
6.6: Essential Services	Check: See B3 & B4 DCP · water, · sewer, · electricity · stormwater · vehicle access	Site is fully serviced	Yes

* Non-complying issues discussed below

Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014- Issues

No issues

Draft EPI that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority - Issues

Nil

3.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Development Control Plan 2014

Byron Development Control Plan 2014
Control	Assessment	Compliance
Chapter B10 - Signage
B10.1.3	The Statement of Heritage Significance & Conservation Policy states that “there will be new timber signs approx. 0.5m²identifying the establishment at the front & rear. However as no detail has been provided and as signage is not exempt within a heritage item site, should consent be granted a consent condition is to be included stating signage requires separate development consent.	Yes
Chapter B11 Planning for Crime Prevention
B11.2.1 Development that Requires a Formal Crime Risk Assessment 1. Council will expect a formal Crime Risk Assessment for the following types of development: new or refurbished shopping centres or transport interchanges; or residential developments or subdivisions comprising more than 20 dwellings or 20 lots; any subdivision that creates pedestrian egress from the end of a cul-de-sac to another public road, public reserve or the like; or car parks with more than 20 spaces; or any commercial premises involving the construction or alteration of basement car parking; or development or redevelopment of a mall or other public place; health services facilities, nightclubs, pubs, registered clubs, restricted premises, sex services premises, small bars; and other developments that, in the Council’s opinion, is likely to create a risk of crime.	The proposed tourist accommodation with live in on-site manager is not considered to be a development that is likely to create a risk of crime.	Yes
Chapter D3 – Tourist Accommodation
D3.2.1 Location and Siting The siting, design and operation of tourist accommodation and associated development must not conflict with important ecological characteristics of the site or the Shire, and respects the natural systems and values of its location and surrounds.	The existing and proposed development is located within a B2 - Local Centre Zone and is therefore unlikely to adversely impact important ecological characteristics of the site or the Shire.	Yes
D3.2.4 Character & Design in Business and Mixed Use Zones Tourist accommodation in Zone B2 must be compatible in character and amenity with development in the locality. The provisions of the following Sections in Chapter D4 Commercial and Retail Development apply to all tourist accommodation development in Zone B2 in the same way they apply to commercial and retail development in Business and Mixed Use zones: a)Section D4.2.1 – Design Character of Retail and Business Areas. b)Section D4.2.2 – Design Detail and Appearance.	See detailed discussion below.	Yes

D4.2.1 – Design Character of Retail and Business Areas.

To promote pedestrian and cycle usage, together with reduced vehicle dependency in the Shire’s business, commercial and retail areas.

To encourage safety, accessibility and human scale in the Shire’s business, commercial and retail areas.

To encourage diverse, multi-functional business, commercial and retail centres that provide a compatible range of commercial, recreational and community activities appropriate to the Shire’s climate, environment, social fabric and scenic character.

To ensure that development reinforces the role of centres within the Shire’s commercial centres hierarchy.

To ensure that establishment and operation of new development contributes to and does not detract from the social and economic robustness, diversity and vitality of retail, business and community areas and precincts.

The existing development on the site comprises a building approved as three residential units. The proposed development involves a change of use to serviced apartments to cater for visitors to the coastal village of Brunswick Heads. The proposal will increase the accommodation within the existing building from six bedrooms (within three apartments), to seven bedrooms within five apartments including an owner/ manager’s unit. The proposed detached dwelling at the rear will add a further three serviced apartments (3 x 1 bed & 1 x 2 bed).

The proximity of the development to the businesses of the town centre, the beach and Brunswick River foreshores enables easy pedestrian and cycle access which will encourage visitors to leave their vehicles parked at the development.

The scale of the development is appropriate to the heritage character of the existing building and the surrounding neighbourhood. The owner/operator has collected historical items, and information associated with the original property owners, and is proposing to create a historical display within the common areas for guests, a condition will ensure this. It is also proposed, & conditioned, to hold two public ‘Open Days’ for people to observe ‘Barnes House’ and the historical artefacts displayed within.

Previously Byron Shire Council’s Heritage consultant confirmed that the historical and cultural memory of "Barnes house" was a key contributing factor in its listing as a heritage item (10.2008.719.1). The opening up to guests of the heritage listed "Barnes house" and presentation of these items will contribute to visitors developing an understanding of part of the cultural history of Byron Shire.

A screened waste bin storage area for 6 x 240L bins is to be provided, out of public view, at the rear of ‘Barnes House’.

D4.2.2 – Design Detail and Appearance.

Objectives

1. To ensure that development is compatible with the design and amenity of development in the locality.

Performance Criteria

1. The design of new buildings must reflect and enhance the existing character of the precinct. The design, scale, bulk, design and operation of business, commercial and retail development must be compatible with the streetscape and with the aesthetics, function and amenity of development in the locality.

2. Building design, roof profile, detailing, colours, materials and the like that are visible from the street and from adjoining properties must be compatible with any dominant design themes in the surrounding locality.

3. The pattern of windows in retail areas must provide visual interest and variation and must relate to those of adjacent buildings. Building materials must relate to the context of buildings within the area to achieve continuity and harmony. Contrasting materials may be used to provide diversity, however materials and colour must not be used so that they dominate the streetscape.

The proposed development is not directly in the retail area of Brunswick Heads. The streetscape of the front of the property is part of the heritage character of the heritage item and provides visual interest. The existing shade trees within the Mullumbimbi Street setback which are to remain also form part of the local character streetscape appeal of ‘Barnes House’.

The adjoining development to the south comprises a 5 unit residential flat building with ground floor shops with zero setback facing Mullumbimbi Street.

Existing development along Mullumbimbi Street & within the B2 zone comprises mixed use shop top housing & residential units. There is a single storey dwelling adjoining to the west. The proposed conversion of Barnes House is within character of the locale.

‘Barnes House’ 40 Mullumbimbi Street (trees in front setback to be retained).

38 Mullumbimbi Street (shop top housing five apartments) (east)

34 (shop-top housing), 32 (residential flats) & 30 (Raised dwelling), Mullumbimbi St (east)

6 & 7 Mullumbimbi St (opposite 40)

Single storey dwelling 42 Mullumbimbi St (west)

The proposed use as tourist accommodation is compatible with the town centre location. The proposed development is considered a low rise, low key development to be managed by the owners living on the property and catering to the needs of the guests. The development is close by the town, beach and river at Brunswick Heads which are popular local attractions for visitors. The scale of the development is appropriate to the heritage character of the existing building and the surrounding neighbourhood and reflects the low-scale, tourist coastal village image of Brunswick Heads.

The proposed building (Oyster) has been designed in contrast to the existing heritage building (Pearl). The building has contemporary lines and forms to avoid mimicking the character of the existing heritage building. The colours are generally black, white and tones of grey. The building utilises natural stone cladding and natural timber screen elements and hard landscaping as design features.

The SEE claims “these elements, and the deliberate contrast in building forms between the existing and new buildings, express the conceptual theme of the Pearl and Oyster, which is a reference to the Oyster industry of Brunswick Heads. This is intended to be seen as a harmony of opposites and the relationship between Brunswick Heads industrial history and the present day focus on tourism"

D 3.3.7 Serviced Apartments

Objectives

1. To ensure that serviced apartment development is compatible with the character and amenity of development in the locality.

2. To ensure that establishment of serviced apartment development does not adversely affect the social and economic robustness, diversity and vitality of retail, business and community areas and precincts.

Performance Criteria

1. The design and operation of serviced apartments must be compatible with the streetscape and character of development in the locality.

2. Development applications must demonstrate that the proposed development is designed and landscaped consistent with the requirements of Chapters B11 Planning for Crime Prevention and B9 Landscaping.

3. Serviced apartments must not adversely affect the amenity of the precinct in which it is located.

4. Serviced apartments must comply with the requirements of Chapter D1 Residential Development in Urban and Special Purpose Zones, Section D1.6.

As detailed in D4.2.1 & D4.2.2 the proposed serviced apartments, tourist accommodation is compatible with the town centre location.

The proposed development is a low rise, low key development, to be managed by the owner’s family living on the property and thereby catering to the needs of the guests and ensuring the preservation of amenity to neighbours.

The development is close by the town, beach and river at Brunswick Heads which are popular local attractions for visitors. The scale of the development is appropriate to the heritage character of the existing building and the surrounding neighbourhood and reflects the low-scale, tourist-beach image of Brunswick Heads.

The proposed serviced apartment development is compatible with the character and amenity of existing development in the locality. The area around the existing and proposed buildings is vegetated and is not visually prominent.

The proposed new building complies with all other BLEP2014 and BDCP2014 requirements, including density, height, setback, car parking, landscaping and open space requirements, and will be compatible with the existing and planned scenic quality and character of the locality.

The proposed development will have social and economic benefits for the village of Brunswick Heads. The development is located within an area identified as suitable for tourism and will help provide for a growing economy in this area. The construction of the building and associated works will provide employment within the construction and allied industries.

The proposed serviced apartment development will add to the existing social & economic robustness and the diversity and vitality of retail, business and community areas and precincts.

Byron Development Control Plan 2014
Control	Assessment	Compliance
D1.6 – Multi Dwelling Housing, Residential Flat Buildings & Attached Dwellings
D1.6.1 - Private Open Space Courtyards	The proposed development is for tourism i.e. short stay accommodation and not for permanent residents. Notwithstanding each unit has a private open space balcony or access to a landscaped private outdoor area.	Yes
D1.6.2 – Open Space Balcony	All above ground units have direct access to a private open space balcony with an area of 15m² and at minimum length & width of 2.4m. All units are oriented towards the north except for 3 & 4, which have a south-west orientation.	Yes
D1.6.3 - Landscaping	Landscaping has been conditioned to be in accordance with BDCP2014.	Yes

E4.1.2 Aims of this Chapter

The primary purpose of this Chapter of the DCP is to provide relevant criteria and standards for the future development of the Brunswick Heads Urban Area. The aims of this Chapter are:

1. To facilitate and provide guidelines for the development of the Brunswick Heads Urban Area consistent with the provisions of the Byron LEP 2014, the Brunswick Heads Settlement Strategy 2004 and other relevant strategies and Chapters of this DCP.

2. To maintain and enhance the appearance and atmosphere of Brunswick Heads as a low-key, family-friendly coastal village.

3. To encourage new development to complement, support and strengthen the character, living amenity and tourist potential of the town and to maintain and enhance pedestrian and cycle access.

4. To foster and reinforce the restoration and protection of the riverside environment of Brunswick Heads.

5. To continue to implement environmentally sustainable development principles in the town’s business area; and to further enhance its role as a dynamic local business sector offering a range of employment opportunities.

6. To reinforce the town’s historical linkages and to protect identified heritage items.

The proposal is generally consistent with the aims of Chapter E.

It is considered that the proposed alterations will not adversely affect the heritage significance but will ensure management and protection of the heritage item. It is unlikely that the alterations to ‘Barnes House’ will result in any significant adverse effects on the amenity of the surrounding area neither adjoining dwelling is a heritage item. Notwithstanding the proposed stone and timber front fence and gatehouse have not been sufficiently addressed and those two components are not supported by this report. Subsequently the proposed front fence and gatehouse will be crossed out in red on the plans should the application be approved.

E4.2.1 Brunswick Heads - Character. Bulk and Scale of Development

Performance Criteria

The existing and desired future character of Brunswick Heads is defined by the following characteristics:

Business and Mixed Use Areas

Land zoned B2 provides a safe, low traffic speed, pedestrian/cycle friendly environment that encourages outdoor dining and community activity in the street.

Development in this area uses setbacks, planting and design elements to contribute positively to village amenity and create a pedestrian/cycle friendly streetscape.

New commercial and retail development is consistent with the requirements of Chapter D4 Commercial and Retail Development. Development is designed to enhance the low key, family-friendly, coastal village character, streetscape and scale of Brunswick Heads.

New development respects the north coast climatic conditions and adopts sustainable design principles. lt incorporates footpath awnings and sun and rain protection for pedestrians. Landscaping is provided in accordance with the requirements of Chapter B9 Landscaping. Development respects heritage items.

The proposed development has an outdoor dining area for guests and is compatible with a safe, low traffic speed, pedestrian/cycle friendly environment.

The existing building on Mullumbimbi St. (Pearl) has an existing set back approx. 7 metres from the front boundary and incorporates existing established landscaping. The design elements of the heritage listed building such as pitched roof, sub floor screen, timber posts, wide verandahs, domestic scale, timber stair & balustrade detail are to be retained, as they forms part of the heritage character of the building.

The rear laneway is predominantly a service road and provides access for car parking and services. This frontage will have a 1.8m high timber and masonry fence and 1.15 metre high gate to comply with safe sightlines for pedestrians & traffic using the lane, and landscaping to reduce the apparent scale of the building on this frontage.

The design elements of the heritage listed building combined with the complimentary new rear yard building will contribute to the low key, family-friendly, coastal village character, streetscape and scale of Brunswick Heads.

Development Control Plan 2014 - Issues

No issues

3.4 The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Site Waste Minimisation and Management: Standard condition applies

Impact on:	Likely significant impact/s?
Natural environment	No significant impacts.
Built environment	The proposed development is in keeping with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone, and is compliant with the planned maximum site density ratio of (0.75:1) while maintaining the heritage values and character of ‘Barnes House’. The heritage character of the streetscape is maintained by new building being sited, with maximum separation, in the rear yard and accessed via the rear lane. The proposed development is not out of character with the area which is dominated with two storey buildings, holiday flats up to 9.0 metres in height, and large and/or elevated dwelling houses.
Social Environment	The development caters directly to the high demand for tourist accommodation in the locality. The proposed units within the refurbished ‘Barnes House’ will include an accessible unit and historical display to add to guest’s awareness of the history of the heritage dwelling and Brunswick Heads coastal village. The new 3 unit building will have a high level of amenity and the location is within easy walking and cycling distance to the town centre, river & beaches.
Economic impact	The construction will have short term benefits to the local economy. The tourist accommodation will have long term financial benefit to the local economy and will ensure the maintenance of the heritage item.

3.5 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located within Zone B2 – Local Centre, with high connectivity to local services and amenities. All planning and environmental constraints affecting the site are considered to have been satisfactorily addressed by the application and/or the conditions of consent recommended at the end of this report. The subject property is not affected by flooding, bushfire or geotechnical constraints, and the application is supported on Engineering grounds (#A2015/10764).

The site is suitable for the proposed development.

3.6 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

There were eleven submissions made against the development application and one in support.

It is noted that another two of the submissions generally supported the application but with some reservations.

