Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 25 February 2016

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Code of Conduct and Council Committee Members

File No: I2016/107

I move that Council:

1. Recognise the success of the South Golden Beach Community Hall and its renovation and refurbishment which included new decks on the eastern and northern sides, new foyer, kitchen upgrade, office space upstairs, new cladding and new bathrooms;

2. Recognise the efforts of the s355 Committee which manages the facilities and functions of the Hall for Council and which assisted greatly with the rebuild;

3. Recognise the extraordinary efforts of Angela Dunlop (president of the s355 Committee) in both managing the Hall and advising on its recent rebuild;

4. Recognise the huge contribution of all Council Committee members (s355 and other) in achieving Council’s and the community’s goals;

5. Receive a report in the second quarter of 2016 on revision of our Code of Conduct Procedures so that complaints against members of Council Committees are dealt with in a fashion similar to those against Councillors. That the report include commentary on similar models used by other NSW Councils.

Councillor’s Background Notes:

South Golden Beach Hall is unique in offering that community a space to gather for public or private events. Aside from its beach and waterways, the area is otherwise a bit spartan from a land-use planning perspective. The Hall was found long ago to suffer from safety issues (including overhead power lines) and to fall short on amenities.

The community came together as a “section 355 Committee” and helped Council realise grants and eventually rebuild the Hall. Much of that effort came from the Committee’s president Angela Dunlop. This is a major case of volunteerism.

The Hall is now complete and operational but at a personal cost to Ange.

The Motion seeks to recognise the success of the rebuild of the Hall, the efforts of that Committee and of Ange herself, and the efforts of the many other Committees that manage Halls and community facilities in our Shire.

It then asks for a review of how the Code of Conduct is applied, to better protect volunteers like Ange. Changing the Code of Conduct or its parallel Code of Conduct Procedures is not encouraged. The state puts out a Model Code and Model Procedures. When a Council’s Code or Procedures differ from the state Models, the state documents hold sway.

Hence, this Motion goes no further than to suggest where change can be investigated. Part 5 of the Motion asks staff to look deeper and find the right way.

Council operates under Policy 13/003, our Code of Conduct. This Policy sets out minimum requirements of conduct for council officials in carrying out their functions. The term “council official” includes Councillors, members of staff of council, administrators, council committee members, conduct reviewers and delegates of council.

The Code is based on the state’s Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils which is “made” for the purposes of section 440 of the Local Government Act 1993. If our Code and the Model Code differ, the Model Code overrides our Code.

The Code is enforced under our Policy 13/004 (Procedures for the Administration of Council’s Code of Conduct) which adopts provisions set out in the state’s Model Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct (“the Model Code Procedures”).

I understand the state’s Model Code Procedures are “made” under sections 440 and 440AA respectively of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

The Code addresses issues like the general conduct of officials like Councillors, Council staff and members of Council committees plus fairness, equity, harassment, discrimination, development decisions, caucusing, pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests, donations, etc.

The Procedures describe how the Code is enforced if an issue arises. Issues are brought to the attention of the General Manager by way of a Code of Conduct Complaint, unless they are about the GM in which case they go to the Mayor. A conduct complaint is managed according to Part 5 of the Procedures, under one of the following six categories:

· complaint about staff other than the GM (section 5.1 to 5.5);

· complaint about delegates of Council and Council committee members (5.6 to 5.10);

· complaint about conduct reviewers (5.11 to 5.13);

· complaint about administrators (5.14 to 5.15);

· complaint about councillors (5.16 to 5.20);

· complaint about the GM (5.21 to 5.25).

The sequence of steps for Council committee members is currently:

5.6 The General Manager is responsible for making enquiries or causing enquiries to be made into code of conduct complaints about delegates of Council and Council committee members and for determining the outcome of such complaints.

5.7 Where the General Manager decides not to make enquiries into a code of conduct complaint about a delegate of Council or a Council committee member, the General Manager must give the complainant reasons in writing for their decision.

5.8 Without limiting clause 5.7, the General Manager may decide not to enquire into the matter on grounds that the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith.

5.9 Sanctions for delegates of Council and/or members of Council committees depend on the severity, scale and importance of the breach and may include one or more of the following:

a) censure;

b) requiring the person to apologise to any person or organisation adversely affected by the breach;

c) prosecution for any breach of the law;

d) removing or restricting the person’s delegation; or

e) removing the person from membership of the relevant Council committee.

5.10 Prior to imposing a sanction against a delegate of Council or a Council committee member under clause 5.9, the General Manager or any person making enquiries on behalf of the General Manager must comply with the requirements of procedural fairness. In particular:

a) the substance of the allegation (including the relevant provision/s of Council’s Code of Conduct that the alleged conduct is in breach of) must be put to the person the subject of the allegation, and

b) the person must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation, and

c) the General Manager must consider the person’s response in deciding whether to impose a sanction under clause 5.9.

By comparison, the steps for Councillors are:

5.16 The General Manager must refer the following code of conduct complaints about Councillors to the Division:

a) complaints alleging a breach of the pecuniary interest provisions of the Act;

b) complaints alleging a failure to comply with a requirement under the Code of Conduct to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interests arising from reportable political donations (see section 328B);

c) complaints alleging a breach of Part 8 of the Code of Conduct relating to the maintenance of the integrity of the Code; and

d) complaints the subject of a special complaints management arrangement with the Division under clause 5.40.

5.17 Where the General Manager refers a complaint to the Division under clause 5.16, the General Manager must notify the complainant of the referral in writing.

5.18 Where the General Manager considers it to be practicable and appropriate to do so, the General Manager may seek to resolve code of conduct complaints about Councillors, other than those requiring referral to the Division under clause 5.16, by alternative means such as, but not limited to, explanation, counselling, training, mediation, informal discussion, negotiation or apology instead of referring them to the Complaints Coordinator under clause 5.20.

5.19 Where the General Manager resolves a code of conduct complaint under clause 5.18 to the General Manager’s satisfaction, the General Manager must notify the complainant in writing of the steps taken to resolve the complaint and this shall finalise the consideration of the matter under these procedures.

5.20 The General Manager must refer all code of conduct complaints about Councillors other than those referred to the Division under clause 5.16 or resolved under clause 5.18 to the Complaints Coordinator.

A possible sequence of steps for Council Committee members is:

5.8 Without limiting clause 5.7, the General Manager may decide not to enquire into the matter on grounds that the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith.

5.9 Where the General Manager considers it to be practicable and appropriate to do so, the General Manager may seek to resolve code of conduct complaints about delegates of Council and Council committee members by alternative means such as, but not limited to, explanation, counselling, training, mediation, informal discussion, negotiation or apology instead of referring them to the Complaints Coordinator under clause 5.11.

5.10 Where the General Manager resolves a code of conduct complaint under clause 5.9 to the General Manager’s satisfaction, the General Manager must notify the complainant in writing of the steps taken to resolve the complaint and this shall finalise the consideration of the matter under these procedures.

5.11 The General Manager must refer all code of conduct complaints about delegates of Council and Council committee members other than those resolved under clause 5.9 to the Complaints Coordinator.

5.12 Sanctions for delegates of Council and/or members of Council committees depend on the severity, scale and importance of the breach and may include one or more of the following:

a) censure;

b) requiring the person to apologise to any person or organisation adversely affected by the breach;

c) prosecution for any breach of the law;

d) removing or restricting the person’s delegation; or

e) removing the person from membership of the relevant Council committee.

5.13 Prior to imposing a sanction against a delegate of Council or a Council committee member under clause 5.9, the General Manager or any person making enquiries on behalf of the General Manager must comply with the requirements of procedural fairness. In particular:

b) the person must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation, and

c) the General Manager must consider the person’s response in deciding whether to impose a sanction under clause 5.9.

Other sections of the Procedures (eg section 6.1) would also need to be adjusted. Internal conflicts in the procedures suggested above may need further investigation and resolution.

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

The depth of investigation required is unknown and this could affect timing, as could enquiries with other Councils, Local Gov NSW or the Office of Local Government (if necessary).

Definition of the project/task:

Report on how the Code of Conduct Procedures can be amended to bring the treatment of volunteers on Council’s Committees in a fashion closer to how Councillors are treated.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

Nil

Signed: Cr Duncan Dey

Management Comments by Ralph James, Legal Services Co-ordinator:

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

Clarification of project/task:

The action required to be undertaken by staff relates only to Part 5 of the Notice of Motion.

Parts 1 to 4 of the Notice of Motion are seeking for Council to recognise the successful outcomes of the Project to Upgrade of the South Golden Hall, the involvement of the S355 Committee members in achieving this outcome and the efforts of S355 Committee members generally. These tasks will be achieved by adoption of this Notice of Motion.

Part 5 of the Notice of Motion

The Model Code and Procedures

In 2012 the Division of Local Government announced changes to the Model Code of Conduct. The final framework came into effect on 1 March 2013 via the Local Government (Conduct) Act 2012.

The Conduct Act inserted sections into the Local Government Act 1993 addressing the Model Code.

The aim of the Model Code was to provide:

a. Greater flexibility to resolve non-serious complaints, minimising costs to councils;

b. Improved complaints management, with complaints about councillors and the general manager managed from start to finish by qualified and independent conduct reviewers;

c. Greater fairness and rigour in the investigation process through clearer procedures; and

d. Stronger penalties for ongoing disruptive behaviour and serious misconduct to more effectively deter and address such behaviour, allowing councils to get on with the business of serving their communities.

The framework divides the Model Code administration and standards of conduct so that the Model Code addresses standards of conduct and the procedural aspect of the Code is governed under the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code. The revised Model Code of Conduct and accompanying Procedures represented substantial changes to the previous framework.

Section 440 of the LG Act required every council to adopt a code of conduct that incorporated the provisions of the Model Code. The purpose of the Model Code was to set the minimum requirements of conduct for council officials in carrying out their functions.

The Model Code is administered under a separate framework known as the "Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW March 2013".

The present procedures for dealing with Code complaints about Council committee members are contained in clauses 5.6 to 5.10. They require the General Manager to investigate complaints and to determine both the complaint and its outcome.

The sanctions set out in clause 5.9 and are inclusive i.e. the General Manager cannot impose a sanction other than those set out although the General Manager can impose one or more of the listed sanctions.

In adopting procedures for the administration of their code of conduct, councils may supplement the prescribed Model Code Procedures. However provisions of a council’s adopted procedures that are not consistent with those prescribed under the Model Code Procedures will have no effect.

Adopting provisions to effectively amend the sanctions set out in clause 5.9, by allowing additional sanctions, would render Council’s "Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct” inconsistent with the Model Procedures. Any amendments would be of no effect.

So too would any amendment to clause 5.10 being the matters which the General Manager is to take into account prior to imposing a sanction.

The procedures deliberately distinguish between factors attending code of conduct complaints about Councillors, the General Manager, staff, Conduct Reviewers and delegates and committee members.

Any amendment to eliminate the distinguishing factors would render Council’s procedures inconsistent with the Model Procedures and effectively, of no effect.

The subject matter of paragraph 3 of the Councillor’s background notes

The Procedures at 13.1 provides that “information about code of conduct complaints and the management and investigation of code of conduct complaints is to be treated as confidential and is not to be publicly disclosed except as may be otherwise specifically required or permitted under these procedures”.

There has been a great deal of public disclosure of the code of conduct complaint referred to and its management and investigation (and outcome). Whilst it appears that public disclosure has been by persons and entities who are not the subject of Council’s Code of Conduct, the content of that which has been publicly disclosed must have been sourced from a person who was subject to the Code of Conduct.

As such confidentiality and any expectation of it can be taken to be waived given that it is reasonable to assume that the person who would be protected by confidentiality has engaged in conduct inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality.

Two complaints as to the committee member’s conduct were received by Council.

The General Manager was satisfied that the complaints related to conduct, if proven, would amount to a code of conduct complaint. The complaints were assessed as not being trivial, frivolous or vexatious. It was assessed that they were made in good faith.

The complaints, in general terms, were that the committee member initiated and had inappropriate contact via the committee member’s position on the South Golden Beach community centre section 355 committee (the committee) with, and made requests of building contractors engaged on behalf of Council.

On 2 February 2015 Council awarded the contract to undertake alterations and additions to the South Golden Beach Hall.

The committee have been active in the design stage of the alterations and additions to the hall and have been in communication with Council’s Project Coordinator Buildings.

On 5 August 2014 the committee forwarded an email to Council seeking advice on the project.

The General Manager responded to that email by letter dated 11 August 2014.

In that letter the General Manager addressed specifically the committee request to attend a site meeting and its request to appoint a committee representative on the tender assessment panel.

In that letter the General Manager provided the following direction:

“… Council confirms that the Committee’s role in the remaining phases of the project will be as detailed above for the reasons provided. Council and its appointed Architect (as Superintendent of the Works) will continue to deliver the project in accordance with the finalised tender documentation, and construction contract.”

“Council… extends its existing invitation for the Committee to keep their contact and information flow with Councils Project Coordinator of Buildings, (name), who will be acting and Client Representative for Council”.

The General Manager’s letter was acknowledged by the committee member by email of 20 August 2014.

Council was advised that on 9 March 2015 the committee member contacted the contractor purportedly representing the committee.

The committee member sought to discuss the project in general, and details regarding the specification of the construction contract.

Specifically, the committee member sought to revisit items such as tile selection and finishes.

The committee member wanted to know when the company was commencing on site.

The committee member provided the contractor a mobile number and email address and requested that the contractor contact the committee member with regards to a pre-start meeting on-site.

Council was also advised that on 25 March 2015 the committee member contacted the contractor requesting information regarding signing of the contract and start dates on site.

The General Manager formed the view that prima facie the contacting of the contractor and the specifics of the requests constituted a clear disobedience of the direction given by him on 11 August 2014.

He formed the prima facie view that a breach of Council’s Code of Conduct had occurred.

Procedural fairness was applied and the committee member was afforded the opportunity to respond.

The General Manager considered the committee member’s response to be a justification by way of counter complaint, rather than addressing the issue of the unauthorised contact with the contractor. Nothing in the material provided denied the alleged contact with the

contractor. The material only sought to establish the reason for the contact.

The General Manager formed the view, having fully considered the matter, that the alleged breach of Councils Code of Conduct had been established.

Sanctions for members of council committees depend on the severity, scale and importance of the breach and may include one or more of the following:

a) censure;

b) requiring the person to apologise to any person or organisation adversely affected by the breach;

c) prosecution for any breach of the law; or

d) removing the person from membership of the relevant council committee.

The General Manager considered that:

1. the circumstances of the breach did not raise any issue in respect of c) above.

2. the severity, scale and importance of the breach did not warrant removal from membership of the committee (d) above).

3. Council had not been adversely affected by the breach in terms contemplated by b) above.

That left a censure as the only available (and appropriate) sanction. That was the sanction imposed.

Comments by General Manager:

The Council’s Code of Conduct reflects the OLG’s Model Code and has been adopted by the Council including those provisions of the Model Code which stipulate the process for investigating complaints about Committee members, a process which, like it or not, differs from that applicable to councillors. The General Manager’s role and responsibilities in administering Code of Conduct complaints is specifically outlined in the Code, i.e. it is mandated. In relation to complaints about committee members the Code does not provide for the GM to resolve such complaints “by alternative means” as it does for complaints against councillors. Under the most recent version of the Model Code (reflects Council’s adopted Code) Council’s (GMs) are required to appoint a Code of Conduct Complaints Coordinator to assist the GM in processing and considering Code complaints. At Byron Council Council’s Legal Services Coordinator, Ralph James, fulfils this role. Contrary to local folklore the GM does not actually personally evaluate or investigate such complaints but is guided by recommendations made either by the Code of Conduct Complaints Coordinator or by external independent Code of Conduct Investigators who are part of Council’s appointed panel. Accordingly, in the Dunlop case as in other Code complaints, I have done no more than follow the directions of the Council inherent in the adopted Code of Conduct.