Issue	Comment
The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.	The proposal complies with the maximum 0.75:1 Site Density Ratio for the B2 zone & maximum height restriction.
Doesn’t comply with car parking requirements	The number of Units has been reduced (Unit 9 deleted) car parking now complies.
We weren’t consulted prior to lodgement.	Not required but Noted.
Traffic issues in the laneway not addressed.	Council has considered the number of additional traffic movements in the lane and have applied consent conditions for an upgrade to the lane. Local Traffic committee is also looking into the potential for making the lane one way.
Garbage bins should be relocated.	The bins have been relocated to behind building ‘Pearl’.
Height should be reduced to 7.5 metres.	The height limit for the site and surrounding land is 9.0m. The residential flat building adjacent to the east is 9.0m high.
We object to the length and height of the masonry fence next to the swimming pool, & the swimming pool location right next to our western boundary and the impact on our amenity.	The applicant met with adjoining owners and the height of the masonry wall, which is to screen the pool and to protect the amenity of neighbours, has been reduced 0.5m from 2.8m to 2.3m and the length reduced from by 1.4m from 10.5m to 9.1m. The pool is separated from the masonry wall on the side boundary by a 1.7m wide disabled access ramp. The swimming pool deck has been lowered by more than 0.5m.
The application requests stacked parking which is not consistent with the DCP	Stacked parking is limited to the on-site manager only if & when the disabled parking is required in the Mullumbimbi Street setback. Otherwise the disabled space is provided at the rear of the disabled access unit.
There should be a laneway policy in Brunswick Heads to protect the character of the rear lanes.	The character of rear lanes are regulated within residential zones, the subject land is within a business zone where development is allowed
Landscaping as proposed is inadequate	Landscaping has been conditioned to be in accordance with BDCP2014.
The importance of the site’s main house to Brunswick Heads’ heritage is acknowledged and also the need for the owner to undertake improvements to the site so as to make their investment in the property sustainable. We also support, in principle, the property being used for serviced apartments.	Noted.
There is a mango tree on the fenceline that is proposed to be removed. We were not consulted.	Removal for a mango tree does not form part of this consent. However, fruit trees are exempt for removal under Byron LEP2014 & BDCP2014. Removal of a mango tree on the boundary is a matter between the adjoining neighbours.
No Heritage Impact Statement.	A ‘Statement of Heritage Significance and Conservation Policy’ & a ‘Statement of Heritage Impact’ were provided and are considered to adequately address heritage issues. The proposed external works to ‘Barnes House’ are virtually identical to what was previously supported by Council’s Heritage Advisor and subsequently approved by Council via DA 10.2008.719.1.
Is there going to be commercial signage in the front?	Signage not approved as part of this consent, if granted. A consent condition stating that is to be included in any consent.
The opening of the front fence for a driveway will decrease the street parking by at least one space	‘Barnes House’ has street frontage to Mullumbimbi Street and therefore has the right to vehicle access.
The state of the gutters footpaths and verges in Mullumbimbi Street are hazardous and it is impossible to place the waste bins for collection.	Roads Act Approval has been granted for a concrete driveway and concrete layback from the property boundary through to the edge of gutter. A bitumen sealed driveway from the edge of gutter/layback through to the existing road pavement seal.
Noise impact on residences. I am already impacted by the Brunswick Heads Hotel.	The proposed development is for short term tourist accommodation comprising 8 serviced apartments and a manager’s residence. There is no nexus between noise generated elsewhere and the proposed development. A condition re noise generation is to be included should consent be granted. On-site manager will have ability to ensure neighbourhood noise amenity is maintained.
Impact on solar access from 3 storey dwelling	The proposed development complies with maximum 9.0m height controls.
Lifting of the dwelling and excavation may effect the water table there are bores in the area.	Highly unlikely
The DA doesn’t mention any changes to the power pole that we share in the road reserve.	Council is not the electricity provider however there would not appear to be any reason for the pole, which is not on the subject land to be impacted.
The maximum height in the area should be 7.5m not 9m, as stated in the Brunswick Heads Settlement Strategy	The BLEP2014 controls the maximum building heights across the shire. The Height Map in the under BLEP2014. Allows 9.0m. Note the adjoining commercial/residential development to the east is 9.0m high.
The stone & timber front fence is not in keeping with the picket fence and should not be supported.	While it is not clear that the existing front picket fence was part of the Heritage item listing, it does however, form part of the heritage character in the streetscape. No detail of the proposed fence other than it is 1.35 metres high and made from stone and timber; the front fence is not supported.
There are no shadow diagrams.	Development in the B2 – Local Centre zone is not subject to the same Building Height Plane and setback controls that apply in residential zones. The buildings comply with the height controls.
Any argument that tries to enforce a 7.5 metre height limit is nonsense as 9.0m is consistent with what the BHSS wanted as voted in 2004.	Noted
It is also wrong to argue that the site is an overdevelopment as the unit entitlement is permissible.	Noted
Any argument from adjoining and nearby owners in the residential zone that special consideration should be given to the southern side of Mullumbimbi Street is wrong as it has historically been zoned for commercial and people chose to live there.	Noted
The applicant lives within the B2 zone and is entitled to undertake the maximum development permissible to ensure financial viability.	Noted
The laneway problems could be solved by placing no parking signs and enforcing the parking requirements of commercial buildings on the corner of Park St & Mullumbimbi Lane.	Noted
Exemption for stacked parking for the manager’s site in the Mullumbimbi St frontage should be supported as such ‘valet’ parking is not uncommon other tourist accommodation developments.	Proposed and supported.
Compensatory planting of a tuckeroo should be conditioned.	Landscaping with local rainforest species, including a 3 x tuckeroo trees is to be conditioned.
The raising of the building should not destroy the historical significance of the fact that aboriginal staff were ‘housed under the house and one of the stumps has ‘Gins Only’ written on it and this should be preserved.	The owner has indicated that the stump mentioned, and other useable stumps that need to be removed, will be featured in other areas of the proposed development i.e. the walkway between the buildings and will be labelled to highlight their heritage significance. It should also be noted that the owner has indicated a willingness to educate the interested public about the heritage of ‘Barnes House’ and Brunswick Heads via two ‘Open Days’ per year. This can be conditioned.
The rear yards along Mullumbimbi Lane have become home to water dragons and other reptiles.	The reptiles will still be able to inhabit the garden areas which will no doubt be enjoyed by the guests.
The height of the buildings will increase the concentration of fruit bats flying over my property.	It is not understood why this would be expected, fruit bats are very capable flyers and can easily fly higher than 9.0m.

NOTE: The applicant provided Council with responses to submissions, plus additional information regarding the proposed heritage item display to be exhibited within Barnes House that will be open to the public two open days. Attachment 3.

3.7 Public interest

The development as proposed development is not contrary to the public interest.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

4.1 Water & Sewer Levies

Referral Report #A2015/10770; Assessed by Jason Stanley

Current Situation

Existing entitlements have been sourced from the DA 10.2008.719.1 ET assessment (#DM850667).

Using the current day ET Policy 13/005, the existing sewer, water and bulk water entitlements are as follows:

Table 1 - Calculation of Existing Water & Sewer ETs

Ref	Development Type	Standard Unit	Quantity	ET Rate (ET/unit)		ET Load
Ref	Development Type	Standard Unit	Quantity	Water	Sewer	Water	Sewer
3.7	1 bedroom unit (Unit 2)	Dwelling	1	0.40	0.50	0.40	0.50
3.8	2 bedroom unit (Unit 3)	Dwelling	1	0.60	0.75	0.60	0.75
3.9	3 bedroom unit (Unit 1)	Dwelling	1	0.80	1.00	0.80	1.00
TOTAL						1.80	2.25

Therefore, the existing ET entitlement for this property is:

· 1.80 ET for Water & Bulk Water; and

· 2.25 ET for Sewer.

Proposed Development

The application seeks development consent constructing 9 serviced apartments, managers unit and pool. The proposed development will generate the following load:

Table 2 - Calculation of Proposed Development Water & Sewer ETs

Ref	Development Type	Standard Unit	Quantity	ET Rate (ET/unit)		ET Load
Ref	Development Type	Standard Unit	Quantity	Water	Sewer	Water	Sewer
3.11	1 bedroom Managers Unit	Dwelling	1	0.40	0.50	0.40	0.50
6.6	Unit 1 & 2 2 bedroom serviced apartment	Dwelling	2	0.50	0.75	1.00	1.50
6.6	Unit 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 1 bedroom serviced apartment	Dwelling	7	0.33	0.50	2.31	3.50
11.7	Swimming Pool Commercial premises	Assume 3m (W) x 5.6m (L) x 1.5m (D) Using #E2015/9848				0.42	0.31
TOTAL						4.13	5.81

Table 3 - Calculation of Additional Water & Sewer ET Load

	Water	Sewer
Existing ET Entitlements (Table 1)	1.80	2.25
Proposed Development ET loading (Table 2)	4.13	5.81
Additional ET loading	2.33	3.56

Therefore, this development generates an additional load onto Councils Water, Bulk Water and Sewer System

Council requires Payment of Developer Servicing Charges (prior to issue of a construction certificate) of:

· 2.33 ET for Water & Bulk Water; and

· 3.56 ET for Sewer.

4.2 Section 94 Contributions

Section 94A Levy to be paid

Prior to the issue of a construction certificate the section 94A levy required by the Byron Developer Contributions Plan2012 shall be paid to Council.

The levy will be calculated as follows:

Levy payable = %C x $C

Where: %C is the levy rate applicable as set out in the latest Ministerial Direction issued under section 94E.

$C is the proposed cost of carrying out the development.

The rate of %C is:

Proposed cost of the development	Maximum percentage of the levy
Up to $100,000	Nil
$100,001–$200,000	0.5 percent
More than $200,000	1.0 percent

The cost of development shall be shall be calculated in accordance with clause 25J of the regulation. The Cost Summary Report (copy attached) as set out in schedule 2 of the Section 94A contributions plan shall be submitted to Council with the with the payment. Copies of Cost Summary Report are available at Council’s main office or may be downloaded from http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/

5. CONCLUSION

The external works proposed are similar to those approved via DA 10.2008.719.1, however this application proposes to change the internal layout of the three existing flats so that the building will contain four serviced apartments and a Manager’s Unit. The Manager’s unit will be at ground level along with Unit 4 which will provide adaptable housing. One car parking space is provided for the on-site manager.

The additional freestanding building is at the rear of and well separated from, ‘Barnes House’ and will not detract from its visual appearance.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant state planning instruments and with BLEP2014. The proposal is generally consistent with BDCP2014 save for a variation to sections of side boundary fence that are 2.4 metres high to act as a privacy screen between the swimming pool and deck area and the adjoining neighbour. The variation is supported by this report.

The proposed variation to the front fence height and the change from a picket type fence to masonry and timber front fence with gatehouse, is considered to detract from the heritage character and is not supported. Subsequently the plans are to be marked in red to delete this part of the proposal.

The application is supported subject to consent conditions.

6. RECOMMENDATION

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Nil

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.14

Report No. 13.14 PLANNING - 26.2015.3.1 General Policy and Housekeeping Changes - Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Julie Francombe, Strategic Planner

File No: I2015/874

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents a Council initiated Planning Proposal that amends Byron LEP 2014 in relation to 18 matters as follows:

· Minor amendments to the land use table that will affect all land within zones R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential, RU1 Primary Production, IN1 General Industrial, IN2 Light Industrial, B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local Centre, B4 Mixed Use, B7 Business Park, W1 Natural Waterways, and W2 Recreational Waterways.

· Inclusion of a new clause that will permit a “special purpose subdivision” in all RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zones.

· Alterations to the heading to clause 4.1B to properly reflect the content of the clause and alter a term used throughout the clause to better reflect its intent.

· Remove “R5 Large Lot Residential” from one part of Clause 4.1D relating to subdivision of split zone lots and insert it into other parts of the same clause.

For site specific matters, the planning proposal will:

· Permit registered clubs as an additional use on the Cavanbah Sports Centre site at West Byron (Lot 3 DP 706286).

· Alter schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) to delete item I173 (Roundhouse site) as the Roundhouse building has been demolished and the land subdivided for residential purposes.

· Permit a dwelling on Lot 1 DP 394451, Jones Road consistent with previous advice to the landowner based on the history of the site.

· Alter the SP1 zone that applies to Lot 1 DP 1031848, Broken Head to describe the SP1 zone as “private education facility”. Alter schedule 1 to define “private education facility” as it applies to the subject land.

· Rezone three irregular shaped lots adjacent to Kulgan Court, Ocean Shores from RU2 Rural Landscape to R2 Low Density Residential to be consistent with surrounding land use and approved residential development. Amend the corresponding Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and Minimum Lot Size (MLS) maps for the same lots to make them consistent with the surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zone.

· Amend the Minimum Lot Size map for a Bangalow urban release area (Lot 12 DP1189289) to better align location of the existing 300m²MLS with a recent subdivision approval.

This report recommends that the LEP amendments in this Planning Proposal be supported and sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Approval.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council proceed with the planning proposal contained in Attachment 1 and send it to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment requesting a Gateway Approval.

Attachments:

1 Planning Proposal for LEP 2014 General Amendment No.2 - General Policy and Housekeeping Changes In Byron Shire, E2015/54624

2 Form of Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, E2012/2815

Report

The purpose of the planning proposal is to amend various parts of Byron LEP 2014 as part of an annual review of the planning instrument. The amendments are unrelated. Some are general and some site specific. Some have come from Council resolutions and some have come from staff observations, consultants or landowners. They are discussed below.

A. Insert recreation facility (indoor) in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre land use table as permissible with consent

At its Meeting on 26 February 2015 Council resolved

15-050 Resolved:

1. That Council reviews permitted land uses in B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones (including Suffolk Park) in the Byron LEP 2014 to include 'recreational facilities (indoor)', and any other additional uses considered appropriate.

2. That any proposed amendments be included in the next 'housekeeping' Planning Proposal adjustments to the Byron 2014 LEP.

The B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone affects land at Bayside Brunswick, Bayshore Drive West Byron and Suffolk Park shopping centre. The amendment will permit uses such as gyms and health studios (for example). The land use table is otherwise similar to neighbouring Council’s and no other changes are warranted. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

B. Insert secondary dwelling in the R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential land use tables as permissible with consent

Council staff noted that in LEP 2014 secondary dwellings are prohibited in the R2 and R5 zones while in the R3 zone they are permitted with consent. They are permitted under the Affordable Housing SEPP in all these zones and should be in the LEP as well. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for zone R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential to permit secondary dwellings as permitted with consent.

C. Insert dual occupancy (detached) in the R5 Large Lot Residential land use table as permissible with consent

During the recent exhibition of the detached rural dual occupancy planning proposal it was noted by staff that the Council resolution did not include dual occupancy (detached) as permitted with consent in the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone. Given that the R5 areas are better serviced than RU1 and RU2 areas this appears to be an oversight and it should have been included. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the R5 Large Lot Residential zone to permit dual occupancy (detached) as permitted with consent.

D. Insert agriculture in the RU1 Primary Production land use table as permissible with consent. Insert aquaculture as a prohibited use. Delete intensive animal agriculture and intensive plant agriculture from permissible with consent (they will be covered by agriculture).

Consistent with the RU2 Rural Landscape land use table, Council staff noted that agriculture should be “permissible with consent” in zone RU1 Primary Production given the objectives of the zone. Similarly, Intensive livestock agriculture and intensive plant agriculture can then be removed from permissible with consent (because they are covered by agriculture) while Aquaculture needs to be added to prohibited development. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the RU1 Primary Production zone to effect these changes.

E. Insert waste or resource management facilities as a prohibited use in the B2 Local Centre, B4 Mixed Use and B7 Business park zone land use tables. Delete any references to its “child” definitions in these land use tables wherever they occur.

It was not Council’s intent to allow waste or resource management facilities (or any of its “child” definitions) in any of the business zones in LEP 2014. The draft LEP was amended to permit waste or resource management facilities with consent in the B2, B4 and B7 zones by DPE without consultation with Council. Waste or resource management facilities should be prohibited in the B2 Local Centre, B4 mixed Use and B7 Business Park zones. Waste disposal facility and resource recovery facility should be removed from all three zones. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the B2 Local Centre, B4 mixed Use and B7 Business Park zones zone to effect these changes.

F. Delete environmental facilities as a prohibited use in the B4 Mixed Use zone land use table.

In its draft LEP Council inadvertently listed environmental facilities as both permitted and prohibited in the B4 Mixed Use zone. It was meant to be permitted with consent. It was incorrectly changed by DPE without consultation. Environmental facilities will be added to the permitted with consent section of the B4 Mixed use zone. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the B4 Mixed Use zone to permit environmental facilities with consent.

G. Delete biosolids treatment facilities, sewage treatment plants and water recycling facilities from the prohibited section of the land use table in the IN1 General Industrial zone.

SEPP (Infrastructure) permits with consent biosolids treatment facilities, sewage reticulation systems, sewage treatment plants and water recycling facilities in the IN1 General Industrial zone. Any person can lodge a development application for these uses under the SEPP. LEP 2014 permits the parent definition of sewerage systems but prohibits all of the “child” definitions except sewage reticulation systems. Although the SEPP over rides the LEP, it does not make sense to have an LEP that appears to be intentionally at odds with the SEPP. This was not Councils intent with its draft LEP. Biosolids treatment facilities, sewage treatment plants and water recycling facilities should all be deleted from the prohibited section, making them permitted with consent in the IN1 zone. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the IN1 General Industrial zone to effect these changes.

H. Insert electricity generating works as a prohibited use in the IN2 Light Industrial zone land use table.

It was not Council’s intent to allow electricity generating works in the IN2 Light Industrial zone. It was advertised in the draft LEP as a prohibited use and changed by DPE without consultation.

Electricity generating works should be added to the prohibited section of the IN2 Light Industrial zone. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the IN2 Light Industrial zone to add electricity generating works as a prohibited use.

I. Insert roads in the W1 Natural Waterways and W2 Recreational Waterways zone land use tables as permissible with consent.

It was not Council’s intent to prohibit roads in the W1 Natural Waterways and W2 Recreational Waterways zones. In the case of waterways zoned W1 and W2 it’s important that roads can be permitted with consent on merit if they are required to cross a waterway (ie bridges are roads).

Therefore the Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to the land use table for the W1 Natural Waterways and W2 Recreational Waterways zones to add roads as permitted with consent.

J. Insert a new clause in Part 4 Principal Development Standards to enable certain subdivision (sometimes referred to as a special purpose subdivision) to be approved on land zoned RU1 and RU2 where the lot will be less than the minimum lot size shown on the minimum lot size map.

A consultant suggested that Council include a “special purpose subdivision” provision in Byron LEP 2014. This is because under LEP 1988, Council had the ability to grant consent to a rural zoned lot of any size as long as it was not for the purposes of “agriculture, forestry or a dwelling house”. The provision was abandoned with the gazettal of the Byron LEP 2014 as a result of the standardisation of LEP provisions. Other north coast LEPs (eg. Clarence Valley Council and Richmond Valley Council) have included a “special purpose subdivision” provision that would enable an approved use to be lawfully subdivided from a parent lot. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes a clause based on the Clarence Valley Council provision.

K. Amend the heading to clause 4.1B “Minimum subdivision lot size for multiple occupancy or rural landsharing community developments” to better reflect the content of the clause. The revised heading would be “Minimum subdivision lot size for multiple occupancy or rural community title developments”.
Amend clause 4.1B to replace “rural landsharing developments” with “rural community title development” wherever it occurs.

Council staff noted that this clause uses terminology (rural landsharing) that does not fit the type of development that it was intended to deal with (namely multiple occupancy or rural community title developments). It is a minor amendment that will make the clause more accurate. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes a variation to this clause to effect these changes.

L. Amend clause 4.1D relating to subdivision of split zone lots.

Clause 4.1D applies to land that is affected by more than one zone. The intention of a split lot clause is to allow land that is zoned for a more intensive use — such as residential, rural residential, business or industrial — to be subdivided off from a rural or other less intensive zone where the latter zoned land is less than the Minimum Lot Size (often 40 hecatres). In Council’s existing clause the rural residential zone appears on both sides of the list of zones to be separated. This does not make sense and has created confusion. To fix the clause, reference to “large lot residential” needs to be located with the intensive land uses [subclause (3)(a)(i)] and deleted from the list of less intensive land uses [subclause (3)(a)(ii)]. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes a variation to this clause to effect these changes.

M. Allow registered clubs as an additional permitted use on the Cavanbah Sports Centre site at West Byron (Lot 3 DP 706286) by amending Schedule 1.

Council staff noted that in order to facilitate future commercial opportunities on Council land zoned RE1 Public Recreation, LEP 2014 should allow registered football club training facilities to be developed on sports grounds such as the Cavanbah Sport Centre, in West Byron. Registered clubs were not a permitted use in the 1988 LEP on land zoned 6(a) Public Open Space. Realising this use on sites such as the Cavanbah Sports Centre would require Council to review its plan of management as a separate process. To create this commercial potential, the Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to Schedule 1 that specifically permits registered clubs with consent on this site.

Note: The RE1 zone is used extensively in Byron Shire including New Brighton Oval, Water Lilly Park, open space throughout Ocean Shores, all three Brunswick Heads Caravan Parks, Brunswick River foreshore, Stan Thompson Oval, Cavanbah Sports Centre, Butler Street Reserve, First Sun Caravan Park, part of Sandhills Estate, Tennyson Street playing fields, and Suffolk Park Caravan Park. It would be difficult to justify also permitting registered clubs in many of these locations in the absence of an adopted policy framework for land in this zone.

N. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage by deleting item I173 (Roundhouse site).

In implementing Council’s decision to reclassify the Roundhouse site at Ocean Shores staff noted that it was still listed in LEP 2014 as a heritage item. The building has been demolished for some time and the land on which it stood is zoned for residential purposes and has been approved for subdivision. Retaining the listing serves no purpose. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to Schedule 5 that deletes heritage item I173 (Roundhouse Site).

O. Permit a dwelling house on Lot 1 DP 394451, Jones Road.

This lot is one of four small lots at the end of Jones Road created in the 1950’s. Three have dwellings on them and this one does not have a dwelling entitlement. It is approximately 5 hectares and is part RU2 Rural Landscape and part deferred matter (7k habitat under LEP 1988). It has Billinudgel Nature Reserve on two sides. In July 2014 the (then) Director of Planning advised the owner “The inability for consent to be granted for a dwelling house on the subject lot under Byron LEP 2014 (despite Council supporting such an outcome) has resulted from re-drafting of Clause 4.2A since the time that the draft LEP was first prepared (as guided by the LES). Given these circumstances an amendment to allow consent to be granted for a dwelling house on the subject lot will be included in one of the first amendments to Byron LEP 2014.”

The applicant has not undertaken a SEPP 55 preliminary contaminated land assessment and has not supplied any information on bushfire hazard. The State government Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) lists the subject land as containing a registered Aboriginal site. Subject to the Gateway Determination issued by Department of Planning & Environment, Council may require submission of this information (i) prior to finalising the planning proposal or (ii) at the development application stage once the dwelling curtilage and accompanying land uses are known.

The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to Schedule 1 that specifically permits a dwelling house on the subject land (as shown in Map 1 below).

Map 1 - Lot 1 DP 394451, Jones Road.

P. Amend map sheet LZN 003D to correct an error with the zone label for Lot 1 DP 1031848 to change the label from “ educational establishment” to “private education facility”.

At its Meeting on 5 February 2015 Council resolved:

15-029 Resolved:

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

The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to Schedule 1 that defines private education facility and permits it with consent on this site. An amendment to the zoning map will also be made to describe the subject land as “private education facility”.

Q. Amend map sheet LZN 002CA to change the land use zone for Lot 12 DP 1128095, Lot 11 DP 1128095 and Lot 606 DP 240398 , Ocean Shores, from RU2 Rural Landscape to R2 Low Density Residential. Amend map sheet LSZ 002CA to change the MLS for the same lots from 40 ha to 600 m². Amend map sheet FSR 002CA to include a 0.5 FSR for the same lots.

Council approved a large senior’s housing development on land near Kulgan Court in Ocean Shores. Part of that land is in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone because it was previously in a rural investigation zone. It encompasses three irregular shaped lots with a combined area of approximately 8600 m². Two extremely narrow strips are owned by Council and the slightly larger lot is privately owned. The two very narrow strips (approximately 600mm wide) were created at the rear of private land that backs onto a proposed road corridor at Ocean Shores near Kulgan Court.

The proposed road has been abandoned and sold for private development and the strips are no longer required. It makes sense that the narrow strips be included in the R2 Low Density Residential zone the same as most of the land in the vicinity. With residential land on two sides and a residential (seniors) approval in place this serviced urban land should be included in an urban zone. It is not used for agriculture and contains no significant habitat. It has been subject to a preliminary contamination assessment under SEPP 55 and is not likely to be contaminated from past land use. It is not known to contain Aboriginal sites. In combination with it changing to an R2 Low Density Residential zone it also should have a minimum lot size (MLS) of 600 m² and a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.5. These are the same as surrounding residential land.

The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to Byron LEP 2014 map sheets LZN 002CA, LSZ 002CA, and FSR 002CA to apply the above changes to the subject land. Please refer to Map 3 of the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1.

R. Amend map sheet LSZ 003CB to modify the existing 300 m² MLS for certain land at Bangalow (Lot 12 DP1189289, Parrot Tree Place) to align with a recent subdivision on the same parent lot further to the west.

In amending Byron DCP Council received a submission in relation to the Bangalow urban release area shown in Map 2 below. Staff commented that “the relevant 300m²areas on the LEP 2014 Lot Size Map are inconsistent with the indicative medium density residential areas illustrated on the suggested Structure Plan and inconsistent with the plan of subdivision approved under the consent to DA 10.2012.6.1. It is recommended that options be explored at a later date to amend the relevant LEP 2014 Lot Size Map such that the 300m² Lot Size areas more closely reflect the Medium density residential areas in the submission.”

To this end the Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 includes an amendment to Byron LEP 2014 map sheet LSZ 003CB that applies the above changes to the subject land.

Map 2 – Land shown as “medium density residential” represents the preferred location for the 300m² Minimum Lot Size on Lot 12 DP1189289, Bangalow

Matters that have been omitted from this Planning Proposal

Building Heights in Lawson Street

At its meeting on 21 May 2015 Council resolved:

15-216 Resolved:

That the height limits be reviewed for Zone B2 in Lawson Street on the eastern side of the road as part of the housekeeping amendment report of the Byron LEP 2014.

Building heights are one influence on the urban form of Byron CBD, but they should not be reviewed in isolation of floor space ratio, car parking, landscaping, etc. The Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan is addressing the issue of built form in the CBD which includes the B2 zone along Lawson Street. Once the final master plan has been delivered and considered by Council it is appropriate that issues such as height, FSR, car parking, etc be revisited. The LEP (and DCP) can be used to achieve the urban form that Council has agreed through the master plan process. No changes to the building heights in the B2 zone at Lawson Street are proposed at this time.

Council Landholdings

The following land affected by this planning proposal is owned by Council:

§ Item Q includes Lot 11 DP1128095 and Lot 606 DP 240398. These are two very narrow lots (approximately 600mm wide) that were created at the rear of private land that backs onto a proposed road corridor at Ocean Shores near Kulgan Court. These narrow strips will be included in the R2 Low Density Residential zone which is the same as most of the land in the vicinity.

§ Item M applies to the Cavanbah Sports Centre at Ewingsdale Road, West Byron (Lot 3 DP 706286). This land was acquired by Council partly for a sports facility and partly for disposal of treated recycled water from the nearby STP. It is part Community land and part Operational land under the Local Government Act, 1993. It is subject to a plan of management. This land will be included in Schedule 1 (Additional permitted uses) so that “registered clubs” can be permitted with consent, which in turn will enable future commercial opportunities on Council land.

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 6(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.

Two items are affected directly by this SEPP. Item Q (land near Kulgan Court, Ocean Shores) is changing from a rural to a residential zone. In this case the previous landowners undertook a preliminary analysis pursuant to SEPP 55 and found there was no evidence of past contamination. It is consistent with the SEPP.

Item O (Jones Road) is a single 5 hectare rural lot at the end of Jones Road that has currently does not have a “dwelling entitlement”. The land is not being rezoned, but the amendment will allow a dwelling to be erected on it for the first time. No preliminary analysis of the land has been supplied to Council and it is not yet possible for Council to be satisfied that the draft LEP is consistent with Clause 6 of SEPP 55. Subject to the Gateway Determination issued by Department of Planning & Environment, Council may require submission of this information (i) prior to finalising the planning proposal or (ii) at the development application stage once the dwelling curtilage and accompanying land uses are known.

Although this part of the planning proposal is not consistent with SEPP 55 Remediation of Land, it should proceed to Gateway Determination.

SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008

The focus of this SEPP is on unnecessary fragmentation of rural land and in particular state and regionally significant 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 affected by changes to the land use tables for RU1 and R5 will not impact significantly (if at all) on agriculture. The loss of less than 1 hectare of RU2 land at Ocean Shores that is not currently used for agriculture is also not significant. Neither the land at Ocean Shores (Item Q) nor the land at Jones Road (Item O) is mapped as state and regional agricultural land.

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

Section 117 Directions

The planning proposal is not consistent with S. 117 Direction 1.2 Rural Zones because of Item Q and Item O. It is generally compliant with the other S.117 Directions.

The inconsistency is justifiable in the circumstances because the land near Kulgan Court Ocean Shores (Item Q) is surrounded by zoned residential land on two sides, is not used for agriculture or mapped as state or regional agricultural land, is fully serviced and has no significant environmental values. It is very small (8600 m²) and is subject to an existing approval for seniors development. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 5(d) of the Direction.

The inconsistency relating to land on Jones Road (Item O) is justifiable because it will remain in an RU2 zone, but with a dwelling permitted. This alters the dwelling density in this location. However, the site is not currently used for agriculture, is not mapped as state or regional agricultural land and is very small. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 5(d) of the Direction.

Options to Move Forward

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

1. Proceed with the planning proposal as included as Attachment 1 to this report.

2. Amend the planning proposal as required.

Conclusion

This planning proposal is a culmination of matters accumulated over the last 12 months arising from Council resolutions, staff observations or submitted by consultants or the community. There is sufficient merit for it to proceed.

Council should proceed with a planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 in accordance with the planning proposal at Attachment 1.

In relation to Item O (Jones Road) the landowner will need to supply a preliminary land contamination assessment pursuant to SEPP55, an Aboriginal archaeological site assessment and a bushfire assessment to establish that the site has a location within the area zoned RU2 Rural Landscape that is suitable for a dwelling. The timing of when this information is required will be determined in the Gateway Determination issued by Department of Planning & Environment.

Financial Implications

As a Council initiated this planning proposal, the processing costs will be borne by Council.

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 and in the attached planning proposal.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.15

Report No. 13.15 PLANNING - 10.2015.214.1 - Railway infrastructure including a rail shed and two railway platforms and tree removal at Bayshore Drive and Lawson Street, Byron Bay

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Joe Davidson, Planning Team Leader

File No: I2015/875

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

This development application seeks consent for the construction of two train platforms and train storage shed to support the operation of a train within the existing railway corridor.

It is proposed to construct a train storage/maintenance shed with an attached train platform on the eastern side of the Bayshore Drive railway crossing (on the northern side of the railway line), to allow passengers to embark and disembark a train on the main line. This platform will form the western limit of the proposed train operation.

The construction of a second stand alone platform is proposed on the northern side of the Lawson Street railway crossing (on the eastern side of the railway line), also to allow passengers to embark and disembark a train on the main line. This platform will form the eastern limit of the proposed train operation.

Details have been submitted of a ‘Licence for Heritage Operations’ issued to Byron Bay Railroad Company Limited by Transport for NSW, and a Certificate of Accreditation issued to Byron Bay Railroad Company Limited by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, to enable the construction, maintenance and operation of a railway service between the proposed train platforms. The Certificate of Accreditation specifies the rolling stock to be used as a ‘600 and 700 series Diesel Multiple Units’. The proponents have indicated that they are currently restoring a two car 660 series 100 seat diesel railmotor in heritage colours for use on the line.

The train service is intended to be operated by the ‘Elements of Byron’ resort, which is currently under construction at the northern end of Bayshore Drive, adjacent to the western platform. A pedestrian access path is proposed from this platform to Bayshore Drive, where a pathway leads to the new resort. An access driveway is also proposed from Bayshore Drive to the proposed train storage shed.

The Applicant has indicated that the primary function of the proposed storage shed is for the secure storage of the heritage train that is to operate on the line. The shed includes an inspection pit to allow safety inspections and minor maintenance works such as checking oil, water and brakes. The shed will also allow for the cleaning of the train at the completion of each days service.

The location of the proposed shed will require the removal of 21 small trees to provide a bush fire asset protection zone.

Applicant:	Planners North
Owner:	Ganra Pty Ltd
Zoning:	Zone No. SP3 Tourist
Date received:	15 April 2015
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 6/5/15 to 19/5/15 - Submissions: For 40 Against 69
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Planning Review Committee:	6 August 2015
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Neighbourhood amenity impacts · Public submissions

Summary:

This development application seeks consent for the construction of two train platforms and a train storage shed to support the operation of a train within the existing railway corridor.

Licensing and accreditation for the railway operation has been granted by the relevant authorities. As such, the proposal relates only to the provision of infrastructure, and not the railway operation itself.

It is proposed to construct a train storage/maintenance shed with an attached train platform on the eastern side of the Bayshore Drive railway crossing.

The construction of a second stand alone platform is proposed on the northern side of the Lawson Street railway crossing.

The proposal is permitted with the consent of Council within the respective zones under Byron Local Environmental Plans 2014 and 1988. No specific provisions of Council’s Development Control Plans relate to railway infrastructure.

The site is a railway corridor and as such is suitable for railway infrastructure. The key issues with regards to the proposal relate to the positioning of the proposed infrastructure within the railway corridor. The proposed locations have been chosen by the proponent to reduce impacts on the road network. The proposal is assessed as being satisfactory in terms of impacts on the natural and built environments, subject to the imposition of conditions on the consent. These include limiting the hours of operation of the train platforms and limiting noise generation in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (2000).

The development application is supported subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2015.214.1, for railway infrastructure, be granted consent subject to conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2015/56877.