Had Ms Dunlop’s indiscretion been brought to my attention other than through formal Code complaints as to her behaviour (two formal written complaints referencing the Code were received by me), I would have been happy to counsel Ms Dunlop without formal recourse to the Code sanctions. Given that formal complaints were received I was compelled to act in accordance with the Code provisions and this option was no longer available to me.

Ms Dunlop’s dedication to the South Golden Beach community and her value as Chair of the Hall Committee has never been in question. Her over exuberance was, however, causing confusion through her providing conflicting advice to the Building Contractor and requests (in writing) for her to communicate with the Builder through Council’s appointed Project Manager were not heeded. Staff provided the Hall Committee with opportunities for hosted site meetings with the Builder through the course of the construction so there was never any suggestion that the Committee or its Chair were being segregated from the Builder.

The Code of Conduct that applies to local government fulfils a valuable function in ensuring strict standards of governance and probity. Regrettably administration of the Code can unwittingly damage relationships and for this reason many GMs (and Mayors) undertake their statutory role mandated by the Code somewhat reluctantly. None-the-less in Ms Dunlop’s case the complaints against her were administered fairly and reasonably and the lesser of the five sanctions outlined in the Code was applied. I hope that Council will respect that staff have acted entirely appropriately and in accordance with the Code that the Council has adopted and will support the continued application of the Code to demonstrate to our community on-going commitment to appropriate standards of behaviour and probity.

Suggestions by Cr Dey that the Code be changed so that the process outlined for the administration of complaints against councillors is also applied for complaints against committee members, whilst laudable, cannot be supported without the Minister for LG making a corresponding change to the provisions of the Model Code. This advice has recently been confirmed through the Office of the Ombudsman.

Director responsible for task implementation:

Director Corporate and Community Services

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

The actioning of Part 5 of the Notice of Motion will have a minimal impact on other projects and tasks.

Financial and Resource Implications:

The actioning of Part 5 of the Notice of Motion will be undertaken with existing allocated budgets.

Legal and Policy Implications:

As detailed in the above comments.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.1

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 13.1 Budget Review - 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2016/24

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and to inform Council and the Community of Council’s estimated financial position for the 2015/2016 financial year, reviewed as at 31 December 2015.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That That Council authorise the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2016/8631) which includes the following results in the 31 December 2015 Quarterly Review of the 2015/2016 Budget:

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

b) General Fund - $2,238,300 increase in reserves

c) Water Fund - $1,210,900 increase in reserves

d) Sewerage Fund - $1,573,700 increase in reserves

2. That Council adopt the revised General Fund Accumulated Surplus/(Working Funds) of $919,100 for the 2015/2016 financial year as at 31 December 2015.

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2016/8629

2 Itemised Listing of Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2016/8631

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) required Quarterly Review Statement, E2016/8632

Report

Council adopted the 2015/2016 budget on 25 June 2015 via Resolution 15-293. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2014/2015 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2015/2016 budget, at its Ordinary Meeting held 27 August 2015 via Resolution 15-386. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2014/2015 Financial Statement results and progress through the first half of the 2015/2016 financial year. This report considers the December 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

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

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

Consolidated Budget Cash Result

General Fund Cash Result Water Fund Cash Result Sewer Cash Result

Principal Activity Principal Activity Principal Activity

Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital income Capital Expenditure

The pages within Attachment 1 are presented (from left to right) by showing the original budget as adopted by Council on 25 June 2015 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2014/2015 followed by the resolutions between July and September, the September review, resolutions between October and December and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2016 as at 31 December 2015.

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

There is also information detailing restricted assets (reserves) to show Council estimated balances as at 30 June 2016 for all Council’s reserves.

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

Office of Local Government Budget Review Guidelines:-

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

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

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

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

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

o Consolidated

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

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

· Budget Review Capital Budget

· Budget Review Cash and Investments Position

· Budget Review Key performance indicators

· Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses

The above components are included in Attachment 3:-

Income and Expenditure Budget Review Statement by Type – This shows Councils income and Expenditure by type. This has been split by Fund. Adjustments are shown, looking from left to right. These adjustments are commented on through pages 51 to 63 of Attachment 1.

Capital Budget Review Statement – This statement identifies in summary Council’s capital works program on a consolidated basis and then split by Fund. It also identifies how the capital works program is funded. As this is the second quarterly review for the reporting period, the Statement may not necessarily indicate the total progress achieved on the delivery of the capital works program.

Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement – This statement reconciles Council’s restricted funds (reserves) against available cash and investments. Council has attempted to indicate an actual position as at 31 December 2015 of each reserve to show a total cash position of reserves with any difference between that position and total cash and investments held as available cash and investments. It should be recognised that the figure is at a point in time and may vary greatly in future quarterly reviews pending on cash flow movements.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – At this stage, the KPI’s within this report are:-

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

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

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

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

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

CONSOLIDATED RESULT

The following table provides a summary of the overall Council budget on a consolidated basis inclusive of all Funds budget movements for the 2015/2016 financial year projected to 30 June 2016 but revised as at 31 December 2015.

2015/2016 Budget Review Statement as at 31 December 2015	Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2015	Adjustments to Dec 2015 including Resolutions*	Proposed Dec 2015 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2016 at 31/12/2015
Operating Revenue	72,162,100	457,600	1,825,400	74,445,100
Operating Expenditure	78,507,400	(1,585,000)	1,708,100	78,630,500
Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(6,345,300)	2,042,600	117,300	(4,185,400)
Add: Capital Revenue	10,726,000	764,100	(4,433,800)	7,056,300
Change in Net Assets	4,380,700	2,806,700	(4,316,500)	2,870,900
Add: Non Cash Expenses	14,586,500	(2,071,400)	0	12,515,100
Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	4,100,000	0	1,040,700	5,140,700
Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(43,048,100)	(2,622,000)	8,298,700	(37,371,400)
Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(19,980,900)	(1,886,700)	5,022,900	(16,844,700)
Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(19,980,900)	(1,886,700)	5,022,900	(16,844,700)
Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Working Funds	0	0	0	0

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

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 31 December 2015:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2015	$919,100
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	0
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	0
September Review	0
Council Resolutions October – December Quarter	0
Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)	0
Forecast Working Funds Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2016	0
Estimated Working Funds Closing Balance – 30 June 2016	$919,100

The General Fund financial position has had no movement (including budget movements) as a result of this budget review. The proposed budget changes that have overall not impacted on this result have been highlighted in Attachment 1 and summarised further in this report below.

Council Resolutions

There were no Council resolutions during the October to December 2015 quarter that impacted the overall 2015/2016 budget result.

Budget Adjustments

The budget adjustments identified in Attachments 1 and 2 for the General Fund have been summarised by Budget Directorate in the following table:

Budget Directorate	Revenue Increase/ (Decrease) $	Expenditure Increase/ (Decrease) $	Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) Increase/ (Decrease) $
Organisation Development	0	0	0
Corporate & Community Services	4,900	49,500	(44,600)
Infrastructure Services	(3,095,400)	(3,002,200)	(93,200)
Sustainable Environment & Economy	264,900	127,100	137,800
Total Budget Movements	(2,825,600)	(2,825,600)	0

Budget Adjustment Comments

Within each of the Budget Directorates of the General Fund, are a series of budget adjustments identified in detail at Attachment 1 and 2. More detailed notes on these are provided in Attachment 1 but in summary the major additional items included are summarised below by Division and are included in the overall budget adjustments table above:

Corporate and Community Services

· In the Information Services Program there are proposed budget adjustments for various maintenance and licences budget items. These adjustments are to bring the budgets into line with expected actual expenditure. Savings of $21,400 can be realised with these recommended this be moved to the IT Strategic Plan to assist in funding recommended actions.

· In the Governance Services Program it is proposed to increase operating income by $4,900 for document preparation fees for the Periwinkle pre school lease and operating expenditure by $15,800 to undertake a review of the Organisation Development Directorate structure via an external consultancy. This cost is allocated through support services and has no net effect on the overall budget result.

· In the Community Development Program, it is proposed to create a Volunteers budget of $5,000. This is currently situated in the Economic Development program. It is also proposed to increase expenditure by $38,900 for Section 356 donations used for the Periwinkle pre-school.

Infrastructure Services

· In the Asset Management program it is proposed to make budget adjustments for the sale of the Roundhouse sub-division. Budget provision is required to account for agents commission and to increase the capital income budget to reflect the sale proceeds after accounting for the GST applicable. The difference between the increased budgeted sale proceeds and agents commission expenditure is to be transferred to the Infrastructure Renewal reserve.

· In the Emergency Services program it is proposed to increase income and expenditure by $63,000 due to a portion of costs for the Rural Fire Service (RFS) being allocated to Ballina and Tweed RFS for reimbursement. The Belongil Floodplain Management Study has also been completed. This was to be funded by a $30,000 grant and $15,000 revenue. It is proposed to move the revenue funded component to the Brunswick River Flood Warning Telemetry for an additional water level gauge and telemetry to the Bureau of Meteorology website.

· In the Local Roads and Drainage program, there are a significant number of adjustments outlined under Note 10 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the second page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Local Roads and Bridges.

· In the Roads and Maritime Services program (RMS) it is proposed to increase operating income and expenditure by $1,488,200 to bring the budget for various natural disaster works into line with approved funding from the Roads & Maritime Service (RMS).It is proposed to increase capital works for additional costs on Tweed Valley Way by $91,300. This can be funded from an unexpended grant Council received upon handover of the old Pacific Highway in 2009.

· In the Open Space and Recreation program, it is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $29,100 due to an amount of $11,500 being transferred to the NSW Crown Holiday Trust for revenue sharing for activities held at Wategos and Clarkes Beach (funded from the Crown reserve) and an increase to the Brunswick Heads sports fields for $17,600. The increase to the sports fields is offset by a reduction in the Brunswick Heads Boat Ramp - Pontoon works which came in under budget and were originally funded via a budget transfer from the sports fields.

· In the Waste & Recycling program it is anticipated that no further income will be received in the sale of scrap metal due to the fall in price, therefore it is proposed to move a budget of $61,000 from 1811.3 to the domestic waste management charge that is over budget. Capital Expenditure decreased by $197,000 as it is anticipated that EPS Recycling, ($40,000), Cardboard Recycling ($45,000), Resource Recovery Centre Master plan ($82,000) and Public Place Recycling Enclosures ($30,000) will not be undertaken until 2016-2017.

· In the First Sun Holiday Park program, it is proposed to decrease the capital works budget by $280,000 as it is anticipated works will not be complete in 2015/16. These works are funded through the Holiday Park reserve.

· In the Suffolk Park Holiday Park program, it is proposed to decrease the capital works budget by $350,000 as it is anticipated works will not be complete in 2015/16. These works are funded through the Holiday Park reserve.

· In the Cavanbah Centre program, it is proposed to increase operating income and expenditure by $25,000 to reflect actual sales and costs of food and beverages. It is also proposed to remove the external door for the commercial kitchen capital works as this will not be completed in 2015/16.

· In the Facilities Management program operating expenditure increased due to unforeseen expenditure on the filtration system and filter pumps at Mullumbimby pool that required urgent repairs ($25,000), funded from the Property Reserve. A budget is also required for the 70-90 Station Street Sub Division Investigation ($16,100) to reflect actual costs, funded from the Property Development Reserve. Capital works decreased largely due to the upgrade of Suffolk Park Hall ($300,000) not being completed this financial year and Byron Bay Library ($250,000).

Sustainable Environment and Economy

· Additional revenue is occurring in the Development & Certification Program due to increased development activity. There is also additional expenditure associated with temporary staff resourcing to complete these applications.

· In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Program, the budget is to be amended for increased expenditure for the CZMP, funded through an unexpended grant, and an increase to a Place Activation Plan for Mullumbimby and Bangalow funded from savings in the Development and Certification program.

· In the Economic Development program it is proposed to add a budget of $12,500 to enable Council to have data analysed via a consultancy (ID Profile). The data analysis will assist Council when submitting grant applications by highlighting the need for support in the Shire. It is proposed to fund this from the General Manager’s reserve.

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2014/2015 Financial Statements the Accumulated Surplus (Working Fund) balance for the Water Fund, as at 30 June 2015, is $1,968,400 with capital works reserves of $2,577,900. It also held $10,817,600 in section 64 developer contributions at this time.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2016, and forecast in this Quarter Budget Review, are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$2,577,900
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,130,200
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(1,445,400)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(2,200)
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	21,300
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	210,900
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	(85,200)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$2,492,700

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$10,817,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	(3,779,000)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(226,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	6,000
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(500,000)
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,000,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	(3,499,500)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$7,318,100

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $1,210,900 from the 31 December 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2014/2015 Financial Statements the Accumulated Surplus (Working Fund) balance for the Sewer Fund, as at 30 June 2015, was $1,776,500 with capital works reserves of $4,681,300 and plant reserve of $785,100. It also held $6,228,000 in section 64 developer contributions.

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$4,681,300
Plus original budget reserve movement	2,189,700
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(125,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(3,900)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(1,107,300)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	953,000
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$5,634,300

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$785,100
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	0
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	0
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$785,100

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$6,228,000
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,853,600)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2014/2015	(1,803,500)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(500,000)
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	2,681,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2015/2016 – Increase / (Decrease)	(1,476,100)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2016	$4,751,900

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $1,573,700 from the 31 December 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

Legal Expenses

One of the major financial concerns for Council over previous years has been legal expenses. Not only does this item represent a large expenditure item funded by rate income, but is also susceptible to large fluctuations.

The table that follows indicates the allocated budget and actual legal expenditure within Council on

a fund basis as at 31 December 2015.

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 31 December 2015

Program	2015/2016 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	0	900	0%
Total Income	0	360	0%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	200,000	69,495	34%
Total Expenditure General Fund	200,000	69,495	34%

Note: The above table does not include costs incurred by Council in proceedings after 31 December 2015 or billed after this date.