Attachments:

1 10.2015.214.1 - Plans of proposed development - Proposed Railway infrastructure - Bayshore Drive and Lawson Street, Byron Bay, E2015/54749

2 Conditions of consent 10.2015.214.1, E2015/56877

3 Confidential - submission 10.2015.214.1, E2015/57021

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History/Background

The proposed development relates to a closed section of the Casino to Murwillumbah Railway line. The Lismore to Mullumbimby section of the line was opened on 15 May 1894 and closed on 16 May 2004. The line has only been partially maintained since its closure and has become overgrown in some sections.

1.2 Description of the proposed development

This development application seeks consent for the construction of two train platforms and a train storage shed to support the operation of a train within the existing railway corridor.

The location of the proposed shed will require the removal of 21 small trees to provide a bush fire asset protection zone.

1.3 Description of the site

The subject site comprises two small sections of the Casino to Murwillumbah railway corridor, one adjacent to the Bayshore Drive crossing, and the other adjacent to the Lawson Street crossing. Both sites are predominantly clear of significant vegetation as they have been maintained since the opening of the railway line in 1894.

A small area of shrubland is located on the northern side of the proposed train storage shed near the Bayshore Drive crossing. The nearest residential dwellings to the Bayshore Drive platform are located approximately 40 metres to the south. Accommodation units are located approximately 20 metres to the north. A tavern is located approximately 100 metres to the south-west.

The land uses surrounding the Lawson Street platform include a tourist park to the east, a service station with manager’s residence and an office to the west, apartments to the north-west and a motel to the south.

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

	Issue
ET Engineer	Water & Sewer Levies.
Development Engineer	Car parking.

2.1 Comments from NSW Rural Fire Service

The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for comment. In correspondence dated 19 May 2015, the following comments were received:

I refer to your letter dated 30 April 2015 seeking advice regarding bush fire protection for the above Land Use Application in accordance with Section 79BA of the 'Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979'.

The Service provides the following recommended conditions:

1. The recommendations are based on the plan prepared by Harley Graham Architects, titled 'Proposed New Train Platform'. The recommendations relate to the proposed platform and shed located at the site described as "Bayshore Drive". No specific recommendations are included for the site described as "Byron Town" .

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings a re below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

2. At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the property around the building as indicated below, shall be maintained as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones':

· north and northeast for a distance of 8 metres;

· south for a distance of 9 metres; and

· northwest, west and southwest for a distance of 21 metres.

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the risk of fire to a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

3. Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

Evacuation and Emergency Management

The intent of measures is to provide suitable emergency and evacuation (and relocation) arrangements for occupants of special fire protection purpose developments. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

4. An emergency/evacuation plan is to be prepared for the proposed development consistent with the NSW Rural Fire Service document 'Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency/Evacuation plan' .

Landscaping

5. Landscaping within the Inner Protection Areas is to comply with Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006'.

For any queries regarding this correspondence please contact Neil Pengilly on 1300 NSWRFS.

2.2 Comments from Transport for NSW and John Holland Rail Pty Ltd

The written consent from Transport for NSW was provided by the Applicant providing land owner authority for the lodgement of the Development Application. The proposal was also referred to John Holland Rail for comment, who is the company responsible for managing/maintaining the railway corridor. Council sought clarification as to whether future repair and maintenance works throughout the railway corridor between the two proposed stations would be carried out ‘by or on behalf of a public authority’ [i.e. Transport for NSW]. If this was the case, certain works could proceed as exempt development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Correspondence received from the Property Agreements Manager at John Holland Rail, dated 8 July 2015, advised as follows:

TfNSW wrote to the General Manager of Byron Bay Railroad Company on 18 May 2015 and stated the following:

“Please note that any works to rail infrastructure or the land, in relation to the approved purpose, are on behalf of the Licensee and not TfNSW”.

The consequence of this advice is that future works within the railway corridor will require development consent. The Applicant was consulted with regards to the comments above. The Applicant’s responded in correspondence dated 9 July 2015 as below:

“While we acknowledge the email from John Holland Rail, we maintain that those elements of the proposal not addressed via our development application are able to be undertaken in accordance with the Infrastructure SEPP. We are pursuing this issue with Transport for NSW. In the event that we are not able to establish this procedural pathway we will lodge a separate development application for these works, if and as required.”

3. SECTION 79C – MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Having regard for the matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the following is a summary of the evaluation of the issues.

3.1. STATE/REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS

Requirement	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection	Matters for consideration for development within the coastal zone: - retention of existing public access to the coastal foreshore - impact of effluent disposal on water quality - development must not discharge untreated stormwater into a coastal water body	- The proposed platforms and shed will not diminish access to the coastal foreshore - No effluent is proposed to be disposed other than to Council’s sewerage system. - Stormwater is to be conveyed to an appropriate point of discharge.	Yes Yes Yes
NSW Coastal Policy 1997	Development within the Coastal Zone must be consistent with the Aims, Objectives and Strategic Actions of the Coastal Policy.	The development is proposed within an established railway corridor.	N/A
Building Code of Australia	The proposal must be capable of compliance with the structural and safety requirements of the Building Code of Australia.	A condition is to be recommended for inclusion in the consent to ensure the BCA requirements are met.	Yes
Demolition	Demolition works involving asbestos must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Workcover and Australian Standards.		N/A
Disability Access (DDA)	Access for persons with disabilities and integration into surrounding streetscapes without creating barriers. (Council Res.10-1118)	A condition is to be included within the consent requiring access to be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy N. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive	To ensure that in determining whether a development is a hazardous or offensive industry, any measures proposed to be employed to reduce the impact of the development are taken into account.	It is proposed that the train will be refuelled via tanker. The proposed development does not constitute hazardous development – it is understood from information provided by the applicant (E2015/52793) that there will be no dangerous materials stored on the subject site. Consent conditions have been imposed to this effect.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land	The Council must: (a) consider whether the land is contaminated; and (b) if the land is contaminated, if the land is suitable in its contaminated state or after remediation; and (c) be satisfied before the land is used. Where a change of use is proposed the Council must consider a report provided by the applicant specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation (and detailed investigation if necessary) of the land in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.	The proposed development comprises the construction of a rail shed, two rail platforms and tree removal. The land on which the development will be located is within an existing railway corridor. It considered that the proposal will not result in an increased sensitivity of use. The subject railway corridor land is considered to be suitable for the intended development.	Yes

* Issues discussed below

State/Regional Planning Policies and instruments – Issues

No significant issues of concern in relation to these matters.

3.2. BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2014

Zone: SP2 Infrastructure (Railway Corridor)

Definition: Railway Infrastructure

Part of the Lawson Street platform falls into the SP2 Zone under Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014. The key requirements of this LEP are discussed in the table below:

LEP Requirement	Summary of Requirement	Complies?
Permissible use	The purpose shown on the land zoning map for this site is “Railway Corridor”. The proposed train platform is ancillary to this land use and is permissible within the SP2 Zone.	Yes
Meets objectives of SP2 Infrastructure Zone	· To provide for infrastructure and related uses. · To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.	Yes Yes
4.3: Height of buildings	Maximum Height of buildings map 9.0m	Yes
5.5: Development within the coastal zone	· Check: 5.5 · Check: NSW Coastal Policy	Yes
5.9: Preservation of trees or vegetation	The proposed tree removal is supported as per with the Environmental Assessment prepared by Peter Parker Environmental Consultants, dated 13 April 2015. Development consent has been sought as part of this application for the proposed tree removal.	Yes
6.1: Acid sulfate soils	Council’s records indicate that the subject site is affected by “Class 3” Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS).	Condition to limit earthworks to no greater then 1.0 metre.
6.2: Earthworks	Maximum excavation & fill: 1m	Yes
6.3: Flood planning	Refer to comments within issues Section below.	Yes
6.6: Essential Services	· water, · sewer, · electricity · stormwater · vehicle access	Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Issues discussed below

Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 – Issues

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

Parts of the railway corridor are flood liable, but where the two railway stations are to be constructed, that area is not flood liable.

The SEE states, in part, “…..the proposed works are not likely to restrict the flow characteristics of flood waters or increase the level of flooding on other land in the vicinity and that the building will be adequately flood proofed…..”, and also, “…..the proposed railway station…..will not result in significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour or the environment …..the proposed structures are non habitable…..”

Accordingly, the proposed railway station structures and access paths are satisfactory in respect to flooding issues.

Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988

Zone: 5(a) Special Uses Zone (Railway) and 7(f2) Urban Coastal Lands Zone

Definition: Railway Infrastructure

Part of the Lawson Street platform falls into the 5(a) Special Uses Zone and the 7(f2) Urban Coastal Lands Zone under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988. The Bayshore Drive Platform falls within the 5(a) Special Uses Zone. The key requirements of this LEP are discussed in the table below:

LEP Requirement	Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Meets zone objectives	(a) to protect and enhance the long term potential of the Shire of Byron through the preservation of the higher quality agricultural land within the zone and to restrict all forms of development within the zone which, in the opinion of the council, might prejudice such potential, (b) to prevent fragmentation of rural holdings and to encourage consolidation of lot sizes for the purposes of agricultural and horticultural production, (c) to enable agricultural support facilities to be carried out on land within the zone in a manner which does not significantly reduce the agricultural and horticultural production potential of land in the locality, (d) to permit subdivision only where it is considered by the council to be necessary to maintain or increase agricultural production or to allow the conduct of any use permitted in this zone other than residential buildings, or where proven demand for legitimate agricultural or horticultural holdings of a smaller size is established, (e) to restrict the establishment of inappropriate traffic generating uses along main road frontages, and (f) to establish appropriate buffer zones between high quality agricultural land and other uses, particularly near the perimeter of such lands.	The proposed road transport terminal and shed do not compromise the objectives of the zone.	Yes
Permissible use	The particular purpose indicated by black lettering on the map for the 5(a) Special Uses Zone for this site is “Railway”. The proposed railway infrastructure is ancillary to a railway and is permitted with the consent of Council in this zone.		Yes
Permissible use	The proposed railway infrastructure is permitted with the consent of Council in the 7(f2) Urban Coastal Lands Zone.		Yes
Meets objectives of 5(a) Special Uses Zone	The objectives of this zone are to designate land for certain community facilities and services including areas for off-street parking in private ownership.	The proposed railway infrastructure will support a railway operation which will serve the community.	Yes
Meets objectives of 7(f2) Urban Coastal Lands Uses Zone	(a) to identify urban land likely to be influenced by coastal processes, (b) to permit urban development within the zone subject to the council having due consideration to the intensity of that development and the likelihood of such development being adversely affected by, or adversely affecting, coastal processes, (c) to permit urban development within the zone subject to the council having due consideration to: (i) the need to relocate buildings in the long term, (ii) the need for development consent to be limited to a particular period, (iii) the form, bulk, intensity and nature of the development, and (iv) continued safe public access to the site, and (d) to allow detailed provisions to be made, by means of a development control plan, to set aside specific areas within the zone for different land uses and intensities of development.	The proposed train platform adjacent to the Lawson Street crossing is located over 140 metres from the coastal erosion escarpment. The proposed structure is light weight and could be removed without significant demolitions works. The proposal does not compromise the objectives of the zone.	Yes
Clause 24 – Development of Flood Liable Land	Council must be satisfied that: - flow characteristics of flood waters are not restricted; - the level of flooding is not increased; - any building or work is capable of withstanding flooding; - the building is adequately flood proofed; and - adequate arrangements are made for access to the building or work during a flood	Parts of the railway corridor are flood liable, but where the two railway stations are to be constructed, that area is not flood liable. The SEE states, in part, “…..the proposed works are not likely to restrict the flow characteristics of flood waters or increase the level of flooding on other land in the vicinity and that the building will be adequately flood proofed…..”, and also, “…..the proposed railway station…..will not result in significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour or the environment …..the proposed structures are non habitable…..” Accordingly, the proposed railway station structures and access paths are satisfactory in respect to flooding issues.	Yes
Clause 32 – Development within the 7(f2) Zone	Consider: - adversely affecting, or being adversely affected by, coastal processes; - the need to relocate buildings in the long term; - the need for the development consent to be limited to a particular period; - the form, bulk, intensity and nature of the development; and - continued safe public access to the site.	Refer to comments in relation to the objectives of the zone.	Yes
Clause 40 - Height	Maxim height 9.0 metres	The proposed shed has a maximum height of 7.2 metres.	Yes
Clause 45 – Provision of services.	Prior adequate arrangements required for the provision of sewerage, drainage and water services to the land.	The proposed development can connect to reticulated infrastructure services. The proposal was referred to Council’s ET Engineers who provided water and sewer levies for the connection of the storage shed to the reticulated network.	Yes
Clause 52 – Tree Preservation	A person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation covered by the tree preservation order without the consent of Council.	Development consent has been sought for tree removal as discussed under Section 3.4 of this report below.	Yes
Clause 55 – Railway Sidings	Nothing in this plan shall operate to prohibit the construction and use of any railway siding designed to serve lands in an industrial zone.	The proposal does not relate to any industrial uses.	Yes
Clause 63 – Potential Acid Sulfate Soils	Council’s records indicate that the subject site is affected by “Class 3” Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS).	Council’s GIS Mapping indicates that the proposed development is on land classifies as Class 3 Acid Sulfate Soils. The applicant confirms via email correspondence (E2015/42996) that works for the proposed development including construction of an inspection pit will not extent below 1 metre of the natural aground surface. A condition has been imposed to this effect.	Yes

* Non-complying issues discussed below

Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 - Issues

N/A

Draft EPI that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority – Issues

There are no draft environmental planning instruments applicable to this site.

3.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

There are no specific development control plan provisions that relate to railway infrastructure. However, the following general issues are relevant to the proposal:

Vehicle parking and circulation

In excess of 100 formal car spaces are being provided along the reconstructed Bayshore Drive north of the railway line. Public parking is also available throughout the Byron Bay town centre. This is deemed to be satisfactory for persons accessing the proposed railway platforms given that a large percentage of passengers will walk to the train platforms from their homes or their accommodations.

Bicycle parking

The proposal does not include any bicycle parking spaces. The proponents have indicated that the train they intend to operate on the line will have on board storage provision for surfboards, bikes and luggage. However, potential passengers may not want to travel with their bicycle. It is therefore recommended that a condition be included within the development consent requiring Class 3 bicycle facilities (bicycle rails) to be provided adjacent to each platform.

Coastal Erosion

The proposed station within the town centre is within Coastal Erosion Precinct No. 2. A restriction on title in accordance with DCP 2014 will be required as a condition of consent.

3.4 The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Site Waste Minimisation and Management:

The train will be maintained and stored in the proposed rail shed. The shed includes an inspection pit. Information provided by the application (E2015/52793) a grease trap will be used to manage greases and oils that may be mobilised when the train body and bogies are being washed. Other oils and by products will be drained and captured in contained and removed for disposal via an authorised contractor. Consent conditions have been recommended.

Standard conditions apply to management of construction wastes.

Noise impacts:

Noise from the construction of the proposed rail shed, and two platforms can be managed via standard noise conditions for construction activities. An existing railway track will be utilised to operate the train and therefore operation noise is not a matter for consideration under the subject application.

Neighbourhood amenity impacts:

A number of public submissions were received raising concerns with regards to the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of the neighbourhood. Many of these submissions raised issue with the movement of a train between the two proposed stations. As stated previously, the operation of a vehicle along the train line has licencing and accreditation processes that are independent of the Development Application. Council’s assessment is limited to the infrastructure that is proposed within the Development Application, that is the two platforms and a train storage shed.

It is acknowledged that the positioning of the two stations ultimately determines where passengers will embark and disembark a train operation, thus the impacts of this activity should be considered as part of the assessment. The proposed stations have been sited to minimise disruption to the road network. The placement of the town station is on the northern side of the Lawson Street crossing. As such, the train operation will not need to cross Lawson Street. Similarly, the proposed Bayshore Drive station is located on the eastern side of Bayshore Drive to ensure the train operation does not cross the roadway.

The proposed town station is located between a privately owned service station and a Council owned tourist park. The Byron Bay town centre currently experiences high pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the site. In particular, Lawson Street carried high traffic movements as the single entry point to the town centre from the north. In this context, it is unlikely that the proposed station location will result in a significant increase in neighbourhood amenity impacts from train passengers. The lightweight design of the station is such that passengers waiting for a train service are visible from the public domain. Passive surveillance from surrounding lands is likely to discourage antisocial behaviour that would impact on the locality.