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

Legal Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2015	$779,100
Less Belongil Bridge Pile Repairs (44217 - Original Budget)	(200,000)
Less Road Reconstruction Works (Various – Original Budget)	(230,000)
Estimated Reserve Balance at as at 31 December 2015	$349,100

Financial Implications

The 31 December 2015 Quarter Budget Review of the 2015/2016 Budget has not changed the overall budget result and as such this result does not affect the estimated accumulated surplus (working funds) position attributable to the General Fund, with this remaining at an estimated $919,100 at 30 June 2016.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

This report indicates that the short term financial position of the Council is satisfactory for the 2015/2016 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 31 December 2015 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) position and that the current indicative budget position for 2015/2016 is maintained in this Budget Review. Notwithstanding this, Council will need to continue to carefully monitor the 2015/2016 budget over the remainder of the financial year.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.2

Report No. 13.2 Council Investments January 2016

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2016/27

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the month of January 2016 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 January 2016 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for January 2016, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. The average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of January is 2.30%. Council’s performance for the month of January is 2.93%. Councils’ 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

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 31 January 2016:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 January 2016

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	Type	Interest Rate Per Annum	Current Value
20/06/12	500,000	HERITAGE BANK LTD BONDS	N	BBB+	20/06/17	B	7.25%	524,400.00
04/01/16	1,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD (Previously Wide Bay)	P	BBB	04/04/16	TD	2.95%	1,000,000.00
09/12/15	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	08/02/16	TD	2.78%	2,000,000.00
04/12/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/03/16	TD	2.96%	2,000,000.00
04/01/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/04/16	TD	3.05%	2,000,000.00
08/01/16	2,000,000	BANKWEST	P	A1+	08/04/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
04/11/15	1,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	02/02/16	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
12/11/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/02/16	TD	2.86%	2,000,000.00
23/11/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	22/02/15	TD	2.88%	2,000,000.00
07/12/15	2,000,000	SUNCORP	P	A+	05/04/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
04/01/16	2,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD (Previously Wide Bay)	N	BBB	04/04/16	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
29/09/15	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	P	A2	24/02/16	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
02/10/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/02/16	TD	2.98%	2,000,000.00
02/11/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	01/02/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
14/01/16	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	14/04/16	TD	3.07%	1,000,000.00
07/09/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/03/16	TD	2.93%	1,000,000.00
09/12/15	2,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	08/03/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
09/11/15	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/02/16	TD	2.85%	1,000,000.00
13/05/15	1,000,000	MACQUARIE BANK	P	A1	08/02/16	TD	3.00%	1,000,000.00
14/12/15	3,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	14/03/16	TD	3.05%	3,000,000.00
24/12/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	24/03/16	TD	3.04%	2,000,000.00
02/11/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	01/02/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
02/11/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	01/02/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
09/11/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/02/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
04/11/15	3,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	02/02/16	TD	2.85%	3,000,000.00
05/11/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/02/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
20/11/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	19/02/16	TD	2.88%	2,000,000.00
26/11/15	3,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	26/02/16	TD	2.90%	3,000,000.00
31/08/15	2,000,000	AMP BANK	N	A	29/02/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
03/09/15	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	01/02/16	TD	2.88%	2,000,000.00
06/01/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/04/16	TD	3.04%	2,000,000.00
08/09/15	2,000,000	SUNCORP	N	A+	05/02/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
08/10/15	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	P	A2	07/04/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
27/01/16	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	26/04/16	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
09/11/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	08/02/16	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
10/11/15	2,000,000	ING BANK (Australia)	N	A2	10/05/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
10/11/15	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	N	A2	10/05/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
12/11/15	2,000,000	ING BANK (Australia)	N	A2	12/05/16	TD	2.90%	2,000,000.00
25/11/15	1,000,000	BANKWEST	N	A1+	23/02/16	TD	3.00%	1,000,000.00
01/12/15	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	01/03/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
03/12/15	2,000,000	SUNCORP	N	A+	01/04/16	TD	3.00%	2,000,000.00
N/A	1,846,355	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	1.80%	1,846,354.92
Total	78,346,355					AVG	2.93%	78,370,754.92

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
	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. 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.

For the month of January 2016, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type. It illustrates the current fair value of investments has decreased since December 2015 by $11,850, but overall is still demonstrating a cumulative unrealised gain of $24,400.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 January 2016

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
76,000,000.00	Term Deposits	76,000,000.00	0.00
1,846,354.92	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	1,846,354.92	0.00
500,000.00	Bonds	524,400.00	24,400.00
78,346,354.92		78,370,754.92	24,400.00

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 1 January 2016 to 31 January 2016 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 January 2016 to 31 January 2016

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Closing Balance at 31 December 2015	77,080,217.53
Add: New Investments Purchased	12,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	2,000,000.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	2,387.39
Less: Investments Matured	12,000,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	700,000.00
Less: Fair Value Movement for period	11,850.00
Closing Balance at 31 January 2016	78,370,754.92

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 January 2016 to 31 January 2016

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
1,000,000.00	Auswide Bank Ltd	TD	04/01/16	90	2.75%	6,780.82
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	04/01/16	123	2.88%	19,410.41
2,000,000.00	Auswide Bank Ltd	TD	04/01/16	90	2.75%	13,561.64
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	06/01/16	121	2.90%	19,227.40
2,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	08/01/16	92	2.85%	14,367.12
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	14/01/16	90	2.92%	7,200.00
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	27/01/16	90	2.85%	14,054.79
12,000,000.00						94,602.18

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 January 2016 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 January 2016

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	76,000,000.00	76,000,000.00	0.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	1,846,354.92	1,846,354.92	0.00
Bonds	500,000.00	524,400.00	24,400.00
Total Investment Portfolio	78,346,354.92	78,370,754.92	24,400.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	710,055.04	710,055.04	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	710,055.04	710,055.04	0.00

Total Cash Position	79,056,409.96	79,080,809.96	24,400.00

Financial Implications

Council uses a diversified mix of investments to achieve short, medium and long-term results.

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.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 8 October 2015 resolved through resolution 15-515 to insert a new objective into its adopted Investment Policy, which gives a third tier consideration by Council to Environmental and Socially Responsible Investments, when making investment decisions.

Specifically, resolution 15-515 required the following new objective to be inserted in Council’s Investment Policy:

“1.3 Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investments

Council gives preference to finance institutions that invest in or finance Environmentally and

Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) where:

i) The investment is compliant with legislation and investment policy objectives and

parameters; and

ii) The rate of return is favourable relative to comparable investments on offer to Council

at the time of investment

SRI status may be in respect of the individual investment, the issuer of the investment, or

both and should be endorsed by an accredited environmentally and socially responsible

industry body or institution.

Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investments will be assessed on the same basis

as other investment opportunities and the Council will select the investment that best meets

its overall investment selection criteria.

The Council’s criteria relating to an SRI are those which:

• direct investment towards the socially and environmentally productive activities listed

below

• avoid investment in the socially and environmentally harmful activities listed below.

The criteria for SRI are all desirable and not mandatory requirements.

Environmentally productive activities are considered to be:

• resource efficiency-especially water and energy

• renewable energy

• production of environmentally friendly products

• recycling, and waste and emissions reduction

Socially productive activities are considered to be:

• fair trade and provision of a living wage

• human health and aged care

• equal opportunity employers, and those that support the values of communities,

indigenous peoples and minorities

• provision of housing, especially affordable housing

Environmentally harmful activities are considered to be:

• production of pollutants, toxins and greenhouse gases

• habitat destruction, especially destruction of forests and marine eco-systems.

• nuclear power

• uranium mining

• coal seam gas mining

• production or supply of armaments

Socially harmful activities are considered to be:

• abuse of Human Rights and Labour Rights

• involvement in bribery/corruption

• production or supply of armaments

• manufacture of alcohol, tobacco or gambling products”

A review of Council’s current investment portfolio has been undertaken to assess, in the absence of an Industry register of authorised deposit taking institutions that are committed to Environmentally and Socially Responsible lending and investing, the current extent that Council’s Investment Portfolio meets the objectives, as amended by resolution 15-515, noting that the number of the investments held were made prior to 8 October 2015. Staff have assessed that the investment funds held as at 31 January 2015, complied with Part 1 of Resolution 15-515 and the amended Policy Objectives, at the time the investment was made.

Part 1 of Resolution 15-515 being that

“That Council give preference to finance institutions that invest in or finance Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investments where:

i) The investment is compliant with legislation and investment policy objectives and parameters; and

ii) The rate of return is favourable relative to comparable investments on offer to Council at the time of investment.”

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Submission NSW Coastal Reforms

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Catherine Knight, Coastal Officer

File No: I2016/29

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

On 13 November 2015, the state government released a comprehensive package of draft reforms to the coastal management framework in NSW. Three sets of documents have been released for public comment: a draft Coastal Management Bill, an Explanation of Intended Effect for a proposed new Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), and key elements of a draft coastal management manual.

Submissions on the reform package have been invited and are due on 29 February 2016. Staff are preparing a cross-divisional submission, and have prepared an overview of general matters to be included.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the contents of this report and that a staff submission on the NSW coastal reforms package will be made and that Councillors and the members of the public can make submissions.

Report

On 13 November 2015, the state government released a draft package of reforms to the coastal management framework in NSW. The proposed reforms are extensive with three main components:

1. Draft Coastal Management Bill;

2. Explanation of Intended Effect for the proposed new Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP);

3. Key elements of a draft coastal management manual:

Part A: Mandatory requirements and essential elements for the preparation of a coastal management program

Part B, Stage 1 – Scoping a Coastal Management Program

Part B, Stage 2 – Detailed studies of vulnerabilities and opportunities

Part B, Stage 3 – Response identification and evaluation

Part B, Stage 4 – Preparing, exhibiting, finalising, certifying and adopting the CMP

Part B, Stage 5 – Implementing, monitoring, evaluating and reporting

Further information on the reforms may be accessed at:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/coasts/coastreforms.htm

Staff attended a state government information session on 25 November 2015. Submissions on the reforms have been invited and are due on 29 February 2016. Staff are preparing a submission however as a result of the short timeframe remaining, the finalised document will not be tabled for Council’s consideration. General matters to be canvassed in the submission are summarised below.

Staff participated in a Local Government NSW (LG NSW) teleconference on 9 February 2016 where the reforms were discussed from a state-wide, local government perspective. The LG NSW will also be making a submission on the reforms.

A staff submission on the NSW coastal reforms package is currently being prepared, that will include but not be limited to the general matters canvassed in this report.

Councillors and the general public may also wish to make a submission. For further information, refer to the Office of Environment and Heritage web page, at:

https://engage.environment.nsw.gov.au/our-future-on-the-coast-reform-of-the-coastal-management-framework-in-nsw

General matters to be canvassed in the submission

1. Draft Coastal Management Bill 2015 (draft Bill)

i) The commencement date of the proposed Coastal Management Act should be clarified as this has implications for transitional arrangements regarding CZMPs currently under preparation.

ii) The spatial maps for the four coastal management areas are not available; council reserves the right to provide further comment when the maps are released for consultation, noting that:

- The draft bill (and other documentation) does not provide information on the key parameters which define each management area, for example, the ‘coastal vulnerability’ area is undefined in terms of planning timeframe, sea level rise benchmark, hazard(s) being mapped, and probability and/or severity of hazard(s). This information is required to gain an understanding of whether or not this element of the reforms is robust and ‘reasonable’.

- From the broad definitions in the draft Bill many locations are likely to be subject to overlapping management areas, the hierarchical nature of the management objectives seems logical however it is difficult to comment further without the maps being available.

- Updated mapping for SEPP 14 Wetlands and SEPP 26 Littoral rainforest areas is urgently needed. Mapping should be reviewed, ground truthed and properly digitised with cadastre at an appropriate scale to enable accurate transfer into Council GIS mapping.

- It would be preferable that the state-wide mapping provides the resolution and accuracy required for mapping coastal vulnerability areas, ensuring a consistent approach to coastal hazard and vulnerability definition across the state. Notwithstanding this, the process for councils to identify coastal management areas by amending the Coastal Management SEPP needs to be clarified and should allow for councils to use studies and reports prepared under the current coastal management regime.

iii) Under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 (CP Act), a coastal zone management plan (CZMP) can not be repealed unless it is replaced with another CZMP. Under the draft Bill, a coastal management program (CMP) can be repealed, following a review. The ‘manual’ needs to clarify the process for reviewing a CMP, and should ensure that the review and repeal process is open and transparent. In addition, the consequences in the event of a repeal of a CMP should be clarified, particularly with respect to ‘hot spot’ areas under Ministerial directions to prepare CZMPs.

iv) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), Section 80 A consent conditions require further analysis and amendment to achieve objectives concerning private lands.

v) Local Government Act 1993, Section 733 provisions require a number of amendments to ensure that the legislative reforms do not diminish or unintentionally impact the indemnities.

vi) The relationship of CMPs to the IP&R framework, including the alignment of reporting and financial processes, requires further clarification.

vii) Transitional arrangements should apply to those councils who have substantially progressed the preparation of a CZMP in accordance with the current framework, but who may not have met the requirement of submitting their draft CZMP to the Minister for certification by the CP Act repeal date. The 6 month sunset clause on the transitional arrangements, as well as the 2021 sunset clause on CZMPs certified under the savings provisions should be reconsidered and CZMPs under the transitional arrangements should have the same status as CMPs.

viii) The NSW Coastal Council audit function should apply to other agencies who have agreed to undertake actions in the CMP and there should be greater emphasis in the legislation concerning the roles and responsibilities of state agencies in coastal zone management.

ix) Compliance functions associated with coastal management have been moved into the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and this has some merit, however council officers are unlikely to have the specialist expertise to carry out orders relating to the coastal zone, this function should be carried out by officers from the relevant state government authority.

2. Explanation of Intended Effect for the proposed new Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (draft SEPP)

i) Council reserves the right to provide further comment when the draft SEPP and spatial mapping are released for consultation.

ii) Above comments regarding the spatial mapping of coastal management areas also apply to the draft SEPP. Noting also that the 10 year review period for spatial mapping is supported, but should also be triggered if significant new information becomes available.

iii) There are pros and cons to placing all of the planning controls in the SEPP and removing the Local Environment Plan (LEP) standard clause 5.5. Development controls in the SEPP are likely to provide for greater, state wide consistency. However LEPs are the first point of reference for the general public. Notwithstanding this, councils should have the ability to provide additional local provisions in their LEPs in relation to development within coastal management areas e.g. residential development in a coastal erosion area.

iv) The 100 metre wetland buffer seems reasonable and the associated controls seem appropriate to manage edge effects and allow for fluctuations in extent.

v) Where property boundaries are defined by property survey (i.e. fixed), it is unclear how the ambulatory dynamic controls would apply in terms of beach access and ownership, location of development etc.

vi) It is noted that the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) will become the consent authority for coastal protection works (CPW) where no CMP currently applies or where CPW are not identified in the CMP. It will be important that the JRPP is comprised of the appropriate expertise to consider such applications, as reflected in amendments to the EP&A Act.

vii) Removal of sandbags for emergency CPWs within 30 days of placement may not always be physically possible, noting that erosion events often occur as a series or succession of events. It may take some months before an erosive phase is over and it is safe to remove emergency CPWs, this should be reflected in the relevant SEPP provisions. Rather than unilateral fixed timeframes, management of emergency CPWs could be addressed in CMPs to ensure that the requirements address local conditions and community expectations.

viii) In general, the development controls proposed for each coastal management area appear reasonable.