The proposed Bayshore Drive station is located within the railway corridor that adjoins privately owned tourist accommodation to the north and residential units to the south. In each case, a vegetated buffer separates the railway corridor from the existing development. A Council owned buffer that is approximately 10 metres in width separates the residential development in Belongil Crescent from the railway corridor [It is noted that a number of these residential properties have encroached into this Council land]. Private land containing vegetation separates the tourist accommodation from the railway corridor.

20150810_133522

Photograph of Bayshore Drive station site looking south towards the vegetated buffer between

the railway corridor and residential development within Belongil Crescent – 10 August 2015.

Details submitted by the proponent indicate that the train they intend to operate has a capacity of 100 passengers. Whilst in the past trains have passed through the locality in the vicinity of Bayshore Drive, there has never been a station at this locality. Potential impacts arise with regards to passengers congregating, embarking and disembarking at the Bayshore Drive Station. Impacts will be influenced by the separation distance between the proposed platform and the closest residential dwelling (approximately 40 metres away). The proposal includes a footpath that leads pedestrians to a connecting path that is under construction on the eastern side of Bayshore Drive. Disembarking passengers are therefore directed away from the railway corridor to disperse into the surrounding area.

It is recommended that a condition be included within the consent which limits the hours of operation of the train platforms to reduce impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood. Daily operating hours of between 7.30am and 7.30pm are recommended.

Social impacts:

The proposed development will facilitate a new public transport option for residents and tourists within Byron Bay. Although the proposal has potential amenity impacts on nearby private properties (discussed above), the proposal has broader social benefits that are worthy of support.

Ecological impacts:

The proposed development includes the removal of vegetation adjacent to the proposed Bayshore Drive station and train shed to establish an asset protection zone around the development. This includes the removal of 21 trees that are up to 6 metres in height. The Development Application was accompanied by a report by Peter Parker Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd, dated 13 April 2015. The report provides the following image of the proposed vegetation removal:

The ecological report includes an assessment under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which concludes that no threatened flor or fauna species are likely to be affected by the proposal given the small amount of area required to be cleared. The report states that no habitat [of a threatened species, population or ecological community] of particular significance will be removed. An assessment was also included with regards to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat. The report acknowledges that although the proposal requires the removal of native vegetation, the shrub land to be removed is insignificant in the context of this assessment.

It is satisfied that the ecological impacts of the proposed development are not detrimental to the proposal. It is noted that vegetation clearing along the railway corridor between the two proposed train stations is not proposed nor considered as part of this Development Application.

3.5 The suitability of the site for the development

The proposed train platforms and shed are suitably located within the railway corridor. The proponents have been issued accreditation from the National Rail Safety Regulator, and have a licence in place with Transport for NSW for the operation of a railway service within this corridor. The key consideration relates to the positioning of the platforms within this corridor.

The proposed town platform is located on the northern side of Lawson Street to ensure road traffic is not impacted. Similarly, the proposed Bayshore Drive platform is located on the eastern side of the road to prevent traffic conflicts. Both have the ability to connect to the pedestrian network and both are visible from public places. It is satisfied that the proposed sites are the most suitable locations within the licensed area for the development to be located.

3.6 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was placed on public exhibition from 6 to 19 May 2015. Over 100 public submissions were received. The key issues raised within the submissions are summarised within the table below:

Submissions of Objection - 69

Issues

No community consultation.

No letter from Council provided directly to adjoining landowners along the entire railway line.

The proposed vehicle is a heavy diesel locomotive using old engine technology.

The proposal will result in toxic diesel particulate contamination close to residential houses and tourist accommodation.

The proposal flies in the face of Council’s ‘zero emission community’ policy.

The proposed platforms do not offer adequate toilet facilities.

The proposal will result in issues with alcohol use.

Safety issues relating to Border Street / Kendall Street railway crossing – no lights or boom gates proposed.

No proposal for a stopping barrier to mitigate the possibility of a runaway train.

Noise pollution from steel wheels on steel tracks, braking, diesel engine noise, horn warning etc.

Noise issues relating to people accessing the train, particularly travelling past residential areas.

Vibration issues associated with the train operation.

Air pollution.

Light pollution from the use of bright lights on the train at night. Obtrusive for residents along the line.

Asbestos from brake shoes along the railway corridor during train operations.

Privacy issues from the elevated train looking into neighbouring properties.

The proposal will have an adverse economic impact on tourists and residents.

The application has far wider implications than the construction of two railway platforms and a rail shed. It is clear from the application that the intention is to run a rail service.

The proposal does not provide train operating hours nor frequency of service.

The train operation and associated fencing will impact on native fauna adjacent to the track.

Access across the railway line will be affected by the proposal.

The application does not demonstrate substantial public benefit.

The proposal will be unsightly and will rely on retrograde technology.

The proposal constitutes either Designated Development of Advertised Development as set out under the EP&A Act 1979. No notice was placed in the local paper of such.

The proposal is within an ecologically sensitive area.

Lighting of platforms and CCTV should be considered.

Public exhibition period is not long enough.

Safety issues relating to numerous paths crossing the railway line.

The proposal will conflict with a rail trail concept. Will adequate area be available and will fencing and/or an additional bridge across Belongil Creek be required.

Car, bike and pedestrian safety at the intersection of Kendall Street/Border Street will be compromised.

The proposal is not for light rail as promoted elsewhere.

On-site storage of diesel and other chemicals is a concern.

Are the developers proposing to pay for the removal of the platforms/sheds if the proposal is not viable?

Potential impacts from spilling diesel.

The proposal will only benefit patrons of the Elements Resort and not local residents.

Claims the train will reduce traffic on the main road to Byron are unfounded.

The proposal will result in adverse amenity impacts.

Hours of operation are not specified. Late night operations are not supported.

No acoustic analysis no amenity impact analysis undertaken by proponent.

The proponent has been able to progress through the State Government Rail Corridor passages avoiding public submissions and local development standards.

The proposed train operation will result in lower tourist occupancy rates in accommodation adjacent to the railway line.

The platform adjacent to the cabins within the first sun caravan park will cause noise issues and lack of toilet facilities will create public nuisance, particularly at night.

Koalas reside near and along the railway corridor.

The exhibition period should have been 30 days not 14 days. A sign should have been placed on the site of the proposed platforms and a notice provided in the local paper.

The proposed platforms/shed are within 20 metres from a number of residential properties.

The DA does not contain an analysis of feasible alternatives to carrying out the construction of the platform and the railway sheds at the Bayshore Drive site.

If the proposal is approved and the train operation commenced local people will need to relocate due to the impacts.

The proposal will result in a devaluation of properties by up to 15%. Rental prices will also be impacted negatively.

The proposal will have adverse odour impacts (diesel fumes).

EPA rail infrastructure guidelines must be followed.

The estimated number of users of the train is unclear.

Parking is inadequate.

The removal of trees and the construction of a fence will ruin the outlook of many properties and destroy a wildlife corridor.

The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s LEPs and DCPs.

Allowing this DA to proceed will eliminate the development of more appropriate uses for the rail line and will impact on the broader transport network.

There is no disclosure from the applicant of any or no political donations and gifts made. Transparency is required with regards to gifts and donations involving DA’s, councillors and developers.

The DA does not support acceptable, positive, balanced change in the area for residents or wildlife.

Council should open this DA proposal to a public discussion and a panel of experts so submissions and complaints can be heard with the developer present.

The proposal is narrow minded, selfish and unfair.

The submission from Byron Bay Railroad Co. focuses on physical buildings of the platforms and does not give any detail on the rail service and its impacts.

The proposal will disturb koala, echidna, iguana, kangaroos and scores of other animals and fauna.

Refuelling will impact on neighbouring properties.

The proposal will result in crime and safety issues.

There is no evidence that the train horn ‘whistle’ approaching Kendall Street crossing does not exceed LAFmax 85Db. No evidence has been provided that the proposed train meets any criteria for EPA redevelopment guidelines for air-borne noise, ground-borne noise, vibration or diesel particulate emissions.

It is not known who the governing body is that is responsible for procedures and concerns.

No Environmental Impact Statement nor Social Impact Statement has been supplied.

The proposal will result in light pollution.

Precautionary principles are required based on the on-site storage of diesel fuel.

The proposed operating hours to 10pm is inappropriate in a residential area.

The evidence available demonstrates that the proposal is not in the public interest given the large opposition.

The main purpose of the proposal is to serve a private resort and not the community.

No bicycle parking.

No other approvals were applied for concurrently (e.g. Roads Act, Local Government Act approvals). No BASIX Certificate.

The DA concludes that there is a strong demand for public transport in the Shire, this is not justified.

The proposal will impact on tourist accommodation providers.

Litter will be an issue at the stations and along the train line.

The whole train track will need to be renewed.

Sunrise Beach is currently serviced by Blanches Buses. This is not very well patronised.

Level crossing safety concerns.

The station should be built on the other side of the Bayshore Drive intersection, away from residents.

Insufficient details on assessment of contamination at the development sites.

The DA determination should be put off until the NSW Planning and Environment confirm the status of the land nominated as ‘deferred matter’ in the LEP 2014.

No details provided in relation to crime prevention.

No assessment is made as to the anticipated patronage. Such may trigger car parking and other infrastructure.

No detail has been provided as to whether the train line is structurally safe enabling the use of the intended facilities.

Submissions of Support - 42

Issues

It’s great that this organisation is getting the train back up and running. There’s been a lot of talk and its great to see some action. I like the look of the platforms.

This application for platforms, some minor clearing and a shed in which to store the train is a worthwhile application and I hope it gets approved.

I feel we are ready to take the final step toward securing the resurrection of the train service.

Our town needs extra transport. It’s finally time to get the train back on the tracks.

The application is solid and appropriate.

I think it’s great that these people have done so much work to bring us a rail shuttle.

I am more than happy to express my support. How long have we been thinking about this train. Everyone began to doubt it would ever happen.

The platforms and shed outlined in the above DA are good, safe and well suited.

My daughter works in Byron Bay and has told me of the horrendous traffic trying to get into Byron Centre. I feel the train will be a great support in easing traffic congestion and not to mention a Byron Bay Icon.

The plans for the train platforms and shed are a great fit.

Anything which will help alleviate the ridiculous load on Ewingsdale Rod should be supported, especially if privately funded. I reject suggestions that noise or use are an issue. This is a rail car using a railway line. Any person who lives or operates near the rail line knew of the rail line well before they bought/moved there. We have to make progress on public transport, and I would encourage Council to support this step.

We live in an era when governments need to be looking at the most environmentally sustainable forms of public transport and for this purpose there is nothing more suitable than rail. Byron Bay prides itself on being progressive and environmentally friendly and should therefore support this development application. It will provide many positive benefits for a very large number of people in Byron Bay – both locals and tourists. And it is bound to become a major tourist attraction in its own right.

Byron Bay was built around the railway. The railway is as much a part of Byron as the beaches and the surf. It must protect this important part of its heritage and there is no better way to do this than putting the railway to the proper use that it was intended for.

I can imagine that the proposal is bound to attract some criticism from a very small minority – probably from people who speculatively bought property next to the railway after it was closed in 2004, gambling on it never re-opening and hoping to acquire the adjacent land for their own use and profit. I urge the Council not to allow the shrill voices of a few to prevent the enjoyment of this important corridor by the many who will benefit from it.

For many years I used to stay in a hotel in Cairns that was located next to the railway. Every night the train would come through at about 10pm – loudly and with a whistle. But it was accepted as part of the character of the area and never stopped regular guests from going to stay there again and again. The Elements train will be causing far less disturbance to anyone than the Cairns train, and is destined to become as natural a sound in Byron as the sound of the surf or the low rumble of the traffic on the main road – neither of which anyone in Byron Bay objects to.
Although I am resident of Lismore, I visit Byron Bay nearly every weekend, and I am looking forward to being able to use the train to travel from town to North Byron from time to time as something else I can do to get me out of my car and get around without driving.

I feel we need to preserve the rail network as a greener and more cost effective form of transport in the shire. This proposal has proven that it can be cost effective. Far less indeed than the politicians would have us believe or the silly rail trail advocates.

I look forward to further expansion of the rail network for Byron and the surrounding district in the future and feel that this is a step in the right direction.

I am convinced that with this rail operating it will demonstrate the greater capacity to carry commuter, heritage and tourist traffic than either private vehicles and buses together. It will be more acceptable on both economic and environmental grounds.

For the number of passengers carried in a two carriage set will have a greater passenger capacity than [as mentioned] the private vehicle and buses combined.

And when you add the extra vehicular traffic on the local roads, this rail operation will significantly reduce the cost to council regards future costs of road repairs.

I implore you to do more than give this lip service, and support totally and without reservation this development application.

The train will run on the same standard diesel fuel as all trucks, school buses and 4WDs. I believe the possibility of adding solar panels the train is being investigated. The noise generated by the train will be comparable to a truck with rubber tyres running on a bitumen road at the same speed.

The train service will allow visitors to the resort to travel into town without adding further traffic to the congested Ewingsdale Road and Shirley Street. Many Sunrise Beach residents, tourists and day trippers may also use the train to travel into Byron town centre, rather than sit in traffic gridlock for hours breathing toxic fumes from trucks and other diesel vehicles. The train service has the potential to reduce traffic congestion on Ewingsdale Rd and Shirley St at no cost to ratepayers.

Not only will this train service reduce traffic congestion, it will also help reduce carbon emissions and the cost of road repairs for ratepayers.

This train service could be the start of a much needed extended train service to connect the Byron Shire community and tourists to other towns in the region, which the community has been calling for many years.

The platforms are vital to the operation of the new Byron train. The broader community has campaigned long and hard for a train to be operating again on our lines.

I have the privilege to be working with North Byron Beach Resort. We are all very excited to be a part of bringing the train back. I caught the train from Byron many years ago and kind of took it for granted. I don't think people will do that so much any more.

I think it will help to lighten the traffic on Ewingsdale Road into town.

I used the train that used to run for many years. It enabled me to get around until I had a licence. Not only did it provide me freedom but it was a really fun experience.

The loss of the XPT was tragic for all the people who weren't independently mobile. Which is a lot of people. The young, the old, those without the means to buy a car.

I grew up in Lismore and the train meant I could go to the beach.

Any region attempting to operate sustainably relies on public transport.

The platforms and shed are needed to facilitate this train which is being so generously provided by a local business.

I think there should be a train because there used to be one and it was good. And there’s more people in Byron now and that would probably mean the train would be used more and make more money and I’m pretty sure that’s why they closed it down. And also people thought there should be a train but then they said there shouldn’t so if they say there should again and there’s no train well it would be pretty annoying. And I think there should be one because it would be fun to ride in and people could get from one place to another a different way so that’s why I think there should be a train.

I think that the design of the stations/platforms are practical and aesthetically in line with the design of the resort.

The platforms are at no cost to the community, but it will provide a community rail service. The Platforms are necessary for the rail operations, as well as making it accessible and wheelchair and bicycle friendly. The station and platform behind First Sun Caravan Park will also mean that the railcar will not cross Lawson St and disrupt traffic.

The train is a positive initiative and I take my hat off to the people behind it.

I work in the Byron Bay industrial estate and love the idea of the train route into Byron town centre. I'm tired of sitting in traffic when I have to drive into town (on a daily basis). I also love that it is an old school train that fits within the image of Byron Bay.

I would like to completely 100% support the efforts to have this DA fully approved.

I feel the best interest for our region can be better meet with a rail system.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to support a better future for us all.

I believe that the majority of local residents would like to see the return of our train, the creation of a by-pass and other measures to ensure better transport and infrastructure for our community eg Park and Ride at Nth Byron and catch the train into Byron and not have to find parking in town.

So I think this new train from Byron Resort to town will be very beneficial for Byron Bay and the whole area. It will provide safe and regular transport for young people, elderly, disabled and disadvantaged residents from Sunrise Beach area as well as a fun family activity for visitors on rainy days. Young people can carry surf boards and bikes to town and the $3 ticket is very affordable – cheaper than catching the bus. In fact this train is being established as a non profit making train so that is really wonderful for our community. This is the first improvement in public transport services that I have ever seen in Byron Bay during the past 23 years. On top of that Governments need to understand that with the threat of climate change we have to start going back to rail after decades of moving all transport and freight onto the roads due of vested interests.