3. Key elements of draft NSW Coastal Management Manual (draft manual) – Please note that this section only contains an overview of general matters arising from the ‘An introduction to the NSW Coastal Management Manual’ and ‘Part A Mandatory requirements and essential elements for the preparation of a coastal management program’ components of the draft manual, due to time constraints.

i) To avoid confusion it important that the manual contains only genuine ‘mandatory requirements’ for preparing a CMP, whereas the current draft contains two sections one being ‘Mandatory Requirements’ and the other being discretionary considerations titled ‘Essential Elements’.

ii) The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is afforded a number of opportunities for review in the staged process set out, as well as the NSW Coastal Council (NSWCC) at stage 1 and 4. It is unclear in the manual what weight councils should put on the advice received, particularly if advice from the two organisations is contradictory. OEH/NSWCC need to guarantee adherence to Council review timeframes, and there should be ‘stop the clock’ provisions on Ministerial Directions, so that the time taken by the multiple reviews by OEH/NSWCC is deducted from the time period the Minister has granted for preparation of a CMP. A clear and consistent process for reviews should be developed, ensuring that councils receive 1 set of non-contradictory comments from each organisation.

iii) The manual requires clarification in terms of coastal hazard definition, and staff will reserve the right to provide further comment when the relevant maps and guidance material under Part C are released for consultation. The state government moved away from sea level rise benchmarks in the stage 1 reforms and the material currently available is vague in terms of setting planning horizons, and the appropriate ‘design storm’ for coastal hazard definition. As per the draft Bill comments, coastal hazard definition should be state-wide and consistent, and although councils should have the ability to amend maps, the legislative framework should not rely on councils setting key parameters and/or producing finer resolution coastal vulnerability mapping.

iv) The relationship of CMPs to the IP&R framework, including the review requirements of a CMP, requires further clarification.

v) The criteria for councils to ‘fast track’ through the CMP preparation process needs to be better defined and documented and should be consistent throughout all guidance materials. It should allow councils to fast track the process where significant studies and investigations have already been undertaken under former frameworks; and it is important that the ‘good faith’ provisions under the LG Act continue to apply to all processes, including any ‘fast track’ process.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications directly associated with the submission. The financial implications associated with the proposed new framework have not yet been investigated and will be reported if and when the need arises.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

General statutory and policy compliance implications are detailed in the main body of this report.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Byron Bay Town Centre DRAFT Masterplan Exhibition

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Jane Laverty, Economic Development and Tourism Coordinator

File No: I2016/34

Theme: Economy

Economic Development

Summary:

The Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan, proposed for exhibition, has been provided to Council by consultants McGregor Coxall following approximately 14 months of development.

The community consultation for the development of the draft Masterplan has been extensive and inclusive with high levels of participation in community workshops, site tours and online surveys throughout the development phases.

The Draft Masterplan is a reflection of the input and contributions of the Byron Shire community. The development of the Draft to date has also involved consultation and guidance from Councillors and support from staff in relation to some technical areas.

The Masterplan covers a site area of 100 hectares and provides strategies across a holistic framework of Place Vitality Criteria for 12 Precincts as well as a short and long term action program for 6 of the Precincts that have been identified as Catalyst Sites.

This report highlights the process and stages of the Masterplan development, suggested key planning priorities and suggested project priorities proposed for commencement in 2016 as well as areas for consideration in the implementation of the Masterplan. The report also provides the proposed final exhibition program for the Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan, between Thursday 3 March and Thursday 31 March.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan be placed on final public exhibition from Thursday 3 March to Thursday 31 March as per the exhibition program detailed within the report.

2. That submissions received during the exhibition period be considered as part of a Councillor workshop to inform the final Masterplan.

3. That the final Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan be reported to Council for adoption.

Attachments:

1 Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan, E2016/9584

Report

Background and process

Byron Shire Council appointed consultants McGregor Coxall in September 2014 to develop the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan (BBTCM). The project scope highlighted the need for improved placemaking, feelings of safety and connectedness in the town centre and the desire for a holistic approach to the masterplan development that would ensure high levels of community input.

The BBTCM was launched with a pilot activation project, Bay Lane Activation in October 2014 along with a series of workshops to establish the community’s Big Ideas for the Town Centre. The project website www.byronbayourplan.com.au, a primary communication tool, was also initiated to provide project updates and to stimulate community conversations about the big ideas and to raise any issues for the Consultant’s consideration.

To guide the project, and work closely with the Consultants, a community representation group known as the Bounce Group was established. In addition Councillors and a staff Internal Working Group provided milestone feedback and progression through project hold points.

During the development phases several reports and documents were published. The Project Understanding Report detailed the history of the town centre and provided an assessment of the Town Centre through the view of a set Place Vitality Criteria Framework.

Place Vitality Criteria Framework

Presentations and workshops on the Place Vitality Criteria and Place Principles were held with the community and key groups such as the business sector, landholders and youth. Significant issues were raised in relation to traffic, amenities (such as public toilets) and planning policy. The Place Vitality Criteria was also promoted to the community more broadly with an online campaign through the project website.

In June 2015, 6 catalyst sites were identified as critical focal points of the Masterplan and along with the Place Vitality Criteria and Place Principles formed the basis of a series of community workshop sessions, catalyst site tours and a perspectives conversation (including Bounce Group members, Councillors, staff and other community members).

Catalyst Sites

1. Butler Street & Railway Square Interchange

2. Lawson Street Car Park

3. Main Beach

4. Bay Lane

5. Sandhills Community Hub

6. Byron Recreation Ground

In September 2015, McGregor Coxall undertook a charrette workshop with the Bounce Group, some staff and councillors to garner further feedback on the catalyst site concepts and proposed short and long term projects. At this session McGregor Coxall also presented the draft Delivery Framework (including a broad discussion on governance) which has subsequently been further developed into the Draft Masterplan.

The Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan document

The Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Vision statement is -

“Connect the Centre of Byron Bay with the Spirit of its Community”

The Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan focuses on a site area of 100 hectares divided into 12 precincts that reflect the varying identify and character of the town centre. Key strategies for the precincts are delivered through the holistic framework of Place Vitality Criteria and a short and long term action program for 6 of the Precincts identified as Catalyst Sites. The Plan also includes a delivery framework to guide governance and implementation.

Highlights of the Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan

The Place Vitality Criteria and Place Principle strategies seek to deliver:

§ A people prioritised Town Centre that supports and integrates alternate modes of transport. People are to be prioritised within the centre as the key component of a vital town centre.

§ An open space circuit that enhances open spaces and strengthens the walking links between our parks, foreshore and open spaces, and encourages activities that engage all demographics, especially youth and older residents.

§ A biodiverse village environment that highlights Byron Street as a crucial link from Butler Street Reserve to Sandhills Estate and encourages resilient and sustainable natural environments.

§ An historically revealing town centre that celebrates the Bay’s eclectic community vibe – and enhances the town centre as a canvas for creativity that reflects both our unique indigenous and European history.

§ A strengthened Village Heart that encourages a multi-functional economy that supports local business, local living and local development opportunities for the betterment of the town centre.

§ A varied and defined Centre designed to preserve Byron Bay’s eclectic village character thorough establishing a harmonious balance between building heights, high quality design and public domain definition.

The Catalyst Site projects seek to:

§ Provide the critical infrastructure to unlock the local potential of the town centre

§ Create arrival points that facilitate the diverse needs of the local and visitor community

§ Enhance Main Beach with seamless connection between Apex Park, Peace Park, Denning Park and Foreshore Park

§ Re-imagine spaces to cater for new creative businesses, residential living and local retailing

§ Create inter-generational zones that are sensitively integrated into the open spaces

§ Redevelop the Surf Lifesaving Club as a new modern facility strengthening our natural assets

§ Create shared zones with pedestrian friendly environments and activated underutilised spaces

§ Establish local community destinations, including a refurbished youth centre and reorientated library

§ Position the Byron Recreation Ground as a secondary local sporting, recreational and community resource used for a range of compatible activities for all ages, but with a focus on children and youth

Planning and Project Priorities proposed in the draft Masterplan

The draft Masterplan identifies a number of proposed planning priorities including:

1. The establishment of the Byron Bay Our Future Leadership Team, as part of the Governance Model, to ensure the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan remains a living document and delivers on the strategies and outcomes proposed

2. Preparation of the Byron Bay Development Control Plan to facilitate best practice built form

3. Amendment of the Local Environment Plan (LEP) to reflect the outcomes of the BBTCM

4. Preparation of a detailed access and movement study and strategy with traffic modelling to guide critical decision making that will deliver on key strategies.

5. Implementing the Byron Bay Facilities Asset Management Plan with a focus on public amenities

These planning priorities will need to be considered by Council and staff as part of preparation of 2016/2017 Budget and Operational Plan, together with existing planning and infrastructure management commitments. This will be discussed in the upcoming reports to Council on the 2016/2017 Integrated Planning and Reporting documents.

The draft Masterplan also identifies a number of priority projects including:

§ A range of activation trials

§ Surface level car park on Butler Street Reserve

§ Dune and creek rehabilitation

§ Community amenity and recreation improvement works and

§ Traffic studies

These proposed priority projects are mostly immediate actions which have been identified for commencement in 2016 as they are either included in current budgets, under consideration for FY16/17 budgets or because they have been identified as a low cost or as having capacity to attract external investment or community crowd funding to progress quickly.

Considerations of note for Council and the Community

Funding the implementation of the Masterplan

Council is currently undertaking its forward planning budget review for FY16/17. Council will have the opportunity to consider the proposed planning and project priorities in the Draft Masterplan as part of this activity. Given the parallel process to the exhibition of the Draft Masterplan, staff will provide a report to Council within the budget review process which specifically identifies those items and opportunities relating to the Masterplan.

Councillors and staff, in consultation with the governance group, will need to develop funding proposals or identify partnership opportunities to resource some of the short and the long term strategies and projects detailed within the Draft Masterplan.

Attracting investment is a key component of the Masterplan implementation and will feature in ongoing engagement, communications and partnership development activities.

Government Agency Partnerships

Council staff have been liaising with Government Agencies in relation to land tenure and infrastructure development in the town centre. Partnerships and collaboration with key Government Agencies will be required to implement some areas of the Masterplan. This needs to be considered where reference is made to any strategies and projects in the draft Masterplan involving parties and decisions outside of Council’s control. Meetings with key stakeholders (e.g. Crown Lands, Transport for NSW and John Holland) will also be undertaken during the exhibition period and continued through implementation of the plan.

Traffic Management Study

The undertaking of a detailed traffic management study is proposed as a planning priority in the Draft Masterplan and it is recognised as an important enabler to the implementation of the key strategies and projects within the Masterplan.

The comprehensive traffic management study (referred to in the draft Masterplan as an Access and Movement Study) is required to review town centre traffic, pedestrian and cyclist movements to assist in the prioritisation of future staging of works and the integration of the catalyst sites. Timing of the further studies to capture data from the recent and currently proposed parking and traffic projects will be important. Studies may consist of a number of cumulative reviews for example reviews undertaken during activation trials, pending the proposed Access and Movement Study and Strategy.

Governance model

The Draft Masterplan Delivery Framework provides a high level Governance Model, identified in the proposed planning priorities as the establishment of the Byron Bay Our Future Leadership Team.

As a transition to the development and endorsement of a detailed Governance Model staff propose that the Bounce Group, Internal Working Group and Councillors work together to develop the terms of reference for this as part of the early stages of the implementation program activities.

Staff, in consultation with the Consultants, are working through a series of identified best practice models that can be presented and assessed by the group for best match with the proposed strategies and projects in the Masterplan and with regard to what will work best for the Byron Bay community.

Byron DCP and LEP

The Draft Masterplan proposes the development of a Byron Bay DCP and amendments to the Byron LEP. It should be noted that staff work plans are currently under review, and the need for additional resources will need to be taken into consideration by Council in terms of prioritising this work against existing Shire wide planning policy commitments.

Exhibition Program and Schedule – Thursday 3 March to Thursday 31 March

The Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Public Exhibition to be advertised in local newspapers including a community invitation to view and comment on the Byron Bay Town Centre Draft Masterplan.

Key advertisement information and engagement opportunities will include website details for download of document, location of exhibition boards and dates/times for community presentations and ‘Masterplan Conversation’ opportunities with the project Bounce Group and Council staff.

During the exhibition period:

Submissions on the Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan will be able to be made by email to bbtcm@byron.nsw.gov.au or by post to: The General Manager, PO Box 219 Mullumbimby 2482

The Draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan is available to download from the Byron Shire Council website www.byron.nsw.gov.au or go to the project website www.byronbayourplan.com.au to download the draft Masterplan, view all of the project documentation and insights and an audio visual presentation of the Masterplan from McGregor Coxall.

Draft Masterplan Exhibition Boards summarising the plan are available for viewing at the Byron Bay Library Foyer Cnr Lawson and Fletcher Street and Council offices in Station Street Mullumbimby.

A feature lift-out will be available in the 10 March edition of the Byron Shire News providing an introduction and highlights of the Masterplan (additional copies will also be available from the Byron Bay Library and Council offices)

Two Community Presentations will be held at the Byron Bay Community Centre Theatre on Thursday 17 March at 2pm and 5.30pm with Masterplan Consultants McGregor Coxall.

A stall at the Byron Bay Farmers Market will be staffed to promote the draft Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan exhibition and the opportunities available to find out more and comment on the plan.

‘Masterplan Conversation’ sessions will be held at scheduled times between Monday 21 March and Thursday 24 March as part of the Library exhibition space.

Distribution/Notification of the Draft Masterplan exhibition to key State agencies seeking their comments and meetings held where possible.

Councillor workshop to review submissions

Following the exhibition period, any submissions received will be provided to the Consultants, McGregor Coxall for review comment. The submissions and Consultant comments together with any staff comments will be provided tabled for a workshop will be held with Councillors for consideration. The workshop outcomes will inform the final Masterplan and will be reported to Council for proposed adoption.

Financial Implications

See above “Funding the implementation of the Masterplan”

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Implementation of the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan will require amendments to key Council policies and strategic plans. Programing of these together with existing strategic planning projects will be a matter for the Council.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.8

Report No. 13.8 PLANNING - 10.2014.753.1 Bluesfest - Recreation Facility (major) at Tyagarah

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Chris Larkin, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2016/47

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

DA No:	10.2014.753.1
Proposal:	Recreation Facility (major)
Property description:	LOT: 103 DP: 1023126, LOT: 104 DP: 1023126, LOT: 105 DP: 1023126 30 Tanner Lane TYAGARAH, 2 Tanner Lane TYAGARAH, 35 Yarun Road TYAGARAH
Parcel No/s:	235000, 235010, 235020
Applicant:	Geolink Consulting Pty Ltd
Owner:	East Coast Blues & Roots Music Festival Pty Ltd
Zoning:	Zone No. RU2 Rural Landscape / PART DM Deferred Matter
Date received:	15 December 2014
Integrated Development:	Yes
Public notification or exhibition:	· Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications · Exhibition period: 6/1/15 to 19/1/15 (extended till 2/2/15) · Council received 57 Submissions with 9 in general support and the remaining 48 raising objection to the proposal.
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Amenity impacts · Ecological impacts · Traffic impacts · Public submissions · Permissibility (proposed use of southeast of site) · Effluent disposal

Summary:

Development consent is sought for the permanent use of the ‘Bluesfest’ site for a range of event types and sizes, as outlined below;

· Small Events – up to 2000 people – Generally no restriction on frequency

· Medium Events – up to 15,000 people – Maximum 10 event days per annum

· Large Events – up to 25,000 people – Maximum 10 event days per annum.

The East Coast Blues and Roots Festival currently has consent to operate on the site up to the year 2020, with a maximum number of persons on site set at 21,500 (DA10.2008.352.15). According to details provided with the Development Application the use of the site for the annual East Coast Blues and Roots Festival would continue to operate in much the same manner as it does under the existing development consent (DA10.2008.352.1), and would constitute 5 of the 10 ‘large event’ days proposed by this application.

The proposal includes the provision of some permanent infrastructure for the site. Additional temporary infrastructure will be utilised as needed, depending on the nature and size of a given event. It is proposed that on-site camping areas would be provided for the ‘medium’ and ‘large’ events, with no camping to be associated with ‘small’ events.

Issues relate primarily around the potential use of the site any time of the year and how that impacts on Pacific Hwy traffic, koalas and surrounding residents. The proposal also included a Koala Plan of Management which has been approved by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). The DPE have also expressed a view that Council should also set appropriate limits on the number of events and patron numbers. The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) have also recommended that limits be placed on when events can occur in terms of peak traffic fluctuations on the highway around school and public holidays (excluding Easter). Further, as the site is not connected to reticulated sewer Council’s Policy 14/009 is a consideration, it also prevents events sites from being used on a full time basis if relying on pump out systems for managing effluent. Accordingly it is recommended that limits be placed on the number of events throughout the year and as recommended by the RMS.

The site plan also shows an area zoned Environmental Protection 7(b) Coastal Habitat being utilised for ancillary car parking associated with events. Such a use is prohibited in the zone and as such it is recommended that this area not be used as proposed and be revegetated to improve habitat for native flora and fauna.

The Development Application was accompanied by a Social Impact Assessment (SIA). The assessment describes significant economic benefits from the annual festival on the surrounding tourism based businesses. It also notes potential social and amenity impacts on residents within the Tyagarah locality. Based on the findings of the SIA, it is concluded that the social impacts of the proposed development can be adequately managed subject to conditions of consent.

Direct vehicle access is available to the site from Tanner Lane and Yarun Road. A vehicle off ramp has been provided from the southbound exit ramp of the Pacific Motorway to specifically provide access for patrons to the development site, however a roundabout (previously approved under DA 10.2008.352.1 (Annual Easter Bluesfest DA) is still to be constructed to assist with traffic management to surrounding properties including the service station. The applicants have proposed additional access lane be provided off Yarun Road onto the highway, but this has not been supported by the RMS.

On balance, the proposal is assessed as being capable of operation without significant adverse impacts. The Development Application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That pursuant to Clause 13 of State Environmental Planning Policy 44 Protection of Koala Habitat, the Revised Koala Plan of Management 2015 by Australian Wetlands Consulting and dated August 2015 be adopted and approved by Council; and

2. That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2014.753.1 for a Recreation Facility (major), be granted consent subject to the conditions in Attachment 5 (#E2016/7083).

Attachments:

1 Koala Plan of Management prepared by Australian Wetlands Consulting dated Aug 2015, E2016/7392

2 Proposed Plans - Event Area Plan, Events DA Full Site Plan - prepared by Newton Denny Chappelle & Toilet Block plans prepared by Greg Alderson & Assoc , E2016/7245

3 Various Government Agency Submissions, E2016/7235

4 Confidential - Submissions 10.2014.753.1, E2016/7608

5 Conditions of consent 10.2014.753.1, E2016/7083

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History/Background

The subject land historically has been used in part as farmland and more recently for the growing of Tea Tree.

Bluesfest Approval

Consent has been granted for the site to be used for the annual ‘Bluesfest’ event every Easter from 2010 to 2020 under DA10.2008.352.1. The consent has been amended numerous times and permits up to 21,500 people including patrons guests, performers and staff.

Buildings and Structures DA

DA10.2011.523.1, determined 8 May 2012, granted consent for the erection of a number of ‘permanent’ and ‘semi-permanent’ buildings and structures on the site for use associated with the Bluesfest annual music festival.

‘Boomerang’ Festival

DA10.2012.363.1, determined 17 May 2013, providing for an indigenous cultural event (Boomerang Festival) at the site. The event was approved to be held over the October long weekend (three event days) in 2013 and 2014. A Section 96 Application No. 10.2012.363.2, determined 18 September 2013, granted consent to modify conditions of consent relating to patron numbers, duration of event, inspection fees, stage orientation, access to Grays Lane and Occupation Certificate requirements.

‘Permanent Bluesfest’ Approval

DA10.2013.128.1, approved 8 May 2014 to hold the existing approved Bluesfest annually from 2015 (i.e. a ‘permanent’ approval). A Section 96 application 10.2013.128.2, determined 11 December 2014, sought a number of modifications of the permanent Bluesfest approval, particularly in regard to parking and camping areas. The approval was conditional upon the concurrent approvals being granted from the NSW DoPE and NSW RFS for a revised KPoM and S.100b bushfire safety authority (respectively). Due to ongoing issues with the proposed use of this area, both the NSW RFS and DoPE refused to grant their respective approvals with that area being used for camping. As such, this DA has not been commenced.

Administrative Building

DA10.2013.419.1, determined 18 October 2013, granted consent for the erection of administrative buildings for festivals. The two buildings approved by this determination were proposed to replace a two-storey administration building previously approved on the site (10.2011.523.1).

1.2 Description of the site

The subject site is located on the east side of the Pacific Highway, Tyagarah, in proximity to the Gulgan Road overpass and turnoff to Mullumbimby. The site is legally described as Lots 103, 104 and 105 DP 1023126 and ‘enclosed Crown Roads’. The site has a total area of approximately 120 hectares, as follows:

· Lot 103 - 38.68 Ha excluding Road.

· Lot 104 – 36.41 Ha excluding Road.

· Lot 105 – 39.3 Ha excluding Road.

· Crown Land – Road Reserves - approximately 5.6 Ha.

(Note: At the time of writing this report Council has been advised by NSW Trade & Investment that an application has been made to them by the operators of the site to close and purchase the Crown Roads. However, as that application has not been finalised, Crown Lands have been consulted over the proposal.)

The site extends between the Old Pacific Highway in the west and Simpsons Creek in the east, and is generally level. The site is presently occupied by the established ‘Bluesfest’ event site, which comprises of a central compacted event space, enclosed by cyclone fencing, associated water tanks and other infrastructure, compacted gravel access roads, and expansive areas of mowed, grassed paddocks used for camping and car parking during events.

The site also comprises three dwelling houses, a truck depot and various sheds and farm activity areas. It is interspersed by a number of watercourses, ultimately draining to Simpsons Creek some of which comprise corridors of native vegetation that connect to a continuous band of High Conservation Value native vegetation adjoining the eastern boundary at Simpsons Creek. Prior to its establishment as the event site for the East Coast Blues and Roots Festival, the site was a working tea tree farm and grazing pastures.

A service station and a motor vehicle sales and wrecking yard with associated managers’ residences adjoin the site's western boundary, between the site itself and the Pacific Highway interchange. Vegetated rural land with some cleared areas adjoining further to the north and rural land with a mix of cleared areas, native vegetation and pine plantation adjoins immediately to the south.

The Tyagarah Airfield occupies the land further south, extending through to Grays Lane. The airfield site includes other ancillary facilities such as associated light aircraft, skydiving and gliding activities, the Tyagarah Community Hall and the Byron Lapidary Club.

Rural land with a number of houses and a variety of agricultural activities is located on the western side of the Pacific Highway. There are no houses to the immediate east, as this land is occupied by the Tyagarah Nature Reserve.

Vehicle access is available via Tanner Lane, which runs parallel to the eastern side of the Pacific Highway. Tanner Lane accesses the highway via the adjoining highway interchange and via the Grays Lane intersection around 1.2 km to the south. The Grays Lane intersection is to be closed in the near future by the RMS as part of the continuing upgrade and duplication of the Pacific Highway.

A southbound off-ramp from the Pacific Highway, required as a condition of the original Bluesfest approval, has been constructed by the applicant and provides direct access to the northern part of the site during the ‘Bluesfest’ period.

Reticulated water supply is provided by the Rous Water retail network via a ‘special water supply connection’. Electricity and telephone services are also available. Various utility services are located within or run through the site, including a water supply line and electricity transmission lines. A number of Easement and Restrictions apply to various parts of the site, including:

· Easement for Water Pipeline 5.03 metres wide

· Right of Carriageway 6 metres Wide

· Right of Carriageway 10 metres wide

· Easement for above-ground Transmission Line 20 metres wide

· Right of Carriageway 6 wide by DP 869148

· Easement to convey water 3 metres wide

· Restriction on use – Building Envelope G lot 104.

The site is not serviced by reticulated sewer.

A significant amount of the site remains a ‘deferred matter’ under the provisions of BLEP2014 and as a result, the site remains subject to the provisions of several zones under BLEP1988, as well as the provisions of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone, under BLEP2014.

· Zone No. 1(a) – General Rural Zone.

· Zone No. 7(a) – Environmental Protection (Wetlands Zone).

· Zone No. 7(b) – Environmental Protection (Coastal Habitat Zone).

The site is identified as partly prone to bushfire, liable to flooding and contains acid sulfate soils. Parts of the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Simpsons Creek contains SEPP 14 Wetland, whilst the vegetated areas on the property provide habitat for koalas. The property also comprises an archaeologically sensitive area located close to the western boundary of the site. Conditions have been imposed on existing approvals ensuring the protection of this area. Protective fencing has been installed for all previous events and will continue to be used to protect the area.

Land use constraints/characteristics
Flood prone & low lying land	High Conservation (Flora & Fauna)
Bush fire hazards	Surrounding residential, commercial, and recreational land uses
Potential acid Sulphate soils	Archaeological sites

1.3 Description of the proposed development

The Development Application, as submitted, seeks consent for the use of the site as a ‘Community Events Facility’ comprising:

· Use of the site for a wide range of events, with the availability of ancillary camping (if required); and

· Internal car parking and temporary event infrastructure.

Events at the site are proposed to be managed in accordance with the following restrictions:

Small Event	Not more than 2,000 people	No restriction of frequency of events
Medium Event	Not more than 15,000 people	Maximum of 10 event days per annum
Large Event	Between 15,000 and 25,000 people	Maximum of 10 event days per annum

The East Coast Blues and Roots Festival (Bluesfest) is an example of a ‘large event’, whilst the Boomerang Festival is an example of a medium event. Potentially a caravan show, wedding, a theatre production would be a small event.

In order to ensure that traffic impacts can be appropriately managed, the application proposes that ‘large’ events will be restricted to multi-day only, with associated on-site camping (i.e. no one-day events with more than 15,000 patrons).

Hours of operation for the events are as follows:

Large – Gates to open at 8am Amplified Music from 10 am to 12 midnight

Medium - Gates to open at 8am Amplified Music from 10 am to 12 midnight

Small – 8 am to 12 midnight

Ancillary Camping is also proposed and the applicant has indicated area is available for up to 12,000 people.

Car parking is divided into two distinct areas to cater for traffic from the north and for traffic from the south of the site. The northern car park can accommodate 3,817 vehicles whilst the southern car park 3,670 vehicles.

Minor additional works are proposed.

2. SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT/EXTERNAL REFERRALS

NSW Rural Fire Service

The proposed development is identified as integrated development under Section 91 of the EPA Act 1979 and a bushfire safety authority is required under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, due to provisions of camping and accommodation on site. The proposal was forwarded to the NSW Rural Fire Service who has issued general terms of approval. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended.

NSW Roads and Maritime Authority

The Roads and Maritime Authority primary concern is the efficiency and safety of the Pacific Highway with Grays Lane to be closed in the future and the Gulgan Road Interchange becoming the primary access/ egress point to the Site. The highway is currently signposted at 110 km/h consistent with its motorway classification. The RMS have suggested total numbers for medium and large events be limited to 15,000 and 25,000 people respectively including patron staff and performers.

The RMS do not support events (Excluding the Annual Easter Bluesfest Event) being held on public holidays including public holiday weekends, the week before and after the Christmas/New Year Period, the period in between Christmas and New Year and when Highway road occupancy restrictions are in force (e.g. NSW and Qld School Holidays) due to the cumulative traffic impacts of the events being held in close proximity to the highway and the seasonal fluctuations in highway traffic volumes. The RMS has also indicated the need for Gulgan Road Interchange to be upgraded to cater for the day to day traffic needs of the adjacent businesses. These works have been required by previous approval for Bluesfest DA10.2008.352.1, but have yet to be constructed. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended to reflect the RMS concerns.

It is noted that at the time of writing this report, the Local Traffic Committee had not finalised their comments on the DA. Should their comments differ with the recommendations being made in this report, subsequent detail via a memo to Councillors will be provided at the time of or before the Council meeting for any amendments to conditions to be considered and included in the recommendation.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment

The subject site is identified as containing Core Koala Habitat under State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 Protection of Koala Habitat and requires a ‘Koala Plan of Management’ to be approved by the Minister for Planning. The site has been the subject of numerous KPoM’s over previous years. On 11 November 2015 the NSW DoPE wrote to Council advising of the following;

We have received from Newton Denny Chapelle by letter of 16 September 2015 a revised koala plan of management for land at Tyagarah known as the "Bluesfest" site. This plan is intended to replace the existing plan for the site approved on 3 July 2015.

I am pleased to advise that, as delegate of the Secretary and pursuant to clause 13(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 — Koala Habitat Protection, I have approved the plan dated August 2015. This revised KPoM complies with the conditions of approval dated 3 July 2015.

The applicant has been advised accordingly.

In accordance with the requirements of clauses 9(1) and 13(2) of the SEPP, the plan requires the approval of the Council before a development application on the land can be approved. Consistent with previous request regarding KPoMs for this site, Council is requested to give consideration to setting appropriate limits on the number of events and attendance at those events to prevent undue impact on the local Koala population.

In terms of limitations being placed on the site, conditions are recommended to reflect this.

To ensure compliance with the Minister’s Direction it is recommended that the KPOM is approved prior to the DA being determined by separate resolution. The recommendation reflects this.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

General advice and recommendations have been provided by OEH in relation to koalas, the adequacy of environmental offsets, endangered ecological communities (EEC), the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment and flooding. In terms of the EEC, two areas in the vegetated eastern part of the property were not originally identified as EEC by the applicants flora and fauna consultant, but this matter has been now been addressed. The OEH do not support radio tracking of koalas and conditions have been recommended in terms of less invasive monitoring. As to offsets, the OEH note that the previous approved KPOM for the site in 2014 indicated an offset of >1000 trees equating to an increase in koala habitat of 0.3ha. The current proposal includes a new KPOM with only 100 trees to be planted in the south east of the site or a 0.03ha increase in habitat. This is generally within the 7(b) Habitat Zone and the applicant is proposing that the area also be used for camping and car parking. The OEH support the current approved offsets under the old 2014 plan which is consistent with the Koala Connections Project for the Tyagarah Locality of securing and rehabilitating >4ha of Koala Habitat. They note that should the new offset plan be considered the following amendments would be appropriate:

· Increasing the stem density of plantings

· Provide for greater tree diversity and not a monoculture of trees

· Incorporating a mosaic of complete rehabilitation areas with mid and upper storey vegetation to provide greater diversity and

· Seek approval to include replanting within the road reserve in the south east portion of the site

Flooding and the need for evacuation of the site in such a rain event needs to consider the latest flood information, be updated in terms of the North Byron Coastal Creeks Flood Study when its adopted, and incorporate in the evacuation plan the original commitments from the Greg Alderson and Associates P/L Flooding and Stormwater Evacuation Plan (2008) to the installation of gauges and updates after rainfall events.

The OEH also recommend that Council notify the applicant that development approval does not absolve any responsibilities under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and matters listed in Section 9 of the Heritage Assessment are being adhered to. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended in relation to OEH issues.

Crown Lands

Several Crown road reserves are enclosed by the site. Previous development applications for the ‘Bluesfest’ site were referred to the Office of Crown Lands who stipulated certain conditions with regard to the Crown Roads. At the time of writing this report the subject Crown roads were the subject of an ongoing application for their closure and purchase by the landowners. As this transfer of land has not been finalised, the Office of Crown Lands has recommended appropriate conditions to protect their asset as follows:

The proponent may not:

· encroach upon the Crown road,

· remove any vegetation from the Crown road,

· stockpile materials, equipment or machinery on the Crown road,

· direct stormwater discharges to the Crown road, or

· use the Crown road as Asset Protection Zone.