I think it would be a great move to bring the train back to the Byron shire. The train would hopefully limit the endless traffic rolling into Byron everyday, which would be great for someone like me coming from Ewingsdale into town regularly.

Returning a rail shuttle to even a small section of the local railway line is a step forward in providing alternatives to road based transports which are currently the only form of transport in this shire. The individuals and company funding this initiative, at no cost to ratepayers, deserve the full support of our elected representatives. I urge you to support this application.

I think this is a great thing for Byron and the whole area. Governments need to understand that with the threat of climate change we have to start going back to rail after decades of moving everything on to the road because of vested interests. If people are complaining about the noise they should try living in Bexley in Sydney where I grew up where especially in the evening you have planes going over every 5 mins. You get used to it and learn to live with it but my memory of the train going past up here was that everyone would stop and wave and it was an exciting moment in the day.

The amount of diesel particles in the air from all the 4 wheel drives barely gets a mention most of the time but all of a sudden just because there’s a train a few times a day it’s a big deal. I’m tired of the rich and powerful minority winning out over the rest of us. Please approve this development application.

A lot of people have been campaigning for a long time to bring back the trains and here we have a company that is doing just that. I am amazed that some people have the negativity to oppose such an idea. Are these the same folk who complain long and loud about no trains and too much traffic? I expect so. Elements of Byron are hoping for members of the public to utilise this facility and this will take traffic off the roads. From my understanding, it will be low speed, low noise and low impact so what’s the problem? I hope the Council give it the consideration it deserves.

I would like to express my support for the new rail shuttle service as it will benefit so many people, both locals and tourists, lessening the traffic congestion going into Byron Bay.

As a past resident of Byron and now living in Rosebank I would certainly love to support this initiative by travelling myself and taking visitors on the train trip into Byron.

The objections do not stand up as the train will not be noisy, nor polluting, nor have asbestos linings. It is a worthwhile initiative and I believe it will bring great benefit to our region.

I can see the train being a traffic asset to Byron.

The platform application looks good. The train looks amazing.

The planned platforms as outlined in this DA look suitable and functional.

In my opinion, it will be of value to the town, and it won’t cause anyone any harm.

Everything looks great, and I am confident the train will be an asset to our town.

There's nothing about their plans (running their railcar), that expresses concerns for me, and I not only welcome their arrival in the town but look forward to their on-going participation in the sensitive and appropriate future development of the area.

The platforms and shed are vital to the success of the entire rail shuttle project. I believe the plans are to a high standard, and I personally look forward to riding the train.

Getting the train up and running again will greatly benefit Byron Bay in the long term.

3.7 Public interest

The public exhibition of the Development Application has generated significant interest from members of the public. Section 3.6 of this report provides a summary of the key issues raised within the public submissions received. It is noted that many of the concerns raised by those objecting to the proposal relate to the actual operation of a train along the railway line. However, the Development Application before Council is for the provision of infrastructure within the railway line, and not the railway operation itself. The Applicant has submitted the following details which provide external arrangements for the operation of the railway line:

· Licence for Heritage Operations between Transport for NSW and Byron Bay Railroad Company Limited, dated 31 October 2014.

· Certificate of Accreditation to the Byron Bay Railroad Company Limited by the National Rail Safety Regulator dated 5 June 2015.

· Land Owner Authority from Transport for NSW to “Byron Bay Railroad Company or its agents to lodge a Development Application with Byron Shire Council with respect to its proposed Tourist Rail Shuttle proposal”, dated 19 March 2015.

It is acknowledged that the infrastructure proposed as part of the Development Application is vital for the proposed railway operation. Subsequently, if Council does not support the proposed railway platforms and storage shed, the operation of a train on the line would not proceed. Although the proposal has the potential to impact the amenity of residents and tourists residing near the proposed development sites, such impacts can be minimised with mitigation measures. The proposal has benefits to the broader community that, on balance, result in a proposal that is considered to be in the public interest.

It is possible that Council will receive a further Development Application for works within the railway corridor to repair the existing line should such works not fall within the exempt development category under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. However, the principal of placing railway infrastructure within a railway corridor is deemed to be in the public interest.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

4.1 Water & Sewer Levies

Current Situation

The proposed train stations are to located within the existing rail corridor and as such have no existing water, bulk water or sewer entitlements.

Proposed Development

This DA proposes to construct two train stations to allow travellers to be transported between Byron Bay and the Industrial estate.

The Byron Bay train station will be located near Lawson Street and will not have any water or sewer facilities and as such does not incur developer contributions for water or sewer.

The Industrial Estate train station is located near Bayshore Drive and will have a public disabled toilet.

Table 2 - Calculation of Proposed Development Water & Sewer ETs

Ref	Development Type	Standard Unit	Quantity	ET Rate (ET/unit)		ET Load
				Water	Sewer	Water	Sewer
12.9	Public Amenities	WC	1	0.40	0.63	0.40	0.63
TOTAL						0.40	0.63

Table 3 - Calculation of Additional Water & Sewer ET Load

	Water	Sewer
Existing ET Entitlements (Table 1)	0	0
Proposed Development ET loading (Table 2)	0.40	0.63
Additional ET loading	0.40	0.63

Therefore, this development generates an additional load onto Councils Water, Bulk Water and Sewer System

Council requires Payment of Developer Servicing Charges (prior to issue of a construction certificate) of:

· 0.40 ET for Water & Bulk Water; and

· 0.63 ET for Sewer.

4.2 Section 94 Contributions

The proposed development has an estimated cost of over $100,000. Therefore, the Section 94A levy is activated for this Development Application.

5. CONCLUSION

This development application seeks consent for the construction of two train platforms and a train storage shed to support the operation of a train within the existing railway corridor.

It is proposed to construct a train storage/maintenance shed with an attached train platform on the eastern side of the Bayshore Drive railway crossing.

The construction of a second stand alone platform is proposed on the northern side of the Lawson Street railway crossing.

The site is a railway corridor, and inherently is suitable for railway infrastructure. The key issues with regards to the proposal relate to the positioning of the proposed infrastructure within the railway corridor.

The proposed locations have been chosen by the proponent to reduce impacts on the road network. The proposal is assessed as being satisfactory in terms of impacts on the natural and built environments, subject to the imposition of conditions on the consent. These include limiting the hours of operation of the train platforms and limiting noise generating in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (2000).

The development application is supported subject to conditions of consent.

6. RECOMMENDATION

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Nil

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.16

Report No. 13.16 PLANNING - 26.2013.2.1 - Public submissions report for second exhibition of Ewingsdale Seniors Housing planning proposal

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Sharyn French, Manager Environmental and Economic Planning

Christopher Soulsby, Development Contributions Officer

Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No: I2015/878

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report provides Council with details of the second round of public exhibition and community meetings for the Ewingsdale Seniors Housing planning proposal and analysis of submissions received on the proposed amendment to Byron LEP 2014. It updates Council on key issues raised by the planning proposal and the lack of progress on further traffic assessments for Ewingsdale Road. It details an offer by the applicants to enter into a planning agreement to provide a contribution towards the preparation of the additional traffic study and to prepare and provide to Council a draft Development Control Plan (DCP).

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the offer from Belbeck Investments Pty Ltd to enter into a draft planning agreement.

2. That Council liaise with Belbeck Investments Pty Ltd and their representatives on the draft planning agreement (Attachment 7) to discuss the following amendments to the draft agreement:

a) amend Clause 5 of the planning agreement as follows:

“5 Development Contribution to be made under this Agreement

(a) Subject to this Agreement the Developer is to make the part payment of the Development Contribution for the agreed cost of item (iv) of the traffic study within 28 days after the making of the agreement.

(b) Subject to this Agreement the Developer is to make the payment for the remainder of the Developer Contribution within 28 Days of the date on which the Amending LEP is published on the NSW Legislation website.

(b) If the Developer fails to make the Development Contribution in accordance with clause 5(a), then the Developer acknowledges and agrees that, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, it will ensure that the Planning Proposal will not be further considered by Byron Shire Council.

(c) Following the payment of the Development Contribution required by Clause 5(a), the Developer shall prepare a draft development control plan in consultation with Byron Shire Council and provide that to the Byron Shire Council as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 6 months after the Development Contribution is paid. The draft development control plan shall be provided to Byron Shire Council prior to the lodgement of a development application for development associated with the planning proposal.”; and

b) define the scope of works for the traffic study as:

“Traffic Study means:

(i) a supplemental report to the OPUS MR545 study to determine the priority order for the construction of intersection upgrades on MR545; and

(ii) a study to model the impacts of construction of more than one roundabout at a time on Ewingsdale Road; and

(iii) Investigate the need for a roundabout at the intersection of Kendall Street and Ewingsdale Road; and

(iv) a demand transport model for the planning proposal as referred to in the Roads and Maritime Services letter to Council dated 1 August 2014.” and;

c) delete the definition of “authority” and replace all references to “Planning Authority” in the operative clauses with “Byron Shire Council”; and

d) include the funding of a DCP to be prepared in consultation with Council, and that the draft is submitted to Council, exhibited and adopted by Council prior to lodgement of a development application; and

e) amend clause 13 such that the developer pays the reasonable costs of Council seeking legal advice on the planning agreement with the cost being agreed to by Council and the developer prior to the seeking of the advice; and

f) any other modifications or amendments as recommend by Council’s legal advisers.

3. That the amended draft planning agreement be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000.

4. That upon completion of the “demand transport model as referred to in the Roads and Maritime Services letter to Council dated 1 August 2014” the planning proposal to amend the Byron LEP 2014 to permit development for the purposes of seniors housing, medical centre and commercial premises on Lot 101 DP 1140936, Ewingsdale Rd be reported to Council at the same meeting as the draft planning agreement for Council to make a determination on the planning proposal.

5. That Council inform the Department of Planning and Environment on the status of the planning proposal for Lot 101 DP 1140936.

6. In the event that staff and the developer cannot agree on the draft planning agreement the matter be reported back to Council on completion of the demand transport model.

Attachments:

1 Notes from Public Information Sessions, E2014/78029

2 Summary of issues and comments from second public exhibition, E2015/52131

3 Summary of issues and comments from initial public exhibition, E2014/62120

4 Letter from Roads and Maritime Sevices dated 1 August 2014, E2015/55348

5 Letter to applicant requesting additional traffic study, A2014/31287

6 Applicant's response to request for additional traffic study, E2015/6023

7 Letter from Henry Davis York enclosing draft Planning Agreement , E2015/55353

8 Letter from Tall Trees Care Communities , E2015/55361

9 Form of Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, E2012/2815

10 Letter from Traffix to Department Planning dated 23 June 2015, E2015/57077

11 Draft Amended Planning Agreement prepared by Henry Davis York dated 31 August 2015, E2015/57068

Report

A report and summary of public submissions for the initial public exhibition of the planning proposal was submitted to Council at the 9 October 2014 meeting. Council resolved to proceed with an amended planning proposal and for the applicant to prepare a Development Control Plan (DCP) and updated demand model traffic study prior to lodgement of a development application (DA) (Resolution 14-492).

At the 30 October 2014 Council meeting a rescission motion was put forward in relation to resolution 14-492. Notice of Rescission Motion No.10.1 was successful and Council resolved:

14-542 Resolved:

1. That the planning proposal for the Land being Lot 101 DP 1140936 Ewingsdale Road at Ewingsdale be exhibited for a period of 28 days by Council staff subject to the Dept of Environment and Planning granting an extension of 6 months to the LEP amendment.

2. That if extension is not granted, the matter be reported to council as soon as possible.

3. That at least two community information sessions be held during the first half of the exhibition period, convened by Council Planners with information presented by them.

4. That Council then consider previous and new submissions on the matter.

5. That the matter then be reported again to Council, for determination of the Planning Proposal.

The Department of Planning and Environment has granted an extension to the Gateway Determination giving Council until 28 November 2015 to finalise the planning proposal. Council has kept the Department informed on the progress of the planning proposal.

Second Community Consultation

The planning proposal was publicly exhibited again for 28 days from 11 November to 8 December 2014 and written notifications were again sent to landowners in Ewingsdale. Two separate community information sessions were held during the exhibition period at the Ewingsdale Church on Monday 17 November and Tuesday 25 November. The information sessions were run by Council staff with the then Executive Manager of Environment and Planning chairing the meetings. Both meetings were attended by various members from the community with approximately 90 people attending over the two sessions. A summary of the issues raised during the information sessions is included in Attachment 1.

In response to the second public exhibition period, Council received a total of 334 submissions which have been divided into the following categories:

- 116 individual submissions in opposition;

- 130 submissions in four (4) different ‘form letters’ in opposition;

- 77 submissions with no reason listed as to why they were against the proposal; and

- 11 submissions in support.

The key issues and analysis from the second public exhibition process have been detailed in Attachment 2. They have been categorised the same way as the initial submissions report in hierarchal order of number of submissions raising a particular theme. The report of submissions from the first public exhibition has been included in Attachment 3 for comparison and for cross reference. Given the similar nature and content of the submissions received during the second public exhibition, the analysis does not expand on each issue to the same level of detail as previously provided. It relies on the previous assessment where relevant for some issues and provides additional comments for any new issues.

The main difference with the second public exhibition is the increase in individual submissions opposing the planning proposal from 62 to 116. There were also four different ‘form letters’ which are summarised at the end of Attachment 2.

There were 11 submissions in favour of the planning proposal with the main reasons being: there is an increasing need for aged housing and services in the Shire; the development complements the new hospital; ‘Seniors’ do not drive as much as younger residents and are generally much quieter; and the proposed medical centre will provide complementary services adjacent to the hospital.

Main Issues:

The top three issues from Attachment 2 are:

1. Traffic and congestion - Approx 65% of all objections to this planning proposal raised the issue of additional traffic and congestion that will flow from the future development of this site and how it will impact on both residents of Ewingsdale and the users of Ewingsdale Road, William Flick Drive and McGettigans Lane.

2. Impacts on character of Ewingsdale and quality of life – Approximately 47% of objectors who raised the issue of impacts on the lifestyle and amenity of the area also raised the issue of impacts on the rural character of Ewingsdale if this proposal were to proceed.

3. Density, height of buildings and number of dwellings is excessive - A large number of submissions (approx 30%) raised the issue of density, height of buildings and number of dwellings being too excessive for the locality, especially on the eastern portion of the site given the visibility from Ewingsdale Road and McGettigans Lane.

General Comments:

This site is not in an approved Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) and not in the Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS). Council decided to review this unsolicited planning proposal on its merits because, at the time, there was no clear time frame for reviewing either the FNCRS or preparing a LGMS. The planning proposal is an opportunistic response to the decision by the State government to locate the new Byron hospital on rural land adjacent to the subject site at Ewingsdale. It has been publicly exhibited twice and the community feedback on both occasions has been mostly opposed to the planning proposal.

The seniors housing option with a medical centre and commercial uses is the preferred use put forward by the current landowners but it may not be the highest and best use of the land. There has been no holistic review of the Ewingsdale locality, how this site will influence the future of Ewingsdale or how it will interact with the new urban area at West Byron. Approving this planning proposal is pre-empting the outcome of a future strategy. Council now has a program to prepare a new urban/residential strategy. An issues paper is currently in preparation and a draft urban/residential strategy is anticipated by June 2016. This site could be considered for urban use as part of that broader process.

The key issue that remains unresolved is traffic. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) advised Council by letter of 1 August 2014 (Attachment 4) that the work undertaken by the applicant was inadequate and a demand transport model is required:

‘The traffic report supporting the planning proposal is based on traffic counts undertaken on 27-28 February 2013. Traffic volumes at this time of year represent average or slightly less than average flows. Ewingsdale is subject to significant seasonal fluctuations in traffic volumes. Basing the traffic assessment on average flows is not likely to represent the full extent of traffic impacts on Ewingsdale Road.

Due to the significant traffic volumes on Ewingsdale Road and the proximity of the seniors living proposal to the Pacific Highway interchange Roads and Maritime recommends a demand transport model be prepared. That model should not only examine average flows but consider seasonal fluctuations. The model should be extended to examine impacts on the Pacific Highway interchange’

In the 9 October 2014 report, staff recommended:

‘that Council request the applicant to undertake traffic assessment work satisfactory to RMS and Council requirements (‘Demand Model’) which is to be prepared prior to the lodgement of a Development Application (DA) and commits to traffic solutions in the best interest of Byron Shire and future road users’.