NSW Police

The proposal was forwarded to the NSW Police for comments and consideration considering public safety and crime prevention measures. The Police provided Council with comments that the site represented a medium crime risk and have made various recommendations in terms of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) to reduce opportunities for crime and to provide for a safe environment for festival goers.

Potential Choke Point on existing access to southern entrance

Second crossing requested by NSW Police in this general location

Of note is the recommendation for a second pedestrian bridge to the west of the existing access roads which feeds into the southern entry point. The existing access in this location serves vehicles and pedestrians and Police have advised that in the event of an emergency this could become a major choke point with a high risk of pedestrian injury. The Police note that previous attempts at festivals to resolve this issue have had very limited success. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended in terms of surveillance, lighting, territorial enforcement and access control (including the new pedestrian bridge).

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	Proposed	Complies
SEPP 14 Wetlands	The property contains an area of SEPP 14 Wetland adjacent to Simpsons Creek (blue hatched area in map below). The event area including camping and car parking is situated a minimum of 100 metres to the west of the wetland and is unlikely to have any impact on the wetland area. Conditions of consent recommended to prevent patrons entering these wetland and vegetated areas.	Yes
SEPP 21 – Caravan Parks	The short term use of the site as a camping ground brings up the SEPP provisions. The SEPP is more focused and aimed at permanent caravan parks. It is considered the short term use of the site for overnight camping does not offend the provisions of the SEPP. Conditions to apply in relation to its limited use.	Yes
SEPP 44 Protection of Koala Habitat	The property contains koala habitat and a Koala Plan of Management has been submitted with the DA. As discussed above the KPOM has been approved by the Department of Planning in accordance with SEPP 44	Yes
SEPP 55 Remediation of Contaminated Lands	Matter has been dealt with previously with the DA’s for the site. The site is considered suitable.	Yes
SEPP 71 Coastal Protection	The site is situated in the coastal zone and the provisions of the SEPP apply. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the matters for consideration under Clauses 8, 14 and 16. In terms of Clause 15 effluent disposal, the site at present is un-sewered and will rely upon collection of effluent and wastewater and transporting it to a Sewer Treatment Plant for treatment. Council’s Engineers have advised the site generates a similar level of effluent to 200 dwellings or Equivalent Tenements. Concern has been expressed that the permanent use of the site for events throughout the year is inconsistent with Council’s Policy 14/009 which does not support a permanent pump out arrangement for an event site that is to be used on a continual basis. In this regard the environmental risks are inherent having regard to the low lying, flood prone nature off the site and its proximity to SEPP 14 Wetlands and Simpsons Creek, should there be a failure in the pump out arrangements. Clause 2.5 of the Policy does allow such systems for short term events though and the matter for Council therefore is the duration and number of events on this site potentially throughout the year. As discussed above in the issues raised by State Government Agencies there are to be restrictions imposed on the event site in any case which will not make it a permanent site which can be used at any time throughout the year. The applicant has advised as a minimum that the site would not be used for events for a minimum of 24 days throughout the year as this will coincide with “bump in and bump out” periods around medium and larger events, plus the use of the site for smaller events is yet to be tested economically. It is considered that with limits imposed on when events can occur at the site, and with appropriate conditions around the management and disposal of effluent by collection and pump out the matter can be appropriately managed. Should such measures prove to work with no ongoing environmental concerns or the site is connected to reticulated sewer and other issues raised by state government agencies be resolved, then it would be possible for the applicant to have such restrictions revised by way of further application.	Yes
SEPP Infrastructure 2007 Clause 104 Traffic Generating Development	The proposal is identified as a traffic generating development under the SEPP and was referred to the RMS (previously the RTA) for comment as discussed above. No access is provided directly to the site from Pacific Hwy, but from associated slip roads and the Gulgan Road Interchange. The RMS has various concerns about the frequency of events and the potential for impacts on the Pacific Hwy during peak seasonal use. Conditions to apply to ensure the safety and efficiency of the Pacific Hwy and for traffic management.	Yes
North Coast Regional Environmental Plan	The North Coast REP applies to the areas under Byron LEP 1988. The proposal does not generate any issues in terms of the agricultural, coastal, tourism and recreational provisions under the REP.	yes
Disability Access (DDA)	Appropriate access is required to be provided throughout the site.	Yes

* Non-complying issues discussed below

3.2. BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2014

Permissibility

The site is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under Byron LEP 2014, however it is identified under Clause 2.5 as an additional permitted use in Schedule 1 for the purposes of a recreational facility (major). Clause 2.5 overrides anything to the contrary in the land use table or other provisions of this plan.

A recreation facility (major) means a building or place used for large-scale sporting or recreation activities that are attended by large numbers of people whether regularly or periodically, and includes theme parks, sports stadiums, showgrounds, racecourses and motor racing tracks. The proposal is consistent with the definition and is in some respects not dissimilar to the various uses that could occur at a Showground. In terms of camping activities associated with events this is considered to be an ancillary component of the recreational facility (major).

Clause 4.4 Height of Buildings

The applicant has noted that the general marquees erected for ‘Bluesfest’ and other events exceed the 9 metre height limit. They have sought a variation under clause 4.6 of the LEP as an exception to the development standard. This is supported on the grounds that the erection of such marquees are generally limited to these events and the bump in/out periods, and are unlikely to have a detrimental or long lasting impact on the visual amenity of the area considering there general siting within the centre of the property.

It is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is not warranted in this instance. Conditions to apply include that such structures are only to be erected for medium and large scale events.

Clause 5.5 Development within the Coastal Zone

The proposal is not inconsistent with the Coastal Policy and is unlikely to be affected by Coastal Processes or have an impact on the general functions of the coastal zone. As discussed above concern is raised regarding measures for effluent disposal and conditions of consent are proposed.

Clause 6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

The site contains class 2 and 3 acid sulphate soils. No substantial earthworks are proposed as part of the development and there is no need for an ASS management plan

Clause 6.3 Flooding and 6.4 Flood Risk Management

The site is prone to flooding with the evacuation of patrons during a flood event being the primary concern. Conditions are proposed for the flood evacuation plan to be activated in the event of a flood.

Clause 6.6 Essential Services

Essential services can be provided for this development. Other than the management of effluent as discussed above, the proposal raises no issues

3.3 Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988

Part of the subject property is located within a ‘deferred area’ under Byron LEP 2014, and therefore the provisions of Byron LEP 1988 apply. The south-eastern corner of the property is located within the 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone under Byron LEP 1988. The applicant is proposing to utilise this area for parking of vehicles ancillary to major events on the site and possibly also camping of patrons. The car parking/camping area is hatched in the map below.

Under Byron LEP the proposal is defined as Place of Assembly which is prohibited in the 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone. Accordingly ancillary camping and parking of vehicles is also prohibited in the 7(b) Zone. A condition of consent is recommended to prevent this area from being used as proposed. Should the planning controls be amended, then it would be open to the applicant to re-apply to utilise this area as proposed.

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

No draft Environmental Planning Instruments affect the proposal.

3.4 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Chapter B2 Services

Services can be provided to the site to cater for events. Sewage and wastewater is to be collected and transported to sewage treatment plants for disposal. Power, telecommunication and water is available. Conditions of consent to apply.

Chapter B4 Car Parking

The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 7,500 vehicle spaces (If required for large events) generally split 50/50 in the northern and southern half of the site. This combined with bus transport options and patrons camping at the site, is considered acceptable for an event with a maximum capacity of 25,000 people. In terms of medium and smaller sized events the site can easily cater for car parking. It is noted that the internal road network remains unsealed. Conditions of consent are recommended for this to be sealed in accordance with Council’s standard access requirements having regards to the increased use of the site as proposed, to minimise dust and to assist with providing all weather access through the site in the event of sustained wet weather.

Traffic management is critical. Access into and out of the site relies heavily on the Gulgan Road Interchange. Traffic coming from the south will need to use this interchange, whilst traffic from the north can directly enter the site from a newly constructed slip lane from the Pacific Highway. All exiting traffic though must use the interchange to go north or south up the highway. Although other options would exist to use the Brunswick Heads interchange and for Gulgan Road to be used for queuing of traffic, these have not been thoroughly investigated or proposed to date. The general concern is the impact the event may have on efficiency and safety of through traffic on the Pacific Hwy in the event that large numbers of patrons try to arrive, or leave at the same time. Traffic queuing past the slip lanes and into the highway would be a dangerous occurrence, whilst at the end of the evening after an event, there is no ability to stop through highway traffic to enable exiting patrons enter the highway beyond the normal traffic arrangements as presently exist. The applicant has proposed providing a further exit lane onto the highway for traffic leaving south, but this has not been supported by the RMS to date. (See comments above)

As with current events, traffic management plans are submitted to Council’s Local Traffic Committee for approval, and updated accordingly with changing traffic conditions. Conditions are proposed for such plans to continue coming to Council for approval.

Chapter B8 Waste Minimization

A detailed waste management plan is required for events on the site. Conditions of consent are proposed to ensure adequate measures are in place for recycling, waste removal and management of waste in the vicinity of the site on local roads following events (eg Gulgan Road, Tanners Lane, Grays Lane etc).

Clause B11 – Planning for Crime Prevention

The requirements of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) have been assessed by the NSW Police Force within their submission to Council. Council concurs with the findings and recommendations relating to Crime prevention measures as outlined in the NSW Police Force submission. Conditions of Consent to Apply

Chapter B12 – Social impact Assessment (SIA)

A specific SIA has been submitted for the event by Trish Shantz (TS) Consulting. The proposal has the potential for ongoing positive economic impacts for the Shire, surrounding areas and the broader region through employment and income generation and the various multiplier effects to the economy. Socially the site has established itself as an event site for the Easter Blues Festival and approval has been issued previously for two additional events being the Boomerang Festival. Socially and culturally the continued use of the site for large and medium events as proposed is supported, subject to the management of noise, traffic and the like. The use of the site for smaller events around these medium and larger events is also supported, however these will need to be carefully managed having regard to the impacts on surrounding business and rural residential properties from noise, traffic and other amenity issues. The potential for “overload” if the site was utilised on a continuous basis throughout the year on surrounding properties is an issue and the consultants report notes this through the consultation phase with surrounding land owners, with comments like

· Not against festivals, Byron Survives on festivals

· a few weddings wouldn’t bother them

· if small events like a Shakespeare Festival or scout jamboree took place on site that would be okay

· with proper measures in place more events could take place – depends on size and number

The consultants report notes that the NSW Police also advised that “It is considered that an open ended development approval would prove detrimental to the event from a policing perspective…. It is therefore strongly considered that timeframes should be maintained for development approvals over the site”

It is considered there needs to be some “down time” for the site, where it is not used continuously and to give surrounding properties a break from events being held on the site. This generally accords with other reasons for restrictions on events as discussed above in terms of koalas, traffic management and the effluent disposal/sewage management. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended to manage social impacts.

Chapter C2 Flooding

The subject site is prone to flooding. No permanent structures are being proposed, however it is noted in the event of heavy rain and flooding that the camp ground and events site will be impacted upon. In such an event it is likely the festival will be cancelled or called of. The applicant has submitted an Evacuation Plan for the site which is generally acceptable. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended.

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

Built Environment: The proposed use of the site is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the built environment in terms of visual impact. There is an issue in relation to the management of traffic and the adjacent properties and it is important that these land owners and or there customers can gain access from the public road network during an event. Conditions of consent have been recommended requiring that access to the adjoining properties to be maintained at all times from the Public Road Network.

Natural Environment: Events are to be held on cleared farmland, however there is the potential for continued impacts on the local koala population which has been in decline in recent years. A Koala Plan of Management for the site has been approved by the Department of Planning and the Environment, whilst restrictions are also imposed on the number events on the site throughout the year. It is also recommended that an area of cleared 7(b) zoned land in the south east corner of the property also be revegetated. Conditions to apply.

Socio Economic Impacts: See discussion above under DCP 2014.

Noise and Amenity Impacts: The applicant has submitted an Acoustic Assessment by David Moore and Associates which is considered acceptable. It is considered prudent that the management of noise include restriction on hours of operation and noise levels for the three levels of events for the site. The Acoustic Assessment recommended a limit of ten small events with amplified music. The Assessment also recommends varying noise levels for large medium and small events for different periods of the day. Conditions of consent to apply in terms of monitoring, mitigation measures, noise levels and hours of operation for events. In particular it is recommended that any event night proceeding a normal work day (Monday to Friday) is to cease by 10pm.

Waste Management: All solid and liquid waste to be collected and removed from the site. Portable toilets and amenities are to be provided onsite. Appropriate conditions of consent recommended including requirements for waste and rubbish outside of the site to be collected on a daily basis and following the event.

3.6 The suitability of the site for the development

Land Use: The property is predominantly cleared farm land with the proposed event and ancillary activities (camping food stalls, car parking etc) to occur in these areas. In general it is considered the use of the site for the purpose proposed is suitable.

Site Constraints & Ecology: The site is constrained by flooding, bush fire, potential acid sulphate soils, cultural and ecologically sensitive areas. The rural locality and adjoining lands such as the adjoining SEPP 14 Wetlands and the Tyagarah Nature Reserve also present constraints to the site.

The suitability of the site for the development in respect to flooding, bush fire, potential acid sulphate soils and cultural sensitive areas is considered satisfactory subject to the implementation of the conditions of consent attached to the recommendation.

In terms of ecology, potential impacts on the local koala population remain a concern as discussed above.

Access and Services: As previously discussed - Conditions to apply.

Conclusion: The site is generally considered suitable for the proposed development.

3.7 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The application was publicly notified in accordance with Section A14 Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications of the Byron DCP2014. Initially the notification period was from 6/11/2014 to 19/01/2015; however, this timeframe was extended for a further two weeks until 2/02/2015 to allow for the holiday season and in response to numerous requests from the community. Council also exercised its discretion to include more properties that were proximate to but not immediately adjoining the Bluesfest site to be included in the mail-out for the extended round of notification.

Council received fifty-seven (57) submissions in response to the application.

- 48 Against

- 9 submissions indicated general support for small scale events or well organised events provided that resident concerns were addressed.

The following table provides a summary of the issues/concerns raised in the submissions.