Following on from the community meeting in November, as part of the second public exhibition, the applicant was asked (Attachment 5) to bring forward the production of the traffic demand model in conjunction with the planning proposal. The applicant declined as they believed that the traffic assessment provided with the planning proposal was adequate for the purposes of the gateway plan making process and that they would undertake further traffic modelling as requested by the RMS prior to the lodgement of a development application (Attachment 6).

In response to staff concerns about traffic issues on Ewingsdale Road Council resolved on 9 April 2015:

15-151 Resolved:

1. That Council allocate a budget of $50,000 to engage a traffic consultant to:

a) Determine the priority order for the construction of intersection upgrades on MR545; and

b) Model the impacts of construction of more than one roundabout at a time on Ewingsdale Road; and

c) Investigate the need for a roundabout at the intersection of Kendall Street and Ewingsdale Road; and

d) Model the impact of the rezoning proposal for seniors living and commercial development at Ewingsdale on the intersections of William Flick Lane/Ewingsdale Road and McGettigans Lane/Ewingsdale Road and determine the timing of construction for the infrastructure to service this development. Model the impact of this development on the function of MR545.

2. That budget be made up of section 94 funds with $30,000 taken from the Byron Bay Urban Roads account and $20,000 from the Plan Administration Fund.

Council has not yet been able to engage a consultant to do this work because of other priority Infrastructure Services projects. Staff now propose to separate out item d and undertake this modelling independently of items a–c. This work is critical to understanding if the traffic movements generated by the proposed development on Lot 101 DP 1140936, particularly the medical centre and commercial premises, can be accommodated without adversely impacting on the function of Ewingsdale Road and the Highway interchange. Undertaking item d) separately from the other parts of the resolution will enable this planning proposal to be assessed without further delay caused by the implementation of items a-c. The advice from RMS in their letter dated 1 August 2014 (Attachment 4) will be used to inform this modelling. Staff have commenced work on developing a brief and intend to appoint a consultant to undertake the work by the end of September.

The main concern with the traffic generated by the planning proposal relates to the commercial component on the western portion of the site that will direct traffic onto the intersection of William Flick Lane and Ewingsdale Road. The seniors living component of the development that will access McGettigan’s Lane will be serviced by the roundabout at the intersection of McGettigans Lane and Ewingsdale Road. The applicants have engaged a second traffic and transport planning firm (Traffix) to review the documentation provided to date. The Traffix report is provided as (Attachment 10). Traffix assert that there is sufficient information on traffic to make a determination on the planning proposal. Staff fundamentally disagree with this position and are of the opinion that the traffic impacts are integral to the decision making process to determine if this planning proposal can be approved. Staff sought a further opinion from the RMS about the necessity of having the traffic study prior to making a determination on the planning proposal. In an email of 31 August 2015 (E2015/56570) the RMS stated:

“Given the number of intersections in close proximity, and the proximity to the Ewingsdale Road interchange with the Pacific Highway. It would be necessary to have a more complete understanding of the traffic implications of the Seniors Living, retail and Medical Centre before deciding to rezone for these purposes. I would recommend demand modelling be carried out prior to finalising the planning proposal. Roads and Maritime Services would be happy to comment on the modelling prior to Council completing the planning proposal process.”

Based on the advice from the RMS the impacts of the planning proposal on Ewingsdale Road and the Highway interchange should not be left for determination at the development application stage. These impacts need to be considered prior to Council resolving to seek the Ministers approval to make the amendment to the LEP. The results of the traffic study will be reported to Council along with the planning proposal to enable Council to make a fully informed decision about the appropriateness of the development uses proposed for the site.

Proposed Planning Agreement

The applicant’s representatives advised Council, by letter dated 17 August 2015, that the applicants were prepared to enter into a planning agreement with Council to provide:

a) a contribution towards the preparation of the additional traffic study, and

b) to prepare and provide to Council a draft Development Control Plan for the site on the same day any development application is lodged.

Council staff met with the applicant’s representatives on 20 August 2015 to discuss this offer and the status of the planning proposal.

Subsequent to this meeting the applicant’s representatives have provide a copy of a draft planning agreement, Attachment 7 and a letter of support and clarification from aged care provider, Tall Trees with whom the applicants are working with to provide a private aged care community at Ewingsdale Attachment 8.

The draft planning agreement now only provides for a contribution to the traffic study. The draft planning agreement defines the traffic study as:

“Traffic Study means the Ewingsdale Road Traffic Demand Modelling Study referred to in the Planning Authority's letter to the DP&I dated 30 July 2015.”

This traffic study is the supplementary study to the MR545 study from Council resolution 15-151 as set out above. This study contains elements directly relating to this planning proposal and elements of a broader strategic nature. A planning agreement must meet the requirements of section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Section 93F is set out as follows:

93F Planning agreements

(1) A planning agreement is a voluntary agreement or other arrangement under this Division between a planning authority (or 2 or more planning authorities) and a person (the developer):

(a) who has sought a change to an environmental planning instrument, or

(b) who has made, or proposes to make, a development application, or

(c) who has entered into an agreement with, or is otherwise associated with, a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies,

under which the developer is required to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution, or provide any other material public benefit, or any combination of them, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose.

(2) A public purpose includes (without limitation) any of the following:

(a) the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) public amenities or public services,

(b) the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) affordable housing,

(c) the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) transport or other infrastructure relating to land,

(d) the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to the provision of public amenities or public services, affordable housing or transport or other infrastructure,

(e) the monitoring of the planning impacts of development,

(f) the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment.

The draft planning agreement meets the requirements of s93F (1) (a) as it is made by a person who has sought a change to an environmental planning instrument. The planning agreement proposes to make a monetary contribution toward a public purpose. The public purpose being a study into the timing and sequencing of transport infrastructure relating to the land to satisfy s93 (2) (c) of the act. The traffic study should not be limited to the impacts of this planning proposal as then the purpose will no longer be public rather it will be to facilitate private development. The Department of Planning Development contributions Practice notes 2005 state that: “Planning agreements can be used to secure the provision of planning benefits from development. That is, through a planning agreement, development may provide an overall net benefit to the wider community rather than merely address the more direct impacts of the development on surrounding land or the wider community.” The broad strategic component of the traffic study forms the public purpose of the planning agreement. Part of the payment of the monetary contribution will be toward the recoupment of the cost of the study that Council has already budgeted for in resolution 15-151. Planning agreements must provide for a public benefit but they should not be so narrowly constructed so as to prevent the Council from recouping the cost of undertaking work that facilities the private development in addition to the broader public purpose.

The initial discussions proposed the preparation of a DCP for the site to be part of the planning agreement. The draft planning agreement does not currently make provision for payment for the DCP. The DCP is important as it will address some of the key concerns raised by the community in the consultation process, thereby giving greater certainty to the design of the development.

Staff discussed the draft planning agreement with the applicant’s representative on 26 August 2015. The representative advised that the applicant is more than happy to prepare a draft DCP and had excluded it from the agreement to ensure that it was not viewed as a developer driven plan. To overcome this perception staff proposed that the DCP be prepared in consultation with Council, and that the draft is submitted to Council, exhibited and adopted by Council prior to lodgement of a development application; the representative agreed to consult with their client on this matter.

There are some issues with timing, costs and definitions in the draft planning agreement that require amendment.

Timing: The draft VPA proposes to make a payment towards a traffic study 28 days after the date on which the Amending LEP is published on the NSW Legislation website. Earlier in this report staff and the RMS contend that the traffic study is fundamental to the decision making process. If the traffic study shows that the planning proposal should not proceed or should only partially proceed then the developer would not have to pay. The timing of payment needs to be revised as does the scope of works that the contribution is to pay for. The developer should fund part of the cost of the traffic study required to service their development, part iv as outlined below, prior to the determination on the planning proposal with the remainder of the payment to fund parts i – iii being made after the Amending LEP is published on the NSW Legislation website.

Costs: Clause 13 of the draft planning agreement relates to costs and proposes that each party bear their own costs of preparing, negotiating, executing and stamping this Agreement and any document related to the agreement. Council should not have to bear the cost of seeking advice on the planning agreement. This clause will require amending such that the developer pays the reasonable costs of Council seeking legal advice on the planning agreement. In the past these costs have been generally less than $3000 where Council has sought advice on planning agreements.

Definitions: The definition of the traffic study in the draft agreement requires amendment. The scope of the traffic study, the cost of which is being partially recouped by this agreement, needs to be specifically defined such that it meets the requirements of the Act i.e. that the study is for a public purpose. The definition provided in Council’s letter of 30 July 2015 needs to be broadened such that it captures the strategic elements that for the public purpose and satisfies the needs of the RMS. The definition of traffic study in the planning agreement should be amended to the following:

Traffic Study means:

(i) a supplemental report to the OPUS MR545 study to determine the priority order for the construction of intersection upgrades on MR545; and

(ii) a study to model the impacts of construction of more than one roundabout at a time on Ewingsdale Road; and

(iii) Investigate the need for a roundabout at the intersection of Kendall Street and Ewingsdale Road; and

(iv) a demand transport model for the planning proposal as referred to in the Roads and Maritime Services letter to Council dated 1 August 2014.

The draft agreement repeated refers to Planning Authority and defines Authority as:

“Authority means, in respect of a particular context or circumstance, each Federal, State or Local Government, semi-Government, quasi-Government or other body or authority, statutory or otherwise, including but not limited to any court or tribunal, having jurisdiction and responsibility in respect of that context or circumstance.”

This definition does not appear in the Department of Planning’s template for planning agreements. A consequence of this definition is that Council may not be the authority to undertake certain actions to release the developer from their obligations under the agreement. This definition should be removed from the agreement. The term planning authority should be removed from all the operative clauses of the agreement and replaced with the words “Byron Shire Council”.

The planning agreement requires further negotiated amendments that include but are not limited to:

a) amend Clause 5 of the planning agreement as follows:

“5 Development Contribution to be made under this Agreement

b) define the scope of works for the traffic study as:

“Traffic Study means:

(i) a supplemental report to the OPUS MR545 study to determine the priority order for the construction of intersection upgrades on MR545; and

(ii) a study to model the impacts of construction of more than one roundabout at a time on Ewingsdale Road; and

(iii) Investigate the need for a roundabout at the intersection of Kendall Street and Ewingsdale Road; and

(iv) a demand transport model for the planning proposal as referred to in the Roads and Maritime Services letter to Council dated 1 August 2014.” and;

c) delete the definition of “authority” and replace all references to “Planning Authority” in the operative clauses with “Byron Shire Council”; and

f) any other modifications or amendments as recommend by Council’s legal advisers.

The above list may not be exhaustive as the final copy of the draft planning agreement was only received on 1 September 2015 (Attachment 11). Staff have had limited time to review the document as reports for the business paper had to be with the Directors by 26 August 2015 and to the General Manager by 1 September 2015. Further amendments may be required to protect Council’s interests.

Council’s own legal advice should be sought on the draft planning agreement. It is recommended that Council further liaise with the applicant’s representatives on these proposed amendments to the draft planning agreement and then obtain Council’s own legal advice on the draft agreement. Subject to satisfactory negotiations with the applicant and the outcome of the legal advice staff would place the planning agreement on public exhibition as for 28 days as required by the Act and Regulation. Public notice of a draft planning agreement is to be given as soon as possible after the public exhibition of the planning proposal, if not practical to exhibit together. As the planning proposal was last exhibited late 2014 it is important that the public notice on the draft planning agreement is given as soon as possible, but before the planning proposal is finalised. This is consistent with the requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulation.

It is recommended that the planning proposal be reported to council at the same time as the draft planning agreement in order for council to make a final determination on the proposal.

Conclusion

A number of residents have concerns about the proposed seniors living and commercial precinct as detailed in this planning proposal. Some of these concerns can be mitigated through amendments to the LEP or through a DCP prepared specifically for the site.

Traffic remains a major concern of the objectors, staff and the RMS. A demand transport model is required to further understand the impacts this planning proposal has on the road network.

The applicant is offering to enter into a planning agreement to contribute towards the cost of the additional traffic study. The applicant’s representative is agreeable to consulting with their client on amendments to the draft planning agreement to provide for a DCP.

It is recommended that Council continue discussions with the applicant and their representatives to amend the draft planning agreement; obtain Council’s own legal advice on the draft agreement and then report the draft to Council for consideration and release for public inspection at the same meeting to which the planning proposal is reported for Council’s determination.

Financial Implications

The cost of the traffic study has already been budgeted for and with the developer bearing the costs of preparation of the planning agreement and the legal advice required by Council there are no additional financial implications.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation provides for planning agreements to be entered into between Council and the applicant.

A proposed planning agreement must be available for public inspection for a minimum period of 28 days. Public notice of the proposed agreement is to be given as soon as possible after the public exhibition of the planning proposal, if not practical to exhibit together. Council must prepare an explanatory note that summarises the objectives, nature and effect of the proposed agreement and an assessment of the merits including both positive and negative impacts on the public. This explanatory note must be prepared jointly with the applicant and be exhibited with the proposed agreement.

A planning agreement is entered into when signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement can come into effect the day it is signed or the date the proposed amendment to the LEP is made.

Within 14 days of entering into an agreement a copy must be sent to the Minister.

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: I2015/944

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

The draft Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment Version 5 (management study) has been received and is currently under review by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). The OEH have completed their review of the main management study report however comments on the draft cost benefit analysis (CBA) are outstanding. Following receipt of the OEH comments on the cost benefit analysis, a further report will be tabled for Council’s consideration on the impacted Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment timeframes.

In considering the feedback provided by the OEH to date, staff have sought clarification on a number of issues / concerns, including seeking a meeting with the Minister for Planning and meeting with OEH staff on 31 August 2015.

At the OEH meeting it was reiterated that further information is required on the feasibility of the potential ‘small scale sand nourishment’ scheme at Stage 3 of the consultant’s draft management recommendation for Belongil Beach. This further information may best be obtained through a meeting with key government agencies /stakeholders, who may be approval authorities for a potential small scale sand nourishment scheme at Tallow Beach, including representatives of National Parks, Cape Byron Marine Park, Crown Lands and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal).

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note that delays to finalising the draft Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment are likely to impact on the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP BBE) timeframes; and that following receipt of the Office of Environment and Heritage comments on the cost benefit analysis, a further report will be tabled for Council’s consideration on the impacted CZMP BBE timeframes.

2. That Council staff arrange a sand nourishment meeting with the key agencies / stakeholders who may be approval authorities for a potential small scale sand nourishment scheme at Tallow Beach, including representatives of National Parks, Cape Byron Marine Park, Crown Lands and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal), providing an opportunity to understand the feasibility, or otherwise, from an approvals, legislative and governance perspective, of the potential sand nourishment scheme at Stage 3 of the draft ‘Adaptive Management Protection Scheme for Belongil Beach’.

3. That the sand nourishment meeting be funded through a transfer of funds from account 1501.64 to account 2605.083 and that co-funding be also sought through the state government’s Coastal Management Program.

Attachments:

1 Letter in from Office Environment and Heritage Draft Coastal Hazard Management Study Version 5 Review Comments 17 08 15, E2015/53385

Report

The draft Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay Embayment Version 5 (management study) has been received and is currently under review by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). A summary of the report was provided to Councillors at a workshop on 13 August 2015. Details of the workshop, including the consultant’s presentation, can be accessed at:

www.byron.nsw.gov.au/coastal-hazard-management-study-for-the-byron-bay-embayment

In summary, the consultant’s draft management study recommendation for Belongil Beach is:

Option 6, a three stage adaptive management protection scheme is recommended. This has components of:

§ Stage 1: Seawall with walkway

§ Stage 2a: An initial self-filling trial groyne

§ Stage 2b: Additional groynes; and

§ Stage 3: Small scale sand nourishment.

The OEH have completed their review of the main management study report however comments on the draft cost benefit analysis (CBA) are outstanding. The CBA comments were not available at the time of writing this report and are, tentatively, expected during the week ending 11 September 2015. The OEH comments received to date are at Attachment 1.

As a result of OEH review timeframe delays to date, it is unlikely that the draft management study will be tabled until the 29 October 2015 as previously indicated; noting that this timeframe is dependent on the nature of the OEH comments on the CBA.

It is recommended that Council note that delays to finalising the draft Coastal Hazard Management Study Byron Bay are likely to impact on the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP BBE) timeframes; and that following receipt of the Office of Environment and Heritage comments on the cost benefit analysis, a further report will be tabled for Council’s consideration on the impacted CZMP BBE timeframes.