Issue	Key matters raised	Planner’s Comments
Community Consultation	· Lack of community consultation, particularly with adjoining owners · The Social Impact Assessment did not accurately reflect the opinions of the local community · The length and timing of the public exhibition period were not considered to be adequate	· Council is not in a position to comment on the level of public consultation that that has or has not been undertaken by the applicant. · Noted – hence Councils exhibition of the DA enables further public comment · Once lodged, the application was publicly notified in accordance with Council policy and all adjoining landowners were notified by mail. In response to numerous requests, Council exercised its discretion to formally extend the notification period to 2 February 2015, and to also send letters to landowners of properties that are proximate to, but not immediately joining the site.
Amenity	· Noise · Proposed use not considered to be consistent with the rural nature of the locality · Increased frequency of events compounding amenity issues · Increased rubbish · Increased illegal camping	· Conditions to apply in relation to hours of operation and noise management. · The site has been identified under Byron LEP 2014 for an events site and is listed in Schedule 1 of the LEP. It is acknowledged that its existing and proposed use does give rise to significant potential impacts on surrounding rural amenity and, should consent be given, careful consideration must be given to placing appropriate parameters so as to maintain an acceptable balance between the desire to provide a culturally important, purpose built events site, and preserving a reasonable degree of amenity to for neighbouring properties. · The applicant is required to abide by a comprehensive management and waste management plans. · Any breaches, as well as any illegal camping or other unauthorised activities should be reported to Council’s Compliance Team so that appropriate action may be taken including the issuing of fines and orders,
Environmental Impacts	· Impacts on flora and fauna, in particular the sites close proximity to the Tyagarah Nature Reserve · Impact on local Koalas habitat · Increased stormwater impacts on Simpson Creek · Overall impact on the flood plane in association with the fill on the site · Reduced environmental recovery time resulting from increased events	· Environmental impacts are noted and conditions are imposed in relation to protecting koalas, limiting timing of large events, revegetation of part of the site, and times when no events are to occur on the site which would provide for recovery times, plus serve other purposes (traffic management) · No filling is proposed as part of the application
Traffic, Transport & Infrastructure	· Issues relating to road safety · Increased traffic · Lack of suitable road infrastructure to handle the anticipated increase, in particular Grays Lane · Access issues associated with Greys Lane · The additional time it takes to set up and pack up the traffic management infrastructure associated with the festival · Lack of bicycle access	· The issue of the impacts associated with the bump in and bump out periods are noted and additional parameters are recommended to mitigate these issues. · The RMS has advised that they intend to close the Grays Lane access to Pacific Highway · The lack of satisfactory bicycle access and infrastructure is noted. · Should the North Coast Railway corridor be converted to a pedestrian/cycleway, then this would provide safer cycling options into Byron Bay from the site Appropriate conditions are recommended in relation to traffic management
Social Impacts	· Lack of services to support events (ie police, rangers) · Security issues for local community (ie trespassing)	· Conditions are required to ensure adequate personnel are on site in terms of security, first aid and fire fighting and the like. Where required the applicant may need to pay for these services on a user pay basis. · Any trespassing on property can be reported to the Police Force for action
Economic Impacts	· The events will be in direct competition with business in town · Reduced property values · Negative impacts on local Tyagarah businesses due to limited access during festivals times due to traffic management measures	· The use of the site for events is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on businesses in the surrounding urban areas, considering the popularity of Shire for holiday makers throughout the calendar year. Further there are multiplier effects through the local economy which have positives for local businesses. · There is no evidence that property values are being devalued by this development, with market forces and interest rates, and general economic well being of the Australian Economy being the general determinants affecting land values. Further, it is not a matter for consideration under the EPA Act 1979. · Impacts on neighbouring businesses have been considered and measures are proposed to resolve access issues

Issue

Key matters raised

Planner’s Comments

Community Consultation

· Lack of community consultation, particularly with adjoining owners

· The Social Impact Assessment did not accurately reflect the opinions of the local community

· The length and timing of the public exhibition period were not considered to be adequate

· Council is not in a position to comment on the level of public consultation that that has or has not been undertaken by the applicant.

· Noted – hence Councils exhibition of the DA enables further public comment

· Once lodged, the application was publicly notified in accordance with Council policy and all adjoining landowners were notified by mail. In response to numerous requests, Council exercised its discretion to formally extend the notification period to 2 February 2015, and to also send letters to landowners of properties that are proximate to, but not immediately joining the site.

Amenity

· Noise

· Proposed use not considered to be consistent with the rural nature of the locality

· Increased frequency of events compounding amenity issues

· Increased rubbish

· Increased illegal camping

· Conditions to apply in relation to hours of operation and noise management.

· The site has been identified under Byron LEP 2014 for an events site and is listed in Schedule 1 of the LEP. It is acknowledged that its existing and proposed use does give rise to significant potential impacts on surrounding rural amenity and, should consent be given, careful consideration must be given to placing appropriate parameters so as to maintain an acceptable balance between the desire to provide a culturally important, purpose built events site, and preserving a reasonable degree of amenity to for neighbouring properties.

· The applicant is required to abide by a comprehensive management and waste management plans.

· Any breaches, as well as any illegal camping or other unauthorised activities should be reported to Council’s Compliance Team so that appropriate action may be taken including the issuing of fines and orders,

Environmental Impacts

· Impacts on flora and fauna, in particular the sites close proximity to the Tyagarah Nature Reserve

· Impact on local Koalas habitat

· Increased stormwater impacts on Simpson Creek

· Overall impact on the flood plane in association with the fill on the site

· Reduced environmental recovery time resulting from increased events

· Environmental impacts are noted and conditions are imposed in relation to protecting koalas, limiting timing of large events, revegetation of part of the site, and times when no events are to occur on the site which would provide for recovery times, plus serve other purposes (traffic management)

· No filling is proposed as part of the application

Traffic, Transport & Infrastructure

· Issues relating to road safety

· Increased traffic

· Lack of suitable road infrastructure to handle the anticipated increase, in particular Grays Lane

· Access issues associated with Greys Lane

· The additional time it takes to set up and pack up the traffic management infrastructure associated with the festival

· Lack of bicycle access

· The issue of the impacts associated with the bump in and bump out periods are noted and additional parameters are recommended to mitigate these issues.

· The RMS has advised that they intend to close the Grays Lane access to Pacific Highway

· The lack of satisfactory bicycle access and infrastructure is noted.

· Should the North Coast Railway corridor be converted to a pedestrian/cycleway, then this would provide safer cycling options into Byron Bay from the site

Appropriate conditions are recommended in relation to traffic management

Social Impacts

· Lack of services to support events (ie police, rangers)

· Security issues for local community (ie trespassing)

· Conditions are required to ensure adequate personnel are on site in terms of security, first aid and fire fighting and the like. Where required the applicant may need to pay for these services on a user pay basis.

· Any trespassing on property can be reported to the Police Force for action

Economic Impacts

· The events will be in direct competition with business in town

· Reduced property values

· Negative impacts on local Tyagarah businesses due to limited access during festivals times due to traffic management measures

· The use of the site for events is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on businesses in the surrounding urban areas, considering the popularity of Shire for holiday makers throughout the calendar year. Further there are multiplier effects through the local economy which have positives for local businesses.

· There is no evidence that property values are being devalued by this development, with market forces and interest rates, and general economic well being of the Australian Economy being the general determinants affecting land values. Further, it is not a matter for consideration under the EPA Act 1979.

· Impacts on neighbouring businesses have been considered and measures are proposed to resolve access issues

3.8 Public interest

It is considered the events site will continue to provide opportunities for social and cultural interaction. Subject to managing and mitigating impacts as discussed above, the development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the Public Interest.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Although the applicant has noted there are no construction costs associated for this development, there are works to be carried out and a condition is imposed in relation to the S94A levy (if applicable). The Koala Plan of Management submitted with this Development Application has also offered up a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the enhancement of koala habitat potentially lost to the site being used for events. Conditions to apply.

In terms of Water supply the site is serviced by Rous Water. It is recommended to ensure Rous Water is aware of the potential impact to its infrastructure from water usage and supply to the Event site, the appropriate certificates be obtained under the Water Management Act 2000.

5. CONCLUSION

On balance, the proposal is assessed as being capable of operation without significant adverse impacts on the built and natural environment and the site is considered generally suitable to be used as a Recreation Facility (Major). The Development Application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

6. 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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.10

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 13.10 Update on Intersection Treatment for Clifford Street / Broken Head Road, Suffolk Park

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Rob Serventi, Contract Engineer

File No: I2016/36

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to recommend the preferred solution for the intersection of Clifford Street and Broken Head Road to be used for consultation with the community in March 2016.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council endorse the preferred solution of signalised control at the intersection of Clifford Street and Broken Head Road for consultation with the community.

2. That the results of the community consultation be reported back to Council.

Attachments:

1 Strategic Planning Workshop Presentation 11/02/16 Clifford Street / Broken Head Road Intersection Treatments 24.2015.17.1, E2016/9947

2 24.2015.17.1 TTM Group Traffic Engineers - Road Safety Audit (Stage 3) on the 2007 RoadNet detailed design for roundabout - Clifford St Broken Head Rd, E2016/7625

3 24.2015.17.1 E2016 7624 Clifford Street Broken Head intersection Consultation Plan, E2016/7624

4 24.2015.17.1 TTM Traffic Intersection Analysis Broken head Rd Clifford St, Byron Bay 160211-Report+Appendices, E2016/8814

Report

Background

The history of the Clifford Street / Broken Head Road intersection has been examined in November 2015 and it is recommended that Council correct serious road safety issues at the intersection due to its geometry and design. The intersection has a crash history and has been listed for consideration for improvement for in excess of 15 years.

Council, the Local Traffic Committee and Infrastructure Services, have considered several options to modify the intersection and eliminate the sight line obstruction causing the crashes and public injury. The three (3) options are:

· deletion / modification of the left turn lane from Broken Head Road to Clifford Street

· single lane roundabout

· signalised intersection

TTM Group traffic engineers were engaged in November 2015 to carry out a comprehensive review of the options, and report the findings in an Intersection Analysis Report. The work included a formal study of the options, based on traffic and pedestrian counts undertaken in the peak period in December 2015 and January 2016.

TTM Group Report deliverables include:

· Concept for deletion of the left turn southbound lane Broken Head Road to Clifford Street

· Concept for a Signalised Intersection

· Road Safety Audit on existing 2009 roundabout design

· SIDRA analysis of each option to determine the level of service and capacity

· Sweep paths to check options 1, 2 and 3 to check vehicle clearances

· Intersection Analysis Report updated after consultation in March 2016

· Intersection Analysis Report to the April 2016 Council Meeting

TTM Group Intersection Analysis Report & Road Safety Audit

The TTM Group Intersection Analysis, Road Safety Audit and Byron Shire Council Consultation Plan are attached to this report and have been presented to Councillors at the Strategic Planning Workshop on the 11 February 2016. A copy of the workshop presentation is attached to this report.

TTM Group Road Safety Audit findings on both the existing road and roundabout are tabled below:

Item 1 – Existing Road	Findings / Recommendations
Road Alignment and cross section	Left turn (LT) lane in Broken Head Road 3.2m and through lane 3.1m. LT vehicles veer right into through lane when turning left. Recommendation: widen LT lane
Intersection Visibility / Sight Distance	Southbound through vehicles masked by high number of left turning vehicles on Broken Head Road: Improve visibility or control traffic. T bone crashes in crash data likely to continue. Recommendation: Assess signals or roundabout suitability.
Item – Existing Road	Findings / Recommendations
Intersection Layout	Vehicles queuing back across the southbound through lane in Broken Head Road, due to vehicles waiting in Clifford Street to enter the shopping centre. Recommendation: Consider closing the access point nearest the intersection and consolidate the other exit to the shopping centre to an ‘in / out’. Signals would eliminate the risk of side swipe to queuing vehicles encroaching into Broken Head Road
Signs and Street Lighting	There are locations on Clifford Street and Broken Head Road where it is difficult to see road signage or pedestrians. Recommendation: review the street lighting levels at the intersection.
Markings and Delineation	Stop sign difficult to see due to signage clutter in Clifford Street Recommendation 1: Consider installing a Stop sign ahead on the approach into Clifford Street to emphasise the need for motorists to take care when exiting Clifford Street and avoid the blocked sight line to through vehicles southbound in Broken Head Road Recommendation 2: Remove cluttered caravan park, supermarket, chemist destination signs that don’t deal with road safety in Broken Head Road southbound approach
Pedestrians and Cyclists	The intersection has no crossing points to allow pedestrians to cross to and from the shopping centre and the only crossing footpath is on the eastern side of Broken head Road (north side only). It was observed that pedestrians walked on the western side of Broken Head Road and crossed just north of Clifford Street confirming that pedestrians are crossing the busy road at unsafe locations increasing the likelihood of a driver crashing into a pedestrian crossing the road or a pedestrian stepping into the path of an approaching vehicle. Recommendation 1: Pedestrian Crossing facilities should be provided at the intersection. If the intersection is to be upgraded then controlled crossing facilities with traffic signals would provide the most appropriate benefit in relation to pedestrian safety.

Item 2 – Roundabout Design	Findings / Recommendations
Deflection part of the Design Intent of Roundabouts	Painted splitter islands on all approaches don’t provide adequate deflection to the vehicle travel line sufficient to slow the vehicle down. The roundabout would need to be enlarged to accommodate the turning movements with raised splitter islands or raised central island that are required to facilitate adequate deflection to reduce vehicle speed through the roundabout. Vehicles travelling in a straight line through the roundabout without lateral deflection, and speed reduction, increase the risk of side swipe and T-Bone crashes. North and southbound vehicles may not give way to vehicles entering the roundabout from Clifford Street to their right. An alternative solution would be to install traffic signals. Recommendation: Redesign the roundabout to provide sufficient deflection on the approaches. Raise the central island sufficiently enough to deter vehicles from mounting it. Raise the approach splitter islands. It is likely the roundabout will need to be enlarged to accommodate the turning movement of larger vehicles, such as buses and service vehicles.
Design Intent - Roundabouts	Without deflection (raised central island and raised approach splitter islands), there is a high risk that drivers will disreguard the painted splitter islands and also drive over the slightly raised roundabout. When through vehicles travel line is not deflected and hence speed reduced slow down through the intersection increasing the severity of injury in collisions. This expected behaviour conflicts with the intent of a roundabout to slow vehicles down and allow continuous movement of traffic through the intersection in a safe manner. The 2007 Roadnet design allows vehicles to continue through the intersection. Recommendation: Consider to redesign the roundabout, including a wider roundabout that would require more land acquisition. An alternative would be to provide a signalised intersection.
Intersection Visibility / Sight Distance	The roundabout design does not eliminate the possibility for vehicles waiting in Clifford to turn right onto Broken Head Road, to have their visibility of southbound through vehicles on Broken Head Road being blocked by High Sided vehicles, occupying the kerbside lane adjacent to the existing bottle shop. ‘No Stopping’ signage on the north eastern is included however this area is likely to be used as a pickup drop off point for deliveries by delivery vehicles. Recommendation: Consider extending the kerb and channel in this area to deter illegal short term parking or by other physical means.
Drainage	Ponding will result in SE corner of the roundabout into Clifford Street, increasing the risk of vehicles swerving to avoid the ponding. This may result in loss of control and crashing into vehicles or pedestrians Recommendation 1: redesign roundabout grading, or include kerb breaks to aid in the shedding of water Recommendation 2: redesign the kerb and channel on the southern roundabout approach, which is in conflict with an existing driveway Recommendation 3: Provide a gully pit at the northern exit adjacent to the bungalow and southern exit leg
Pedestrian Crossing	The roundabout design does not have a facility for pedestrians to cross safely on the busy road or pram ramps raising doubt over accessibility compliance for Council. This could result in pedestrian tripping over the kerb causing injury to themselves. Recommendation: Consider providing a crossing point on the northern arm of the intersection

TTM Group Intersection Analysis Report – Summary Findings

Future traffic growth along Broken Head Road is likely to be largely driven by future developments external to the Byron Shire LGA. Clifford Street is unlikely to consider large amounts of traffic growth into the future due to the limited potential for additional development.

Intersection modelling confirms that there are existing intersection capacity issues at the Broken Head Road / Clifford Street intersection that require the existing intersection to operate as a pseudo-giveway, contrary to the stop signage.

By the removing the existing southbound left turn lane on Broken Head Road at the intersection, the performance of the intersection would be marginally increased. This approach however has limited practicality as the design does not support long term growth at the intersection.

Both roundabout and signalisation are capable of addressing the traffic capacity issues at the intersection for a 20-year design horizon and offer a similar level of service, however, a roundabout design would begin to approach its practical operating capacity shortly after this period.

The RoadNet roundabout design has deficiencies and may lead to safety issues in regards to the lack of deflection. The time and costs associated with land acquisition is likely to be considerable hurdle to allow prompt implementation of the option.

A signalised intersection better addresses traffic conflicts and pedestrian accessibility than the roundabout designs, and does not require any compulsory or negotiated land acquisition to occur.

Provided that the design is approved by RMS, the design could be implemented in a short timeframe to address the existing issues experienced at the Broken Head Road / Clifford Street intersection.

On balance, TTM Traffic consultants believe that the signalisation of the Broken Head Road / Clifford Street intersection presents the best compromise between traffic capacity, safety, practicality, cost, and accessibility, and recommend that this option be adopted for any further investigations and designs.

TTM Traffic Consultants – Recommendation

Based on the findings of the TTM Group report, it is recommended:

· That Council adopt the signalisation treatment as the preferred intersection treatment for the Broken Head Road / Clifford Street intersection and consult the community in March 2016;

· That additional detailed design work be carried out in relation to the implementation of the signalised option to better inform the associated costs of design; and

· That Council investigate the consolidation of the separate entry and exit driveways into the Park Hotel Car Park into a single access at the location of the exit as part of any intersection amelioration, and that the requirement for clear zones at the entrance is investigated further.

Strategic Planning Workshop

Traffic Volumes

A question was raised about the number and percentage of vehicles making the left turn from Broken Head Road to Clifford Street.

The table below indicates the number and percentage of vehicles turning left from Broken Head Road to Clifford St and demonstrates the movement is a considerable component of southbound vehicles.

Day	Time	Southbound Through	Southbound Left	Percent Turning Left
Tuesday 8^th Dec 2015	AM Peak	262	187	41.6%
Tuesday 8^th Dec 2015	PM Peak	330	324	49.5%
Sunday 13^th Dec 2015	Midday Peak	253	242	48.9%
Thursday 7^th Jan 2016	AM Peak	339	238	41.2%
Thursday 7^th Jan 2016	PM Peak	346	353	50.5%
Sunday 10^th Jan 2016	Midday Peak	273	261	48.9%

The sight line obstruction from this vehicle movement (left turn into Clifford St) is the cause of most of the 11 crashes in the last 5 years at this location.

Pedestrian Crossing location south of the intersection

A concern was raised at the workshop about the practicality and pedestrian desire lines to use a signalised crossing on the south side of the intersection.

It was discussed at the workshop that the pedestrian signal should be moved to the northern side of the intersection as part of detail design of a signalised intersection.

It should be noted that relocating a signalised pedestrian crossing to the north of the intersection would decrease the level of service to vehicles turning right out of Clifford Street northbound onto Broken Head Road and add to the delay for that movement whilst pedestrian crossed. This will be further investigated by TTM Group and included in their final report.

RMS Approval

The RMS is presently assessing the TTM Group Intersection Analysis Report, Roundabout Road Safety Audit traffic counts and SIDRA analysis and will confirm their support or otherwise for a signalised intersection.

In the event signals are supported by the RMS the funding application will be requested to be applied to the cost of the signals, and detail design would be progressed for RMS approval.

Plan Forward and Timing

Item	Timing
Draft Intersection Analysis Report	12 Feb
Liaise with RMS to gauge support	8 - 24 Feb
Report to Council 25 February 2016	25 Feb
Notification of preferred option & consultation (Consultation Plan attached)	2 March
Intersection Analysis Report used to inform the Consultation process on the preferred option (Consultation Plan attached)	2 to 22 March
Report to Council 28 April stating consultation outcomes with recommendation for preferred intersection treatment	28 April

Financial Implications

A signalised intersection, lighting and drainage upgrade is estimated to cost significantly less than a roundabout.

The cost of the signalised intersection is expected to be in the range of $650,000 to $700,000.

There is an initial upfront fee to the RMS for maintenance and at the time of this report has not been confirmed by RMS.

In 2012 the single lane roundabout, drainage and lighting upgrade has been estimated to cost in the order of $1.2M. The cost of the roundabout is expected to increase due to additional land acquisition costs related to a larger roundabout with adequate deflection and increased construction costs due to inflation. The additional cost could be expected to be in the order of $300,000 to $400,000.

Infrastructure Services has made a black spot funding application to the RMS in the 14/15 for $1.2M year which was granted however did not proceed due to issues with the land acquisition for the roundabout.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Either option for the intersection upgrade will require the support of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and public consultation of the preferred option.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.12

Report No. 13.12 Infrastructure Works in the North of the Council Area funded from the proceeds of the Roundhouse Development

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Tony Nash, Manager Works

Michael Matthews, Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery

Christopher Soulsby, Development Contributions Officer

File No: I2016/51

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

To advise Council of the proposed list of infrastructure works in the north of the Council area for consultation with the community, funded utilising the proceeds generated by the sale of the Roundhouse Subdivision, following the Councillor Workshop held on 11 February 2016.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the list of projects in Table 1 and Table 2 of this report be endorsed for consultation with the community for the infrastructure works in the north of the Council area funded from the land sales of the Roundabout with:

a) Table 1 being the shortlist of new / enhancement works.

b) Table 2 being the shortlist of renewal works.

2. That the results of the community consultation be reported back to Council.

Report

Council at its meeting on 10 December 2015 considered a report on this matter and resolved as follows:

Res 15-653:

1. That in relation to the proposed projects to be funded from proceeds of the Roundhouse Subdivision, Council:

a) Refer the list of projects to a Councillor workshop to allow Councillors to fully review the proposed projects, with the view to determine a short list of 10 to 15 projects.

b) That the preferred short list of projects be consulted with the Community in early 2016 seeking feedback (post January school holidays).

c) That following consultation, a further report is tabled, on preferred projects for approval.

2. That Council confirm the reconstruction of Kolora Way, Ocean Shores (from Shara Boulevard) to occur in the 2015/16 Financial Year, with the works being funded from the Roundhouse Sales Proceeds to the value of $466,700.

The Kolora Way Stage 1 works have commenced in February 2016 with the installation of the sub surface sub soil drainage lines ahead of the road pavement renewal works commencing in late February 2016.

Council at its meeting on 4 February 2016 considered a report on Tender 2015-0037 North Ocean Shores Sports Field: Sports Field, Services and Amenities Building and resolved as follows:

Res 16-016:

1. That Council increase the 2015-2016 budget allocation of GL 4835.127 to $1,511,945. The increase in the budget allocation is to be made up of $111,021.95 coming from Section 94 Shire Wide Open Space and $467,268.05 from the proceeds of the sale of the Roundhouse lots held in the infrastructure renewal reserves.

2. That Council award Tender 2015-0037 North Ocean Shores Sports Field: Sports Field, Services and Amenities Building to Main Constructions Pty Ltd.

3. That Council makes public its decision, including the name and amount of the successful tenderer, in accordance with Clause 179(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

Sale of the Roundhouse Subdivision land

The sale of these properties has realised to Council a net income of $3.8M.

The Fit for the Future (FFF) submission and Council’s Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) indicated that $3.0M of the proceeds of these sales would be used for infrastructure renewal projects in the north of the Council area.

Following the Council meeting on 10 December and the allocation of $466,700 to Kolora Way, Ocean Shores (from Shara Boulevard to Natan Court) – Stage 1, this leaves a balance of $2,533,300 to be allocated to renewal projects in the north of the Council area.

The additional proceeds realised from the Roundhouse land sales has resulted in $0.8M to be allocated by Council to works in the north of the Council area to either:

· enhancement projects; or

· new works.

Following the Council meeting on 4 February 2016 and the allocation of $468,268 for Tender 2015-0037 North Ocean Shores Sports Field: Sports Field, Services and Amenities Building, this leaves a balance of $332,732 to be allocated to enhancement or renewal projects in the north of the Council area.

Councillor Workshop

A Councillor workshop was held on 11 February 2016 to determine a shortlist of projects for the enhancement / new projects and the renewal projects for consultation with the community.

Enhancement / New Projects

The enhancement / new projects selected for consultation are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Consultation List for enhancement / new projects in the north of the Shire funded by the proceeds of the Roundhouse land sales ($332,732) with matching section 94 funds where available.

Location	Works	Roundhouse Funds	Section 94	Total Project Value
Devines Hill	Board walk and amenity improvements	$150,000	$0	$150,000
South Golden Beach Hall	Playground	$59,000	$41,000	$100,000
Tom Kendal Oval	Upgraded change room and amenities facilities	$100,000	$176,112	$276,112
Waterlilly Park	Walkway and Bridge	$100,000	$0	$100,000
Waterlilly Park	Playscape	$300,000	$31,000	$331,000
Fern Beach	Playground	$59,000	$41,000	$100,000
Tom Kendall	Playground	$64,000	$36,000	$100,000
South Golden Beach	Skate Park	$250,000	$0	$250,000

Renewal Projects

The renewal projects selected for consultation are indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Consultation List for Project Renewals in the north of the Shire funded by the proceeds of the Roundhouse land sales ($2,533,300).

Road	Section	Total Estimated Cost	Renewal Priority	Notes
Kolora Way, Ocean Shores (Stage 2)	Natan Court to Old New Brighton Road	$433,300	Very High
Beach Avenue	Full length	$307,200	Very High
Coomburra Cres, Ocean Shores	Full length	$714,000	Very High
Wahlooga Way, Ocean Shores	Full length	$133,800	High
Peter Street east of canal	Full length	$396,000	High	To be done in conjunction with onstreet SGB Drainage Works, which are funded separately.
Robin Street east of canal	Full length	$396,000	High	To be done in conjunction with onstreet SGB Drainage Works, which are funded separately.
Helen Street east of canal	Full length	$396,000	High	To be done in conjunction with onstreet SGB Drainage Works, which are funded separately.
Yamble Dr, Ocean Shores	Full length	$92,400	Medium High
Orana Rd, Ocean Shores	Full length	$1,044,024	Medium High
River St, New Brighton	Full length	$466,800	Medium High
The Esplanade, New Brighton	Full length	$216,000	Medium High
	Total	$4,595,524

It is noted that there are 3 projects in Table 2 that have additional funding available as part of the on street drainage works for South Golden Beach, which are funded from the stormwater levy.

By undertaking the on street drainage works at the same time as the pavement renewal, then all works in these streets are undertaken at the same time. This is the best outcome for the residents, community and Council.

Community Consultation

The key proposed consultation actions with the community for both the enhancement / new projects are as follows:

• Bang the Table online consultation

• Survey – focus to prioritise shortlist projects

• Postcard letterbox drop to north of Shire alerting of survey

• 2 x display stands at Ocean Shores Shopping Centre

• 2 x New Brighton Farmers’ Market

The results of the community consultation will be reported back to Council for consideration as part of the determination of the projects to be funded with the balance of the funds generated from the land sales of the Roundhouse development for:

· Enhancement / new works $ 333,732

· Renewal works $ 2,533,300

Financial Implications

There are no negative implications proposed in this report.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

There are no negative implications proposed in this report.

Progress Measures	Progress Indicators
157	● achieved/completed or on track
46	● substantially achieved/completed or under close management
13	● not achieved/not completed or on hold (explanatory notes provided in Attachment 1)

DA No.	10.2014.417.1
Development	Demolition of existing residential flat building & construction of a new residential flat building and associated works
Property:	43 Lawson Street Byron Bay
Zoning	7(f2) Urban Coastal Land Zone
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 40 - Height of buildings
Justification	The proposal was only a small departure to the 9.0 metre height control, namely a 1.0 metre encroachment for a small (7 square metre) lift overrun. The lift overrun is located near the centre of the roof and will largely be obscured from view from Lawson Street and the adjacent public reserve to the north. Similarly, an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 is supported for the 4.5 metre upper most floor level standard given that no such standard applies under the Local Environmental Plan 2014.
Extent of variation	<10%
Concurrence	Nil
Determined Date	10/12/15

DA No.	10.2015.581.1
Development	Two lot subdivision
Property:	370 Federal Drive Federal
Zoning	RU1 Primary Production/Part DM Deferred matter
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 11 of Byron LEP, 1988
Justification	• Development Approval was granted create two allotments of 21.8 ha and 24.1 ha. While both lots satisfy the minimum lot size under BLEP 2014 a portion of the subject land was within the deferred matter (1b2 – Agricultural Protection BLEP 1988). • The minimum lot size in both the RU1 – Primary Production Zone (Byron LEP 2014) and the 1(b2) - (Agricultural Protection) Zone (Byron LEP 1988) is 20ha. However, due to the “Deferred Matter” zoning portion, a SEPP 1 application was made to address the minimum lot sizes. • The proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 1(b2) (Agricultural Protection) Zone in accordance with the Byron LEP 1988. • A variation was supported to enable the 2 lot subdivision.
Extent of variation	Approx. 25%
Concurrence	Department of Planning granted concurrence.
Determined Date	14/12/15

2015-16	Comparison to 2014-15 (NYE only)
934 users departing from the Cavanbah Sports Centre*	630 users from the Cavanbah Sports Centre*

ITEM	BUDGETED	ACTUAL
Bus Charter	$2,500	$2,040
Signage and advertising	$5,000	$600 sign printing $1,200 newspaper $500 radio
Social Media Promotion	$1,000	$300
Security	$500	$729
Staffing	$600	$800
TOTAL	$9,600	$6,169

2016 Australian Coastal Councils Conference - Rockingham Western Australia	‘Early Bird Registration (by 29/2/16	Standard Registration (after 29/2/16 approx.
· Full Registration Includes all Conference Sessions & Social Functions/per person (LGA’s)	$1,342.00	$1,573.00
· Accommodation (based on 3 nights @$229.00 per night for a 1 bedroom Apartment.		Approx. $687
· Flights		Approx. up to $1000 depending upon time of flight/booking
· Travel Expenses (bus transfers from Perth Airport $55 per person one way to Rockingham Accommodation, & Rockingham return to Perth Airport for departure		$110.00

Option	Associated Revenue	Paid By
Apply a hoarding fee rate for the reserve for exclusive use by event participants (approximately 70c per hour per parking space).	$1,820/day	Paid by event organisers in advance
Offer a reduced daily paid parking rate of $10/day for the reserve for exclusive use by event participants.	Up to $2,600/day	Paid by event participants on the day
Provide the Cavanbah Centre as an alternative free parking site for event attendees and recommend that event organisers shuttle participants in to town on buses. This option would be dependent on the Cavanbah being available and not booked for other events or competitions.	$0	N/A
Refuse the request for fee reduction on the basis that it is a charge that has been adopted by Council that applies to all who choose to park at that location.	$0	N/A

No. of		22 days - excludes market day				Sunday
Meters	Site description	Total $	Avg $/day	Avg $ per meter/day	Rank	Total $	Avg $/day	Rank
3	Middleton St, Lawson-Marvell	$2,399.00	$109.05	$36.35	1	$565.10	$188.37	3
10	Lawson St, east of Middleton	$5,762.10	$261.91	$26.19	2	$1,553.40	$517.80	1
4	Marvell St, east of Middleton St	$1,324.00	$60.18	$15.05	3	$196.20	$65.40	4
3	Butler St Reserve	$977.30	$44.42	$14.81	4	$611.50	$203.83	2
3	Wordsworth St (hospital/police)	$305.00	$13.86	$4.62	5	$82.10	$27.37	5
2	Carlyle St, east of Middleton St	$189.30	$8.60	$4.30	6	$12.70	$4.23	7
3	Shirley St, north side	$253.50	$11.52	$3.84	7	$37.90	$12.63	6
	Totals	$11,210.20	$509.55	$105.16		$3,058.90	$1,019.63