In considering the feedback provided from OEH to date, staff have sought clarification on a number of issues / concerns, summarised as follows:

1. Lack of a timeframe for the provision of comments on the CBA.

2. The implication that several, more detailed investigations will need to be undertaken as part of preparing, and prior to finalisation of, the Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment (CZMP). From the comments, these investigations include, but may not necessarily be limited to:

· The form, scale, specification and location of protection works along Belongil Spit;

· Adaptive management of sand nourishment to improve amenity and offset adverse down-drift impacts from protection works;

· Appropriate monitoring to facilitate (thresholds/triggers) adaptive management;

· Dedication of appropriate long-term sand nourishment source;

· Committed funding model to give effect to the aforementioned.

3. An ongoing shift in the OEH advice concerning the level of detail required for informing the CZMP and an apparent disconnect between OEH expectations and the timeframe imposed by the Minister’s Direction for submitting the draft CZMP (being 30 June 2015).

4. A failure of the OEH to contextualise their expectations in terms of Council’s financial and resource constraints and to acknowledge the significant work completed to date.

In addition, Council has written to the OEH requesting a meeting with the Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes MP, who retains oversight of the Coastal Protection Act (copy to the Minister for the Environment).

Although a response from the Minister has not yet been received, staff met with the OEH on 31 August 2015 to discuss the issues / concerns raised in their advice. The key messages received from this meeting are provided below:

1. The OEH advice is for Council’s consideration only and has been provided on the grounds that there is a risk that if certain information is not included in the draft CZMP BBE then the CZMP BBE may not be considered ‘fit for certification’.

2. The OEH will review the draft CZMP BBE and provide comments to the Minister for consideration; the Minister may also refer the draft CZMP BBE to the NSW Coastal Panel.

3. The OEH view an ‘impact management strategy’ as fundamental to the ‘Adaptive Management Protection Scheme for Belongil Beach’ currently recommended by the consultant. An impact management scheme is fundamental to satisfying the provisions of the Coastal Protection Act 1979, notably 55C1(g) (reproduced under the ‘Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications’ section of this report).

4. As per the draft management study, the impact management strategy for the ‘Adaptive Management Protection Scheme for Belongil Beach’ is currently represented by the ‘small scale sand nourishment’ at Stage 3. The importance of the sand transfer nourishment component to the Adaptive Scheme was reflected in the Minister’s advice as per OEH letter, dated 20 January 2015.

5. The management study does not provide sufficient detail or evidence that the currently proposed Stage 3 sand nourishment scheme is ‘feasible’ in terms of being permissible at the Tallow Beach location, which is located in Arakwal National Park and the Cape Byron Marine Park: noting that there may be several legislative impediments to the potential scheme including the NSW Coastal Policy 1999 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

6. The management study does not provide sufficient detail on other elements of the ‘Adaptive Management Protection Scheme for Belongil Beach’, for example the form, scale, specification and location of protection works along Belongil Spit, monitoring to facilitate (thresholds/triggers) adaptive management, and a committed funding model. It would be preferable if this information was included in the draft CZMP BBE.

Given the OEH advice, it would seem timely and prudent to conduct a meeting with the key government agencies /stakeholders, who may be approval authorities for a potential small scale sand nourishment scheme at Tallow Beach, including representatives of National Parks, Cape Byron Marine Park, Crown Lands and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal). The meeting would seek to gain an understanding of the feasibility, or otherwise, of the potential sand nourishment scheme from an approvals, legislative and governance perspective. This information will be an important component of Council’s deliberations when they determine the management strategy to be included in the draft CZMP BBE.

It is not considered that the sand nourishment meeting would be incorporated into the management study project or report. Rather, the meeting would be coordinated and facilitated by staff. The consultant, WRL, will be asked to provide an overview of and technical support to discussions concerning the potential sand nourishment scheme and a pre meeting may also be required. The agencies / stakeholders present at the meeting would be asked to make formal, written submissions on the potential scheme from their perspective. The information gleaned from this exercise would be collated into a separate document for Council’s consideration alongside the finalised management study report.

It is proposed that responding to the other issues canvassed during the OEH meeting, particularly the further investigations detailed at point (6) above, remain on hold at this time. It is noteworthy that the form of these further investigations is likely to depend on the outcome of the sand nourishment meeting being proposed and Council’s formal consideration of the management study. A workshop with Councillors on 10 September 2015 will discuss these matters.

As such it is recommended that Council staff arrange a sand nourishment meeting with the key agencies / stakeholders who may be approval authorities for a potential small scale sand nourishment scheme at Tallow Beach, including representatives of National Parks, Cape Byron Marine Park, Crown Lands and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal), providing an opportunity to understand the feasibility, or otherwise, from an approvals, legislative and governance perspective, of the potential sand nourishment scheme at Stage 3 of the draft ‘Adaptive Management Protection Scheme for Belongil Beach’.

Financial Implications

The consultant, WRL, will be asked to present to the sand nourishment meeting, and a pre meeting with the consultant may also be required. Additional costs associated with room hire and catering may be incurred. It is expected that the expenses associated with the sand nourishment meeting will extend to approximately $7,000. Accordingly, it is recommended that the sand nourishment meeting be funded using the funds made available through the NCCARF Partnership Agreement (account 1501.64), i.e. through a transfer of funds from account 1501.64 to the CZMP account 2605.083, and that co-funding also be sought through the state government’s Coastal Management Program.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The CZMP BBE is made and certified under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 (CP Act). The OEH have specific concerns regarding section 55C1(g) of the CP Act. Section 55C is reproduced below:

55C Matters to be dealt with in coastal zone management plans

(1) A coastal zone management plan must make provision for:

(a) protecting and preserving beach environments and beach amenity, and

(b) emergency actions carried out during periods of beach erosion, including the carrying out of related works, such as works for the protection of property affected or likely to be affected by beach erosion, where beach erosion occurs through storm activity or an extreme or irregular event, and

(c) ensuring continuing and undiminished public access to beaches, headlands and waterways, particularly where public access is threatened or affected by accretion, and

(d) where the plan relates to a part of the coastline, the management of risks arising from coastal hazards, and

(e) where the plan relates to an estuary, the management of estuary health and any risks to the estuary arising from coastal hazards, and

(f) the impacts from climate change on risks arising from coastal hazards and on estuary health, as appropriate, and

(g) where the plan proposes the construction of coastal protection works (other than emergency coastal protection works) that are to be funded by the council or a private landowner or both, the proposed arrangements for the adequate maintenance of the works and for managing associated impacts of such works (such as changed or increased beach erosion elsewhere or a restriction of public access to beaches or headlands).

(2) A coastal zone management plan must not include the following:

(a) matters dealt with in any plan made under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 in relation to the response to emergencies,

(b) proposed actions or activities to be carried out by any public authority or relating to any land or other assets owned or managed by a public authority, unless the public authority has agreed to the inclusion of those proposed actions or activities in the plan.

(3) Despite subsection (1), the Minister may give a direction under section 55B that a council make a coastal zone management plan that makes provision for only one or more of the matters referred to in that subsection as specified in the direction.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services 14.4

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 14.4 Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 26 August 2015

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Planner

File No: I2015/992

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

The attachment to this report provides the minutes and recommendations of the Local Traffic

Committee Meeting of 26 August 2015 for determination by Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 26 August 2015.

2. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.1 Request for Heavy Vehicle restrictions, Granuaille Road, Bangalow

File No: I2015/879

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the concerns raised by Bangalow Progress Association (BPA) regarding heavy vehicle use, noise and speed, and traffic volumes in general, including concerns held regarding amenity and safety.

2. That the Local Traffic Committee, in noting Council’s previous opposition to sign posting Lismore on the Pacific Highway prior to the Ewingsdale interchange, recommend that if the RMS are to proceed with their intended assessment of such signage it be carried out only after completion of the T2E upgrade on the basis that:

a) the highway is fully operational, i.e. no road works or temporary speed limits apply south of Ewingsdale Road and associated road works are completed

b) it start with no signage for a period of at least three months

c) if necessary, followed by the same time period with signage for comparison

3. That Council notes that load limiting, or restriction of general access vehicles (including heavy vehicles such as trucks up to 19 metres, buses, etc) is not possible on a road, unless there is a road hazard or asset management concern present.

4. That Council notes the RMS Corridor Strategy will address speed, traffic volumes, heavy vehicle use, signage etc, however, RMS advice and approval for signage in regard to heavy vehicle use and noise reduction on Granuaille Road (eg compression braking) be sought.

3. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.2 Road closure, Mullumbimby Music Festival, 22 November 2015

File No: I2015/880

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Mullumbimby Music Festival Street Parade scheduled for Sunday, 22 November 2015 be endorsed, including the temporary road closure of:

a) Dalley Street, Mullumbimby between Tincogan Street and Burringbar Street which is effective between 11am and 12noon

b) Burringbar Street, Mullumbimby between Station Street and Dalley Street which is effective between 10.45am and 11.15am

c) Lane 7, between Dalley Street and east of the Fire Station driveway, and Lane 2, from Lane 7 to Tincogan Street, with both in effect from 4pm Thursday 19 November 2015 through to 8am Monday 23 November 2015.

2. That the temporary road closure be subject to the following conditions, each to be met prior to the event being held:

a) that the organisers be responsible for implementing a Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation;

b) payment of Council’s relevant on-road event fee ($350 inc GST);

c) that each temporary bus stop as required by the event be established in accordance with an accredited Traffic Control Plan;

d) that public liability insurance be in place for the sum of at least $20 million;

e) that the written concurrence of local Police and from the Fire Stations on both Gordon Street and Dalley Street, be obtained by the organisers and provided to Council;

f) that Council advertise the event in accordance with the Roads Act;

g) that Council provide prior notification of the event on Council's website.

3. That the organisers note Council no longer provides traffic control services or equipment for such events.

4. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.3 Road closure, Twilight Markets, Brunswick Heads, 16 December 2015

File No: I2015/881

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the temporary road closure of Mullumbimbi Street between Park Street and The Terrace, Brunswick Heads from 12 noon to 12 midnight on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 be approved for the holding of the annual Twilight Markets.

2. That the temporary road closure be subject to the following conditions:

a) that the temporary traffic arrangements and road closure be undertaken as per a Traffic Control Plan as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation and includes the provision of two temporary accessible (disabled) parking bays outside the Brunswick Heads Hotel from 7am to 12noon

b) that public liability insurance be in place for the sum of at least $20 million

c) that the concurrence of local Police be obtained by the organisers,independent of the Local Traffic Committee endorsement

d) that the event be advertised in accordance with the Roads Act

e) that the written concurrence of local Police be obtained by the organisers and provided to Council

f) that Council advertises the event in accordance with the Roads Act

g) that prior notification of the event be provided on Council's website

h) that the applicable Council fee for lodgement of a road event application apply ($350 inc GST) and be paid prior to the event

3. That the organisers note Council no longer provides traffic control services or equipment for such events.

5. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.4 Endorsement of one-way entry and exit, Mullumbimby High School car park

File No: I2015/882

RECOMMENDATION:

That the car park on Jubilee Avenue, Mullumbimby, as located north-east of the intersection with Azalea Street, be endorsed and signed with the appropriate regulatory signage for No Entry (R2-4) so that the northern driveway be effectively an ‘Entry Only’ site and the southern driveway be an ‘Exit Only’.

6. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.5 Proposed Loading Zone, Council Office, Station Street, Mullumbimby

File No: I2015/883

RECOMMENDATION:

That the three angled spaces on the east side of Station Street, Mullumbimby, south of the two mobility permit (disabled) spaces located south of Burringbar Street, be endorsed and signed as a Loading Zone Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.

7. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.6 Request for 2P time limit, Tincogan Street, Mullumbimby

File No: I2015/884

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That consultation with properties adjacent to Tincogan Street, Mullumbimby, between Dalley Street and Stuart Street, be undertaken in regard to both parking and traffic needs and demands and the use of a time limit to assist with turn over.

2. That the results of the consultation be referred to and help inform Council’s parking study of Mullumbimby town centre, which will be reported to Council in due course.

8. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.7 Request for mobility permit parking space, Community Gardens, Mullumbimby

File No: I2015/886

RECOMMENDATION:

That a single car park space within the sealed car park at the frontage of the Mullumbimby Community Gardens be marked and signed as a mobility permit (disabled) parking space only.

9. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.8 Request for 60kph speed limit, Myocum Downs Drive, Myocum

File No: I2015/887

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council request the RMS, as the sole NSW authority for authorising speed zone changes, undertake such review of Myocum Downs Drive, Myocum if they believe it warranted and, if such review proceeds, provide results back in due course.

10. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.9 Request for 60kph speed limit, Yelgun Road, Yelgun

File No: I2015/888

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council request the RMS, as the sole NSW authority for authorising speed zone changes, undertake such review of Yelgun Road, Yelgun if they believe it warranted and, if such review proceeds, provide results back in due course.

11. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.10 Proposed Trial, School Bus Contra-Flow, Wilsons Creek Public School Bus Bay

File No: I2015/889

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That in regard to the constructed bus bay at the frontage of Wilson’s Creek Public School, Council support a trial of the contra-flow arrangements as described at Report No. 6.10 within the Local Traffic Committee Minutes (I2015/894) and that it:

a) cease immediately if either Council, RMS, NSW Transport, Police, the bus operator, or the School or any authority with such power request as such, on the proviso such request is in writing and lodged with Council prior to the end of Term 4 2015; or

b) in event of no such request, be adopted as a permanent measure commencing with the start of the 2016 school year; and

c) a report be provided to Council in due course on either of the above outcomes once known

2. That on the basis Part 1 is adopted, both sides of the entry to the eastern end of the bus bay as provided between the fenced median and retaining wall and the mid-point of the bus bay be signed as No Entry (R2-4) Buses Excepted (R9-2) and that such signage be removed in the event the contra-flow arrangements cease to operate.

3. That Council note and accept the RMS advice as contained in above cited minutes, namely that:

a) RMS reserve the right to appeal this decision in accordance with the delegations of the Local Traffic Committee;

b) a report be provided prior to end of Term 4 2015 regarding the arrangements operation and that the details of the report are reviewed at that time as required, eg by the Local Traffic Committee, Council and RMS;

c) school zone/warning sign-posting as previously recommended and provided by the RMS be installed prior to the contra-flow trail commencing.

12. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.11 Request for Bus Stop, Byron Bay Pool

File No: I2015/890

RECOMMENDATION:

That the applicant be informed that under NSW Road Rules 2014, a bus can legally use any loading zone whilst engaged in loading or unloading passengers.

13. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.12 Request for No Parking limits, Market Street, Bangalow

File No: I2015/891

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.5, No Parking be signed and apply on the western side of Market Street, Bangalow.

2. That ‘Kiss and Ride’ supplementary signage be attached to the No Parking signs, subject to the School’s concurrence, which if not forthcoming an alternative site be investigated for such purpose.

14. That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation(s):

Report No. 7.1 Byron Bay Bypass – DA 10.2015.384.1

File No: I2015/892

RECOMMENDATION:

That in regard to the GHD preliminary designs as included at Appendix E of DA Application 10.2015.384.1 (as per Council file E2015/41826) for the Byron Bay town centre bypass, Council notes that the Local Traffic Committee:

a) provide in-principle support for the traffic facilities and provisions proposed

b) recommend the turning and exit lines shown to demarcate roundabout travel lanes be removed from the design; and

c) require regulatory traffic matters be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee as and when required.

Attachments:

1 Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting 26/08/15, I2015/894

Report

The attachment to this report provides the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 26 August 2015 for determination by Council.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommendations, along with Committee and Management comments, are

contained within the minutes.

Financial Implications

As per the Reports listed within the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 26 August 2015.

Items that cannot be funded from available budget will be reported back to Council for further consideration.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

As per the Reports listed within the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 26 August 2015.

Bus Charter	Two trips per hour for 10 hours	$2,500
Signage	· Corflutes along Ewingsdale Rd · VMS board on Ewingsdale Rd 1 week prior · Enlarged timetable x 4 · Installation of all signage	$5,000
Social Media Promotion	· Facebook advertising	$1,000
Security	1 guard on the bus from 6pm – 1am	$500
Staffing	2 staff at The Cavanbah 3pm – 9pm	$600
	TOTAL	$9,600